Even If You Take the Nunes Memo Seriously, It Makes No Sense A former Whitewater investigator takes apart the document roiling Washington.
By PAUL ROSENZWEIG February 02, 2018 Facebook Twitter Google + Email Comment Print THE FRIDAY COVER tfc-0202-cover.jpg Read more Let’s leave aside for now the obvious partisan nature of the Nunes memorandum—the four-page document released Friday by the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, California Rep. Devin Nunes. Let’s leave aside the fact that everyone who has read the underlying classified FISA application for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page says the memo is incomplete and out of context. Let’s leave aside as well the equally obvious partisan nature of the Republican response, as House members and the president try to delegitimize special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and demonize the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. All of that, by itself, is good and sufficient reason to think that the Nunes memo is not a serious effort at oversight.
But let’s put that aside. Instead, let’s take the Nunes memorandum on its merits and assume that it is what it purports to be—an accurate summary of a purported problem with the FISA application process. What then should we make of it?
Under the most fair reading of the memorandum, the argument it makes is as follows: The Steele dossier—a collection of reports filed by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele—is a biased and flawed document produced by someone out to “get” the president; FBI and Justice Department officials knew of the bias and did not disclose it to the judges of the FISA court who approved the FISA warrant; as a result, the rights of an American citizen (Carter Page) were violated; and (more importantly, from the perspective of the Republican Party) the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier corrupted the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign—all of which is, in effect, the “fruit of a poisonous tree” that should no longer be credited.
Given that story line, one can only conclude that the Nunes memo fails to make its case—and fails quite badly at that.
Consider, first, the obvious timing problem. The Nunes memo begins with a FISA application dated October 21, 2016. That date is significant for a number of reasons. As an initial matter, coming less than 20 days before the election, it seems a particularly poor way of trying to influence the outcome of the election. A FISA application just a few days before November 9 would not actually have produced any evidence until well after the election—making Nunes' implicit charge of a corrupted investigation chronologically implausible. In addition, the focus on this date has to deal with the uncomfortable fact that the surveillance of Page it authorized started roughly a month after Page officially left the Trump campaign—so, again, it is a poor way of effectuating a bias against Trump to collect evidence relating to the actions of a former campaign volunteer.
But the most important reason to focus on the 2016 date is that it ignores another, earlier date. We know from public reports that the FBI opened its inquiry into Page’s Russian connections as early as 2013, at which time the bureau already had probable cause to think Russian intelligence operatives might be trying to recruit him. (The Russian spies, by the way, thought that Page was “an idiot,” according to court documents.) Any story of the investigation of Page that starts in the middle is incomplete at best—and since we don’t know what was in the earlier Page application or in the rest of this October application, we can’t really know how incomplete it is. But that careful incompleteness is, by itself, grounds to doubt the memo’s conclusions.
The other timing problem arises from the effort to tie this allegedly flawed FISA application to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein (for whom the president apparently has great disdain). Of course, before the election Rosenstein wasn’t the deputy attorney general—he was a U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland. To link him to the earlier “Steele-based” October application, the Nunes memo has to tie that original application to the application for a renewal of the FISA surveillance order that Rosenstein authorized in 2017, after he was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate.
But that timeline weakens the Nunes case for bias rather than strengthening it. Between the original application and the Rosenstein renewal, the Page surveillance was renewed two other times, for a total of four approvals altogether (and public reports say that there were four separate judges who did the reviewing—suggesting that four independent reviews validated the FBI’s investigation). But these renewals mean that it is utterly implausible (if not borderline impossible) for the renewal that Rosenstein approved to be reliant on the Steele memorandum.
Here’s why: When a FISA order is obtained to conduct surveillance on an American, the FBI must get a reauthorization from the FISA court every 90 days. In seeking renewal they cannot simply recycle the original application—they must demonstrate that the surveillance has been fruitful. In other words, they need to show the judge that the surveillance has developed foreign intelligence that reaffirms the original probable cause determination and shows that their suspicions had merit and the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power. If the FBI cannot show new evidence like this, the surveillance is likely to be terminated. In other words, the fact that the FISA order was renewed means that the original “poison” of the Steele memorandum did not taint the subsequent renewals—it means that there actually is a “there there”—at least in the eyes of the renewing judges.
