I will be discussing the memo today in a column in the Hill as well as in the segment with Tucker Carlson. I fail to see the “grave” classified information that would put the national security at risk. Indeed, my column addresses the disconnect between the objections made by the FBI and Democratic members and the actual memo. The use of classification laws to prevent disclosure of embarrassing information is itself an abuse of federal law and standards.
The Republicans may have undermined their case by building up this memo as a smoking gun document. Portrayals seems to make this memo the virtual combination of the Pentagon Papers and the Zimmerman telegram. After all of the build up, anything short of a depiction of Hillary Clinton forcing a judge to sign a secret warrant at gunpoint would disappoint most readers. However, there is plenty in this memo that should deeply concern people.
Civil libertarians have complained for years about the tactical use of classification authority by the federal agencies. This seems a rare and important example of that problem. As to the specific factual representations, they raise clearly troubling questions that need to be addressed on the failure to disclosure information to the FISA court and the alleged heavy reliance on this dossier.
Below is the full memo:
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 2, 2018
The Honorable Devin Nunes
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter “the Committee”) voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classified information provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the “Memorandum,” which is attached to this letter). As provided by clause 11(g) of Rule of the House of Representatives, the Committee has forwarded this Memorandum to the President based on its determination that the release of the Memorandum would serve the public interest.
The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from it disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President’s responsibility to classify, declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods and national defense. See, Dep of Navy v. Egan, 484 US. 518, 527 (1988). In order to facilitate appropriate congressional oversight, the Executive Branch may entrust classified information to the appropriate committees of Congress, as it has done in connection with the Committee’s oversight activities here. The Executive Branch does so on the assumption that the Committee will responsibly protect such classified information, consistent with the laws of the United States.
The Committee has now determined that the release of the Memorandum would be appropriate. The Executive Branch, across Administrations of both parties, has worked to accommodate congressional requests to declassify specific materials in the public interest. However, public release of classified information by unilateral action of the Legislative Branch is extremely rare and raises significant separation of powers concerns. Accordingly, the Committee’s request to release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassification pursuant to the President’s authority.
The President understands that the protection of our national security represents his highest obligation. Accordingly, he has directed lawyers and national security staff to assess the declassification request, consistent with established standards governing the handling of classified information, including those under Section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526. Those standards permit declassification when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any need to protect the information. The White House review process also included input from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. Consistent with this review and these standards, the President has determined that declassification of the Memorandum is appropriate.
Based on this assessment and in light of the significant public interest in the memorandum, the President has authorized the declassification of the Memorandum. To be clear, the Memorandum reflects the judgments of its congressional authors. The President understands that oversight concerning matters related to the Memorandum may be continuing. Though the circumstances leading to the declassification through this process are extraordinary, the Executive Branch stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests consistent with applicable standards and processes, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods.
Sincerely,
Donald F. McGahn II
Counsel to the President
cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The Honorable Adam Schiff
Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Declassified by order of the President
February 2, 2018
January 18, 2018
To: HPSCI Majority Members
From: HPSCI Majority Staff
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Purpose
This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
Investigation Update
On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (notunder Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a US citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. 1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the ISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard — particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.
1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. Law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of — and paid by — the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.
2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo Newsarticle by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News — and several other outlets – in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.”
a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations — an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jonesarticle by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September — before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October — but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.
b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling — maintaining confidentiality — and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.
3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files – but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
4) According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was — according to his June 2017 testimony – “salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his
anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, Whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.
“Justin Amash
@justinamash
Just three weeks ago, @SpeakerRyan @NancyPelosi @DevinNunes & @AdamSchiffCA teamed up to push a reauthorization of #FISA702 over my and others’ objections. The speaker gave a dramatic floor speech about the importance of giving the FBI power to violate everyone’s civil liberties.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/959279118616375296
Glad to see you agree with the Nunes memo.
