The key fact you keep dismissing is, raw, unverified intelligence doesn't meet the standards for probable cause, either, regardless of whether it's in a real court or a super sekrit FISA court. The provenance of intelligence is what makes the intelligence credible, or incredible.
Nope ... didn't dismiss it at all ... the portion of my answer that you didn't quote covered it nicely.
I didn't quote it because it didn't cover it at all, much less nicely. The part I quoted is the only thing that matters. But I'll quote it right here and comment on it.
In any event, none of us knows what the Feds have been able to verify or not ... nor do we actually know what other evidence was presented.
We know that Comey testified under oath that the dossier was salacious and unverified, or parts of it were, depending on how hard you want to parse his words (and if you want to use the absence of something as evidence of something), and he testified to that after he used it to obtain a FISA warrant, and then used the dossier again after testifying. We also know that the Fusion GPS co-founder testified that he made no attempt to verify any of it. And we know the dossier as a complete document was presented to the FISA judge. If any part of the dossier presented as probable cause evidence was unverified, the unverified portion must be highlighted as such, and in doing so would necessitate divulging the provenance of the dossier itself, and we know that didn't happen.
As for not knowing what other evidence was presented, we don't have to know. If you go before a judge and ask for a warrant, in a real court of a sekret court, if you tell the judge 9 truths and a lie, and the judge finds out about the 1 lie, the entire warrant application is void (not to mention the applicants being subject to criminal contempt). You can't go to a FISA judge and just throw things up against the wall an hope something sticks. At least you're supposed to be able to.
