Release The Memo

[Mr. Deez]

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.

The media is going to play it up, because it hurts the Republican narrative on the issue. However, it does legitimately create real concerns. It means that the dossier wasn't the real basis for the initial surveillance of Mr. Page, because it didn't exist at the time.

Of course, on the flip side, if it was all legit stuff, then why are FBI officials getting canned, resigning early, etc.? Again, this is why we need to be in "wait and see" mode, not rushing to judgment.

 

[bystander]

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

Sorry. My bad. I meant that Page was on the FBI's radar in 2013. Is that part not true?

 

[iatrogenic]

Some reports state that is true.

 

[bystander]

Some reports state that is true.

I've read it in the Washington Post in a least two different articles. But their pay wall just dropped on me and I'm not going to subscribe.

 

[bystander]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/us/politics/carter-page-trump-russia.html

It won't let me copy/paste but this article indicates the F.B.I. interviewed Page in 2013. And in an email statement, Paige said, "as I explained to Federal Authorities before the January 2015 filing of this case..."

And further:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...i-surveillance-trump-campaign-aide/301415002/


"McCabe told the committee that the FISA warrant application relied on each and every component within the application, not just on one of them, Schiff said. McCabe said the dossier was not the genesis of the investigation of Page, who was known to have contact with Russians before joining the Trump campaign, Schiff said.

The congressman, who is a former prosecutor, said the entire Steele dossier was not part of the application — only select parts of it that were about Page. At least some of those parts were corroborated by other information in the application, Schiff said.

Schiff said McCabe's testimony made it clear that the warrant application would have been made even if investigators had never received the Steele dossier."

From CBS; apparently Page has acknowledged the 2013 interview with the F.B.I.:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...page-targeted-russian-spies/story?id=46557506

 

[bystander]

Listen to this where it is cued up. Page sounds very "dodgy."

 

[mchammer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/us/politics/carter-page-trump-russia.html

It won't let me copy/paste but this article indicates the F.B.I. interviewed Page in 2013. And in an email statement, Paige said, "as I explained to Federal Authorities before the January 2015 filing of this case..."

And further:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...i-surveillance-trump-campaign-aide/301415002/


"McCabe told the committee that the FISA warrant application relied on each and every component within the application, not just on one of them, Schiff said. McCabe said the dossier was not the genesis of the investigation of Page, who was known to have contact with Russians before joining the Trump campaign, Schiff said.

The congressman, who is a former prosecutor, said the entire Steele dossier was not part of the application — only select parts of it that were about Page. At least some of those parts were corroborated by other information in the application, Schiff said.

Schiff said McCabe's testimony made it clear that the warrant application would have been made even if investigators had never received the Steele dossier."

From CBS; apparently Page has acknowledged the 2013 interview with the F.B.I.:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...page-targeted-russian-spies/story?id=46557506

So why was the dossier called an insurance policy against Trump?

 

[bystander]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...page-targeted-russian-spies/story?id=46557506:

"According to the document, the FBI interviewed Page as part of an investigation stemming from the indictment of three Russian men identified as agents of the Russian foreign intelligence agency, the SVR. One of them, Evgeny Buryakov, was operating undercover as an executive in the New York office of a Russian development bank. The Buryakov case resurfaced in headlines last week when President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, revealed he had met with the head of that bank. Buryakov was sentenced to 30 months in prison as part of a plea agreement, but he was released from prison over the weekend and is awaiting deportation to Russia.

In the FBI court filings, spy recruiters were overheard speaking with Buryakov about "the attempted use of Male-1 as an intelligence source for Russia," the court record says. The recruiter says he "promised Male-1 a lot" and told him he would use his "connections in Russia" to "push contracts" his way. "For now, his enthusiasm works for me," the recruiter says of Page.