Next, the Nunes memo reduces its credibility by including language that is intended to create a misimpression. For example, in order to buttress the idea that the Steele dossier was central to the original application (and thus a critical tainting factor) the memo says that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without Steele.
This is potentially explosive. It is meant to leave the impression that Steele was the central, critical basis for the probable cause submission to the FISA court. But that isn’t what the memo says. What it actually says—a much better reading (one likely to be borne out when the transcripts are eventually published)—is that McCabe acknowledged that the Steele dossier was part of the impetus for seeking the warrant—which is not the same thing as saying it was the probable cause basis for obtaining it.
Perhaps even more significant is how the memo tries to bury the admission deep in the document that the entire FBI counterintelligence investigation of Russian influence was not triggered by the Steele dossier. Instead, as the memo admits only in its final paragraph, it was information about another Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, and his meetings that began the inquiry.
Given that the investigation began from a different source, it is almost certain that the motivations behind the Steele dossier were irrelevant to the FISA court—judges routinely grant warrants based upon information provided by sources who have an ax to grind. The question is whether or not the information is corroborated. (As one wag put it, it only matters that someone told the FBI Page was talking to the Russians—it could have been Stormy Daniels for all they cared, so long as they could corroborate the information.) Here, we will not know unless and until the full FISA application is unsealed, but it is notable that the Nunes memo nowhere says that the Steele dossier was the exclusive basis for the FISA application and acknowledges the existence of other information. So, there are reasons to think that Steele’s alleged bias played no significant role in the FISA process. All of which doesn’t mean that everything in the Steele dossier is true. But his alleged bias doesn’t necessarily ruin the credibility of his research.
Much of this is speculation of course—and we may never know the full truth since the complete FISA application from October 2016 is likely never to see the light of day. But even on the limited data we have in the Nunes memo—and even disregarding any concern that the memo was motivated by partisan purposes—it simply doesn’t prove misconduct, much less game-changing misconduct by the FBI or DOJ.
This is what people around the country have been saying since the memo dropped.
Additionally, the memo backfired, as it actually gave credibility to the investigation itself.
If I’m the dems, I push for the FISA application to be released in its entirety, as well as the renewals. I understand that’s there’s a lot of classified material in that, but that would be a fine way to rub it in trump supporters faces.
The facts says that carter page has been on the fbi’s radar since 2013. The facts say George P was the main reason for the investigation.
And now thanks to the memo, it’s the one thing that trump supporters won’t admit:
Trump has now hired 3 guys with stupidly close ties to the Russians: Manafort, Page, and George P.
With the uranium one nonsense, trump supporters and the GOP are now 0-2 for conspiracy theories.
I’m sure they will try again in the near future.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This is what people around the country have been saying since the memo dropped.
Additionally, the memo backfired, as it actually gave credibility to the investigation itself.
If I’m the dems, I push for the FISA application to be released in its entirety, as well as the renewals. I understand that’s there’s a lot of classified material in that, but that would be a fine way to rub it in trump supporters faces.
The facts says that carter page has been on the fbi’s radar since 2013. The facts say George P was the main reason for the investigation.
And now thanks to the memo, it’s the one thing that trump supporters won’t admit:
Trump has now hired 3 guys with stupidly close ties to the Russians: Manafort, Page, and George P.
With the uranium one nonsense, trump supporters and the GOP are now 0-2 for conspiracy theories.
I’m sure they will try again in the near future.
Swish, you forgot about Flynn. That's 4-and counting
Yeah OK. It has nothing to do with the Russian investigation so the summary memo is just a piece of paper to wave around and a rallying cry for Fox News to deliver to his minions.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
The Times Asks Court to Unseal Documents on Surveillance of Carter Page By CHARLIE SAVAGE and ADAM GOLDMANFEB. 5, 2018
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page Share Tweet Email More Save Photo
A memo written by Republican congressional aides disclosed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved surveillance targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, in October 2016. Credit Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters WASHINGTON — The New York Times is asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to unseal secret documents related to the wiretapping of Carter Page, the onetime Trump campaign adviser at the center of a disputed memo written by Republican staffers on the House Intelligence Committee.
The motion is unusual. No such wiretapping application materials apparently have become public since Congress first enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. That law regulates electronic spying on domestic soil — the interception of phone calls and emails — undertaken in the name of monitoring suspected spies and terrorists, as opposed to wiretapping for investigating ordinary criminal suspects.
