Release The Memo

[OUBubba]

A few things.

1. The warrants were renewed three times. I'd think that they were required to show the progress that they'd made with the warrants to get them renewed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-releases-gop-surveillance-memo-1517592392
2. Four different judges. All appointed by GOP. One of them appointed by Trump.
3. The warrant supposedly points out that Steele is funded by a political opponent. If true, that's a significant thing left out.

 

[VYFan]

A few things.

1. The warrants were renewed three times. I'd think that they were required to show the progress that they'd made with the warrants to get them renewed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-releases-gop-surveillance-memo-1517592392
2. Four different judges. All appointed by GOP. One of them appointed by Trump.
3. The warrant supposedly points out that Steele is funded by a political opponent. If true, that's a significant thing left out.

How could one of the judges have been appointed by Trump? I wouldn’t think any of his appointments was approved until way later.

 

[mchammer]

A few things.

1. The warrants were renewed three times. I'd think that they were required to show the progress that they'd made with the warrants to get them renewed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-releases-gop-surveillance-memo-1517592392
2. Four different judges. All appointed by GOP. One of them appointed by Trump.
3. The warrant supposedly points out that Steele is funded by a political opponent. If true, that's a significant thing left out.

I read somewhere the FBI claimed the source was “political in nature”. But, they then also claimed it was in the news, however not noting the news piece came from the same political source. Finally, they never explained that the source was funded by Hillary and put together by someone with a strong dislike of Trump.

 

[OUBubba]

How could one of the judges have been appointed by Trump? I wouldn’t think any of his appointments was approved until way later.

He was under constant surveillance since October of 2016. It appears up until October of 2017.
From the Wall Street Journal article:

At least two of those renewals occurred while Mr. Trump was president and at least one was authorized by a Justice Department official he appointed. A person familiar with the matter said that four separate federal judges approved the surveillance of Mr. Page, and all of those judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Four separate Federal judges who were all lied to by omission.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I did not see Mueller implicated in the memo, so why not? Plus, Gowdy is my favorite. Hate to see him go.

He says he's going to go back to "practicing law." Unfortunately when a congressman says that, it usually means becoming a lobbyist and making 20 times as much money.

It's sad, because Gowdy is still a pretty young guy. I'm not a massive fan of his, because he's very partisan, but he's a very sharp guy, debates very well, and can tear up a witness in committee hearings when he wants. His BS sniffer is outstanding. The GOP needs more guys with his talents, so his departure is a definite loss.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You might want to let the FBI and DOJ folks that have been fired and demoted that they have a right to get their jobs back.

Why?

 

[Mr. Deez]

2. Four different judges. All appointed by GOP. One of them appointed by Trump.

How could one of the judges have been appointed by Trump? I wouldn’t think any of his appointments was approved until way later.

The FISA court judges are appointed by the Chief Justice, not the President. They are Article III federal judges who serve in various other district courts, so they were appointed by a President at some point. However, they aren't chosen by the President for the FISA court.

One judge (Robert Kugler) was appointed during the Trump presidency, but he was chosen by Chief Justice Roberts, not Trump. And he wasn't appointed to the federal bench by Trump.

 

[Clean]

A few things.

1. The warrants were renewed three times. I'd think that they were required to show the progress that they'd made with the warrants to get them renewed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-releases-gop-surveillance-memo-1517592392
2. Four different judges. All appointed by GOP. One of them appointed by Trump.
3. The warrant supposedly points out that Steele is funded by a political opponent. If true, that's a significant thing left out.

First of all, you're confusing justice dept. officials with FISA Court judges. The memo says nothing about who the judges were.

Second the whole point of the memo is that Steele's funding and biased motivation WASN'T REVEALED to the FISA Court.

Go read the actual memo. Facts are your friends.

 

[theiioftx]

How could one of the judges have been appointed by Trump? I wouldn’t think any of his appointments was approved until way later.

Because CNN says so?

