Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2018

House Intelligence Committee Releases Memo

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:05 am



[guest post by Dana]

Here is the long-awaited memo: House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses

Here is President Trump:

Have at it.

P.S.:

1

2

3

–Dana

117 Responses to “House Intelligence Committee Releases Memo”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (023079)

  2. “But I think it’s a disgrace what’s happening in our country…A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black, sez Teflon Don.

    We’ve seen this movie before. When the bad guys try to escape the good guys and dash down a blind alley, they always tip over a few garbage cans before they surrender to fate or do the big shoot out.

    “Is this the end of Rico?” – Caesar Enrico Bandello [Edward G. Robinson] ‘Little Caesar’ 1931

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  3. it’s a good first course, now we need to see the source documents, this is that echo chamber, of possibly fsb origins, remember steele couldn’t travel to Russia, Baumgartner seems to have gone in his place,

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. There is some irony that Nunes’ memo, which has been accused of “material omissions,” accuses the FBI of omitting material information in its Page warrant application.

    Yeah, big irony if you think a redacted memo requires the same level of evidence as a FISA warrant to spy on a private citizen.

    Where was this clown’s level of scrutiny when fever pitched hyperbole was being spewed almost daily by a media fed unsubstantiated allegations by these same FBI operatives? No, that was all hunky dory.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  5. WTF cares whether it would have been GRANTED without the Steele documents? That isn’t the issue at all.

    The issue is that the FBI lied to the FISC, both by providing information that they suspected was false and knew was unverified, and by omission about sources, payments and means. It speaks to malice on the government’s part and a political agenda rather than national security. They were not after Carter Page at all, but after the other fish in that pond.

    But I guess the spin starts here.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  6. “You’re going to hear a lot of partisan screaming for the next 48 hours about the Nunes memo. But here’s the part that I think matters most, referring to the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking a probable cause order authorizing electronic surveillance of Carter Page:

    Neither the initial application of October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

    In other words, the FBI knew that the information it was using to get the FISA warrant came from Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, who had a partisan motive and an axe to grind. That’s the sort of information that a judge should know before he rules so he can evaluate the request fairly. It seems hard to believe that the FBI and DOJ simply forgot to mention where they got their information.“

    http://amp.nationalreview.com/corner/456054/fbis-least-defensible-decision-revealed-nunes-memo?__twitter_impression=true

    harkin (5772a2)

  7. If the app would not have been brought without the Steel dossier, that suggests that the FBI thought the warrant would have been refused based solely on the other evidence, if any.

    Further, other “evidence” is mentioned (also provided with lies about providence), namely the Yahoo News article which supposedly corroborated Steele, but in fact was Steele’s leak.

    So, besides this, and the fact that the crminal act was lying to the FISC — not whether the lie was effective — Mr Malor would have a point. Had he a remaining leg to stand on.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  8. The memo shows that after former British spy Christopher Steele was cut off from the FBI, he continued to pass information, as did Fusion GPS, through Justice Department Official Bruce Ohr. Ohr’s wife Nellie began working for Fusion GPS as early as May 2016.

    If Ohr isn’t fired and isn’t charged with anything, that should tell all but the willfully ignorant how foul and deep the swamp is.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  9. you include your strongest evidence, first, they may have mentioned papafob, but that wasn’t the bulk, and it’s a committee to reelect project, a little like hunt’s spliced cables,

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. * providence provenience

    Kevin M (752a26)

  11. If Comey hadn’t been fired, none of what we know now would ever have seen the light of day.

    At best, Mueller would have reported “no collusion” and a few “process crimes”.

    Of course, the one thing, that comes up in the clearance process .. the ability to be blackmailed, would still be in play.

    Imagine the Russians blackmailing the head of FBI counter-intelligence.

    NeoMany corporations incorporate in Deleware because of the (d1c681)

  12. “McCabe says the warrant would not have been sought absent information in the Steele dossier.”

    A dossier the DOJ and FBI knew was unsubstantiated and politically motivated yet chose to withhold such from the FISA court.

    What is so difficult to understand here, Malor?

    Lenny (5ea732)

  13. What would happen to a cop who consciously approached a judge for a drug-related warrant with only information from a rival gang who was notorious for planting phony evidence in the past?

    It can not be emphasized enough: This was to go after the only opponent remaining in a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. The highest level of scrutiny simply had to be applied. The HIGHEST.

    And the Dems bloviate about a constitutional crisis if Mueller is shut down?!

    Let;s just see if the FISC has any concerns about the Rule of Law. My bet is they demonstrate they do not. Nobody will be hauled before it to answer for this. Remember, with the declassification, the FISC can operate openly on this aspect of this matter!

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  14. Additionally (and I’ve said this before too), recall that the FBI investigation into Russian attempts to influence the Trump campaign began, per Comey’s testimony, in July 2016, long before the Page warrant was obtained.

    As if that matters. You only start an investigation after a warrant against one specific person is obtained? Duh.

