Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Battle of the Memos: Democrats’ Memo fails to rebut GOP Memo. Here’s why.

Under close scrutiny Adam Schiff’s rebuttal of the GOP Memorandum falls apart

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

1,393 Views

The two pronged counter attack by the FBI and the Democrats against the allegations of misconduct and abuse on the part of the FBI set out in the GOP Memorandum continued in full force last week.

Firstly there was the flurry of further indictments from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Though none of these indictments actually takes the Russiagate collusion case which Mueller is supposed to be investigating any further forward – the indictment against the 13 Russians who worked at the St. Petersburg based Internet Research Agency actually resulted in an admission that there was no collusion between the Russians who had been indicted and any member of the Trump campaign – such is the intensity of the commitment of the media to the Russiagate narrative that they were treated as big news, when in truth they are no such thing.

Secondly we have had the Memorandum the Democrats in the House Intelligence Committee put together in response to the GOP Memorandum which was published earlier.

Contrast between Democrats’ Memorandum and GOP Memorandum

Even at a first glance the contrast with the GOP Memorandum is sharp and obvious.

Where the GOP Memorandum is a concise and impersonal document three and a half pages long obviously written by a lawyer (Representative Trey Gowdy) which uses legal language, the Democrats’ Memorandum is a meandering ten page document which though purportedly dealing with the legal issue of due process uses language which is more journalistic than legal.

For all the very striking difference in language, does the Democrats’ Memorandum in fact refute any of the claims made by the GOP Memorandum?

A good starting point is to look at the way the two Memoranda discuss the Trump Dossier.

The GOP Memorandum says that the Trump Dossier though ‘minimally verified’ provided the main  evidence for the application to the FISA court for a warrant authorising surveillance of Carter Page.

The Democrats’ Memorandum says on the contrary that the Trump Dossier had only a “narrow” role in the application for the FISA warrant authorising surveillance of Carter Page.

Which of the two Memoranda is telling the truth?

Byron York at the Washington Examiner has provided a masterly analysis of the Democrats’ Memorandum showing that it does not in fact refute the GOP Memorandum’s claim that the Trump Dossier provided the main evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant authorising surveillance of Carter Page.

Before discussing this there is however one fact about the way the Democrats’ Memorandum discusses the Trump Dossier which I wish to make.

The trap the Democrats are in over the Trump Dossier

The Democrats together with the other supporters of the Russiagate conspiracy theory find themselves in a trap.

The key point that the GOP Memorandum makes is that the Justice Department and the FBI obtained from the FISA court a warrant to carry out surveillance of Carter Page on the basis of the Trump Dossier notwithstanding that the Trump Dossier was (1) unverified and (2) “political research” paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, with the Justice Department and the FBI failing to inform the FISA court about (1) and (2).  The GOP Memorandum argues that this omission led to serious violations of due process.

In responding the Democrats want to deny that any violations of due process took place.  In order to do this they seek to downplay the importance of the Trump Dossier in the various applications for the FISA warrant and for the renewal of the FISA warrant.

The Democrats have to do this since the Justice Department and the FBI have admitted that the Trump Dossier is unverified.  That calls into question whether – if the FISA court had been told that the Trump Dossier was unverified – a FISA warrant would have been granted at all.  Since the Democrats want to argue that it would have been granted, they are obliged to downplay the Trump Dossier’s importance in obtaining the FISA warrant.

However at the same time that the Democrats seek to downplay the importance of the Trump Dossier in obtaining the FISA warrant, they cannot bring themselves to repudiate the Trump Dossier.

That is because, unverified though the Trump Dossier is, it remains the main – in fact so far the only – actual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The result is that the Democrats’ Memorandum is obliged at one and the same time to argue that the Trump Dossier (1) played only a minor role in the applications to obtain and renew the FISA warrant but (2) has nonetheless been ‘substantiated’ and is therefore true.

It is the need to reconcile these two contradictory claims – the second of which is of course untrue – which explains why the Democrats’ Memorandum is – unlike the GOP Memorandum – such a long and convoluted document.

Use of the Trump Dossier in obtaining the FISA warrant

The attempt to minimise the role of the Trump Dossier in obtaining and renewing the FISA warrant in fact fails from the start.

On this point I can do no better than quote Byron York, whose discussion of this point is masterly

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.

To which I would only add what I have said previously, which is that the issue of Carter Page’s previous history is in the context of the issues discussed by the GOP Memorandum a red herring.