Page was never accused during the Buryakov case of having been successfully recruited or of spying. FBI agents say in the court record that they interviewed "Male-1" in June 2013. During the interview, Page described how he and the man identified as a Russian recruiter, Victor Podobnyy, met periodically and exchanged emails about the energy industry, but nothing in the court document suggests that Page shared any sensitive information with Podobnyy. Rather, it appears they spoke in much the way business executives seeking opportunities do — with Page touting his work ties to the Russian energy firm Gazprom. The Russians were heard laughing, saying Page had no idea they were government agents.

 

[bystander]

So why was the dossier called an insurance policy against Trump?

I don't know who said that or the context of that remark. I'm saying that Page was on the F.B.I.'s radar in 2013. That point is what I am focusing on because Iatrogenic said, "Some reports state that is true." The way he phrased it led me to believe he doesn't believe it has been proven that Page was on their radar in 2013.

There is NO DOUBT there is a huge political component coming from the DNC. I'm just wondering about this simple trail: A man is interviewed in 2013 and is deemed suspicious by the F.B.I. That same man was later hired by Trump.

EDIT: We know the Russians caused problems in the campaign for Hillary. These simple facts would indicate a reasonable person to want to find out if Trump was involved.

To date, I have seen ZERO evidence that Trump was involved.

 

[mchammer]

I don't know who said that or the context of that remark. I'm saying that Page was on the F.B.I.'s radar in 2013. That point is what I am focusing on because Iatrogenic said, "Some reports state that is true." The way he phrased it led me to believe he doesn't believe it has been proven that Page was on their radar in 2013.

There is NO DOUBT there is a huge political component coming from the DNC. I'm just wondering about this simple trail: A man is interviewed in 2013 and is deemed suspicious by the F.B.I. That same man was later hired by Trump.

EDIT: We know the Russians caused problems in the campaign for Hillary. These simple facts would indicate a reasonable person to want to find out if Trump was involved.

To date, I have seen ZERO evidence that Trump was involved.

I also read that the dossier was used to continue the FISA warrants. Since when does the FBI have a unlimited license to spy on Americans?

 

[bystander]

I also read that the dossier was used to continue the FISA warrants. Since when does the FBI have a unlimited license to spy on Americans?

That's a bit of an open question. It only causes confusion in what I'm trying to establish. Page was being investigated as far back as 2013. He ended up in Trump's Administration. Somebody might see some 2 + 2 there especially given the hacks. I'm trying to stay focused.

Now, if you want to discuss the greater issue of getting a warrant to spy on a US citizen who is making contact with people overseas then we have to talk about national security and the Constitution. Apparently we have a law that established these FISA Courts. It gives the F.B.I., "license to spy on Americans" in certain cases where the proof is compelling enough. The dossier was partially used according to McCabe.

I think we all know that indictments and warrants are built upon a one-sided argument. It's not a trial with lawyers on both sides. The law is clear that the F.B.I. can spy if FISA grants the warrent. Do you want to abolish FISA?

 

[Joe Fan]

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?

I think FISA warrants have to be renewed every 90 days. The one discussed in this thread was renewed 3 times.

One of the tricky parts is that, once they have it, they can go back in time. So, 90 days forward but basically unlimited looking backwards. Which opens the door for CYA after-the-fact FISA applications.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

EDIT: We know the Russians caused problems in the campaign for Hillary. These simple facts would indicate a reasonable person to want to find out if Trump was involved.

To date, I have seen ZERO evidence that Trump was involved.

This is pure speculation, but here's a possible version of what might have taken place. The Russian government compromised several American foreign policy and defense experts (Page, Flynn, etc.) who were, for whatever reason, disillusioned or disgruntled with the foreign policy and defense establishment. Seeing that Trump was running as a generally anti-establishment candidate who was preaching a more isolationist foreign policy, the Russian government may have encouraged these people to apply for jobs with Trump without informing him of their Russian connections.

Seeing that their on-paper qualifications were solid and that they were outside the foreign policy establishments that he had ripped, Trump hired some of them. They advise him to be Putin-friendly, to bash NATO, etc. At some point, Trump figures out that these guys are a bunch of hacks and fires them. He also rejects what they've advised him and replaces them with people who advocate almost the complete opposite of what they advocated.

