\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

/*\/*\/*\/*\ Schiff Memo RELEASED /*\/*\/*\/*\

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-...
Walnut fear-inspiring parlour
  02/24/18
Trumptards FUCT
motley persian
  02/24/18
Ljl
multi-colored hell halford
  02/24/18
I expect trumpmos to studiously ignore this thread
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
...
transparent office antidepressant drug
  02/24/18
lol what the fuck is this
Excitant pit foreskin
  02/24/18
para 1: entirely partisan vindictive accusation. not a singl...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
para 2: entirely conclusory and partisan. not a single brute...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
para 3: finally a few brute facts. but the bulk of the parag...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
LJL 10 pages? TLDR
Lascivious Whorehouse
  02/24/18
4th para (first bullet point): very useful fact about when t...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
2nd bullet point: does not refute the claim of Republicans t...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
1. Page investigation was launched prior to Steele dossier. ...
Hairraiser french hospital dragon
  02/25/18
last bullet point: entirely conclusory. useless.
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
ok, this memo is bullshit. it's carefully crafted to evade t...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Lol. But the Nunes memo was a totally neutral non partisan ...
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
Nunes memo: totally partisan. had some critical facts that m...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Fair enough. I think the back and forth between the memos i...
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
Nunes memo just oops omitted that Carter Page has literally ...
boyish goyim
  02/24/18
got it. agreed. now why was the prior FISA app denied and...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Never been in front of the FISC but I'm prepared to say w/o ...
boyish goyim
  02/24/18
"weird little Russophile" is exactly why Russia ig...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Of which carter page didn’t even realize they were Russian a...
Pearl unholy cuckold stag film
  02/24/18
https://i.imgur.com/mY6H7iV.png
Hairraiser french hospital dragon
  02/25/18
tyft. is that the footnote? is that the full explanation?
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/25/18
my briefs are of average quality and they shit all over this...
Deranged state
  02/24/18
at 4pm on a saturday lol clearly shooting to get as many e...
Infuriating Alcoholic Step-uncle's House Milk
  02/24/18
...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
They rode the anti gun news cycle and want to keep the discu...
nofapping dysfunction indian lodge
  02/24/18
...
multi-colored hell halford
  02/24/18
Trump released it.
Hairraiser french hospital dragon
  02/25/18
tick tock Trumpcucks
Blue trip den ceo
  02/24/18
Thank God for libcrusher180
Irradiated Lettuce University
  02/24/18
Schiff: omfg, the FBI/DOJ were seeking a FISA app *before* t...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
...
Buff concupiscible locus faggot firefighter
  02/24/18
libs?
multi-colored hell halford
  02/24/18
...
Provocative Turquoise Chapel Volcanic Crater
  02/24/18
Serious question - can you point to where the first FISA war...
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
Good point - from the charge and response linked below: (...
zippy associate rehab
  02/24/18
Ok, so the pumo was just making it up that there was a warra...
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. i have always thought that the init...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Ty, I hadn't seen this reporting before, although it's not d...
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
Thanks for following up with this. Weird to see the seeming ...
zippy associate rehab
  02/24/18
everybody seems to agree that a FISA app was denied. accordi...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Very odd. Neither memo talks about the failed application -...
Splenetic laser beams native
  02/24/18
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JJgZ_7Y...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
180
Godawful big public bath
  02/25/18
Byron York saying what I said. key sentence: "In sum, i...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/25/18
official response to the Schiff memo https://intelligence...
cracking judgmental trust fund
  02/24/18
Libs?
Pearl unholy cuckold stag film
  02/25/18
I think this is a news cycle too late for normies to care ab...
histrionic legal warrant
  02/24/18
Senile Donald MAF on twitter about this
mind-boggling yarmulke
  02/25/18


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 4:31 PM
Author: Walnut fear-inspiring parlour

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35478899)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 4:32 PM
Author: motley persian

Trumptards FUCT

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35478907)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 4:35 PM
Author: multi-colored hell halford

Ljl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35478927)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 4:45 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

I expect trumpmos to studiously ignore this thread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35478991)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 7:29 PM
Author: transparent office antidepressant drug



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479827)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 4:45 PM
Author: Excitant pit foreskin

lol what the fuck is this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35478992)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:04 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

para 1: entirely partisan vindictive accusation. not a single fact. also ironic given that Nunes's original memo had very few "sources and methods" and Schiff's was larded with them, and Schiff bitched and moaned when the IC pointed that out.

