Replies

Despite important and far-reaching policy wins by the Trump Administration, America has much to be ashamed of recently. Today is notable for the release of the so-called “Nunes Memo,” showing, in its own words “findings which . . . 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” FBI surveillance of American citizens.

While there is much nuance which can be discussed, the Nunes Memo essentially discloses that the Clinton campaign funded false and defamatory opposition research that it later shared with the FBI. The research was compiled by a wildly anti-Trump British agent named Christopher Steele. All parties knew the research—known as the “Steele dossier”—was unsubstantiated and ridiculous. Mr. Steele’s FBI file recorded that he had huge biases against Mr. Trump, and those biases discredited his research. Yet the FBI presented the dossier as credible evidence to a FISC, and used it to obtain permission to begin surveillance on a member of President Trump’s transition team. The FBI never disclosed to the FISC who paid for the research, the fact Mr. Steele was biased, or that the dossier had been widely discredited as false. And, the FBI used the dossier a further 3 times to support extending surveillance permission. FBI Director James Comey, or his deputy director Andrew McCabe, personally signed off on all requests. Mr. McCabe testified before Congress that the FISC would never have granted surveillance permission without the FBI’s reliance on the dossier. Mr. Comey later described the dossier in a Senate hearing as “salacious and unverified.”

During this time, the FBI was taking additional steps to put other members of Mr. Trump’s campaign and transition team under surveillance, and tilt the FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail abuses in her favor. The Nunes Memo describes how FBI agent Peter Strzok—who had a tremendous anti-Trump bias—began a surveillance operation against Trump advisor George Papadopoulos during the summer before the 2016 election. Mr. Strzok was also the FBI agent in charge of investigating Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail abuses. From text messages between he and his FBI-employed mistress, it becomes clear that he and other FBI leadership were heavily biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton—stating she would not be indicted, desiring to “take it easy” in questioning her, and even detailing how Mr. Comey’s memo about Mrs. Clinton’s conduct was softened by Mr. Strzok immediately prior to the election to make it less damaging. Those same text messages indicate that he and other senior members of the FBI—including Mr. McCabe—seemed to be colluding against President-elect Trump following the election. Mr. Strzok’s bias also extended to the Robert Mueller “Russian Collusion” investigation for a time, tainting the credibility and independence of that effort.

The FBI’s abuse of the laws surrounding surveillance of American citizens is shocking, and possibly illegal. And, it seems it was used for purely political purposes. Mr. Strzok’s text messages indicate that some within FBI leadership viewed the Steele dossier, and the FBI surveillance it facilitated, as a kind of “insurance policy” against Mr. Trump’s election, and later, against a successful Trump Presidency. Through leaks to the media, and exerting improper control of the FBI’s investigative and surveillance apparatus, the Nunes Memo describes how senior FBI leadership attempted to orchestrate a sort of palace-coup where they—and not the American people—would decide the outcome of the presidential election and the success of President Trump’s presidency.

Shockingly, Mr. Comey responded to the release of the Nunes Memo today via Twitter, asking “That’s it?” As if allegations that he, as Director of the FBI, purposely misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to unlawfully interfere in an election and a presidency isn’t enough? Who knows if there is anything worse hiding in the darkness that is the upper-echelons of the FBI. If we are to have a Special Counsel investigate matters surrounding the election, maybe he should start with the FBI. Determining the truth—and how the law was so easily twisted to tilt the scales for one candidate and against another—is key to stopping this likely-criminal behavior in future elections.