Patterico's Pontifications

2/5/2018

Well, Well, Well: Nunes Admits the Partisan Origins of the Dossier *Had* Been Disclosed After All

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:00 pm



Listen up, young people: Emily Litella is a character developed by Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live. Each week, she would fly into a rage about something that she had misheard (“what’s all this I hear about violins on TV?” and then at the end of her rant, someone would whisper the real thing in her ear (“it’s actually “violence”) and she would say: “Oh. Never mind!”

Now Devin Nunes is in line to be Emily Litella’s successor. Today he admitted that his huge, explosive #TheMemo — which alleged that the FBI concealed the political origins of a dossier — got one fairly significant fact wrong: namely, that detail had not been concealed, but rather had been disclosed:

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

. . . .

“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,” the memo alleged.

But in an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Nunes was asked about reports over the weekend that the FBI application did refer to a political entity connected to the dossier. It is unclear precisely what language the application might have used.

Nunes conceded that a “footnote” to that effect was included in the application, while faulting the bureau for failing to provide more specifics.

“A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,” Nunes said on “Fox & Friends.”

Never mind!

News flash, fellas: if this revelation comes as news to you, you got suckered. It was always obvious that Devin Nunes was a partisan, unreliable character — and thus it was always likely that this memo was, essentially, garbage. The clues were all there, for anyone who bothered to look. For example: #TheMemo claimed that James Comey had testified that the entire dossier was “salacious and unverified,” when Comey’s publicly available testimony showed that he had said nothing of the sort. And #TheMemo implied (and countless partisan commentators repeated) that Carter Page had been employed by the Trump campaign when the initial FISA application was sought, when in reality he had stepped down from the campaign nearly a month before.

And now this.

This is why I said three days ago, when #TheMemo was released:

Amid all the excitement over the Devin Nunes #TheMemo, it is important to remember that it is a partisan summary of FISA warrant applications that we the People have not been allowed to see. . . . Remember: Nunes is someone who already showed himself to be of questionable credibility when it came to defending Trump’s claim that Obama wiretapped him. Now he’s misrepresenting public testimony that anyone can read. Yet we’re supposed to believe his summary of a still-classified FISA warrant based on these broad-brush smears?

Always trust content from Patterico.

The correction will get nowhere near as much attention as the original smear, of course. On Twitter, this sort of thing happens so often that it’s a meme of sorts: Original falsehood: 10,000 retweets. Correction: 27 retweets.

Still, the facts are the facts. And now the Trumpian defense will move to arguments like “it wasn’t disclosed enough” and other partisan arguments — all of which rely on the very same #TheMemo that totally and completely misstated this fact to begin with.

At a certain point, sensible people are going to increasingly demand what I and several others have been demanding all along: #ReleaseTheDocumentation. Meaning: release the original application and the renewals in redacted form, so we can see what the FISA court was really looking at. (It’s hard to make a hashtag out of that; sorry — I tried my best.)

And if you can’t release that, then I’m not listening to your partisan, incomplete, misleading summaries — from either side.

#ReleaseTheDocumentation or go home.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

436 Responses to “Well, Well, Well: Nunes Admits the Partisan Origins of the Dossier *Had* Been Disclosed After All”

  1. The FBI did a heck of a job, Brownie.

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  2. I repeat what I said on Friday, when the memo was released: Let’s see the underlying materials so we know what was and wasn’t disclosed.

    Dem congressmen have argued throughout the past weekend that the application disclosed that the dossier had some sort of political origin, but they’ve conceded that it didn’t identify which political origin. Maybe that was nonetheless obvious from the context. But let’s see, before anyone starts doing victory laps.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  3. Right, foot note in multipage document.

    Everything is partisan, btw

    Hang in there

    EPWJ (0e6a6f)

  4. Patterico–

    How does that change anything. I pointed this “revelation” out in a comment last week, as it came out in a WaPo article on Friday (which I linked).

    They told the Court that their application was based on an uncorroborated document paid for by a “political entity” and the Court signed off on it anyway.

    This does not let the FBI off the hook — they still obfuscated the provenance, but it casts a TERRIBLE light on the FISA court. Why did they accept the tainted “evidence”?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  5. Or do you argue that if the FBI had said “Our evidence is based on a raft of gossip collected at the behest of the Clinton campaign” that the court would still have signed off on the warrant? If so, we need to start impeaching judges.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  6. Yes, here we go: http://patterico.com/2018/02/02/a-significant-inaccuracy-in-thememo-calls-its-credibility-into-question/#comment-2085233

    The money quote in the article, in DEFENSE of the application was:

    “No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said.

    Read that again, and tell me that the judge was on board with this.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  7. Hmm. wonder if an LA County Deputy DA in the gang unit would present a search warrant affidavit to a Judge, wherein he set forth allegations from a CI and simply noted in a footnote that the CI was a longstanding gang member….but in fact the CI was in a rival gang and had been engaged in several recent violent confrontations with the subject of the search warrant. Methinks a Judge would look more skeptically on the affidavit with that fact revealed.

    Pete (a65bac)

  8. I fear that our host wants so very badly for Trump to be impeached for whatever charge sticks. He takes such spittle-spewing glee is showing up this memo.

    I can see Trump being impeached for conduct unbecoming, or maybe even incompetence, but to go after him for a process crime like “obstruction” (of another process crime) after Hillary shat all over the really-important laws about state secrets that little people serve decades for accidentally infringing … I have no words.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  9. Good question Pete.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  10. That’s my takeaway, too. Teh Lake Superior of wrongdoing by the FBI and DOJ has been irrevocably tainted by the floating Baby Ruth.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. A bakery owner hires a young female shop assistant who liked to wear very short skirts and thong panties.

    One day a young man enters the store, glances at the shop assistant and at the loaves of bread behind the counter.

    Noticing her short skirt and the location of the raisin bread, he has a brilliant idea. “I’d like some raisin bread please,” the man says.

    The shop assistant nods and climbs up a ladder to reach the raisin bread located on the very top shelf.

    The man standing almost directly beneath her is provided with an excellent view, just as he thought.

    When she descends the ladder, he decides that he had better get two loaves.

    As the shop assistant retrieves the second loaf of bread, one of the other male customers notices what’s going on and requests his own loaf of raisin bread.

    After many trips she is tired and irritated and begins to wonder, “Why the unusual interest in the raisin bread?” Atop the ladder one more time, she looks down and glares at the men standing below. Then, she notices an elderly man standing with them.

    Thinking that she can save herself another trip, she yells at the elderly man, “Is it raisin for you too?”

    “No,” he stammers, “But it’s quivering a little.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. Hmm. wonder if an LA County Deputy DA in the gang unit would present a search warrant affidavit to a Judge, wherein he set forth allegations from a CI and simply noted in a footnote that the CI was a longstanding gang member….but in fact the CI was in a rival gang and had been engaged in several recent violent confrontations with the subject of the search warrant. Methinks a Judge would look more skeptically on the affidavit with that fact revealed.

    Depends on what the affidavit says and whether the truth of the facts originating with the CI depended on the credibility of the CI. Nobody in the system would even begin to offer an opinion on a question like this without reading the affidavit. What you and Kevin M are doing is akin to making a decision after reading the defense brief summarizing the affidavit without quotes.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  13. I fear that our host wants so very badly for Trump to be impeached for whatever charge sticks. He takes such spittle-spewing glee is showing up this memo.

    I can see Trump being impeached for conduct unbecoming, or maybe even incompetence, but to go after him for a process crime like “obstruction” (of another process crime) after Hillary shat all over the really-important laws about state secrets that little people serve decades for accidentally infringing … I have no words.

    What a silly comment.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  14. The quote I offered in #6 was from someone who had read the application. A fuller quote from the article:

    The Justice Department made “ample disclosure of relevant, material facts” to the court that revealed “the research was being paid for by a political entity,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

    “No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said.

    Now, maybe I’m misreading this and they mean: “sure it was biased crap, but we included it because it added to the other, more important stuff” but that doesn’t work if McCabe’s statement that it was critical to the application is true.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  15. I am not inclined to give the FISA process a break here, because it was set up to catch terrorists and other clear & present dangers, and Carter Page is still a free man with no hint of blowing things up, so they are misusing this power even if it was all straight up and by-the-board.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  16. What a silly comment.

    I am sorry you cannot see what comes through in these posts. If “glee” isn’t the word, I don’t know what it is. You’ve developed a slant.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  17. Looks to me an Independent can be just as partisan in his Independent registration as the most partisan Republican or Democrat. Their cause is just more self promoting than the others.

    TheBas (a9a478)

  18. I am sorry you cannot see what comes through in these posts. If “glee” isn’t the word, I don’t know what it is. You’ve developed a slant.

    It’s called “hyperpartisanship”

    random viking (6a54c2)

  19. “I can see Trump being impeached for conduct unbecoming, or maybe even incompetence, but to go after him for a process crime like “obstruction” (of another process crime) after Hillary shat all over the really-important laws about state secrets that little people serve decades for accidentally infringing … I have no words.”

    Other People’s Lives. It’s a mindset. The fish stinks from the head.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  20. FTA Gowdy explained this pretty clearly:

    “I read the footnote. I know exactly what the footnote says,” Gowdy said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It took longer to explain it the way they did, than if they just come right out and said, ‘Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.’ But they didn’t do that.”

    crazy (d99a88)

  21. You I’ll get no traction around here with that sober-minded take, crazy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Don’t be so hard on our host. He recently threw a bone with this:

    “California: Donald Trump looks more sane than you on this (health care) issue. Chew on that for a while.”

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  23. Good advocates know the danger of being “too cute” or, worse, “too cute by half.” (I’m not sure why the latter is worse, but I have a firm sense somehow that it is.) Basically we’re afraid that’s what the judge is going to mutter when he catches us in some argument that, while technically accurate, is disingenuous. One too many “too cutes by half” and the judge is going to assume that everything we’ve told him is only “technically true,” and that our overall presentation is therefore shoddy and misleading in context. Over-arguing is a mistake.

    The converse of this: Most advocates who are trying to make a career at it pay attention to their reputations, and they take great care — extra care — to be sure they’re being not only correct in the most technical sense but also fair and non-misleading in an overall sense, considering all the relevant context.

    Many lay people who hate lawyers think that the really good ones are the ones who, like Bill Clinton famously did with his “depends on the meaning of ‘is’ is” line, split hairs the finest. The truth is, those lawyers mostly suck. Bill Clinton is a smart guy but I’ve never seen a lick of evidence that he was a skilled lawyer, by the way. Bill Clinton was never not too cute by half.

    Before I get to the conclusion that in crafting the memo and the narrative around it, the GOP members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Foreign Intelligence have been “too cute” or “too cute by half,” I want to read the Dems’ countermemo. (I don’t expect it to contain surprises, the Dems would’ve leaked any blockbusters already.)

    And then I want to see the source materials. I think that’s actually going to happen; the only question is: soon, or in a while yet?

    @ Kevin M: Thanks for troubling to look back at the state of argument; I was pretty sure that both the Dems’ objection and the GOP response had been previewed in the press on Friday, but I couldn’t remember off the top of my head where I’d seen or heard that. However: When and if our host joins the far left in calling for Trump’s impeachment, I’m pretty sure he’ll let us all know in pretty unequivocal terms.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  24. #TheMemo claimed that James Comey had testified that the entire dossier was “salacious and unverified,” when Comey’s publicly available testimony showed that he had said nothing of the sort.

    If the memo contained a footnote clarifying that, you would’ve laughed your noggin off.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  25. “And now the Trumpian defense will move to arguments like “it wasn’t disclosed enough” and other partisan arguments.”

    Is that really the best you have for to excuse the FBI for not being completely candid and and telling the court the whole truth–it being the Clinton campaign who was paying Steele? Why do you think the FBI deliberately omitted this fact? Perhaps you move tot the “anti-Trumpian” attack that this fact didn’t really matter, the FISA court would have signed it anyways, and other partisan arguments.

    Pete (a65bac)

  26. 22… still waiting for even the tiniest bit of interest shown in the weaponization/politicization of the DOJ and FBI, AZBob.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. A timeline

    H/T Instapundit.

    With nary a not to pick, this should horrify any law abiding American.

    TheBas (a9a478)

  28. Nit to pick…

    TheBas (a9a478)

  29. I am entirely open to evidence that my overall suspicions are invalid. The overall weight of the “knowns” remains very compelling to me.

    It beggars belief, for example, that Wray removed McCabe hours after reading the memo for no good reason which is not directly related to FBI actions in this matter. However, I wasn’t in the room.

    And yes, Always trust content from Patterico!

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  30. Now Devin Nunes is in line to be Emily Litella’s successor.

    Maxwell Smart.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. the slicked-up and sleazy FBI can’t be trusted they’re so corrupt!

    they colluded with a dirty FISA judge to do illegal spying on American citizens

    the FBI needs to be abolished and if you’re an informer for them you should tell them to eff off back to the pickle farm, cause these gestapo FBI people are dirty birdies that’s for sure

    you can’t trust them

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  32. I am sorry you cannot see what comes through in these posts. If “glee” isn’t the word, I don’t know what it is. You’ve developed a slant

    I have an opinion, yes. But the use of the word “glee” wasn’t the silly part. Here’s the silly part:

    I fear that our host wants so very badly for Trump to be impeached for whatever charge sticks. He takes such spittle-spewing

    I’ll not deny that I take pleasure in having it revealed that Nunes has been shown to be deceptive in yet another way. Everyone was so cocksure three days ago that not a word had been said about a political slant on the part of Steele. Honestly, go back and read the commentariat’s comments.

    Yet every time I point out how silly it is to take this partisan memo at face value, I’m treated like a traitor to the cause, and as a Hillary-loving guy who loves watching the FBI abuse the process to get Trump. I keep saying “silly” because that is how people are acting. Whatever. I can’t control your behavior. It’s just fun to watch how fifteen years of consistent conservative messaging is thrown to the wayside in service of the orange narcissist liar and the insane conspiratorial fantasies that prop him up. It’s a demonstration of how tenuous the following i thought I had really is, which ought to really serve as a life lesson to me to forsake even reading comments and concentrate on my real life, which matters in a way this doesn’t remotely begin to.

    So in the end I should really thank you.

    So thank you.

    Patterico (a217ed)

  33. obviously it’s even worse if the dirty fat-and happy FISA judge approved spying using oppo research from a “political entity”

    did the sloppy butt-lick FISA judge even ask who the entity was?

    Nope!

    clearly, the takeaway here isn’t that the Nunes memo is misleading

    it’s that the FISA court’s a sick rubber-stamping gestapo joke

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  34. I can easily imagine many examples where the initial information in the warrant could have came from Satan incarnate, and it would not matter a bit. Why, it could come from an even worse and more evil source: Hillary Clinton herself. If it’s verified independently, its origin doesn’t mean squat. And again: nobody in the legal field would even consider making judgments like this without reading the warrant itself. Only in the land of partisan politiics would such a foolish endeavor be considered sensible.

    Patterico (a217ed)

  35. Hugh Hewitt in the Washington Post:

    “Trump torque” is pulling on everyone in the news business, in all directions. His critics are often overheated and refuse to admit accomplishments or unprofessional hits. His defenders almost scream best-case scenarios that are ludicrous and ignore his errors, missteps and misstatements. It’s harder and harder to keep this torque from twisting every single story in one direction or another.

    It shouldn’t operate anywhere but especially not in the area of national security. The non-disclosure of a material fact in an application for a FISA warrant — its minimization, indeed one could argue its camouflaging — is a very big deal and its provenance should be thoroughly investigated. It threatens to undermine every warrant submitted to a FISA court.

    It’s not about President Trump, or shouldn’t be. It’s about when American courts approve surveillance of Americans. And that’s every American’s concern.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nunes-memo-revealed-a-damning-omission/2018/02/05/189f05e0-0a91-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.d14d59a5bd9e

    Stu707 (ad925f)

  36. It shouldn’t operate anywhere but especially not in the area of national security.

    poor Hugh’s still operating under the delusion that the slicked-up corrupt FBI has something to do with “national security”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  37. Did Lon Horiuchi tell a judge he was actually aiming at Randy Weaver’s baby?

    Pinandpuller (324492)

  38. “Trump torque”

    Stu707 (ad925f) — 2/5/2018 @ 10:32 pm

    I’m glad you posted that. I was just thinking everyone and their brother is stripping their nuts.

    Pinandpuller (324492)

  39. > I fear that our host wants so very badly for Trump to be impeached for whatever charge sticks.

    I can’t speak for anyone but me, AND speaking for myself:

    I experience no glee in imagining President Trump removed from office. Instead I imagine how badly we will have been harmed, in the process of getting there, and I weep.

    There are two competing narratives. In one, Trump is (at best) a Russian stooge, and a foreign government has (in effect) taken over the levers of power — and the strong stand taken against Trump by the intelligence agencies is a *result* of this. In the other, the Democrats have corrupted the intelligence agencies and are using them to drive out the people’s choice for President.

    Both of these stories tell of a catastrophe. It’s totally clear, I think, to *everyone* that we are in a crisis.

    Isn’t this sort of crisis *exactly* when we should be adhering to our principles, rather than abandoning them? Isn’t a time with this much bombast and noise the time when it matters the most whether we evaluate evidence in reasoned ways, consistent with everything we’ve learned about evidence?

    The *best thing* anyone can say about the memo was that it was an intentional lie by implication.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  40. Mr. Nunes has done more to expose the corruption at the poophole FBI than any single individual in america

    all while cowardly war hero trash like John McCain fights to perpetuate the cover-up

    advantage: Mr. Nunes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  41. Yeah aphrael, you had me until the last sentence. Without the first narrative, the second narrative doesn’t even come into the picture. And, the *best thing* anyone can say about the first narrative is that it is an intentional lie.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  42. Today he admitted that his huge, explosive #TheMemo — which alleged that the FBI concealed the political origins of a dossier — got one fairly significant fact wrong: namely, that detail had not been concealed, but rather had been disclosed:

    Mr. Patterico this is a mischaracterize of what the memo alleges!

    Specifically, what the Nunes memo says the corrupt FBI concealed from the sleazy FISA rubber stamp court is that:

    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.

    did you catch that?

    the memo says specifically that the slutboy FISA judge was not informed about who FUNDED the John McCain/Chris Steele hooker urination dossier

    And this by all reports is true.

    The memo in fact doubles down on this point – again asserting that the lickspittle FBI failed to inform the court about the FUNDING of the Steele material.

    The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named US person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a US law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOI 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.

    the memo simply does not say what you say it says, as even the politico article makes VERY clear

    This idea that the Nunes memo had asserted that the “FBI concealed the political origins of a dossier” is a straw man!

    And of course i abjure this.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  43. You are absolutely unhinged. You could not be farther from the truth and makes me wonder if part of your practice has ever involved actually having a hand in seeking search warrants.

    1. The FBI knew that the Clinton campaign and DNC had paid for Steele’s work.
    2. While the language in the footnote is not yet known, the reporting is that the footnote did not specify that the Steele information was paid for by the Clinton campaign/DNC.
    3. The reporting is that the footnote made reference to the fact that the party behind the Steele work had a political motive for wanting to uncover the information that Steele provided.
    4. The Dems have seized on this as evidence that the Nunes Memo is dishonest, and that the FBI was forthcoming with the FISA court on the issue of the Steele information having a political angle.

    Let’s consider what the Memo says on the subject:

    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,

    What’s wrong with that statement? Nothing. Tbe affidavit did not disclose the specific information known to the Bureau.

    But the next question is the important one — what possible purpose was served by leaving the specific information out????

    FISA applications are classified. They are never litigated. They are never subject to adversarial testing of their accuracy or veracity. What the FISC has is its faith that the Gov’t will be forthcoming with its information when it seeks a warrant.

    So when the Affiant on the Application has to select the language in describing the political motive behind the Steele information, he can write:

    1. “The information provided by Steele was the product of work performed by him under contract to the US company Fusion GPS, which was retained and compensated for that work by the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee.”

    or

    2. “The information provided by Steele was the product of work performed by him under contract with a US firm that provides research to political organizations and has a political interest or bias which is reflected in its work.”

