Patterico's Pontifications

2/10/2018

The Republican #TheMemo Did Not Jeopardize National Security…

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:16 am

…but apparently the Democrat one does:

President Trump on Friday blocked the release of a classified Democratic memo rebutting Republican claims that top federal law enforcement officials had abused their powers in spying on a former Trump campaign aide, a move that Democrats denounced as politically motivated hypocrisy.

Odd, since the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release it.

It’s tough to know what’s going on. Did Schiff lard up the memo with stuff he knew was sensitive so it would be blocked? That’s what Trump partisans will say, but then it’s hard to see why all the Republicans on the committee voted to release it. Is there a legitimate concern expressed by FBI and DoJ that further redactions could address? Possibly.

Me, I’ll sit back and watch it play out, without drawing any firm conclusions yet.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

262 Responses to “The Republican #TheMemo Did Not Jeopardize National Security…”

  1. as bureau top execs, seem to be seeking other employment, now already more than half a dozen, one wonders why that only appears in some samizdat press:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/09/big-picture-question-how-do-we-know/

    narciso (d1f714)

  2. she should get the Pulitzer, but another navelgazing idiot like farenthold, will end up with it,

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-christopher-steele-1518135346

    it’s like promoting fallows after he missed the Japanese property bubble, or friedman fundamentally getting the Lebanon story wrong, he revised for his first book,

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. More specifically, I’ll sit back and watch L’Elisir D’Amore at the theater.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. Cuz, afterall, Schiff is an upstanding guy, never known for asshattery or conduct detrimental to the USA.

    Having said that, release the hot schiffy mess with the redactions the FBI and DOJ deem necessary.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. oh you didn’t give your impressions of Tosca,

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. @1 – narciso, I think it’s pretty obvious that the sh!t has already hit the fan at DOJ/FBI. These aren’t small fish leaving. Instead of allowing the two bureaucracies to devolve into wholesale crisis and turmoil, Wray and Sessions are managing the turnover in the upper ranks. They have plenty of others on the bench.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  7. Is Schiff still fishing Russians for Trump nude shots?

    harkin (8256c3)

  8. it makes more sense that Walberg (sic) who was not only a lobbyist for deripasha, but was counsel for lavrov, was one of those steele represented as a source, how else would warner have need to contact him,

    narciso (d1f714)

  9. Watching a few reruns of Homeland, I am again reminded of how this needed a better actress than Claire Danes in the lead role. Her overwrought acting is hard to watch. But just who would be more suitable… maybe I need more coffee…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. This whole thing would be funny if not for the threat posed to national security by leftists, neocons and neverTrumpers who would rather jeopardize or country than stop screaming at the sky and admit Trump is president.

    Hussein really left the deep state in a f’ed up mess. I suppose the “unexpected” loss of Hillary interrupted the “peaceful transition of power” the progs have often noted (when they weren’t trying to de-legitimatize an elected Republican) therefore basically keeping all the right players in all the right positions to do all the left policies we and guys like Trump are too stupid to appreciate. The deep state of entrenched, partisan democrat operatives has corrupted the federal agencies to the point where they can’t do any job that is nor “sanctioned” by the left. Having a guy like Trump instead of a kleptocrat like Hillary! threw them into a free-fall tizzy.

    Screw’em all, fire everybody, drain the swamp and MAGA.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  11. I think last season jumped the megalodon, I don’t think it can recover, her madness did have a point the first couple of seasons,

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. You’re not understanding the process.

    The Comm voted to release the Memo pending DOJ and FBI review, which is part of the process under the House Rule. Its the same process as with the GOP memo.

    You should read the transcript of the Comm meeting where the vote took place. They have it up at LawFare Blog.

    There are explanations given about why certain passages in the Dem memo are problematic. One is a reference to a particular kind of interception — the manner in which the information was acquired — which makes public information about a specific “method”.

    There are also references to two instances of FBI gathering of signals intelligence from a particular location — again “sources and methods”.

    The GOP memo had nothing like that. The FBI and DOJ objections to the GOP memo did not involve similar concerns — the objections simply said the FBI had “grave concerns” about the accuracy of the memo based on material omissions of fact.

    And when you read that transcript, you see the nonsense that Schiff claimed was the basis for his complaints about the GOP memo putting out “classified information” in the Nunes Memo. In response to GOP members raising questions about certain passages in the Dem memo containing problematic information, Schiff complained about the Nunes memo having made public that certain specific officials in DOJ and FBI had signed off on the FISA application — because that process is classified. He also complained that it revealed FBI sources and methods because it named Christopher Steele as someone who has had a long association with the FBI. To him it made no difference that the “classified” information in the GOP memo was already widely known to the public and press.

    But, we know from the experience with the Grassley/Graham memo, that the FBI’s concerns about the information revealed in that memo had more to do with information that embarrassed the FBI, than information that might compromise national security. When you compare the two versions of the Grassley memo that have come out — the heavily redacted version that was put out before the Nunes Memo was released, and the much less redacted version that Wray personally worked on which came out after the Nunes memo — it was obvious that the language in the Senate memo that was redacted the first time but unredacted the second time did not involve “national security” concerns, but was language that was embarrassing to the FBI.

    So, all the complaints about the Nunes Memo and the House Memo turned out to be empty of substance. But from the description given to certain problematic passages in the Dem memo, and the explanation provided in McGahn’s letter to the Comm about the Dem memo, its pretty clear that the issues are substantive.

    But this was the game the Dems were playing — they loaded up the memo with stuff they knew would have to come out, and when the WH said some stuff has to come out, they ran straight to the microphones to complain.

    I think the WH didn’t fall into the trap that the Dems were hoping for — which would have been to put out a heavily redacted version of the Dem memo, after which the Dems would have paraded it around to the press claiming the redactions are all the things that implicate Trump and his campaign.

    Instead McGahn’s letter said the FBI and DOJ standby ready to assist the Intel Comm in going through the memo line by line to rewrite the passages in a manner that will allow the memo to be released.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  13. Pencil-neck Schiff
    Ya get a strong whiff
    Cork soaking clown
    Oughtta jump off a cliff

    Pencil-neck Schiff
    Ya get a strong whiff
    To learn what he’s up to
    You don’t need teh McGriff

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. ^^^^Hat tip Freddie Blassie^^^^

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. 6 — I have said this all along. Part of the reason for the “stonewalling” by DOJ and FBI was because when all the facts are known here, there may be as many as a dozen people in each of the top ranks of the FBI and DOJ that going to get fired, and you can’t do in one fell swoop without a plan in place. It would be disruptive to operations, and at DOJ there are still some significant slots that require political appointees where nominees haven’t yet been confirmed.

    But these are the “giveaway” moves, which tell you that some people have already been given notice that the OIG’s report will recommend discipline, or that they are going to be subject to an OPR proceeding based on the findings of the OIG:

    McCabe being told he was going to be removed from the Dep. Dir. position and demoted until he was eligible to retire based on information in the OIG report.

    Wray removing and re-assigning the FBI General Counsel from his post.

    David Laughman announcing his resignation from DOJ effective immediately, where he was a primary supervisor in the DOJ Nat. Sec. Div. Counter-Intelligence section.

    Peter Strzok being removed from the Mueller detail, and rather than go back to his position as No. 2 at FBI Counter-Intelligence, he’s sent to HR where he reviews background investigations on new agent applicants.

    Bruce Ohr removed from both his positions, and reassigned to duties as a DOJ trial attorney in the Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section of the Criminal Division — that’s a long fall in the chain of command from Associate Deputy AG.

    I don’t think Brand’s resignation is in any way connected to the investigation.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  16. These guys in the luge event… Fantastic!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. “I don’t think Brand’s resignation is in any way connected to the investigation.”

    Nor do I. Welcome to Wal-Mart.

    Bang Gunley (5a4596)

  18. The Democrats have the secret code ring for filling in Rumpublican blanks.
    Cerealbox diplomacy.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  19. McCarthy has been so far behind the ball, he might as well be in the bleachers,

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. That’s a hail Mary pass shipwrecked. Superbowl long ball.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  21. the black knight contingent, chimes in,

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. Mass firing fantasy…heh

    George Papadopoulos I think is the canary in the coal mine. He was interviewed January 27, 2017, by FBI. He lied about his contacts over in London with the professor. He was interviewed again in February, and he lied. Only when the FBI showed the willingness to subpoena his Skype and Facebook logs did he come around 6 months later.

    This makes it clear that the FBI had not even obtained call records from Papadopoulos (via an NSL or a subpoena) before the second interview, the standard for which is really low.

    Again, this shows that, at least during that phase of the investigation, the FBI was moving very conservatively. The GOP keep complaining that Carter Page, who had been a suspected foreign agent for years, was targeted under FISA. But they’re not acknowledging that the FBI appears to have treated the other Trump aides with kid gloves. for nine months after the period when they obtained a real tip about their involvement.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/09/george-papadopoulos-call-records-were-not-subpoenaed-until-after-his-interviews/

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  23. I readily admit Trump is president. It’s just that I would like him to stop being president as soon as constitutionally possible.

    Leviticus (e2dd52)

  24. Burned done clocked in…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  25. Emptyhead.com…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  26. If anyone is interested in a very interesting read on the deep background on how the Russia-Trump investigation MIGHT have gotten started, read Lee Smith’s article from yesterday at Tablet.

    He pins it on John Brennan, and goes over several statements Brennan has made over the last 14-18 months which reveal a lot more than Brennan likely realized he was revealing at the time. Smith comes to the conclusion that Brennan used several methods of coercion through the bureaucracy and Congress to push Comey to get on board with the idea that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians, and that the Russians were actively working to try to get Trump elected, when Comey was always reluctant to take that step.

    He also gives some interesting background on the two of them, and their shared history in several respects. Both born in New Jersey around the same time to working class parents. Brennan was a protege of George Tenet, and Tenet made Brennan first Station Chief of a CIA office who had come up in the CIA as an analyst rather than a case officer. So he was supervising all the actual “spy” work being done when he had never himself been a “spy”. The Station? Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.

    This was important because while Brennan was Station Chief, the bombing of the Khobar Towers took place. A criminal prosecution of persons involved in the bombing took place in the ED of Virginia, and Comey was the lead prosecutor.

    Brennan was one of the leading Iran apologists in the Clinton Admin. — and continued to be such when he rose through the ranks to become CIA Director in the Obama Administration. The bombing happened in 1996, and the FBI pinned the blame on Iran and Hezbollah. Brennan did what he could to hamper the FBI’s investigation as Station Chief in Saudi Arabia, in an effort to keep on track his goal of repproachment with the Mullahs — which he finally “accomplished” with Obama. So he and Comey were at odds over the Khobar Towers prosecution which was 20 years ago.

    Prior to becoming Station Chief in Riyahd, Brennan had been the CIA officer responsible for giving Clinton his Presidential Daily Brief in 1994 and 1995. In doing so, he developed strong personal relationship with the Clintons. Lee quotes people who worked in the CIA at the time as calling Brennan a clear political partisan, and he was always plotting his rise through the ranks by political means.

    I could keep going, but you should just read the article. The point being made is that Brennan pushed an otherwise reluctant Comey to chase the information in the Steele Dossier, when Brennan was certain to remain CIA Director — or even become DNI — if Clinton had won, and Comey was almost certainly going to get fired by Clinton because of his handling of the Clinton email investigation if she had won. Comey was really over a barrel with his pants around his ankles, and Brennan knew it.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  27. Democrats’ case is designed to quash the notion that the FBI got improper or inadmissible evidence from its surveillance. Several FBI and Justice Department leaders including the current deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, signed applications to reauthorize warrants to monitor the communications of Carter Page, a onetime Trump foreign policy adviser who traveled to Russia at least twice in 2016.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/02/10/584697688/the-russia-investigations-democrats-try-to-counterattack-but-lose-a-key-weapon

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  28. 000000000000hhhhhhhhhh npr

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. “The December 2017 Strzok, Page and Ohr revelations gave rise to massive downstream consequences:

    ♦FBI chief-legal-counsel James “Jim” Baker was reassigned; ♦FBI Deputy Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe was resigned; ♦DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr was demoted again; ♦FBI Asst. Deputy Director and chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki quit; ♦Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence, David “Dave” Laufman quits; ♦FBI Asst. Director Michael “Mike” Kortan, head of the FBI Public Affairs Office, resigns.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  30. “The current debate over Page is whether the FBI overreached by seeking a warrant to spy on him from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the end of 2016. Republicans claim the FBI improperly relied on the opposition research dossier. Democrats say the Republican memo omits information that would discredit the GOP’s case.

