So the committee voted unanimously to release
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Of course he'll release it. Then he tweet it proves yada yada yada. Ahything to keep attention off his daily blundering stupidities and policy ignorance.
Sticky situation for DoJ and FBI, though. They objected to the Pub memo, so shouldn't they object to the Dem memo on the same grounds? Or for those irony inclined, maybe DJT redacts all the good shit and says he did it at the behest of DoJ/FBI.
Maybe. Some of their objection was that the Repub memo inaccurately portrayed DOJ practices. If the Dem memo acts to clear up those inaccuracies, that concern won't be there. They also wouldn't really have any grounds to complain about sources or methods that were already compromised. So, for example, anything the Dem memo says about how Steele was used is probably not a problem.
The tricky part will be if the Dem memo references sources and methods the Repub memo ignored. Which it almost certainly will. DOJ may wish to redact specifics in those areas.
Why would he? Mueller has run a tight ship. Plus, he doesn’t need the cover. The Nunes memo was hot garbage and Mueller only hunts big game. There is a reason all you on the right are scared of the man. He’s not playing.
Also, Mueller doesn't, you know, have the memo.
Its the Dem memo. If he wants it for his political, deep state efforts, the Dems will give it to him in a heart beat. You have to remember whose side Mueller is on. You think he doesn't have it?
Wow. Really going full tin foil today, huh?
They objected to the Republican memo because it exposed some things they did that they probably shouldn't have done and probably didn't want people knowing they did.
Yeah, they said that it was about protecting national security and all that. But it was pretty clearly bullshit -- which is a shame.
Why would they object to the release of the Democratic memo -- when it (ostensibly) defends their actions or otherwise casts them in a different light?
They weren't actually concerned about the national security implications, Mark.
I'm guessing the 2013 wiretap involving Page will make an appearance.Most of that info,including the transcrip,t is available online.So redacting the basics would seem to be a tough sell...
Such as sending a FISA court a paid-for (and probably in violation of campaign finance laws, for that matter....given that the money was funneled through a law firm) bullshit political hit piece to keep a warrant active?
Such as formally breaking off ties with its author and -- despite knowing of his political motivations -- failing to inform the court of this.
Such as also citing a frigging newspaper piece in the FISA application containing the information in the dossier....the source of which was.....the author of the dossier.
Now, ask yourself, what better explains the reason they bellyached so much about this information coming out.....that it endangered national security? Or that they know they had no business coming within 100 feet of a dossier that even most news organizations wouldn't publish in order to maintain a FISA warrant?
Now, the counter-argument to this is typically that the dossier wasn't all they had, that they had plenty of other evidence to maintain the warrant. But at least one DOJ official has already testified that he believes they wouldn't have kept the warrant without the dossier's inclusion, which is why it was included.
Again, this is something that most news outlets wouldn't even publish despite it being shopped around for months. And here it is being used -- in part, yes....but still -- to justify surveillance on a US citizen.
You think everybody should be cool with that? You'd have been cool with it had the Bush DOJ done it to an Obama campaign official in 2008?
I think that may be true when discussing the reaction of the average trump voter who relies on talking points proponents for his "news".But I'm not sure,knowing what I know about the subjects discussed,that I see many problems with their conduct.
Could you point out examples?I think wiretapping Page,for example was basically due diligence...
Me personally, I think the whole FISA apparatus is an abomination, an affront to our system of justice, and one step short of the Stasi.
But if we're going to have secret warrants issued by secret courts from secret judges, in secret -- then I'm not going to be all whiny about the lack of niceties.
You got all that from 4 page memo written in crayon by Devin Nunes? Me thinks you have bought the right wing spin on this one.
I agree with you on FISA and pointed out a few pages back that it’s rich to hear Republicans complaining about the process. But they now also hate the FBI and DOJ so what the hell do I know.
It seems like we're going to continue to disagree over what Steele was,and what motivated his research.I don't think that saying the Clinton Campaign "paid for it" is really accurate.You choose to believe the Nunes memo accounts,while I go by the articles I've read.Probably our choices reflecting our personal biases...
Bu my view is that Simpson was originally contracted, by the owner of the Free Beacon.As Simpson dug deeper into researching Trump, he grew concerned.Esp with the Russian angle,which the WAPO was reporting on in June when Trump basically locked up the nomination.
That development led to the right wing element dropping out,and Simpson deciding to keep going because of his mounting concerns.Again he turned to Steele,because Steele was an EXPERT on Russia with a well connected group of assets who were capable of getting the truth.I think after hiring Steele,Simpson then went to the CC and DNC and maybe shared what he had learned and asked them to bankroll his ongoing research.I don't think either Steele or the DNC knew who the other was,but I'm sure you'll disagree...
I reject the characterization of Simpson/Steele's research as a "political hit piece" for 2 reasons.First Simpson's initial motivation appears to be that it was a job,and he was an investigator.Secondly,I don't see it being used politically-since most of the events were secret till after the election.The FBI announced that they were reopening HRC's emails the fall of 2016,but no one knew an investigation of Trump had been initiated in July.
You keep saying what the FISA court did or did not know,but you're pretty much relying on the Nunes memo with no real proof.I would argue that it was the pattern that stuck out first to the FBI and then to the FISA judge,who I'd assume was also given the 2013 transcripts
.The 2013 tape recorded the Russians discussing using access to wealth via a Russian Energy conglomerate as the lure they used to ensnare Page and keep him interested.The message from Steele right before the warrant application was that Page had discussed a stake in Rosnet and offered the lifting of the sanctions in return,during his meetings in Russia in July 2016.