    Why would the agent include a description akin to No. 2 rather than the specific information known to him consistent with No. 1?

    The point is that it DOES NOT MATTER that the affiant included some form of obscured disclosure regarding the politically biased nature of the sourcing on the Steele information.

    What is important is that the Agent — with the support of FBI and DOJ senior management — CHOSE to withhold from the FISC the specific information that he had.

    The warrant was issued on Oct. 21. The election was on Nov. 8.

    Do you think that they maybe feared that if the FISC was told that the Court were being asked to use information from the Democrat Party/DNC to issue a surveillance warrant on a person connected to the Trump campaign, only 18 days from the election, that the Court might have questioned being used in that fashion, and turn down the warrant? Hadn’t the FISC already turned down an earlier request for a FISA warrant??

    In a FISA context there is NO REASON to withhold information from the FISC, unless you fear that the information might reduce your chances of getting the Court’s approval.

    And lets not forget one other thing that is critically important with regard to DOJ relations with the FISA Court at this particular point in time, and why DOJ/FBI might have felt compelled to mislead the court by omitting information.

    On April 26, 2017, the FISC issued a heavily redacted Order setting forth the circumstances, inquiry, and resolution of what it deemed to be massive violations of the minimization procedures for surveillance conducted under Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In that Order the Court laid out the following timeline for how the problems came to the Court’s attention.

    On October 24, 2016, the Government orally apprised the FISC of significant non-compliance of the NSA’s minimization procedures.

    Two days later, on October 26, 2016, the Government made a written submission with regard to the non-compliance problems.

    According to the Order: “The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General review and report and an NSA Office of Compliance for Operations (OCO) verification activities indicated that, with greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used US Person identifiers to query the results of internet “upstream” collection….

    “Since 2011, the NSA Minimization procedures have prohibited use of US Person identifiers to query the results of upstream internet collections under Sec. 702.

    “At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government’s failure to disclose the IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an “institutional lack of candor”…, and emphasized this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.

    Now put the Page FISA application in that time frame.

    Between Oct. 4 and Oct. 24, the Government KNOWS it is going to have a credibility problem with the FISC because it didn’t disclose to the Court on Oct. 4 what it knew about the minimization abuses by analysts under Sec. 702.

    The FISA warrant for Page goes to the FISC on October 21.

    On October 24, the Government first apprises the FISC Court of the abuse problems, and there is a hearing on the subject on Oct. 26.

    DOJ knew it was on shaky ground and its credibility was under strain – or about to be under even greater strain — with the FISC at the time it was preparing the Page affidavit.

    If DOJ and the FBI had been forthright — “We want to use the power of the intelligence apparatus of the US to surveil the Trump campaign based on information given to us by the Clinton campaign” — there was a very good chance the FISC would have said no.

    So they mislead the Court by not giving the Court all the information they had.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  44. Patrick: do you think “partisan sources” is the same as “Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC” ? Does that tell the judge all he needs to know? Would you feel the same if you were defending someone and the prosecuter was so obscure in informing the judge?

    sd Harms (84960b)

  45. Best case: The feebs were so completely forthcoming that Patterico is satisfied with their work. Thus, it’s the FISA court which is corrupt. Not sure that’s an improvement, even if the footnote can be obfuscated to condemn Nunes and the memo.

    Richard Aubrey (d7bc30)

  46. There has been a meme making the rounds that there was evidence of “collusion” because someone in the Trump campaign accepted, or was trying to accept, political dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian source or sources.

    Can someone tell me what crime exactly that is? Is there a law that says you can only accept political dirt from a domestic, but not a foreign source?

    And, if so, why was hiring Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, by the DNC, legal?

    Bored Lawyer (fe5e63)

  47. Nunes wasnt deceptive, the fisa application was.

    EPWJ (0e6a6f)

  48. You could not be farther from the truth and makes me wonder if part of your practice has ever involved actually having a hand in seeking search warrants.

    That’s funny, shipwreckedcrew. Because that has always been my opinion of people who thought that the Nunes memo was a magic bullet. Unless Illinois v. Gates has been overruled and we’re back to Aguilar-Spinelli.

    The test for probable cause for a search warrant is totality of circumstances. The informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are all highly relevant in determining the value of the information presented to the court, but they are NOT entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case. They are only intertwined issues that MAY usefully illuminate the common sense, practical question whether there is “probable cause” to believe that a crime is being committed. (Paraphrasing Rehnquist).

    #WeNeedToReadTheWholeAffidavit

    nk (dbc370)

  49. For crying out loud, how many snitches, pardon me “confidential informants”, who can provide detailed information about a criminal conspiracy are unbiased? Most have a gripe against the suspect, or are in the pay of, or under threat from, the police to provide information either for money or to stay out of jail themselves.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. Nk,

    I don’t know too many people who thought Nunes was a magic bullet. Also, this was written by Trey Gowdy, not Nunes.

    EPWJ (0e6a6f)

  51. What on Earth are you talking about, Eric? Earth being the operative word.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. swc 40:

    Hadn’t the FISC already turned down an earlier request for a FISA warrant??

    Can you give me a link for this claim? I can’t find it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  53. To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  54. swc,

    Wasn’t the October 2016 notice re the minimization process about unmasking, not inadequate or incomplete warrant applications?

    My understanding is the Obama Administration has been using (abusing) this unmasking power for years. I also understood you to discount this when I mentioned it recently as a reason why the Obama Administration did not need to use FISA to investigate Trump, and in practice only the FBI needed a FISA warrant. Now you seem to be conflating the two. The FBI does not have the power to unmask, does it?

    Finally, can’t a FISC Judge ask the FBI to identify or provide more information about the basis for its application?

    DRJ (15874d)

  55. You are absolutely unhinged.

    Not the best first sentence for a long comment if you want people to read the whole comment.

    The accusations against me from longtime readers are pretty hyperbolic. Why, I am unhinged (swc) and want Trump impeached for anything they can find (Kevin M)! And what is my Huge Crime? Not trusting in a summary of a document that we are not allowed to read, when that summary has proven partisan and inaccurate in several ways. So very unhinged!!!

    You’re all talking in hypotheticals because you don’t really know what the document says because President Trump won’t let you see it. If it were Obama refusing to declassify a document that is supposedly an outrage, you’d see in an instant how little sense that makes. So people scream at me “SO YOU’RE OK WITH AN APPLICATION THAT SAYS [insert whatever they are making up in their head about what they imagine it says based on partisans’ descriptions]]?!?!?!?? Um, no, I just don’t know what it says because I do not trust these people.

    OMG so unhinged!!

    Patterico (a217ed)

  56. Thank you, hf. Your link eventually link is back to this Guardian report, but I’ve never seen any evidence for its claim about a rejected application. Nevertheless, it could be true. Much of what the Guardian report said a year ago does seem to be true.

    If so, doesn’t this support the idea that the FISC Judge can inquire and independently evaluate applications? Maybe it is not a rubber stamp.

    DRJ (15874d)

  57. If Carter Page left the Trump Campaign before the FISA warrent was issued, what in hell was the FBI’s justification for wiretapping Trump Tower?

    ropelight (bb751c)

  58. happyfeet, did the FBI wiretapp (sic) Trump Tower? I’ll believe you.

    nk (dbc370)

  59. that’s the only rejection the sleazy FISA court has ever done that we know about i think

    they have like a 99.97% approval rate (no questions asked)

    this is why people call them the “sleazy rubberstampin’ FISA joke court”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. the FBI is no good Mr. nk

    you can’t trust them they’re very treasony

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  61. I am now completely overcome with curiosity to see the counter-memo. Will it say anything about the ‘political’ footnote?

    What if it does not? Does that also make the Democrats who wrote it dishonest? Or stupid?

    If it does, was Nunes stupid or dishonest in failing to mention it? Normally I assume stupidity before dishonesty, but Nunes is a member of America’s only unique criminal class, so I can’t do that here.

    Don’t forget, Republicans are the stupid party that thirsts for death.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  62. I will take that as a no, happyfeet. The FBI did not wiretapp, or even wiretap, Trump Tower.

    nk (dbc370)

  63. the FBI did a LOT of snooping for Hillary

    we know that for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  64. The problem is not that the accusations in the warrant came from people who had an axe to grind. The problem is that it came from enemies who heard it on the grapevine. And the pump was primed by $12 million.

    Was Christopher Steel a percipient witness to the prostitutes peeing on the bed?

    AZ Bob (f60c80)

  65. Fred Z, if Mueller can remain at least 50% ethical, he might be the best thing that could have happened to Trump. To blow away all the political smoke and report “just the facts, ma’am”.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Calling somebody a “drunkard” is a far cry from a photo of “drunken sex with a bearded lady and an elephant”

    NeoMany corporations incorporate in Deleware because of the (d1c681)

  67. nk, it’s a sad, sad thing that you are forced to write about a very senior lawyer and civil servant, a Director of the FBI for 12 years “if Mueller can remain at least 50% ethical” because of sincere doubts about his ethics.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  68. swc,

    However, I am coming around to what I think is your position that this was a rogue effort by a few upper echelon FBI administrators, who bypassed the normal process because they were worried about Trump. I could see that happening.

    DRJ (15874d)

  69. So the fbi used carter page to uncover two svr operatives and perhAps in revenge, the same agency fed page back to Steele, and contreras we are left to assume? Approved the fisa warrant based on that, a little like DiCaprio although he’s not dead yet.

    narciso (5c89af)

  70. Because they wanted Hillary to win, these same officials didn’t stint in closing down the Chapman ring because one was on contact with patricof.

    narciso (5c89af)

  71. Saying to the court it came from “political origins” and saying “it came from Hillary’s campaign” which is “political origins” is two entirely different things.

    Telling someone the Eagles won the superbowl and saying the Eagles beat the Patriots in the super bowl – while still both be true – does inform the receiver of two quite different items.

    Steve_in_SoCal (58e1f9)

  72. Who in turn was big bundlers, for Hillary, Patrick Poole has sussed out that connection

    narciso (5c89af)

  73. In March 2016 Carter Page Was an FBI Employee – In October 2016 FBI Told FISA Court He’s a Spy…

    Neo (d1c681)

  74. Just as if the public had been appraised of the fact that Woodward and Bernstein’s source felt had supervised break in operations to gather evidence on terrorist, they might haveooked

    narciso (5c89af)

  75. well well well….
    so if the FISA was rejected the first time,
    seems like your saying the FBI/DOJ shopped for
    the right corrupt judge.
    I couldn’t agree with you more.

    jb (a3c1bc)


  76. Law of Institutions familiar to anyone with a knowledge of Public Choice theory: Over time, those within an institution whose highest priority is the well-being of the institution and the maintenance of its prerogatives will contrive to rise above and filter out persons not so inclined.

    The FBI has reached a point where the only reason for its continued existence is as a secret police force for political purposes. Its original mission, to thwart assassination and arrest anarchists is long gone, prohibition is over, and they used the RICO act to exterminate the Mafia. They have continued using the RICO act as an unconstitutional way of destroying any person they want by declaring him (yes, even an individual) as a conspiracy and a racket. They have made it that should an FBI agent charge a private citizen with “lying to the FBI,” a felony crime of unique nature, the burden of proof lies on the accused. This is not how the American criminal justice system is supposed to operate.

    The FBI needs to be eliminated.

    *Disclaimer*
    The previous opinion, experience or observation is that of an ignorant bigot. Reader discretion is advised.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  77. Good point, Neo. In both cases the FBI used Page to spy on the target(s) of their investigation. First with his knowledge and cooperation, later apparently without either.

    crazy (d99a88)

  78. As we’re finding out, the genesis of the investigation was unethical.

    It’s one thing to have a crime that needs to be solved; to identify a suspect; and investigate whether there’s a case against him.

    It’s another to pick a person you don’t like and search for some crime you can pin on him. Which, I think, is what’s going on here.

    nk (dbc370)

  79. Looked skeptically on said claims, there are aspects of that red shoe film with hanks.

    narciso (5c89af)

  80. Gang prosecutors know nothing about seeking search warrants – only *federal* prosecutors know anything about seeking search warrants.*

    *(But simultaneously disregard my argument that the federal law enforcement apparatus is corrupt and politically motivated to the point of falsifying an affidavit for a warrant)

    Leviticus (51e6ff)

  81. It’s another to pick a person you don’t like and search for some crime you can pin on him. Which, I think, is what’s going on here.

    I keep hearing Hillary’s name in the comments and so I say..

    Whitewaterfails-transitiontoblowjobs

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  82. People living in Cantafordya are a disgrace to common sense. Grow up and move.

    mg (12e7ab)

  83. Law of Institutions familiar to anyone with a knowledge of Public Choice theory: Over time, those within an institution whose highest priority is the well-being of the institution and the maintenance of its prerogatives will contrive to rise above and filter out persons not so inclined.

    Like Pournelle’s Iron Law, #TellUsSomethingWeDon’tKnow. It’s true about every organization. The biggest and longest-lived examples are the Churches. Governments follow. And aren’t you a veteran and a Mason? Aren’t the Army and the Masons just like that, too?

    Disclaimer: This comment does not contain iodine, an essential nutrient.

    nk (dbc370)

  84. Don’t panic hoagie, but you might look at your treasure chest on Wall Street.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  85. Excessive attachment to a political ideology or faction causes people to think poorly and act badly. Nobody is exempt.

    vin (9314fe)

  86. President Donald Trump came into office promising to reduce the U.S. trade deficit — and by that measure alone, his first year might be considered a dud.

    The U.S. trade deficit increased more than 12 percent in 2017, to $566 billion — its highest level since 2008, according to figures released on Tuesday by the Commerce Department.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/06/trump-trade-disaster-325749

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  87. Protectionist- in- chief

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  88. And re good faith, ask Dr. Stephen hatfill about Mueller, and comey.

    narciso (5c89af)

  89. I guess there is a,comparison with the,search for the Unabomber but the bureau didn’t pull in their two leads there.

    narciso (5c89af)

  90. Lol..torquetool trump

    Today it was confirmed that America’s 45th president will be Donald J Trump and speculation has now begun in earnest on how the news could potentially impact on trade – and the fastener and tool industries.

    While currency and investment markets are experiencing a predictably volatile day as they react to the news – though perhaps not quite as volatile as expected – Trump’s policies, if enacted, appear to have significant implications for the fastener and tool trades.

    http://torque-expo.com/how-the-trump-presidency-might-affect-thenn-global-fastener-and-tool-industries

    I thought it was the Onion, lol.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  91. Wait but Cody shearer brought us another file!

    narciso (5c89af)

  92. Admittedly this whole productions,appears,like that terrible Bullwinkle film with denies and Russo (strikes Heston pose in front of statue of liberty)

    narciso (5c89af)


  93. 84.Don’t panic hoagie, but you might look at your treasure chest on Wall Street.
    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/6/2018 @ 7:39 am


    Why would I panic comrade Ben!? You obviously don’t understand what a short term trader does. I don’t buy stock, I trade them. At the end of the day all my trading accounts have a cash position. I only hold securities in my mutual fund accounts and I even move them around. As I type this I have to my right another laptop with my personal Level II trade platform where I buy and sell. The last week of trades has been one of the most profitable since I began doing this in 2008. I trade based on fluxuations, comrade not based on whether the market goes up or down. Either way I’ll make money.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  94. swc,

    However, I am coming around to what I think is your position that this was a rogue effort by a few upper echelon FBI administrators, who bypassed the normal process because they were worried about Trump. I could see that happening.

    It’s possible, but we really have no idea based on what we know.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  95. 55 — because you comment, in its totality, is the quintessential example of the expression “straining at gnats while swallowing a camel.”

    For example — what difference does it make whether Page had left the campaign a month before the application was sought, but the Memo refers to Page as being a Trump advisor?

    Does the memo inaccurately describe Page with regard to his precise status on Oct. 21, 2016? Yes.

    Does that mistake in any way undercut the conclusion of the Memo? No.

    I think maybe the difference is that you seem to be reading the Memo for the proposition that what DOJ and FBI did was illegal, and using what you see as inaccuracies as a basis to discount that conclusion.

    I read the Memo for the proposition that time timing and action of the FBI and DOJ actors make it clear that they were motivated by politics and not intelligence gathering — which IMO is far worse.

    The fact that Page had left his role as campaign advisor a month before the application is meaningless in terms of whether or not the specific FBI/DOJ personnel involved were motivated by politics to seek the application to surveil him. And keep in mind that FISA applications do not spring up overnight. They take weeks to put together.

    Whatever Page’s connection to the campaign might have been on Oct. 21, 2016, there is NO DOUBT that he was with the Trump campaign when the decision was made to begin the process for getting a FISA warrant on him him, and there is no doubt that Strzok was animated about his own politics in text messages he was sending tin the same time frame.

    And, Andy McCabe was in the process of doing nothing between the first week of October and the last week of October while thousands of newly discovery Clinton emails from Anthony Weiner’s computer sat on his desk waiting for him to decide what to do with them.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  96. Yes hoagie I can see how relaxed everyone is by how many commenters go to the CRASH! thread.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  97. So I think of strzok as Damon’s sgt Sullivan, the analog for John Connolly burgers man in the bureau.

    narciso (5c89af)


  98. And aren’t you a veteran and a Mason? Aren’t the Army and the Masons just like that, too?

    Disclaimer: This comment does not contain iodine, an essential nutrient.
    nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2018 @ 7:38 am


    Did I in any way state that the Army and Mason’s were exempt? Why would you think they wouldn’t be?

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  99. 55 — I don’t think Trump has refused to let anyone see the FISA application. I think what Grassley and Gowdy are up to — and I do believe it is the two of them orchestrating this behind the scenes — is playing through a long process to get the entire FISA application released, but going about it in such a way that they will co-opt the Dems into joining them in their demand that it be released.

    If Trump was to unilaterally declassify the entire FISA file on Carter Page, and then point to it as being vindication for himself, the headline blaring across the top of the NYT and WaPo would be that Trump has compromised national security in order to gain political advantage. The content of the file would take a backseat to the claim that he acted with political motives while disregarding national security.

    We just saw that very scenario play out with the Nunes Memo and all the claims that releasing it would do horrendous harm to the intelligence community and national security. Was there any truth to that???

    You think if Trump unilaterally declassified the FISA application and all related materials to settle this dispute the press and democrats would applaud him for doing so???

    Of course not. So the process that is underway — and Grassley releasing his heavily redacted memo yesterday revealing another corrupt Obama Administration angle with the State Department, thus signalling that he’s a player in this orchestrated operation too — is to bring about circumstances where the Dems essentially join in the call to release the whole file or look like they are standing in the way of full disclosure. That will to some degree neuter the press’s ability to slam the Trump WH when they do declassify the whole file and put it out because they will look idiotic blaming the WH for taking a step that the parties on both sides of Capitol Hill are calling for.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  100. And keep in mind that FISA applications do not spring up overnight. They take weeks to put together.

    No, they are done overnight. FBI agents attach a dossier with no other evidence, hide the fact that it came from Hillary, and the FISA judge gets out his rubber stamp. /Trumpalos

    Patterico (115b1f)

  101. Lol

    It became very clear to me that I wasn’t hearing any call from God to do this,” Bachmann told radio host Jan Markell.

    God just went up a notch.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  102. Hey! I liked that Bullwinkle film. Except for the androgyne FBI agent. She raised my hackles. I understand she’s like that in real life, too. And then Jodie Foster in Silence Of The Lambs. Was it a some Hollywood meme back then that all lady FBIs are lesbians?

    nk (dbc370)


  103. 96.Yes hoagie I can see how relaxed everyone is by how many commenters go to the CRASH! thread.


