Posted on 12/09/2017 7:37:13 AM PST by billorites
Some Trump supporters are making that claim. The president can disclose warrant applications proving whether it’s true.
Will he or won’t he?
Will President Trump order the disclosure of any warrant applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the FISA Court) in which the Justice Department and FBI presented any information derived from the Steele dossier?
That is an explosive charge. So, at the very least, will the president order the Justice Department to provide any such FISA applications to the House Intelligence Committee — preferably along with an explanation of why the president’s own appointees at the Justice Department and the FBI have been defying the committee’s requests for information?
Even before controversy arose over the Steele dossier, many of us were prepared to believe that there was more evidence that the Obama Justice Department and intelligence agencies had been put in the service of the Clinton campaign than that the Trump campaign had colluded in a Russian espionage operation against the 2016 election. Now, the Trump administration’s most effective advocates on Capitol Hill and in the media have made a plausible circumstantial case that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to conduct court-authorized spying on the Trump campaign.
It is speculated that this was done, fraudulently, in order to persuade the FISA Court that Trump associates, and perhaps Donald Trump himself, were in cahoots with the Kremlin’s operations against the United States. There is a problem with the theory, though — a metaphorical “elephant in the room.”
That elephant is the president.
What the president’s champions fail to mention is that he is in charge of classified information — including classified applications submitted to the secret FISA Court. Was candidate Trump the victim of political spying? Of a weaponization by the Obama administration of the government’s intelligence-collection power, with ramifications that, thanks to the Mueller investigation, beset the Trump administration to this day? If President Trump is indeed a victim, then it just so happens that he is uniquely positioned to expose this shocking abuse of power. All he has to do is order disclosure.
Mind you, we are talking here about Donald Trump: the “when attacked, never apologize, always hit back twice as hard” brawler. He has never seemed like a guy who would suffer in silence if he had the power to reveal such treachery perpetrated against him. If what happened is as bad as it is being portrayed, why are the Justice Department and FBI, under Trump-appointed leadership, stonewalling Republican-led congressional committees? After Thursday’s hearing, why didn’t the president tell Director Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that, by close of business Friday, either the FISA application should be in the House Intelligence Committee’s hands or their resignations should be on his desk?
Unmasking Redux?
Could there be fire where Congressman Jordan has detected smoke? No one who watched the Obama administration politicize intelligence and law enforcement could reject the possibility out of hand. But here’s the thing: A few months back, we had similarly explosive allegations — the “unmasking” controversy. President Trump could easily have disclosed the information we needed to assess whether there had been a shocking abuse of power or just good-faith intelligence collection and analysis. But no disclosure was ordered; and while the president accused Obama’s national-security adviser of breaking the law, Trump’s own national-security adviser concluded that there had been no misconduct.
The matter is worth revisiting. The identities of Americans incidentally intercepted during lawful foreign-intelligence collections are generally concealed in intelligence reports. But we learned that Obama national-security officials directed “unmasking” on hundreds of occasions — i.e., directed that the identities of Americans, including some connected to the Trump campaign, be revealed (only in reports disseminated to intelligence agencies, not to the public).
Combined with several other irregularities, this had the makings of a real scandal. First, just as his administration was about to end, President Obama suddenly ordered wider dissemination of raw intelligence throughout the spy agencies. Second, there was a torrent of classified leaks, which made it clear that there had been spying on Trump associates. Third, a former Defense Department official, Evelyn Farkas, acknowledged — bragged would be a better word — that her friends in the Obama administration were quietly encouraging Congress to demand intelligence regarding Trump and Russia. “That’s why you have the leaking,” she chirped.
Combine this with the facts that (a) Susan Rice, Obama’s national-security adviser, initially denied knowing anything about the unmasking before it was confirmed that she was involved (as our David French has detailed); and (b) hundreds of unmasking requests were made in the name of Samantha Power, Obama’s U.N. ambassador, a position in which the need to know so many unmasked American identities is not apparent. Alarmingly, Power now denies that she personally made most of those requests. All together, it adds up to reasonable suspicion that there was a conspiracy to leak classified information in a manner that would damage Trump politically.
