Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

Minority Memo

Recommended Posts

Good read. Page’s trip to Moscow during the campaign and discussions about “kompromat” with Putin’s boy is intriguing. And I can’t imagine he kept quiet about it once he got back. It would be interesting to know exactly when in July he was there. That’s the month two big email releases on WikiLeaks occurred. Also, July 20th 2016 was when the Trump campaign forced the softened Russia/Ukraine language into the GOP platform.

edit: I looked back at Page’s testimony. He was in Moscow the 1st week of July. He emailed a report of his meeting with Putin cronies Sichen and Divyekin to the campaign on July 8th. GOP platform altered July 20th. 20k DNC emails released July 22nd. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Memo says...

initial FISA warrant was granted by GOP-appointed judge, and then renewed by 3 different GOP appointed judges.

FBI probe into Carter Page started 7 weeks before dossier.

Yahoo article was not relied upon but used to inform the court of Page's denial of Moscow meetings.

FBI made court well aware of Steele's potential bias, history and experience.

 

This is why there's a prosecution and a defense in a court, folks.

Still need source docs to be able to know the real truth of it all but we'll never get them, or at least when we do this whole thing will be water under the bridge. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts.... based on reading the minority memo and comparing it to the Nunes memo.

  1. This completely blows away the claims that the Steele Dossier was the reason investigations into the Trump campaign was started. The investigation began well before Steele even contacted the FBI. As the Nunes memo admitted at the very end, that investigation started because Papadopoulos can't keep his mouth shut while imbibing alcohol.
  2. Page wasn't working for the Trump campaign when the FISA warrant to surveil him was granted. Additionally, they had initially began to investigate his ties to Russia all the way back to 2013. 
  3. The FBI contacted Page when he was a member of the Trump campaign all the way back to March 2016; while Steele wasn't contracted by Fusion GPS until June. 
  4. The FBI didn't pay Steele, nor did they intend to pay Steele. That flies straight in the face of what a ton of Trumpers around here have claimed. They believed what he said because of his work with them in the past and reputation in the intelligence industry.
  5. Steele was "terminated" by the FBI after he spoke with the media. 
  6. Even if they did pay him, as they've paid other people in similar situations, it's not as though it would have been scandalous. Furthermore, he brought in information to the FBI without prompt or request for money. 
  7. Nunes did not actually read the underlying materials for the NUNES memo.
  8. Nunes did not allow the FBI to even review the memo until 10 days after it was given to the House. 
  9. The Nunes memo was a wholly political instrument, not intended to bring up concerns about "abuse" of the FISA court system, but to attack the Mueller investigation by attempting to claim the basis for the investigation was tainted.
  10. An investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election was necessary even without anything that Papadopoulos said to foreign intelligence, and even without the Carter Page FISA warrant ---- it was necessary because Russian cyber attacks were impacting the the election in and of themselves. The FBI was already investigating these cyber attacks, and all the Papadopoulos idiocy did was to necessitate an investigation into whether or not there was a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump campaign. That being said, they would have investigated that potential anyway if they were any good at their jobs. 
  11. If the investigation into Russian interference and potential Trump campaign links began prior to October 2016, then the FISA warrant played no part. Additionally, Manafort and Gates were running the campaign when that investigation was launched. Who just pled guilty to Mueller? Oh right, Gates.
  12. Nunes LIED to the American people when he said, on camera, that the Steele Dossier was wrongfully used to launch the investigation into Trump connections to potential Russian interference in the election. 
  13. Footnote 7 implies that Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, and Flynn were all under investigation as early as Summer 2016.
  14. All four FICS judges who approved FISA warrant/extensions on Page were Republicans and/or appointed by Republicans.
  15. Renewals of the FISA warrant on Page provided additional information that corroborated the Steele Dossier. Hmm, I wonder why Trump demanded that section be redacted.
  16. The later FISA warrant renewal detailed the termination of the relationship between the FBI and Steele.
  17. The omissions of the Nunes memo point to its blatant political nature.
  18. Bruce Ohr wasn't involved in the FISA application on Page. Look, another Nunes lie.
  19. Strzok and Lisa Page weren't involved in the Carter Page FISA application.
  20. Papadopoulos, Page, and Donny Jr. ALL received Russian overtures for damaging information related to Hillary.

As I said from the beginning, the truth is likely in between the two memos... and this obliterates the BIGGER THAN WATERGATE!!!! claims about the Nunes memo. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too late.  I'm afraid it's now water over the bridge.  Nunes' memo already did the damage in most peoples' minds.  Trump made sure of that.  I don't think the general public wants to rehash it.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... here's another amusing anecdote. 

Remember when Nunes was screaming his head off about POLITICAL UNMASKINGS!!!!!!! So, about that. The crux of the Nunes memo claims are that the FBI/DOJ were biased in presenting the FISA warrant against Page, and not mentioning Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson by name. If they had, wouldn't that have been political unmasking? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, retrofade said:

So... here's another amusing anecdote. 