    Well, comrade I don’t know about “everyone” just me. Trading like I do is the same as gambling in a casino. Some people are good at it, some aren’t. One thing is for sure like my old dad told me: “Drunk men can’t screw and scared men can’t gamble”.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  104. Seeing as strzage were actually scheming to avoid detection with burner phones one wonders who should be in the dock

    narciso (5c89af)

  105. even if you do nitpicks on the Nunes memo everybody still knows how sleazy and lawless the corrupt FBI’s become

    this memo has only further confirmed how trashy and nazi-like the sleazy FBI is

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  106. That’s bad, I thought Bachmann might have been a gimme. I guess when the SB went-off hitch free, there wasnt the outrage factor necessary.

    On the other hand, feel free to be scared and concoct conspiracy theories at will: http://www.cbssports.com/olympics/news/winter-olympics-2018-norovirus-outbreak-in-south-korea-takes-1200-guards-off-duty/

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  107. 68 — DRJ – that is exactly my view.

    There were very senior people at both FBI and DOJ who were animated in their personal views about Trump maybe being elected.

    You need to trust me when I say that after 8 years of Obama, of the Top 50 people in DOJ’s hierarchy (an arbitrary number), my educated guess would be that 49 were vehement anti-Trumpers. Its a very “political” Department of the executive branch, which really is not a surprise. And the upper echelon of the FBI was probably in the range of 75-25 anti-Trump.

    The upper echelon of the FBI is a different composition of folks than the rank-and-file. Mueller changed the dynamic of FBI HQ at the senior management level because he made a decision when he took over to fill some of those positions with DOJ attorneys rather than promote FBI agents from management positions into senior leadership positions.

    The reason he did so was because as an “outsider” who took over the FBI from Louie Freeh — who had been an FBI Agent before becoming a prosecutor and judge. There was a very different culture between FBI “insiders” who started their career as agents and moved up through the management ranks, and the DOJ attorneys that Mueller brought over when he became Director.

    And for the rank-and-file FBI Agent, Mueller changed the nature of their job in ways that the street agents interpreted as downgrading their worth and responsibility.

    Remember that in the post-9/11 environment, there was a lot of time and attention spent on the question of whether the FBI had failed to “connect the dots” with respect to information that was within the system about some of the 9/11 hijackers.

    Quite understandably, Mueller said the FBI needed to become more of an intelligence driven organization that sought to prevent the next 9/11, rather than a law enforcement organization whose talents were more based on investigating the aftermath of the next 9/11 and prosecuting the perpetrators.

    In that effort, Mueller elevated the role of “Analysts” above that of “Agents”, where the culture of the FBI has always been that the Analysts were support players in the way the FBI functioned, and the agents were the main operators.

    Many field agents received Mueller’s changes as basically telling them “Go out and get the intel, and bring it back to the analysts to exploit and figure out what it means.” That flipped their roles, and many agents took that as a value judgment by Mueller that the agents existed only to support the more important work of the analysts.

    That’s why the FBI got out of so many areas of law enforcement that it had been involved in for decades. FBI eliminated its drug squads, and left that to DEA. FBI eliminated most of its fugitive squads, and left that to the Marshals. FBI eliminate much of its work in White Collar areas, and left that to Postal Inspectors and other similar agencies. FBI eliminated — although Obama brought back — health care fraud work, and left that to HHS OIG.

    All those resources were poured into intelligence gathering, and the Agents went from making cases and arresting people to tracking down data points based on directions from analysts.

    The fallout of this shift in dynamic is that Mueller culled out most career agents from the upper management of FBI where the policy decisions are made, and stocked those spots initially with DOJ attorneys. Over time, he promoted up through the ranks a younger cadre of FBI agents into management positions whose views and approaches to the job mirrored his priority on intelligence collection and analysis. The “door kickers” and “trigger pullers” in the Bureau are now considered dinosaurs.

    The result is that over 8 years there developed a much more liberal culture at the top of the FBI that does not see its function as law enforcement — which is the more traditional and conservative view of the organization.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  108. @105 – Good point, narciso. Which reminds me: any one facet of this saga could be explained away, but all of them? Seems there’s a preponderance of evidence. I also don’t see Grassley and Gowdy staking out the positions they have if there aren’t any arrows in their quivers.

    Hugh Hewitt quotes a retired federal judge on the omission of Hillary/DNC as a source for the warrant application:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/the-nunes-memo-revealed-a-damning-omission/2018/02/05/189f05e0-0a91-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.ce85af658ff1&__twitter_impression=true

    Lenny (5ea732)

  109. Waiting for the next revelation on what we all knew a week ago.

    Smdh

    Drunk men can’t screw and scared men can’t gamble”.”

    Drunks can gamble but rarely win. That was my method during college poker games: play tight until some were drunk and then clean up.

    harkin (8256c3)

  110. ha this is awesome!

    it’s an ad for the R chick what’s doing a primary on billionaire bruce rauner

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  111. Trading like I do is the same as gambling in a casino.

    First rule of casinos: the games are designed to make sure that the casino makes money.

    Did it ever hit you, Hoagie, that the churning sort of trades you do is a perfect example of why the stock markets are not real reflections of economic reality? You’re not making decisions about the financial and economic strength of the companies involved. You’re just trying to predict the whims of other investors.

    Which is why both the long term run-up in stocks and the current dip in the stock markets are not good measures of the US economy.

    (Just checked. At the moment the DJIA is almost exactly 1000 points below where it was 30 days ago.)

    kishnevi (0ed1e8)

  112. There are objective facts which are not yet well understood — when you evaluate them in terms of normal FBI operating procedures — which further illuminate the fact that the efforts targeted at Page were politically motivated, and the goal was to use the FISA warrant as a window into the Trump campaign.

    In March 2016, the Russian who was implicated in the 2013 intelligence effort aimed by the Russians at Carter Page, pled guilty in the SDNY.

    The basic facts relevant to Page are that after he was approached by Russian intelligence and they attempted to make him a source — which the FBI picked up from monitoring Russian communications — Page was approached by the FBI, advised that he was dealing with Russian intelligence agents (which he did not know), and they were attempting to turn him.

    Page COOPERATED with the FBI — he introduced an undercover FBI agent to the Russians he was dealing with as another energy company analyst who could help, and that Agent was able to make recordings of conversations with the Russians that later got them convicted. The court documents released at the time of the guilty plea in March 2016, while not identifying Page by name, clearly described the sequence of events in such a way that the Russians certainly knew that Page had cooperated with the FBI, and Page had introduced the undercover agent into the mix.

    That’s March of 2016.

    So did the Obama DOJ really swallow the Steele dossier information only 4 months later saying that the Russians were working with Page to get Trump to lift sanctions, in exchange for giving Trump 18% ownership in Rosenef — a stake that would have been worth billions of dollars????

    The same Carter Page who 4 months earlier was revealed in Court papers to be actively working on behalf of the FBI in helping to put Russian intelligence operatives in jail????

    Idiotic.

    And, because Page had worked as an FBI “Confidential Human Source” in the operation against the Russians who had approached him, that means he had an FBI Counter-Intelligence Agent as his handler. Every “Source” has a handler — an agent responsible for staying in touch and documenting anything the Source has to offer.

    So when Page pops up in the Steele dossier, what would normal FBI procedure be with respect to trying to evaluate that information???

    It would be for the handler to —- call Page.

    Page wouldn’t be told about the dossier information. Page would have been “tested” with regard to his continuing truthfulness. He would have been asked questions the FBI though they had answers to, in order to test his veracity. If he lied, they would then have leverage over him.

    Its like going from Square One to Square One Hundred, and skipping the 99 Squares in between to move right towards getting a FISA warrant.

    But instead of calling Page, the FBI sent Strzok to interview Steele.

    And even though Strzok figured out quickly he would never be able to verify the sources of Steele’s information, they still didn’t make an effort to talk to Page — someone who months earlier had been cooperating with the FBI against the Russians.

    Nope, they went down the FISA route instead.

    What had changed???

    The only difference in the late summer 2016 was that Page was linked to the Trump campaign.

    So what was more important — finding out if Page was actually working on behalf of Russian interests? Or using Carter Page as a window to look at the communications of the Trump campaign?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  113. Churn ’em and burn ’em

    I got mine. Screw you

    Wall Street Ethics.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  114. 73 — Page was never an FBI employee. Someone over at Conservative Treehouse has added together 2+2 and come up with 22.

    Page was a source. He introduced and FBI undercover to the Russian targets. The FBI undercover is the “FBI employee” referenced in the Court documents.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  115. churning trades still help with price discovery by providing liquidity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  116. Apparently the former, just like nakoula who has served unravel a money laundering scheme was a perfect pigeon for red queen’s policy foibles in North africa.

    narciso (364166)

  117. R.I.P. John Mahoney, best known for playing dad Martin Crane on Frasier

    Icy (36ea5b)

  118. Shipwreckedcrew, you seem to be wrecking a few ships around here.

    Two questions arising from your last comment:

    Did the FISA application material tendered to the judge explicitly state that Page was a “Confidential Human Source” for the FBI and what he had done for the FBI? I expect not, because everything they did reeks.

    Would such a disclosure be part of the applicants’ duties to the court? I think so, and the reek gets more and more skunky.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  119. 80 — Leviticus, you don’t know anything about how the two organizations function.

    Most federal prosecutors’ offices have the line assistants work with the agents to fashion the paperwork necessary to get a search warrant. In many jurisdictions — and its generally dictated by the judges in a given court — the judges won’t read a search warrant unless a prosecutor has signed off by expressing an opinion that the warrant is sufficient in all the necessary particulars.

    The practice is different in a lot of states, and within California every DA’s office has their own practices.

    In some counties the law enforcement officers can seek warrants without any participation in the process by a DA. Most counties allow telephone warrants where the officer simply calls in to a judge, is sworn, and states his probable cause over the phone. The paperwork comes later.

    DA’s offices as big as LA County might have an entire unit whose only job it is to review and process search warrant applications, and the courtroom prosecutors like Patrick never get involved. I don’t know.

    But what I do know is that I was personally involved in getting 80-100 search warrants and Title III wiretaps, and I defended dozens of them in court proceedings where their sufficiency was attacked — both in District Court and the 9th Circuit.

    And informed by that experience, I question whether Patrick’s job duties over the years ever brought him into first-hand involvement in the process for getting a search warrant issued. I don’t know, but his comments caused me to wonder.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  120. I don’t know, but his comments caused me to wonder.

    i think he’s bias on President Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  121. The question of WHY would the FBI make use of a private dossier that had “political origins”? appears relevant.

    Icy (36ea5b)

  122. kishnevi, many, perhaps most, of us investors buy based on the long term underlying strength of the companies. We may be wrong but we are not those who gamble on what the trendies are doing because they are what we call ‘suckers’.

    There is a whole bunch of frothy wave action on the top ten feet of a very dark, deep and quiet ocean. Big deal. My portfolio currently pays a 20%++ return on my original investment amounts because I bought much of it some time ago with the intention of letting my sons sell it after I croak.

    I have not much idea of what it trades at today. But I sure can tell you to the penny and the second when my next dividends are due. About once a year I groaningly analyze the market so I can re-invest my unspent dividends. Since there seems to have been a correction, ie a buying opportunity, I’ll have a look for bargains right away.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  123. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/6/2018 @ 8:48 am

    swc, aren’t you simply assuming that the FISA application contains no other information about Page than what we know already? You’re assuming Page’s Handler did not do a follow up with him, and that the FBI had no other evidence regarding Page. And a Kremlin stooge who is not attached to a presidential campaign is of the same importance as a Kremilin stooge who is attached to a presidential campaign.

    kishnevi (0ed1e8)

  124. One thing we’ve learned in the last two years is that no legal, moral or cultural strictures bind Trump and that he is immune to the better angels of human nature. The moral event horizon around him consumes the good in anyone who becomes one of his vassals. There is no better version of Trump, ever. He can only degrade and destroy everything he touches, but today was remarkable, even for him.

    Monday’s simpering, prissy, self-indulgent performance in Ohio was just another raree-show with our Kentucky Fried Nero fiddling while the stock market burned. Then came the moment where he broke another seal, and cracked another seam in the foundation of our Republic.

    That was when Trump, in his typical sneering, sniggling, purse-lipped way said of the Democrats watching his State of the Union speech: “They were like death. And un-American. Un-American. Somebody said ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-cracks-the-seal-on-talk-of-treason

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  125. Purse-lipped is too charitable.

    Pedophile pucker is apt.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  126. The FBI’s redesignation of Carter Page as a foreign agent also unlocks everything Trump-related on the foreign intel side that was either collected inadvertently and masked or known to allied partners.

    The Guardian reported Apr ’17 “British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia” in late 2015. After six months of Five Eyes and other allied IC monitoring of routine Russian surveillance Brennan sets up a counterintelligence task force including FBI and NSA in the summer of 2016. Until the FISC approved the Oct 2016 request to put Page under surveillance the US persons communicating with the Russians would have been masked to American intel but known to the allied IC contributors (Five Eyes + Germany, Estonia, Poland, France, Netherlands). The task force may have unmasked the US persons in order to understand the meaning of the intel but until the FBI gained FISC approval to put their former undercover cooperating employee (Page) as a foreign agent the USG was prohibited from investigating further.

    The legitimacy of designating Page as a foreign agent and the veracity of the second, third or fourth hand reporting passed on by Steele is more important than the political motivations behind their use as important as they are.

    crazy (d99a88)

  127. I admit that I don’t know much about how the two organizations function. But I do know enough to know that your insinuation that Patterico “has [n]ever actually [had] a hand in seeking search warrants” is condescending in the extreme. You don’t think Patterico knows what goes into getting a search warrant, after all the years he’s spent as a prosecutor?

    All of my friends who are prosecutors spend time on-call, approving or denying requests for warrants from the local police. How do you think they make their determinations? And what do you think of that system?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  128. Lots of Scooter Libby fans..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  129. Fred, you’re taking a completely different approach to the stock market than Hoagie. You’re doing it the old fashioned way. You’re a long term investor. Hoagie is the shortest of short term investing. He’s trying to play in the “frothy wave action”. He’s one of those gambling on the suckers. (Go back and read his description of how he does his stock trading.)

    I think that the markets have been dominated for a long time by the short term investors like Hoagie and not the long term investors like you (institutional trading has more than a little bit to do with that).

    kishnevi (0ed1e8)

  130. Random Viking, at 41:

    If that’s the ‘best thing’ you think anyone can say about the first narrative, random viking, then you are being wilfully blind.

    I don’t know if the first narrative is *true*. But the fact that Trump employed as his campaign advisor a man who was a high level advisor to a Russian puppet state, and has employed various other individuals known to have been on the radar of the intelligence agencies for years *before Trump even entered the political arena*, while *nowhere far from enough to conclude that the first narrative is true*, is certainly enough to conclude that it’s *possible*.

    For me, the fact that the administration’s allies seem intent on undermining the credibility of *every* institution which has the power to stand against the administration is deeply troubling and makes the first more likely.

    (Of course, the fact that the administration’s opponents did everything in their power to suggest that the release of this memo would endanger national security makes me not trust *them*, either, because it plainly doesn’t, and now I know that neither Devin Nunes nor Adam Schiff are trustworthy in this regard).

    I don’t see how you can assert with certainty that either story is a lie, based on the evidence in front of you. You *can* assert it based on a firm and abiding belief that one side or the other are liars and the other side are angels; but I don’t subscribe to that belief, and the fact that so many of the country (on both sides) do is one of the reasons the country is falling apart.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  131. “Most federal prosecutors’ offices have the line assistants work with the agents to fashion the paperwork necessary to get a search warrant.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    Right. So, are those federal prosecutors’ offices competent (such that they would have required additional information beyond the Steele dossier) or incompetent (such that they would have taken the document, without any other supporting information, at gullible face value)?

    And what are we supposed to infer about your opinions, as a result? What would you have required, when you were a federal prosecutor?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  132. Happyfeet, at 42: wait, you *can* make a reasoned argument and talk like an adult instead of a lunatic child? I’m happy to see it. Why aren’t you doing this in general?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  133. Shipwreckedcrew, at 43: I’ve assumed that the FISA process was abused by the executive ever since I learned about it. I would be a lot less skeptical of the intent of the people participating in this debate if it were openly about “the FISA process needs to be reformed because it is structured in a way that will inherently invite these abuses” and less about “this proves the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt”.

    But that blunts my reaction to the memo: at worst, the executive has been caught doing something that I’ve always assumed it was going to do sooner or later, and the *very people* who refused to entertain my concern when this system was set up are now screaming about it. It *reeks* of partisanship.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  134. Richard Aubrey, at 45: best case, there’s other evidence included in the fisa warrant application which makes it a justifiable decision for the court to have granted the warrant. Without seeing the warrant application itself, how can we tell if it’s your best case or my best case? Why should we *assume* one or the other without more evidence?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  135. Oct of 2016. FISA Warrant Issued to spy on Carter Page.

    Dec of 2016. Obama Administration begins process to relax rules on sharing intelligence about Americans. The rules previously provided that if an American was speaking to a foreigner who was being surveilled, the American’s name would be masked in the intelligence documents. Obama made it easier to share the actual names – which so happened to be Trump transition officials trying to do their job.

    fbi gestapo robert mueller’s job is to cover all this up

    Mr. Nunes is trying to say no, lawless FBI trash should be held accountable

    Me i stand with Mr. Nunes.

    That is where I stand.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  136. Happyfeet, at 42: wait, you *can* make a reasoned argument and talk like an adult instead of a lunatic child? I’m happy to see it. Why aren’t you doing this in general?

    i’m hungry

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  137. I’ve always assumed it was going to do sooner or later, and the *very people* who refused to entertain my concern when this system was set up are now screaming about it. It *reeks* of partisanship.

    Bingo! But hypocrites rarely possess self-awareness.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  138. @127. scratch former undercover cooperating employee.

    c (d99a88)

  139. EPWJ, at 47: it looks to me as though *both* were deceptive.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  140. Fred Z, at 61: the Democrats who were claiming release of this memo would endanger national security are definitely dishonest.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  141. Rev Hoagie, at 76: In 1992, in the primary, I supported a candidate whose entire platform was that, with the cold war over, it was time to dismantle the apparatus of the intelligence-security state, including abolishing the FBI.

    On the one hand, I’m still of the view that the FBI and the CIA pose incredible risks to democracy. On the other hand, at the moment, I’m worried that we’re entering a situation in which there is *no* agency of government, at any level, which has popular legitimacy with both tribes, and that creates a serious risk that the country will not survive as a democratic republic.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  142. Shipwreckedcrew, at 99: you may be right that Grassley and Gowdy are orchestrating the release of the FISA application in a way that makes it bipartisan. At the same time, if that’s true, they’re doing it in a way that is worsening the partisan-tribal divide and undermining the legitimacy crisis. It’s very hard for me to credit good motivations for that.

    Shipwreckedcrew, at 113: that’ s an interesting angle. How do we know they didn’t call Page?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  143. So we have Mueller to thank for Criminal Minds and dreamy Tom and Shemar.

    Pinandpuller (4a068e)

  144. Obfuscation in not downright concealment was the order of the day at the FBI/DoJ during the election. Of course, One of the things they wanted to conceal was that Obama and Clinton were texting each other, and Obama knew Clinton was not using a state.gov address. He knew she was using her own private server.

    Here’s the complete text of Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson to FBI Director Christopher Wray which details some of what we know and how we know it.

    An early draft of Comey’s remarks mentions that Clinton was stupid/reckless/couln’t give a rat’s @$$ about to email with the President from Russia. Per the Strzok/Paige texts we know that they eliminated the direct reference to the President and replaced it with “another senior government official.” Then, realizing that Congressional investigators would seize on that and demand to know who that senior government official they eliminated any reference no matter how oblique to Obama.

    These exchanges are corroborated by emails we have from the Clinton email investigation. As Andy McCarthy points out this is why the fix was in from the start. They simply couldn’t charge Clinton with the crimes she so obviously committed (by sending email from Russia, hostile territory, her communications were certainly intercepted, but Clinton doesn’t care about NatSec and clearly neither does Obama). Too many people had participated in her crimes.

    Essentially we have something bordering ono a transcript of events r.e. how were Comey’s remarks developed.

