So the committee voted unanimously to release

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

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.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, other members of the committee claim that McCabe's comment on that point was dramatically taken out of context, and doesn't mean what the memo claims it means.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The dossier was a source of information. The FBI had other sources. They included all their sources in the FISA application, and reportedly made it clear that the dossier, at least, was politically motivated. This is normal. When going for a warrant, it's unlikely that your sources are all going to be saints. It's important for law enforcement to be open with the judge about their reservations, which the FBI apparently was. Remember, the application is all centered on a affidavit by an agent: This is my reasonable suspicion, this is why I have that suspicion, and this is whom I talked to to form that suspicion. Even the memo doesn't explicitly accuse the FBI/DOJ of not following that procedure. It tries to paint a picture to raise questions about it in people's minds, but it falls short of accusing the agent of lying on the affidavit.

 

[cosmickid]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, other members of the committee claim that McCabe's comment on that point was dramatically taken out of context, and doesn't mean what the memo claims it means.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. The dossier was a source of information. The FBI had other sources. They included all their sources in the FISA application, and reportedly made it clear that the dossier, at least, was politically motivated. This is normal. When going for a warrant, it's unlikely that your sources are all going to be saints. It's important for law enforcement to be open with the judge about their reservations, which the FBI apparently was. Remember, the application is all centered on a affidavit by an agent: This is my reasonable suspicion, this is why I have that suspicion, and this is whom I talked to to form that suspicion. Even the memo doesn't explicitly accuse the FBI/DOJ of not following that procedure. It tries to paint a picture to raise questions about it in people's minds, but it falls short of accusing the agent of lying on the affidavit.

I just went to look for an earlier timeline on Page that I had seen in WAPO,and noticed that just today they have posted an excellent,comprehensive timeline of the entire Steele dossier.Btw,the "dossier" consists of 17 separate reports that Steele filed with Fusion/Simpson,some of which were relayed to the FBI in one on one meetings...

I can see right away that I have been off on some of my timelines,particularly because up till now there hasn't been anything definitive and I've been forced to extrapolate.This report is definitive,and even lists what date various reports were filed or meetings with the FBI occurred.

I did find the details of how Simpson and Steele came to know each other (in 2009) interesting.Also the fact that Steele was instrumental in assisting the FBI with the FIFA probe...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.e6f07825d99b

2009

SIMPSON AND STEELE FIRST MEET

Glenn Simpson A former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of the private intelligence firm Fusion GPS. As a Fusion principle, he subcontracted with British former intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct research on Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign.In 2009,Simpson and Christopher Steele are introduced by mutual friends, who know they are both interested in Russian organized crime.




2009

STEELE WORKS WITH FBI ON FIFA PROBE

While working for the English Football Association, Steele assists the FBI in its investigation of corruption in FIFA, world soccer's governing body.

.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

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...

My point is that this kind of stuff doesn't belong in a FISA warrant application....whether it's buttressed by other evidence or not. The fact that it was oppo research (and even the author doesn't vouch for its veracity) should disqualify it for such purposes.

That it didn't is -- or should be -- disturbing.

Imagine if the Bush Justice department had acted similarly towards an Obama staffer -- getting a FISA warrant -- using info given to them by some foreign spy somebody like Karl Rove had paid during the midst of a campaign. You don't think people would be apoplectic about that?

The only defense here has been that they had other stuff -- and I get that. But, that being the case, I keep coming back to the question of why then they included the Steele material at all. They knew it was politically motivated and funded. Yet they (or, at least, McCabe) have also admitted it was critical to the warrant.

Simpson & Co. may have intended to get genuine dirt on Trump. But what they ended up with was a mess that only Buzzfeed would publish -- and reluctantly, at that. And this ends up as a critical document in a FISA warrant application?

I might be willing to believe this was an error in judgment and not willful malfeasance. But, either way, it's not the least bit defensible. And too many of them are acting like this is business as usual -- which, if it is, is even more troubling.

 

[cosmickid]

I just went to look for an earlier timeline on Page that I had seen in WAPO,and noticed that just today they have posted an excellent,comprehensive timeline of the entire Steele dossier.Btw,the "dossier" consists of 17 separate reports that Steele filed with Fusion/Simpson,some of which were relayed to the FBI in one on one meetings...

I can see right away that I have been off on some of my timelines,particularly because up till now there hasn't been anything definitive and I've been forced to extrapolate.This report is definitive,and even lists what date various reports were filed or meetings with the FBI occurred.