I think the FBI had asked Steele if he could provide details on the meeting when he first came to them in late July.In Sept, Page left team trump,and in Oct three days prior to when the FBI moved on the warrant,Steele reported the sanctioned themed conversation back to the FBI.Imo,that established a pattern,and the FBI decided further surveillance was not only warranted,but necessary...
I'd be personally shocked if the emergence of this pattern wasn't a prime reason the FBI decided to move.I'm wondering if the FBI felt they had been played,and started to view Page as a repeat offender.He passed info to Russian agents in 2013,but they gave him a break and let him off with a warning because he claimed he didn't know they were actually agents.
But then he continues to travel to Moscow and meet with various unsavory characters,
culminating in July when (according to Steele) he basically offered to circumvent US policy in exchange for personal compensation.Again from my viewpoint given these circumstances,it isn't hard to imagine the FBI feeling further surveillance was prudent,or a FISA judge agreeing and granting permission.
Last edited:
Ask yourself this question: if they could've maintained the warrant on Page without referring the dossier (or Isikoff's story containing information obtained from Steele) to the FISC, then why in the hell did they include it at all?
Their defense has been that they had plenty more to merit the warrant. OK, then why didn't they just rely on everything else they had?
Isn't that, at the very least, a glaring mistake?
The source of the funding for the Steele dossier was obtained through an FOIA request some months ago. I don't even think it's in dispute here.
I'll see if I can find the story for you.
Here you go Cosmic, it's a story from Politico about the Clinton campaign funneling money thru a law firm to pay for the Steele's (ahem) research.
This isn't just something Devin Nunes dreamed up.
Keep in mind....the people shopping this around even had a hard time getting somebody to publish it -- and for good reason. Steele himself will only say that it's ~70% true. And yet...it shows up in a FISA application?
That's not right -- even if there was other evidence supporting a warrant. If they had enough evidence to secure and maintain the warrant without this, then why'd they include it (and an associated Yahoo News story "corroborating" it...the source of which happened to be its author)?
This "deep state" stuff cracks me up. I laugh every time I hear any of the Fox guys say it and even more when the minions pick it up.
No. In an affidavit, you give the court everything. You also, as the FBI apparently did, admit source weaknesses.
You still seemed convinced Steele was some sort of poison that taints the whole thing. That is absolutely not the case.
I bet you need to take a shot of bourbon in order to defend law enforcement don’t you? I love it.... this will be fun to see play completely out.
Sorry.....I stood next to you this time.... eyes straight ahead please
You are incredulous about what you should believe and credulous about what you should doubt...why is that? You are incredulous that the effing FBI and the intelligence community would think that Carter Page, a self-described advisor to the Kremlin and Trump advisor might be of interest when pursuing the question of Russian hacking of the DNC and interference in our election. You are credulous when you think Nunes released the memo because it revealed things the FBI and shouldn't have done as opposed to both revealing intelligence and misrepresenting the process to throw up a smokescreen for Trump. You take the perspective of Trump and Nunes, who clearly DO have a stake in which way this comes out, over the FBI and Justice both of which are run by Republicans as well as the FISA court that is entirely staffed by appointees of Chief Justice Roberts. Who is likely to be defending the interests of the country and who is likely to be defending their sorry asses? I call what Nunes and Trump and their defenders here are engaged in gaslighting.
Could you post the copy written in crayon, please? Or delete the post mentioning crayons.
That's because Andrew McCabe has apparently admitted -- speculatively, we have to assume -- that the warrant wouldn't have been upheld without the Steele dossier.
You're acting like it was little more than a footnote. But it was clearly more than that.
From the story...
“I think most serious people understand that,” Clinton said in a clip of an interview with host Trevor Noah that was to air later Wednesday night. “It was research that started (with) a Republican donor during the primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
Clinton defended the approach that her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, took to the work of Fusion GPS, a research firm that compiled a dossier about Trump before recruiting former British spy Christopher Steele to conduct more research.
I think that is pretty much what I said,or at least what I intended to say,and thought I had...
My post...
That development led to the right wing element dropping out,and Simpson deciding to keep going because of his mounting concerns.Again he turned to Steele,because Steele was an EXPERT on Russia with a well connected group of assets who were capable of getting the truth.I think after hiring Steele,Simpson then went to the CC and DNC and maybe shared what he had learned and asked them to bankroll his ongoing research.I don't think either Steele or the DNC knew who the other was,but I'm sure you'll disagree...
Isn't that what HRC says in the link you posted...
“It was research that started (with) a Republican donor during the primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
Are you thinking the "people doing it" means Steele,because I'm pretty positive she means Simpson.As in my comment that AFTER Simpson hired Steele he went to the DNC/CC (her lawyer) to bankroll the project.
I'm really not trying to be obtuse here-I honestly believe that the link you posted corroborates what I posted.I also think,as I've said before that the amount Simpson paid Steele,and that he chose Steele in the first place indicates (imho) that he wanted the REAL DEAL from the man who, according to a description in one of the articles about Steele,"knew where the bodies were buried"...
I mean anyone can make stuff up for a lot less money.If Simpson wanted to "fabricate a hit piece" there was no reason to call in a guy who was known as THE expert on Russia.
This is a salient point that imo seems (purposely?) lost on many of those claiming the dossier is fake...
Not only do I think Steele was essentially a patriot motivated by what he saw as real concerns,but I don't think any of the folks who dispute that have really pointed to any evidence to refute it.He only got involved in anything related to Trump in June when Simpson called him,and I think he viewed it as a challenge.
What the digging revealed is what got him invested.He was known to the FBI as a "straight-shooter",and had basically been the head of MI-6's entire Russian Operations for 3 yrs.He was much more than a "field agent" when he retired a few years back.If his aim had been "disrupting the election",then there was no need to involve the FBI.He went to the FBI because he thought his info was vital,and that the Russians had compromised Trump.