    The Steele dossier was first obtained by the FBI in, you guessed it, July 2016. What a coincidence!!

    random viking (6a54c2)

  15. So if the fisa warrant is based on at best dubious info, any indictment derived from it is fruit of the poison tree.

    narciso (a16c08)

  16. so the sleazy corrupt FBI can’t be trusted with the surveillance powers they’ve been given

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  17. My first take after reading the memo:

    (1) The Dems’ and the mainstream media’s “the sky is falling and our secret agents are all going to be murdered in their beds” meme was absolutely, positively false, and every Congressional Democrat who helped them peddle that meme is a lying b*stard. There is no conceivable way, no remotely good-faith argument, that the release of this memo damages American security, reveals sources & methods, undercuts our ally Britain, or any of that rot. That was all a deliberate lie. (And of course they’ll mostly get away with it — i.e., their base lacks the intellectual honesty or capacity to recognize a bald-faced politically-motivated lie when it’s exposed.)

    (2) That said, I’m willing to read the minority report with an open mind to see whether, as they also claimed, there were material omissions and other context that’s necessary to evaluate what’s in the memo.

    (3) The memo asserts that each 90-day renewal of a FISA warrant must be justified by “a separate finding of probable cause.” It cites 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(1), which is a mistake, I think. Instead, it almost certainly should refer to section 1805(d)(2), which is for renewals, and which says that

    [e]xtensions of an order … may be granted on the same basis as an original order upon an application for an extension and new findings made in the same manner as required for an original order.

    But I don’t see anything in the statute which requires that the extension be based on a “new” finding of probably cause, and indeed, even the phrase “separate finding of probable cause” doesn’t appear in the statute. Implicit in the 90-day renewal period is a policy determination that such orders must be limited in time. And if the surveillance isn’t producing new evidence for a new and different finding of probable cause than the original order was based on, at some point the reviewing judges ought to stop approving any further renewals based on the finding of probable cause upon which the original order was based. But on its face, the statute doesn’t require that for each renewal, there always must be a new and independent showing of probable cause.

    The memo doesn’t say whether there was any additional evidence beyond the Steele dossier that was included in any of the three renewals, including the one attributed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The memo says that with respect to the original application, McCabe admitted in his December 2017 testimony to the Committee “that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” So whatever else may have accompanied the original application, at least in the judgment of the FBI official who submitted it (McCabe), that original application was a sine qua non, an essential condition, for its submission. Was that also true of the renewals? The memo doesn’t say.

    If it was still true, though, and if those (including Rosenstein) who approved the application extensions likewise wouldn’t have submitted them “without the Steele dossier information,” and if those submitting officials (including Rosenstein) knew of the sourcing and funding of the dossier but didn’t cure the nondisclosure of the original application, then those officials were as guilty of misrepresentation to the FISC as McCabe was with the original submission.

    So to those who objected that this memo was an “attack” on Rosenstein, I’d say: Not yet, as written. But I sure want to know more about what else, if anything, was added to the renewal applications, and indeed, whether they still relied at all on the Steele dossier.

    The Dems’ and mainstream media’s hysterical suggestion that this memo is an attack on Mueller or his team is complete horsesh!t, except insofar as it demonstrates that McCabe, who’d already been ejected from the team, is indeed a bad actor.

    So the memo absolutely confirms Speaker Ryan’s assurances yesterday.

    (4) At least as to the original application, the memo paints a compelling case of “a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.” And that’s a big damned deal, whether the consequences of that breakdown were great or small. But the memo really doesn’t even begin to address those consequences, much less to quantify their significance. So is this a really big damned deal? That remains to be seen, I think.

    That the target was someone associated with one major party’s presidential campaign is likewise a big damned deal, taking this into a different range of potential consequences than if the target had been someone with no connections to anyone’s political campaign. But again, we don’t yet know the actual consequences, and Carter Page, by himself, was a pretty little fish, someone of marginal importance within the Trump campaign; but he might indeed have had at least sporadic access to others who were much more important as members of Trump’s inner circle.

    So we aren’t yet at the end of the question of how big a screw-up, how big an abuse of power, this actually was. We aren’t even at the beginning of the end of that question. This may not even be the end of the beginning!

    But I’m glad the memo was released, and I think the House Republican leadership — not limited to Nunes and his committee members — were right to push for this to be released now, without further delay.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  18. Was Christopher Steel just a willing ‘cats paw’ for Fusion GPS’s efforts to smear Donald Trump? $12 Million is an aweful lot of money to pay for handing out copies of the dirty dossier to media organizations already all-in for Hillary.

    Was it Hillary all along paying Fusion GPS for compiling the oppo research and for finding a plausibly distant foreign source to inject dirty manufactured lies into the presidential election: was Christopher Steel just a useful pretty boy, a convenient beard?

    ropelight (4ae36e)

  19. why don’t the name the fat-and-happy lickspittle FISC judge what rubberstamped this farce?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  20. Memo released. =thud=

    A dud.

    Okay, America, are you ready for some football?!?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. For the past year we have witnessed rumor and inuendo leaked from political operatives in the FBI and DOJ being sold as fact. Now we get the specifics and the complaint is that it doesn’t give the full picture.