Or I could be completely full of speculative crap.

 

[Joe Fan]

Trey Gowdy was on one of the Sunday morning shows today
Here he addresses the question whether the Carter Page wiretap would have been authorized without Steele dossier

 

[Crockett]

This is pure speculation, but here's a possible version of what might have taken place.

Sounds plausible.

Of course by now it seem every on of my most political Facebook friends is absolutely certain of a scenario outlined by the strident partisan friends who know a lot less about this than you do.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sounds plausible.

Of course by now it seem every on of my most political Facebook friends is absolutely certain of a scenario outlined by the strident partisan friends who know a lot less about this than you do.

Most people on Facebook form their opinions based on shallow memes and graphics. Virtually nobody reads anymore.

 

[iatrogenic]

I don't know who said that or the context of that remark. I'm saying that Page was on the F.B.I.'s radar in 2013. That point is what I am focusing on because Iatrogenic said, "Some reports state that is true." The way he phrased it led me to believe he doesn't believe it has been proven that Page was on their radar in 2013.

There is NO DOUBT there is a huge political component coming from the DNC. I'm just wondering about this simple trail: A man is interviewed in 2013 and is deemed suspicious by the F.B.I. That same man was later hired by Trump.

EDIT: We know the Russians caused problems in the campaign for Hillary. These simple facts would indicate a reasonable person to want to find out if Trump was involved.

To date, I have seen ZERO evidence that Trump was involved.

It seems that Page was under investigation since 2013. It is not whether I believe that or not, however, because it is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is the fact that the FBI and DOJ used unverified information to obtain a warrant to surveil Page.

To be fair, my instincts tell me Page, although not at the same level of lowlife as Manafort, probably deserves investigation. The Trump team made a mistake in associating with them, but did the right thing in getting rid of them.

I don't know if the Russians interfered with the election, but it would not surprise me if they tried. We should do everything possible to penalize any country that uses illegal means to influence our election, or interfere with our Democracy. If they were responsible for releasing Hillary's/Podesta's emails, which showed the collusion among Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and the media, that is a Hillary/DNC/Media problem. If those three co-conspirators did not try to rig the Democrat's nomination process, as well as the general election, they wouldn't have anything to complain about. Too bad for them- but good for us- that their nefarious actions were exposed and they got busted. I feel the same way toward Hillary's, the medias', and the DNC's actions that I do toward Russian scumbaggery. Despite their varying objectives, they are all LOWLIFES!

What is total bullsh-t, however, are the actions of the DOJ and FBI in letting their bias against Trump affect their judgment when it comes to any investigation. Fu-k -em and feed-em fish heads. I am happy they lost their jobs and I hope they go to jail.

Now, on with the show. Let's see that Trump-Russia collusion. We have waited long enough, and still not a single shred of evidence has surfaced.

 

[bystander]

I saw a graphic in the Washington Post of some sort of timeline of various elements to the Russia investigation. The have a bar graph of sorts with the names of each of the players including Page. It say's Page came to the F.B.I.'s attention in 2013. He is the beginning of the entire matter. At the bottom of the illustration there are two categories: What we know happened and what might happen:

What We Know:

1) Manafort and Gates were indicted
2) Flynn plead guilty
3) Papadopoulos plead guilty.

What might happen:

1) Obstruction charges
2) NOTHING
3) Something unexpected

So the Washington Post could only come up with three outcomes NONE OF WHICH are collusion. In my view, obstruction is all they have left.

 

[bystander]

It seems that Page was under investigation since 2013. It is not whether I believe that or not, however, because it is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is the fact that the FBI and DOJ used unverified information to obtain a warrant to surveil Page.

To be fair, my instincts tell me Page, although not at the same level of lowlife as Manafort, probably deserves investigation. The Trump team made a mistake in associating with them, but did the right thing in getting rid of them.