As I observed at the time, though, the unmasking was lawful under the very forgiving guidelines that apply. Whether it nonetheless amounted to an abuse of power depended on whether there was a legitimate intelligence purpose involved — such as an inquiry, based on good-faith suspicion, into whether Trump associates were having nefarious contacts with operatives of the Putin regime. Had that been the case, not only would it have been appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate, but it would have been irresponsible not to do so — although the leaking would still have been outrageous and worthy of prosecution.
There was, I further noted, one official who was in a position to clarify things instantly: President Trump. As the chief executive and the ultimate authority on classified information, the president had the power to disclose — at least to congressional investigators, if not to the public at large — which Obama officials did the unmasking, which Trump associates were unmasked, and why. Yet, although the president publicly accused Ms. Rice of committing a crime by unmasking American identities (as I said, it was not a crime), he took no action to expose the supposedly scandalous unmasking. In the meantime, as Eli Lake reported (based on accounts from two unidentified intelligence officials), Trump’s national-security adviser, H.R. McMaster, determined that his predecessor, Rice, had done nothing wrong.
I’m still not sold. The known facts are troubling: The leaking is egregious, the fact that unmaskings were falsely attributed to Ms. Power in government recordkeeping raises disturbing questions, and McMaster’s reported vouch for Ms. Rice is an intelligence leak, not a finding based on a thorough, official investigation. Nevertheless, President Trump would have been a principal victim had there been an abuse of power, and he has the authority to end all speculation by disclosing the relevant information. Since he apparently refuses to do so, one must assume that the intelligence agencies and Obama national-security officials had good reasons for taking the actions they took.
The Dossier: Tissue of Lies or Useful Source?
That brings us back, at last, to the Steele dossier. In the Trumpist portrayal, the dossier is a tissue of lies. This claim is not without foundation. Not only is the dossier a politically motivated hit job orchestrated by Trump’s opponent, but Byron York notes that former FBI director James Comey, no Trump fan, has dismissively described it as “salacious and unverified.” In addition, some dossier allegations have been vigorously rebutted, and defamation lawsuits have been filed against Steele, Fusion GPS (the research firm that hired Steele), and the media outlets that publicized the dossier.
Still, as I have previously pointed out, the reports compiled by Steele to generate the dossier run nearly three dozen single-spaced pages and contain scores of factual claims. Trump defenders have not mounted a point-by-point refutation, just a generalized dismissal, on the rationale that some likely misinformation and many unconfirmed claims render the dossier so tainted that it should be deemed totally bogus. That is not an unreasonable position, but neither is it a showstopper. In fact, some close observers contend, with thorough analysis, that some factual assertions in the dossier have been extensively corroborated (see, e.g., Natasha Bertrand, here, and former CIA officer John Sipher, here). Moreover, Steele, who is said to have enjoyed a good reputation among U.S. intelligence agents, maintains that 70 to 90 percent of his reporting is accurate. He believes his sources are reliable and notes that, though not verified, neither has most of the information been negated.
It is not impossible that the process by which dossier claims were submitted to the FISA Court was corrupt. Having worked for the Justice Department and with the FBI for many years, though, I have my doubts. The Justice Department and FBI care deeply about their credibility with the FISA Court, and the FISA Court bristles at caricatures of it as a rubber-stamp. The government has a strong motive not to deceive the judges, and the judges to scrutinize FISA applications carefully. Consequently, I have always believed there is a second, more plausible possibility: The FBI used the dossier as a source of leads, not as a finished intelligence product that needed no further investigation. The bureau, I suspect, was able to corroborate some of the claims in the dossier, and its investigation of those claims was presented to the FISA Court.