Remember when Nunes was screaming his head off about POLITICAL UNMASKINGS!!!!!!! So, about that. The crux of the Nunes memo claims are that the FBI/DOJ were biased in presenting the FISA warrant against Page, and not mentioning Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson by name. If they had, wouldn't that have been political unmasking? 

No. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No. 

It would have been an unmasking though. At least, based on my understanding of the unmasking process and what Nunes was yelling about. Though I admittedly didn't follow that stuff super closely and could be well off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, retrofade said:

It would have been an unmasking though. At least, based on my understanding of the unmasking process and what Nunes was yelling about. Though I admittedly didn't follow that stuff super closely and could be well off. 

It’s a warrant. If there is ever to be any expectation of due process, the judge needs to be informed of the material facts before granting the ability to transgress the target’s rights. You can’t credibly do it any other way.

Unmasking reveals the names of those in intelligence reports that get caught up in surveillance. It is entirely possible to credibly gather intelligence without unnecessarily unmasking anyone.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s a warrant. If there is ever to be any expectation of due process, the judge needs to be informed of the material facts before granting the ability to transgress the target’s rights. You can’t credibly do it any other way.

Unmasking reveals the names of those in intelligence reports that get caught up in surveillance. It is entirely possible to credibly gather intelligence without unnecessarily unmasking anyone.

We're talking about two separate things here i think. The judge was informed of the material facts...

Quote

[Steele] was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing 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 original).

I mean, to me, that seems to state the material facts pretty clearly. They even went on to state why the name of "Source #1" was not given.

Quote

“In fact, DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting US citizen information by purposefully not ‘unmasking’ U.S. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.”

That seems like a pretty legitimate reason, especially since it is a longstanding practice, to not include the names of either Glenn Simpson or Fusion GPS. The other disclosures make it pretty clear as to what the motivations for the gathering of this information was. Simpson wasn't the target or potential target of a counterintelligence investigation. There would be no real reason to disclose his name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a fan of this whole secret surveillance court thing that we have going on. I never have been, and I've stated that here for years. That being said, I don't think that, based on what both sides have stated, and what we can infer from what lies between the two, that any gross misdeeds took place in the FISA Warrant application for Carter Page. Certainly not to the BIGGER THAN WATERGATE claims that some people were making. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

We're talking about two separate things here i think. The judge was informed of the material facts...

A laughable statement.

5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I mean, to me, that seems to state the material facts pretty clearly. They even went on to state why the name of "Source #1" was not given.

You’ve already admitted you fit the evidence, or lack of evidence, to the story you believe, so of course you think it’s clear. It’s probably pointless of me to point out the FBI did not need to speculate what the motivation for Steele’s work was, they knew for whom the work was done. Pretending to speculate what you know so that you don’t have to reveal a material fact is dishonest.

5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

That seems like a pretty legitimate reason, especially since it is a longstanding practice, to not include the names of either Glenn Simpson or Fusion GPS. The other disclosures make it pretty clear as to what the motivations for the gathering of this information was. Simpson wasn't the target or potential target of a counterintelligence investigation. There would be no real reason to disclose his name. 

Simpson is not the point. If it’s material to present to the court that the U.S. person was paid by a U.S. law firm, it’s certainly material that the law firm was paid by the other candidate. You don’t even have to name names! Just don’t hide the facts from the judges.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

A laughable statement.

You’ve already admitted you fit the evidence, or lack of evidence, to the story you believe, so of course you think it’s clear. It’s probably pointless of me to point out the FBI did not need to speculate what the motivation for Steele’s work was, they knew for whom the work was done. Pretending to speculate what you know so that you don’t have to reveal a material fact is dishonest.

Simpson is not the point. If it’s material to present to the court that the U.S. person was paid by a U.S. law firm, it’s certainly material that the law firm was paid by the other candidate. You don’t even have to name names! Just don’t hide the facts from the judges.

Jesus Christ dude, I've said nothing of the sort.

The FBI didn't know for certain, they knew what Steele and Glenn Simpson had told them. If you go back to Simpson's testimony before both the House and Senate committees, you'll see time and time again where he can't (by virtue of NDA) divulge information related directly to his clients. He could speculate that Perkins Coie was contracted by the DNC to contract Fusion GPS's services, but he wasn't told that. Fusion GPS was contracted by Perkins Coie, not the DNC. Now, It was certainly the DNC by proxy, but Perkins Coie similarly could not divulge who their client was to Fusion GPS due to privilege. 