Reading the numerous postings by Pinkos, you can sum up their messages as:
“Dodged that one, so f… Trump and the horse that he rode in on.”
Troubling that Sessions recused himself with virtually no involvement in anything substantial while Rosenstein doesn’t recuse himself even though he was integrally involved in the scandal.
Haha. “Scandal.” as if.
this is to “just keep regurgitating hannity and it may seem true” allan
Bam bam got you right Mark. You are a talentless hack that does nothing. Go back to your filing and stop getting blood all over the papers.
Outstanding. On the contrary, I point out the ridiculousness of the close-minded, empty-headed, addle-brained, gullible dupes who support the traitor-in-chief, no matter what assault he inflicts upon the Constitution, ethical conduct, and common decency. Don’t hang out in the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat.
This is to “methinks the lady doth protest too much” allan
“I point out ”
You point out nothing because you are a hack that just hurls insults and is too afraid to engage in debate of substance.
GOP…..God’s own psychopaths. FUBAR
The “purpose” of Nunes conducting a shadow investigation of the investigators of the fat egomaniac is a sad, pathetic attempt to mitigate fatso’s crimes, details of which will be forthcoming when the Mueller investigation is over and done with. Period. Pure and simple. It is an attempted pre-emptive strike, but it won’t work because most Americans don’t like or trust Fatso, who goes after anyone and anything that criticizes him or attempts to hold him accountable. Even the FBI and the Justice Department are not immune. The fat orange slob is attempting a coup of our federal criminal investigation and prosecution agencies, beginning with the firing of James Comey, and including his attempt to fire Mueller, which didn’t go through. That is obstruction of justice. His fundamental and flawed premise that the only reason they went after him is political. That is simply not true.
He uses Nunes, his stooge, to do his dirty work. What is Nunes jonesing for anyway? Appointment as head of the FBI? The Senate? The bottom line of Nunes’s cherry-picked, misleading little probe: that the FBI didn’t tell the Judge that the HRC campaign financed Christopher Steele’s investigation, but if the Judge had known this, the Judge would not have ordered or extended the FISA warrants. This criticism is based on cherry-picked and incomplete facts. There was more than enough evidence of Russian interference without the “dossier” and more than enough evidence to issue the warrants regardless of the source of financing for Christopher Steele’s investigation. They are ASSUMING what the Judge would have done with more information. What law required the FBI and Justice Department to provide the Judge with this additional information, anyway? Facts are facts, and the facts uncovered by Steele have not been proven false. Therefore, the source is irrelevant. Why won’t Nunes and the other Republican stooges allow the Democrats to fill in the blanks? What are they afraid of–the truth?
Carter Page met, repeatedly, with Russians, who describe him as an “idiot”, but one they were willing to use to get Fatso elected, so that he would relieve them of sanctions. Even though fatso and his lying hag spokeswitch attempt to distance themselves from Page, pretending they don’t even know him, that little tactic won’t work either. The problem with all of this is that Trump’s credibility and character are so compromised that the American people aren’t going to buy this pathetic attempt at a pre-emptive strike.
So the notion of a corrupt FISA warrant doesn’t bother you…knowing that they could do the same thing to you? In fact, you think Trump is a fascist don’t you? So what if he decided to sign off on warrants to tap into your private communications?
The FISA warrant on Carter Page in October of 2016 was supported by ample information obtained independently of the dossier. Those are the material omissions that the Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, said make the Ninny-Na-Na Nunes’ memo inaccurate. Carter Page is not an innocent bystander like Natacha. Carter Page went well out of his way to court both the Russians and the Trump campaign. The Russians were smart enough to rate Carter Page an idiot. The Trump campaign was a bit too slow on that uptake. But they did catch on, eventually. And none other than Don McGahn, himself, fired Carter Page from the Trump campaign well-nigh three months before the October, 2016 FISA warrant on Carter Page. If Carter Page was such an innocent American, like Natacha, why did McGahn sever the Trump campaign’s ties to Carter Page at the same time that Carter Page popped back up on the FBI’s radar screen?
* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.
* The four FISA surveillance applications were signed by, in various combinations, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein.
* The FBI authorized payments to Steele for work on the dossier. The FBI terminated its agreement with Steele in late October when it learned, by reading an article in Mother Jones, that Steele was talking to the media.
* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.
* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele’s bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.
From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-intel-memo-released-what-it-says/article/2647937 Complete memo there.
*The Steele dossier facts have proven correct so far. The source is irrelevant
*Who else would have signed the FISA surveillance applications?
*Steele’s information has been proven true so far, so what is the point?
*You claim that there are “political origins of the Steele dossier”, but omit the fact that the original person who started investigating fatso and the dirt on him was a fellow Republican. The information that has been obtained has not proven untrue so far, and evidence of his shady dealings and crimes cannot be overlooked because a fellow Republican started the investigation, which was continued by the HRC campaign. Why does Fox News, a/k/a Trump News Network, omit the fact that a fellow Republican is the one who started Steele’s work?
*You say Steele is “biased”–based on what? Because he dug up dirt on the fat slob? Why should a British former secret agent “passionately” want Fatso not to be elected? Fatso is paranoid–he attacks anyone and anything that criticizes him, and Americans are sick of this.
Your analysis stinks Allan. Most Americans don’t like Trump and don’t believe anything he says. They cannot understand why he is attacking the FBI and Justice Department for any reason other than political.
There have been 4 indictments so far, and 2 guilty pleas. There is dirt here, and Fatso’s attempted pre-emptive strike on the Mueller investigation won’t work.
Natacha writes: “The Steele dossier facts have proven correct so far.”
The Steele dossier has provided no substantial facts against the President. If you have access to the Steele dossier post it and document the facts you deem correct while proving them.
Steele himself said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president.”
Fusion GPS was hired by both parties, but there are two separate parts.The Steele dossier was paid for by the DNC that was totally involved with Hillary Clinton. The other part had nothing to do with this dossier.
“You say Steele is “biased”–based on what? Because he dug up dirt on the fat slob?”
I will quote Steele again: He said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president.”
“Most Americans don’t like Trump and don’t believe anything he says. ”
That seems to be your opinion, but Trump is now rising in the polls. 50% of Democrats that listened to SOTU were favorable towards the speech. The press has been negative towards the President and even encouraged people not to listen to the SOTU. The press relies upon dummies to repeat their nonsense. Are you one of them?
4 indictments and 2 guilty pleas: Guilty of what? What does their guilt have to do with Trump? They are pleading guilty about lying, but nothing that links Trump to a criminal act.
Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein who should have recused himself. Mueller has too many attachments that should not exist in Mueller’s type of investigation.
What analysis?
If only that Russian guy who died of a heart attack in his car trunk (I hate when that happens) could speak from the grave, he could clarify the info. in the Steele dossier .
Linda, when it involves dead people somehow Democrats seem to be involved. The information in the Steele dossier speaks for itself and was what the FBI used in the FISA request.
Keep whistling past the graveyard. If you don’t think that the lenient treatment shown to the four already indicted means something, you don’t know how the feds operate. “Cooperating witness” is the nightmare of the dirty. Conversely, a 5K1.1 motion is the wet dream of the accused, who’ll spill their guts and their mommas guts to earn. The orange buffoon has stepped up his brownshirts. Figure it out.
this is to “hannity SWORE to me there’d be no indictments” allan
Marky Mark Mark – so, you speak from experience. You threw your mother under the bus for a plea deal, what a son.
Too bad Mark, nothing has involved Trump and the indictments have nothing to do with Trump. Clinton is gone from the scene and whether her reputation is ruined further is unimportant. That the Clintons got away with crimes is nothing new. Crimes are committed, but most of the times no one goes to jail.
You are just a dope, plain and simple.
Do you know what the source of the Steele dossier was? I do. I hope you do since you are placing the full weight of your argument upon it.