If the FBI did this, there might have been no need for the Justice Department to refer to the dossier in a FISA application, which would have obviated the need to evaluate the dossier’s credibility. The government is not required to tell a judge how it was tipped off to information unless it is relying on the tip as part of the reason the judge should believe the information.
An example: Let’s say I’m an FBI agent, and a confidential source tells me he believes the woman in the next apartment is laundering money for drug dealers. Based on that tip, I watch the apartment and see known drug dealers go in and out. When they leave, I see the woman go to her bank with paper bags that might contain cash. Then I subpoena her bank records and find that she’s making big bank deposits. Now, if I want to ask a judge for a warrant to wiretap the woman’s phone, I am not required to tell the judge that a confidential source tipped me off to the woman’s suspicious behavior. I simply have to tell the court about enough of my investigation to establish probable cause of a money laundering crime: the meetings with drug dealers, the bags of cash, and the bank records. I gathered that information myself; it doesn’t hinge on the credibility of my informant.
This is what may have happened with the dossier. If so, then it could accurately be said that the dossier, just like the confidential source in my hypothetical, was used to help the government get a FISA warrant. But it would not be true that the FBI and Justice Department fraudulently presented the dossier to the FISA Court as if it were a refined U.S. intelligence analysis; instead, they would have presented information the FBI had developed independently after being tipped off by the dossier.
There would be nothing untoward about such a process. It wouldn’t matter that the dossier was political “oppo” research. The FBI gets leads from all sorts of shady sources; what matters is whether the information the Justice Department ultimately gives the court has been investigated adequately by the FBI.
Needless to say, if this is how it happened, the Trump administration would not want the information in the FISA application disclosed. To be sure, the information would not necessarily indicate there was any Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage. But it might show that (a) there were unsavory contacts between Trump associates and foreign government operatives; (b) there was enough FBI-verified information in the warrant application (which probably was not limited to the dossier’s allegations) for the FISA court to find probable cause to believe one or more Trump-connected people were acting as agents of a foreign power; and (c) parts of the dossier have been corroborated, which would destroy the Trump political claim that the dossier is a tissue of lies.
President Trump is uniquely positioned to reveal how the dossier was handled and what the FISA Court was told. As Congressman Jordan urges, Trump’s own FBI and Justice Department employees could easily let the Intelligence Committee examine any FISA applications derived from the dossier. Why doesn’t the president just order them to comply with Congress’s demand?
In the unmasking controversy, it seems Trump was more interested in politically exploiting the specter of abusive unmasking than in ordering the disclosure of what actually happened. Is the same thing true of the dossier? I don’t know why the FBI and Justice Department are stonewalling the Intelligence Committee. Suffice it to say, however, that the president could order disclosure if he wanted to. He hasn’t. If he persists in that posture, we have to assume he would prefer that we not know what the FBI told the FISA Court.
I wonder if Trump is not pushing these people only to hand them enough rope to hang themselves and then, at the right time, “PULL!!”
With each passing day I'm getting more convinced that the historic upset in the 2016 election was due in large part to an outlandish scenario that crossed my mind back in January when the surveillance stories were first hitting the news: The Trump campaign may have known about the surveillance all along, and used it to deliberately feed false information to the Obama intelligence people overseeing it.
I'm kinda concluding that the news was a leak.
“Suffice it to say, however, that the president could order disclosure if he wanted to. He hasn’t. If he persists in that posture, we have to assume he would prefer that we not know what the FBI told the FISA Court.”
More from an anti-Trumper. The fact is, the DOJ and FBI are in a state of rebellion and will not obey such an order. They are steeled by Sessions who will never order it, and who knows he cannot be fired without never Trumper GOP impeaching him.
This is disingenuous of McCarthy. Well, actually it’s cynical sarcastic BS.
Is this a trick question?
________________________________
No it is not. It establishes that the McMaster/Deep State “advisors” are continuing to give the President corruptively deceptive bad advise. Can these people really be expected to destroy themselves?
