{"id":31337,"date":"2018-02-03T13:25:19","date_gmt":"2018-02-03T21:25:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=31337"},"modified":"2018-02-03T13:25:19","modified_gmt":"2018-02-03T21:25:19","slug":"the-dud","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2018\/02\/03\/the-dud\/","title":{"rendered":"The Dud"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Republican Party are desperate to cover up the treason committed by Donald Trump.  For the last week they have been crowing about how the memo they were about to release would clear Trump and demonstrate how the investigation into criminal Republican cooperation with the Russian government is a scam.  I was actually concerned, not that it might be true, but that the lies might be problematic. I forgot to take GOP incompetence into account.  I now call that memo, the dud.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0203good_boy_devin\"<\/p>\n

The release on Friday of a highly controversial memo that claims surveillance abuse on the part of the FBI and the Department of Justice has Republicans and Democrats at each other’s throats.<\/p>\n

While Republicans say the document, which was compiled by embattled House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, is clear evidence of partisan bias at the DOJ and the FBI, Democrats say it contains significant omissions and inaccuracies that mischaracterize the intelligence community’s work.<\/p>\n

Addressing the memo’s release on Friday, President Donald Trump said, "I think it’s a disgrace what’s happening in our country."<\/p>\n

But as far as its material claims go, the memo was underwhelming to legal experts and former intelligence officials<\/strong>… [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

From <Business Insider<\/a>><\/font><\/p>\n

Don’t take my word for it.  Decide for yourselves.  Here is the dud in its entirety.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

January 18, 2018<\/p>\n

To: HPSCI Majority Members<\/p>\n

From: HPSCI Majority Staff<\/p>\n

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation<\/p>\n

Purpose<\/strong><\/p>\n

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee\u2019s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.<\/p>\n

Investigation Update<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"GOP-Shit\"On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.<\/p>\n

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. \u00a7,1805(d)(l)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.<\/p>\n

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public\u2019s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court\u2019s ability to hold the government to the highest standard\u2014particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC\u2019s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government\u2019s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.<\/p>\n

1) The \u201cdossier\u201d compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump\u2019s ties to Russia.<\/p>\n

a) 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\u2019s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.<\/p>\n

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of\u2014and paid by\u2014the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.<\/p>\n

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page\u2019s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News\u2014and several other outlets\u2014in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele\u2019s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.<\/p>\n

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations\u2014an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September\u2014before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October\u2014but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.<\/p>\n

b) Steele\u2019s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling\u2014maintaining confidentiality\u2014and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.<\/p>\n

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he \u201cwas desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.\u201d This clear evidence of Steele\u2019s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files\u2014but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.<\/p>\n

a) During this same time period, Ohr\u2019s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife\u2019s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs\u2019 relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.<\/p>\n

4) According to the head of the FBI\u2019s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its \u201cinfancy\u201d at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele\u2019s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was\u2014according to his June 2017 testimony\u2014\u201csalacious and unverified.\u201d While the FISA application relied on Steele\u2019s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.<\/p>\n

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel\u2019s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok\/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an \u201cinsurance\u201d policy against President Trump\u2019s election.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rachel Maddow<\/a> demonstrates that the dud actually undermines its stated purpose.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>