The purpose of the GOP Memorandum was to identify the repeated and serious violations of due process which it says took place when the surveillance warrant against Carter Page was obtained and renewed.

The inclusion of background information about Carter Page’s past in the application for the surveillance warrant was not a violation of due process.

It does not therefore form part of the subject matter that the GOP Memorandum was written about.  The GOP Memorandum was therefore right not to mention it.

Democrats’ attempts to give credence to the Trump Dossier

As to the Democrats’ Memorandum’s attempt to give credence to the Trump Dossier, Byron York is equally masterly and here is what he has to say about that

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.”

To which I would add that the three blanked out paragraphs in the Democrats’ Memorandum which Byron York refers to are a classic exercise in obfuscation.

Adam Schiff – the author of the Democrats’ Memorandum – would of course have known before he wrote the Memorandum that if he inserted classified material into these three paragraphs they would have to be redacted and would be blanked out.

That however is what he did, knowing that that is what would happen, and that must therefore be what he wanted to happen when he wrote the paragraphs.

In other words Schiff wrote three paragraphs into the Democrats’ Memorandum in support of a sentence (“In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reported”) knowing they would be blanked out.

Frankly that looks to me like an attempt to convey an impression that there is ‘evidence’ which corroborates the Trump Dossier when of course we know that there is actually none.

That the allegations of ‘kompromat’ and collusion in the Trump Dossier have not been verified is in fact indisputable.

Needless to say if they had been verified there would have been indictments that referred to the fact by now, and we would not be having this discussion.

As it happens – and as Byron York says – there have been multiple admissions by senior officials of the Justice Department and of the FBI that the allegations of ‘kompromat’ and collusion in the Trump Dossier have not been verified.

It is misleading and mendacious of Adam Schiff and of the Democrats to suggest otherwise.  The reason they did so is because of the trap they find themselves in which I discussed above.

Before leaving the subject of the precise role of the Trump Dossier in the application for the FISA warrant, I would say that Byron York makes a further interesting point, which is that the Democrats seem to have dropped their claim that the GOP Memorandum misrepresents what former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told Congress about the importance of the Trump Dossier in obtaining the FISA warrant.

Specifically, the Democrats have denied that McCabe told Congress – as the GOP Memorandum alleges – that without the information drawn from the Trump Dossier the FISA warrant would not have been granted.

Here is what Byron York has to say about the way the Democrats’ Memorandum fails to touch on this controversy

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.

In my opinion McCabe’s opinion about the precise weight the FISA Judge gave to the evidence that was drawn from the Trump Dossier is a red herring.

Since McCabe is not the FISA Judge he cannot know what weight the FISA Judge gave to what evidence was put in front of him, and McCabe’s opinion on the question is no more than his guess.

Nonetheless it is interesting that the Democrats have quietly dropped this assertion they were making so publicly and so insistently just a few weeks ago.

In summary, it is now clear that the allegations of ‘kompromat’ and collusion in the Trump Dossier did play the key role in securing the FISA warrant authorising surveillance of Carter Page.

Byron York’s summary is again masterly, and I have nothing to add to it

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.

(bold italics added)

Claims of violations of due process in GOP Memorandum

The GOP Memorandum is not concerned with whether the allegations of ‘kompromat’ and collusion in the Trump Dossier are true.

It is concerned with whether there were violations of due process in obtaining and renewing the FISA warrant authorising surveillance of Carter Page.

Those violations of due process alleged by the GOP Memorandum are these (see my previous article)

(1) The FISA court was not told that the Trump Dossier was only ‘minimally verified’;

(2) The FISA court was not told about the ‘political origins’ of the Trump Dossier or in the applications to renew the warrant that it was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and by the Hillary Clinton campaign; and

(3) The FISA court on the occasion of the first application for the FISA warrant was not told about the extreme bias of Christopher Steele – the Trump Dossier’s compiler – against Donald Trump; and

(4) The FISA court was not told that there was no known connection between George Papadopoulos and Carter Page despite information about the activities of Papadopoulos being used in the application to obtain the warrant.

What does the Democrats’ Memorandum have to say about these four violations which the GOP Memorandum says took place?

Failing to inform FISA court that Trump Dossier was only ‘minimally verified’

This is by far the most serious violation of due process alleged in the GOP Memorandum, and remarkably the Democrats’ Memorandum actually confirms it.

It is at this point that the problems of the trap the Democrats have fallen into in relation to the Trump Dossier become manifest.