    But that misses a broader and more important point. It’s a scandal that the public has known for more than a year that the FBI suspected Page of being a foreign agent in the first place. He has yet to be charged with a crime, but his reputation is in tatters because an element of the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s influence over the 2016 election has been publicly reported.

    This started when Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff broke the first big story on Page’s meetings in Moscow with Putin aides in September 2016, allegedly to discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Russia. Isikoff was tipped off by Steele, who was commissioned through an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to dig up dirt on Trump’s ties to Russia on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In a podcast this week, Isikoff confirmed that Steele told him he had “taken this information to the FBI and the bureau is very interested.”

    Last April, the Washington Post reported, based on information from “law enforcement and other U.S. officials,” that the FBI had obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant on Page in the summer of 2016. As the Post reported at the time, the existence of the warrant was “the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump campaign adviser was in touch with Russian agents.”

    That was an important piece of news that any journalist would publish. But the officials who leaked and confirmed it violated the public’s trust in two important ways.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-09/we-should-care-about-what-happened-to-carter-page

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. Flynn didn’t just vaguely admit he lied. The law doesn’t allow that. He admitted in writing that his lie “had a material impact” on the FBI’s probe “into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to intervene in the 2016 election.”

    The conspiracy case–the heart of Mueller’s efforts– almost certainly boils down to an old-fashioned quid pro quo. Flynn’s “quid”—the substance of his recorded conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak— was lifting the sanctions that President Obama imposed on Russia in late 2016 and the earlier sanctions related to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. The “quo” was collusion (“conspiracy” in legal terms) with Russians to harm Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, which Flynn effectively admitted was “material” to his lies after the election. Anyone associated with this deal is in deep legal trouble.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-russia-isnt-about-the-cover-up-its-about-the-crime?ref=home

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  32. With quid pro quo..squids no more.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  33. Dianny over at Patriot Retort has an interesting take on this phony memo:


    The Schiff Memo was never intended to be a serious attempt to address the so-called inaccuracies of the Nunes Memo.

    Instead, Adam Schiff deliberately included sensitive information knowing it would need to be redacted – all so he could set up this bit of Bad Theater.

    In other words, the memo was a prop in an elaborate stage play starring the Democrats in Congress and their water-carriers in the press.

    Schiff knew his memo couldn’t be released as is. And he wrote it that way just so they could have this moment in the spotlight to sputter with outrage and accuse the President of hiding something and misleading the American people.

    Once you peek behind the curtain and see how the Democrat Kabuki is done, it doesn’t work on you anymore.

    If you’re like me, you knew this was going to be the outcome the moment Adam Schiff announced he was writing this memo.

    Because, let’s face it, the Democrats may be all theater, but they are really bad at it.

    Nothing the Democrats do happens organically.

    Instead, everything is contrived, scripted and staged – even down to the very costumes they wear.

    patriotretort.com.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  34. Facebook log

    If that’s the criteria maybe everyone of you alias wearing mo fo’s is a Bolshevik.

    The Fed’s are probably monitoring this post.

    My COuntry Tiss OF THEE , Sweet Land Of Liberty, Of thee I sing!
    {please please don’t make me go back to India. There’s so many people there.}

    papertiger (c8116c)

  35. Imagine Ben being monitored for lying to the FBI on a Facebook search.

    He’d go away for all time, just on what he said today.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  36. I remember bob baer want particular impressed with Brennan who he had described in his memoir, nowadays Hes hunting Hitler in south ameruca

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. I pity the agent who has to wade through my Facebook files. First the search engine is funkie.

    Then reading it. I wouldn’t wish that duty on anyone.

    Maybe on Beldar.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  38. But to be fair, shouldn’t npr and cpb/PBS memorabilia be off in some corner of the Smithsonian by now? That’s more on the swamp cleaner and his Eddie Haskel with cheese than the swampists.

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  39. Me, I’ll sit back and watch it play out, without drawing any firm conclusions yet.

    Doubling down on the navel gazing. It’s a new day — do you “Stand with Paul”, or back with Cruz? Sticking hard to one’s one’s principles seems to require a lot of squishiness.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  40. I think it’s time to separate the Hatfields from the Gagarins.

    Who won the 1973 World Series?

    ANSWER THE QUESTION! DON”T WAIT FOR THE TREANSLATOR

    papertiger (c8116c)

  41. And in his column today Andy McCarthy again responds to your (Patrick’s) request that he reconcile his comments back in the fall where he assured everyone that some portions of the Steele dossier had to have been verified by the FBI prior to them making use of it in a FISA application, and that’s why Comey’s testimony about the “unverified and salacious” aspects neede to be carefully parsed. Here’s his comment today about his assurances back in the fall:

    I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.

    I was wrong.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  42. Bonus hint…a member of the losing team is in the news for being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  43. FBI proceeded with heat caution because they know how volatile 35cents are.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  44. Burned done clocked in…
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/10/2018 @ 9:47 am

    We know a broken clock is right twice (once in military time) a day. Unfortunately for Ben, he is clocked out whenever that could happen.

    felipe (023cc9)

  45. The question, barbeque, is what pelt will guarantee instantaneous revenge? Would either ma or daughter Palin have piqued the interest?

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  46. OT, they try to hard to recreate the spirit of civil war with black panther, with two set pieces in Berlin, and Korea although its busan not
    Seoul. The problem is boseman, is not big enough to carry the whole film.

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. Flippy! Howzit?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  48. Well, it’s true. Congress is bankrupting the country and robbing future generations of Americans to pay for it. It’s dangerous. A debt crisis, and all the terrible economic effects of that, are looming. Both parties are guilty. Every single congressional leader is to blame.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/373177-alarm-bells-are-ringing-on-the-federal-debt

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  49. 34 — I’ll take that analysis a step further.

    I think by submitting the memo, and agreeing to have it undergo DOJ and FBI review, Schiff has lost control of its final contents.

    I think the Intel Staff can now work with DOJ and FBI to edit the memo in such a way that eliminates the “sources and methods” information, and issue the amended version without Schiff’s final ok.

    He’ll jump up and down, and scream that the memo that is produced isn’t the memo he wrote, but it will be produced by the Comm. as the “Minority Memo” because the House Rule provides the process for its release once its submitted and voted on by the Committee.

    The Minority Memo may add facts to the record, and enhance the understanding of what went into the FISA application, but from reading the transcript of the Committee hearing where the vote was taken to release the Dem memo, I didn’t get the feeling that any of the GOP members of the Comm thought the Dem memo undermines the conclusions of the Nunes Memo, which is now corroborated in by the more detailed Grassley/Graham memo.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  50. I can’t believe they put sigint tracking and method data in that memo, the guardian reporter earned a hit for less in Bourne ultimatum.

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. Then, a few months later, he showed the American businessman a 15-second clip of a video showing a man in a room talking to two women.

    No audio could be heard on the video, and there was no way to verify if the man was Mr. Trump, as the Russian claimed. But the choice of venue for showing the clip heightened American suspicions of a Russian operation: The viewing took place at the Russian Embassy in Berlin, the businessman said.

    dear god

    this is the clown show Brennan left behind

    whenever these CIA poofterboys get out of their gay porn and skittles comfort zone hilarity never fails to ensue

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  52. There was also that film with Denzel suggested much more competence on the part of the company:

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-uav-that-entered-israeli-airspace-seems-to-be-american-stealth-knock-off/

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. Way I figure it FDR normalized collaborating with the Soviets – and he’s like a hero for it.

    More current events Barry O established it as best practice to open campaign coffers for world wide anonymous donations.

    The medias have long been cowed and belled by the thought of third wirl hitmen if they don’t play ball and contribute complete servile and docile coordination.

    Even if Trump were guilty of the worst you dirty sons of [edits] could dream up (or more likely regurgitate word for word from your foreign handlers)
    it wouldn’t add up to a patch on the crime and misery you done.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  54. I was thinking last night that Trump should hire Robert Plant’s hair guy. That guy is unbelievable.

    Did you know Elvis covered Stairway to Heaven?

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  55. Only the ones those mo is death to America, in the 50s and 60s through the rivers of blood, the dems pined to embrace red china,

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. Well said! Tiger..

    Now take your football and go in peace. Take Citizens United with you.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  57. That film was in production at the time of the Wikileaks revelations, they shot a pivotal scene at the world cup In Joberg.

    narciso (d1f714)

  58. here’s a link to Mr. shipwreck’s tablet article about treasonous CIA slutboy John Brennan

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. Mexican Drug Gang busted in Massachusetts with enough Fentanyl to kill the entire state.

    Only a half gal. It’s a really potent drug.

    Rhino killer.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  60. Watching a few reruns of Homeland, I am again reminded of how this needed a better actress than Claire Danes in the lead role. Her overwrought acting is hard to watch. But just who would be more suitable… maybe I need more coffee…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/10/2018 @ 8:53 am

    It’s not that bad till you combine it with the WWE writing and the lady president. It’s like the criticism of Time Cop. They only sent him 10 years in the future and still managed to mess it up.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  61. Mexican Drug Gang busted in Massachusetts with enough Fentanyl to kill the entire state.

    Only a half gal. It’s a really potent drug.

    Rhino killer.

    papertiger (c8116c) — 2/10/2018 @ 11:29 am

    Gonna have to update all those “it’s a good start” lawyer jokes.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  62. If you come to kill the King just send him a copy of Led Zeppelin VI, and encourage him to sing.

    If you want to kill the Prince you need Mexican fentanyl.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  63. @57 – hmmmm…not sure about that, but Jimmy Page did jam with Elvis:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACqmG9dBjI

    Lenny (5ea732)

  64. There was that harve Bennett vehicle time trax that took a longer horizon two centuries with dale midriff and peter don’t.

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. This is when South Central was a little more like Memphis, so it’s possible:
    http://youtu.be/uw3bOmvKnGI

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  66. Take Citizens United with you.

    You’re just bitter my Russian backed billionaire beat your swamp rat crime family.

    .

    papertiger (c8116c)

  67. No croissant for you:
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/916311/france-corsica-emmanuel-macron-crisis-sovereignty

    How can an ena man be so ignorant

    narciso (d1f714)

  68. https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/house-overview/ratings-changes-21-districts

    However, most new district-by-district fundraising and polling numbers are downright terrible for Republicans, even in seats previously thought to be safe. In the fourth quarter of 2017, 39 Republican House incumbents were outraised by at least one Democratic challenger, and private polls and special election results suggest Democrats are highly competitive even in some districts President Trump won by wide margins.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  69. Bottom line, are they good kind of separatists or bad ones like Catalunya?

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  70. …and if Narciso’s favorite Roman retakes the reins, will he liberate them by force?

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  71. Beenburned is about as useless as a back pocket on a t-shirt…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  72. You will recall that — after a decent interval — Robert Bork was rewarded with the offer of a seat on the Supreme Court. A rare concatenation of events prevented Bork from taking that position, but that fluke is unlikely to be repeated. Besides, we live in the age of kompromat and MeToo: If Francisco won’t play ball, it would be an easy matter to pay off a half-dozen women to tell horror stories of the he-touched-my-waist variety. If not that, then some other skeleton in his closet will pop out and say boo.