    AZ Bob (ac212f)

  22. why don’t *they* name i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  23. A riddle inside a mystery inside an enigma:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/959484357244342272

    narciso (a16c08)

  24. That FISA judge has a lot of splainin to do.

    AZ Bob (ac212f)

  25. Errata for #19: I ought to have written: “So whatever else may have accompanied the original application, at least in the judgment of the FBI official who submitted it (McCabe), the Steele dossier was a sine qua non, an essential condition, for the original application’s submission.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  26. the lickspittle FBI used cowardpig John McCain’s debunked pee-pee dossier (paid for by Hillary) to convince an idiot rubberstampin’ FISA judge to spy on a presidential campaign

    what part of that does Mr. Malor not understand?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  27. But I’m glad the memo was released, and I think the House Republican leadership — not limited to Nunes and his committee members — were right to push for this to be released now, without further delay.

    Pfft… ‘leadership’ is hardly a term to associate w/any of this.

    ‘When the bad guys try to escape the good guys and dash down a blind alley, they always tip over a few garbage cans before they surrender to fate or do the big shoot out.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. @28. Well, Mr. Feet, there’s no denying our Captain is quite a pisser.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. Democrats circle the wagons :

    Within minutes of the memo’s release, Senate Democrats took to Twitter to share their disapproval of the release of the document, which most of them initially called a “dangerous” move.

    Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, slammed the release of the memo, saying it was “reckless and demonstrates an astonishing disregard for the truth.”

    “This will make it far more difficult for the Intelligence Committees to conduct meaningful, bipartisan oversight of intelligence activities in the future,” he said in a statement. “This action was also taken without regard to the damage it could do to our ability to protect Americans from threats around the globe.”

    “Law enforcement opposes this,” tweeted Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat. “The intelligence community opposes this. Even many Republicans oppose this. This is dangerous territory, it disrespects law enforcement, and it’s an alarming partisan attack on efforts to investigate hostile foreign interference in our democracy.”

    Their colleague, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, also criticized the release of the memo, echoing that it’s “dangerous.”

    She tweeted, “.@realDonaldTrump’s decision to declassify the partisan memo, made in cooperation w/ Congressional Republicans, is a dangerous attack on our justice system and the rule of law.”

    Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon called the memo “cherry-picked classified information” in a statement.

    “This puts us in extremely dangerous territory,” he said. “It upends the relationship between the intelligence community and Congress, threatening the ability for different

    Release the Democrats’ memo.

    Dana (023079)

  30. Release the Democrats’ memo.

    Fairly obvious these days that being fair isn’t fair.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. Yes who can we hang you propwrly without the right length of rope,

    narciso (bd9b41)

  32. Now, Mr. Mueller may browbeat Hope Hicks if he dares.

    That will make for good optics.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  33. Ah that tidbit allegedly comes from corallo, who was fmrly counsel to that lebanese gent with interests in nigeria.

    narciso (bd9b41)

  34. @34. Lewindowski says she likes it rough.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. I just checked.

    The sky has not fallen.

    Nice try, Dems.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  36. http://patterico.com/2007/08/08/la-times-looks-to-scare-readers-over-new-fisa-legislation/#comment-276673

    Sorry, Patterico, but let’s be practical. Our enemies use technology to conspire more easily to attacks us and we use technology to counter it. A lot of the “civil libertarian” arguments on this issue seem to me to be that even if bank robbers use automobiles and machine guns the police must chase them on horseback with cap and ball pistols.

    And I was yanking Semanticleo’s chain just a little bit. But not all that much.

    When it comes to wireless communications, I don’t know how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy there is. Anybody with a scanner can pick up our cell phone or wireless home phone conversations. My “shouting across the street” analogy is not all that bad. Should everyone else in the neighborhood cover their ears? Could I pose naked in my living room window and accuse passersby of being Peeping Toms?

    I agree that as a general rule, the government should not unreasonably spy on its citizens without probable cause. But when my voice is broadcast across the world is it really “spying” just because I have a little machine that converted my sound waves into radio waves?

    nk (48899d) — 8/8/2007 @ 7:00 pm

    There is more inconsistency and contradiction in historic context.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  37. The group’s president, Thomas O’Connor, said in a statement, “The men and women of the FBI put their lives on the line every day in the fight against terrorists and criminals because of their dedication to our country and the Constitution.”

    lol

    the FBI’s a trashy corrupt organization what simply can’t be trusted

    did you not get the memo Tommy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  38. CNN refuses to refer to it as anything other than the “disputed memo”. Odds are nil they will take that same tack with the Dem memo.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  39. “It is telling that Chairman Nunes put out this memo without bothering to read the underlying materials, and that he ordered changes to the document without informing his own committee members. It is a terrible lapse in leadership that Speaker Ryan failed to intervene and prevent the abuse of classified materials in this way. It is tragic, if all too predictable, that this President would allow the release of the memo despite FBI and DOJ’s expressions of ‘grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the [Republicans’] memo’s accuracy’. But most destructive of all may be the announcement by Chairman Nunes that he has placed the FBI and DOJ under investigation, impugning and impairing the work of the dedicated professionals trying to keep our country safe.”

    https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=350

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  40. Can anyone point to the part that’s 100 times worse than Watergate? TIA.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  41. > It speaks to malice on the government’s part and a political agenda rather than national security.

    Does it? I’m not seeing that.