Since the Democrats cannot bring themselves to repudiate the Trump Dossier they cannot bring themselves to admit that the Trump Dossier – whether at the time of the original application for the FISA warrant or at the time of any of the subsequent applications to renew the warrant – had been only ‘minimally verified’.

Instead they have to pretend that the Trump Dossier was in some corroborated (see above), making it not only appropriate for the Justice Department and the FBI to rely on it, but even putting them under a duty to do so.

The result is that the Democrats’ Memorandum does not respond to the claim in the GOP Memorandum that the FISA court was not told that the Trump Dossier was only ‘minimally qualified’.

On the contrary much of the Democrats’ Memorandum consists of lengthy arguments for why the Justice Department and the FBI were right to believe in the claims of ‘kompromat’ and collusion made in the Trump Dossier, and why they were therefore right to rely on it.

Needless to say that effectively admits that the GOP Memorandum’s single most important point – that the FISA court was not told that the Trump Dossier had been only ‘minimally verified’ – is true.

The Democrats’ Memorandum has therefore conceded the single most serious claim of violation of due process in the GOP Memorandum.

Failing to inform the FISA court of the ‘political origins’ of the Trump Dossier and that it was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign

The wording of the GOP Memorandum is unambiguous on this point and here is what it says.

  • The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

    (1) 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, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

  • (2) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

Here is how the Democrats’ Memorandum does responds to this claim

DOJ was transparent with Court about Steele’s sourcing:  The Committee Majority, which had earlier accused Obama administration officials of improper “unmasking”, faults DOJ for not revealing the names of specific US persons and entities in the FISA application and subsequent renewals.  In fact, DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting US citizen information by purposefully not “unmasking” US person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.  DOJ instead issued generic identifiers that provided the Court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele’s research.  In an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that 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

(bold and Italics lettering in the original)

The first point to make about these words is that they are in fact an admission that the Justice Department and the FBI did not tell the FISA court either on the occasion of the original application for the surveillance warrant or during any of the subsequent applications to renew the surveillance warrant that the applications were based on ‘research’ (ie. the Trump Dossier) which had been paid for by the DNC and by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

On this key point the Democrats’ Memorandum has conceded that the GOP Memorandum is correct.

The Democrats try to get round this by an extraordinary and in my opinion disingenuous sleight of hand.

They use the confidentiality protections provided to US citizens who find themselves innocently caught up in counterintelligence operations in order to justify the failure to disclose to the FISA court the identities of the persons behind the Trump Dossier ie. of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.

This is wholly wrong.

Let me at this point reiterate again the key point about the duty lawyers owe to the Court which I made previously in my article in which I discussed the GOP Memorandum

Lawyers’ duty to act in good faith and not to mislead the Court

Before proceeding further it is necessary to say that the overriding duty of lawyers is to the Court, and that they must never intentionally mislead the Court.

It is not only a grave abuse for them to do so, but it is actually the criminal offence of contempt of Court.

The duty of lawyers – who are officers of the Court – to act at all times in good faith when addressing the Court is an essential part of due process.

Needless to say the lawyers’ duty not to mislead the Court becomes greater still if the proceedings are conducted in secret with the Defendant not informed of the proceedings and not represented or present at the hearing during which the proceedings are decided.

At that point the lawyer’s duty is not only to provide the Court with all the information which supports the application the lawyer is making, but also to provide the Court with all the information which might cause the Court to decide that the Order sought against the Defendant should not be made.

(bold italics added)

The fact that the information in the various applications that were made both to obtain and to renew the FISA warrant was drawn from a Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign was a highly material fact which the Justice Department and the FBI should certainly have disclosed to the FISA court as soon as they became aware of it.

Had the FISA Judge been told this information, and had the FISA Judge also been told that the Dossier from which the information was drawn was only ‘minimally verified’ (see above) it is all but inconceivable in my opinion that he would have granted or renewed the warrant.

As such the Justice Department and the FBI were under a duty to disclose this information, regardless of whatever practice to afford confidentially protections might normally apply, and it was a very serious violation of due process that they failed to do so.

If disclosing this information required going against normal practice to apply confidential protections, then because of the special factors in this case, and in order to ensure that the application for the FISA warrant was decided properly, I personally have no doubt that the duty of full disclosure applied and overrode the practice.

Having said this, I am personally wholly unable to see how Fusion GPS, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign can in any possible way be considered persons innocently caught up in a counterintelligence operation to whom these confidentiality protections should apply.

The ‘research’ which resulted in the Trump Dossier was itself a kind of intelligence operation in which Fusion GPS, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign were actively involved.  Christopher Steele is in the business of intelligence and is a former spy.