    So there goes Brand, and Rosenstein, and Mueller, and America.

    http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/?m=0

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  73. narciso (d1f714) — 2/10/2018 @ 11:02 am

    Is that out already? Nobody tells me anything.

    felipe (023cc9)

  74. Your boyfriend finds the pocket useful from behind.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  75. No next week, I’m just doing just some textual comparison Comparison but it already is getting justice league let El

    narciso (d1f714)

  76. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/10/2018 @ 12:03 pm

    And as pointless as the book, How to speak French like the French, translated into French.

    felipe (023cc9)

  77. Republican claims that top federal law enforcement officials had abused their powers in spying on a former Trump campaign aide

    why delay the memo?

    to force the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts to keep repeating this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. Poor Ben. I will say a prayer for you and all those living on the periphery of polite society. Our Father…

    And yes, I forgive you your trespasses against me.

    felipe (023cc9)

  79. The NSA collects phonecalls – oh no. I blew the cover on the FBI signet method.

    If you don’t hear back soon it means they wacked me.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  80. Mr. Snowden’s noble efforts in preparing us all to recognize how lawless and treasonous our fbi cia nsa have become can’t be over-praised

    and it’s not just the trash at the top

    these are gangster organizations top to bottom

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  81. I’ll miss you, papertiger. Can I have your guns?

    felipe (023cc9)

  82. Yes, you do that flippy.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  83. Jack-booted thugs gotta boot.

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a7e6fbbe4b08dfc93043436

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  84. Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump

    Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused – life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?
    9:33 AM – Feb 10, 2018

    one could not ask for a starker contrast in respect for the rule of law than you see between our president, President Donald Trump, and perverted pedophile Mitt “no proof no problem” Romney

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  85. If one could adjectivize the president, there has never been anything Trumpier than Donald Trump’s posture on nuclear weapons. It’s an issue where he embraces contradictory thoughts in the same breath with routine. In candidate Trump’s debate with Hillary Clinton on September 26, 2016, he said, “I would certainly not do first strike” and “I can’t take anything off the table” within the space of seconds. In between, he pulled a Reagan and told a homespun tale on the subject, except his made no sense. “I looked the other night, I was seeing B-52s,” he said (where? In his head? On Sixth Avenue?). “They’re old enough that your father, your grandfather could be flying them,” he added. “We are not keeping up with other countries.”

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-donald-trump-on-nukes-is-insane-ignorant-w516568

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  86. It’s cool Felipe. I made it back to “the egg”.

    I need my guns, but here. Have some more signet secrets.

    Enemy Of The State – The NSA Can Read The Time Off Your F**king Wristwatch!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  87. If you come to kill the King just send him a copy of Led Zeppelin VI, and encourage him to sing.

    If you want to kill the Prince you need Mexican fentanyl.

    papertiger (c8116c) — 2/10/2018 @ 11:33 am

    I started watching a video where Geddy Lee recounts randomly meeting Robert Plant at a hotel in Morocco. Then there were several of Robert Plant talking about how everyone but John Bonham went to an Elvis concert in LA and hung with him after the show. Somehow compelling. I guess if I signed up for Lyft I could increase my chances of meeting Robert Plant.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  88. Way I figure it FDR normalized collaborating with the Soviets

    Meanwhile we now have CNN lionizing Kim Jong Sister as if she wasn’t a slave-owning monster who eats bon-bons while her people starve on rotting shoelaces.

    I guess CNN has access in Pyongyang they have to protect.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  89. This is when South Central was a little more like Memphis, so it’s possible:

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb) — 2/10/2018 @ 11:41 am

    Did John Singleton crib Stephen King?

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  90. Found some collusion.

    Via NY Times:

    BERLIN — After months of secret negotiations, a shadowy Russian bilked American spies out of $100,000 last year, promising to deliver stolen National Security Agency cyberweapons in a deal that he insisted would also include compromising material on President Trump, according to American and European intelligence officials.

    The cash, delivered in a suitcase to a Berlin hotel room in September, was intended as the first installment of a $1 million payout, according to American officials, the Russian and communications reviewed by The New York Times. The theft of the secret hacking tools had been devastating to the N.S.A., and the agency was struggling to get a full inventory of what was missing.

    Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian, who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals. He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. Instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.

    The United States intelligence officials said they cut off the deal because they were wary of being entangled in a Russian operation to create discord inside the American government. They were also fearful of political fallout in Washington if they were seen to be buying scurrilous information on the president.

    Oh. /crestfallen

    Wrong party again. Wave it off.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  91. As is typical Carlos slims is having a cry about ex Colombian guerillas who are having a hard time of it,

    narciso (364166)

  92. Now take your football and go in peace. Take Citizens United with you.

    So, Ben, how would you “fix” Citizens United? Remove all constitutional protections from all corporations? Or would you have a government commission regulate what corporations could say, and which corporations at that? Who would appoint the commission? And then we get back to the bill of rights again. Do you actually think it does not apply to corporations?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  93. That was actually a Wayans brother cribbing Singletin cribbing Stephen King.

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  94. Did John Singleton crib Stephen King?

    No, but Lawrence Singleton might have.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  95. Who dat?

    Stephen King’s former West Coast connection.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  96. In case the other thread is dead and being poked in the eye by kids, I was going to point out Hillary is a former Wal Mart lawyer. Mostly because her husband was pulling in 30k a year at the time.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  97. What was her slip-n-fall blockage %?

    urbanleftbehind (d9a4fb)

  98. looks like the dirty corrupt FBI is emptying their files all over their domestic enemies

    Speechwriter David Sorensen resigned after Jessica Corbett alleged she was the victim of domestic violence during their two-and-a-half-year marriage. Sorensen told NBC News in a statement: “I want to be as unequivocal as possible: I have never committed violence of any kind against any woman in my entire life.”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. Doing the job other commenters won’t do.

    So, Ben, how would you “fix” Citizens United?


    1.Remove all constitutional protections from all corporations?
    Answer: Yes. Long with a 100% tax on illegal obscene profits.
    2. Or would you have a government commission regulate what corporations could say, and which corporations at that?
    Answer: Yes and the correct term is “Commissar”.
    3. Who would appoint the commission?
    Answer: The Commissar of Corporate Freedom under the authority of The Peoples Ministry of Business.
    4. And then we get back to the bill of rights again.
    Answer What’s the Bill of Rights?
    5. Do you actually think it does not apply to corporations?
    Answer: See answer to #4. And if you keep asking questions you’ll disappear.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  100. oh you didn’t give your impressions of Tosca,

    I thought it was fantastic — very well done, great sets, good singing, entertaining Scarpia — especially for a production where all of the principals had dropped out. Today’s Donizetti performance was very entertaining too. My mom watched it in Texas and I watched it here, and we exchanged thoughts at the intermission and afterwards.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  101. You’re not understanding the process.

    The Comm voted to release the Memo pending DOJ and FBI review, which is part of the process under the House Rule. Its the same process as with the GOP memo.

    Please quote the portion of my post that shows I don’t understand that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  102. And in his column today Andy McCarthy again responds to your (Patrick’s) request that he reconcile his comments back in the fall where he assured everyone that some portions of the Steele dossier had to have been verified by the FBI prior to them making use of it in a FISA application, and that’s why Comey’s testimony about the “unverified and salacious” aspects neede to be carefully parsed.

    Haven’t read it, but it would be odd if McCarthy ever said Comey’s statement needed to be carefully parsed, because he was one of the prime offenders in pointedly failing to do exactly that. And I called him out specifically, with links and quotes, which is how you do it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  103. Reading it now. I see he says this:

    We need full disclosure — the warrants, the applications, the court proceedings. No more games.

    Could not agree more. Hey, McCarthy argued for months that Trump has the ability to accomplish exactly that. Let me finish the piece to see if he still makes the same point.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  104. If it’s there, I missed it.

    Just a lot of stuff about how “breathtaking” the FBI’s actions and judges’ actions were in approving an application that McCarthy has still not read.

    What the fuck ever.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  105. https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/foodanddrink/cheese-triggers-the-same-part-of-the-brain-as-hard-drugs-say-scientists-a3141936.html

    The Pusher

    You know I ate a lotta Brie
    O’Lord, I’ve popped a lotta Swiss
    But I never touched nothin’
    That my spirit can’t resist

    You know, I’ve seen a lot of people walkin’ ’round
    With tombstones in their eyes
    But the pusher don’t care
    Ah, if you live or if you die

    God damn, the pusher
    God damn, I say the pusher
    I said God damn, God damn cheese-pushin’ man

    You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
    With teh cheddar in his hand
    Oh but the pusher is a monster
    Good God, he’s got teh Parmesan
    The dealer for a nickel
    Lord, will sell you lots of calories
    Ah, but the pusher ruin your body
    Lord, he’ll give you teh heart disease

    God damn, the pusher
    God damn, I say the pusher
    I said God damn, God damn cheese-pushin’ man
    Well, now if I were president of this land
    You know, I’d declare total war on cheese pushin’ man
    I’d cut if he stands,
    And I’d shoot him if he run
    Yes, I’d kill him with my Bible
    And my razor, I’d have fun

    God damn, the pusher
    God damn, the pusher
    I said God damn, God damn cheese-pushin’ man

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  106. The part that’s missing is the guy who stands up in the meeting, pounds his fist on the table, and says,

    ” Listen people, everyone knows where this is going. If this was a legit op, and I can’t imagine how it could be, then so be it. But if this was someone’s unilateral wet dream, then that someone is going to prison.”

    Where is that guy? Mr. Sessions, where is that guy?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  107. Of squirrels and nuts.

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

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. Kevin: one of the reasons Fed’s go nutz with asset forfeiture is because property doesn’t have civil rights. Hence no protection. So your clever gambit has flaws and I think everyone knows it.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  109. Just a lot of stuff about how “breathtaking” the FBI’s actions and judges’ actions were in approving an application that McCarthy has still not read.

    So, have you read the piece in the Federalist?

    It makes some pretty direct claims about what the FISA applications did and did not contain, and what the FBI and DoJ informed the court about, and when. In particular it details lies and quarter-truths told to the court, and how the FBI tried to cover up in subsequent applications.

    Yes, I know that it would be better to have all the details on hand, but it is unlikely that unredacted documents will ever be provided. At some point you have to go with what you have, since it is the SUSPECTS hiding behind the secrecy.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  110. property doesn’t have civil rights. Hence no protection.

    SO, corporations are purely property? No rights at all. OK, Trump should seize the NY Times and close it. Freedom of the press does not apply to corporations, so sez Ben.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  111. we know with certainty now that the lickspittle chris wray FBI and the rod rosytwat DOJ are sleazy and corrupt

    they don’t get the benefit of the doubt anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  112. A property owner has no rights to his propert in civil asset forfeiture. Why should corporations have that privilege but not private citzens?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  113. It seems corporations are a little more equal than people.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  114. So, have you read the piece in the Federalist?

    I started it and stopped when she made the same error about “salacious and unverified” that the Nunes and Grassley memos both made. I find the Grassley memo more credible than the Nunes memo but it’s co-written by Mr. How dare you call him a kook and unfit for office/I think he’s a kook.and unfit for office. These people are hacks and I will wait for the application itself.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  115. I thought Julian Sanchez’s piece at POLITICO was good but it still assumes we know more than we actually do.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  116. It at least provided critical context for all the squawking about Hillary not being explicitly named as the funder — i.e. they are always vague when descibing people in similar circumstances. So the squawking was foolish and uninformed; who could have predicted that?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  117. Let’s see how many libertarians hang out..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  118. Did Schiff lard up the memo with stuff he knew was sensitive so it would be blocked? That’s what Trump partisans will say, but then it’s hard to see why all the Republicans on the committee voted to release it.

    First of all, you don’t need to be a Trump partisan to recognized the games these pols play. Would Schiff lard up the memo with clearly classified information so it couldn’t be released? Of course he would. That’s just Washington D.C.; it really has nothing to do with Trump.

    The thing about politicians is that the thing they claim to care about isn’t what they actually care about. They didn’t want to get information to the public. They wanted to see if they could make the GOP in general, and Trump in particular, look they only wanted to release cherry-picked information to the public as if they have something to hide.

    …Please quote the portion of my post that shows I don’t understand that.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/10/2018 @ 2:07 pm

    I’d say the part where you wondered why the Republicans would vote unanimously to “release” the Democrat memo They didn’t vote to release it. They voted to send it to the executive branch for a security review, which is an intermediate step. Now the executive branch has reviewed it and has sent it back with specific suggestions for revision so it can be released. Which will be the final step.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  119. @115: Yes, I know that it would be better to have all the details on hand, but it is unlikely that unredacted documents will ever be provided. At some point you have to go with what you have, since it is the SUSPECTS hiding behind the secrecy.

    The host would insist on reading the application even if revealed it was the product of a monkey on a typewriter.

    The alternative is unthinkable, i.e., admitting that Trumpalos might actually be right.

    random viking (6a54c2)


  120. 118.A property owner has no rights to his propert in civil asset forfeiture. Why should corporations have that privilege but not private citzens?
    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/10/2018 @ 3:04 pm


    Are you saying corporations are exempt from property seizure? Even for taxes, illegal activities, eminent domain, fraud, breach of contract, regulatory fines for non compliance and more?