DOJ must send U.S. Marshalls to the FBI to preserve evidence.
Lol
Marshalls is a discount clothing store.
George, your stupidity is showing.
If I were Carter Page, I would be contacting a lawyer about a 1983 action.
The memo is a road map.
Yep.
Really disturbing that a dossier about a third party (Trump) could be used for a warrant to surveil Page. And that our intelligence agencies corroborated its veracity with a newstory (anonymous source I assume) planted by the author.
Sadly. Our intelligence agencies should be better than this.
Seems like the FBI’s WMD or Iran Contra moment.
George Tenant and, George Tenant alone, is responsible for telling Bush what he wanted to hear. “The WMD’s are a slam dunk”. He said it for is own career advancement. I hope he goes to his grave hearing the voices of those harmed by his self-aggrandizement.
Never thought I’d see the day Linda when you called the New York Times liars. Are you aware in 2008 they ran stories about WMDs discovered in Iraq by US forces?
In any case, you are going back more than a decade to counter the memo? That’s not good Linda. It says your argument holds no weight. That your standing frankly sucks. Let’s talk about that memo shall we?
Hepzi said, “Really disturbing that a dossier about a third party (Trump) could be used for a warrant to surveil Page.”
Carter Page is mentioned by name in the dossier as a target of Russian cultivation. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page in 2014–before Trump announced his candidacy for President. The intel the FBI had on Carter Page corroborated the portion of the dossier that refers to Carter Page. Also the intel from Alexander Downer about George Papadopoulos corroborated the portion of the dossier that referred to Carter Page. George Papadopoulos has been a cooperating witness in the Russia investigation for a good long while. Ninny Na-Na Nunes’ false accusations against the FBI are just that–false accusations. If the biggest box-office flop in the history of FOX Fake News is the best defense that Trump can get, then Mistuh Trump, he in trouble.
Uh, I take you are definitely not a lawyer. You might want to google “probable cause” prior to hanging out your shingle.
this is to “sue em all, let god sort it out” “esquire” stevie
Marky Mark Mark – I know what probable cause is and several of the FBI agents are in criminal peril. If nothing else, they are likely to be fired.
Were it not so serious this would be amusing. House Republicans couldn’t appear any more desperate. Paul Ryan’s fear to take any control is shameful and we still don’t know how much of this was written by the White House.
Unintelligible and ignorant.
The basic facts have been verified by the FBI. I think all the documents involving the campaign and all the official actions of all the significant participants should be declassified along with a thorough review of all the cases run by all the names mentioned in this memo.
You would be the example of what’s wrong with the memo. You say, “the basic facts have all been verified by the FBI” while the actual FBI says something quite different. You so badly want to reinforce your pre-existing beliefs that you’ll fall for anything.
What I have read is that the FBI saw the memo released and noted no security problems and didn’t contest the facts stated. What they did say was there were “omissions of fact”. True. The FBI still hasn’t released everything and delayed releasing what Congress finally got for months. So, of course, there are omissions of fact and those omissions can change some minor opinions a little bit, but what has been released shows enough to let us know that the FBI became involved in politics. The FBI can fill in the “omissions” as they please but the investigation should be widened so that everyone that violated their oath pays. This is not a partisan desire. Anyone acting as a government employee whether or not a politician has to follow strict ethical guidelines where ever their work involves the government or the people.
Everyone that was on the FISA request should at the least never be permitted to work in government again, be fired, and lose their pensions along with all other benefits. They should also be investigated for criminal activity and if found jailed and if they are lawyers given a harsher sentence for to be registered as a lawyer is a privilege they violated.
Since you said the FBI said something different let’s hear what the FBI had to say based on what you read.
What was done at the FBI is a violation of core civil liberties and without them, this country no longer exists.
I should add another quote I remembered. The FBI reviewer “could not point to any factual inaccuracies”
I think it is reasonable to accept as the truth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456003/devin-nunes-fisa-memo-positioning-ahead-its-release
This is their official statement.