... more to follow ....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479099)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:05 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

para 2: entirely conclusory and partisan. not a single brute fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479106)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:07 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

para 3: finally a few brute facts. but the bulk of the paragraph is conclusory and self-serving.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479119)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:09 PM
Author: Lascivious Whorehouse

LJL 10 pages? TLDR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479126)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:10 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

4th para (first bullet point): very useful fact about when the feds got the Steele memo. but wasn't the July 2016 initiation the one that the FISA court rejected? if so, why doesn't this cut against Schiff?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479128)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:14 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

2nd bullet point: does not refute the claim of Republicans that the principal sources for the later FISA approval were Steele memo and a news article based entirely on Steele's forbidden leaking to friendly press.

the argument about what the DOJ said about the FISA application entirely side steps the critical information about the heavily-bruited footnote. for now, the Republicans have the better of this issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479141)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 11:08 AM
Author: Hairraiser french hospital dragon

1. Page investigation was launched prior to Steele dossier.

2. In fact, the investigation started in July 31, 2016 because of Papadopoulos.

3. Steele dossier RE Page independently corroborated.

4. Public news reports were used to show Page denied claims.

5. FBI interviewed Page in March 2016, seven months before they got the Steele Dossier.

6. Page investigation started AFTER he quit Trump campaign.

7. https://i.imgur.com/mY6H7iV.png Why didn't they use Clinton's name? Because you can't unmask Americans unless necessary. Didn't the GOP flip out because of that?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482939)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:16 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

last bullet point: entirely conclusory. useless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479153)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:17 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

ok, this memo is bullshit. it's carefully crafted to evade the key criticisms.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479164)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:19 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

Lol. But the Nunes memo was a totally neutral non partisan document

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479168)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:43 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

Nunes memo: totally partisan. had some critical facts that make the DOJ look like shit.

we need to see the two FISA apps (one rejected; one accepted) and especially the exact text of the footnote about the Steele Memo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479282)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:45 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

Fair enough. I think the back and forth between the memos is ridiculous. Im hoping the nyt lawsuit to get the underlying warrant succeeds, but I doubt it will

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479292)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:57 PM
Author: boyish goyim

Nunes memo just oops omitted that Carter Page has literally dozens of contacts with literal recruiters for literal Russian Intel services lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479346)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 5:58 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

got it. agreed.

now why was the prior FISA app denied and the second was granted?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479348)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 6:11 PM
Author: boyish goyim

Never been in front of the FISC but I'm prepared to say w/o knowing anything about their practice or procedure that anyone who denied a warrant for this weird little Russophile is braindead

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479426)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 7:27 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

"weird little Russophile" is exactly why Russia ignored him and could be the reason why the prior FISA app was denied. the second one was approved, perhaps, because the Steele Memo was proffered to the court as something other than Hillary's purchased oppo research.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479820)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 6:03 PM
Author: Pearl unholy cuckold stag film

Of which carter page didn’t even realize they were Russian agents and the agents thought he was a worthless moron.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479379)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 11:09 AM
Author: Hairraiser french hospital dragon

https://i.imgur.com/mY6H7iV.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482940)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 11:17 AM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

tyft. is that the footnote?

is that the full explanation?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482995)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:09 PM
Author: Deranged state

my briefs are of average quality and they shit all over this

as you point out, this is full of conclusory statements and oh how persuasive they are

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480886)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 7:31 PM
Author: Infuriating Alcoholic Step-uncle's House Milk

at 4pm on a saturday lol

clearly shooting to get as many eyeballs as possible on it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35479836)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 8:54 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480472)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 9:32 PM
Author: nofapping dysfunction indian lodge

They rode the anti gun news cycle and want to keep the discussion there and the new round of indictments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480675)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:11 PM
Author: multi-colored hell halford