 

[Mr. Deez]

First of all, you're confusing justice dept. officials with FISA Court judges. The memo says nothing about who the judges were.

Second the whole point of the memo is that Steele's funding and biased motivation WASN'T REVEALED to the FISA Court.

Go read the actual memo. Facts are your friends.

And he's blurring the issue. That's why he's making a big deal about the party affiliation of the judges. Assuming everything in the memo is the truth and the whole story, the issue isn't what the judges did. It's what the people who appeared in front of the judges did. If lawyers and witnesses go in front of a judge and BS and he has no reason to to disbelieve them, the problem is the BSers, not the judges who believed them.

 

[theiioftx]

The Democrats have been exposed and they have admitted to rigging the primary. Why does anyone believe they didn’t try to rig the general election?

 

[iatrogenic]

Why?

First, this memo is partisan accusation, not evidence. That doesn't mean it's BS. However, it does mean that it has to be approached with a significant degree of skepticism. We haven't seen the actual evidence that supports the memo and haven't seen any potential controverting evidence or evidence to provide context. In other words, we shouldn't judge anybody yet, even the people specifically named.

Based on the firings, reassignments and demotions, somebody with inside info feels pretty strong that the allegations are true.

 

[Joe Fan]

Nunes says there will be more memos released. According to other sources what was released in the memo is only about 10% to 15% of what is to come.

Devin Nunes --

“This is just the first memo. There will be another one dealing specifically with the State Department’s role in all of this.”​

 

[iatrogenic]

Not a shock. My understanding was that the Steele dossier was a combination from various sources and it was treated much like someone researching a topic might use wikipedia - meaning I will use that source for something but go to a more solid source to verify a fact. Carter Paige was on the FBI's radar as far back as '13, right?

To be honest I could see 85% of the dossier being accurate but 15% of it being knowingly wrongfully provided by those wanting to sow distrust in the US.

Of course, this would require you to ignore the FBI source report stating that the Steele Dossier was "minimally" corroborated.

 

[I35]

So let me get this right. The Dems are crying that the findings by the Republicans memo is a fabrication of their fabrications? You really can’t make this stuff up.

Also one of the sources used to get one of the FISA Warrants was a source by Yahoo who got his info from one of the heads of the FBI that was fabricated. So if you are following this, you have false info that is made up by FBI Head given to yahoo to print it. Then that same FBI head uses his fake info he gave to yahoo by citing yahoo as a source for the FISA Warrant. Again, you can’t make this stuff up.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Based on the firings, reassignments and demotions, somebody with inside info feels pretty strong that the allegations are true.

No doubt it looks bad, but I'd like to see what was actually submitted to the court. And if the proceeding was transcribed, I'd like to see that.

 

[bystander]

Here are some interesting comments from Yahoo readers concerning all of this:

"Did trump REALLY read it?? It says that they had been investigating Page since 2013, WAAAAY before trump, so unless the FBI had a "crystal ball" how does that reflect any "anti-trump" bias? It also showed that they didn't base the investigation on the dossier..so they just "debunked" their OWN theory..so did he really read it??"

"Page was under surveillance since 2013 and had FISA warrants signed by 4 FISA court judges. FISA warrants are not easy to get, the FBI got 4. Page was thought to be a Russian operative. My question is, how did he wind up on Trumps campaign as an ADVISER, when he was being surveilled as a Russian operative? Seriously, the man was thought to be working for Russian intelligence and Trump brings him on board? Who's kidding who?"

"So basically the FBI had credible information from the Australians that this Carter Page person was colluding with the Russians. They took this information to the FISA court who approved the surveillance. The surveillance confirmed meetings between Carter Page and the Russians. The court renewed the warrant 3 more times including when Donald Trump's own people were running the FBI and Justice Department ....and somehow this is supposed to show that the FBI is biased against Republicans and Trump and there were was some big conspiracy going ???? Can someone explain that to me?"