    I’m seeing a government agency that regularly lies to the courts *because it believes those lies are in the interest of national security*, gets away with it *because we set up a national security court system that has no actual checks on government lies*, and is now being called out for it in a single instance because doing so serves the political motivations of a corrupt President.

    It’s breathtaking in its cynicism.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  42. So an admitted unverified dossier was the primary basis for a fisa warrant which in turn served as the bases for a search warrant which led to indictments

    narciso (bd9b41)

  43. Beldar, I completely agree with your point (1) and your point (2). My *strong* suspicion is that if you look at the FBI’s history closely, you’ll find that the omission you discuss at the end of your point (3) is standard operating procedure.

    As for (4): at least in October of 2016, I think it’s a stretch to consider Trump to be a major candidate; this was before his run of successes when everyone in Washington thought he was a joke. So it’s hard for me to see this as politically motivated, and I’m *way* more interested in finding out whether or not there’s any substance to the accusation that Page, and others, were working for the Russians.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  44. ok so the FBI regularly lies to judges

    we have a consensus on this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  45. Partisan hacks gotta hack

    Obama Follows Bush’s Lead On National Security says National Soros Radio cheerily

    as if they hadn’t pitched a propaganda slut hissy fit for 8 years about Bush’s national security policies

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/06/189266242/on-national-security-obama-follows-bush-s-leadx

    In any event, that the telecommunications surveillance has continued so robustly on Obama’s watch is just another example of how the president’s aggressive stance has helped to erase the longtime Republican advantage on national security issues — an edge the GOP will have trouble regaining, so long as the current occupant of the White House has any say in it.

    happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/6/2013 @ 4:52 pm
    http://patterico.com/2013/06/06/report-nsa-secretly-collecting-phone-records-of-millions-of-citizens-suspected-of-no-wrongdoing-whatsoever/#comments

    Patterico is consistent..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  46. Davethulu – yeah, the claim that this is Watergatex100 is just as insane as the minority’s claim that this release would irreparably damage American security.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  47. He had won the nomination against 16 other candidates, seriously aphrael.

    narciso (bd9b41)

  48. Aphrael loves the fourth amendment. Me too. We have found unum.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  49. just as insane as the minority’s claim that this release would irreparably damage American security.

    How are you informed? Inside info?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  50. Watergate had better villains.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. 53

    Kinda funny Nixon fans want to roll back Senator Church just as they did 40 years ago but with different motives.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  52. Can anyone point to the part that’s 100 times worse than Watergate? TIA.

    How about this…In Watergate, CREEP honchos employed henchmen to spy on the McGovern campaign. In this matter, the Government ITSELF were the henchmen – at the behest of a campaign.

    In Watergate, the cover-up involved political critters at the White House, Nixon included. Here, it is DOJ and FBI honchos, including the highest executives in each agency, who participated in the cover-up. The latter being our last line of defense against corruption.

    It’s been said by many that Watergate ended up being a positive for the country as the system of justice ultimately prevailed. In this matter, the system of justice has been severely wounded. To this very moment, Rosenstein insists he is fit to remain in office, let alone conflicted out of any oversight of any investigation, Muller’s included. The fraud continues.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  53. Got that? Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. That’s what Nunes says in the memo excerpt above.

    SEE ALSO:
    Marvel’s Black Panther Is Getting Oscar Buzz but Is it just Politics?
    And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony.

    I already examined this issue exhaustively in a post from January 2, rebutting a similar allegation made by Andrew C. McCarthy. Refer to that post for more detail, which I will summarize here. As I noted, Comey was specifically asked whether the FBI had confirmed any criminal allegations in the dossier, and he refused to answer the question in an open setting. Here is one example from the transcript:

    BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

    COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

    Red State cross post!!

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  54. if the lickspittle FBI trash had verified cowardpig war hero John McCain’s salacious dossier, there wouldn’t be a problem would there

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  55. did disgraced FBI suckboy Jim Comey ever testify that Johnny McCain’s dossier *had* been verified?

    don’t think he did

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. You can trust him, ask Dr. Stephen hatfill and the wife of Bryce I find,

    narciso (bd9b41)

  57. Icons, he shot himself but yet wasn’t actually the anthrax mailer.

    narciso (bd9b41)

  58. @ aphrael, who wrote in part (#):

    I’m seeing a government agency that regularly lies to the courts *because it believes those lies are in the interest of national security*, gets away with it *because we set up a national security court system that has no actual checks on government lies*, and is now being called out for it in a single instance because doing so serves the political motivations of a corrupt President.

    I disagree with you that there are no actual checks on government (here, meaning prosecutorial) lies. Indeed, as the balance of your comment acknowledges, this is a “single instance” that’s being called out, by one of the two chambers of Congress in its oversight role, exactly as characterized by Speaker Ryan yesterday.

    I do agree with you entirely that there are a ton of very cynical and hyperpartisan folks on both sides who are spinning this as something more, or different, than it so far is.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  59. @54. History rhymes.

    See the Huston memo/plan for details.
    ____

    @55. In Watergate, the cover-up involved political critters at the White House, Nixon included. Here, it is DOJ and FBI honchos, including the highest executives in each agency, who participated in the cover-up. The latter being our last line of defense against corruption.