Normally, even the existence of such material is a closely guarded secret. While applications for criminal wiretaps often eventually become public, the government has refused to disclose the contents of applications for intelligence wiretaps — even to defendants who are later prosecuted on the basis of information derived from them.
But President Trump lowered the shield of secrecy surrounding such materials on Friday by declassifying the Republican memo about Mr. Page, after finding that the public interest in disclosing its contents outweighed any need to protect the information. Because Mr. Trump did so, the Times argues, there is no longer a justification “for the Page warrant orders and application materials to be withheld in their entirety,” and “disclosure would serve the public interest.”
The Republican memo acknowledged that the intelligence court had approved surveillance targeting Mr. Page in October 2016 and later approved three applications for 90-day extensions, meaning he was observed for at least a year under the warrant. The memo named the officials who signed off on the applications and described purported claims and purported omissions in those materials.
Continue reading the main story
Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Trump Mocks ‘Little Adam Schiff’ as House Democrats Push to Release a Rival Memo FEB 5 Sessions Silent as Trump Attacks His Department, Risking Independence and Morale FEB 4 With a Monday Vote Expected, Democrats Press to Release Their Own Memo FEB 4 Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement FEB 3 Trump Says Republican Memo ‘Totally Vindicates’ Him FEB 3 See More »
RELATED COVERAGE
Read the Nunes Memo, Annotated FEB. 2, 2018
House Republicans Release Secret Memo Accusing Russia Investigators of Bias FEB. 2, 2018
How to Get a Wiretap to Spy on Americans, and Why That Matters Now JAN. 29, 2018 The central claim of the Republican memo, which was drafted under the direction of Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is that law enforcement officials running the early stages of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign abused their surveillance authorities and misled the court.
The memo contends that the application used material gathered by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, without disclosing to the court that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed his work as opposition research. The implication is that judges who approved the wiretapping did not know it might be biased and were thus misled about its credibility.
But the credibility of the accusations in the memo are themselves the subject of intense dispute. Democrats who have seen the underlying materials say the Republican memo contains serious material inaccuracies and omissions, such as failing to include unrelated evidence about Mr. Page and Russia that the court also saw and mischaracterizing other facts.
Morning Briefing Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
Sign Up SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME For example, Democrats say that the FISA judges were, in fact, told that the financing of Mr. Steele’s research was politically motivated, even if the funders were not identified by name.
They have produced their own, still-classified rebuttal memo, but the Republican majority on the House Intelligence Committee voted against making it public. Democrats are still pushing to make its contents public, but it is not clear whether the Republican-controlled Congress and Mr. Trump will permit that to happen.
“Given the overwhelming public interest in assessing the accuracy of the Nunes memorandum and knowing the actual basis for the Page surveillance orders,” the Times’s motion says, the court should direct the publication of its orders and the application materials "with only such limited redactions as may be essential to preserve information that remains properly classified notwithstanding the declassification and dissemination of the Nunes memorandum."
The Times sent the motion and related documents to the Justice Department on Monday to commence the action. It also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department on Friday asking the executive branch to disclose, following a declassification review, the same materials about the wiretapping of Mr. Page, who had left the Trump campaign a month before the government applied to wiretap him.
That request is not yet ripe for litigation. Separately, A USA Today reporter and the James Madison Project, an anti-secrecy organization, are pursuing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed last spring, asking the executive branch to disclose any FISA wiretap orders or applications targeting the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign, Mr. Trump or people associated with him.
In the motion asking the intelligence court to unseal the Page materials, The Times is being represented in part by the Yale Law School Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.
So what all of you are saying is that when Trump tweeted Obama wiretapped his campaign, he was right. Gotcha.
Obama didn't wiretap his campaign, though.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
ohhhhh, so its trumps fbi and justice department now, which you have stated over and over again - but under Obama it wasn't obamas JD or Fbi.....gotcha.
Man, what planet are republicans living on? certainly not Earth.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
ohhhhh, so its trumps fbi and justice department now, which you have stated over and over again - but under Obama it wasn't obamas JD or Fbi.....gotcha.