Since Fusion GPS and Steele were themselves proffering the results of their ‘research’ to the FBI, I cannot see how it is possible to say that they were entitled to the same confidentiality protections as US citizens innocently caught up in a counterintelligence operation of which they would normally be expected to have no knowledge.

To reiterate: it is one thing not to disclose recklessly the names of people who might be caught up innocently in a counterintelligence operation for example in internal administrative documents which might one day be released to the public.

It is an entirely different matter to fail to disclose the identities of persons to the Court when those identities are themselves an important material fact in the case.

This whole argument the Democrats’ Memorandum is making is a bad one.  Frankly I doubt the Democrats themselves believe it and I doubt that it is made in good faith.

What of the convoluted paragraph in the original application for the FISA warrant which the Democrats have quoted in their Memorandum?

In my opinion this paragraph comes nowhere close to fulfilling the obligation of full disclosure which the Justice Department and the FBI owed to the FISA court.

The key words – “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign (bold italics added)” – merely states the obvious and would have told the FISA Judge nothing he would not have already worked out for himself.

In no sense do these words hint at the truth – which by the time of at least some of the applications to renew the warrant the Justice Department and to the FBI knew – that the Trump Dossier was paid for by Donald Trump’s electoral opponents ie. by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Nor do these words disclose the critically important fact that the “identified US Person” (Fusion GPS) is a political consultancy known to carry out political research on behalf of – amongst others – the Democratic Party.

Knowledge of that fact surely raised the question of whether the Trump Dossier was the product of research intended to discredit Donald Trump’s campaign above the level of mere “speculation” (“the FBI speculates”) to one of certain knowledge.

Yet the words used are “speculates” and “likely” implying that the question was open, when in fact it was not.

In summary the Democrats’ Memorandum essentially concedes the second claim of violation of due process set out in the GOP Memorandum.

The Justice Department and the FBI did not tell the FISA court that the information upon which the application for the original FISA warrant and the subsequent applications to renew the warrant was based was ‘research’ paid for by the DNC and by the Hillary Clinton campaign, even after that fact became known to them.

Nor at the time that the original application for the FISA warrant was made did the Justice Department and the FBI clearly tell the FISA court that the information had a ‘political’ origin even though that fact was known to them.

Instead the Justice Department and the FBI misled the FISA court by telling the FISA court – in a single sentence at the end of a convoluted paragraph – that the fact that the information had been obtained in order to discredit Trump’s campaign was merely “speculation” when in reality they knew it was true.

Failing to disclose to the FISA court Christopher Steele’s extreme bias against Donald Trump

Again the wording of the GOP Memorandum on this point is unambiguous

Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

In my discussion of the GOP Memorandum here is what I said about this

…..The GOP memorandum says [..] that the lawyers representing the Justice Department and the FBI should have told the FISA court about Steele’s political bias because it was an important fact bearing on the weight the FISA court should attach to his evidence.

That is obviously right, and if the FISA court was not told about it then it was a serious breach of the lawyers’ duty to the Court and of due process.

What does the Democrats’ Memorandum have to say about this?

The answer is virtually nothing.

The discussion of Christopher Steele starts promisingly enough

Far from “omitting” material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility and potential bias.

(bold italics added)

Having however brought up the question of Steele’s bias at the very end of this sentence, the rest of the Democrats’ Memorandum has absolutely nothing further to say about it.

It provides no information about when and in what manner information about Steele’s bias was provided to the FISA court.

Nor does it contradict the GOP memorandum’s claim that the words showing his bias which Steele spoke to Bruce Ohr were never passed on by the Justice Department to the FISA court.

Instead there are long irrelevant discussions about what the FISA court was told about Steele’s misconduct, and there is also a minor and irrelevant encomium of Bruce Ohr (“Bruce Ohr is a well-respected career professional whose portfolio is drugs and organised crime, not counterintelligence”).

As to the question of what the FISA court was told about Steele’s misconduct, the Democrats’ Memorandum is misrepresenting the GOP Memorandum, which has never claimed that this information was not provided to the FISA court.

I discussed this at length previously in my article about the GOP Memorandum

No section of the GOP memorandum has been the subject of more misrepresentation than the part in which it makes its claims about Christopher Steele.

As I have said previously, the primary concern of the GOP memorandum is with the gross violations of due process caused by the failure of the lawyers who acted for the Justice Department and the FBI to disclose material facts about the evidence they were relying upon when they made their application for a surveillance warrant against Carter Page to the FISA court.