    There, too. Revisit the role of Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. Perhaps if we rejigger the Watergate affair to match present circumstances our selectively dim witted democrat cheer leaders will understand more clearly.

    Say instead of a handful of Cubans Nixon had hired the DC police to break into DNC headquarters with the FBI providing overwatch and the media spending months lecturing us how criminal it was for the Democrats to keep their papers unsecured in the safe at the office.

    Something like that.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  61. Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon called the memo “cherry-picked classified information” in a statement.

    “This puts us in extremely dangerous territory,” he said. “It upends the relationship between the intelligence community and Congress, threatening the ability for different branches of government to work together to protect the American people’s safety.”

    Yeah, you nitwit. Congress has oversight over intelligence, not the reverse. This is just the first salvo of many more to come. McCabe, #2 at the FBI, did not get forced out over nothing.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  62. Dow down 625.

    Release another memo, Captain, and make America grate some more!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. Are you saying the memo is dropping the stock market?

    AZ Bob (ac212f)

  64. has corrupt FBI lickspittle Chris Wray left the building yet

    just leave your id card with Milton at the front desk

    ok bye

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  65. What i’ s and t’ s were crossed here, this was as a politicAl search and destroy masquerading as a,legitimate counter intelligence investigation.

    narciso (364166)

  66. @ Ed from SFV, who wrote (#55):

    In this matter, the system of justice has been severely wounded. To this very moment, Rosenstein insists he is fit to remain in office, let alone conflicted out of any oversight of any investigation, Muller’s included. The fraud continues.

    You’re using too broad a brush, I submit, to reach conclusions whose premises have yet to be established.

    Take Rosenstein, for instance. If he sought a renewal of the FISA warrant without supplementing the original application to fully disclose all the problems with the Steele dossier that the memo identifies, that would be very problematic. But we don’t know whether it happened. You’re assuming that he didn’t supplement the application with either new information that was independent of the Steele dossier and that he likewise didn’t remedy the prior material facts that should have been included. But that’s just a guess on your part, so far.

    And how you get from this memo to Mueller — other than through its identification of McCabe as a bad actor — completely eludes me. Mueller kicked McCabe off the team. Perhaps it was an error in judgment to have ever included him, but that would depend on what Mueller knew about McCabe and when he learned it, which are, again, facts not yet in evidence.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. And return the swingline stapler.

    narciso (364166)

  68. 67.Are you saying the memo is dropping the stock market?

    If you’ve been watching events play out though the trading day post eco/jobs data earlier, the drop accelerated after the memo broke. Let’s just say the release hasn’t helped.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. As for whether this compares to Watergate: Nixon himself (not some subordinate on his behalf) tried to use the FBI and CIA to perpetuate his cover-up. If you can show me proof that Obama directed McCabe to withhold the Steele dossier’s provenance from the FISC, we’d begin to get into territory where the two could be compared. The significance of Watergate was that it was the POTUS — not just his henchmen — who were involved. Yes, lots of the henchmen ended up losing their careers, and some fair number of them ended up being convicted of crimes and doing time. But even if McCabe is likewise drummed out, has his pension forfeited, and is convicted of crimes and does time, that won’t turn this into Watergate, much less something 100 times worth. That’s hyperbolic at this point.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. aphrael,

    I think you are confused on the years. Trump was the GOP nominee in October 2016. I bet you are thinking about October 2015.

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. @70 – Beldar (fa637a) — 2/2/2018 @ 12:14 pm

    Mueller kicked McCabe off the team? Talk about facts not in evidence…

    Lenny (5ea732)

  72. (I’m much more receptive to the argument, by the way, that the corrupt whitewash of the Clinton email investigation is comparable to Watergate than this particular bit of governmental misconduct, but even then we’d need to show that Obama ordered Lynch to do the whitewash. That wouldn’t surprise me, but it hasn’t been established yet. Lynch, on the other hand, absolutely, positively shunted the Clinton email investigation off to the Obama/Clinton-friendly confines of the EDNY, where the personnel she’d hired while U.S. Attorney for the EDNY and her Obama-picked successor there ensured that the investigation would be undercut from day 1. That puts her squarely into John Mitchell territory as far as I’m concerned.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  73. Lenny: Correction accepted, I was thinking of Strzok. But McCabe wasn’t ever on Mueller’s team IIRC.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  74. Beldar – The memo states that McCabe said that but for the tainted dossier, there would have been no application for a warrant. Subsequently, Rosenstein had to have been aware that the dossier was a fraud, yet he renewed the warrant and refused to include exculpatory information of which he was aware.

    Rosenstein further maneuvered with Comey to bring about a special counsel in a case he knew to be made of the weakest imaginable sauce. That he advocated for an SC against a sitting president, in a case where there was no crime alleged to begin with, makes him hopelessly conflicted out, and displays a a type of judgment wholly inappropriate to the office he holds.

    The unfettered Mueller investigation falls on the lack of foundation. No crime alleged against anyone, save Page and the Greek. I am well satisfied that Page and the Greek are in the clear as to their actions around the “Russians.” I make the presumption that Mueller has not lied in his representations to DJT’s counsel that DJT was not involved in a crime before the fact.