“With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the FBI said in a statement. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
You may now go on telling me they saw nothing wrong. Continue living in your dream world.
That is the official statement for them to put in print for the public and is a nearly meaningless statement. Any omission impacts accuracy, but that doesn’t mean the facts presented aren’t accurate. The FBI examiner stated, he “could not point to any factual inaccuracies”. The FBI had more than enough time to review the short document based upon what the FBI sent Congress after long delays. Those delays tell us that the FBI was negligent and purposely hiding information that Congress had both the right to see and the obligation to oversee. Thus the statement by the FBI was merely more of the same trying to hide their actions that were inappropriate and possibly illegal.
You are ignorant of the facts in the case and solely look for the information that you believe is best suited for your arguments. This is a chronic condition you seem to have that started with your accusations of racism against a 21-year-old in 1927 that you said was documented in the 1927 news article which was proven to be an absolute lie.
I’ll just let you babble on and keep trying to convince yourself that memo and all Nunes’s forthcoming ones are worth the ink used to writr them.
It’s OK Enigma. I realize it takes a bit of thought to understand the importance of the FISA court which is to prevent illegal searches.
To you like playing race games, breaking trust and likely the law is just fine.
“Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.”
You don’t get off that easy. 24 hours ago people like you were hyperventilating about the releease of this memo. Everyone left of center said the world would end as we know it if the memo came out. Now it’s out and you’re pretending it’s nothing? I don’t think so. You were scared to death of it and now that it is here you have to face it and not ignore it.
I’ve been saying for a while let it out so lumping me in with your imaginary foes serves to honest purpose. If I were among those hyping what this memo was supposed to prove, I’d be embarrassed to have ever jumped on that bandwagon. I’m considering writing a blog piece which I preface by saying I regard many of the regulars here to be quite intelligent, “When Intelligent People Believe Stupid Things.” As this one was a complete dud, fear not because Devin Nunes has promised you more memos in his continuing investigations. Will Paul Ryan back him again? Will you?
Of course, there’s the possibility that Trump will fire Rosenstein anyway because he imagines it will keep him safe. Maybe you and Fox News will assure him there will be no consequence. Good luck with that!
For one that doesn’t love America or the Constitution the revelations may mean little, but to those that wish this Republic to advance the rights of individuals what has been released is of huge concern. Our DOJ has been acting like the KGB. While the leftists have cheered such actions for over a year those interested in preserving liberty look on in horror.
enigma – According to the memo Sessions has cause to fire Rosenstein, he broke the law.
What law did Rosenstein break? According to the memo.
” Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.”
“The four FISA surveillance applications were signed by, in various combinations, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein.”
“The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.”
Enigma, see how far you would get lying to the court once the court found out.
Devin Nunes says that Andrew McCabe said that without regard to context or what other words were said around it. The dossier was not simply accepted as evidence, it was vetted and much of it was confirmed by the FBI. Only relevant, confirmed arts were used. For example, hookers peeing on a bed was not the reason a warrant was “renewed.” It could be the case that the dossier brought something out that was later verified independently and was therefore the reason. This is why it might have been important to read the underlying documentation which Nunes never did. (Or the President who took three hours to read the 4-page memo). It has come out that the political origins of the document were known to the court. This is part of the misleading aspect the FBI and now many Senate Republicans are talking about. No offense but I asked Paul a question and get your illogical and rude responses. I know you live to troll but if I wanted your blathering… I’d ask.
The Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed quite awhile back and it contained nothing about Trump that was significant and true. It was garbage written by a man who the record stated he hated Trump and had to prevent him from being elected. The dossier was originally leaked to the press, I think 6 specific outlets including the NYTimes and WP and then the press reports were used as confirmatory data.
The judge was not told of the political nature of the dossier nor who paid for it, nor how unreliable it was and that the FBI had already decided the dossier wasn’t good research. This too was not disclosed to the judge along with a host of other things.
