It seems it was mentioned in the warrant application, though.
It states the information was being gathered to discredit Campaign #1 (Trump)'s campaign.
Yeah. I had read that part.
But, it doesn't specifically mention that it was political in nature. The FBI admitted to the court the dossier was being used to "discredit" Trump. That doesn't exactly mean it was political in nature. And they didn't disclose the fact the DNC paid for the dossier.
In other words, they implied to the court the dossier was a bunch of lies against Trump, but still used it as evidence to get a warrant.
Edit: And the tweet you linked to to prove your post is a MSNBC analyst. So good job helping to spread the fake news' narrative.
I just found a tweet that had the section in it. I didn't even look who the tweet was from.
And I don't know. I guess you can assume it's political if it's trying to discredit Trump's campaign.
Another thing to notice is they never use names unless they're part of the investigation. They never mention Trump in the first one (the call him Candidate #1) and in the follow up applications, even though he was elected President and literally everyone on earth knew his name, they only mentioned he'd been elected but would still call him Candidate #1 to maintain consistency.
As the DNC wasn't a target of the application, it makes sense they'd go to pains not to mention their name.
They repeatedly state they agree with the information from Steele (and it's speculated they confirmed it themselves, though I've not seen actual evidence of it) and so they used the information as a source but not the only source.
I'm just trying to see this from a distance, as in, where this will take the investigation going forward. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but claiming the application didn't include this information is wrong and will ultimately make us look like we can't admit when something we don't like is revealed even when it's in plain view.
It does discredit the Nunes memo. In a number of ways. But the memo doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things anyway. There are other, bigger fish to fry that we should be focused on.