So now you're left with what I posted above:

Quote

The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign”

The FBI has to "speculate", because they have only been told what Steele and Simpson have told them to this point. As you pointed out, this is a court of law, and they can't present unfounded speculation such as, "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was contracted by a law firm connected to the DNC who were likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign". There's way too many leaps in logic there. You can speculate that the purpose of the information was to discredit Trump, or "Candidate #1." However, you can't speculate that it went all the way up to the DNC. It could have been the Clinton Campaign directly through Perkins Coie, it could have been a Super PAC, it could have been the Koch Brothers because they both suffered strokes and decided they wanted to support Hillary. All that you can reasonably speculate on is they were looking for information that could discredit the campaign. 

Now, I could be wrong, and the FBI did know that the DNC paid Perkins Coie, but I haven't seen that anywhere. If it is out there, then I back off of my previous assertions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Jesus Christ dude, I've said nothing of the sort.

The FBI didn't know for certain, they knew what Steele and Glenn Simpson had told them. If you go back to Simpson's testimony before both the House and Senate committees, you'll see time and time again where he can't (by virtue of NDA) divulge information related directly to his clients. He could speculate that Perkins Coie was contracted by the DNC to contract Fusion GPS's services, but he wasn't told that. Fusion GPS was contracted by Perkins Coie, not the DNC. Now, It was certainly the DNC by proxy, but Perkins Coie similarly could not divulge who their client was to Fusion GPS due to privilege. 

So now you're left with what I posted above:

The FBI has to "speculate", because they have only been told what Steele and Simpson have told them to this point. As you pointed out, this is a court of law, and they can't present unfounded speculation such as, "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was contracted by a law firm connected to the DNC who were likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign". There's way too many leaps in logic there. You can speculate that the purpose of the information was to discredit Trump, or "Candidate #1." However, you can't speculate that it went all the way up to the DNC. It could have been the Clinton Campaign directly through Perkins Coie, it could have been a Super PAC, it could have been the Koch Brothers because they both suffered strokes and decided they wanted to support Hillary. All that you can reasonably speculate on is they were looking for information that could discredit the campaign. 

Now, I could be wrong, and the FBI did know that the DNC paid Perkins Coie, but I haven't seen that anywhere. If it is out there, then I back off of my previous assertions. 

Seriously? Schiff doesn’t even bother to deny the FBI knew of the documents origins. Which is odd, because he spends 10 credulity straining pages trying to discredit every line of the Nunes memo he can. 

Putting that aside, did you even stop to think how ridiculous the scenario you laid out is if true? The FBI moving on the word of two guys they suspect to be motivated by political shenanigans, but yet they’re also totally credible, it’s just they can’t say for whom it is they’re working so the FBI should just hand wave it all away with doing any other investigating. The Keystone cops would be insulted at such a comparison to this hypothetical Comey and his merry band.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Seriously? Schiff doesn’t even bother to deny the FBI knew of the documents origins. Which is odd, because he spends 10 credulity straining pages trying to discredit every line of the Nunes memo he can. 

Putting that aside, did you even stop to think how ridiculous the scenario you laid out is if true? The FBI moving on the word of two guys they suspect to be motivated by political shenanigans, but yet they’re also totally credible, it’s just they can’t say for whom it is they’re working so the FBI should just hand wave it all away with doing any other investigating. The Keystone cops would be insulted at such a comparison to this hypothetical Comey and his merry band.

The FBI knew what the origins of the document were... that a law firm hired Fusion GPS to perform "political research" on Trump. That's what they were told.... they can't assume that it was the DNC, Hillary, or even Bernie Sanders. They can speculate that the research was intended to do damage to the Trump campaign, especially given the nature of the research itself --- it's not like the information that Steele gave them painted Trump in a positive light. 

They didn't need to investigate who gave the order to perform the investigation, because they had trust in Steele due to his work with the FBI in the past. Simpson and Steele weren't motivated by political shenanigans. Steele was doing a job that he had been paid to do for Fusion GPS. Steele was but one arm of the larger portion of the Fusion GPS investigation into Trump. I believe the Steele "dossier" was the only information that was handed over to the FBI as well. The final destination of the research is irrelevant as well, because Steele didn't know who he was gathering evidence for. 

Quote

The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia.

He could guess, but he was simply hired for a job by Fusion, and according to Simpson's testimony, was given no marching orders on what to get... he was told to look into Trump's business ties and connections with Russia. 

The FBI likely could have guessed that the DNC was behind that, but they couldn't present rampant speculation about the source of the initial contract was in a FISA warrant. As such, disclosing that it was likely political in nature seems to be a good middle ground given that they did not know for certain who contracted Fusion GPS. Who the information is for is irrelevant as long as you can reasonably ascertain that the information was credible. According to the Minority Memo, as well as McCabe's testimony, it looks as though the Steele information was the "tipping point" that corroborated other information that they had in hand already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dem response was hilarious. McCarthy lays it out far better than I can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/

Don't forget here is the GOP response charge by charge.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_charge_and_response.pdf

If anyone even cares anymore I'd encourage you to read both of those links. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...