Did obama order the investigation into the trump campaign?
whats really sad right now is you're trying to play gotcha on a blatant lie Trump, and now you, are telling.
yikes. thats pretty sheep-like, bro.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I don’t get what is so difficult to understand...the fisa warrant was issued under knowingly false pretenses. That means anything else found in the investigation is null and void because the investigation should have never taken place....couple that with the fact that the opposition Party paid for the false evidence, that is where the conspiracy actions are taking place...oh and it’s the same party that is guilty of conspiring against one of its own members (feelin’ the Bern).
This whole thing is akin to drumming up fake damning evidence on a person to get the cops to do a search warrant knowing the cops will not find what they are looking for but opens the door for them to find unrelated drugs and other products that will send them to prison..
“What we will do in phase two is follow the facts where they lead, and when we get enough facts, we will figure out a way to let the American people know.”
Only thing I see falling is you, falling for this sheeple feed! Come on man, you're a smart guy, you can't be buying 100% into this crap! I think the GOP has every right to investigate anything they think might have been wrong doings on behalf of the FBI/DOJ; but to use these smear tactics without revealing the complete facts is incredibly political. They are doing the very thing they are trying to accuse Dems of and weaponizing the DOJ/FBI politically! OMG, I'm sure you can see this and if not it's time for new tin foil because your hat is not working.
I do think that if misappropriation of evidence was used to build a case that it should be dismissed, and if necessary, the whole case to be dismissed. For Carter Page if they could convince a court that the initial FISA request was unfounded, they would stand a good chance of beating the case. However, the fact that the FISA request was renewed several times is concerning. It's concerning because FISA renewal's require additional evidence that shows that the FISA request was worth it in the first place. You can't just use old evidence, the judge has to see that the invasion of privacy is worth the evidence. So a possible outcome could be that Carter Page gets off because the initial FISA was granted under false intel, but it doesn't mean he is innocent.
I don’t get what is so difficult to understand...the fisa warrant was issued under knowingly false pretenses. That means anything else found in the investigation is null and void because the investigation should have never taken place....couple that with the fact that the opposition Party paid for the false evidence, that is where the conspiracy actions are taking place...oh and it’s the same party that is guilty of conspiring against one of its own members (feelin’ the Bern).
This whole thing is akin to drumming up fake damning evidence on a person to get the cops to do a search warrant knowing the cops will not find what they are looking for but opens the door for them to find unrelated drugs and other products that will send them to prison..
The ends do not justify the means.
Carter Page has so many questionable Russian connections the Steele information is more supporting information than anything else.
Those connections date to 2013. And he had previously passed information to The Russians .
By the time the FISA warrant was granted, he was disclaimed by the Trump campaign.
I find it curious that Page traveled to Russia and met with Russian officials during the surveillance.
The poison fruit talking point falls flat. Page has bushels of apples around him.
Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant
Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.
By KYLE CHENEY 02/05/2018 01:13 PM EST Updated 02/05/2018 02:46 PM EST
Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.
At issue is whether the federal probe into the Trump campaign's Russia ties is infected with political bias, as Republicans say — or whether the GOP is using deceitful tactics to quash the probe, as Democrats insist.
Democrats pounced on public comments over the past day by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and intelligence committee member Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), arguing that the GOP memo's failure to mention a key footnote in the FBI application shows how the party has cherry-picked classified facts to protect President Donald Trump.
To provide a fuller picture, intelligence committee Democrats insist, House Republicans must vote on Monday to release a classified 11-page rebuttal they wrote to the GOP memo.
While Republicans say their memo, orchestrated by Nunes and released with President Donald Trump’s backing, demonstrates anti-Trump bias at the FBI and Justice Department that calls into question the entire Russia investigation, Democrats say Republicans committed the very sin — omitting crucial facts — of which they accuse the FBI.
If the House votes to release the Democratic memo, Trump will have five days to review it and either support its release — as he did the Republican memo — or object.
White House spokesman Raj Shah told reporters on Monday that the administration would go through the same process it used to decide whether to release the memo authored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. But he declined to say where the president was leaning and White House officials said they could not predict Trump's ultimate decision.
"If that memo is voted out and it comes to the White House we will consider it on the same terms we considered the Nunes memo — which is to allow for a legal review, national security review led by the White House Counsel’s Office, and then within five days the president will make a decision about declassifying it," Shah said.