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  121. It at least provided critical context for all the squawking about Hillary not being explicitly named as the funder — i.e. they are always vague when descibing people in similar circumstances. So the squawking was foolish and uninformed; who could have predicted that?

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/10/2018 @ 3:16 pm

    Foolish and uninformed? Hugh Hewitt used to review FISA warrant applications, hundreds of them, when he was at DoJ. He says that camouflaging the true political source of the document, the DNC/Clinton campaign, as merely some generic political entity is a d@mning omission. A retired federal judge contacted him to agree. The judge said if he had found out that the FBI hadn’t told him the DNC/Clinton campaign were the actual political entities behind the information contained in the warrant applicatio he 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. It turns out at least one official at DoJ knew the exact provenance of the dossier. The judge said that if had discovered that, and that the government didn’t reveal what it knew about the dossier, he would have concluded the government intentionally misled the court.

    If you want to dismiss these people as foolish and uninformed, feel free. But I’m sticking with them.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  122. …the part where you wondered why the Republicans would vote unanimously to “release” the Democrat memo. They didn’t vote to release it.

    Very good point Mr. 57

    they’re following the same process they did for the Nunes memo, even if the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda slut media is covering it completely differently

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  123. I asked swc for a quote from the post that substantiates his claim that I don’t understand the process. Steve57 jumped in with this attempt to prove me wrong:

    I’d say the part where you wondered why the Republicans would vote unanimously to “release” the Democrat memo They didn’t vote to release it. They voted to send it to the executive branch for a security review, which is an intermediate step.

    If you’d say that, then you’d be wrong. The minutes of the meeting show that the committee voted to release Schiff’s memo:

    Motion, pursuant to House Rule X, clause 11(g), that the Committee make public the information contained in the classified executive session memo made available to the House by the Committee on January 29, 2018: Ayes: Nunes, Conaway, King, LoBiondo, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Turner, Wenstrup, Stewart, Gowdy, Stefanik, Hurd, Schiff, Himes, Sewell, Carson, Speier, Quigley, Swalwell, Castro, Heck. Noes: None.

    And the transcript similarly indicates the question voted upon was this:

    The question is on the motion to disclose publicly the material contained in the classified executive session committee memo made available to the House by .) committee on January 29, 2018, pursuant to House rule X, clause 11.

    Every news article that reported what they did said they voted to release the memo — because that’s what they did. Yes, their rules give the President five days to block it. But they voted to release it. And I never said otherwise. In fact, I thought my post fairly indicated that I did understand the process, given that I referenced concerns from FBI and DoJ.

    So anyone who is trying to claim I got it wrong because I accurately stated the facts, you now have the actual facts. I don’t have to tell you what the decent thing to do now is. You already know.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  124. Very good point Mr. 57

    Actually, it’s not, as I just showed.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  125. “ about as useless as a back pocket on a t-shirt…

    Some commenters here conjure up images…….

    https://wadejohnston1962.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/backwards_baseball_cap.jpg

    harkin (8256c3)

  126. House rule X, clause 11 says they voted to send this stuff to the president, President Donald Trump

    there’s a process, you see

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. Of course its salacious and unfounded, what was the date of the incident, who is the source, when did steele interview him, unless the counsel for lavrov was it, remember he cpuldnt travel to russia. This is as bogus as the Berlin imbroglio

    narciso (d1f714)

  128. So, it’s neither “Odd” nor is it “hard to see why all the Republicans on the committee voted to release it.” Security concerns are to be called out by the executive branch. You seem to expect otherwise.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  129. rose mcgowan is sad she hounded her ex-manager to death

    :(

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  130. House rule X, clause 11 says they voted to send this stuff to the president, President Donald Trump

    there’s a process, you see

    Yes, and any literate person can see I acknowledged that. What’s your excuse?

    The rule cited says that the vote is “to disclose publicly any information that has been classified under established security procedures.” That’s a quote from the rule, you see. Then the President gets a chance to block it, you see. So you see, I already said all this and you and Steve57 were wrong, you see, to claim that it was a mistake to call it a vote to release the information. THAT IS WHAT IT WAS. And then the process THAT I DISCUSSED takes place. But I was not wrong to call it a vote to release material.

    When I hinted at the decent thing to do, it was to apologize to me, not to double down on bullshit attacks on my credibility. But I can see I was too subtle for you. You owe me an apology, happyfeet.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  131. one sec i got sour cream on my hands

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  132. So, it’s neither “Odd” nor is it “hard to see why all the Republicans on the committee voted to release it.” Security concerns are to be called out by the executive branch. You seem to expect otherwise.

    Yes, I expect that the members of the committee are supposed to take security concerns seriously on their own as well.

    The fact that they don’t, and that the President often doesn’t, does not address what they are supposed to do.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  133. 1.Remove all constitutional protections from all corporations?
    Answer: Yes. Long with a 100% tax on illegal obscene profits.
    2. Or would you have a government commission regulate what corporations could say, and which corporations at that?
    Answer: Yes and the correct term is “Commissar”.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7) — 2/10/2018 @ 1:49 pm

    Isn’t that fascism?

    But Malibu

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  134. What is striking is Carlos slims and the journals attitude toward Cpdy shearer, they really think he has credibility of some kind.

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. i’m sorry i see now you understand the process

    do you understand though why it was tendentious for you to say that “the committee voted to release it”

    they voted to release it same same as they voted to release the memo that spelled out how the sleazy FBI hornswoggled a rubberstamp FISA court into approving illegal espionage on Mr. Carter Page

    Mr. Patterico we can’t let these dirty FBI shenanigans tear us apart like this

    that’s what they want

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  136. A property owner has no rights to his propert in civil asset forfeiture. Why should corporations have that privilege but not private citzens?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 2/10/2018 @ 3:04 pm

    Well I’m no lawyer but I’m going to say you’re wrong. It’s a matter of how much of a burden there is and who it’s on to prove it. To prove the property wasn’t part of a criminal enterprise that is. And just so you know, most of the corporations I worked for leased almost everything so what exactly do you propose to seize?

    If you would unionize you could start taking weekends off and not look like an idiot 12/7.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  137. Can we agree this is deeply silly:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/nytimes/status/962397777136414720

    But she a protege of resist we much with a tax lien

    narciso (d1f714)

  138. …Schiff complained about the Nunes memo having made public that certain specific officials in DOJ and FBI had signed off on the FISA application — because that process is classified. He also complained that it revealed FBI sources and methods because it named Christopher Steele as someone who has had a long association with the FBI. To him it made no difference that the “classified” information in the GOP memo was already widely known to the public and press…

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/10/2018 @ 9:01 am

    Just a couple of points of clarification. The FISA warrant application process may be classified, but who can sign off on those warrant applications apparently is not classified. It’s why classified documents have an overall classification marking (including caveats) but we also have paragraph markings. You may have a document classified SECRET, but there will be plenty of paragraphs that are CONFIDENTIAL and even UNCLAS.

    Also, the fact that Steele had a long association with the FBI does not make him a source and in no way could be classified. In fact we know Steele was not the source of the information in that dossier. Why? Because he told us. He was sued for libel in the UK over the information in that dossier and he’s also had to give a deposition in a US suit. and since he couldn’t rely on truth as a defense he testified that he had no way to evaluate the reliability of the ultimate sources of that information. I say ultimate sources because his modus operandi was to pay intermediaries to pay their sources (which were not Steele’s and whom Steele did not know) and those sources had sources and the original source was usually someone three or four sources back in the “source-chain” that fed the gossip to him like in a game of telephone.

    So despite convincing the FBI and the media that his information was reliable, when push comes to shove that is not what he says under oath. He says his information is at best “raw intelligence” or “limited intelligence” and he passed it to the US hoping that they could do what he could not; vet the information.

    In other words it’s garbage. What we in the Navy used to call RUMINT (Rumor Intelligence). But there is no way noting Steele’s long association with the FBI reveals “sources and methods” since a) he’s not the source, just the “investigator” (really, the gossip columnist) and b) if the FBI is stupid enough to use free-lance British oppo researchers as a sources (like, we don’t have better sources in the UK?) our adversaries already know this. And they haven’t stopped laughing yet.

    Finally, just because information has escaped into the wild and has been reported in the press and is widely know to the public does not meant it’s no longer classified. We have declassification procedures (and we’re seeing them at work now as these memos are reviewed for public release) but leaking information to the press who then make it public ain’t it.

    But the information Schiff complained about is clearly not classified. Either Schiff is a complete idiot or he was attempting to alibi himself by making specious claims about the information in the GOP memo so that he could try to claim he was only doing what the Republicans did when the democrats larded up their memo with actual classified.

    I think it’s a bit of both. He was clearly playing a game in which he was in way over his head.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  139. I’d say the part where you wondered why the Republicans would vote unanimously to “release” the Democrat memo They didn’t vote to release it. They voted to send it to the executive branch for a security review, which is an intermediate step. Now the executive branch has reviewed it and has sent it back with specific suggestions for revision so it can be released. Which will be the final step.

    Steve57 (0b1dac) — 2/10/2018 @ 3:25 pm

    It’s going back to Adam Schiff, the best punch-up man in the business.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  140. Sorry, Pat. You’re right. They did that use that language.

    I was wrong, but all I can say is that isn’t the language I would have used.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  141. source might could be a term of art

    terms of arts make fbi poofterboys feel accomplished and sophisticated, even if they didn’t go to super good schools like the other federal worker trash

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  142. Are you saying corporations are exempt from property seizure? Even for taxes, illegal activities, eminent domain, fraud, breach of contract, regulatory fines for non compliance and more?

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7) — 2/10/2018 @ 3:43 pm

    He’s saying he jumped in the deep end and he doesn’t know how to swim.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  143. they voted to release it same same as they voted to release the memo that spelled out how the sleazy FBI hornswoggled a rubberstamp FISA court into approving illegal espionage on Mr. Carter Page

    It wasn’t quite “the same,” actually, because the committee unanimously voted to release the Democrat memo, while there was a party-line vote on the release of the Nunes memo.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  144. that’s an excellent distinction for us all to keep in mind Mr. Patterico

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  145. Hold up, when else has a fisa warrant been issued full or o0impart because of an outside partisan operation, why have wasted a year and a half we aren’t ever going to get back.

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. back in a bit I’m a go post some mail just to get it out of the way

    the weather severely curtailed my accomplish today

    it’s kinda dangerous out there lots of the people what are supposed to clear the walks were not very conscientious about their duty, and I abjure this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  147. When did Rose McGowan turn into Liza Minnelli?

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  148. It at least provided critical context for all the squawking about Hillary not being explicitly named as the funder

    I thought it was failing to name not a specific person but a national organization created to place her in the White House.

    “Hugh Hewitt used to review FISA warrant applications, hundreds of them, when he was at DoJ. He says that camouflaging the true political source of the document, the DNC/Clinton campaign, as merely some generic political entity is a d@mning omission. “

    You would think so.

    harkin (8256c3)

  149. Remember this is the same administration that went above and beyond to release every money launderer missile procurer even corporate espionage asset of the revolutionary guard.

    narciso (d1f714)

  150. even if the corrupt FBI failed to say what the source of the John McCain hooker urination dossier was the rubberstampin’ FISA judge should have still known better than to trust their sketchy fbi asses

    fbi agents are liars

    sleazy goddamn liars

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  151. ZERO libertarians but plenty of glibertarians.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  152. what are mitch mcconnell and his corrupt pig wife so afraid of that they refuse to staff the justice department

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  153. Tina Turner has a message for us.

    “We don’t need another hero
    We don’t need to know the way home
    All we want is life beyond
    the Thunderdome.”

    Isn’t she beautiful. Just her hair beats any fisa court judge on style points alone.

    Interesting fact. Tina Turner moved to Swiss lake house in 1994, undertook a mandatory citizenship test which included advanced knowledge of the German language, and of Swiss history. On April 22, 2013, she became a citizen of Switzerland.