    What we need is a a transcript of the FISC application process. Because if the judge(s) didn’t notice the footnote and ask about the “political entity” that was the source of the information then Pat’s claim that somehow this invalidates the GOP memo is completely off base. In fact, just flat wrong. Since the DoJ/FBI make FISA warrants all the time I suspect that they knew exactly how little information they needed to provide to slip it by the FISC. But they could still claim they had completely disclosed everything.

    By the way, Pat, the title of this post is wrong. “political entity” an partisan are two entirely different things. And I know you’re a stickler for accuracy.

    Which is the crux of why so many of us think you are trying to make something out of nothing, Pat. Nunes did not admit that the FBI/DoJ revealed the partisan origins of of the dossier. That’s not what the footnote says. If it had said partisan even the docile judges of the FISC might have picked up on that.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  145. I guess Alex Cross missed a few memos.

    Pinandpuller (4a068e)

  146. swc 108 – Interesting background on the FBI. That makes sense.

    aphrael – The FISA process needs reform to protect our civil liberties. Since that doesn’t seem likely, I vote for this USA Freedom Act provision:

    It requires the FISA Court to designate a panel of “amicus curiae,” or advocates, to represent the public’s interest in cases that involve novel or significant legal issues.

    DRJ (15874d)

  147. sec and aphrael,

    If Page had an FBI handler, does that suggest he was knowingly and voluntarily cooperating?

    If so, wouldn’t cooperating be in his interest, especially if he thought (as most people did) that Hillary was going to be President and Trump was not?

    DRJ (15874d)

  148. 132 – FISA warrants are handled by the Nat Sec Div of main justice. It’s a specialized practice before a special court and requires top secret clearance. But the process is generally the same and I have a reason for understanding the process that I cannot share.

    Shipwreckedcrew (fd4b68)

  149. Page has said repeatedly that he has never been contacted by the FBI re the events of the summer of 2016, and if he had it would have been leaked by now.

    Shipwreckedcrew (fd4b68)


  150. You’re all talking in hypotheticals because you don’t really know what the document says because President Trump won’t let you see it. If it were Obama refusing to declassify a document that is supposedly an outrage, you’d see in an instant how little sense that makes. So people scream at me “SO YOU’RE OK WITH AN APPLICATION THAT SAYS [insert whatever they are making up in their head about what they imagine it says based on partisans’ descriptions]]?!?!?!?? Um, no, I just don’t know what it says because I do not trust these people.

    OMG so unhinged!!

    Patterico (a217ed) — 2/6/2018 @ 6:35 am

    That answers my questions.

    I just want to point out if FISA judges are good with DNC or Clinton camp skuttlebutt being used as grounds for FBI to spy on the Republican camp, that’s a lot worse than FISA judge fooled into allowing illegal surveilance of Republican camp.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  151. Maybe, but he had a history with the FBI per your comment 113. He knew who to call.

    DRJ (15874d)

  152. Has there ever been a case where an ex-president has been convicted of a crime committed while in office?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  153. And a Kremlin stooge who is not attached to a presidential campaign is of the same importance as a Kremilin stooge who is attached to a presidential campaign.
    kishnevi (0ed1e8) — 2/6/2018 @ 9:07 am

    That’s the DNC talking point. In fact, it’s the Democrats who are Putin’s willing stooges. Putin has a track record, particularly in Europe. He plays all sides. He’ll inflame, and if necessary provided financial support, to left-wing antifah/black bloc types as well as right-wing (what passes for right-wing in Europe) skin heads/neonazis. The polarization weakens whoever wins.

    Unless you buy that drivel that Hillary “reset” Clinton intimidates him. More baseless DNC talking points. He laughs at her but since she’s willing to ignore the threat of Russia and sell the US out to him he doesn’t laugh openly. She’s weak and corrupt; her “reset” with Russia clearly only consisted of Clinton telling Putin that she and her husband were willing to sell our national security to him. That’s why the Chinese decided to militarize their SCS islands while she was secretary of state. After her disgraceful performance (and Obama’s)after the NORKs sank the Cheonan, trying to spin a UNSC resolution in which China refused to allow the US to name North Korea as the culprit and we meekly backed down as a great diplomatic victory, China knew they could have their way with Obama and Clinton. Nobody has respect for her; according to her own book a high ranking Chinese official insulted her to her face. Playing on the obviously words-only Obama-era “Pivot to Asia” policy he told her to just pivot right out of here (the Chinese sphere of influence). Putin”s one goal is to convince half the population of a country that the results of an election are illegitimate. And in that the Democrats are Putin’s willing stooges. They need to delegitimize the last election even more than Putin does.

    I bet he never thought he’d get this lucky.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  154. papertiger,

    You are assuming the FISA judges issued a warrant based on nothing but the dossier claims and no other evidence, and that nothing in the dossier had been corroborated. That may not be true and the only way to know for sure is if we see all the documentation.

    DRJ (15874d)

  155. #ReleasetehHounds Documentation!!

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  156. “But the process is generally the same and I have a reason for understanding the process that I cannot share.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    If the process is generally the same (setting aside your secret knowledge), my question still stands:

    are those federal prosecutors’ offices competent (such that they would have required additional information beyond the Steele dossier) or incompetent (such that they would have taken the document, without any other supporting information, at gullible face value)?

    And what are we supposed to infer about your opinions, as a result? What would you have required, when you were a federal prosecutor?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  157. Scratch the last question, if it gets too close to the secret knowledge.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  158. aphrael @131: For me, the fact that the administration’s allies seem intent on undermining the credibility of *every* institution which has the power to stand against the administration is deeply troubling and makes the first more likely.

    That’s one way to look at it. Another way:

    The fact that the administration’s opponents have, for eighteen months now (with zero to show for it), seemed intent on undermining the credibility of *every* institution associated with the administration is deeply troubling. If the Left has not succeeded in politicizing every corner of human existence, including cherished institutions like the FBI, is it from lack of intent?

    Question for you, which I hope you don’t dodge: If Mueller held a press conference today, stating that the investigation is over and Trump is 100% cleared, do you think the Dems would nod their heads, lay down their pitchforks and walk away satisfied? Not talking about Dem nutcases — mainstream Dems.

    If the answer in No, you’ve invalidated your position.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  159. For the record, I’m with aphrael (believing that the FBI and CIA pose serious risks to American democracy). But I’ve believed for years that law enforcement is largely corrupt, at a structural level. It’s not a fad, for me.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  160. The Dems only wish to clarify the whole schiffy mess.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  161. Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

    . . . .

    “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,” the memo alleged

    Where’s the contradiction?

    There was a little footnote in the FISA application that mentioned that some political opponent had funded Steele’s research but they did not mention that the political entity DNC and Clinton campaign!

    For all the FISA judge knew, Steele could have been paid by a Never Trump Republican.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  162. “The fact that the administration’s opponents have, for eighteen months now (with zero to show for it), seemed intent on undermining the credibility of *every* institution associated with the administration is deeply troubling.”

    – random viking

    Agreed.

    ” If Mueller held a press conference today, stating that the investigation is over and Trump is 100% cleared, do you think the Dems would nod their heads, lay down their pitchforks and walk away satisfied? Not talking about Dem nutcases — mainstream Dems.”

    – random viking

    Of course they wouldn’t. The would go bonkers, speculating (without one iota of evidence) about how Trump had done something illegal to compromise Mueller.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  163. The FBI was being pressured by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to investigate Donald Trump, and that is in the Sept. 23, 2016 Yahoo News story they cited in the FISA warrant application:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

    After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow over the summer as evidence of “significant and disturbing ties” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.

    Maybe the problem isn’t that they didn’t disclose that, but that they did.

    Maybe they wanted the FISA judge, Rudolph Contreras, (a 2011-12 Barack Obama appointee) to know there was a politically important Democrat pushing for an investigation. he was new to teh FISa court, having been named by Chiefg Justce Roberts on May 19,2016.

    Q. Was Louise Mensch right about there having been two previous failed (and broader) FISA applications? (She’s wrong about a lot of other stuff, like that a FISA court issued a sealed “indictment” against Trump by to be used as the basis of an impeachment.)

    They also maybe did not disclose that

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  164. For all the FISA judge knew, Steele could have been paid by a Never Trump Republican.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 2/6/2018 @ 10:28 am

    It’s also possible, and maybe likely, that the FISA judge(s) asked questions and got satisfactory answers about the information/sources in the application(s).

    DRJ (15874d)

  165. 155. DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 10:19 am

    You are assuming the FISA judges issued a warrant based on nothing but the dossier claims and no other evidence, and that nothing in the dossier had been corroborated.

    Page had been undrer suspicion as a possible Russian agent since 2013.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  166. They tried to keep the role of the DNC and HRC campaign abig secret into late in 2017.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  167. I fear that our host wants so very badly for Trump to be impeached for whatever charge sticks.

    It’s the latter part of that that bothers me, not the former. There are days when I want Trump gone, replaced by nearly any Republican not named Kasich. But the current investigation is being fought over such petty, petty matters that they really only concern a process wonk, and I still cannot accept that Hillary skated on putting TS and SCI material on an internet-connected computer.

    There are people on this board who would have no problem with Trump impeached for asking the DOJ to go easy on whatshisname’s inconsequential lies. From time to time your posts regarding process (which I understand you rightly find important in your day job) sound like the stuff coming out of those others.

    Perhaps I overreact. Yesterday was a bad day for me.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  168. Well Well Well by Vladimir Lenin

    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    I hit the P-blog after dinner
    So I could find something to read
    And though the gruel was now much thinner
    A fat Baby Ruth, now could I eat ‘er
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well

    I saw things had not really changed much
    That hope is pie up in teh sky-ay
    Poor Nunes called a liar and such
    Teh Feebs just skate don’t know just why
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well
    Well
    Well
    Well
    Well
    Well
    Well
    Well
    Well, well
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well

    Perhaps it’ll take a revolution
    Just line ‘em up against a wall
    Before we see a real solution
    Not much to say for now, yeah, that’s all
    Well, well, well, oh well
    Well, well, well, oh well

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  169. It’s also possible, and maybe likely, that the FISA judge(s) asked questions and got satisfactory answers about the information/sources in the application(s).

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 10:39 am

    I’m going to need to see a transcript of the proceedings before I can conclude that.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  170. 169 could be shorter

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  171. like I say, the departed, has eerily been a how to guide, do we know who page’s fbi handler was, don’t you think that was important, it seems they tried to do deliberately what they accidently did to Robert Kelley who was erroneously flagged as being the Russian mole, other than hanson,

    narciso (d1f714)

  172. Kasich doesn’t have the temperament to be president he acts like a pouty butthurt tranny all the time

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  173. Heh.

    Hoodathunk the left would savor the flavor of FBI hijinks? Sometimes the Ganders get Goosed in the most vulnerable of their sphincters.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  174. There are people on this board who would have no problem with Trump impeached for asking the DOJ to go easy on whatshisname’s inconsequential lies.

    nevertrump’s not a huge fan of democracy that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  175. Steve57

    Quick question. As desertification moves south is it more likely that you or your lady will be gathering the firewood?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  176. i’m hungry

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 2/6/2018 @ 9:18 am

    So make a seasoned argument.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  177. For Rumpublucans, the butcher’s bill for all their atavism is available online. Their hypocrisy no longer wears anything except junkhammocks and thongs

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  178. Sometimes the Ganders get Goosed in the most vulnerable of their sphincters.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/6/2018 @ 10:57 am

    You’re the tail end of the Human Turducken in Series.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  179. There are people on this board who would have no problem with Trump impeached for asking the DOJ to go easy on whatshisname’s inconsequential lies.

    Kevin M (752a26) — 2/6/2018 @ 10:46 am

    Which is not obstruction. Trump is the chief executive; he could have told Comey flat out to drop the Flynn investigation and he would have been entirely within his constitutional authority. Unless Trump commits an illegal act such as bribery, telling people to lie, to destroy evidence, issues threats, etc., it’s not obstruction. It’s not a normal obstruction case where you’re allowed to make guesses about his state of mind, and whether or not he did something for a corrupt purpose. No criminal act, no obstruction.

    The Democrats keep saying if Trump fires Mueller or Rosenstein we’ll have a constitutional crisis. In fact, we already have one. Both the judicial and legislative branches have decided to say the h3ll with the Constitution and the whole notion of separation of powers. They are usurping the president’s authority. In the case of Congress, they want to make a President’s exercise of his Article II authority an impeachable offense. It’s despicable; congressional dems are essentially telling Trump that he may have won the WH, but only the WH. They run the executive branch agencies.

    If Trump were impeached it isn’t like they’d be happy with Pence. They think Pence is pure evil as well. After all he’s got an R after his name and agreed to be Trump’s running mate, so that makes him Satan incarnate as well. They’re trying to overturn the entire results of the last election. And Congressional Republicans better wake up and smell the coffee.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  180. Since there’s such a thing as a “Furry” there must be a thing called a “Downy” and you are definitely all flocked up.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  181. I’m going to need to see a transcript of the proceedings before I can conclude that.

    Steve57 (0b1dac) — 2/6/2018 @ 10:50 am

    Exactly. Which is why Patterico is right to want to see all the documentation.

    DRJ (15874d)

  182. I dont know about furry but I recognize a flurry when I see it.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  183. Hypocrisy is a hard thing to get through a thick-skull. Be patient.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  184. Page’s history is relevant to the process but it appears (*) you need current information to get a FISA warrant.

    * Based on the information about how FISA warrants work that is available here, but we don’t really know.

    DRJ (15874d)

  185. Even Saul of Tarsus had scales on his eyes.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  186. aphrael @135
    “best case” is patterico’s best case. Nunes lied about the forthrightness of the feebs who, really, told the FISA court all about how Hillary was funding a bogus hit job on Trump. So the feebs were up front like good little Boy Scouts.
    That means the FISA court is the corrupt party since they knew all about it and anyway thought that weaponizing the FISA warrant system against a republican was just dan and finedy.
    Pick one. “neither” is not an option.

    Richard Aubrey (d7bc30)

  187. Well pence is a confirmed lifeydoodle, refer to your copy of handmaids tale.

    narciso (d1f714)

  188. Well, not everyone is Saul of Tarsus so the statistics show.

    They all want to go to Heaven they just don’t want to die or pay anything

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  189. Obstruction of Justice, Section 1505 provides:

    Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

    Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

    Trump can legally fire or reassign some government employees but his motive matters and can make it an illegal act.

    Specifically, is the action done to benefit the U.S., or is it done to benefit Trump by “imped[ing] the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States”?

    DRJ (15874d)

  190. That was my method during college poker games: play tight until some were drunk and then clean up.

    harkin (8256c3) — 2/6/2018 @ 8:42 am

    Did a guy carrying a poker table ever follow you around campus?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  191. there’s nothing wrong with firing trashy corrupt FBI filth

    that’s just good governance

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  192. Neither is an option, Richard, if the FISA court was presented with evidence justifying a warrant. Unless we see the documentation, we can’t know the warrant was issued based solely on the uncorroborated dossier.

    DRJ (15874d)

  193. Random Viking, at 159:

    > The fact that the administration’s opponents have, for eighteen months now (with zero to show for it), seemed intent on undermining the credibility of *every* institution associated with the administration is deeply troubling

    Oh, absolutely! It’s an exaggeration that there’s nothing to show for it (there have been a couple guilty pleas), but If I step outside of my partisan preconceptions and try to look at the whole thing as an outsider, it’s possible to summon evidence to support both the Trumpist and the anti-Trumpist narrative on this. That’s why I want an investigation.

    > Question for you, which I hope you don’t dodge: If Mueller held a press conference today, stating that the investigation is over and Trump is 100% cleared, do you think the Dems would nod their heads, lay down their pitchforks and walk away satisfied?

    I don’t know.

    That’s not a dodge, it’s my honest answer. *Some* will. *Some* will be inclined to but will be afraid that if *the crazy activists* do not, and they don’t toe the line of the crazy activists, their political career will be at risk, and my general sense is there are a lot of politicians who are too cowardly to risk their political careers doing what they know to be right.

    I’d like to think that under such circumstances the Democrats would lay down their pitchforks, but it’s *way* too easy to imagine the story taking hold that the Mueller investigation was tainted by the administration’s obvious and continuing attempts to undercut it, and I’m worried that we’re far enough down this path that such a story will be irrefutable to those who are predisposed to believe it.

    > If the answer in No, you’ve invalidated your position.

    I don’t think you understand my position, if you can say that.

    My *overall* position is that the country is in a perilous situation in which both major political tribes have been radicalized to (a) believe that the integrity of American democracy is under threat by the other side, (b) not trust anything anyone on the other side says, and (c) reactively set aside their normal standards for interpeting evidence and credibility and replace it with tribal membership and allegiance as the dominant standard. By extension, my overall position is that it’s even more important than ever that we look at evidence using pre-existing, non-tainted-by-reactive-emotions, standards. (By *implication* my reason for bringing it up is to suggest that *this is what Patterico is doing*, and that we should respect him for it, rather than condemning him for it).

    A large chunk of the Democrats not accepting an exoneration by Mueller would *reinforce* my position rather than invalidating it.

    So let me ask the question back to you: imagine that Mueller were to present hard evidence that Trump staffers had been in the pay of the Russian government during the campaign, or that Russian operatives exercised some (indirect, through either blackmail pressure or the threat to call in debts) control during the campaign. Do you think most Republicans would accept that as indicating that the administration is compromised?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  194. Richard, at 188: you can’t make a case for or against the proposition that the FISA warrant system was weaponized unless you see *all of the evidence contained within the warrant*. Asserting either that it was *or* that it wasn’t is asserting that the evidence you haven’t seen must align with your preconception.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  195. Pafterico assumes every prosecutor, is as honorable as he. From anchorage to Durham to madison, that is clearly not true, Mueller and comeys record has made it decidedly clear, that they cut corner.

    narciso (d1f714)

  196. 152 – Page has denied meeting with any of the people identified in the Steele information. He’s sued press outlets for Libel for publishing that he did. He went to Moscow in July 2016 and gave a speech. The Steele info says he met with senior akremlin officials while there, and he has publicly denied any such meetings. And whether the meetings took place is the most important unverified parts of the Steele dossier. McCabe testified that they verified he made the trip – well there is vid o of him giving the speech. Crackerjack work there.

    Since Page never met with anyone, why would he have thought to call the FBI in the summer of 2006?

    Shipwreckedcrew (fd4b68)

  197. They better be a lot more honorable than that.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  198. > Since Page never met with anyone,

    Isn’t this the crux of the issue?

    Page *says* he never met with anyone. But *that’s something he would say to protect himself if he had*. It’s not by itself enough for me to say with certainty that he never met with anyone.

    > McCabe testified that they verified he made the trip – well there is video of him giving the speech. Crackerjack work there.

    *If* they had evidence that he had participated in the meetings, how could that evidence be brought out *in public testimony* in a way that didn’t potentially risk demonstrating *to the Russians* what our mechanisms are for spying in Russia?

    I would expect such evidence to only be released in closed session. Which is a huge part of the problem here — there’s obvious good rason for such evidence to be kept under wraps, making it very hard to analyze the situation based on anything other than preconceived partisanship.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  199. 157 – I would guess that the DOJ attorneys who supervised the FISA application were as anxious to get the warrant as the FBI. This was not doing ne at the “line” level. The No. 2 guy in the FBI Counter-Intel section was working on it so my guess would be that a senior supervisor at Nat Sec at DOJ was doing the legal review. He wasn’t incompetent – he was corrupted by his political motivations just like Strzok and Page. They were all in it together and by virtue of their positions they could push thru a FISA application that wouldn’t have passed the normal review process. The reliance on a Yahoo News story for any purpose is a give away that the process was bypassed in large measure.

    Shipwreckedcrew (fd4b68)

  200. The reason for the case being before the FISA court as Hillarys made up from whole cloth accusation sheet.

    Doesn’t matter if Hillary got a name spelled right or the date on a passport stamp correct every now and again. The [edit] is lies. Through and through.