    There is no crime, save the felonies by senior DOJ and FBI poltical appointees.

    Yes, I am assuming certain facts not in evidence.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  75. Mueller’s team for the Russian investigation never included McCabe.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  76. How long were they looking at Carter Page? Six times 90 days. A year and 6 months?

    That’s a long time to find some skullduggery. That’s not a criminal investigation. That’s a climate record. Measure the tree rings.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  77. This is the procedure the FISA Court follows in warrant applications. It raises severakl questions. For instance: Were these standard Title V applications or meta-data applications, or something else? Were any applications denied by the Court or withdrawn by the government?

    DRJ (15874d)

  78. The memo is only three and a half pages?

    WTF was Trump doing with it?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  79. @68. Saturday’s the day to start a massacre Mr. Feet. It’s in all the history books.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. To add…

    BHO was briefed, officially, about the investigation. It is a fact that he allowed it to continue.

    There is at least as much information now known as to his consciousness of the investigation to merit an SC look into his actions as there was in the current matter to draw in DJT. Where’s the Mueller demand for an interview of BHO?

    Beyond that, BHO consciously used insecure communications to communicate with his SoS, HRC. This is a slam dunk violation of federal statutes. Where’s the SC? Yes, a separate issue. However, this is ultimately all about the Rule of Law.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  81. Orin Kerr has a detailed discussion of the circumstances in which courts have invalidated warrants after the fact based on a failure by prosecutors to include contextual facts casting doubt on its own evidence of probable cause (including an informant’s unreliability). Key bits:

    Under Franks [v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)], a court will void a search warrant if the defendant can establish that the officer who swore out the warrant “knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth” either included information that was false or excluded information that was true when that information was critical to the probable cause determination.

    ….

    In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses’s bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question….

    Importantly, that doesn’t mean that an informant’s bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant’s information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant’s history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn’t particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant’s claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.

    Prof. Kerr wrote this before the release of the memo, so he didn’t have the benefit of the memo’s assertion about McCabe’s admission in his December 2017 testimony to the Committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” That admission is the key, at least as to the original application, and puts this into the category of nontrivial, non-harmless error, very material omissions in my judgment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  82. @55. In Watergate, CREEP honchos employed henchmen to spy on the McGovern campaign. In this matter, the Government ITSELF were the henchmen – at the behest of a campaign.

    There was much more to Watergate than just ‘spying on McGovern’s campaign.’ It’s what it revealed. The tentacles reached from the Pentagon Papers, the Ellsberg break-in and much more sinister stuff pondered and planned by the powers that be, per the Huston memo/plan, among other revelations. The discouraging part of all this is the very committees created to avoid politicizing intel and covert ops due to Republican shenanigans have been tainted by— Republican shenanigans.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. McCAbe admitted they woujldn’t have tried without the Steele stuff

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  84. Ed: I commend you for admitting that you’re assuming facts not in evidence. Among them:

    Subsequently, Rosenstein had to have been aware that the dossier was a fraud, yet he renewed the warrant and refused to include exculpatory information of which he was aware.

    Did he? Was he? I’m curious, and can certainly frame the follow-up questions which would clear that up. But we don’t have it yet.

    Rosenstein further maneuvered with Comey to bring about a special counsel in a case he knew to be made of the weakest imaginable sauce.

    Comey testified that he was trying to get a special counsel appointed. Rosenstein has never, ever agreed in public with that assertion. The regs authorize appointment of a special counsel when it’s “in the public interest” (28 C.F.R. § 600.1(b)), and when either the investigation “would present a conflict of interest for the Department,” i.e., even some Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Montana (which can’t possibly be established here and couldn’t have been the basis for the appointment) or there are “other extraordinary circumstances” (per 28 C.F.R. § 600.1(a)). Comey’s leaks may have created the “extraordinary circumstances,” but there’s no evidence whatsoever that Comey was coordinating with Rosenstein or vice versa. As for the “weakest imaginable sauce,” neither you nor I know what was in the sauce, but we know that it pretty soon resulted in the Manafort & associate indictments and the Flynn and Papadopoulos guilty pleas, and we don’t know what else was also there. I can certainly imagine weaker sauce; I heard weaker sauce being dished out on Dubya almost weekly by the press and his Dem opponents crying for his impeachment.

    We’re still blind men speculating about the elephant. This memo is maybe, at best, a tusk — significant, yes, but walruses and warthogs also have tusks.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  85. Perhaps I should have added as to Rosenstien….or should have known. I am confident it will be established that he knew, or he assiduously avoided knowing, about the fatal flaws in the foundation of this matter.

    In no way do I believe that you are attempting to avoid any truth here. You make an excellent, and fully good faith argument, as to what has been fully established publicly. I will point out, though, that when assessing various positions as to truth, a huge presumption must go against those who refuse to be open and who actively seek to withhold crucial data.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  86. And re this from Ed:

    There is at least as much information now known as to his consciousness of the investigation to merit an SC look into his actions as there was in the current matter to draw in DJT. Where’s the Mueller demand for an interview of BHO?