    I wonder if that was due to America electing a rapist as President. I have heard she has strong feelings in that regard.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  154. Tina’s like Mr. Johnny Carson

    a rare breed possessed of the grace to say she was retiring and then do it

    ugly-ass geriatric creeper David Letterman should take notice of how this is done

    happyfeet (28a91b)


  155. ugly-ass geriatric creeper David Letterman should take notice of how this is done


    Not to mention Larry friggin King.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  156. he’s still with us for reals

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  157. yup I asked the googles and they say he’s still alive

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  158. Ha! I was going up Washington Lane from my house earlier and Mr. I’m-so-rich-my-butt-don’t-stink’s Tesla was being dragged onto the back of a flatbed. Seems he got him some car problems. It’s an electric lemon.
    https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2018/02/Tesla-in-space.jpeg?resize=526%2C600

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  159. Somewhere back in the rafters of this thread a movie was mentioned pertaining to sigint and FBI tactics. It’s called “Confessions Of A Nazi Spy“;

    based on the articles of former FBI agent Leon G. Turrou, who had been active in investigating Nazi spy rings in the United States prior to the war, and lost his position at the Bureau when he published the articles without permission.

    I guess Leon revealed some methods and sources, but that’s neither here nor there.

    My point is this movie was made 80 years ago, every person from the financer to the stage hand who had anything to do with it is long dead.
    And Time Warner is still charging money to see it.

    Some property has more rights than others. More than you or I.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  160. It’s nice to see Steve57 have the honor and grace to apologize to Patterico. I wasn’t surprised, since I have followed his contributions for some time.

    Apologies can be difficult. But it doesn’t have to be that way. I leave it to the late, great Randy Pausch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESxZnRKqb8

    Simon Jester (9aad95)


  161. Apologies can be difficult. But it doesn’t have to be that way.


    I don’t find apologies difficult. I make them all the time when I’m wrong. I’m usually wrong out of ignorance or out of context but nonetheless I’m wrong and I apologize. I have known people who could not apologize because even when they were wrong they just would not admit it. That’s a personality flaw. Or some sort of psychological problem. Whatever it is it makes the person look foolish and pathetic. On NCIS one of Gibb’s rules is “never apologize”. He thinks it makes him look tough never to say he’s sorry. It makes him look like an idiot.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  162. That’s bad, Rev…so bad you could have stored the text from the last time that happened. My dad had the late 60s version of the green “Griswold” Ford wagon for 1/2 a year, same crappy performance.

    urbanleftbehind (9adb35)

  163. Some property has more rights than others. More than you or I.

    papertiger (c8116c) — 2/10/2018 @ 6:07 pm

    Mickey Mouse for one.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  164. This “Eric Clapton: Life in 12 Bars” is pretty good… lots of good film footage.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  165. if Steve57 *hadn’t* apologized we’d all think less of him that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  166. i got all call of the wild and walked to the grocery story and guess what

    forgot the kosher salt

    fml

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  167. ugh is this good?

    Mr. Mulvaney’s twice the man John Kelly is but isn’t he already in the very best place for to make the most of his talents and interests?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  168. i think this is one of those if it ain’t broke things

    sissyboy kelly’s just gonna have to man up and not let people push him around

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  169. Mickey Mouse for one.

    Ansel Adams photographs for another. There seems to be a political component attached to the longevity of copyrights. If

    papertiger (c8116c)

  170. they need a separate category for durable IP

    i think ideally this would require the disneysluts to pay a nice chunk of annual rent to retain exclusivity to their gay little mouse

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  171. I’m confused. What’s a durable IP?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  172. it doesn’t exist yet we have to invent it

    otherwise we have corrupt machinations in its stead

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  173. checkitout

    Israel’s doing bombs on people and the American president isn’t wetting his panties

    this is new

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  174. So.. you’re playing 3d chess, and I’m doing checkers.

    International protections maybe? We’d have to bulk up on military. Of course we already have the greatest, so yeah team.

    Tough explaining the invasion of Gambia on account of a Mickey Mouse infraction.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  175. my first thinking is a kind of unesco national heritage model

    where to start with each country could pick maybe 5 trademarks or copyrights

    seeing the patterns of what’s valued might make a round 2 of negotiations more easier

    but the idea to start would be everybody got their 5 and agreed to respect everybody else’s 5

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  176. Sure. Why not. It wouldgive the UN something productive to do for a change.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  177. Kevin Drum nails this about one of our Justice Departments’s latest, of many, resignations:

    The #3 official in the Justice Department, Rachel Brand, is leaving to go work for Walmart. Apparently she figured her career might end up in ruins if she stayed. I wonder what could have given her that idea?

    Tillman (a95660)

  178. the flaming south korean olympic fire thing at their gaylympics reminders me of this

    it’s at the top of drudge right now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  179. Rachel Brand’s leaving cause she feels used dirty and passed-around like Lisa Page at the fbi wednesday night poker game

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  180. i tried my first dessert hummus

    specifically the “snickerdoodle” one from these people

    so far it’s easily the most insipid goddamn thing i put in my mouth all year

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  181. This “Eric Clapton: Life in 12 Bars” is pretty good… lots of good film footage.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/10/2018 @ 7:23 pm

    I’ve heard “Wonderful Tonight” in 12 bars easy.

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  182. Ansel Adams photographs for another. There seems to be a political component attached to the longevity of copyrights. If

    papertiger (c8116c) — 2/10/2018 @ 7:45 pm

    Ted Turner couldn’t colorize them?

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  183. we were talking about apologies

    In 1999, Turner made a joke about Polish mine detectors when asked about Pope John Paul II. After a harsh response from the Polish deputy foreign minister Radek Sikorski, Turner apologized.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  184. Speaking of apologies. NBC has grown so accustom to insulting the intelligence of Americans at will that they brought the same attitude to Korea. The Koreans collectively said “Wrut the fruck?”

    Forced NBC in a groveling on air retraction, and a beg your pardon Korea.

    Not sure what is was touched them off but it could have been the Gangam Style parody Team USA did at the opening ceremony. That was regretable.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  185. lol no matter how trashy our gaylympians are this year they’re still a step up from lochte

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  186. and at least we’re not on michael phelps suicide watch anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  187. sorry typing with two fingers = forced into a grovelling retraction b y some cultural insensitivity.

    Gangum style might have floated by except for NBC’s other boners

    papertiger (c8116c)

  188. in chicago the snow’s falling tonight like it’s on a mission

    when it snows like this i wish i could hire somebody to replace all the cars on my street with domestic cars from the 60’s and 70’s

    that would be something to see

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  189. how is it that the roided-up russian gaylympians are banned but still get the same number of condoms as the other gaylympians plus they get to do gaylympic events?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  190. dit dit dit dit dit dit dit here comes the footage. NBC is sorry in Korean [YouTube]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  191. Glorius. It’s the little things in life.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  192. Because the olympics make fifa look like near beer for comparison.

    narciso (d1f714)

  193. which makes it even more mystifying how chicago failed to steer some of this yummy corrupt gaylympic action stateside

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  194. Because Chicago, is also near beer, compared to the resources companies like odebrecht which has found itself in a spot of trouble.

    narciso (d1f714)

  195. yes the non-state players here anymore are mostly only notionally non-state

    namely unions

    poor illinois

    maybe amazon turdlord jeff bezos will take pity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  196. if you’re having trouble getting your 14 year old laid though

    CPS teachers are there for you

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  197. Mango juice is so fu##ing good, I’m staying.

    mg (78254a)

  198. Do you like Gated Reverb? Thanks Phil Collins

    Pinandpuller (2ff771)

  199. thank u so much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  200. why are you voxing me tho i thought we were friends

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  201. It’s ovah, happy. Despite her cinematic tour de force of an ad, Jeanne Ives screwed herself with her next ad…game set match once she said “I was raised in South Dakota”.

    urbanleftbehind (9adb35)

  202. Even the righteous conservatives here want “no one no one sent”.

    urbanleftbehind (9adb35)

  203. Conway lies with aplomb
    Practice makes perfect.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  204. FWIW, I have a very high, and I think a well-informed opinion, of U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Bush-43 appointee from 2002. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Collyer to the FISC in 2013, and to be its presiding judge in 2016. I wrote about my past experience with her in private practice back in the early 1990s here and here back in 2016.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  205. So what do you think happened to Judge Rosemary in the interval?

    Did they kidnap her first born? Always my first guess whenever a previously trusted judicial figure turns inexplicably.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  206. Simon Jester @ 2/10/2018 @ 6:08 pm, it wasn’t a difficult apology to make. Pat was right and I was wrong. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did use that language. What am I going to do, argue with what’s written down in black and white?

    It’s not the language I would have used in the legislation that enables the House to do this, since it’s not within the power of the HPSCI to actually release the information. What they’re actually voting to do is to send the memo to a gatekeeper. The President can choose to release it without objection, to send it back with objections, or to do nothing. The President’s action can be overridden by the entire chamber. In which the House is actually voting to publicly disclose the information, but that’s not something the committee can do on its own.

    But then the people who run to make our laws have the same linguistic insincts

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  207. …But then the people who run to make our laws have the same linguistic instincts as communists. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? The People’s Republic of China? They’re not Democratic, they’re not Republic, and they certainly don’t belong to the people. They belong to their dictators (it’s not a competition, but of all the mass murdering tyrants of the 20th century I’d rank Mao as the worst). In North Korea the country and every single person in it belong to the Kim family as their chattel on a hereditary basis. The only thing they get right is the geography.

    Sort of like Congress; the only word you can rely on as reasonably accurate is that all the bills they produce have the word “Act” at the end of the generally misleading name.

    So while I wouldn’t have chosen that language, I should’ve known Congress would.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  208. 145 — I agree with most of what you wrote. I’ve been off line since mid-day yesterday, and am trying to catch up.

    The only disagreement I would have is to say that Steele was a “confidential human source” in FBI parlance. He was not the “source” of the information in his memos, but he was the “source” that brought the memos to the FBI.

    It certain that they signed him to a confidentiality agreement, because they disclosed to the FISC in January, 2017, that he had been “terminated” as a source. Those are two “administrative” steps of documentation that the FBI takes. It’s intended to prevent agent “freelancing” — having a bunch of undisclosed (to supervisors) sources in their back pocket that they rely on but don’t tell anyone about.

    An agent who takes official action — any investigatory steps — based on information from an undisclosed “source”, can be disciplined and even fired for having done so.

    Steele’s info would have never made it into a FISA application had he not been “signed up”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  209. Steve #216: Again, you have shown a lot of honesty and honor in your comments.

    Some folks just post to be obnoxious or crude. It’s easy to do in this weird world of ours. Most people I know are pretty upset at how things are, in one direction or another.

    So it’s simple to go for the slogan, the nasty snark, or the mental bumpersticker. Patterico spends a lot of time crafting his posts and thinking about them. You did the same in your apology.

    It gives me hope in this Biff Tannen world of ours. I can’t change the people who are just posting to cause trouble. But I can recognize the people who are trying to make things better, and who improve understanding and discussion.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  210. In response to the Host’s taking offense at my original comment yesterday morning that he “didn’t understand the process.”

    Clearly, based on his comments through the course of the day, he did understand the process.

    So, that then takes me back to the phrasing of his OP, which begins with the caption “The Republican #TheMemo did not jeopardize national security ….. But apparently the Democrat one does.”

    He then goes on with regard to how the WH authorized the release of the Nunes Memo, but “blocked” the release of the Dem memo “rebutting” the House memo.

    The quoted words are not the Host’s – they are in quote from an article in the NYT that he links.

    Maybe that should have been his clue.

    The WH sent the Dem Memo back to the Comm for revision, to remove “sources and methods” information.

    An accurate description of what the WH did was to say that they chose to not declassify the classified information that is contained in the Dem Memo, not that they “blocked” its release. The Dems put the information in it knowing it was classified, so they knew when they submitted it to the Comm for a vote that the Comm would not have the final say. The power to declassify belongs to the Exec Branch, not the Legis branch. The authority to declassify rests in the Exec branch first with the agency that “owns” the intelligence, in this case the FBI.

    The WH didn’t reject declassification of the Dem memo in its entirety. The letter returning the memo says to revise and resubmit the memo for declassification — i.e., the WH is prepared to declassify information in the memo, its just not prepared to declassify the memo in its entirety as its currently drafted.

    We know what was in the GOP memo, because it was released in its entirety. So all of us — including the host — can look at it and form our own judgment about who was right and who was wrong in advance of releasing the GOP memo when every Rep. voted to release it, and every Dem voted to not release it.

    Where is the information in the GOP memo that “jeopardizes national security”, if you think the vote by the GOP on the Comm was wrong — that the Dems were correct and the Memo should not have been released.

