Posted on 02/05/2018 9:03:06 AM PST by markomalley
Republican senators Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) on Monday released a letter they sent to the FBI asking that ex-British spy Christopher Steele be investigated for possible criminal violations. Steele authored the anti-Trump "dossier" that was full of false or unverified information, provided to the FBI and leaked to the press in 2016.
The FBI secretly used the Steele dossier to convince a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to permit one of the most sensitive invasions of privacy against a U.S. citizen: electronic surveillance by the government. Top Obama and Trump officials signed four wiretap applications against Trump adviser Carter Page starting in fall of 2016 - a month before the presidential election - relying, in part, on the dossier. That's according to House Republicans who, on Friday, released a summary of classified documents they reviewed.
The FBI's reliance on the anti-Trump dossier is questionable because while the judge was reportedly told the author had political motivations, the FBI allegedly did not disclose who funded it: Donald Trump's chief opponent in the presidential race - the Hillary Clinton campaign - and the Democratic National Committee.
Not only that, the newly-released criminal referral says Steele actually incorporated information that was funneled to him through Clinton associates and the U.S. State Department where Clinton had served as Secretary of State from 2009 to early 2013. In a memo dated Oct. 19, 2016, Steele wrote that a foreign source who was in touch with "a friend of the Clintons" passed him material through a U.S. State Department connection.
Even more problematic, the FBI may have violated strict rules - Woods Procedures - that forbid it from presenting even a single unverified fact to the special court, let alone a lengthy dossier full of them.
The criminal referral unveiled today says Steele's possible violations involve claims he reportedly made about his dealings with the media. Conflicting accounts arose as part of a lawsuit in Great Britain where Steele is defending a libel claim made by a Russian businessman. Steele publicly accused him of hacking the Democratic Party. The criminal referral is not a formal accusation of wrongdoing against Steele, but a request for an investigation.
Conflicts of interest?
In the bigger picture, the criminal referral highlights conflicts of interest questions emerging in the wide-ranging investigations:
The Steele criminal referral in essence asks the FBI to investigate a source with whom FBI officials collaborated, and whose evidence they used in a fashion that's under congressional investigation.
The referral was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who himself signed at least one of the questionable wiretap applications using the Steele dossier.
It was also addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray whose choice for general counsel, Dana Boente, also signed at least one of the wiretap applications. Boente replaced James Baker, a confidante of former FBI Director James Comey, who signed three of the wiretap applications. (Baker was reassigned in December after questions arose about leaks promoting the anti-Trump material in the dossier. Last June, Comey admitted that he secretly orchestrated a leak to the press to prompt a special counsel investigation of any Trump-Russia ties. Robert Mueller was appointed two days later.)
My only question is when can we expect to see Hillary in handcuffs. I guess when hell freezes over.
FBI OKs Release of Unclassified Steele Referral | Chuck Grassley
Unclassified and heavily redacted Criminal Referral
Grassley is not happy with the FBI.
Dear Director Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:Pursuant to Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, I am writing to formally demand a Mandatory Declassification Review of the classified criminal referral Chairman Graham and I sent to the FBI and Justice Department regarding Christopher Steele's potential violations of 18 U.S.C. S: 1001.
Hillary in cuffs on the twelfth of never.
A State Dept contact ??
UNEXPECTED
2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence is incorrect:
Should read: “Top Obama and CLINTON ......”
Components in the next wave:
Cody Shearer
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/1999/05/cody_shearer.html (Old - Slate? Barf)
Clintons’ ‘Mr. Fixer,’ ally Sidney Blumenthal emerge on list of Russia collusion figures
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/cody-shearer-sidney-blumenthal-emerge-russia-dossi/ (New)
That's why the documents released today still contain significant blacked out or redacted portions. The FBI's explanation for that is also partly redacted. FBI Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs Gregory Bower stated "the FBI cannot and will not weaken its commitment to protecting [redacted]. Public reporting about [redacted] does not affect the FBI's policy with respect to classification [redacted] nor does it diminish our obligations [redacted]."Yeah, wow. FBI not only looks like it is hiding something, it IS hiding something.
Hillary will never be prosecuted.
My question is why is Graham helping Grassley?
He’s as Deep State a Senator as McCain.
Of course she won’t.
The FISC warrant should never have been allowed. The judge that signed off on the warrant should have denied it, if he truly had knowledge that there was political motivation. If it is indeed true that the judge signed the warrant with full knowledge of the political motivation, he should be the one under criminal indictment.
On Friday Schiff admitted (actually boasted) that the FBI did not provide the Dossier, only "portions" of it. That's worse of course. There's no way the Dossier as a whole would be viewed as anything other than garbage.
Coincidence of discovery, I think. They both found the same inconsistency at close to the same time. Graham will later oppose Grassley on some further exploration of government corruption.
The timing of this is great. WaPo spend hours composing "6 tortured arguments Republicans are making about the Nunes memo," and that is about to be swept off with "new news."
The FBI has the "Woods protocol" that supposedly prohibits presenting FISC with unverified statements. The FBI should have never filed the warrant application. FBI set up FISC as a patsy. FBI is expert at setting up patsies, it's what they do best.
FBI going to investigate the FBI?
So true. The issue I see with this is, the FBI lied by omission to the FISC and those involved should be prosecuted. Clearly an abuse of the court and the only way the FISC could ever regain the trust the American people have put into it is to remove the judge (followed by possible criminal charges) and prosecute the FBI agents involved with the FISA request.
The FBI shot itself in the foot with respect to the court. Why should the court trust the FBI? Why should ANYBODY trust the FBI? It won't even publicly admit it screwed up with this warrant. It defends it as righteous.
“The FBI’s reliance on the anti-Trump dossier is questionable because while the judge was reportedly told the author had political motivations, the FBI allegedly did not disclose who funded it: Donald Trump’s chief opponent in the presidential race - the Hillary Clinton campaign - and the Democratic National Committee.”
__________________________
Reliance on the dossier was “questionable.” That does not sound too bad. Others, including Joe diGenova, have said that what the top of FBI/DOJ did was criminal.
Can someone lay this out analytically? What would be criminal, exactly?
Woods violations appear to be only sanctionable within the secret court system. That does not seem likely since the courts seem to be at fault as well.
Would proving a crime mean that a prosecutor would have to show that the use of the FISA system was “for political purpose” not law enforcement purposes? Would anything short of an admission be sufficient to show this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.