[#NothingBurger] The Secret Nunes Memo

FranchiseBlade · Feb 25, 2018

Aceshigh7 said: ↑

Read the Democratic memo, and all I can say is..... "That's it?"

It admits that the FISA app omits the fact that Hillary paid for the dossier. And it admits that the DOJ knew that Steele was a foreign agent. Not sure how the Dems believe this helps their argument.
Click to expand...

The Dems didn't say Hillary paid for the dossier. Instead, they properly disclosed that it was a major political party that paid for the memo. So saying major political party instead of "Hillary" is a distinction without a difference.

adoo · Feb 25, 2018

Aceshigh7 said: ↑

It admits that the FISA app omits the fact that Hillary paid for the dossier.
Click to expand...

damn, you can't possibly be that ignorant.

the FISA application noted that the Op Research was paid for by political entity A

Aceshigh7 said: ↑

And it admits that the DOJ knew that Steele was a foreign agent.
Click to expand...

you need to stop lying

like the dotard, you obviously have poor reading comprehension.

according to the application, months B4 the FISA appplication, the Australians tipped off the FBI about Popadakis claim that the Russians have Clinton's emails. this got the investigation started.

tallanvor · Feb 25, 2018

adoo said: ↑

damn, you can't possibly be that ignorant.

the FISA application noted that the Op Research was paid for by political entity A
Click to expand...

haha a 'political entity'? if you know its Clinton then why not say it? Why leave out information for the courts to make their decision? WHy be as vague as possible? A political entity could mean anything. Someone could call you and I 'political entities' cause we are currently engaging in a political discussion.

adoo · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

haha a 'political entity'? if you know its Clinton then why not say it?
Click to expand...

FBIs was following protocol, masking the identity of the specific person / entity.
in the application, it referred to Clinton and Trump as candidate 1 and candidate 2

stop publicizing ur ignorance !

tallanvor · Feb 25, 2018

adoo said: ↑

FBIs was following protocol, masking the identity of the specific person / entity.
Click to expand...

Thats horseshit. Protocol is to mention to the court where the information comes from and 'political entity' does not do that. Its intentionally vague and dishonest.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier/

The fact that Fusion GPS’s ultimate client was the Clinton campaign was never disclosed in any of the warrant applications, which ran well beyond June 2017, when the last 90-day extension was granted. Patently, so much struggle and circumlocution went into crafting this “vaguely limited” footnote that we can only conclude the decision not to disclose the Clinton connection was the subject of much deliberation.

The Clinton campaign’s sponsorship was not publicly disclosed until October 2017. Before then, it is virtually certain that, to the extent the FISA court and Congress were told of the “political origins” of the dossier, these were benignly presented as bipartisan concerns about Donald Trump. That is, the Steele dossier phase of Fusion’s anti-Trump project was conflated with the earlier phase, when — as Simpson has testified — Fusion did documentary research on Trump during the Republican primaries for a conservative media outlet. It was not disclosed that, by the time Steele was hired to do the dossier, the project was backed exclusively by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign.

Manifestly, that was a material fact. If a prosecutor withheld an arguably exculpatory fact of this degree of significance, it could get a conviction reversed. As some have observed, a public company would likely face a stock fraud prosecution for concealing a fact so patently material from its required SEC reports.

The Clinton-campaign tie should have been disclosed from the beginning.

In late October 2016, shortly after the first warrant was issued, the FBI terminated its relationship with Steele because he lied to the Bureau about his contacts with the media. But the Justice Department did not report this to the FISA court. Instead, when the first warrant expired in January 2017, the FBI and Justice Department sought its renewal by, again, relying on the credibility of the guy they’d booted for lying. In another lawyerly footnote, they told the FISA court that Steele had been terminated not because he lied but because he was guilty of “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.”

But that was not the half of it. Steele’s agreement with the FBI was that he would not communicate with the press. He made that agreement and then communicated with the press anyway — which showed he was unreliable, notwithstanding the FBI’s continued insistence to the contrary. He hadn’t just flouted the agreement by speaking to the press, though; he had clearly lied about doing so.

By mid-September 2016, at Fusion’s direction and even before the first FISA warrant was issued, Steele had spoken with a plethora of Clinton-friendly press outlets. As a result, Yahoo News published a news story by Michael Isikoff on September 23, which reported precisely the information that Steele had given to the FBI about Page: that he’d supposedly met in Moscow with two top Russian operatives and discussed the lifting of sanctions against Russia.