Yeah, right.
It is precisely a yes or no question. YES the DOJ misused the “dossier” (funny official sounding na,e for a fake document)
Yes they assisted in its creation.
Yes they pretended they were protecting national security when they used FISA to spy on legitimate political opposition.
There is no nuance to the question except to national review.
Since they refuse to answer a simple question, the answer must be yes.
Not talking Trump impeachment....talking any appeal by Mueller once Trump trumps Mueller..... I hope there is no avenue for Mueller to appeal anything to the USSC.....Roberts cannot be counted on to protect us against Obama’s excesses and will rule against Trump
The lost, or at least increasingly rare, art of deference - good for you!
That my friend is spot on.
The news was not really a "leak."
A small group of White House and DOJ officials went to the FBI building, cleaned Comey's office out, and took possession of all his computer files. They had a formal memorandum telling Comey he is being terminated immediately and left it with his senior staff as they left. One of those FBI staffers simply sent it to CNN.
I believe senior White House official Keith Schiller -- a former NYPD detective who came to Washington after serving as Trump's personal bodyguard in New York City -- oversaw the whole operation.
“Moreover, Steele, who is said to have enjoyed a good reputation among U.S. intelligence agents, maintains that 70 to 90 percent of his reporting is accurate. He believes his sources are reliable and notes that, though not verified, neither has most of the information been negated.”
LOL....Uncle Si on Duck Dynasty is 95% accurate. Good job Steele, the British political whooore for sale.
Why would Mike Morell, the Deputy and the interim CIA chief under Obama and a Hillary supporter say, "Unless you know the sources, and unless you know how a particular source acquired a particular piece of information, you can’t judge the information — you just can’t."
" The dossier "doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think," he said.
He continued: "I had two questions when I first read it. One was, How did Chris talk to these sources? I have subsequently learned that he used intermediaries.
"And then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you’re paying somebody, particularly former FSB officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they’re going to call you up and say, ‘hey, let’s have another meeting, I have more information for you,’ because they want to get paid some more.
"I think you’ve got to take all that into consideration when you consider the dossier."
Morel also said,
" On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site.
"There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it."
“The president can disclose warrant applications proving whether it’s true”
Such never Trump sophistry. The warrant was to investigate him and his campaign. If he intervened in such a way in a case where HE was the suspect, he would be impeached the next day.
They block, obstruct and check his power at every turn... then mock him for not using that very power. This is national review BS.
” Something is keeping president Trump from doing the work he was elected to do. Why else would Donald leave that piece of s*** Jeff Sessions in there who is doing absolutely nothing?!?”
He fired Comey and got a special counsel. GOP Congress leaders probably told him they would impeach if he fired feckless Sessions. A giant power struggle is going on.
This is an excellent article - and poses questions I have asked my colleagues who were with the DOJ. Why doesn’t the POTUS just order it?
The general response is that this is a balance of power issue - who takes the top spot, Art 1 Congress or Art 2 Executive? Both want their independence from the other, and neither wants to be subservient to the other.
I’m informed this has happened before.
But it may also be true that the facts are not a clear cut as we would want.
Liked it so much (thanks for posting) I made another for size variation:
Because Steele says his sources are Russian, we assume his sources are Russian. And if the doc was legitimate it might be so. But if the document is fraudulent, it doesn’t have to have any Russian input at all. He could simply type it up in a couple of hours and, done.
In fact, its possible he didn’t write it, it was written by some Fusion geek and Steele was merely paid to sign it.
Its useful for us to assume Russian input because it proves that Hillary, and not Trump, was colluding with the Russians. In fact it looks like Fusion was a cutout between DNC and Russia, since they were doing contracts in both directions with money flowing in both directions.
Another thing. If the document could be written up in a couple of hours, and Fusion collected $9 million for it, and maybe paid Steele a $100 grand for his role in it, where did the rest of the money go? Besides espionage, it all also smells like money laundering.
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.