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480893)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 11:10 AM
Author: Hairraiser french hospital dragon

Trump released it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482948)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 9:21 PM
Author: Blue trip den ceo

tick tock Trumpcucks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480610)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 9:51 PM
Author: Irradiated Lettuce University

Thank God for libcrusher180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480789)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:25 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

Schiff: omfg, the FBI/DOJ were seeking a FISA app *before* the Steele Memo was being used! that means, obviously, the feds were interested and had the goods on Page *before* the Steele Memo! [repeats the same point over and over]

me: yeah, right, got it. And that application without the Steele Memo was *denied*, wasn't it? so they *didn't* have the goods. it was the app with the Steele Memo that got approved, right? and it was in October, with known Trump-haters Strzok and Steele on board (and lying and concealing), and with Trump's possible victory looming, that FBI/DOJ touted the unverified Steele Memo as the key evidence, right?

Schiff: [crickets]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35480999)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:26 PM
Author: Buff concupiscible locus faggot firefighter



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481005)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:47 PM
Author: multi-colored hell halford

libs?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481138)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:58 PM
Author: Provocative Turquoise Chapel Volcanic Crater



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481209)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:00 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

Serious question - can you point to where the first FISA warrant was denied without the dossier? I don't see it in the Nunes memo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481220)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:04 PM
Author: zippy associate rehab

Good point - from the charge and response linked below:

(As noted on page 3 of the Democrat memo, the dossier “reach[ed] the counterintelligence team

investigating Russia at FBI headquarters” in “mid-September 2016,” just a few weeks before the

initial FISA application.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481245)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:05 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

Ok, so the pumo was just making it up that there was a warrant denied before the dossier came onto the scene?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481252)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:14 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. i have always thought that the initial FISA request was in June 2016 and was denied.

https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump/

did that not happen?

====

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates. As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates. It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page. The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481280)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:16 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

Ty, I hadn't seen this reporting before, although it's not definitive. I'm surprised that, if true, it didn't make it into Nunes' memo, since such a denial would make a much stronger case for the dossier being essential to probable cause

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481302)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:18 PM
Author: zippy associate rehab

Thanks for following up with this. Weird to see the seeming discrepancy between this and the charge and response thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481323)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:20 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

everybody seems to agree that a FISA app was denied. according to the Schiff memo and response, when did that happen? or perhaps those two docs suggest that there never was a failed FISA app?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481336)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:24 PM
Author: Splenetic laser beams native

Very odd. Neither memo talks about the failed application - if I were Nunes I would have trumpeted that from the rooftops. (The article you cited is right on the nose with other details and it came it a year ago, so I'm inclined to believe it)

Maybe that info can't be made unclassified. Or maybe it never happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481361)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:34 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JJgZ_7YIPGsJ:www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/factcheck/ct-fact-check-donald-trump-obama-wiretap-20170305-story.html+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fbi-warrant-monitor-presidential-campaign-russia-a7520791.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481411)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 1:28 AM
Author: Godawful big public bath

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481891)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 9:59 AM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

Byron York saying what I said. key sentence: "In sum, it appears that of the four bullet points listed by Democrats to support the most important assertion in their memo, three would not be sufficient to win a warrant on Page, and the fourth is — yes — the unconfirmed allegations in the dossier."

===

Byron York: Assessing the new Democratic intel memo

by Byron York | Feb 24, 2018, 10:36 PM

The GOP accused the Justice Department and FBI of relying heavily on the unverified Trump dossier in a secret court request to wiretap the sometime, volunteer Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. That is simply not true, say Democrats in their rebuttal. (AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin)

The GOP accused the Justice Department and FBI of relying heavily on the unverified Trump dossier in a secret court request to wiretap the sometime, volunteer Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. That is simply not true, say Democrats in their rebuttal. (AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin)

It took a while, owing to delays over classified information, but Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have finally released their rebuttal to the "FISA abuse" memo put forth earlier this month by committee Republicans. The GOP accused the Justice Department and FBI of relying heavily on the unverified Trump dossier in a secret court request to wiretap the sometime, volunteer Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. That is simply not true, say Democrats in their rebuttal.