I don't know if the Russians interfered with the election, but it would not surprise me if they tried. We should do everything possible to penalize any country that uses illegal means to influence our election, or interfere with our Democracy. If they were responsible for releasing Hillary's/Podesta's emails, which showed the collusion among Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and the media, that is a Hillary/DNC/Media problem. If those three co-conspirators did not try to rig the Democrat's nomination process, as well as the general election, they wouldn't have anything to complain about. Too bad for them- but good for us- that their nefarious actions were exposed and they got busted. I feel the same way toward Hillary's, the medias', and the DNC's actions that I do toward Russian scumbaggery. Despite their varying objectives, they are all LOWLIFES!

What is total bullsh-t, however, are the actions of the DOJ and FBI in letting their bias against Trump affect their judgment when it comes to any investigation. Fu-k -em and feed-em fish heads. I am happy they lost their jobs and I hope they go to jail.

Now, on with the show. Let's see that Trump-Russia collusion. We have waited long enough, and still not a single shred of evidence has surfaced.

Just a few random thoughts:

1) Page may just be an extremely smart and connected man who just wanted to be a player while enriching himself.
2) Trump was looking to staff an administration. My recollection was that he struggled to find people who were qualified and willing to work for him. The Republican establishment was not completely on board (and I'm not sure they are now) and Page was a person who was qualified, willing and available.
3) Did Trump know Page was a person of interest when he was hired? Page has refused to divulge the identity of the person who hired/contacted him to joint the administration saying to George Stephanopoulos that if he identified that person their life would be totally disrupted over nothing.
4) The ambition level of Trump's team along with their obvious hatred/disdain/whatever for Hillary created the temptation to listen to whatever the Russians had on her. THAT'S WRONG no matter the reasons. I can understand the difficulty to be pure of heart and walk away from what is possibly true SOLELY because of the messenger but I suppose we have to draw a line and say my ambition is not greater than even appearances of using an enemy to defeat your domestic rival.

 

[iatrogenic]

I would disagree with the need to walk away from info supplied by the Russians as long as there was nothing about the info that was obtained or provided in an illegal manner.

 

[bystander]

I would disagree with the need to walk away from info supplied by the Russians as long as there was nothing about the info that was obtained or provided in an illegal manner.

I think possibly they could have contacted the FBI about it instead. Just stay clean.

 

[iatrogenic]

Or use the information to your advantage.

 

[OUBubba]

This is pure speculation, but here's a possible version of what might have taken place. The Russian government compromised several American foreign policy and defense experts (Page, Flynn, etc.) who were, for whatever reason, disillusioned or disgruntled with the foreign policy and defense establishment. Seeing that Trump was running as a generally anti-establishment candidate who was preaching a more isolationist foreign policy, the Russian government may have encouraged these people to apply for jobs with Trump without informing him of their Russian connections.

Seeing that their on-paper qualifications were solid and that they were outside the foreign policy establishments that he had ripped, Trump hired some of them. They advise him to be Putin-friendly, to bash NATO, etc. At some point, Trump figures out that these guys are a bunch of hacks and fires them. He also rejects what they've advised him and replaces them with people who advocate almost the complete opposite of what they advocated.

Or I could be completely full of speculative crap.

That's not wholly unreasonable. Except for the fact that Trump is still very pro-Russia. I mean, he did just decline the opportunity to invoke Russian sanctions that both the House and the Senate voted almost unanimously to invoke.

 

[OUBubba]

It seems that Page was under investigation since 2013. It is not whether I believe that or not, however, because it is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is the fact that the FBI and DOJ used unverified information to obtain a warrant to surveil Page.

To be fair, my instincts tell me Page, although not at the same level of lowlife as Manafort, probably deserves investigation. The Trump team made a mistake in associating with them, but did the right thing in getting rid of them.