    Every GOP member voted to release the Dem memo — but the comments of many during the Comm hearing make clear that they have concerns about the specifics of some of the disclosures made in the Dem memo – and they speculate on the reason for the inclusion of some of those particulars — but they all indicate a willingness to rely on the declassification process to filter out any parts of the Dem Memo that actually would constitute a threat to national security by the disclosure.

    Why would they do that???

    BECAUSE ITS THE FUNCTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, NOT THE LEGISLATURE, TO DO THAT.

    So, they do their job.

    They let the Administration do its job.

    The Dems don’t like that. They want to have the right to do the Executive Branch’s job for it, and dictate what gets declassified and what does not, based on their own political needs.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  211. We know there was classified information in the GOP’s Nunes’ memo because Trump had to declassify it before it could be released.

    DRJ (15874d)

  212. You can see what was blacked out, nothing of consequence, certain not signals intelligence or anything of the kind.

    narciso (d1f714)

  213. In response to the Host’s taking offense at my original comment yesterday morning that he “didn’t understand the process.”

    Clearly, based on his comments through the course of the day, he did understand the process.

    Thank you. I guess that will have to make do as the closest thing to an apology I’m going to get.

    So, that then takes me back to the phrasing of his OP, which begins with the caption “The Republican #TheMemo did not jeopardize national security ….. But apparently the Democrat one does.”

    He then goes on with regard to how the WH authorized the release of the Nunes Memo, but “blocked” the release of the Dem memo “rebutting” the House memo.

    The quoted words are not the Host’s – they are in quote from an article in the NYT that he links.

    Maybe that should have been his clue.

    The WH sent the Dem Memo back to the Comm for revision, to remove “sources and methods” information.

    An accurate description of what the WH did was to say that they chose to not declassify the classified information that is contained in the Dem Memo, not that they “blocked” its release.

    I disagree, to the extent that you are continuing to claim that I am being inaccurate. Here’s what I believe to be the relevant part of the rule:

    (g)(1) The select committee may disclose publicly any information in its possession after a determination by the select committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure. With respect to the disclosure of information for which this paragraph requires action by the select committee— (A) the select committee shall meet to vote on the matter within five days after a member of the select committee requests a vote; and (B) a member of the select committee may not make such a disclosure before a vote by the select committee on the matter, or after a vote by the select committee on the matter except in accordance with this paragraph.

    (B) The select committee may disclose publicly such information after the expiration of a five-day period following the day on which notice of the vote to disclose is transmitted to the President unless, before the expiration of the five-day period, the President, personally in writing, notifies the select committee that the President objects to the disclosure of such information, provides reasons therefor, and certifies that the threat to the national interest of the United States posed by the disclosure is of such gravity that it outweighs any public interest in the disclosure.

    (C ) If the President, personally in writing, notifies the select committee of objections to the disclosure of information as provided in subdivision (B), the select committee may, by majority vote, refer the question of the disclosure of such information, with a recommendation thereon, to the House. The select committee may not publicly disclose such information without leave of the House.

    If someone wants to say that the President, in objecting to the release, is “choosing not to declassify” the information, I will not tell that person that they misunderstand the process, or that they are being inaccurate. That description does not track the language of the rule, but I think it is roughly accurate — meaning it’s within the spirit of what the rule says.

    However, it is at least as accurate — and I believe more consonant with the actual language of the House rules — for me to say that the President is “blocking” the release of the information. Technically, under the House rules, the President is “objecting” to the disclosure, giving his reasons for the objection, and certifying “that the threat to the national interest of the United States posed by the disclosure is of such gravity that it outweighs any public interest in the disclosure.”

    To chide me for describing this as “blocking” the release of the information strikes me as both incorrect and churlish.

    To do so in a snide tone while accusing me of overreliance on the Horribly Inaccurate New York Times compounds the error.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  214. 121 — and the Sanchez piece underscores what I have said here a few times — that the Nunes Memo was really more of an act intended to coerce the FBI into declassifying the Grassley/Graham memo, which the FBI had been sitting on for nearly three weeks.

    But Sanchez is out of his depth and writing about things he has no knowledge of when he says that the decision by the author of the FISA application to not make specific reference to the DNC or Clinton Campaign is “the result of a the common intelligence practice of obfuscating the identities of people who aren’t under suspicion.”

    I’d be very interested in the basis for Sanchez to think that he’s informed of what are “commmon intelligence practices” followed by FBI agents making statements under oath to the FISC. So far as I can tell, Sanchez is a blog writer who has focused on privacy, technology, and politics, after studying philosophy and poli sci until he received his undergrad degree at NYU in 2002.

    I prefer to get my information from people actually involved in the “intelligence” field about the “common practices” followed there — which I do. If Sanchez wants to claim the same, then let him put it out there. But his naked assertion that he is somehow informed about how the FISA process works is a good place to stop reading what he writes.

    I know a couple of orthopedic surgeons — I don’t write articles for medical journals.

    Another nugget from Sanchez:

    “The judges who reviewed the application almost certainly would have recognized Page as an adviser to Trump and inferred that opposition research concerning him was likely funded by Democrats—and could easily have asked if they thought it was necessary to clarify.”

    Hugh Hewitt posted an email from an actual judge, now retired, who served on the FISC, and who said that if he read what has been characterized as being in the warrant, signed off, but then learned that the source of the info was actually the opposing political party/campaign in the upcoming Presidential election, he would have immediately rescinded the warrant and issued an OSC on the subject — with the potential outcome being a contempt citation against the gov’t for its failure to disclose what it knew.

    ALSO, what Julian apparently doesn’t understand — and I’ll give you a good source show that he doesn’t — is that when there is a material change in circumstances with regard to a critical source in a FISA warrant, DOJ goes immediately to the FISC and informs it of the change so the FISC court can make its own determination on whether the appropriateness of continuing with the warrant is undermined by the change in circumstances. THAT SUPPORTS MY POINT that full disclosure to the FISA Court — not withholding of info like the identify of a source which might cause controversy — is the standard practice.

    Look at this passage from an interesting interview by Benjamin Wittes — a Comey BFF — in his interview with David Kris, the former head of the DOJ National Security Division, the lawyers that practice before the FISA Court. Key to understanding this — the interview was before the more unredacted version of Grassley’s memo was released. They are discussing Wittes idea that the FISC could clear up these issues a bit if DOJ would make as simply submission asking the FISC if it wanted DOJ to appear and answer any questions the Court might have about the FISA process and applications in connection with the Page FISA warrant. Here is their exchange:

    Wittes: “My temptation would be to file a public document with the FISC saying, “Of course the Justice Department and the FBI is prepared to answer any questions or provide any information that the court might need in response . . . to this disclosure by the president and by the House intelligence committee,” and allow the FISC to use that if it so chose to maybe issue a one sentence order that says, “No thanks. We’re good”—or else to give the FISC the opportunity, by filing that, to say something in public. I’m wondering how plausible you think this is?

    Kris: I think that’s quite plausible. But first I think it is very likely that the government was updating the court across these four renewals that have been disclosed . . . as to the changing nature of the situation . . . and I would further imagine that now, the government is either on its way to the court or thinking about how to go to the court to officially advise the court of this memo (which I’m sure the judges have read in the newspaper). . . . So I would expect first that the government has provided notice updates as things evolve, which is the normal thing to do, and that they will now have to go to the court and . . . have some formal vehicle for acknowledging this and giving the court an opportunity to weigh in.

    This was before the second version of the Grassley/Graham memo was released. It was before we learned that DOJ had NOT updated the FISC as things evolved — they waited until the renewals, and even then they did not provide full disclosure. They failed to provide the FISC the reason why Steele was terminated, even though it had a bearing on his credibility when they relied on his credibility to buttress the unverified aspects of his reports. They failed to advise the FISC that Steele had spoken to the press about his reports when he was told by the FBI to not speak with the press, and he denied to the FBI that he had spoken to the press after he had done so. And they never advised the FISC that the Yahoo News article, which they cited as corroboration of Steele’s reports was most likely the result of Steele’s press contact, therefore it did not corroborate his reports as the FBI originally claimed.

    So Sanchez’s views on what the “common practices” in the intelligence community, and what level of disclosure of specifics is required in the practice before the FISC are not just open to question, they are wrong.

    What Sanchez gets right is the following — which is what critics of the Page FISA application like me have been saying:

    But when it comes to the broader question of whether the FISA wiretap order on Page was adequately grounded in evidence, the Grassley letter provides more serious grounds for doubt, directly making several key claims that the Nunes memo only insinuates. Critically, Grassley and Graham assert that the Steele dossier formed the “bulk” of the FISA application, and as important, that the application “appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page,” and that the FBI “relied more heavily on Steele’s credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims.”

    And that takes me back to my original point. FBI and DOJ were stalling on releasing the Grassley memo over declassification issues. Senate Rules require that the Agency who owns the intelligence at issue given approval to its declassification and release. The Senate Rules do not allow for the matter to be submitted to the WH as a substitute. So to pressure the FBI on the Grassley memo, Grassley works behind the scenes with the House to get a Memo out of the Intel Comm because the House rules allow the WH to release it. The FBI and DOJ resisted the Nunes Memo because they knew that they were going to get rolled on the issue of releasing the more damning Grassley/Graham memo in the aftermath — and that’s exactly what happened.

    So the House Memo was actually benign — not sources and methods, and few real details — by design. Nunes played “spear-catcher” while Gowdy did the work because of his expertise.

    The timeline is important here:

    January 3: Wray and Rosenstein meet with Speaker Ryan regarding FISA application records subpoenaed by Intel Comm, and for which there is a deadline pending with the treat of a Congressional Contempt citation being threatened since the documents had been sought for months.

    January 5: Grassley/Graham send letter to DOJ referring Christopher Steele for investigation/prosecution for lying to the FBI. Attached is their classified memo setting forth the factual details supporting the referral. They request FBI review of the Memo for declassification purposes and public release.

    January 6-8: Gowdy, Schiff, and two staffers from each side of Intel Comm, review FISA application and related FBI documents at SCIF located at Justice. They can take notes, but they are not allowed to make copies or take any materials with them.

    January 18: The date on then Nunes Memo.

    January 29: The Intel Comm votes to release the Nunes Memo, after it has been made available for a week to all House members to read. It was available to all Intel Comm members to read before that.

    January 31: FBI issues statement objecting to release of Nunes Memo, citing “grave concerns” that omissions of facts from Memo make it misleading and inaccurate.

    February 2: Nunes memo released to the public.

    February 5: FBI releases heavily redacted version of Grassley/Graham Memo, leaving classified many sections of the memo which talk about the FISA application process, the reliance of the FBI on Steele’s memos, and what the FBI knew about Steele’s credibility — or lack thereof.

    February 7: FBI releases a second version of the Grassley memo, with much of the previously redacted information embarrassing to the FBI now disclosed.

    The Grassley memo was always the endgame.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  215. And while I agree that the released version of #TheMemo did not greatly compromise national security, we have to rely on partisan reports about the nature of what was taken out to form an opinion about whether the original memo, without the changes that were requested and made, would have greatly compromised national security.

    I use the word “greatly” because I think that to say that it could not compromise national security at all is surely overstating the case. An official confirmation of the source used in a FISA applications, even if the source’s identity has been reported in the press, always adds more information that could be used by our enemies — because things reported in the press can be wrong. James Comey has made this exact point in Congressional testimony on more than one occasion.

    And I can easily see arguments that confirming the sources used in FISA applications can harm national security. Releasing the redacted FISA application itself would probably jeopardize national security even more. That said, I still think the public interest would be served in releasing it, in an appropriately redacted form.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  216. Yes, possibly, but the problem came from creating the dossier, and then publishing it, whole or in part, the cumulative reporting in the times, the post and the journal has been abysmal, just taking the example of devlin barrett

    narciso (d1f714)

  217. 140. narciso (d1f714) — 2/10/2018 @ 4:30 pm

    What is striking is Carlos slims and the journals attitude toward Cpdy shearer, they really think he has credibility of some kind.

    Maybe personal credibility, but they don’t think his information is very good, and Cody Shearer hung up on them a few months ago.

    The New York ran a story on the front page on Saturday that not too many people, besides Doanld trump, paid attention to – maybe because it is too complicated, and I am not Donald trump understands this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html

    What taht story says about Cody Shearer is:

    American spies are not the only ones who have dealt with Russians claiming to have secrets to sell. Cody Shearer, an American political operative with ties to the Democratic Party, has been crisscrossing Eastern Europe for more than six months to secure the purported kompromat from a different Russian, said people familiar with the efforts, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid damaging their relationship with him.

