Posted on 02/07/2018 4:55:30 PM PST by iowamark
Ed wrote about the redacted version on Monday but last night a new version appeared, with all previously blacked-out parts removed with the FBIs approval except for those few bearing on national security.
If I were Trump Id be mad as hell that the Nunes hype machine led me to put my political chips on his work product instead of this more detailed, and convincing, version of events from Senate Judiciary Committee members Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham. The memo and the referral are complementary in most regards but its inevitable that voters wooed by the #ReleaseTheMemo buzz will focus on the Nunes document and neglect this one.
The key question in the Nunes memo was how much, exactly, did the FBI rely on the Steele dossier in its FISA application to surveil Carter Page. Did they treat the dossier as a lead, something that they needed to investigate themselves, or did they treat it as evidence, something to be laid in front of the Court as credible information in and of itself that probable cause existed to believe Page was a foreign agent? Theres nothing wrong with the cops following a lead to build their own case, even if the source it comes from has a bias. But gaining a warrant based largely on that sources work product? Surely the Fourth Amendment demands more than that.
The Nunes memo was cagey about how heavily the dossier factored into the FISA application. Grassley/Graham is less cagey. Answer: Heavily.
What does heavily mean, exactly? Apparently, it means that the bulk of the application against Page was dossier material:
The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page. In other words, they seem to have treated the dossier as evidence, not as a lead. Thats big news.
Also big news is the core allegation of the document, that Christopher Steele lied to someone about whether he was quietly whispering to the media in the fall of 2016 about what his sources were telling him. He told the FBI that he wasnt in direct contact with any media, but in 2017 he admitted to a London court that he had been in contact with the press. Did he lie to the court or did he lie to the FBI? If, as James Comey once told Congress, the FBI felt comfortable relying on Steeles information because hed proved to be a credible source in the past, how can they continue to claim that the original FISA application was proper now that they know that he wasnt so credible? He was a liar!
The FBI would counter, I assume, that there was no deliberate misconduct on their part. They were misled by Steele, and once they found out in late 2016 that he was in fact chattering to the media about the dossier, they ended their relationship with him. They got burned and they booted Steele because of it. Which is nice, but (a) that doesnt solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied heavily on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesnt explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steeles info maybe hadnt been so credible. Quote:
Allegedly Bruce Ohr later warned the FBI that Steele was desperate not to see Trump elected, a fact that also bears on his credibility and the credibility of the information in the dossier but which somehow didnt make it into any of those surveillance renewal applications either. And Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steeles chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. Thats how Clinton cronies maybe even Sid Blumenthal got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying. If the grimmest version of the Grassley/Graham scenario is true, thats the caliber of information that was leaking into the FBI application to secure a federal surveillance warrant against Carter Page.
Still, the referral doesnt completely support the Nunes memo. One of the sticking points in the memo, remember, was whether the FBI disclosed that the dossier material was the product of oppo research. The memo strongly implied that they hadnt but the reality appears to have been more complicated. As Nunes himself later admitted, the Bureau apparently did disclose in a footnote that the material was paid political research. It just didnt mention who, precisely, had paid for it. The Grassley/Graham referral corroborates that:
So they did tell the FISA Court that the material was paid for, and of course the Court was free to demand more information about that if it thought it was relevant. Apparently the judge didnt. Which makes me wonder if Julian Sanchez is right, that the Grassley/Graham document is more an indictment of the low bar set by the FISA Court in granting surveillance than it is an indictment of FBI misconduct. The Nunes memo tries to make the case that the FBI behaved improperly with respect to the original FISA application by relying on a non-credible source in Steele, but they apparently didnt know at the time that Steele wasnt being straight with them about not talking to the press. They *did* know later and failed to tell the court, something that smells much more like misconduct than being initially duped by Steele was. Its the Courts fault for not demanding something thicker than the dossier as grounds for the original warrant against Page, Id say, more so than its the FBIs.