 

[iatrogenic]

Here are some interesting comments from Yahoo readers concerning all of this:

"Did trump REALLY read it?? It says that they had been investigating Page since 2013, WAAAAY before trump, so unless the FBI had a "crystal ball" how does that reflect any "anti-trump" bias? It also showed that they didn't base the investigation on the dossier..so they just "debunked" their OWN theory..so did he really read it??"

"Page was under surveillance since 2013 and had FISA warrants signed by 4 FISA court judges. FISA warrants are not easy to get, the FBI got 4. Page was thought to be a Russian operative. My question is, how did he wind up on Trumps campaign as an ADVISER, when he was being surveilled as a Russian operative? Seriously, the man was thought to be working for Russian intelligence and Trump brings him on board? Who's kidding who?"

"So basically the FBI had credible information from the Australians that this Carter Page person was colluding with the Russians. They took this information to the FISA court who approved the surveillance. The surveillance confirmed meetings between Carter Page and the Russians. The court renewed the warrant 3 more times including when Donald Trump's own people were running the FBI and Justice Department ....and somehow this is supposed to show that the FBI is biased against Republicans and Trump and there were was some big conspiracy going ???? Can someone explain that to me?"

That is why Yahoo readers should never be relied on for logical arguments.

 

[iatrogenic]

No doubt it looks bad, but I'd like to see what was actually submitted to the court. And if the proceeding was transcribed, I'd like to see that.

I agree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that those that know that information gave certain DOJ and FBI career employees a swift kick in the *** once their shenanigans were discovered.

 

[Joe Fan]

...1. The warrants were renewed three times. I'd think that they were required to show the progress that they'd made with the warrants to get them renewed....

I was already planning on writing something about Carter Page today.

For starters, it's always good to remember FISA courts are not like other courts. They are a specially created circumvention of regular federal courts. IMO, the reason they are "special" and "secret" is that what they really do is allow FBI/DOJ to circumvent the Constitution. It's a very big deal.

Also important to note is that the type of warrant used here was under Title I which requires the specific allegation by both DOJ and FBI that they had evidence that the target US Person (here C.Page) was essentially working as a spy. These are to be distinguished from Title VII warrants which seek to review 'ancillary data' collected on a US citizen while they were spying on a foreign person. This distinction is key. The FBI was not targeting Page incidentally. The FBI was targeting Page directly. Which gave them full surveillance authority upon "all of his activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein."

And it means the legal the standard is higher. To spy on an American through a FISA court, the FBI must show the target is an “agent of a foreign power,” not merely in contact with a foreign power. The law makes it difficult to show someone is an “agent of a foreign power” to make sure it is not misused to spy on Americans. The FBI is required to show the US person “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power” and the nature of their activity is criminalized. This is not to be understated -- there must be specific evidence of a particular national security threat.

Another interesting fact regarding the type of warrant they used on Page is that there is an additonal level of approvals required that go up the chain. Check out the list of names here who signed off on these approvals -- James Comey (3X), Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein.

OK so since proving an American is an “agent of a foreign power” is not an easy thing to do, what proof did Comey, McCabe, Yates, Rosestein (+Peter Strzok and others) provide that Carter Page was an active Russia spy and a particular national security threat? They gave the Court the Steele Dossier (which was originally paid for by HRC/DNC). They gave the Court articles from the media (which we now know were leaks from Steele himself directly to certain media members). And they gave the Court some Nellie-Ohr- generated material. She was an employee of GPS Fusion and wife of the now twice-demoted Bruce Ohr. And they did this without notifying the Court of the political nature of this "proof."

That is a pretty sketchy package to support the idea that any US citizen is a spy for Russia. And these folks certified this sketchy package four different times. But the truth is not even the FBI itself thought much of this material.

What have they got from these many months of spying on Carter Page anyway? Is he in jail?

No, he is not in jail. He testified before Mueller's grand jury. And he has sat for at least 10 hours of interviews with FBI investigators. That's it, or all we know about. No charges have ever been filed against him and Page says he has never been notified by Mueller's office to expect an indictment.

So what is really going on here?