    Reached by phone late last year, Mr. Shearer would say only that his work was “a big deal — you know what it is, and you shouldn’t be asking about it.” He then hung up.

    Mr. Shearer’s efforts grew out of work he first began during the 2016 campaign, when he compiled a pair of reports that, like the dossier, also included talk of a video and Russian payoffs to Trump associates. It is not clear what, if anything, Mr. Shearer has been able to purchase.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  218. 225 — when you say “rely on partisan reports about the nature of what was taken out” — what are you referring to?

    The Nunes memo as released has no redactions.

    The WH did not send the Nunes memo back to be revised or modified.

    Between the time of the Intel Comm vote to release the memo, and the memo actually going over to the WH, there were changes made to the Nunes Memo, described as having to do with grammar and not substance.

    Are those the changes you are referring to??

    Even though Schiff jumped up and down, and yelled and screamed that it had been changed, he never even said the changes were substantive. His point was simply a technical procedural report that the Memo voted on was not the Memo sent to the WH.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  219. 225 — and the way I’ve predicted that this will play out next is that the Dem memo will raise some issues about what’s actually in the FISA application — and they’ll complain about any redactions in their memo by saying “That’s the REALLY important stuff”.

    And this will lay the foundation for the House and Senate to both start advocating for release of the FISA Application and Renewals in redacted form.

    And in proceeding in this fashion, it will be difficult for the Dems to object, and the WH cannot be blamed for the move to release them as being political.

    The persons squealing the loudest will be FBI and DOJ officials who were involved, and now face potential exposure of alleged misconduct.

    Maybe that’s why the exodus has picked up in the last 2 weeks.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  220. @ Simon Jester: +1 to this from your #219:

    It gives me hope in this Biff Tannen world of ours. I can’t change the people who are just posting to cause trouble. But I can recognize the people who are trying to make things better, and who improve understanding and discussion.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  221. Points:

    1. The New York Times has obviously known about this thing for months. They published the story when it looked like the counterespionage operation was finally over. This was all probably highly classified, but the New York Times decided to declassify it in the public interest, and did not worrying about this like the silly politicians in Washington.

    2. This story involved a Ruyssian who lives in St. Petersburg, travels frequently to Germany and has a mistress in Vienna. He was in contact with the CIA and and some European intelligence agencies and the NSA, and the NSA used to send coded messages to him using its Twitter account.

    3. He was known to American and European officials for his ties to Russian intelligence and cybercriminals. the New York Times quotes someone (Steven L. Hall, former chief of Russia operations at the C.I.A.) as saying that “the distinction between an organized criminal and a Russian intelligence officer and a Russian who knows some Russian intel guys” (was hard to tell)

    4. He claimed to have access to “a staggering collection of secrets” Everything from the computer code for the cyberweapons stolen from the N.S.A. and C.I.A. to a video of Donald Trump consorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room in 2013.

    5. He was well known to American officials for acting as a go between for deals with Russia’s Federal Security Service, or F.S.B. He had a direct link to Nikolai Patrushev, a former F.S.B. director, and American iuntelligence officials that they knew of previous work he had done helping move illicit shipments of semiprecious metals for a Russian oligarch. He had a history of money laundering and a thin legitimate cover business incoporated in the United Kingdom which was nearly bankrupt. It allegedly sold portable grills for streetside sausage salesmen.

    6. It all started with a hacker in Vienna, (or someone who was supposed to be hacker in Vienna) whom all they about wa sthat he went by the name of Carlo. In early 2017, he offered to provide them with a full set of hacking tools that were in the hands of the Shadow Brokers and the names of other people in his network, American officials said. In exchange, he wanted immunity from prosecution in the United States.

    7. This didn’t happen, and then U.S. officials offered to buy the haccking tools. They wanted to know just what had escaped.

    8. Then this Russians was introduced (probably indicating this was a Russian spy operation all along)

    9. By April 2017, it appeared that a deal was imminent. Several C.I.A. officers even traveled from the agency’s headquarters to help the agency’s Berlin station handle the operation. At a small bar in the former heart of West Berlin, the Russian handed the American intermediary a thumb drive with a small cache of data that was intended to provide a sample of what was to come, American officials said.

    10. But this tutrned out to be nothoing new – material that Shadow Brokers had already made public.

    11. The CIA said it wasn’t going to pay anything for that.

    12. The Russian pretenxded to be angry.

    13. Negotiaitons continued. The Russian claimed to also have material on Trump, which would link the president and his associates to Russia.

    14. The CIA and NSa they weren’t interested, but he persisted in offering it and dropped the price. But they were interestyed in getting the hacking tools.

    15. They used an American businessman based in Germany to deliver a $100,000 down payment on a $1 million sales price – tis American businessman was one source for the New York Times.

    15. In Octoberm and then in December, the Russian delivered material taht the New York times calls “unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.”

    16. The New York Times has some or all of that, but says it didn’t pay for it.

    The Times obtained four of the documents that the Russian in Germany tried to pass to American intelligence (The Times did not pay for the material). All are purported to be Russian intelligence reports, and each focuses on associates of Mr. Trump. Carter Page, the former campaign adviser who has been the focus of F.B.I. investigators, features in one; Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the billionaire Republican donors, in another.

    Yet all four appear to be drawn almost entirely from news reports, not secret intelligence. They all also contain stylistic and grammatical usages not typically seen in Russian intelligence reports, said Yuri Shvets, a former K.G.B. officer who spent years as a spy in Washington before immigrating to the United States after the end of the Cold War.

    17. But they got no hacking tools, which is waht they wanted to buy.

    18. Let me quote:

    In December, the Russian said he told the American intermediary that he was providing the Trump material and holding out on the hacking tools at the orders of senior Russian intelligence officials.

    19. ZWhile they were in the Russian Embassy in Berlin, he also showed him a very short video, which was supposed to that of Donald trump and two prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow in 2013. It showed a man in a room TALKING to two women, and had no sound, and apparently, the man was not verified as being Donald Trump.

    20.

    Early this year, the Americans gave him one last chance. The Russian once again showed up with nothing more than excuses.

    The Americans offered him a choice: Start working for them and provide the names of everyone in his network — or go back to Russia and do not return.

    The Russian did not give it much thought. He took a sip of the cranberry juice he was nursing, picked up his bag and said, “Thank you.” Then he walked out the door.

    21. The american officials wouldn’t even take the Trump material with them, leaving it with the American, who has secured it in Europe (and evidently showed it to the New York Times.)

    22.

    American intelligence agencies believe that Russia’s spy services see the deep political divisions in the United States as a fresh opportunity to inflame partisan tensions. Russian hackers are targeting American voting databases ahead of the midterm election this year, they said, and using bot armies to promote partisan causes on social media. The Russians are also particularly eager to cast doubt on the federal and congressional investigations into the Russian meddling, American intelligence officials said.

    Part of that effort, the officials said, appears to be trying to spread information that hews closely to unsubstantiated reports about Mr. Trump’s dealings in Russia, including the purported video, whose existence Mr. Trump has repeatedly dismissed.

    20./

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  222. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/962345433170415616

    According to the @nytimes, a Russian sold phony secrets on “Trump” to the U.S. Asking price was $10 million, brought down to $1 million to be paid over time. I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here. It is all now starting to come out – DRAIN THE SWAMP

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  223. Actually it was a combinaiton deal – hacking toolks plus Trump material, which they didn’tt want to touch.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  224. swc,

    225 — when you say “rely on partisan reports about the nature of what was taken out” — what are you referring to?

    The Nunes memo as released has no redactions.

    The WH did not send the Nunes memo back to be revised or modified.

    Between the time of the Intel Comm vote to release the memo, and the memo actually going over to the WH, there were changes made to the Nunes Memo, described as having to do with grammar and not substance.

    Are those the changes you are referring to??

    Even though Schiff jumped up and down, and yelled and screamed that it had been changed, he never even said the changes were substantive. His point was simply a technical procedural report that the Memo voted on was not the Memo sent to the WH.

    The bolded sentence is 100% false. The Hill:

    Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) claimed late Wednesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) shared with President Trump a “secretly altered” version of the Republican-crafted memo alleging abuse of United States surveillance powers by the Justice Department.

    Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, made the claims in a letter to Nunes, accusing the committee chair of making “substantive” changes to the confidential memo before sharing it with White House counsel for release.

    Those changes, Schiff said, were not approved by the full committee as protocol dictates.

    “Discovered late tonight that Chairman Nunes made material changes to the memo he sent to White House — changes not approved by the Committee. White House therefore reviewing a document the Committee has not approved for release.” Schiff said in a tweet.

    BREAKING: Discovered late tonight that Chairman Nunes made material changes to the memo he sent to White House – changes not approved by the Committee. White House therefore reviewing a document the Committee has not approved for release. pic.twitter.com/llhQK9L7l6

    — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 1, 2018
    Trump was expected to announce early Friday his decision on releasing the controversial, classified memo. Schiff’s letter could delay such a decision.

    “This evening the Committee Minority discovered that the classified memorandum shared by the Committee Majority with the White House is not, in fact, the same document that Members of the House of Representatives have been reviewing since January 18, 2018 and that the Committee Majority voted on Monday to release to the public, over objections from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the letter from Schiff reads.

    Schiff goes on to say that after Democrats found the document “had been secretly altered,” committee Republicans offered them the opportunity to compare the memo sent to the White House with the memo that was made public to all House Members.

    According to Schiff, after comparing the two versions “it is clear” that Republicans “made material changes to the version it sent to the White House, which Committee Members were never apprised of, never had the opportunity to review and never approved.”

    Jack Langer, Nunes’s spokesman, said in a statement that Schiff’s letter amounted to another “strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo.”

    “In its increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo, the Committee Minority is now complaining about minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes and two edits requested by the FBI and by the Minority themselves,” Langer said. “The vote to release the memo was absolutely procedurally sound, and in accordance with House and Committee rules. To suggest otherwise is a bizarre distraction from the abuses detailed in the memo, which the public will hopefully soon be able to read for themselves.”

    So when you say the changes were “described as having to do with grammar and not substance” — yes, they were described that way by Nunes’s spokesman.

    So we must “rely on partisan reports about the nature of what was taken out.” Precisely as I said.

    You should clearly and forthrightly retract your false claim that Schiff “never even said the changes were substantive.” That is flatly contradicted by the link I supplied which again says: “Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, made the claims in a letter to Nunes, accusing the committee chair of making “substantive” changes to the confidential memo before sharing it with White House counsel for release”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  225. shipwreckedcrew,

    So are you just going to ignore the language I supplied from the House rules, showing that my use of the term “blocked” to describe Trump’s actions is accurate, despite your false claim to the contrary?

    You’re really not covering yourself in glory here. First you accuse me of misunderstanding the process. Then you have to take that back but you don’t apologize. In the same comment you falsely accuse me of describing Trump’s actions inaccurately. Then I decisively show with links and quotes that my description is at least as accurate as yours, and you ignore my proof and go on to make a provably false statement that Schiff never claimed that the version of the Nunes memo sent to the White House had substantive differences from the version voted on. I just proved you were wrong about that too. Will you ignore that proof as well?

    You have engaged in an obnoxious pattern of false accusations, misstatements, and distortions in this thread. You’re digging a hole and I advise you to stop.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  226. So which substancial revisions have been seen with the nunes memo, what did they black out, with the grassley graham its much clearer, the recipients of steeles tidbits.

    narciso (d1f714)

  227. It wasn’t blacked out because it was changed before it was sent to the President.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  228. It seems to security services are more about their own protection, not ours

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5376883/Security-breach-terror-suspect-gets-job-Heathrow.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  229. I’ll try to deal with each of your points one at a time, so they’ll be easier to track, rather than have them combined into a omnibus response. But at the same time I’m doing this I’m going back and forth on a work related memo from depositions I was in last week, so my attention is divided, and I’m only spending a few minutes here at a time.

    Re Schiff’s objections — I would point out that Nunes’ spokesman came back after Schiff stated his objection to be more precise about the changes made. Yes, he’s a partisan, but his explanation was never challenged so far as i can find.