The debate revolves around an October 2016 FBI application to a federal judge for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Page. That FISA application — and whether the FBI was fully transparent with a federal court that approved it in October 2016 — is at the heart of mounting allegations by President Donald Trump and allies in Congress that the FBI abused its spying authority during the 2016 campaign.
But Friday’s memo also acknowledged that the Page warrant came only months after the FBI had already opened an investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign because of information it had received about another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadapoulos, whom The New York Times has reported learned in early 2016 that the Russians had stolen Clinton campaign emails.
The memo released Friday by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee excoriated FBI leaders for what it described as a crucial omission in that application: The fact that the dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele — was financed by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
“Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo alleged.
But in an appearance on "Fox & Friends," Nunes was asked about reports over the weekend that the FBI application did refer to a political entity connected to the dossier. It is unclear precisely what language the application might have used.
Nunes conceded that a "footnote" to that effect was included in the application, while faulting the bureau for failing to provide more specifics.
"A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign," Nunes said on "Fox & Friends."
There's no evidence that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign itself. Rather, the warrant for Page was issued in October 2016, a month after he left the campaign — and after Trump campaign officials denied he played a central role. But the surveillance of Page was part of an FBI counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump associates coordinated with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Page is a key figure in the dossier, which makes the unsubstantiated allegation that he held a secret meeting with a top Russian oil executive and a close Putin ally to discuss helping to lift U.S. sanctions against Russia in return for a financial windfall. Page had also been investigated by the FBI in 2013, after he was the target of a recruitment effort by Russian spies in New York City. And the former investment banker and energy consultant also made a summer 2016 trip to Moscow where, after shifting explanations, he now admits he met with Kremlin officials. (Page says the meetings were brief and denies any wrongdoing.)
The intelligence committee's memo, which Trump declassified Friday, casts Steele’s dossier as a key component of the Page FISA warrant. But the memo doesn't clarify what other evidence might have been used to persuade a court to grant its application, which was renewed several times, including once by Trump's own Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The memo notes that the government must provide "information potentially favorable to the target of a [surveillance] application," but charges that FBI agents "withheld" their knowledge that Steele’s work had Democratic funding, and that Steele had openly expressed dislike for Trump.
Nunes' comments follow a similar acknowledgment on Sunday by Gowdy, who also said the footnote revealed a possible political bias behind the dossier but called it convoluted.
"I read the footnote. I know exactly what the footnote says," Gowdy said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It took longer to explain it the way they did, than if they just come right out and said, 'Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.' But they didn't do that."
Administration officials and outside advisers said Trump was committed to releasing the Republican memo sight unseen, convinced that it would reinforce his long-standing belief that officials in his own government had sought to undercut his presidency. He has expressed no such determination to allow the Democratic memo to see the light of day.
Trump may have provided a window into his thinking when he unleashed a Twitter attack on the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Monday morning. If Trump opposes the Democratic memo's release, the committee may then refer it to the full House of Representatives for a vote to overrule him.
Among Schiff's complaints about the GOP memo: he says the application to spy on Page only included snippets of the controversial dossier -- and that those aspects may have been "subject to corroboration" by the FBI.
Though the president has unilateral authority to declassify intelligence, Shah said he White House would consider releasing he underlying surveillance application on Page if the committee votes to approve it.
Nunes, meanwhile, has also signaled that he’s not finished digging into what he described as Democratic abuses.
“I think the American people are just beginning to learn the truth about the Hilary campaign and the Democratic Party and their involvement in how they corrupted our institutions,” he said on Fox.
Nunes signaled that his next focus is on the State Department. Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also indicated Monday he’s probing whether Clinton allies at the State Department helped inform Steele’s research.
'House Intelligence Chairman Nunes claims that Hillary Clinton collaborated with Russia to FRAME Trump using the infamous dossier her campaign paid to commission'
'House Intelligence Chairman Nunes claims that Hillary Clinton collaborated with Russia to FRAME Trump using the infamous dossier her campaign paid to commission'
The Truth will not remain hidden, no matter who tries to stop it from coming out now.
That is the American Way.