I did find the details of how Simpson and Steele came to know each other (in 2009) interesting.Also the fact that Steele was instrumental in assisting the FBI with the FIFA probe...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.e6f07825d99b

2009

SIMPSON AND STEELE FIRST MEET

Glenn Simpson A former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of the private intelligence firm Fusion GPS. As a Fusion principle, he subcontracted with British former intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct research on Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign.In 2009,Simpson and Christopher Steele are introduced by mutual friends, who know they are both interested in Russian organized crime.




2009

STEELE WORKS WITH FBI ON FIFA PROBE

While working for the English Football Association, Steele assists the FBI in its investigation of corruption in FIFA, world soccer's governing body.

.

Another event I was totally unaware of,just reading thru this excellent,and extremely thorough WAPO expose...

"Early Fall 2016

STEELE MEETS WITH FORMER MI6 HEAD

Steele and his partner, Christopher Burrows, meet with Richard Dearlove, pictured above, a former head of MI6, for advice. Dearlove advises them to provide information to the UK government, with the intention that it be passed to U.S. law enforcement officials."

Really think that a lot of the folks that are calling Steele's reports fake are pretty ignorant of most of the info he obtained.Fascinating stuff...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My point is that this kind of stuff doesn't belong in a FISA warrant application....whether it's buttressed by other evidence or not. The fact that it was oppo research (and even the author doesn't vouch for its veracity) should disqualify it for such purposes.

That it didn't is -- or should be -- disturbing.

Imagine if the Bush Justice department had acted similarly towards an Obama staffer -- getting a FISA warrant -- using info given to them by some foreign spy somebody like Karl Rove had paid during the midst of a campaign. You don't think people would be apoplectic about that?

You still seem to be misunderstanding how this works. During the investigation, they got information from the dossier, which they confirmed elsewhere, which they then used in a warrant application. The dossier is not submitted as evidence. Rather, individual facts contained in the dossier, those which are relevant, and which could be confirmed by other sources, were included in the affidavit. The agent was upfront about where the information came from.

In your hypothetical, I'd be far more upset if the DOJ only listed the confirming sources, and didn't disclose the original source of the information. That would be misleading the court.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

My point is that this kind of stuff doesn't belong in a FISA warrant application....whether it's buttressed by other evidence or not. The fact that it was oppo research (and even the author doesn't vouch for its veracity) should disqualify it for such purposes.

That it didn't is -- or should be -- disturbing.

Imagine if the Bush Justice department had acted similarly towards an Obama staffer -- getting a FISA warrant -- using info given to them by some foreign spy somebody like Karl Rove had paid during the midst of a campaign. You don't think people would be apoplectic about that?

The only defense here has been that they had other stuff -- and I get that. But, that being the case, I keep coming back to the question of why then they included the Steele material at all. They knew it was politically motivated and funded. Yet they (or, at least, McCabe) have also admitted it was critical to the warrant.

Simpson & Co. may have intended to get genuine dirt on Trump. But what they ended up with was a mess that only Buzzfeed would publish -- and reluctantly, at that. And this ends up as a critical document in a FISA warrant application?

I might be willing to believe this was an error in judgment and not willful malfeasance. But, either way, it's not the least bit defensible. And too many of them are acting like this is business as usual -- which, if it is, is even more troubling.

I still cannot comprehend the Steele concern. Warrants are asked for all the time based on rivalries, jealousies, greed. The people giving the info are often druggies, criminals, exes. We whole heartedly endorse a rapist giving up evidence in a murder.

I suspect there are times business rivals are the info. Does it make the warrant invalid if gang x informs on gang y so gang x can take its territory.

Believe me, I might be willing and eager to say we can't trust the guy with 16 felonies to issue a warrant based on his testimony. If we want the process tightened, great. Let's tighten it up for everyone. But the argument seems to be that we can 100% trust convicts but never someone paid by a political party. I am not getting that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

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.

Follow-up: Word tonight is the Dem memo (as expected) will require some redactions. Republicans are already complaining that the Dems are going to use this as an excuse to accuse Trump of redacting portions that are politically damaging to him, and Schiff at least seems willing to do exactly that. Since neither Schiff nor the White House will be able to discuss the specifics of what was redacted, the public won't know who is telling the truth. That's not really going to make anyone look good, but it does illustrate a way in which this whole Nunes memo was destined to backfire on Trump:

1. If only one memo is released, GOP appears to be playing politics with national security.
2. If Trump redacts only one memo, Trump appears to be playing politics with national security.