    He said there were grammatical changes made, and two edits that were requested by the FBI — which had been suggested by the Dems themselves. Remember, at Gowdy’s suggestion, Nunes did reverse his previous position and had Wray and another member of the FBI review the Memo before it was went to the WH.

    From The Hill:

    Jack Langer, Nunes’s spokesman, said in a statement that Schiff’s letter amounted to another “strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo.”

    “In its increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo, the Committee Minority is now complaining about minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes and two edits requested by the FBI and by the Minority themselves,…”

    And I would point out that in the aftermath of the Memo’s release, Schiff has never — so far as I can find — gone back to his claim and taken any issue with any portion of the released Memo by commenting on the changes he claims were made.

    So, while for public consumption Schiff has claimed the changes were substantive, to which the Comm Spokesman issued a response, there is nothing that has come after the Memo’s release which supports Schiff’s claims.

    Thus, my conclusion is that — like about everything Schiff claims — there’s no substance to the complaints he made.

    His goal IMO was to try to figure out a gambit by which the GOP Memo and the Dem Memo would be released at the same time.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  230. shipwreckedcrew @ 2/11/2018 @ 10:21 am, yes, I’m sure that’s FBI parlance. But this is another “language I wouldn’t use” comment.

    As I mentioned earlier, a Russian entrepreneur sued Steele for libel in the UK, and Steele was deposed here in the US when a Russian entrepreneur sued Buzzfeed for publishing the dossier. I don’t recall the names of the entrepreneurs, or even if it was the the same one in both suits. But that detail isn’t important.

    What is important is what we learned from Steele when he was placed under oath. That Steele actually had no sources of his own. He had contacts that he used as intermediaries to cultivate their own sources. And those sources had other sources, and so on, so that Steele had no clue really where the information originated. The information he passed to the FBI was not only unverified, it was unverifiable.

    I would say if the FBI was still calling Steele a “confidential human source” they’ve stretched the meaning of the word “source” passed the breaking point and rendered it useless.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  231. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 2/11/2018 @ 4:30 pm

    This entire comment is a) a statement that a partisan spokesman made a statement about the contents of the memo (which I already acknowledged) and an argument that you accept that partisan’s spokesman’s statement over another partisan’s statement. Hooray; we already knew that. What would be disappointing, if your penchant for intellectual dishonesty were not already apparent, is your utter failure to acknowledge, or apologize for, or even retract, your completely false statement that Schiff “never” said substantive changes had been made to the memo before it was sent to the President. I gave you chapter and verse on how you got that wrong and you did not say boo about it.

    Nor did you acknowledge that the rules I cited show that my characterization of the President’s actions was accurate although you falsely claimed otherwise.

    Nor have you apologized for saying I misunderstood the process. Steve57 had the decency to do so. All you did was retract the accusation.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  232. A partisan political slimetrawl was presented as evidence for a fisa warrant and an official govt intelligence estimate, I don’t know why out host isn’t more angry at this?

    narciso (d1f714)

  233. 225. Patterico (115b1f) — 2/11/2018 @ 11:56 am

    arguments that confirming the sources used in FISA applications can harm national security.

    That the FBI doesn’t have certain soiurces or doesn’t know what it’s talking about could harm national security.

    But the argument the FBI used was simply that revealing anything might sotp co-operation because sources would become afraid that their identities could be revealed (because other people always use that as an excuse.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  234. 231.

    15. They used an American businessman based in Germany to deliver a $100,000 down payment on a $1 million sales price – this American businessman was one source for the New York Times.

    That could be wrong. No plcxe is he mentioend as a source, and it is the Russian who told the New York Times that he told the American businessman that he was providing the Trump material and holding out on the hacking tools at the orders of senior Russian intelligence officials. The Russian may have thought the american businessman was a source, but in reality, maybe, the New York Times got copies of the fake Russian intelligence reports from a European intelligence official, not from the American businessman.

    (The material he provided in October and December 2017, which American intelligence officials wouldn’t even touch, was very similiar in substance to stuff that had been included in the Steele dossier the year before.)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  235. When people like swc are unable to realize they are no different than the most liberal partisan, there is no reason to read the comments here anymore.

    DRJ (15874d)

  236. But I am so glad to read about Leviticus and his family. Very best wishes to him and his wife, and I would like to give them a baby gift if there is any way to do it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  237. i like reading the comments especially Mr. shipwreck’s cause of he has a lot of insight from working in the swamp

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  238. Maybe comments at The Jury will be less partisan?

    BuDuh (0b36c4)

  239. I somehow missed that news… congratulations, Leviticus!!!

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  240. I think persons with certain knowledge or experience are valuable Dont you think?

    narciso (d1f714)

  241. A partisan political slimetrawl was presented as evidence for a fisa warrant and an official govt intelligence estimate, I don’t know why out host isn’t more angry at this?

    If I become convinced it happened, I’ll get angry. I’m not there.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  242. When people like swc are unable to realize they are no different than the most liberal partisan, there is no reason to read the comments here anymore.

    Well…

    He does not represent the comments section. Me, I skip over more stuff these days. But as long as there are people like you, and Beldar, and felipe, and aphrael, and Leviticus, and Ed from SfV, and (recently) Stashiu and JD, and many others along the same lines, it’s worth reading. I just have to skip over more.

    I have gotten lazy about using the comment blocker too. But that can be a help.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  243. Fusion Gps’s defamation against mirtchev, vanderslip, daleiden, their work with derwick partners against halvorsen, the Latin version of broader, Cpdy shearer and his dark overlord, and his ties to sid blumenthal and Jonathan winer any of this figures are suspect, together they are the legion of doom

    narciso (d1f714)

  244. Re 129 and the Intel Committee vote, you wrote:

    I asked swc for a quote from the post that substantiates his claim that I don’t understand the process. Steve57 jumped in with this attempt to prove me wrong:

    I’d say the part where you wondered why the Republicans would vote unanimously to “release” the Democrat memo They didn’t vote to release it. They voted to send it to the executive branch for a security review, which is an intermediate step.

    If you’d say that, then you’d be wrong. The minutes of the meeting show that the committee voted to release Schiff’s memo:

    Motion, pursuant to House Rule X, clause 11(g), that the Committee make public the information contained in the classified executive session memo made available to the House by the Committee on January 29, 2018: Ayes: Nunes, Conaway, King, LoBiondo, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Turner, Wenstrup, Stewart, Gowdy, Stefanik, Hurd, Schiff, Himes, Sewell, Carson, Speier, Quigley, Swalwell, Castro, Heck. Noes: None.

    And the transcript similarly indicates the question voted upon was this:

    The question is on the motion to disclose publicly the material contained in the classified executive session committee memo made available to the House by .) committee on January 29, 2018, pursuant to House rule X, clause 11.

    Every news article that reported what they did said they voted to release the memo — because that’s what they did. Yes, their rules give the President five days to block it. But they voted to release it. And I never said otherwise. In fact, I thought my post fairly indicated that I did understand the process, given that I referenced concerns from FBI and DoJ.

    So anyone who is trying to claim I got it wrong because I accurately stated the facts, you now have the actual facts. I don’t have to tell you what the decent thing to do now is. You already know.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 2/10/2018 @ 3:51 pm

    Where there seems to be a disagreement is over what is meant by the rule with regard to “release” in the context of the procedure specified in the Rule which applies when the “release” is “pursuant to” the rule.

    The Post says the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release the Dem Memo. While the vote was for release of the “Memo”, Rule X, Clause 11(g) concerns the release of “information that has been classified.” And the balance of the Rule does not give the Comm the authority to act on its own in determining whether to release such “information”, so the Comm does not control what is ultimately made public. What actually gets released at the end of the day is not for the Comm to decide, so to say the Comm voted to “release” the Memo is a factually inaccurate reading of the way the rule works. Here are the steps:

    1. The Committee votes with regard to “classified information.”
    2. Notification is sent to the President of the vote
    3. Wait for 5 day period within which the President may object in writing.
    4. If objection is made, by majority vote of the Comm, refer the question of disclosure of information, with a recommendation thereon, to the House. The Comm MAY
    NOT disclose info without leave of the House.
    5. Chair shall report the matter to the House for consideration.
    6. There shall be a procedure voted upon to take up the matter in closed session.
    7. In a session to consider the matter, the vote shall be the question “Shall the House approve the recommendation of the Committee? Debate shall be limited to 2 hours.

    So I take back what I wrote about you understanding the process. Its not the Memo that was voted on for release — its classified information in the Memo. If the President objects, the Comm can vote to refer the matter to the whole House — with a recommendation.

    GOP members voting in favor expressed reservations about the release of “sources and methods” information, and stated an expectation that the WH would require appropriate redactions.

    The President has now issued a written objection, and returned the matter to the Intel Comm.

    So the two choices are to refer the matter to the whole House — with a recommendation which would likely include appropriate redactions determined by majority vote of the committee — or work with the WH to revise the Memo in response to the questions.

    So, the first vote of the Comm to “release” the Memo “pursuant to the Rule” does not constitute a vote to publicly disclose the “information” in the Memo as written and submitted. Its the first step in a process for the disclosure of classified information by Congress over the President’s objection, or to give the President the opportunity to declassify the information sought to be released.

    If you don’t think so, work your way through the Rule.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  245. …[T]he Republicans….didn’t vote to release it. They voted to send it to the executive branch for a security review, which is an intermediate step.

    I think what it accurately is, is that they voted to release it, but that is subject to a maximum 5-day Presidential review, which, if the president objects, they could take another vote to disregard, and send it to the full House (all members of which can read what is proposed to be released to teh public) which can approve its release.

    But they are not expected to go that route.

    Sammy Finkelman (d007a3)

  246. 241 — while the statement from the Comm spokesman might be considered a “partisan” source, if you’re waiting for a “non-partisan” source of information in this topic, you’ll likely grow old doing so.

    But the spokesman gave specifics about the nature of the changes that were made, and the reasons for making them. Schiff never took issue with his explanation — nor did anyone else on Dem side — and never made a peep about what had been changed after the memo was released.

    His silence in that regard is deafening.

    So, I’ll stick with my earlier point, slightly revised – Schiff’s complaints, however they might be characterized, have never been established by him to have been substantive, and in the 10 days since the Memo was released, he’s never returned to the subject to defend his claims.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  247. Per the constitution, aqll members of the House of Representatives could place it into the Congressional Record, or sa committee record, (well, if they have a copy) subject only to discipline by the full House.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  248. Well, you know Adam Sschiff is the peson who said on October 25, 2015 on Face the Nation that if Hillary had contradicted the CIA and told the truth about Benghazi, she would have been justly criticized. And you know she didn’t – the state Department approved the “talking points” and the entire State Department knew at least that theer had been no demonstration.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-october-25-trump-christie-nunes-schiff/

    And we did an investigation, that Devin was a part of that, in the intelligence committee, that looked at, frankly, each of these conflicting streams of intelligence as they came in. The early claims by Ansar al-Sharia responsibility that were very quickly followed with human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source reporting, that there was a protest. It wasn’t until about eight to ten days after the events where we actually got the tapes from the compound that we could see quite demonstrably on those tapes that there had been no protests. But it was the — the considered judgment, the assessment of the intelligence experts for that week until we got those tapes, that there had been a protest. And that turned out to be wrong.

    But to criticize Secretary Clinton for relying on the best of intelligence that we had at the time seemed to be wholly inappropriate. Had she had spoken, frankly, in contradiction of what our intelligence agencies were telling her, that might be something to criticize. But the fact that, as she related, and as Ambassador Rice and others related, the information at the time, it was the best information we had. And the fact that that was wrong initially doesn’t change the fact that they were reflecting the best that we knew at the time.

    That was, of course, not the BEST INFORMATION but the MOST HIGHLY RATED information – which is not the same thing.

    What Adam Schiff is talking about is mostly SOOPER SEKRIT intelligence. It was disinformation.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  249. Patterico @ 2/12/2018 @ 7:18 am, my God is the God of truth. I can not serve Him through deceit.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  250. So, I’ll stick with my earlier point, slightly revised

    Obama: I’ll stick with my earlier point, slightly revised: if you like your doctor, many of you can keep him, though I’m not sure how long.

    But whatever. I’m done being angry about it. Anger is a negative emotion, and I asked my Lord this morning to forgive me my trespasses, as I forgive those who trespass against me.

    Patterico (115b1f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7067 secs.