But Sanchez makes another good point. If there was FBI misconduct on the applications to renew surveillance of Page, the Grassley/Graham document is surprisingly taciturn about it. If those renewals were ill-gotten, based on little more than Chris Steeles innuendo, this referral would have been an obvious moment to say so. But it doesnt say so. Which raises the question, did the original surveillance on Page produce enough hard evidence of his behavior as a foreign agent to justify each renewal even if Steeles information were excluded? You cant justify a search warrant that was obtained via FBI misconduct with evidence discovered after the fact, of course, but as I say, Grassley/Grahams account of the original warrant is less an argument that the FBI engaged in misconduct than that the FISA Court has a pitifully low standard for granting warrants to begin with. Without realizing at first that Steele had lied to them, the FBI may have sincerely believed that the info from the dossier was enough to qualify as probable cause. Annnnnnd the FISA Court apparently agreed with them. Thats not misconduct, its just a garbage standard to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
Anyway. Itd still be reeeeeally nice to have that original FISA application available for public scrutiny so that we could weigh for ourselves if Grassley and Graham are right that it relied heavily on the dossier. (Itd be nice to have the renewal applications too, to see if they also relied heavily on Steeles credibility even after the FBI knew that he was a liar.) And itd also be reeeeeally nice if everyone kept a Gowdy-esque rather than Trump-esque perspective on where this episode fits in the Grand Russiagate Conspiracy:
Heres a PDF of the Grassley/Graham referral for you to read for yourself. And heres Gowdy on Fox last night all but confirming that Blumenthal, a man known as Sid Vicious for his ruthlessness in attacking Clinton enemies, was part of the pipeline of information to Steele.
This IMO also strongly implicates the FISA judge. The reason for having to re-apply every 90 days is to determine if the surveillence is having any impact. In this case, it apparently was not yet the applications were approved anyway.
They are both damming. Do not see why it matters as to which the President spoke about. Nunes got the ball rolling.
They are both damming. Do not see why it matters as to which the President spoke about. Nunes got the ball rolling.
-
-
-
Exactly. Nunes has been a real soldier.
Bump!
Nunes will soon be accused of sexual misconduct or some such crap.
They know the noose is tightening and will do ANYTHING to stop it. Just watch.
>>> Which raises the question, did the original surveillance on Page produce enough hard evidence of his behavior as a foreign agent to justify each renewal even if Steeles information were excluded? <<<
Let’s cut to the chase, “the original surveillance on Page” has its hook and sink on Trump and his campaign. It has nothing to do with Page as a foreign agent.
IF, a BIG IF, the surveillance on Page/Trump/Trump associates turned up real concrete evidence of Trump-Russian collusion, we wouldn’t have these dark hinting and dancing around the edges for the past 17 - 18 months. The Trump-Russian Collusion headlines and countless articles would be screamed over all the printed press and over the tubes 24/7.
So what NEW hard evidence could be justified for each renewal of the FISA warrant? Especially after the last renewal, the Steele dossier rumor was reported and widely known as less than stalwart, and then FBI stopped continuing the FISA request.
Don’t you think it is suspicious to say the least, Mr. Author (AP)? I know you were (maybe you still are) a NeverTrumper, but to write such opinion piece you at least need to pretend to be open and fair-minded.
They hit Nunes with an ethics complaint and forced his recusal 8 months ago. The complaint was subsequently dismissed and so he retook his chair. The left has been fighting tooth and nail to try to keep this hidden for over a year already.
Sessions and Trump are asleep. No grand jury or special counsel and never will be.
They need to get their asses in gear and get a Special Counsel appointed....NOW !!!
Do you think it’s possible they are investigating, gathering evidence to convict, and preparing?
I do.
And like the people caught already, we didn’t know it was being done.
My 2 cents.
Grassley / Graham referral bump for later....
I'm cloudy on the tie-in right now, though. I'm going to have to find that article...
BREAKING and IMPORTANT Details Surface of Senator Grassleys Criminal Referral .
or a thread like it, and also please see the CTH article itself:
Details Surface of Senator Grassleys Criminal Referral
It relates to the notion that Steele had already shopped this dossier to the Media, and whether the FBI knew that Steele had done that or not, and whether they made the proper representation to the FISA Court regarding that detail.
The point being that somebody must be lying about that detail: either Steele or the FBI...
Nunes will soon be accused of sexual misconduct or some such crap.
They know the noose is tightening and will do ANYTHING to stop it. Just watch
Hopeully everyone down to his third cousins are clean, because im sure people are digging feverishly at this now.
Let me know when the little green men from that flashy saucer like thingy return to give you the answer.
Oh wait, I just received a telepathic.....they said no one is going to jail, my bad.
bump
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.