As I said earlier, it would make sense for some things in the Dem memo to need redacting, so Trump would actually be doing the right thing if he follows the FBI's advice regarding what to redact, but there's simply no way for it to look good politically. GOP should never have started the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign in the first place.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You still seem to be misunderstanding how this works. During the investigation, they got information from the dossier, which they confirmed elsewhere, which they then used in a warrant application. The dossier is not submitted as evidence. Rather, individual facts contained in the dossier, those which are relevant, and which could be confirmed by other sources, were included in the affidavit. The agent was upfront about where the information came from.

In your hypothetical, I'd be far more upset if the DOJ only listed the confirming sources, and didn't disclose the original source of the information. That would be misleading the court.

So why do you think the FBI etal made so much noise about this info being released? Since we can safely cross off the bogus national security gripe....what else is there?

If they felt there was nothing to worry about with this info being made public, they certainly haven't been acting that way.

The bottom line here is that they relied, to some degree (and quite possibly a critical degree), on a political hatchet job -- and one whose author can't even vouch for its veracity -- to maintain surveillance on a political operative during a presidential campaign.

That they knew Steele's political motivation and its provenance isn't exculpatory, it's positively central to their missteps -- and, I imagine, one of the big reasons why they didn't want this getting out.

They should have handed that back to Steele and told him they weren't going to assist the Clinton campaign in doing its dirty work. Instead, they took it and ran with it...and I think the people involved in this owe the American people an explanation.

I imagine you wouldn't be so sanguine about this if the roles were reversed and the Bush DOJ had acted similarly toward an Obama operative in 2008.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So why do you think the FBI etal made so much noise about this info being released? Since we can safely cross off the bogus national security gripe....what else is there?

If they felt there was nothing to worry about with this info being made public, they certainly haven't been acting that way.

The bottom line here is that they relied, to some degree (and quite possibly a critical degree), on a political hatchet job -- and one whose author can't even vouch for its veracity -- to maintain surveillance on a political operative during a presidential campaign.

That they knew Steele's political motivation and its provenance isn't exculpatory, it's positively central to their missteps -- and, I imagine, one of the big reasons why they didn't want this getting out.

They should have handed that back to Steele and told him they weren't going to assist the Clinton campaign in doing its dirty work. Instead, they took it and ran with it...and I think the people involved in this owe the American people an explanation.

I imagine you wouldn't be so sanguine about this if the roles were reversed and the Bush DOJ had acted similarly toward an Obama operative in 2008.

I suspect the FBI/DOJ was upset about the way the memo would inaccurately portray their procedures in a way that couldn't be cleared up without compromising sources and methods.

As for the rest of your post, I direct you to reread the post of mine you responded to, as I already addressed that.

 

[cosmickid]

So why do you think the FBI etal made so much noise about this info being released? Since we can safely cross off the bogus national security gripe....what else is there?

If they felt there was nothing to worry about with this info being made public, they certainly haven't been acting that way.

The bottom line here is that they relied, to some degree (and quite possibly a critical degree), on a political hatchet job -- and one whose author can't even vouch for its veracity -- to maintain surveillance on a political operative during a presidential campaign.

That they knew Steele's political motivation and its provenance isn't exculpatory, it's positively central to their missteps -- and, I imagine, one of the big reasons why they didn't want this getting out.

They should have handed that back to Steele and told him they weren't going to assist the Clinton campaign in doing its dirty work. Instead, they took it and ran with it...and I think the people involved in this owe the American people an explanation.

I imagine you wouldn't be so sanguine about this if the roles were reversed and the Bush DOJ had acted similarly toward an Obama operative in 2008.

So I'm looking at the WAPO timeline and exactly one of the 17 reports filed to Fusion by Steele that comprise the "dossier"( July 19th) deals with Carter Page.Steele filed his first report,alleging that the Russians have compromising material on Trump,on June 20.Then on July 5th
BEFORE Page goes to Moscow,the FBI meets with Steele in London.Remember the FBI views Steele as an ally,having worked with him on the FIFA case...

Here is what I believe happened.Carter Page is named to team trump as an "energy advisor" in March 2016.I think this idea arouses the curiosity of the FBI,in light of both Page's previous history,as well as a pro-Russian attitude which seems to be prominent within the Trump campaign.Manafort is also named Campaign Manager in March as well,and the FBI is well acquainted with Manafort and his connections to the Yanukovych regime in the Ukraine.I think the FBI has growing concerns about some of the pro-Russian interests within the Trump campaign.

So June is when the Australians inform the US about the Pappy claim that the Russians have hacked Clinton camp emails and he has access.So now that Spring we have at least 3 people connected with team trump boasting "curious" Russian ties,and I think this is worrisome to the FBI.So an FBI agent is dispatched to London and meets with Steele on July 5,and I think the main topic of conversation is Page's upcoming trip to Moscow.I think the FBI are the proactive actors in the meeting,and I think they basically ask Steele to use his assets to keep tabs on Page in Russia.Later that same month,Steele files a report on Page's trip and the FBI initiates an investigation into Trump Russia.