    All of it should have been thrown out, as it was the first time.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  201. it’s not illegal to meet with Russians

    many of them are by far more ethical and loads more fun than your typical dirty FBI agent

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  202. It requires the FISA Court to designate a panel of “amicus curiae,” or advocates, to represent the public’s interest in cases that involve novel or significant legal issues.
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 9:47 am

    So a Guardian Ad Litem for Americans That Can’t Read Good And Want To Do Other Things Good Too?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  203. aphrael @195: Do you think most Republicans would accept that as indicating that the administration is compromised?

    Yes, assuming “hard evidence”. I have zero doubt about that, and we have historical evidence. Nixon resigned, not only because of Democrats. He lost support of most Republicans as well.

    Trump, even without evidence of any kind, has lost support from a good chunk of Republicans. So, I don’t understand why you would even ask that question.

    I think your answer to my question is a dodge, because you know the answer is No. The simple fact is that Dems have much more invested in the centralized powers of the executive branch than Republicans, and will always attempt to delegitimize a Republican who assumes that office, whether it’s moderate Bush in 2000 or Trump. We’ve reached that point, and it’s the Dems that got us here.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  204. “You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” – Chuck Schumer.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  205. None of them legal

    crazy (d99a88)

  206. > I think your answer to my question is a dodge, because you know the answer is No.

    You seem to have remarkable insight into my mental state and what I do or do not know. More knowledge than I have, in fact, and no shame about asserting that you know what I do or do not know better than I do.

    Enjoy arguing with a simulacrum of me that you construct in your head, which you can’t even be bothered to update by reconciling it with what the real me says. I’m sure that’s entertaining for you.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  207. But as you see, that was already the cover story because they had weaponized the otelligence community apriori.

    narciso (d1f714)

  208. Apparently, the Schiff memo is so full of “sources and methods” as to dare the White House, FBI or DOJ to redact the bloody hell out of it, so Democrats can cry foul .. the White House is holding back.

    I suggest that the White House send back two versions .. one heavily redacted and a second, not so heavily react except the stuff that absolutely must be. Then dare the HPSCI to vote on them with all Republicans except one voting “Aye”. It will then take at least one Democrat to vote one or both of them out.

    Neo (d1c681)

  209. Brenda Murray who wee the task force leader in anchorage, was allowed to poach officials innalabama, another William west prosecuted Jeffrey sterling. Of the Merlin gambit.

    narciso (d1f714)

  210. DRJ, you’re just wrong. A President can pardon someone or simply tell the DoJ to stop investigating to end an investigation that ultimately might have led to them, and that’s not obstruction. Key words, might have led. We have historical precedence on this. You have to have a criminal act or clear evidence of criminal intent that you can point to, and that doesn’t include a possibly corrupt motive.

    You are unfortunately placing yourself in the same position as federal judges who are keep issuing injunctions against Trumps “travel bans” because they believe they can impugn his motives based on his campaign comments about Muslims. His comments as a candidate don’t matter. As long as his executive orders are legal on their face then they are legal.

    If the IRS were actually auditing Trump and Trump fired the commissioner to end the audit, that would be obstruction. Short of that it’s not obstruction. Trump was all over the place when it came to firing Comey, but as I recall Trump fired Comey because Comey woudn’t say publicly what he told him in private. That DJT was not personally under investigation. This is not demanding that Comey exonerate him (that too would be obstruction; to demand that the FBI tell his bureau to arrive at a specific conclusion). Comey didn’t want to do it because if he announced publicly that Trump wasn’t under investigation and things changed he’d have to announce that publicly as well, as he did with Clinton. The fact that something might change in the future does not make firing Comey obstruction. In fact, had Comey told Trump that he couldn’t make the public announcement because Trump was in fact under investigation then it would have been obstruction. But that’s the kind of clear evidence of criminal intent you’d need, and Comey has never alleged that Trump was under investigation. Was that childish of Trump? Yes. Trump could have told Comey that the cloud of suspicion hanging over his head was making it difficult for him to perform his constitutional duties, which include the authority and duty to direct the operations of the DoJ. That would have put him on surer ground. But any President has a very low bar to clear to defend himself against a charge of obstruction. Much lower than an ordinary citizen, and I’m afraid you’re reading the statute as if Trump is an ordinary citizen as opposed to a President with Article II authority.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  211. aphrael. If there was sufficient additional information to warrant a warrant, then the dossier would not have been necessary. But, according to, iirc, McCabe, without the dossier the other stuff wouldn’t have warranted a warrant.
    So, we know the dossier was the Thing.
    So, either the provenance was clear to the FISA court because the feebs never tell a lie nor forget to be entirely forthcoming–Patterico’s position–and thus the FISA court looked at Hillary’s fingerprints and the bank accounts of various folks the DNC had paid for this and considered it a perfectly legal operation. Which makes the FISA court the villain. Or….the feebs forgot to tell the court what the court needed to know.
    Pick one.

    Richard Aubrey (d7bc30)

  212. I think it [my proposal] will have the cumulative effect of making the FISA court much more transparent, so the American people can understand what’s being done in their name, in the name of national security, so we can have a more informed debate over the balance between privacy and national security. I think this can be accomplished while also maintaining sources and methods and [not] compromising some of the very real national security concerns at stake.” – Adam Schiff speaking directly to RT network in 2013 (that Russian agent doing the state propaganda).

    Mark Dice found it [YouTube].

    papertiger (c8116c)

  213. “Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, declared Monday evening that there was “clear evidence of collusion” with the Russians — but it was on the Democratic side.

    During an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity, Nunes blasted the mainstream media, calling their failure to report honestly on the growing scandal “embarrassing.”

    The California Republican also announced that his committee would be asking for the transcripts of the four surveillance requests from the FISA Court.

    Nunes pointed out that no one in the mainstream media seemed bothered by the fact that the FBI knowingly used “political dirt” to open a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign.

    The fact that the mainstream media is “totally uninterested in this” Nunes said was a problem. “Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?” he exclaimed.

    As an example, he argued that if Donald Trump or President Bush or Karl Rove had paid for political dirt and then George W. Bush’s FBI opened an counterintelligence investigation into the Obama campaign, “this town would be on fire.” Nunes said: “Every reporter would be following around Karl Rove and George W. Bush all over town. Yet it’s crickets from the media. It’s embarrassing. It’s absolutely embarrassing and I’m almost flabbergasted because I thought at least there would be some ounce of credibility left, but there really is none.”

    https://pjmedia.com/video/nunes-democratic-party-hillary-clinton-campaign-colluded-russians/

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  214. Neo, I bet it’s all coming out. If the Nunes memo was the appetizer then the Schiff memo is the first course. We’re nowhere near the desert course that we’re all anxiously anticipating.

    crazy (d99a88)

  215. My Congressman’s response to teh Nunes memo. He’s gotten very partisan. Really been so for some time. He may think he’s fair.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/inline-headers/FINAL%20DRAFT%20–%20Dear%20Colleague%20on%20Nunes%20Memo.pdf

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  216. “We are at the very beginning of the exposure of wronging by Obama-era DOJ and FBI officials — and their superiors — and have not begun to learn exactly why and how American citizens were improperly monitored, and by whom. In one of the strangest moments in the history of American journalism, Washington reporters and agencies, known for their loud interests in protecting civil liberties, are either silent or working to suppress news of these scandals, and they may well soon rue their own complacency. . . . Nor have we learned the full nature of why and how Obama-era investigative agencies departed from normal protocol in exonerating Hillary Clinton from criminal liability during a number of 2015–16 controversies. Presumably there are records, official and otherwise, of these matters; they should come to light as soon as possible. What seems clear is that the present hysteria about the Trump administration was already deeply seeded in the federal government throughout the 2016 campaign and the 2016–17 transition. A number of powerful Obama officials thought they had both moral right and the administrative means to nullify Trump. And they were not shy in breaking the law to exercise them.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456134/fisagate-boomerangs-democrats-hillary-obama

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  217. It is just the beginning kernel, just not the one you expected.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  218. Devin “Blassie” Nunes vs. Adam “Pencil-Neck Geek” Schiff!

    sunday SUNDAY!!! sunday

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  219. You could not be farther from the truth and makes me wonder if part of your practice has ever involved actually having a hand in seeking search warrants.

    This is not really a question or even anything that deserves a response, but I’ll answer.

    I have read hundreds of search warrants, of course, and have defended many in court. (I note that you counted “defending” them among your relevant experience.) Homicide detectives sometimes, but rarely, come to me for advice on what might be enough for a search warrant. Usually they know. And, like any D.A., I’ve had repeated training in preparing and defending search warrants.

    But yes, federal prosecutors have a much greater experience than I have in seeking search warrants. That is more the bread and butter of an AUSA than it is for a typical gang homicide prosecutor in the D.A.’s office in L.A., at least. In our office, with the exception of certain specialized units like Major Narcotics, participation in seeking search warrants is usually handled by D.A.’s who volunteer for “search warrant duty” which involves being on call for advice regarding the preparation of search warrants off-hours. Those who volunteer for this program get special training and earn extra hours of leave, since they are chained to the phone for periods of time which can include the middle of the night. My wife has done search warrant duty. I was never interested, although I have helped her out on hers.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  220. Been “Tincture of Sphincter” Burned

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  221. 220.

    Andrew McCarthy’s response to the Nadleer response to teh Nunes meo:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456093/jerrold-nadler-memo-rebuttal-weak-unpersuasive

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  222. the important thing when you talk to a judge is to always tell the truth

    that’s something the scummy FBI needs to work on

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  223. Steve57,

    Trump’s attorney claims that a President can never obstruct justice, so there is support for your position. That makes a President too much like a monarch for my tastes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  224. hey let’s go to space!

    c’mon it’ll be fun

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  225. As far as I know, President Obama’s DACA program never has been declared to be unconstitutional in any court of law. It is “considered to be unconstitutional” by conservative scholars and pundits, but that doesn’t really count, no matter how much Kelly would like it to matter. There’s a lot of the old ethnic Boston in this guy. That is not a compliment.

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a16639508/john-kelly-daca/

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  226. DRJ (15874d) @ 2/6/2018 @ 11:17 am, I’ve never said anything different. My issue is that Pat keeps conflating “partisan origins” with “political origins.” And the two are very different things.

    Hugh Hewitt has a very good piece in the waPo today. And he quotes extensively from an email he received from a retired federal judge:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nunes-memo-revealed-a-damning-omission/2018/02/05/189f05e0-0a91-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.847982f1ac4b

    “There is not an officer of the court in the land who in the context of this particular application to the FISA court should not have identified the source of the information as having been the [Democratic National Committee] and the Clinton Campaign. If I had granted the application and then subsequently learned that the information was sourced to the DNC and the Campaign, I would have rescinded the authorization and issued a show-cause order to the Government to explain who and why this sourcing was not made known to the court. The fact (if it be that) that the Government told the court that it was a political source, but did not identify who, in this particular instance, is highly probative that the Government purposely misled the court.”

    …The non-disclosure of a material fact in an application for a FISA warrant — its minimization, indeed one could argue its camouflaging — is a very big deal and its provenance should be thoroughly investigated.

    Nunes’ “admission” that the information originated from a political entity does not turn the memo into a big nothingburger. Absent a transcript of the proceedings, the publicly available information reveals the DoJ misled the court by not revealing the specific source of the information.

    Pat dismisses difference between downplaying the source of the information as simply a political entity and identifying the source in a full an complete manner as Trumpian defense and pointing out “it wasn’t disclosed enough” as a mere partisan arguments. This is the only legal blog or other source of legal information that I frequent that poo poos the fact that at least one high ranking official involved in getting the FISA warrant knew the exact source of the information, but rather than reveal that information the warrant application glossed over it as a mere “legal entity,” as just a small detail that only a partisan could possibly care about. That would include Hugh Hewitt’s blog, Jonathan Turley’s, an Legal Insurrection. Which makes me doubt that Pat can be objective when it comes to Trump.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  227. i wonder if it makes that beeping sound when it’s doing the backing-up part

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  228. Kevin M (752a26) — 2/5/2018 @ 8:36 pm

    TERRIBLE light on the FISA court. Why did they accept the tainted “evidence”?

    One judge. Only one judge signs off on a warrant. It was Rudolph Contreras.

    DRJ says the judge might (or should) have asked questions about what was the political entity that hired Christopher Steele. The FBI vouched ror Steele, in spite of the probable fact taht they found some of his recent reporting wrong or improbable. (we don’t know that they did, but they probably did)

    He was told, via the Yahoo story, cited in the FISA warrant application, that Senate Minority leader Harry Reid was very interested in this investigation:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

    After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow over the summer as evidence of “significant and disturbing ties” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.

    There doesn’t seem to be too much politics in his background. For almost twenty years, during the Clinton and Bush and Obama Administrations, Rudolph Contreras had been an Assistant U.S. attorney. (1994-2003 in the District of Columbia, 2003-2006, chief of the civil division in the District of Delaware, and 2006-2012 back in the District of Columbia as chief of the civil division.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  229. I think you misunderstand P’s point.

    We don’t know how the FISA court made its decision because we haven’t seen all the documents. It’s not possible to know what the judge was told at this point. It may be as one-sided and partisan as you think but we don’t know that based on what we’ve seen, just as we don’t know what’s in any classified government record.

    DRJ (15874d)

  230. Off Topic: I think the government will shut down, and probably will stay shut down till afetr the November election, unless somebody caves on something important.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  231. It’s my understanding the warrant was renewed more than once, Sammy. We would know for sure if we could see the documents. If so, it’s likely there was more than one judge who considered this.

    DRJ (15874d)

  232. The government is going to shut down for 9 months? That seems unlikely.

    DRJ (15874d)

  233. DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 1:27 pm

    We don’t know how the FISA court made its decision because we haven’t seen all the documents. It’s not possible to know what the judge was told at this point. It may be as one-sided and partisan as you think but we don’t know that based on what we’ve seen, just as we don’t know what’s in any classified government record.

    It’s been pretty much conceded the judge wass told thrree things:

    1) Steele had all this information.

    2) There was the Sept 23, 2016 Yahoo story

    3) Some other information indicating links between Carter Page and important people in the Kremlin.

    Although item #3 is legally sufficient for a FISA warrant, McCabe conceded that they wouldn’t have asked for one with the ZSteele material. The FBI asked for #3 to be omitted then comapliend.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  234. DRJ (15874d) @ 2/6/2018 @ 1:17 pm, my position has never been that a President can never obstruct justice. It’s that a President has a very low bar to clear to defend himself against the charge. Or if you want to come at it the other way, his accusers have a very high bar to clear to plausibly accuse him of obstruction. That you simply can’t ignore the fact that the Constitution invests the President with authority that no other citizen in the country has so the standard necessarily is different.

    Otherwise Presidents could be indicted or impeached simply for exercising constitutional powers that are squarely within the bounds of their authority. And that the use of indictments or impeachment for that purpose would destroy the principle of separation of powers.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  235. 224 — fair enough. Very much in line with what my understanding was about state practice based on my 12 years in California, especially in large counties like LA, SanBerdoo, and others. Smaller counties often had ADAs working with the Detectives, but larger counties had office components dedicated to warrant work.

    And you are exactly correct that in the federal system, the Judges demand active participation by AUSAs in the drafting process of the affidavit, and basically vouching on behalf of the Affiant that the requisite probable cause showing has been made — before the Judge will spend a minute of his time reading it.

    From pretty much my first year doing drug cases — where the warrant practice was a constant process — I followed the advice of older AUSA’s and told the agents to send my their notes and reports if they had them, and I wrote the affidavit from the start. All they had to do was swear that the information in the affidavit was true — they didn’t have to be the author. There was a lot less re-writing doing it that way, and if/when there came a time to have to defend the warrant from attack, no one knew the contents better than I did.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  236. It would require proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof in a criminal case like obstruction of justice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  237. Dilbert’s dad made a valid observation before the Nunes memo was released: How to Make Your Opponents Try (and fail) to Prove a Negative that holds up and suggests no substantive redactions of the Schiff memo are likely.

    So if you want to drive a political opponent crazy, allege that he or she did something evil, provide no direct evidence, and force them to do the impossible: Prove it didn’t happen.

    The willingness to declassify in order to identify bad actions and bad actors will ulimately vindicate either the Obama gang or the Trump team. Only sunlight and time will tell.

    crazy (d99a88)

  238. What probably happened is not the same as knowing what happened, Sammy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  239. 221 — I endorse that view.

    We are just getting started.

    And the fear of the Dems is exactly as stated by Mark Levin last night. If this all goes bad, it destroys Obama’s legacy, and likely dooms the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential election.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  240. But there is a risk to declassification, crazy. I doubt Trump will care and maybe it isn’t a big risk, anyway, but information is typically classified for a reason.

    DRJ (15874d)

  241. “From pretty much my first year doing drug cases — where the warrant practice was a constant process — I followed the advice of older AUSA’s and told the agents to send my their notes and reports if they had them, and I wrote the affidavit from the start. All they had to do was swear that the information in the affidavit was true — they didn’t have to be the author. There was a lot less re-writing doing it that way, and if/when there came a time to have to defend the warrant from attack, no one knew the contents better than I did.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    And what, if anything, makes you think that this was not the process with respect to the FISA warrant? What, if anything, makes you think that in this instance the DOJ Nat Sec folks relied on the Steele dossier *and nothing else*?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  242. As far as I know, President Obama’s DACA program never has been declared to be unconstitutional in any court of law. It is “considered to be unconstitutional” by conservative scholars and pundits, but that doesn’t really count, no matter how much Kelly would like it to matter…

    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/6/2018 @ 1:18 pm

    That sounds like a dangerous President to have…

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  243. You have plenty of personal experience of the process by which federal warrants are obtained, swc. What is it that makes you believe that the same process was not followed in this case?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  244. President Kelly?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  245. It’s not possible to know what the judge was told at this point. It may be as one-sided and partisan as you think but we don’t know that based on what we’ve seen, just as we don’t know what’s in any classified government record.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 1:27 pm

    That’s why I said I was basing my position on what is publicly available. And based on that we can know that there is a huge difference between identifying the source as the Clinton campaign/DNC and a mere political entity.

    And we may never know more than we do now even if we can get the FiSC to release any transcripts. Any transcripts they release, if they release them, will be so heavily redacted it will make about as much sense as reading only one word on each page of a book and trying to figure out the plot.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  246. 231 — I would add to this that on Hewitt’s show today he said the retired Judge who sent him that note was assigned to the FISC at one point in his career on the bench, so it wasn’t an hypothetical.

    There are 8 judges assigned to the FISC at any given time, appointed to the position by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But its a rotating assignment, so Judges go on and off the FISC with regularity.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  247. 238 — #3 would not have been sufficient if the only information came from the 2013-14 episode involving Page and the Russians. That information would have been “state” for purposes of establishing probable cause in Oct. 2016. Its interesting background that provides a context, but I’m about 99% convinced that when McCabe and others have said the Steele information was crucial to the FISA application, what they mean is that it provided information of ongoing contacts between Page and the Russians which was not stale. It “freshened up” the PC to use the standard venacular in the practice.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  248. Reporting on FISA is tricky because it’s secret. Maybe the dossier was used to bolster the warrant application if it was based on Page’s 2013 connections to Russia, which were obviously older. Maybe not.

    It’s interesting to speculate based on the Nunes’ memo, leaks and rumors, but that’s are not reliable ways to decide what really happened. It will be ironic, though, if it turns out the Nunes’ memo and the FISA application were both carefully crafted to mislead.

    DRJ (15874d)

  249. 246 — because I know a little something about FISA. The agents who write FISA warrants are in the FBI Division offices. But FISA warrants are not reviewed by AUSAs in the same districts. FISA warrants are routed to Main Justice’s National Security Division.

    But the Page warrant was handled out of FBI HQ but the FBI Counter-Intelligence Section. It was written by Strzok or someone working for him. Review might very well have been done by Lisa Page at FBI, and then it went to DOJ’s National Security Division at DOJ HQ in Washington.