How could the FBI and Justice Department not have known that Steele was the source for this story? Isikoff explicitly stated that his account of Page’s activities was set forth in “intelligence reports” that were in the possession of “U.S. officials.” Plainly, the FBI was privy to intelligence reports in the government’s possession — the purported “intelligence” reports Steele had provided as well as any others. Had there been another intel report from a different source who happened to provide the same exact information Steele had provided, not only would the FBI have known about it; the Bureau would have touted it to the FISA court as critical corroboration of Steele’s anonymous sources.

To the contrary, the FISA court was told: “The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press.” I’ve emphasized “directly” to highlight how curious this assertion is. Ostensibly, the Bureau seems to have been saying that Steele was not the source — meaning that there must have been another source, yet one the Bureau had not managed to identify even though this mystery source was described in intelligence reports accessible to the Bureau.

On the other hand, what does “directly” mean? By using that qualifier, was the Bureau conceding that Steele might have provided information to the press indirectly – i.e., through an intermediary? But that would make no sense: What would be the point of citing the Isikoff article as corroboration for Steele if Steele had been Isikoff’s source, even if indirectly?

It is not good, one way or the other. Either Steele lied to the FBI about speaking to the press, or the FBI consciously avoided learning that Steele had spoken to Isikoff and then speculated to the court that Steele was probably not Isikoff’s source. Either way, Steele’s credibility was a huge issue. That put in doubt the FBI’s vouching for his reliability, which in turn made disclosure of the Clinton campaign’s sponsorship of his dossier even more imperative.

Or how about this: Steele gave a published interview to Mother Jones in late October 2016, after promising not to speak to the media. In trying to soft-peddle the palpable unreliability Steele had thus exhibited, the FBI rationalized that he was acting not out of dishonesty but in a fit of pique over Director Comey’s pre-election announcement that the FBI had reopened the Clinton emails investigation.

This, of course, is the announcement that Clinton partisans blame for their candidate’s loss. So, according to the Bureau, Steele’s pro-Clinton partisanship induced him to such outrage over Comey’s announcement that he was moved to violate his agreement with the FBI. Wouldn’t you think it might then occur to the Bureau and the Justice Department that maybe, just maybe, they ought to let the court in on that teeny detail about the Clinton campaign’s being the sponsor of Steele’s dossier?

Nope. Instead they kept mum and they kept telling the court Steele was perfectly reliable.

In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.

.......

I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.

I was wrong.
Click to expand...

nothing about this was done by normal protocol.

adoo said: ↑

in the application, it referred to Clinton and Trump as candidate 1 and candidate 2
Click to expand...

wtf is this suppose to even mean?

adoo · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

in the application, Clinton and Trump were referred to as candidate 1 / candidates
Click to expand...

wtf is this suppose to even mean?
Click to expand...

unsolicited corroboration that ur too ignorant to understand what the protocol is

stop publicizing ur ignorance !

tallanvor · Feb 25, 2018

adoo said: ↑

unsolicited corroboration that ur too ignorant to understand what the protocol is

stop publicizing ur ignorance !
Click to expand...

is andrew mccarthy ignorant?

adoo · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

is andrew mccarthy ignorant?
Click to expand...

so ur parroting the false claim---parroting the intentional omission of facts and mis-information from the memo written by the Trump stooge (Nunez)---being propagated by a biased political hack,

tallanvor · Feb 25, 2018

adoo said: ↑

so ur parroting the false claim---parroting the intentional omission of facts and mis-information from the memo written by the Trump stooge (Nunez)---being propagated by a biased political hack,
Click to expand...

he was the prosecutor for the World Trade Center bombing. Its not a false claim. They did omit the fact Clinton was behind the dossier. Schiff, Nunes, and Grassley/Graham all agree on this. One of the few times Schiff hasn't lied. There is no justification for this and it is not normal.

adoo · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

he was the prosecutor for the World Trade Center bombing.
Click to expand...

u need to stop publicizing ur ignorance, confusing the WTC bombing w the Russia investigation.

No Worries · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

haha a 'political entity'? if you know its Clinton then why not say it? Why leave out information for the courts to make their decision? WHy be as vague as possible? A political entity could mean anything. Someone could call you and I 'political entities' cause we are currently engaging in a political discussion.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were 99% there without the Christopher Steele Dossier?

tallanvor · Feb 25, 2018

adoo said: ↑

u need to stop publicizing ur ignorance, confusing the WTC bombing w the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...

andrew mccarthy was not the prosecutor for the Russia investigation.......