You make the absolutely stupid comments you do based on your typical ignorance and wishful thinking.
Tell us what evidence in the dossier was true.
Explain what you mean by “Devin Nunes says that Andrew McCabe said that without regard to context or what other words were said around it.”
You don’t even complete a thought.
“It could be the case that the dossier brought something out that was later verified independently and was therefore the reason.”
Then Steele would not have been dismissed by the FBI.,
“It has come out that the political origins of the document were known to the court. ” Where?
” No offense but I asked Paul a question ”
Too bad. I answered. I don’t like the type of attack dog you are.
enigma – he swore the dossier was true. That was a lie and he knew it. I am not sure what the code is for lying to FISC but it is there.
Paul – That he swore the dossier was true is a rather broad statement that I’ve never heard anyone go out on a limb and say. It’s far more likely that whatever portion of the dossier that might have been used had been vetted and verified from other sources and was believed to be true.
I know of no one for example that has proven the existence of the hookers peeing on the bed or that would state under oath that it was true. As for the subject of the memo, Carter Page, I imagine hundreds of people could testify that his meetings with Russian officials were a real thing, proven to be true.
Paul, this guy has just said a bunch of nothing while perverting the truth.
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome troll?
Enigma, I guess you believe you are entitled to such help.
enigma – I do not think you are going to find two armed knights going to his house to kill him. 😉 You’re not the King of England, you know. 🙂
All it would take is a good moderator. Henry the II ain’t got nothing on me! BTW, “Becket” is one of my favorite movies of all time. I liked it much better than the sequel, “The Lion in Winter.”
enigma – just remember what happened to Becket, even though he became a saint. 😉
And I will sorrowfully do penance should any harm come to my troll.
“And I will sorrowfully do penance should any harm come to my troll.”
Enigma, the only harm that is occurring is the harm to your enormously large ego that belongs in a thimble,
You can confess you have no idea what Paul and I were talking about. There’s no shame.
“You can confess ”
No confessions for I understand exactly what the conversation is all about. I even understand the ways in which you twist logic in order to create facts that do not exist. Try again Enigma.
enigma – McCabe has said they could not get the FISA warrants without the dossier. And everyone knew the dossier was fake. Now we know that. Judicial Watch filed suit yesterday for the actual FISA applications. So maybe by 2020 we will know for sure. 😉
Other than the Nunes memo telling you what McCabe allegedly said, do you independently know this actually happened and in what context if so? As far as “everyone knowing the dossier is fake,” certain parts are definitely unproven, others have been documented through other sources. Do you think that peeing hookers was the basis for the warrant or verified claims?
enigma – that is why Judicial Watch is suing for the originals. At this point, I know they lied, but I don’t know about what. We will find out.
Wouldn’t it be far more accurate to say, “I sincerely believe they lied, and hope the documentation will eventually come out?” Leaving open the slightest possibility that the truth was told.
Of course, you could put all your faith in Devin Nunes who of course has never lied in his attempts to carry Trump’s water.
“Of course, you could put all your faith in Devin Nunes who of course has never lied in his attempts to carry Trump’s water.”
Can Enigma document when Nunes lied…? If not then that would demonstrate Nunes has been totally honest with regard to Trump, but that is what you actually said, right?
enigma – did you carefully read the memo? If you did you would not be asking me these questions. They lied. Full stop. That is illegal. Full stop.
Yes I read the whole memo which is what Nunes says happened. You yourself can’t identify a particular lie. When you say “they,” that would include the rank and file that Trump says are good people.
enigma – you have a list of FBI people who lied, one of which admits they would not have gotten the FISA warrant without the Stelle dossier. This is further complicated by a report by FISC the other day (23 pages) detailing problems with the FBI, FISA, and contractors. All the important names were redacted. The Nunes report was kind enough to leave in the formerly redacted names.
Your statement that the warrant couldn’t have been obtained without the dossier is based on the assumption that Nunes quoted someone accurately, completely, and in context. Fat chance of that.