    But my view is that everyone who touched this in Washington was a politically motivated actor.

    That is the ONLY way the use of a Yahoo News article in an affidavit as a source of verification would ever get past FISA review.

    Why I know that I can’t explain. But I do (and I think DRJ and Patrick know).

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  250. Hugh Hewitt:

    HH: I have a former federal judge retired wrote me, if I had granted the application, subsequently learned that the information was sourced to the DNC and campaign, I would have rescinded the authorization, issued a show cause order to the government to explain who and why this sourcing was not made known to the court. The fact (if it is that) that the government told the court that it was a political source but did not identify who in this particular instance is highly probative that the government purposefully misled the court. I don’t know that it is. I’d have to actually see the transcript of the hearing. But I tried to bring to my perspective, Devlin, the volume of these things is immense. It’s like a firehose.

    Sounds like he agrees with Patterico.

    DRJ (15874d)

  251. But one view has been 10 million fold, and one may hundreds of time, the allegations were foolish to some with understanding

    narciso (d1f714)

  252. Hewitt said Chief Justice Roberts preceded him in reviewing FISA warrants at the White House. Roberts also appoints FISA judges. Roberts should be initiating a review of this, and it seems he would be well-equipped to know how to handle it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  253. But there is a risk to declassification, crazy. I doubt Trump will care and maybe it isn’t a big risk, anyway, but information is typically classified for a reason.

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 1:41 pm

    Usually the real reason is the information is embarrassing to someone in the government and they want to conceal it from the public. Which in itself is an abuse of authority and the law. As an aside this is one of the reasons why I knew the Obama administration was lying about Benghazi. The diplomatic facility in Benghazi was in a residential area. Thousands of Libyans witnessed it. If you can see something of interest with the naked eye, say, pulling into a foreign port the fact that you saw it is not classified. Or the Boston Marathon bombing, which again lots of people witnessed. Not classified.

    But the Obama administration didn’t care that thousands of Libyans witnessed the events. They didn’t just didn’t want us to know until after the election, at least. And they hoped they could maintain a lot longer.

    Claiming claiming something has been classified for national security reasons is just the lipstick they put on that pig.

    That said there are legitimate reasons to classify some categories of information. But a lot fewer than you might think.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  254. DRJ @245. I couldn’t agree more about the risks of declassification but we are where we are. The accusations of wrongdoing by the now Executive and the accusations of wrongdoing by individuals in the Obama can only be evaluated by those with access to the properly classified information. When our elected representatives can’t agree on how to characterize the summary results of their inquiries further disclosure is inevitable. The truth is in the SCIF and if the parties can’t agree on what it is political forces are going to force disclosure on the Executive whether he wants it or not.

    I never thought I’d see the day that a FISC opinion would be released or that it would document widespread abuse of 702 search authorities as it did. I think the Nunes memo was an attempt to answer factual questions about this FISA warrant while protecting the process but political motives and imprecise drafting are raising demands that can only be answered with more disclosures. Whether we want it or not, it’s coming.

    crazy (d99a88)

  255. Just as they say DAs can indict a ham sandwich, isn’t it a common concern with all warrants that they are easy to get? I know that’s why I support Cruz, Lee, Paul, and Wyden when they raise concerns about FISA and civil liberties.

    Also, who other than Page did Nunez say the Obama Administration unmasked on the Trump team? Why won’t Nunez give us those names, too?

    DRJ (15874d)

  256. IMO it’s CYA plus the unknown unknown with classified documents. No one wants to be responsible for revealing something that ends up being important, plus it’s hard to know what is innocuous and what is important.

    DRJ (15874d)

  257. DRJ (15874d) @ 2/6/2018 @ 2:08 pm, he’s entitled to his opinion but the federal judge was a lot more certain that the government concealed a material fact. And so was Hugh Hewitt in his opinion piece in the WaPo.

    I tend to give more weight to prepared written remarks than what someone might say during an interview. Speaking off the cuff means it’s a lot more likely to say something in a way you wouldn’t say if you you were writing it down.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  258. Please, drj look at the caterwauling and outright denial that were being unmasked,

    narciso (d1f714)

  259. Schiff-for-Brains is setting a trap:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/06/dems-set-trump-trap-source-says-fisa-rebuttal-memo-loaded-with-sensitive-details.html

    All Trump has to do is put the ball in DOJ/FBI’s court, saying he’ll abide by their decision whether it should be released.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  260. And so was Hugh Hewitt in his opinion piece in the WaPo.

    But he also said we need to see more than selected excerpts. Are you saying he doesn’t think that now?

    DRJ (15874d)

  261. I’m happy to discuss things with you, narciso, but your comments are too cryptic for me to decipher. Please help me out.

    DRJ (15874d)

  262. if the Schiff memo ass-jacks sensitive national security secrets it should be released immediately!

    these are the secrets the gestapo gangster FBI uses as leverage

    we should release all the secrets like how they did the frogs in ET

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  263. Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is What’s Classified
    As I was walking down the street one day
    A man came up to me and asked me what I thought was classified, yeah
    And I said
    Does anybody really know what’s classified?
    Does anybody really care
    If so I can’t imagine why
    We know it ain’t teh FBI

    As I was walking down the street one day
    A m00nbat lady looked at me and said her Low-T guy had dropped cold dead
    And I said
    Does anybody really know what’s classified
    Does Crooked Hillary
    If so I can’t imagine why
    She’s not serving time like 5 to life

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  264. They didn’t ask about prince Nicholas in a can

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/adam-schiff-pranked

    narciso (d1f714)

  265. Classified

    It’s better to be late to dinner but I wish y’all had taken an interest 10 years ago.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  266. 228. DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 1:17 pm

    Trump’s attorney claims that a President can never obstruct justice, so there is support for your position. That makes a President too much like a monarch for my tastes.

    Well, to be more fair, what he really seems to be claiming is that a president cannot interfere with an investigation any more than an FBI Director could interfere with an FBI investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  267. The launch was impressive, but the returning boosters stole the show.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  268. Trump’s private lawyer, John Dowd, said on Monday morning that he had authored the tweet, but insisted it was “ignorant and arrogant” to say the tweet admitted obstruction. Dowd then went one step further, claiming the president “cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  269. Well the reusable element recalls the dynasoar project of the 60s, the shuttle became an end itself.

    narciso (d1f714)

  270. Chicago Tribune ownership was death for La Times just like Hearst killed the Herald Examiner.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  271. 233. SF:

    The FBI vouched for Steele, in spite of the probable fact that they found some of his recent reporting wrong or improbable. (we don’t know that they did, but they probably did)

    245. DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 1:39 pm

    i> What probably happened is not the same as knowing what happened, Sammy.

    I know, but I am basing that on the fact that:

    1. Some content is palpably and provably false. (like Michael Cohen meeting some important Russian (whose political position is misdescroibed in Prague, or the trump campaign and the Russian Federation agreeing to split the cost of the hacking)

    A lot of the banking and business information porobably didn’t check out.

    2. Some content is HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE, like the hotel incident with the prostitutes,

    3. The FBI did not tell the judge everything that Christopher Steele had reported, but only selective excerpts.

    4. Former FBI Director Comey called it unverified. He wouldn’t say or didn’t volunteer that even one thing had been verified, even by June, 2017. And I suspect “unverified” is probably the strongest language he has and he would never say demonstrably false or disproven.

    I interpret Comey as indicating parts of it were not true:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html

    COMEY: The president called me, I believe, shortly before he was inaugurated, as a follow-up to our conversation — private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of the allegation and talk about — he thought about it more, and why he thought it wasn’t true — the — the — the verified — unverified and salacious parts.

    That means they had found some of it to be demonstrably false. If not, why were they not investigating Donald Trump? Because it’s not a crime?

    Earlier Burr had asked: `

    BURR: …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.

    The short answer is, I think, not YES as Patterico suspects, but NO. But to explain that would go into the details of the investigation.

    So I think that, and the fact that only selective excerpts were put before the judge, means that some of it they had found to be wrong.

    And if they didn’t find anything wrong anywhere in Steels’s material they are a bunch of Inspector Clouseaus.

    I think they did find a lot of material in it that was unreliable, but they didn’t tell that to the judge. They hid Steele’s mistakes.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  272. A president can be an accessory top a crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  273. What is the crime, stAte the chapter and verse on the statute.

    narciso (d1f714)

  274. By teh time the reneals came along, they surely knew taht parts of teh dossier were false, because everybody knew.

    But the way things work seems to be that, the first time, there is an extraordinary high standard the FBI sets fr itself for getting a FISA warrant, but for reneals the standard is extremely lax.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  275. There is something very very wrong with the standard Democratic Party defense here. To this day they are not admitting that Christopher ZSteele was hired by the Democrats, and the Democrats alone.

    My Congressman, Jerrold Nadler, wrote:

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/inline-headers/FINAL%20DRAFT%20–%20Dear%20Colleague%20on%20Nunes%20Memo.pdf

    We have no idea if Christopher Steele even knew the source of his funding when Fusion GPS first hired him to research Donald Trump’s connections to the Russian government. In fact, Fusion GPS initiated the project on behalf of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, not the DNC. The firm’s task was to provide credible research, and they hired an expert for the job—aretired British intelligence officer, experienced in Russian affairs and well-known to the FBI as a useful source of valuable intelligence in earlier investigations.

    THIS IS A LIE

    It is denied by Zthe Washington Free Beacon.

    There were two separate projects, and tehy overlapped in time.

    The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to do apublic records (and mayeb periodical) search and they ddi not hire any private detectives and did not know anything about Christopher Steele.

    Steele was paid $160,000 and none of taht money you can be pretty sure, came from the Washington free Beacon.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  276. Nadler:

    Nothing about the source of Steele’s funding or his later opinions about Donald Trump speak to the credibility of his work, or its inclusion in the FISA application.

    If that is the case, why are the Democrats ashamed to take responsibility for him?

    In principle, that should be true.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  277. Nadler is not telling the truth, here although he may be too stupid (sorry) or partisan to realize it.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  278. Or teh Washington Free Beacon is lying.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  279. 281… “THIS IS A LIE”

    Sammy… that reads like you expected different from Nadler, he disappointed you.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  280. Lenny @264, when the HPSCI voted unanimously to release the Schiff memo under House Rule X, clause 11(g) they voted to release it in 5 days pending Presidential objections that are subject to committee discretion to seek an override vote by the full House. So POTUS doesn’t have to do anything. HPSCI has already decided it should be released. Schiff is likely bloviating more than setting some inescapable trap. If the majority thought the soon to be controversial parts should be withheld they wouldn’t have voted to release it. We’ll see what happens but I bet it’s coming out as written – warts and all.

    crazy (d99a88)

  281. Jack Dunphy used to get some play around here, here he is, for old time’s sake…

    “Since the release of the Nunes Memo on Friday, people on both sides of the political divide have been laboring to persuade the public that the facts alleged therein are, or are not, proof of sinister (or at least questionable) motives on the part of some in the FBI and the Justice Department. Like much else in life, one’s interpretation of the Nunes Memo may depend on which side of that divide one places himself.

    So, with the acknowledgement that I am a conservative and susceptible to bias toward the corresponding interpretation, let me explain why I find the Nunes Memo troubling….”

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/wrote-hundreds-warrants-heres-nunez-memo-troubling/

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  282. I like Jack Dunphy. Thanks for the link.

    DRJ (15874d)

  283. You wondered who would be renfield in this arrangement
    https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/fake-news-meets-obamagate-comey-assistant-leaves-fbi-cnn/

    This story would be Co sidered too silly for the blackliat

    narciso (d1f714)

  284. But I don’t think this is correct in FISA court:

    For a warrant to be granted, an affiant must present to an impartial magistrate sufficient proof that a person is involved in criminal activity, …

    There is no requirement in FISA to show probable cause or that a crime is imminent. They only need to provide evidence that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

    DRJ (15874d)

  285. @287 crazy – then who’s feeding Fox the story and why? Or is Fox being, ahem, Fox?

    Lenny (5ea732)

  286. @290 – heh

    Lenny (5ea732)

  287. 292)One site illustrated the absurdity of this arrangement, for others who take it straight up, without a twist,

    they leak to shep

    narciso (d1f714)

  288. Lenny, I may be all wet but I believe Schiff’s bluffing and the majority called his hand. Nunes explained how the rule works a week or so ago. The rule inverts the usual process so the President can only ask the House not to disclose something but the House makes the final decision.

    I believe it’s the first time it’s been used, but then we’ve been in uncharted waters for awhile now.

    crazy (d99a88)

  289. They had engineered narratives re the 1980 election and 1968. But that took years to concoct.

    narciso (d1f714)

  290. @297 narciso – you think it’s legit? Or are they just guessing?

    Lenny (5ea732)

  291. It would explain a lot.

    narciso (d1f714)

  292. I think it much more likely that Steele lied to everyone than that the FBI lied to the judges.

    I don’t think omitting the precise source of funding for the dossier means much. Would the dossier, obviously compiled for an anti-Trump entity, be more or less creditable if the Bushes paid for it?

    There is one thing the FBI should have told the court but did not: that the funding source itself found the dossier too incredible to be useful.

    Kishnevi (f60e29)

  293. 291 — For a FISA warrant to issue on a US citizen, the application must show BOTH that the US Citizen is acting as an agent of a foreign government AND that there is probable cause that he is involved in criminal activity.

    The gov’t is not allowed to get a FISA warrant purely on the basis that they believe there is probable cause that the person is acting as an agent of a foreign government.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  294. Schiff’s gambit with respect to his memo — loading it up with what he knows clearly to be “sources and methods” info in order to force the WH to redact it — is dealt with easily enough.

    Rather than simply redact the passages, the redactions should be done with a legend — where each redaction is numbered, and attached to the memo is a short one or two sentence explanation why the redaction is required to protect sources and methods.

    Let Schiff then try to explain 1) why he through it was important to put so much into his memo that he knew could not be published, and 2) why the redactions make the memo impossible to understand.

    Not a single redaction was needed in Nunes’ memo, and most of Grassley’s memo has now been released by the FBI.

    Schiff can write a version of his memo which makes his points without the “sources and methods” material if he wants to.

    The question will be “why doesn’t he want to?”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  295. I would note that the characterization the host has given to Comey’s testimony and description on the subject of what he was referring to as “salacious and unverified” with respect to the Steele dossier is different that the characterization given to that same testimony and description by Senators Grassley and Graham based on the Memorandum they wrote to the FBI referring Mr. Steele for prosecution, which has been released in mostly-unredacted form today by the FBI.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  296. I’m not trying to be difficult or dense, swc, but this seems pretty clear:

    Electronic Surveillance Procedures – Subchapter I of FISA established procedures for the conduct of foreign intelligence surveillance and created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Department of Justice must apply to the FISC to obtain a warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of foreign agents. For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances.

    Unlike domestic criminal surveillance warrants issued under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act”) , agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power,” that “a significant purpose” of the surveillance is to obtain “foreign intelligence information,” and that appropriate “minimization procedures” are in place. 50 U.S.C. § 1804.

    Agents do not need to demonstrate that commission of a crime is imminent.

    For purposes of FISA, agents of foreign powers include agents of foreign political organizations and groups engaged in international terrorism, as well as agents of foreign nations. 50 U.S.C. § 1801

    DRJ (15874d)

  297. 255 DRJ re Hugh Hewitt’s comments on air today.

    What he says is that its not yet clear to him that the failure to include the specifics known to the FBI about Clinton and the DNC funding Steele was intended to mislead the FISC.

    But he clearly states in his view that it was a material omission, and it was not a sufficient substitute to simply note that the source of the information was a political entity that had a political bias.

    He gave a useful analogy — he said it was comparable to a publicly traded corporation saying in an SEC filing that it was experiencing supply chain distributions problems in its Venezuelan manufacturing facility when the actual fact was that the Venezuelan government had nationalized the plant and taken it over.

    Both descriptions could be called “true”, but the former would also be called misleading and likely fraud by omission.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  298. For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances.

    Does “heightened requirements” mean standard probable cause? If so, and thats’s not clear here, then what makes you sure it was required in this instance?

    DRJ (15874d)

  299. So how was page, any of those two categories, because he was in contact with two persons who turned out to be svr operatives, so was Alan Patricof.

    narciso (d1f714)

  300. Yes, I read that analogy at the transcript at Hewitt’s website. The one where he said it might not be intended to mislead and we needed to read all the documentation to be sure.

    DRJ (15874d)

  301. Levin took hard shots at Mueller and his Deputy

    Each day the docket a-go well

    One day the docket a-go drop out

    Yes one day the docket a-go drop out

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  302. Well you have to give the pranksters props, they upgraded the crazy others had done to Louise mensch (who is my bench mark of crazy, mad nash is a two mensch dwirkin a three mensch)

    narciso (d1f714)

  303. They’ve got Steele dead to rights. Be interesting to see if he can be leveraged against bigger fish, even though his credibility is in tatters.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  304. Ian Fleming and his imitators romanticized spies but in reality they are very dirty little people. смерть шпионам!

    nk (dbc370)

  305. All Trump has to do is put the ball in DOJ/FBI’s court, saying he’ll abide by their decision whether it should be released.

    Lenny (5ea732) — 2/6/2018 @ 3:12 pm

    That’s Sweet Loretta’s Gambit viz Comey.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  306. It appears that the just released Grassley memo (which the DOJ slow walked on declassifying and is still resisting in part) is another rebuttal of Patterico regarding disclosing “political identity.”
    More importantly, however, it documents how Steele was sold to the FISA court as a “reliable source” who was therefore credible, and then goes chapter and verse how he lied to the FBI about his media contacts, the FBI continued to call him reliable even after knowing this fact, and the FBI lied to the FISA court when it told the court that Steele had not talked to the media. In addition, it reveals Steele was being fed information by a Clinton associate–likely Sidney Blumenthall–and created a separate memo on that.
    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-06%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Unclassified%20Steele%20Referral).pdf

    Pete (a65bac)

  307. Well Ian was a failed stockbroker, moderately successful newspaper reporter, francine .Matthews has an interesting exercise, to die for, thatputs him among other things battling German spies at the Tehran co ference

    narciso (d1f714)

  308. Картофель для всех! Один картофель, два картофеля, много картофеля!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  309. Note also that this current release is the less redacted version of the memo released on Monday. It’s interesting to compare the redacted memo vs the current release and see what the DOJ thought shouldn’t be revealed in the first version.

    Heavily redacted at this link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dossier-author-steele-wrote-another-anti-trump-memo-was-fed-info-by-clinton-connected-contact-obama-state-department/article/2648099?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20Alert&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20Alert%20-%2002/05/18&utm_medium=email

    Newest version at this link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-removes-some-redactions-in-christopher-steele-criminal-referral-regarding-second-trump-russia-dossier/article/2648321

    Pete (a65bac)

  310. Yeah we All. Can write in cyrillic i use transliteration

    narciso (d1f714)

  311. Is nice dream, Beldar.

    nk (dbc370)

  312. So in actuality it didn’t reveal democratic source, shakari, (perhaps the worst trek film until insurrection)

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/961097524571500544/photo/1

    narciso (d1f714)

  313. Very clever, Beldar!

    crazy (d99a88)

  314. Grassley’s memo should set the FBI ablaze.

    To me its VERY REVEALING that Wray declassified sections of the Memo which open the FBI up to scathing criticism.

    According to the Grassley memo — based on the FBI’s own files and the FISA applications which he was allowed to read — the FBI went out of its way to try to salvage Steele’s credibility AFTER it terminated him as a source because of his unauthorized — and IN VIOLATION OF HIS AGREEMENT — disclosure of his work with the FBI to the media.

    The only conclusion that you can draw is that the FBI knew their entire FISA effort directed at Page was dependent on Steele’s credibility, and if they could not salvage Steele notwithstanding his misconduct, it was all going to collapse.