No Worries · Feb 25, 2018

Facts can be damning things.

fchowd0311 · Feb 25, 2018

This is like the tenth time I asked this on this message board but not a single Trump apolgidt has even attempted to answer.

Is there any avenue to dismiss the experience, knowledge, objectivity and skills level of the people employed at Fusion GPS or Steele a former British spy with immense experience and knowledge of Russian intelligence?

conquistador#11 · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor · Feb 25, 2018

No Worries said: ↑

Facts can be damning things.
Click to expand...

The Schiff Memo Harms Democrats More Than It Helps Them

Heavy Reliance on Steele Dossier Confirmed
The FBI and the Justice Department heavily relied on the Steele dossier’s uncorroborated allegations. You know this is true because, notwithstanding the claim that “only narrow use” was made “of information from Steele’s sources,” the Democrats end up acknowledging that “only narrow use” actually means significant use — as in, the dossier was the sine qua non of the warrant application. The memo concedes that the FISA-warrant application relied on allegations by Steele’s anonymous Russian hearsay sources that:

Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Roseneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and “an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.” Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton (“kompromat”) and noted the possibility of its being released to Candidate #1’s [i.e., Donald Trump’s] campaign. . . . This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos.

This passage puts the lie to two of the main Democratic talking points:

1) This was obviously the most critical allegation against Page. The Democrats attempt to make much of Page’s trip to Moscow in July 2016, but the uncorroborated Sechin and Divyekin meetings, which Page credibly denies, are the aspect of the Moscow trip that suggested a nefarious Trump–Russia conspiracy. That’s what the investigation was about. Far from clandestine, the rest of Page’s trip was well publicized and apparently anodyne. And saliently — for reasons we’ll get to in due course — Page was clearly prepared to talk to the FBI about the trip if the Bureau wanted to know what he was up to.

Moreover, because Page was an American citizen, FISA law required that the FBI and the DOJ show not only that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power (Russia), but also that his “clandestine” activities on behalf of Russia were a likely violation of federal criminal law. (See FISA, Section 1801(b)(2)(A) through (E), Title 50, U.S. Code.) It is the Steele dossier that alleges Page was engaged in arguably criminal activity. The Democrats point to nothing else that does.

2) Democrats implausibly insist that what “launched” the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was not Steele’s allegations but intelligence from Australia about George Papadopoulos’s contact with what Democrats elusively describe as “individuals linked to Russia.” As we learned when Papadopoulos pled guilty, though, it is anything but clear that these “individuals linked to Russia” had much in the way of links to Putin’s regime: London-based academic Joseph Misfud, who is from Malta and apparently does not speak Russian; an unidentified woman who falsely pretended to be Putin’s niece; and Ivan Timofeev, a program director at a Russian-government-funded think tank.

Even if we assume for argument’s sake that these characters had solid regime connections — rather than that they were boasting to impress the credulous young Papadopoulos — they were patently not in the same league as Sechin, a Putin crony, and Divyekin, a highly placed regime official. And that, manifestly, is how the FBI and the DOJ saw the matter: They sought a FISA warrant on Page, not Papadopoulos. And, as the above-excerpted passage shows, they highlighted the Steele dossier’s sensational allegations about Page and then feebly tried to corroborate those allegations with some Papadopoulos information, not the other way around. (More on that when we get to Schiff’s notion of “corroboration.”)

Concealing the Dossier’s Clinton-Campaign Origins
Another major takeaway from the Schiff memo is that the FBI and the DOJ withheld from the FISA court the fact that Steele’s work was a project of the Clinton campaign. Naturally, the reader must ferret this admission out of a couple of dense paragraphs, in which Democrats risibly claim that the “DOJ was transparent with the Court about Steele’s sourcing.”

How’s this for transparency? The FISA warrant application says that Steele, referred to as “Source #1,” was “approached by” Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, referred to as “an identified U.S. person,” who

indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s [i.e., Trump’s] ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign. [Emphasis in Schiff memo, p. 5]

The first thing to notice here is the epistemological contortions by which the DOJ rationalized concealing that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for Steele’s reporting. They ooze consciousness of guilt. If you have to go through these kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid disclosing something, it’s because you know that being “transparent” demands disclosing it.