    Investigating the Clinton email scandal, or investigating the DoJ’s and FBI’s investigation into the Clinton emails, isn’t part of Mueller’s jurisdiction, so that’s obviously why he’s not demanding an interview with Obama. I 100% agree that there are very strong grounds for today’s DoJ and FBI to investigate the Lynch DoJ’s and Comey FBI’s investigation of the Clinton email scandal. But I haven’t yet been satisfied that there’s no one — out of all the DoJ & FBI personnel in all 93 judicial districts — who couldn’t fairly and impartially conduct that investigation, so I don’t think we need a new special counsel for that, unless we accept that Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller established a new precedent that every investigation of a high executive branch official creates “extraordinary circumstances” which require a special counsel. Contrary to any such precedent, one of Rosenstein’s own predecessors as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland was responsible for the investigation, prosecution, and guilty plea from Spiro Agnew.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  87. Thanks, Ed. We’re mostly on the same page, and your instincts may turn out to be right. I’ll certainly agree that the confirmation in the memo that Rosenstein signed off on one of the renewals is potentially very problematic.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  88. By the way, if (as I dearly hope) there already is an on-going criminal investigation by today’s DoJ and today’s FBI of the Lynch DoJ’s and Comey FBI’s investigation of the Clinton email scandal, (a) that would be outside the scope of Sessions’ recusal, and so it would be him, not Rosenstein, who’s ultimately responsible for it, and (b) it should still be absolutely secret unless and until it produces one or more public indictments.

    Given his principal’s post-election statements that the Clintons had suffered enough, though, it wouldn’t surprise me — even though it would greatly disappointment — if no such investigation (without involvement of any special counsel) is going on.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  89. if (as I dearly hope) there already is an on-going criminal investigation by today’s DoJ and today’s FBI of the Lynch DoJ’s and Comey FBI’s investigation of the Clinton email scandal, (a) that would be outside the scope of Sessions’ recusal,

    I think that’s nto right.

    Sessions recused himself from anyhthing having to do with either campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  90. My assertion that Mueller ought to be interviewing BHO about the Russian matter is about determining what he was told, and by whom and to outline any actions he may have taken with the knowledge he gleaned. These are some of the very same grounds upon which Mueller is insisting that DJT sit under oath.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  91. The FISA warrant sounds like when you sign up for three easy payments and they automatically draft your account every 90 days.

    Pinandpuller (25013a)

  92. DRJ: ah, yes, you’re right about my confusion on the timing. Thank you!

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  93. It’s a lot harder to cancel a FISA warrant if you aren’t completely satisfied.

    Pinandpuller (25013a)

  94. BTW, I have no fault to find whatsoever with McGahn’s cover memo under which the Committee majority’s memo was released. I therefore must give Trump credit for not (yet) intervening to screw up a piece of competent work by his WH counsel. (That’s a low bar, but Trump does get credit for exceeding it … this time.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  95. @ Ed: Whether it’s Trump or Obama, any prosecutor, whether special counsel or not, ought to have to satisfy the traditional requirements for an “apex examination” — including a showing that the prosecutor can’t get the information elsewhere, that the information the POTUS has is indeed material, and that the prosecutor has already exhausted every reasonable opportunity by interviewing/examining everyone lower on the totem pole.

    Mueller has apparently given the WH a list of ten or so subject areas that Mueller wants to ask about, including Trump’s involvement in the crafting of the dishonest statement released by Don Jr.’s lawyer about the Trump Tower meeting, and he’s either already exhausted, or is in the process of exhausting, all lesser-level witnesses.

    Some other prosecutor — not Mueller, and IMHO not even some other special counsel, but some genuinely apolitical DoJ prosecutor from, say, Montana — ought to be doing that with respect to those downstream from Obama, and yeah, I think they could probably get there, because no one but Obama can say what was in Obama’s head when he realized that, “Hey, I sent and received emails with Hillary regarding classified-from-birth matters on her clintononline.com email address.”

    Likewise, if Mueller is investigating Trump on potential obstruction of justice charges, Trump’s subjective intent is key, and he’s the only competent witness who can give direct evidence on that subject; all other evidence of his intent, including things he said in the past, is merely circumstantial evidence of that intent (although it can be very powerful circumstantial evidence). That’s why there’s no way that Trump can get out of being at least interviewed; and if a comparable investigation of Obama, Lynch et al. were indeed undertaken (or perhaps, fingers cross, is already underway), it would eventually get up to Obama, too. So we agree, I think, that there would be comparable grounds in due course for Obama to be examined.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  96. This seems to me to be the key section of the memo. Four opportunities to tell the judge the whole story about information and reliability of the source(s) that the officials who signed off knew or should have known might have affected the willingness of the judge to sign the warrant/renewal.

    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.