Meanwhile ost of Steele's research seems to focus on what role Russia is taking in events.July 26 deals with Russian hacking,and in Aug he files a report centered around Russian plans to turn Sanders voters to Trump voters.He also files reports dealing with conflict within the Kremlin over how well/poorly the election influencing campaign is proceeding.The salacious report on bribes and sex is from Sept 14,and Oct 3 Steele briefs FBI agents in Rome.My suspicion is that at that point the FBI is considering moving for FISA warrant on Page,and they ask Steele to dig and find out the specifics of the meetings he held with Igor Sechin of Rosneft...

A WAPO article of Aug 5th talks about people in both parties being uneasy about some of the comments Page is making and the policies he is advocating.Page repeatedly complains about US policy to Russia and calls for the lifting of sanctions.Here is a bit of the official speech he made in Moscow in July,when Steele reported that he also met secretly with Sechin...

"The United States and other Western nations have “criticized these regions for continuing methods which were prevalent during the Cold War period,” Page said in a lecture at the New Economic School commencement. “Yet ironically, Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change.”

According to WAPO...
"Page has an ambiguous role in Trump’s campaign. But since being named to the Republican nominee’s team in March, his stature within the foreign policy world has grown considerably, drawing alarm from more-established foreign policy experts who view him as having little real understanding about U.S.-Russia relations. Many also say that Page’s views may be compromised by his investment in Russian energy giant Gazprom."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...075993d73a2_story.html?utm_term=.ccccb7e27504

The talk about Page's investment in,and the numerous mentions of Gazprom thru out the WAPO article are interesting,because Page's obsession with Gazprom is the exact lure the Russian spies on the 2013 recording discussed as the reason they were able to recruit him.I also think it's interesting that this is around the time (Fall 2016) when scrutiny of Page intensified,and after the meeting in Rome,Steele again met with the FBI on Oct 18th.That is when he reported the offer to lift the sanctions for a (Page) stake in Rosneft,and 3 days later the FBI sought and were awarded a FISA warrant...

Imo the timeline ties things together nicely,and causes considerable damage to the claims that the FBI acted for political reasons or on shaky ground.There could well be an element of "fool me once" in play,especially if Page was running around trying to subvert US policy (with regards to sanctions).Remember the sanctions were a response to Putin's invasions of Ukraine and Crimea,and were designed to hit Russia's energy sector.Exactly the area where Page's bread was buttered.

It's also possible that had Page not left the Trump campaign in Sept,the FBI would not have applied for a warrant in Oct.It might be that one of the reasons they were reticent to act earlier was that they wanted to avoid any hint of interfering in the election process.Once Page was no longer on team trump that barrier was removed.That factor,along with increasing bizarre behavior from Page may have been what prompted the FBI to act.That's of course speculation,but Imo,that speculation is as plausible as some of the selective facts portrayed in the Nunes memo...





.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So why do you think the FBI etal made so much noise about this info being released? Since we can safely cross off the bogus national security gripe....what else is there?

FYI, learned listening to Lee Zeldin talk tonight: The Nunes memo was, in fact, redacted before it was released. Those redactions were at the request of the FBI to protect sources and methods.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

For those of you complaining about Steele, go back and lookup Scaife's Project Arkansas. David Hale was the source of Clinton's "involvement" in Whitewater. David Hale also was good friends with a Boyington who was on the payroll of Scaife's Project Arkansas. Hale suddenly adds Clinton's name to try and get a plea bargain and every Republican demands a special prosecutor.

Please feel free to compare and contrast.

 

[iuwclurker1]

For those of you complaining about Steele, go back and lookup Scaife's Project Arkansas. David Hale was the source of Clinton's "involvement" in Whitewater. David Hale also was good friends with a Boyington who was on the payroll of Scaife's Project Arkansas. Hale suddenly adds Clinton's name to try and get a plea bargain and every Republican demands a special prosecutor.

Please feel free to compare and contrast.

...and spin.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Americans understand what's going on:

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, the overwhelming majority — 71 percent — of voters say Republicans in Congress put party over country.

Among independent voters, a key voting bloc behind Trump’s 2016 victory, nearly half — 49 percent — believe Republicans in Congress are trying to derail the Russian probe.
​

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

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?

Bingo! All I needed for my Ladoga bingo card was “Deep State”. Thanks friend, I win. But we all lose.