"FBI and DOJ officials did not 'abuse' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign," the Democratic memo declares. (All emphases are in the original.)

Specifically, Democrats say, the Justice Department "met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet the FISA's probable cause requirement" for a warrant on Page. Democrats say the Justice Department provided the court with four categories of information that together were "a multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page." The four categories are:

* contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference;

* concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials;

* Page's history with Russian intelligence; and

* [redacted] Page's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.

Remember that the standard for winning a warrant to wiretap a U.S. citizen in the United States is quite high, and that the purpose of the warrant application was to convince the FISA judges that Page specifically, not the Trump campaign generally or any group of people, was a Russian agent and was likely violating the law.

The first bullet point, about "Russia's election interference" — a reference to, say, evidence of Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee or Russian internet trolling — doesn't say anything about Carter Page.

The second bullet point, an apparent reference to Russian contacts with George Papadapoulos, also doesn't say anything about Page.

The third category, referring to Page's business history in Moscow in the 2000s, and more specifically a 2013 case in which Russian agents tried unsuccessfully to recruit him, does of course focus on Page. As I wrote this month, by several accounts, Page's history was not a big part of the FISA application, but it was a part, and House Republicans should have included that fact in their memo. On the other hand, Page's history was history; it was not new in October 2016, when the first warrant was granted, and it's not clear why it would have triggered the DOJ to ask for, or the FISA court to approve, a wiretapping warrant.

The Democrats' fourth and last bullet point, referring to "Page's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow," seems to be the category that would have given the warrant application its punch. Unlike the other bullets, it was both new and about Page specifically. And sure enough, it is the category in which Democrats concede that the Steele dossier was used.

"It is in this specific sub-section of the application that DOJ refers to Steele's reporting on Page and his alleged coordination with Russian officials," the Democratic memo says. The FISA application, according to Democrats, "made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials."

In addition, Democrats claim, "Steele's information about Page was consistent with the FBI's assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest."

Saying Steele's information was "consistent" with the FBI's earlier assessment of Page is not the same as saying Steele's information was accurate. Indeed, the Democratic memo goes on to recount a key episode from the dossier in which Page allegedly met with Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, Russia's giant state-owned oil company, and also met separately with Igor Divyekin, a top official in the Putin government, during that July 2016 trip to Moscow. Steele reported that Sechin offered to give Page millions of dollars in return for ending U.S. sanctions against Russia. As far as I can tell, in conversations with congressional investigators, the FBI has never claimed that that episode has been confirmed. Page's Moscow trip, of course, was widely known at the time; it was covered in the press as it happened. But the Sechin and Divyekin meetings, and the money-for-sanctions offer — truly explosive allegations, the kind that, if true, would certainly warrant surveillance — remain unconfirmed to this day.

The Democratic memo also says the Justice Department told the FISA court that Divyekin told Page that the Kremlin had "kompromat" on Hillary Clinton and mentioned "the possibility of its being released to [the Trump] campaign." Democrats say that "closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos." Again, saying it "closely tracks" something else is not to say it is an accurate description of Page's Moscow visit, and Democrats do not claim that it is.

Next, Democrats write that "In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting."

First, that says DOJ did not provide such information in the original warrant. Then, the sentence is followed by three bullet-point paragraphs which are entirely blacked out. We don't know what they say, but the summary sentence seems to suggest that after the original warrant was granted, the Justice Department verified Steele's allegations.

That is not what the Justice Department and FBI have told congressional investigators. Indeed, in a response Saturday evening, House Intelligence Committee Republicans said, "At the time of the initial application, all of the Steele dossier's specific claims about Page — including that he met with Igor Sechin and Igor Divyekin in Moscow in July 2016 — were uncorroborated by any independent source, and they remain unconfirmed."

In sum, it appears that of the four bullet points listed by Democrats to support the most important assertion in their memo, three would not be sufficient to win a warrant on Page, and the fourth is — yes — the unconfirmed allegations in the dossier. Democrats say the FISA warrant application made just "narrow" use of the dossier, while Republicans say the application made extensive use of the dossier. (And not just Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, but also the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducted a separate investigation and concluded the dossier's allegations made up "the bulk" of the application.) We won't know who is right definitively until the application is released to the public, but it seems hard to believe a warrant would have been approved absent the dossier's allegations.