Here is what I say -- Trump winning the election created all sorts of problems for Comey. Then Comey’s firing caused problems for Rosenstein. Recall from above, both Comey and Rosenstein signed off on the bogus affidavits to the FISA court to continue spying on Trump team members post-election and post-inauguration. They needed some cover.

Enter Mueller, who is very close friends with Comey and was even his mentor. He is also a close friend of Rosenstein. They wanted him because Mueller has experience in coverups for law enforcement. See his role with regard to Whitey Bulger, BCCI, HSBC, Waco, Noriega, IRS/Tea Party and Fast & Furious.

FISA law protects Americans from lawless spying by demanding the masking of names and deletion of intercepted data. If an American’s conversations are intercepted, his identity must remain hidden, and if there is no probable cause of a crime, the conversations are deleted.

In this case, the law was not followed. The FBI turned over its NSA spying capacity to a private lobbying company in order to promote a smear campaign against a domestic political opponent (I still think we will see Susan Rice was in the middle of this). Fearing being caught, they appointed a special counsel (Mueller) to cover for them by accusing the man (Trump) who might expose them. Which leaves us with the biggest political scandal in US history

 

[Joe Fan]

The claims of nothingburger with regard to this matter can only be explained as willful ignorance.

If there was nothing corrupt going on at 7th floor of the Hoover Bldg during the 2016 presidential campaign, then how do they expalin the shake-up?
Why was Comey's deputy reassigned or removed?
Why was Comey's lawyer reassigned or removed?
Why was Comey's chief of staff reassigned or removed?
Why was Comey's general counsel reassigned or removed?
Why was Comey's top CI investigator reassigned or removed?
Clearly not for nothing

https://nypost.com/2018/02/01/chris-wray-is-quietly-cleaning-up-the-fbi/

" .... FBI sources tell me the pressure to clean house is also coming from inside the bureau, and it’s based on real concerns over malfeasance by top brass there.

In a healthy sign, new FBI Director Christopher Wray is slowly but surely sweeping partisan operatives out of the bureau’s executive suites all on his own. On the job just a few months, Wray told Congress in December he wanted to wait and see the evidence before taking any action against high-level investigators accused of bias and misconduct. Over the weekend, he saw some of that evidence, and it convinced him to remove his own deputy, Andrew McCabe....

... Whatever Wray saw wasn’t manufactured by the White House. It came from Justice Department watchdog Michael Horowitz, who launched his probe at the request of Democrats."​

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

I hope this one is wrong

 

[theiioftx]

Seems like a lot of people should go to jail. Odds are none will.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

"Did trump REALLY read it?? It says that they had been investigating Page since 2013, WAAAAY before trump, so unless the FBI had a "crystal ball" how does that reflect any "anti-trump" bias? It also showed that they didn't base the investigation on the dossier..so they just "debunked" their OWN theory..so did he really read it??"

This is a pretty common narrative that people are picking up from the media, but it assumes that the purpose of this whole thing is to debunk the Muller investigation into Trump. I guess when your motives are always partisan, you see that in others. It may be true, but it also may be true that the issue is the behavior of the FBI in the FISA court process - regardless of the Trump investigation. As far as I've seen, the point was never to prove that the dossier sparked the investigation.

 

[OUBubba]

Because CNN says so?

The liberal bastion titled The Wall Street Journal said so.

 

[Joe Fan]

Seems like a lot of people should go to jail. Odds are none will.

FISA Court Rule 13: "If the government discovers that a submission to the Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact, the government, in writing, must immediately inform the Judge" of both the fact omitted and circumstances related thereto

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC Rules of Procedure.pdf

 

[bystander]

Ok, I'm not sure I'm following. So some warrants for surveillance against a potential domestic spy were issued on flimsy or fabricated evidence for a warrant. This all occurred years before Trump became President. How does all of that (not related to Trump) suddenly become evidence of a partisan operation to bring Trump down?

 

[iatrogenic]

What brought you to the conclusion that the warrants were issued years before Trump became President?