This sounds EXACTLY like the rhetoric we heard before the election about Clinton's emails, sex ring, how the FBI was going to revolt because they saw so much corruption with Hilary and Comey didn't recommend prosecuting ... and all the other stories that promised there was about to be a huge story and then .... no follow up and we discovered a lot of it was Russian bots (well you know, it could have been ANYONE, it wasn't necessarily the Ruskies - coz you know, despite the intelligence agencies around the globe all agreeing it was the Russians, our Pres said it could be anyone). . . . . it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
The truth about those things you list is still coming out.
The Hamma is falling and there is no stopping it before the Thud.
Everyone wants to put their political twist on these things but step by step the truth continues to come out.
-We have seen the proof that the heads of the FBI were afraid to stop Hillary because if elected, she would drop the hamma on them.
-We have seen the proof of the fact the FBI and Justice used the Politically motivated Dossier as evidence to get the FISA warrant. Whether it was 10 or 50 percent of the evidence matters not, it was presented.
In the end, I have no doubt the air will be cleared and the American People will have the truth through transparency.
Dem Memo release passes the Intel committee and goes to President Trump.
“The White House has received a memorandum from the minority members of the House Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence. As stated many times, the Administration will follow the same process and procedure with this memorandum from the minority as it did last week, when it received the memorandum from the majority,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.
Dems set Trump trap? Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with sensitive details
The Democratic rebuttal to a highly publicized GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse is filled with sensitive details, a source told Fox News – claiming this was done intentionally to pressure the White House to either block the memo’s release or significantly redact it.
The only trap they're setting is getting him to talk if even for a few minutes. Everyone knows he will tell a lie within that short time frame. To put it in a kinder way, Trump has always played fast and loose with the truth.
If I were his lawyers, I'd be worried too.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Hot on the heels of the House memo exposing deep state corruption comes an equally explosive document from the Senate that shows the story behind the phony dossier is even worse than you thought.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham have released a heavily redacted, yet very revealing copy of their criminal referral against ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dubious dossier we now know was parlayed into a FISA warrant by Trump-hating operatives at the Justice Department.
Grassley and Graham tell us that, while working on a second dossier for Clinton opposition research firm Fusion GPS, Steele was being fed information directly from the Obama State Department and from Clinton allies as well as his usual, sketchy Russian sources. That’s right, teams Clinton and Obama were working with a foreign spy to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump.
Hot on the heels of the House memo exposing deep state corruption comes an equally explosive document from the Senate that shows the story behind the phony dossier is even worse than you thought.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham have released a heavily redacted, yet very revealing copy of their criminal referral against ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dubious dossier we now know was parlayed into a FISA warrant by Trump-hating operatives at the Justice Department.
Grassley and Graham tell us that, while working on a second dossier for Clinton opposition research firm Fusion GPS, Steele was being fed information directly from the Obama State Department and from Clinton allies as well as his usual, sketchy Russian sources. That’s right, teams Clinton and Obama were working with a foreign spy to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump.
Grassley, Graham release copy of request for criminal probe of dossier author
Two senior GOP senators on Monday released a copy of their request for a criminal probe of Christopher Steele, the author of a controversial dossier on President Donald Trump's ties to Russia, which alleges that he received information from an ally of Hillary Clinton while the Democrat's campaign was financing his work.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) released their referral for a Steele investigation, sent last month, after approval from the FBI.
Grassley and Graham on Monday also asked the Department of Justice and FBI to declassify more information related to their Steele referral, including an application to conduct surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
That surveillance application, Republicans have said, improperly involved research conducted by Steele that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Republicans on Friday released a declassified memo they wrote on the subject.
The referral document released Monday regarding Steele cites a second, unpublished research document prepared by Steele, based on material given to him by a source who received it from "a friend of the Clintons." "It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility," Grassley and Graham wrote in the Jan. 5 referral.
The unclassified referral also echoes concerns raised by House Intelligence Committee Republicans about Steele's contact with reporters about his dossier, which alleges a Kremlin-backed plan to amass damaging material about Trump while helping his 2016 campaign. Steele has acknowledged meeting with reporters off the record in mid-2016 to discuss his work, the Republicans said.
"Simply put, the more people who contemporaneously knew that Mr. Steele was compiling his dossier, the more likely it was vulnerable to manipulation," the senators wrote.
According to Grassley and Graham’s memo, which is heavily redacted at the request of the FBI, a foreign source gave information to friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who then gave it to an Obama State Department official, who then gave it to Steele. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...aham-memo-says/
Look who thinks he's smert!