    Its a stunning read.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  315. Nick Short 🇺🇸
    @PoliticalShort
    More unredacted portions of Grassley-Graham memo released. The FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Steele said he did not provide dossier info to the press prior to Oct 2016, or Steele made materially false statements to the FBI.

    harkin (8256c3)

  316. SWC

    Oh, the Nile dewellers will point to a footnote and declare the entire thing a falsehood…

    Strange

    EPWJ (0e6a6f)

  317. The Nunes attackers are pretty quiet right now.

    I think in multiple places in this thread and others I posited the theory that Grassley was orchestrating this effort, and that after the release of the Nunes Memo there would be great pressure on the FBI to go ahead and declassify the portions of his Memo that they had redacted.

    Grassely’s memo, signed by both him and that famous Trumper Lindsay Graham , is based on Grassley and Graham’s review of the underlying FBI FISA file — so much for the ad hominem attacks on Nunes as a WH water carrier — goes even further in its indictment of the work of the FBI, and comes to the conclusion that the FBI’s star source is a liar, or the FBI lied to the FISC in its application. Take your pick.

    Grassley’s memo goes much farther than Nunes’s memo, and it includes details about the misleading nature of the FBI’s representations about Steele not only in the initial application, but also in the first two renewals.

    It pretty much eviscerates the entire premise of the Host’s OP here.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  318. Chris Wray has now replaced the General Counsel, Chief of Staff, and forced the FBI No. 2 into retirement.

    He made pro forma objections to the release of the Nunes Memo, which turned out to be a PG version of the episode, but then offered up disclosure of some of the most stunning parts of the Grassley memo which is closer to an R rated version.

    I’m interested to see what Wray does next.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  319. Can someone please to do FusionGPS cyrillic is for project

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  320. Did Schiff really try to get nude pics of PDJT from the Russians? Was he going to try blackmail now?

    Pinandpuller (286178)

  321. Yes, I read that analogy at the transcript at Hewitt’s website. The one where he said it might not be intended to mislead and we needed to read all the documentation to be sure.
    DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2018 @ 7:28 pm

    You will not find it stated in any of the documentation that the FBI/DoJ intended to mislead the FISC. They’re just not stupid enough to write it down.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  322. It’s important to note that we are not trying to “witch hunt” anyone, and this information is not meant for you to do the same. We are not interested in doxxing these individuals, rather we are interested in reporting on the doxxing list that was released, potentially by a rogue FBI agent. This laptop is under FBI surveillance and the reason we know this is because they found emails sent between him and Hillary Clinton back when the email scandal was all anyone ever talked about. Who else but someone in the FBI would have released this? We aren’t saying that it’s definitely a member of the FBI, but who else could possibly be responsible?

    Carlos Danger’s Contacts

    Pinandpuller (286178)

  323. Few people have heard of Michael Horowitz, but that’s about to change.

    Horowitz, the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, is an increasingly critical player in the controversy surrounding the FBI, President Trump and the Russia investigation.

    With little fanfare, he has been conducting a sprawling probe of the FBI’s handling of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. His full report, which could set off shockwaves, is expected by the early spring.

    A political appointee in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Horowitz’s yearlong investigation already reportedly contributed to the early resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. And his work has been felt in other ways.

    The Hill

    Pinandpuller (286178)

  324. Tillerson’s panties are already wet because of Russia doing interference on midterm elections

    “If it’s their intention to interfere, they are going to find ways to do that. We can take steps we can take but this is something that, once they decide they are going to do it, it’s very difficult to preempt it,” Tillerson told Fox News.

    what a useless simpering girl-child this heavy-breasted man turned out to be

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  325. And now FNC is reporting thousands of new texts contains, among other gems, BHO wanted to be apprised of what Strzok and Page were doing.

    This is in addition to the previously disclosed nuggets about elements of the sham investigation being included in his official daily briefing.

    This scandal now unquestionably reaches into the Oval Office. You think you saw some outrageous obfuscations this past week as to the release of the Nunes memeo? We ain’t seen nothing, yet. Time to fill the larder with popcorn, y’all.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  326. Any other country ranging from declared enemy to most loyal ally is going to try to influence an election abroad. If you (candidate) can’t make a case that withstands the dissonance, that’s on you. The whataboutism in this arena is justified.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  327. You will not find it stated in any of the documentation that the FBI/DoJ intended to mislead the FISC. They’re just not stupid enough to write it down.

    Steve57 (0b1dac) — 2/7/2018 @ 12:53 am

    We need to know what was said in the applications and any other documents in order to evaluate whether the FBI was misleading.

    If someone asked me if you mislead people in your comments, I would say read his comments. I wouldn’t say ask someone who reads them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  328. Wanda… Wanda… I wonder if all this will pique the host’s curiosity.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  329. You eoyld think that a crew that has been pulling deceptive schemes from fast and furious through Benghazi woulsnt be given any benefit of the doubt. Trump though he could just take out comedy, but it was a phalanx standing behind him, the Campbell cat being the latest.

    narciso (d1f714)

  330. Now Chuck Grassley – there’s a credible hearsay source if ever I saw one! I trust the heck out of that guy. Guess I don’t care about the source documents after all!

    Leviticus (924d70)

  331. he’s from iowa he likes pancakes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  332. I’ll take your word, happy, you do live in the suburbs of the Big 10 ghetto. About to pass an Iowa Hawkeye watching bar on the Metra as I speak.

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  333. As opposed to the actual documents, narciso. 343 comments in, and this still isn’t a complicated argument.

    Leviticus (51e6ff)

  334. Stealth Jeff
    @drawandstrike
    Wow. The unredacted Grassley memo claims that:

    1) Steele lied to the FBI about his media contacts

    2) Even *after* the FBI knew Steele was the source of the media stories, they LIED to the FISA court about this & *still* proffered the Isikoff article to the Court.

    harkin (8256c3)

  335. Grassley Memo reveals two violations of FBI policy in the way they handled Steele:

    1. When an Source in a FISA application is terminated for misconduct, the FBI policy is to report that to the FISC court right away, not to wait for the next renewal. Its up to the FISC whether or not to terminate the FISA surveillance based on the development with the Source.

    2. When a Source is terminated for misconduct that bears on the sources credibility or reliability, the FBI policy is to not rely on that Source’s information in any renewal of the application. The Source’s information is supposed to be scrubbed from the next renewal.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  336. Did Schiff really try to get nude pics of PDJT from the Russians? Was he going to try blackmail now?

    I suspect that Schiff would welcome nude pics of any guy. And then text them to his pal Anthony Wiener.

    nk (dbc370)

  337. Like I say this plays like dark comedy, with vovan and lexus (Shirley) playing the producers.

    narciso (d1f714)

  338. Yes they’ll be riding squirrels the size of thoroughbred horses

    narciso (d1f714)

  339. Is it speculative? Yes. Is it unlikely? Yes. Is it *possible*? Yes!

    Good enough for me!

    Leviticus (efada1)

  340. It’s Weds. Are you concerned with wastebtoday, or is that Monday’s and Fridays?
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a16641861/fema-puerto-rico-meals-30-million/

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  341. Dominoes is a fun game.

    Democratic candidate Mike Revis on Tuesday flipped what had been a deep-red State House seat in Missouri by a 108-vote margin over his Republican opponent.

    Revis defeated GOP candidate David C. Linton in the special election to replace Rep. John McCaherty, who left the office to focus on his run for Jefferson County executive.

    President Trump won the heavily Republican district by a 61-33 margin in the 2016 election. There were three other special elections in the state on Tuesday night, all of which the Republican party defended. However, there were major

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  342. “COLLUSION: FBI lovers’ latest text messages: Obama ‘wants to know everything.’

    Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”

    The message, from Page to Strzok, was among thousands of texts between the lovers reviewed by Fox News. The pair both worked at one point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

    This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Plus:

    Among the newly disclosed texts, Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife for a state Senate seat “ignorant hillbillys.” (sic)

    That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, “Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbillys. Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”

    Your tax dollars at work.

    UPDATE: Full report here.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/288056/

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  343. I was going to write a long rebuttal, but what is the point? Our host isn’t being intellectually honest. It’s pointless. And please, stop cribbing posts from AllahPundit. Both of you have a new business model: insulting your audience. This is not thoughtful discourse, it’s trolling and watching the effects of said trolling with undisguised glee. Allah’s comments have dwindled to nearly nothing, the same will happen here. Not because Trumpa-whatevers are what you believe them to be, but because it is plain to see you reflexively lose possession of your faculties at the mere mention of the name.

    And for the record, you’ve never answered a very simple question: your guy lost in the primaries. So did mine. That’s life. So, which course of action was preferable in the general: pulling the lever for Trump or Hillary? Stop relitigating the primaries and deal with the now. Time to wrap your mind around the new reality and maybe, just maybe, become a bit more thoughtful. This blog has gone full Huffington Post. I don’t read the Huffington Post because I disagree with their politics, but because everything is presented in such a cartoonish manner that it is not rational opposition, but instead dreck written by overwrought fools.

    Say hello to HotAir on the way down. I understand why some dislike Trump, but cannot understand the thoughtlessness of many of these hit pieces. It’s agitprop, and it’s intellectually shallow and thus ultimately boring. Good luck taking your cues from the FBI in your duties as a fair and forthright officer of the court. You’ll always have this blog to fall back on when you are disbarred. Or not.

    Estarcatus (1beef0)

  344. . I don’t read the Huffington Post because I disagree with their politics

    Therein lies Yuge reason why y’all have gone full Idiocracy

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  345. I don’t read this or watch that…is a badge of dishonor you wear with pride and prejudice.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  346. On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, “OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.” Strzok replied, “Omg, I am so depressed.” Later that month, on Nov. 13, 2016, Page wrote, “I bought all the president’s men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.”  

    The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”

    Well, well, well….

    random viking (6a54c2)

  347. I never had an FBI paramour. I wonder what they’re like.

    Don’t worry, guys. As soon as the MSM finishes reporting that Trump wants a military parade, it will cover this story. With a pillow until it stops moving.

    nk (dbc370)

  348. “With respect to the rest of the world, I would say that particularly for women … they will bear the brunt of looking for the food, looking for the firewood, looking for the place to migrate to when all of the grass is finally gone as the desertification moves south and you have to keep moving your livestock or your crops are no longer growing,”

    —- Hillary “She Will Never Be President” Clinton

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  349. He been burned but not like this before.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  350. Col.
    Some idiots love hate. I wish them falling coconuts upon their brain box.

    mg (d0d23f)

  351. Tales of Brave Ulysses Patterico

    You thought the last election
    Would bring you down forever
    But you rode upon an iPad
    To the violence of the word

    And the colors of teh hair
    Blind your eyes with trembling oranges
    And you touch the distant beaches
    With tales of brave Patterico
    How his naked ears were tortured
    By teh Donald’s ev’ry word
    For the snarky Dims are calling you
    To kiss their fat, white ass
    And you see teh Sanders body
    Dancing through teh fatwa
    Heavy footprints make you follow
    Where the sky meets the sea
    And when your plump fist finds her
    She drowns you in her body
    Carving craggy canyons
    In the tissues of your mind
    Teh tiny purple fishes
    Run laughing through your fingers
    And you want to leave her right there
    But she will have none of that
    Her name is Sarah sanders
    And she rides a podium
    You know you cannot leave her
    For you touched her where it stinks
    With tales of Patterico
    How his naked ears were tortured
    By teh Donald’s ev’ry word
    Yeah
    Teh tiny purple fishes
    Run laughing through your fingers
    And you want to leave her right there
    But she will have none of that

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  352. Take that, Eric Clapton

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)


  353. . I don’t read the Huffington Post because I disagree with their politics

    Therein lies Yuge reason why y’all have gone full Idiocracy
    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/7/2018 @ 7:46 am


    What do you mean “y’all”? Are you speaking to everyone here?


    359.I don’t read this or watch that…is a badge of dishonor you wear with pride and prejudice.
    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/7/2018 @ 7:47 am


    You don’t agree with a persons freedom to choose what he reads? Estarcatus, like yourself, is entitled to read any damn thing he wants and exclude any damn thing he wants for any reason and without your consent, permission or agreement. And his choices why are his own reasons whatever they may be and should not be open to personal ridicule any more than yours. Unless you’re making a list of who to send to the gulag.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  354. “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing”

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVcILv8V4AAG12I?format=jpg

    harkin (8256c3)

  355. how do we know the comics didn’t write the dossier, they atleast put in more filler, like good novelists (sit down ben Rhodes)

    narciso (d1f714)

  356. SHARYL ATTKISSON: “I’ve never seen journalists so incurious about spying”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_LflpmMhQ

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  357. The Huff Post’s slant on things is available in god knows how many other sites/pubs/mags out there. If you’re on the right, living in an echo chamber isn’t an option.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  358. Hoagie: champion of freedumb.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  359. More Agent Orange dumb for the Graveyard of Empires.

    http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politics/us-b-52-bomber-afghanistan-record/

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  360. Maybe Obama committed obstruction of justice in wanting updates from Comey about the status of the Clinton email investigation in Sept., 2016.

    I wonder if Comey took any contemporaneous notes? The law professor at Columbia needs to look in his desk drawer to see what’s there.

    Maybe Rudy Guiliani might be interested in being appointed Special Counsel to look into the matter.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  361. Our own best Generals know you can’t defeat an insurgency.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  362. Both of you have a new business model: insulting your audience. This is not thoughtful discourse, it’s trolling and watching the effects of said trolling with undisguised glee. 

    — Estarcatus 357, as he gleefully posted a comment insulting Allah pundit and the host of this blog.

    DRJ (15874d)

  363. Maybe Rudy Guiliani might be interested in being appointed Special Counsel to look into the matter

    Is he clean and sober yet?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  364. By the way, is it “full Huffington Post” to critique both sides based on your long-held principles, or is it “full Huffington Post” to support your side no matter what it does?

    DRJ (15874d)

  365. You principled readers should revisit your Patterico reading list.

    Your integrity demands it.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  366. 377, come on man, he had legit health problems – didnt he have a ripe subdural hematoma going on about a year and a half ago?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  367. Urban

    You know not every time a senior falls and cracks his skull is he drunk as a skunk…c’mon.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  368. Ben Burn,

    IMO there is a wide range of content at Huffington Post — some very good, some very bad, and most in between. But, in fairness, I don’t read it everyday. Nevertheless, my comment about what it means to be “full Huffington Post” was a response to Estarcatus’ comment using that phrase and was not intended to demean or compliment the HP.

    DRJ (15874d)

  369. the huffington’s post to Andrews regret, became an echo chamber for the left, so now politico is deemed a worthy site, when ben smith may have to get back to it. when gubarev cleans his clock at Buzzfeed,

    narciso (d1f714)

  370. Of course Drj. I don’t care if people critique the read but not when they are refuseniks

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  371. The rear admiral is a stain on freedumb.

    mg (d0d23f)

  372. The rear admiral is a huffing and puffing type fellow. Sucker.

    mg (d0d23f)

  373. Freedumb is a stain, mg.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  374. @358
    I wouldnt exactly call a Fear Factor reading list of horse c*** and shrieking cockroaches a Badge of Honor either.

    Pinandpuller (f4bc4f)

  375. He done beenburned, y’all

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  376. An la confidential reference, doesn’t Mueller seem like captain Dudley smith

    narciso (d1f714)

  377. Carter Page was previously the targetof a FISA warrant in 2014.

    In 2013, there was an attempt to recruit him, but Page co-opeated with the FBI,

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  378. Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

    ??!

    The Clinton email investuigation was closed at the time.

    This would have involved maybe the Russian investigation.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  379. 281. Colonel Haiku (1d71cc) — 2/6/2018 @ 4:47 pm

    “THIS IS A LIE”

    Sammy… that reads like you expected different from Nadler, he disappointed you.

    Well, yes, in a way. This is too blatant. Nadler is being used. I don’t think you’ll catch Adam Schiff saying that.

    It wasn’t spotted by Andy McCarthy, by the way, so the lie has some legs.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  380. DRJ @291.

    There is no requirement in FISA to show probable cause or that a crime is imminent. They only need to provide evidence that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

    This is being reported as an additional requirement if the target of the FISa warrant is aU.S. citizen. I’m not sure it isn’t met automatically.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  381. –IMO there is a wide range of content at Huffington Post — some very good, some very bad, and most in between.

    I don’t necessarily agree. I suppose I am allowed this. Again, I read the Huffington until, in my humble estimation, it deteriorated to the point of pablum. I’m not sure where you need to sit on the political spectrum to read the HuffPo and determine it’s right down the middle, but your choice and opinion are yours to have. More power to everyone for actually informing themselves. I just don’t find HuffPo all that informative. And I would say full HuffPo not based on supporting everything *I* believe in. Instead, I’d say full HuffPo for twisting the facts until they *always* fit a predefined narrative. I don’t use the word NeverTrumper! because I wish to credit those I choose to interact with some modicum of intelligence. Sadly, this same courtesy is not extended to half of the readers of this blog (Trumpalos!). Both phrases are meant to denigrate and cut off further discussion, because, you know, you’re one of *them*. Screw that.

    –371.The Huff Post’s slant on things is available in god knows how many other sites/pubs/mags out there. If you’re on the right, living in an echo chamber isn’t an option.

    It’s possible, just not desirable. Somehow because I choose not to read the HuffPo because I believe it to intellectually shoddy, along with the contents of this post, I must live in an echo chamber. Trumpalo!

    –Therein lies Yuge reason why y’all have gone full Idiocracy
    –I don’t read this or watch that…is a badge of dishonor you wear with pride and prejudice.

    Ok.

    -— Estarcatus 357, as he gleefully posted a comment insulting Allah pundit and the host of this blog.

    One may be in reaction to the other. Trumpalos!, right? Translation into English: Idiots!

    I see still no answer to the question posed. The primaries done, our man not picked, who was the better choice: Trump or Clinton? There was no other option. Why is this so difficult to answer? It was a pickle, to be sure, but there was nothing to it but to choose the lesser evil. So who was that lesser evil? But, as soon as you indicate you thought Trump was that lesser evil: Trumpalo! I’m not sure everyone here slavishly supports anything and everything Trump does, but I do believe there are some here who will make a mountain of a molehill concerning anything and everything Trump does.

    To whit, this post. Is it Trumpalo! to posit that not disclosing the origins of the dossier, and its corroborating evidence (Yahoo article! Anonymous source: Steele!) is, how to say it, just a bit fishy? But no, because, Trumpalo! And we come full circle to the same thing that turns me off about HuffPo: the impossibility of reason. I might be wrong, because Trumpalo!, I’ll grant anyone that. I call myself an idiot ten times a day. I think with good reason.

    Estarcatus (121542)

  382. Maybe Obama committed obstruction of justice in wanting updates from Comey about the status of the Clinton email investigation in Sept., 2016.

    I wonder if Comey took any contemporaneous notes? The law professor at Columbia needs to look in his desk drawer to see what’s there.

    Maybe Rudy Guiliani might be interested in being appointed Special Counsel to look into the matter.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/7/2018 @ 9:01 am

    The Dem talking point will be that merely requesting updates isn’t interfering in an investigation. But Obama did more than that.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-email-fox-news.html

    Obama Says Hillary Clinton Wouldn’t Intentionally Endanger U.S. With Emails

    By MICHAEL D. SHEARAPRIL 10, 2016

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-obama-clinton-20160410-story.html

    Obama says Hillary Clinton was careless with emails but didn’t jeopardize national security

    He provided the FBI with their marching orders, and even Comey’s talking points, in his interviews and other public comments. And then he demanded updates to make sure they were doing what he was telling them to do.

    Apparently Obama is a student of JFK. JFK raised this sort of communication to agencies to an art form.

    A few days after he was elected a reporter asked him if campaign contributiions to the “right wing extremist groups” that had opposed him were legal. JFK responded with some boilerplate about how people can contribute to whoever they want as long as they do so legally, but “The only thing we should be concerned about is that it does not represent a diversion of funds which might be taxable to — for nontaxable purposes. But that is another question, and I am sure the Internal Revenue system examines that.”