If the Democrat response is allowed to see light, I’m sure that will be addressed further. I wouldn’t give that high odds.
I think generally, people continue to believe what they already believe. Of course, Nunes has promised his investigations are continuing and there (started to say “their” as a joke but certain people wouldn’t get it) are still more memos to come. If at first, you don’t succeed…
enigma – reports are the committee with vote on the Democratic Memo this coming week. In listening to Schif, it had not been written when the Republican memo was written,
It was written later, votes could have been taken to read and permit its release had Ryan allowed it. It still requires approval by the President. We’ll see how far his interest in transparency goes?
enigma – we will see what we will see 😉
Okay, I’ve read the memo. I don’t know what Republicans believe this document will accomplish, but my guess is not much. Mainly, I am reminded of that guy we all knew in high school who, when assigned to write a book report on The House of the Seven Gables, ran to the store as soon as classes ended to buy the Classics Illustrated version.
Not smart to laugh. In intelligence work the facts should come first but imagination sometimes is the key skill in Connecting the Dots.
This looks to be a classic case of FBI leadership that imagined first and attempted to fill in the facts last. It’s been done before.
Can you imagine that?
Leon King said, “This looks to be a classic case of FBI leadership that imagined first and attempted to fill in the facts last.”
Alexander Downer informed the FBI about George Papadopoulos long before the second FISA warrant for Carter Page. That tip from the magnificent Aussies corroborated at least two key allegations in the dossier–one of which was specifically about Carter Page. George Papadopoulos has been a cooperating witness in the Russia investigation for quite some time now. The main reason that Carter Page has not yet found himself not in the same boat with George Papadopoulos is that Don McGahn fired Carter Page from the Trump campaign as soon as Carter Page became a target of the Russia investigation in July of 2016 three months before the second FISA warrant on Carter page in October of 2016. The first one was in 2014.
The person with the over-active imagination, here, is Ninny-Na-Na Nunes.
A real lawyer speaks.
Mike A.,,
It was Cliff Notes….and I don’t remember you from high school.☺
Every high school has its own Mister Appleton, too:)
Yeah, and they shouldn’t knock study aids like Classics Illustrated or Cliff Notes.
They both helped me throughout my six years in high school.
Tom Nash – if you had just stuck with Cliffnotes, you would have only been sentenced to 5 years of high school. 😉
Lots of sound and fury….(Shakespeare/Faulkner)
Mueller’s Special Investigation must be abrogated with extreme prejudice.
Mueller must be overruled, removed for cause and prosecuted for willful and deliberate conspiracy to falsely implicate, entrap and prosecute an innocent person.
The FBI/DOJ/McCabe/Rosenstein/Mueller conspiracy had full knowledge that the “Russian/Steele Dossier” was false and created by democrats and that “collusion” was “bull—-”.
____________________________________________________________________________________
“Recall that McCabe set up the meeting to tell Preibus that a New York Times report suggesting widespread collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians was “bull—-.”
(excerpt)
According to the Gateway Pundit, McCabe is suspected of leaking details between himself and former Trump Chief of Staff Reince Preibus. The sequence of events, as recounted by the Gateway Pundit, suggests that Preibus might’ve been “set up” by McCabe. Recall that McCabe set up the meeting to tell Preibus that a New York Times report suggesting widespread collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians was “bull—-.” When Preibus asked McCabe if the FBI could release a statement publicly confirming this, McCabe said he’d need to think about it.
Don’t watch Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity. Matter of fact I don’t lister to Rush either.
Da of da course da you da don’t da,da K en. Da.
What!!???!!
Why does that matter and why would you announce that under this article and full text of memo?
Ken, So that makes you a one sider…will not listen to the facts or hear what a Liberal Constitutional Professor has to say..
You really should come out of the cave!! See!! That’s the sun!!
28 CFR 600.7 – Conduct and accountability.
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).
