The Jury Talks Back

7/21/2018

The Carter Page FISA Applications Have Been Released

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 5:33 pm

You can read them here. Don’t forget to thank the #FAKENEWSMEDIA for getting them for you.

A footnote at page 16 has this information:

Footnote re Hillary

A quick read suggests: 1) the much-ballyhooed “refusal to name Hillary Clinton” appears totally consistent with the phraseology of the rest of the document; and 2) the information from the Steele dossier does not appear to be the only information used against Page. Both are as I always suspected.

The New York Times also says:

The renewal applications from 2017 told the court in boldface print that the F.B.I. had severed its relationship with Mr. Steele because he had shared some of his claims with a news organization in October 2016, contrary to the F.B.I.’s “admonishment” to speak only to law enforcement officials about the matter. But they said the bureau continued to assess his prior reporting as “reliable.”

Let the partisan spinning begin. Me, I’m not surprised by any of it. Not one bit.

17 Comments »

  1. I wonder why they redacted the day for all applications and orders? For example, the first application was filed in October 2016 but the specific day it was filed has been redacted. It doesn’t make sense (to me) unless they missed a deadline and there is a gap somewhere of a few days.

    Also, each application was approved for 90 days except the third (April 2017) application, which was approved for 60 days. Was that Judge trying to limit the inquiry?

    Comment by DRJ — 7/21/2018 @ 9:35 pm

  2. I do not understand how Andrew McCarthy could say these things on Fox & Friends this morning. It’s as if he think the redacted sections of the Carter Page FISA warrants don’t count or exist.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 9:46 am

  3. At the same time McCarthy is Making Trump’s Day with his opinions on Fox & Friends, he is effectively calling Trump an idiot or a patsy at Helsinki. It’s an interesting comparison. One can support Trump on some things and not others, but the difference here is extreme.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 9:54 am

  4. Is Source #1 the dossier, as Trump and/or McCarthy seem to claim? I read Source #1 as meaning Steele. It was Steele the FBI and DOJ trusted, not the Dossier. It may seem like a minor distinction but I don’t see it as minir.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 9:56 am

  5. Minor, not minir.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 9:58 am

  6. I do not understand how Andrew McCarthy could say these things on Fox & Friends this morning. It’s as if he think the redacted sections of the Carter Page FISA warrants don’t count or exist.

    He is indeed acting as though the redacted portions don’t exist. It’s embarrassing and I can’t believe he doesn’t realize what he is doing.

    Comment by Patterico — 7/22/2018 @ 10:38 am

  7. McCarthy said the same thing last February:

    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.

    Apparently he is ignoring the redacted portions or has concluded they don’t verify anything. HE CAN’T KNOW THAT. No one can except the people who have seen the unredacted documents.

    It is easy to believe McCarthy shares these pro-Trump opinions so he can stay on Team Trump, even when the facts make that hard to do.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 10:49 am

  8. I should have provided the full quote so we can see how McCarthy manipulates readers on this issue:

    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.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 11:04 am

  9. Off topic but I’m sure you will want to read this about Bill Browder.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 9:32 pm

  10. And this.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/22/2018 @ 9:43 pm

  11. More off topic: Kevin D. Williamson on the economic nationalism of FDR, Obama, and Trump — “the (New) New Nationalists on the Roosevelt-Obama-Trump model.”

    The ROT Model.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/23/2018 @ 5:59 am

  12. Back on topic:

    It is ironic to see people argue the FISA warrant application was fatally flawed because it says some information was gathered by a source who had a motive to discredit Trump, but does not identify that source as the DNC or Hillary.

    The application effectively reveals the source might be biased. Clearly, for some people, knowing the source was the DNC or Hillary is a material omission because they don’t trust anything the DNC and Hillary do or say, but that doesn’t meet the legal standard for completely discrediting evidence. If it did, then we should completely discredit everything Trump says, too. He an equally strong bias against and motive to discredit Hillary and the DNC.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/23/2018 @ 6:21 am

  13. We have repeatedly seen that the DOJ/FBI react, not natsec material but material that is embarrassing to DOJ/FBI. It is not at all unreasonable to assume the redacted material only weakens the validity of the application.

    Further, there is good reason to believe the unrelated application was given long ago to Ali Watkins by Wolfe.

    Comment by SPQR — 7/23/2018 @ 7:26 am

  14. DRJ, I am good with a FISA court not accepting Trump’s personal testimony in a FISA warrant application.

    Comment by SPQR — 7/23/2018 @ 7:28 am

  15. We have repeatedly seen that the DOJ/FBI react, not natsec material but material that is embarrassing to DOJ/FBI. It is not at all unreasonable to assume the redacted material only weakens the validity of the application.

    Further, there is good reason to believe the unrelated application was given long ago to Ali Watkins by Wolfe.

    Comment by SPQR — 7/23/2018 @ 7:26 am

    That may be true but we can forget about law if we are going to assume everyone is biased to the point we don’t even care what the evidence shows. If we could see the redacted portions and they were more of the same — nothing was independently verified — then I concede your point. I don’t understand assuming the redacted portions are useless.

    DRJ, I am good with a FISA court not accepting Trump’s personal testimony in a FISA warrant application.

    Comment by SPQR — 7/23/2018 @ 7:28 am

    LOL.

    Comment by DRJ — 7/23/2018 @ 8:20 am

  16. They explicitly claim that they independently corroborated Steele’s claims, as a lead-in to the redacted material.

    Comment by Patterico — 7/23/2018 @ 10:16 am

  17. Y citing the isikoff piece re steele harry Reid up (also from steele)

    Comment by narciso — 7/23/2018 @ 1:38 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.