I don't know if the Russians interfered with the election, but it would not surprise me if they tried. We should do everything possible to penalize any country that uses illegal means to influence our election, or interfere with our Democracy. If they were responsible for releasing Hillary's/Podesta's emails, which showed the collusion among Hillary's campaign, the DNC, and the media, that is a Hillary/DNC/Media problem. If those three co-conspirators did not try to rig the Democrat's nomination process, as well as the general election, they wouldn't have anything to complain about. Too bad for them- but good for us- that their nefarious actions were exposed and they got busted. I feel the same way toward Hillary's, the medias', and the DNC's actions that I do toward Russian scumbaggery. Despite their varying objectives, they are all LOWLIFES!

What is total bullsh-t, however, are the actions of the DOJ and FBI in letting their bias against Trump affect their judgment when it comes to any investigation. Fu-k -em and feed-em fish heads. I am happy they lost their jobs and I hope they go to jail.

Now, on with the show. Let's see that Trump-Russia collusion. We have waited long enough, and still not a single shred of evidence has surfaced.

Your argument falls apart on a few key things. 1. The FBI memo about HRC actually swung the election to Trump. The memo that was pushed for by Stzrok, ironically. 2. The investigation into Trump/Russia ties started before the dossier dropped. 3. Are FISA warrants renewed if they're NOT getting valuable intelligence? I don't know the answer to that. Logic would say, no. 4. Flynn has plead guilty, Popadopolous has plead guilty, Manafort will probably roll. That other guy that got rolled up with Manafort fired his Trump related lawyers this week and, it appears, is singing like a canary. No surprise that the Trump folks tried an end run this week. It was a weak effort.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would disagree with the need to walk away from info supplied by the Russians as long as there was nothing about the info that was obtained or provided in an illegal manner.

Liberal law professors claim that because opposition research firms provide dirt and charge money for it, if Russia gives dirt for free, it's effectively campaign contribution (which everyone agrees doesn't have to be money). I don't think they're right, but that's the argument.

 

[UTChE96]

If I understand the timeline correctly, the FISA warrant was issued after Page left the Trump campaign. So there was no direct "spying" on the Trump campaign. However, it certainly does look like there was a political motivation for obtaining the FISA warrant in hopes of nailing Trump with evidence of Russian collusion. Otherwise, why was this dossier used in any capacity to obtain the FISA warrant. These are some very serious allegations that need to be looked into.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

What might happen:

1) Obstruction charges
2) NOTHING
3) Something unexpected

Well, with political analysis like that, let me get my credit card out so I can subscribe to them!

 

[ProdigalHorn]

From Byron York - three questions that need to be answered:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...uestions-about-the-house-memo/article/2648048

Question 3 that the Dems have raised is why Carter Page's background wasn't included in the memo for context.

"On the other hand, the suggestion that Page's history was vitally important seems off base. After conversations with multiple sources, it appears the FISA surveillance application relied on five categories of information: 1) the dossier; 2) a Yahoo News article based mostly on the dossier; 3) the George Papadopoulos case; 4) Page's history; and 5) a general survey of Russian bad deeds.

According to those sources, the dossier made up by far the largest part of the case for wiretapping Page. The Yahoo story was "cited extensively," as well. The Papadopoulos case, Page's history, and the general discussion of Russian ill will made up a much smaller part. So it appears the memo was correct when it described the dossier as an "essential" part of the warrant application. Still, even though Page's history was a relatively small part of the story, the House should have mentioned it, if only to address the FBI's concern about leaving a material fact out of the memo."

 

[bystander]

Well, with political analysis like that, let me get my credit card out so I can subscribe to them!

Those three possible outcomes were at the tail-end of a longer analysis. It told me that they don't see ANYTHING to prove collusion. Again, it goes back to the old saying: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." And in this article the Washington Post (which has an assumed Liberal bias while the Washington Times has an assumed Conservative bias) changed that saying: "Even if there was no crime; it's the cover-up."

Some people believe the Dems already know they can't prove Trump committed a crime (and possibly better stated, they can't prove it because he didn't commit one) so they are pushing hard to provoke a cover-up merely because the confusion is causing people to make mistakes.