(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
If the Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an investigation before the Steele information was provided to the FBI, and there was some corroboration of the Steele information (even “minimal”), and Page was known to the FBI well before the FISA application (as possibly compromised by known Russian agents as early as 2013), I see no issue here. Warrants on Americans are often granted on much less solid evidence.
If bull frogs had wings, they would not whomp their a$$ every time they jumped. Courts are not usually bull frogs, and not supposed to do “ifs” outside of TROs.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
David S.,,
In most cases, a defense attorney would be able to view the warrant(s) related to the search/ surveillance/ arrest of a defendant.
I don’t know if the same conditions apply with FISA-issued warrants….maybe someone who knows for sure can answer that.
There may be a unique exception for information or
evidence obtain as the result of a FISA warrant.
Also, if a search, or a raid, or survellance, or an arrest result from a flawed, rubber-stamped warrant, the public has a chance to find out about it.
I think there is that same potential for FISA warrants;
when 99.9% of the warrant applications are approved for tens of thousands of these warrant applications, it causes some concern about “warrant errors”.
Given the secret nature of the FISA Court, we don’t know how often these mistakes might occur.
I’ve heard the descriptions of the meticulous and rigid standards and safeguards within the FISA system, and that may be true.
If it isn’t true, or always true, the public isn’t likely to find out about it.
The issues surrounding the Nunes’ memo are unique, in that the public gets a partial glimpse…..and arguably a distorted glimpse…..of the FISA warrant process.
But FISA-approved surveillance of those associated with a presidential campaign is also unique, as is overseas opposition reseach funded by a major political party.
I understand your point that warrants on an American citizen can be be approved on less evidence, but the FISA warrants and the FISA system are so unique that the distinctions between those warrants, and “normal warrants”, need to be considered.
Brookings
4. Removal of Special Counsel and Termination of Investigations
“Section 600.7 has two provisions on redressing misconduct by special counsel. Section 600.7(c) addresses substantive and procedural issues regarding discipline. First, substantively, regarding the norms of conduct, “Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice.” “Inquiries” into disciplinary matters shall be handled by “the appropriate offices of the Department,” with the caveat that those inquiries be “upon the approval of the Attorney General.”
Although the Attorney General may use other offices of the Department to make “inquiries,” under section 600.7(d) final action requires the “personal action” of the Attorney General. Grounds for removal are limited to “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”
Glenn Greenwald via Twitter:
Obviously, Dems think memo is dumb & irrelevant, & GOP think it’s explosive. Regardless, if these 2 claims in the Nunes memo are true – and it’s a big “if” – how is it not significant: 1) DOJ concealed function/origin of Steele dossier; 2) McCabe said no FISA warrant w/o dossier?
———————————————
Just as Glenn said a few days ago – we need underlying documentation
Nunes won’t be providing more. He shot his wad. Good night
and Good luck.
Autumn, the cognitive dissonance on this thread is unreal. The NYT annotated publication of the Nunes memo is hysterical–Rep. Schiff, paragon of honesty and integrity, is basically saying “No, that’s not right.” throughout. It’s been fun watching Pelosi freak out on national TV. Obama’s DOJ carried out a witch hunt to help the BorgQueen, and the FBI sat on evidence showing Clinton mishandled classified emails (i.e., broke the law and put national security at risk). Now it’s time for the Mueller farce to end, and for heads to roll. Pass the popcorn.
CCS – I wish I could believe heads will roll but I don’t. I think the DINOs/RINOs are deeply implicated as well — look at Joan McCain. The American public is being played – after all the stunts pulled by the Obama admin and the HRC during the primaries which they got away with I have come to sad conclusion that some people are untouchable.
ROFLMAO. All this is is the WH cheery picked characterization of information that’s been in the news for weeks. Oh, and the part about Popodopolus at the end only points to an already ongoing investigation of campaign/Russia outside of the “vital” dossier. What a nothing burger, to borrow Fox language.
Meanwhile, Turley focuses on the classification issue, completely missing important context here.