On to other parts of the Democratic memo. The next big point is a refutation of an assertion that Republicans did not make in their original memo. The Democratic memo says at one point that, "Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016." At another point in the memo, Democrats say that "Steele's reporting…played no role in launching" the investigation.

But the Republican memo did not say that it did. Indeed, the GOP memo said, "The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016…" There is some debate about the precise beginning of the FBI investigation, and whether it is of much importance given later reliance on the dossier. But the fact is, the Republican memo did not claim that Steele's raw intelligence informed the decision to begin the investigation. So the Democratic memo has knocked down a straw man.

At another point, the Democratic memo declares, "FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign." As proof, it notes, correctly, that the FISA warrant came after Page had left the campaign. But Republicans argue, with some merit, that the warrant not only gave the FBI the authority to tap Page's phone going forward, but also to view his emails, texts, and other electronic communications going far back — in other words, back to the time Page was a (tangential) part of the Trump campaign and might have communicated with others in the campaign. So the Democratic point is not as strong as it might seem.

Then there is the much-argued question of whether the FBI told the FISA court that Steele was working for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party. The Republican memo said this: "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts."

That appears to be true. The Democratic memo argues that, "DOJ was transparent with the court about Steele's sourcing" and, for the first time, supplies the text of the footnote in the FISA application that dealt with who was behind the dossier. The footnote says 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.

In the new memo's footnotes, Democrats say that the "identified U.S. Person" was Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, "Source #1" was Steele, the "U.S.-based law firm" was the Democratic firm Perkins Coie, and "Candidate #1" was Donald Trump. Democrats say that was a "transparent" way to inform the FISA court that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were behind the dossier. Make your own judgment. (Beyond the sheer circuitousness of the "FBI speculates" explanation, also keep in mind that in 2016 there were non-Democrats who wanted to discredit the Trump campaign; a pre-dossier anti-Trump project involving Fusion GPS was financed by the conservative Washington Free Beacon.) In any case, the fact remains that the Republican memo said the FISA application did not "disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts." And it did not.

Democrats also argue that in the wiretapping application the Justice Department "explained the FBI's reasonable basis for finding Steele credible." That refers to Steele's work with the bureau a few years earlier in the world soccer scandal investigation. But of course, the question for the court was not whether Steele was credible; it was whether Steele's sources were credible. And the FBI did not know who they were. Also, Democrats note that "The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting, including with regard to Page." A footnote says that information came from interviewing former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. But the memo does not say whether the vetting process has actually confirmed the allegations.

[House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes shares 'point by point' refutation of Democratic memo]

Speaking of McCabe, a big controversy surrounding the original Republican memo was the assertion that McCabe "testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [FISA court] without the Steele dossier information." Democrats immediately denounced that statement as false. "He didn't say that," Intelligence Committee member Eric Swalwell told CNN on the day the Republican memo was released.

Now, however, the Democratic memo makes no statement one way or the other about McCabe's assertion. Does that mean, then, that the Republican memo accurately characterized what McCabe said? Without the interview transcript, it's impossible to say. But it does mean that in their official, considered rebuttal, Democrats are not challenging it.

So there it is. Yes, there were flaws in the original Republican memo, like failing to mention Carter Page's history. But despite their early protests, Democrats have not come up with a terribly effective rebuttal.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-assessing-the-new-democratic-intel-memo/article/2649977?platform=hootsuite



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482709)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 10:55 PM
Author: cracking judgmental trust fund

official response to the Schiff memo

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481188)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 8:04 AM
Author: Pearl unholy cuckold stag film

Libs?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482497)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 24th, 2018 11:06 PM
Author: histrionic legal warrant

I think this is a news cycle too late for normies to care about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35481253)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 25th, 2018 10:25 AM
Author: mind-boggling yarmulke

Senile Donald MAF on twitter about this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3902933&forum_id=2#35482769)