    If everything else the USG submitted supports the granting of the warrant/renewal you’d think there would be no problem correcting the record. So why didn’t they do it?

    crazy (d99a88)

  97. Mr. Finkleman, the emails from Hillary Clinton were while she was SecState, not while she was a presidential candidate.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  98. the delicious thing is how the dirty FBI – from the sleazy tippy-top suite where Chris Wray’s collecting his belongings to the lowliest rank-and-file goose-stepper – has been EPICALLY humiliated

    gotta love it

    we have sleazy hot-to-trot lawyers

    we have lying to judges

    we have destruction of evidence

    and obstruction of justice

    their brand is all stinky now like facebook and hollywood trash-biscuit Jennifer Lawrence

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. I know! All you n #NeverTRUMP lawyers, (Gabe, Beldar Patterico and Sammy I’m looking in your general direction!) start arguing how many corrupt FBI/DoJ denizens can sit on the head of a vibrating dildo, if held by a #NeverTRUMP legal counsel?

    Vastly more entertaining than this collection of drivel-like comments by y’all y’all!

    Nostromo (f4747e)

  100. The memo says that with respect to the original application, McCabe admitted in his December 2017 testimony to the Committee “that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” So whatever else may have accompanied the original application, at least in the judgment of the FBI official who submitted it (McCabe), that original application was a sine qua non, an essential condition, for its submission.

    Pertinent to note CNN is saying two [unnamed] Democratic Congressmen are alleging McCabe didn’t say that, and the Nunes memo is misstating what he did say. But they are not saying what he did say….

    Kishnevi (acea15)

  101. If I were the lying Democrats, I’d put something in the Democrat memo that could not possibly be released, then loudly complain that the GOP was stonewalling.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  102. @ Kish: I’d like to read the McCabe Q&A myself, yup.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  103. So, did the NSA’s “3 hop” rule apply to the Carter Page warrant? If so, it’s about a lot more than Carter Page.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  104. literally nobody’s clamoring for the Democrat memo

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. The memo is only three and a half pages?

    And yet you will never read it.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  106. Kevin M @107. Page and all his contacts…

    crazy (d99a88)

  107. The memo is only three and a half pages?

    Symmetry for history; probably about the same length his articles of impeachment will be.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. I didn’t realise Malor was #neverTrump but I guess that explains why Ace showed him the door.

    Mr Black (3089be)

  109. KevinM and Beldar… Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I was too busy to even listen to the news of this memo being released, much less read it. I’ve just read it and think it must be a difficult task to pull the salient points from what was reported to be thousands of pages of documentation, and condense it into four… but even a layman like me understands that what is described should trouble any thinking American, whatever the political affiliation.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. 101. Beldar (fa637a) — 2/2/2018 @ 1:55 pm

    101.Mr. Finkleman, the emails from Hillary Clinton were while she was SecState, not while she was a presidential candidate.

    I know that. What is this in reference to?

    Oh, you mean Sessions recusal didn’t cover that?

    Are you sure about that? I think it wqas a little bit more general:

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-jeff-sessions-says-he-will-recuse-1484063762-htmlstory.html

    Jeff Sessions says he will recuse himself from Clinton-related investigations if confirmed as attorney general.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump’s pick to be the next attorney general, testified before Congress on Tuesday that he would recuse himself from any investigations and prosecutions involving Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    Sessions and Trump called during the fall campaign for Clinton to be investigated and prosecuted for her use of a private email server, despite determinations by the FBI and Justice Department that her actions did not warrant charges. Since his election, Trump has said he did not support such an investigation or prosecution.

    Sessions said he had made comments during the “contentious” campaign about Clinton’s use of the email server and her family’s charitable foundation that could place his objectivity in question.

    “I believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Hillary Clinton,” the Alabama Republican told senators on the Judiciary Committee.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  111. 113. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/2/2018 @ 7:41 pm

    I was too busy to even listen to the news of this memo being released, much less read it.

    It’s hard to comprehend all this material.

    People are making mistakes:

    @28 and 57 and 59 happyfeet says the FBI used the dossier they got from John McCain for the warrant. Error! The FBI indeed got it from John McCAin – but that was in December, and they already had it, or an earlier version, and the FISA warrant was granted on October 21, 2016.

    @45 aphrael says that “in October of 2016, I think it’s a stretch to consider Trump to be a major candidate; this was before his run of successes when everyone in Washington thought he was a joke.”

    Error! In October 2015 that waas true, but the FISa warrant was granted in October 2016, by which time Trump was indeed a major candidate, and who said anything about october, 2015 anyway?

    @70 Beldar says Mueller kicked McCabe off the team. Error! Mueller did not kick McCabe off the team – McCabe recused himself from the Clinton investigation in very late October 2016 and I think he was off the Trump investigation before Mueller was appointed. Mueller kicked Peter Strzok off the team.

    @44 nariciso says the FISA warrant led to indictments. Maybe there was another one that led to indictments, but Carter Page was nevee indicted, and in fact is suing the government, and the Manafort & associate indictments and the Flynn and Papadopoulos guilty pleas probably had nothing to do with the warrant or even the dossier.
    So it’s hard for me to see this as politically motivated, and I’m *way* more interested in finding out whether or not there’s any substance to the accusation that Page, and others, were working for the Russians.

    (e0cdc9) — 2/2/2018 @ 11:42 am

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  112. So it’s hard for me to see this as politically motivated, and I’m *way* more interested in finding out whether or not there’s any substance to the accusation that Page, and others, were working for the Russians.

    Wronmg quoted.

    The Russians gave up Page because he wasn’t working for them.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4626 secs.