....

Two other things to notice here.

1) The DOJ’s application asserted: “The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia.” There is only one reason to include such a statement: The DOJ well understood that the implied biases in the process of compiling the dossier’s allegations, including Steele’s implied biases, were material to the FISA court’s evaluation. A prosecutor does not get to tell a judge reasons that a source’s reports should be thought free of bias while leaving out why they should not be thought free of bias. If you know it’s necessary to disclose that “identified U.S. person” Simpson was being paid by “a U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins-Coie), then it is at least equally necessary to disclose that, in turn, the law firm was being paid by its clients: the Clinton campaign and the DNC. To tell half the story is patently misleading.

2) Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...

fchowd0311 said: ↑

Is there any avenue to dismiss the experience, knowledge, objectivity and skills level of the people employed at Fusion GPS or Steele a former British spy with immense experience and knowledge of Russian intelligence?
Click to expand...

its irrelevant. Steele wass not the source of the claims.

But yes. Steele lied to the FBI and had to be fired because of it. The FBI/DOJ never relayed this information to the FISA court when they renewed their warrant.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier/

In late October 2016, shortly after the first warrant was issued, the FBI terminated its relationship with Steele because he lied to the Bureau about his contacts with the media. But the Justice Department did not report this to the FISA court. Instead, when the first warrant expired in January 2017, the FBI and Justice Department sought its renewal by, again, relying on the credibility of the guy they’d booted for lying. In another lawyerly footnote, they told the FISA court that Steele had been terminated not because he lied but because he was guilty of “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.”
Click to expand...

Nook · Feb 25, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

haha a 'political entity'? if you know its Clinton then why not say it? Why leave out information for the courts to make their decision? WHy be as vague as possible? A political entity could mean anything. Someone could call you and I 'political entities' cause we are currently engaging in a political discussion.
Click to expand...

Ugh... under the FISA rules they are not allowed to tell the judge specific names.

There is a lot of misinformation out there.

Invisible Fan · Feb 26, 2018

fchowd0311 said: ↑

This is like the tenth time I asked this on this message board but not a single Trump apolgidt has even attempted to answer.

Is there any avenue to dismiss the experience, knowledge, objectivity and skills level of the people employed at Fusion GPS or Steele a former British spy with immense experience and knowledge of Russian intelligence?
Click to expand...

uhhh Hillary?

Hillary, Hillary Hillary Hillary!!

Hillary!

fchowd0311 · Feb 26, 2018

tallanvor said: ↑

The Schiff Memo Harms Democrats More Than It Helps Them

its irrelevant. Steele wass not the source of the claims.

But yes. Steele lied to the FBI and had to be fired because of it. The FBI/DOJ never relayed this information to the FISA court when they renewed their warrant.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier/
Click to expand...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/in-defence-of-christopher-steele/

"The senators(Grassley and Graham) seem to believe — their letter to the Justice Department is heavily redacted — that Steele told the FBI he had not spoken to any journalists. They point to documents submitted by him for a court case in London confirming that he briefed several US news organisations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. ‘It appears that either Mr Steele lied to the FBI or the British court,’ the senators say. ‘There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility.’

But Steele’s meeting with the FBI in July took place before he had briefed the US journalists, which was in September. Neither he nor his associates have any recollection of the Bureau raising the issue at either meeting, including the one in October. Anyway, the FBI was not their client; Steele was volunteering information"

So no...

Any avenue to actually discredit Steele's methods, competence and the fact that the FBI has trusted him many times before?

NewRoxFan · Feb 26, 2018

Invisible Fan said: ↑

uhhh Hillary?

Hillary, Hillary Hillary Hillary!!

Hillary!
Click to expand...

Forums

[#NothingBurger] The Secret Nunes Memo

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

No Worries Member

tallanvor Member

No Worries Member

fchowd0311 Member

conquistador#11 Member

tallanvor Member

Nook Member

Invisible Fan Member

fchowd0311 Member

NewRoxFan Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

[#NothingBurger] The Secret Nunes Memo

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

tallanvor Member

adoo Member

No Worries Member

tallanvor Member

No Worries Member

fchowd0311 Member

conquistador#11 Member

tallanvor Member

Nook Member

Invisible Fan Member

fchowd0311 Member

NewRoxFan Member

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member