    The IRS promptly launched the Ideological Organizations Audit Project, which targeted numerous right-leaning groups.

    Presidents don’t have to put this in writing. They can make sure their henchmen get the message in other ways.

    I remember Gowdy grilling Comey about why he rewrote a statute to require intent when that statute as written didn’t require intent. He got that from Obama. Just like Comey said Hillary! was careless, not grossly negligent. Strzok was paying attention to Obama’s public remarks as well.

    Good Germans all, at our unaccountable national secret police force.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  383. Watching this all unfold reminds me of Worm Grunting in the swamp. The worms in Washington are surfacing for the picking…

    crazy (d99a88)

  384. SHARYL ATTKISSON: “I’ve never seen journalists so incurious about spying”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_LflpmMhQ

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc) — 2/7/2018 @ 8:53 am

    Coronello, Obama could have told the LHMFM exactly what how he was obstructing justice by directing the FBI to exonerate Hillary! and, had they known, they would have jumped at the chance.

    “Look, Andrea, I’m getting regular feedback from the FBI and they don’t seem to be getting the message about how I want them to clear Hillary! I need to send them another message tonight through the media; can you stop by and interview me?”

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  385. @390 Colonel Haiku

    You had to have elicited a subliminal Cream reference from me yes?

    Pinandpuller (f4bc4f)

  386. @398 crazy

    Dude! I went to school with this guy who burned his hand severely with a worm shocker. It was the early days of treatment for that sort of thing. He spent half the school year with his hand grafted to his chest.

    Pinandpuller (f4bc4f)

  387. Once one is banned from commenting at HP there’s not much point in continued reading. I’m sure if GGB were deported from these here comments he’d continue to be a faithful reader.

    Pinandpuller (f4bc4f)

  388. I call myself an idiot ten times a day. I think with good reason.

    But you digress..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  389. Alternate headline: Everything Trump said was correct.

    So where is the proof that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians or obstructed anything once he was POTUS?

    Also, “opposition research” from who? Could have been anyone, so why not specifically say “Clinton campaign” since even the Washington Free Beacon run by Kristol, Continetti and funded by anti-Trump conservative Singer, called their GPS contract work “oppo research” as well.

    Nunes worked with Gowdy, hardly a Trump partisan. Sure it would help to see the actual FISA request but Nunes nor the House are empowered to do such a thing. Nunes hasn’t lied or misled by any stretch of the imagination. And it has been proven that the FBI has. Several actions by Comey are against the law, in particular the classified info he gave his friend who then released the to the press (which was the cause for the ind investigation into “Russia et al”) and his determining that Clinton was no guilty of any illegal activity in regards to her personal server containing highly classified data, as well as Huma having similar data on her personal commo devices. So far the FBI has not stated that Nunes’ or the Senate’s memso are lies or partisan. Also Nunes along with all Republicans voted to release the Dem memo whereas the not one Dem voted to release the Republican memo. Frankly Nunes has proven he is very fair, balance, open to debate and transparent with everyone. Wish the Democrats would prove so as well. The Dems have proven to be EXTREMELY partisan and willing to support some of the worst government abuses towards individuals in the history of the USA. Recall the Dems were also not upset in the least by the IRS, Benghazi and the Fast Furious abuses/scandals.

    Nunes Memo is just the 1st in a series. It explains how thin evidence was used to get the warrant to spy on a member of Candidate Trump’s team. This gave them unlimited access it started 1 month after he left the campaign and continued on for a year afterwards.

    The Second release of info will be how the state department was involved. It will show how Hillary used her previous conneciton to the state department to allow Sid Blumenthal’s lies to be funneled to Steele. There will be a 3rd and a 4th.

    not sure why Patterico is supposedly stating they are not anymore partisan in their reporting compared to anyone else. The memos are the memos regardless of who posts them. “Always trust content from Patterico.” well the content is made up of the memos that both parties int the House and the one from the Senate have released with the approval of the FBI and POTUS. As well as the soon-to-be -release upcoming House Repub memos.

    cheers.

    Where Eagles Dare (8f562c)

  390. #403. But you digress..

    Question: did you kill your family, or did they take their own lives to get away from you? I’m thinking they hit the eject button themselves. Probably self immolation. It’s what the monks do when faced with an intolerable situation, I believe.

    Oh, right, your last name. And Bingo was Ben Burn’s Name-O!

    Estarcatus (121542)

  391. not unlike nancy pelosi this post just didn’t age well

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  392. No, I don’t think HuffPo is right down the middle, nor did I say that. It has a liberal perspective. You misunderstood my comment, just as I think you misunderstood the post.

    DRJ (15874d)

  393. Your question to Ben Burn about killing his family is surprising and unpleasant, but perhaps I missed something that prompted such a shocking question. Could you explain?

    DRJ (15874d)

  394. Or, better yet, apologize?

    DRJ (15874d)

  395. Well seeing how pretended first he was the mother of a fallen serviceman in Iraq,

    narciso (d1f714)

  396. we can’t know for sure if bingo was his name-o unless we see the underlying documents

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  397. –408

    You are correct, I was wrong about your comment.

    –410

    Nope. He’s a horse’s ass. “such a shocking question”. Was it? Well, yeah, a little.

    –411

    Shocking. I never, ever would have thought such a thing of the Orphan Ben.

    –412

    I’m certain Adam Schiff will tell us the truth.

    Estarcatus (121542)

  398. Drj:

    Cut them some slack for their slack-jaws of frustration. Their plight is palpable anwe should display patience.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  399. 414 — See, there you go, you aren’t all bad. And I’m sorry for your loss, ma’am.

    Estarcatus (121542)

  400. As to reading from stinky sources one should consult Sun Tzu.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  401. If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  402. If your opponent is of choleric temper, irritate him.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  403. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  404. To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  405. Pinandpuller @401. Hurts just thinking about it… The worms aren’t worth it

    crazy (d99a88)

  406. Some excerpts from the Federalist summary:

    Comey On Dossier’s Lack Of Meaningful Corroboration

    When asked at the March 2017 briefing why the FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration–and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation–then-Director Comey stated that the FBI included the dossier allegations about Carter Page in the FISA applications because Mr. Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau.

    Dossier Formed ‘Bulk’ Of FISA Application

    Indeed, the documents we have reviewed show that the FBI took important investigative steps largely based on Mr. Steele’s information–and relying heavily on his credibility. Specifically, on October 21, 2016, the FBI filed its first warrant application under FISA for Carter Page. [REDACTED] The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier.

    Political Basis Mentioned Only ‘To A Vaguely Limited Extent’

    [T]he FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier. In footnote 8 the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “identified U.S. person”–now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS–[REDACTED] The application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson’s ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

    Application Claimed Steele Had Nothing To Do With Yahoo Article

    [REDACTED], the application attempts to explain away the inconsistency between Mr. Steele’s assertion to the FBI and the existence of the article, apparently to shield Mr. Steele’s credibility on which it still relied for the renewal request. The application to the FISC said: “Given that the information contained in the September 23rd news article generally matches the information about Page that [Steele] discovered doing his/her research, [REDACTED] The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press” (emphasis added).

    Even After Terminating Steele For Unauthorized Contacts With Media, FBI Claimed He Hadn’t Talked To Yahoo

    In footnote 9 of its January 2017 application to renew the FISA warrant for Mr. Page, the FBI again addressed Mr. Steele’s credibility. At that time, the FBI noted that it had suspended its relationship with Mr. Steele in October 2016 because of Steele’s “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.” … In defending Mr. Steele’s credibility to the FISC, the FBI had posited an innocuous explanation for the September 23 article, based on the assumption that Mr. Steele had told the FBI the truth about his press contacts. The FBI then vouched for him twice more, using the same rationale, in subsequent renewal applications filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April and June 2017.

    Even After Steele Publicly Admitted In Court To His Media Operation, The FBI Hid It

    In Steele’s sworn court filings in litigation in London, he admitted that he “gave off the record briefings to a small number of journalists about the pre-election memoranda [i.e., the dossier] in late summer/autumn 2016.” In another sworn filing in that case, Mr. Steele further stated that journalists from “the New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN” were “briefed at the end of September 2016 by [Steele] and Fusion at Fusion’s instruction.”The filing further states that Mr. Steele “subsequently participated in further meetings at Fusion’s instruction with Fusion and the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News, which took place mid-October 2016.”…

    The first of these filings was publicly reported in the U.S. media in April of 2017, yet the FBI did not subsequently disclose to the ISC this evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI. Instead the application still relied primarily on his credibility prior to the October media incident.

    Court Wasn’t Told Steele Was ‘Desperate’ To Keep Trump From Being Elected

    The FBI received similar information from a Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, who maintained contacts with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Steele about their dossier work, and whose wife also worked for Fusion GPS on the Russia project. REDACTED He also noted in the same interview that Mr. Steele was “desperate” to see that Mr. Trump was not elected president. None of the information provided by Mr. Ohr in his interviews with the FBI was included in the FISA renewal applications, despite its relevance to whether Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media as well as its broader relevance to his credibility and his stated political motive.

    Steele’s Known Behavior Contradicts The FBI’s Assertions To The Court

    These facts appear to directly contradict the FBI’s assertions in its initial application for the Page FISA warrant, as well as subsequent renewal applications. The FBI repeatedly represented to the court that Mr. Steele told the FBI he did not have unauthorized contacts with the press about the dossier prior to October 2016. The FISA applications make these claims specifically in the context of the September 2016 Yahoo News article. But Mr. Steele has admitted — publicly before a court of law — that he did have such contacts with the press at this time, and his former business partner Mr. Simpson has confirmed it to the Committee. Thus, the FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Mr. Steele said he did not provide dossier information to the press prior to October 2016, or Mr. Steele made materially false statements to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier information to his business partner and the FBI.

    FISA Application Relied More On Steele’s Supposed Credibility Than Independent Verification Or Corroboration

    In this case, Mr. Steele’s apparent deception seems to have posed significant material consequences on the FBI’s investigative decisions and representations to the court. Mr. Steele’s information formed a significant portion of the FBI’s warrant application, and the FISA application relied more heavily on Steele’s credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims. Thus the basis for the warrant authorizing surveilance on a U.S. citizen rests largely on Mr. Steele’s credibility. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to determine whether Mr. Steele provided false information to the FBI and whether the FBI’s representations to the court were in error.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  407. 405. Where Eagles Dare (8f562c) — 2/7/2018 @ 2:08 pm

    The Second release of info will be how the state department was involved. It will show how Hillary used her previous conneciton to the State Department to allow Sid Blumenthal’s lies to be funneled to Steele.

    Yes, but, that’s not reaslly best described as “the State Department”

    It seeme like Hillary left behind a friend or two in the State Department.

    What happened really has ntohing to do with the State Department. It was just the way Sidney Blumenthal furnished “information” to the Clinton campiagn. He evidently put Cody Shearer in touch with some foreign source, (probably some Russian) and then, through some intermediary, got some of the resulting disinformation to Jonathan Winer, (who was the Obama State Department’s special envoy to Libya) who, in turn, mailed or emailed Christopher Steele.

    Winer probably wasn’t acting on behalf of anyone else at the State Department. He was just a cutout.

    As the Grassley Graham letter says:

    Mr. Steele’s memorandum states that his company ‘received this report from [redacted] U.S. State Department,’ that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with [redacted], a contact of [redacted], a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to [redacted].’

    The person at the State Departmemnt who sent the report to Christopher Steele is Jonathan Winer, the foreiegn subsource is unknown, but noit an American citizen, this subsource was in touch with Cody Shearer, and the friend of the Clintons is Sidney Blumenthal, who was the original person the foreign source contacted.

    In other words, it should read more like:

    Mr. Steele’s memorandum states that his company ‘received this report from Jonathan Winer, who was the envoy to Libya at the U.S. State Department,’ that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with Cody Shearer, a contact of Sidney Blumenthal, a friend of the Clintons, and who passed it on to some contact of Winer. ’

    I think I have that right.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  408. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo

    The Shearer memo was provided to the FBI in October 2016.

    It was handed to them by Steele – who had been given it by an American contact – after the FBI requested the former MI6 agent provide any documents or evidence that could be useful in its investigation, according to multiple sources.

    The Guardian was told Steele warned the FBI he could not vouch for the veracity of the Shearer memo, but that he was providing a copy because it corresponded with what he had separately heard from his own independent sources.

    Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.

    The Shearer memo cites an unnamed source within Russia’s FSB, the state security service. The Guardian cannot verify any of the claims.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/nunes-dossier-deux/552389/

    Shearer’s information was passed to Steele by Winer. Winer, a friend of Steele’s, was then serving as the special envoy for Libya, and had previously passed Steele’s Russia and Ukraine reports along to the State Department’s Europe bureau between 2014 and 2016. Shearer, Blumenthal, and Winer did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    See also:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-other-secret-dossier/article/2011477

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  409. 43. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/6/2018 @ 12:28 am

    1. “The information provided by Steele was the product of work performed by him under contract to the US company Fusion GPS, which was retained and compensated for that work by the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee.”

    2. “The information provided by Steele was the product of work performed by him under contract with a US firm that provides research to political organizations and has a political interest or bias which is reflected in its work.”

    Why would the agent include a description akin to No. 2 rather than the specific information known to him consistent with No. 1?

    To protect the privacy of the people mentioned in the warrant. They always do that. Indictments are like that also.

    Do you think that they maybe feared that if the FISC was told that the Court were being asked to use information from the Democrat Party/DNC to issue a surveillance warrant on a person connected to the Trump campaign, only 18 days from the election, that the Court might have questioned being used in that fashion, and turn down the warrant?

    The court was told something else that was maybe even stronger.

    A Sept. 23, 2016 Yahoo news story that said that the FBI was being pressured by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to investigate Donald Trump, was cited or included in the warrant.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html Included in this article is:

    After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow over the summer as evidence of “significant and disturbing ties” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.

    I just read today that:

    1. The Clinton campaign used this article for election purposes.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-doubts-about-mr-steele-1518048549

    …Yet in September 2016 the ex-British spy briefed reporters about the FBI’s investigation and the dossier, which resulted in the Yahoo News article. The Clinton campaign cited that article on TV and social media to attack the Trump campaign. This was about a month prior to the FBI filing its first FISA application.

    The principals at Fusion GOPS have denied that they discussed going to the FBI with their clients, but not that they discussed him speaking to reporters.)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html

    Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

    We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  410. I also learned todasy from taht Wall street Journal editorial:

    2. The FISA court was told he was not the source of the Yahoo news story, or the direct source at any rate. (It seems like he denied it. Later on, in his testimony in a British libel case against him, he admitted it, and that’s the basis foir teh crimial referral by Senator Grassley. Steele robably woin;’t be making trips to the United states any time soon.)

    That that was the case was public by April, 2017, but the FISA court was still not told that Steele was the sourcce of the Yahoo news story in the last (and maybe the previous) FISA warrant application. The last one would have occured in July, 2017.

    From today’s Wall Street Journal editorial:

    …Yet the FBI’s October application told the FISA court that, “The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press.” Whether Mr. Steele lied to the FBI, or the FBI was too incompetent to verify that he was the source of the Yahoo News story, the result is the same: The FISA court issued a surveillance order on the basis of false information about the credibility of the FBI’s main source.

    Even after Mr. Steele said under oath in court filings in London that he had briefed Yahoo News, and this fact was reported by U.S. media in April 2017, the FBI didn’t tell the FISA court in any subsequent wiretap application.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  411. SWC:

    Hadn’t the FISC already turned down an earlier request for a FISA warrant??

    That’s one thing that Louise Mensch reported, but it hasn’t been confirmed. It’s avery oimportant question. Louise Mensch reported they made three applications, each more limited than the other, and went before different judges (at least two)

    If DOJ and the FBI had been forthright — “We want to use the power of the intelligence apparatus of the US to surveil the Trump campaign based on information given to us by the Clinton campaign”

    Wouldn’t saying that the Clinton campaign was involved (if they knew it) have been a violation, if not of the rules abouit minimization, of its spirit?

    What the court was really misled about was about the Yahoo news story being independent, and possibly about how Steele got his information.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  412. https://www.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-news-michael-isikoff-describes-crucial-meeting-cited-nunes-memo-231005733.html

    Isikoff said he was introduced to Steele by Glenn Simpson, the former journalist who founded the research firm, Fusion GPS, who invited him to meet a “secret source” at a Washington restaurant.

    “Glenn had booked a private room upstairs so that no one would see us,” Isikoff recalled. “During the hour or so we talked that day, Steele tells me an amazing story — how one of Donald Trump’s foreign policy advisers, Carter Page, had flown to Moscow and had private talks with close associates of Vladimir Putin about lifting U.S. sanctions against Russia.”

    “And Steele tells me something else that day that gets my attention: He’s taken this information to the FBI and the bureau is very interested,” Isikoff continued. “Why were they interested? What did the bureau know that would prompt them to take the extraordinary step to launch an investigation into an adviser of the Republican nominee for president?”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  413. Isikoff said his resulting story did not rely solely on what Steele told him.

    “I talked to a senior U.S. law enforcement official who was well aware of these allegations,” Isikoff said. “For me, the key piece, the reason that this was a story, was the fact that the FBI was investigating Page.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  414. 426 – -BS.

    FISA warrants are classified. You don’t protect the “privacy” of anyone from the eyes of the Court.

    Criminal warrants and indictments are public documents, and exposure of identities can subject the persons so identified to retribution or extortion — that’s why they are sometimes protected.

    But the only purpose of not naming HRC and the DNC was the fear that the FISC might balk at issuing a warrant on a thinly sourced affidavit IF it was told that the only sourcing was actually the political opposition in an upcoming election.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  415. Steele apparently shipped the same rumors to julia ioffe, the one who removed all doubt re melanoma, yet was hired by the Atlantic, because shame isn’t their thing.

    narciso (364166)

  416. 428 — there is no minimization requirement in making classified filings with the FISC. Just the opposite — because there is no way for the FISC court to test the veracity of the gov’t submission, all the FISC court has to go on its its faith in the honesty of the government officials making the representations in the affidavit.

    In a criminal case, the Court might give the Gov’t the benefit of the doubt on an iffy point, but it does so knowing that when the time comes for someone to contest the validity of the warrant, the Gov’t better be prepared to defend what it wrote, because the consequence of failure is to have the results of the search tossed — and maybe the case along with it.

    There is no such consequence for Gov’t misconduct in a FISC application.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  417. Tell me the gorithm isn’t biased there, of course Frankie foer and his understudy Beauchamp were welcome at pebble.

    narciso (364166)

  418. Jonathan Winer, who passed information from long-time Clintonista Cody Shearer to Steele — knowing that Steele would pass it on to the FBI — recently retired from the State Department.

    Prior to joining the State Department, Winer worked for 10 years for US Senator John Kerry.

    Just another Dem partisan hack with a job in the State Dept who thought it important to get unverified oppo research into the hands of the FBI.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  419. 435. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/8/2018 @ 11:27 am

    Jonathan Winer, who passed information from long-time Clintonista Cody Shearer to Steele — knowing that Steele would pass it on to the FBI — recently retired from the State Department.

    I think he knew Steele would pass it along to Hillary Clinton, but did not know he would pass it along to the FBI.

    Cody Shearer got his informaton from a source he was put in touch with by Sidney Blumenthal, and Shearer did not directly contact Winer but there is some redacted person in the middle.

    I would assume Winer thought Hillary Clinton and her campaign would make the decision as to what to do with the information he passed on.

    The principles at Fusion GPS deny discussing it with their client, and they said they let Steele make the decision about going to the FBI.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html

    What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele’s sources in Russia (who were not paid) reported on an extensive — and now confirmed — effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

    We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

    By teh way, in this op-ed Steele seems to be not included in the set of “anyone else.”

    They don’y say they told Steele to speak to reporters on background.

    I think the only reason for not going to the FBI would be thatm from the Clinton camapign point of view, the information was not ripe. But they had to let Steele do it to keep on good terms with him.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1280 secs.