Critics of the GOP memorandum are now claiming that the GOP memorandum misrepresents the facts about Christopher Steele by implying that the lawyers who acted for the Justice Department and the FBI did disclose his misconduct to the FISA court.

The critics claim that Steele’s misconduct was disclosed to the FISA in the renewal applications for the FISA warrant after the full truth of his misconduct had come to light.

This is all totally wrong.  The GOP memorandum does not say that the FISA court was not told about Steele’s misconduct after it came to light.  Once again its words need to be read carefully

  1. Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.
  2. Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.
  • Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with the DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
  1. During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
  • According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—”salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations.

(bold in the original; bold italics added)

These words make it clear that information about Steele which was not disclosed to the FISA court was information about (1) who was paying him; and (2) his bias against Donald Trump.

The GOP memorandum by contrast does not say that the FISA court was not told over the course of subsequent renewals of the FISA warrant about Steele’s misconduct.

What the GOP memorandum says is that FBI Director James Comey did not tell Donald Trump during their meeting on 8th January 2017 – the meeting when James Comey first showed the Trump Dossier to Donald Trump – that “a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within the FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated”.

This was a further very serious violation of basic principles of fairness and due process, since Donald Trump was thereby led by Comey to think that the evidence that he had been compromised by the Russians was much stronger than it actually was.

It is now clear that the Democrats have hit on the device of misrepresenting what the GOP Memorandum has to say about Steele’s misconduct in order to divert attention away from the fact the FISA court was never told about Steele’s strong bias against Donald Trump.

This is of course a straw man argument, and is not the only one the Democrats’ Memorandum engages in (see below).

It appears that despite the one reference to Steele’s bias in a single sentence in the Democrats’ Memorandum, the claim in the GOP Memorandum that the evidence of Steele’s bias was not passed on to the FISA court is not being contested.  That makes it highly likely that it is true.

Given that this is so, it appears that the GOP Memorandum is probably right, and that the FISA court was not told about Steele’s bias, and that there was a further serious violation of due process.

Failing to inform FISA court of absence of connection between Carter Page and George Papadopoulos

The GOP Memorandum contains only two sentences which mention Papadopoulos

The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.

By contrast the Democrats’ Memorandum has reams of things to say about Papadopoulos, most of them irrelevant to the point the GOP Memorandum is making.

This includes a major misrepresentation of the GOP Memorandum.

The Democrats’ Memorandum falsely implies that the GOP Memorandum alleges that the Russiagate investigation was triggered by the Trump Dossier whereas in reality what triggered the Russiagate investigation was the information about Papadopoulos.

This is completely wrong.  Byron York once again explains why

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.

There is in fact a great deal that can be said about what it was exactly which triggered the start of the Russiagate investigation.  As this is a very complex subject of no bearing to the issues discussed here, I shall discuss it in a later article.

Returning to what the GOP Memorandum actually says about Papadopoulos, here is what I said about it in my article in which I discussed the GOP Memorandum

In fact it is not difficult to see what the point was that the original author of the GOP memorandum – ie. Representative Gowdy – was making in this paragraph.

Gowdy’s point was that the other ‘evidence’ provided to the FISA court in support of the application for the surveillance warrant was the information provided by the Australian government that George Papadopoulos had blurted out in the Australian ambassador’s presence in a London bar that ‘the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton’.

However, as the GOP memorandum – ie. Gowdy – at this point says, this information was actually irrelevant in any application for a surveillance warrant against Carter Page because “there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos”.

If the Justice Department ‘s and the FBI’s lawyers sought to use the information about Papadopoulos to support their application to the FISA court for a warrant to carry out surveillance of Carter Page, then they were under a duty to inform the FISA court that there was no evidence of “cooperation or conspiracy” between Papadopoulos and Page.

Apparently they did not do this, leading to a further violation of due process in the application for the warrant against Carter Page.

The Democrats’ Memorandum purports to respond to this point in a partially redacted paragraph as follows

DOJ appropriately provided the Court with a comprehensive explanation of Russia’s election interference, including evidence that Russia courted another Trump campaign advisor, Papadopoulos, and that Russian previewed their hack and dissemination of stolen emails(NB: this most likely refers to the activities of the persona known as Guccifer 2.0 – AM).  In claiming that there is “no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos”, the Majority misstates the reason why DOJ specifically explained Russia’s courting of Papadopoulos.  Papadopoulos’s interaction with Russian agents, coupled with real-time evidence of Russian election interference, provided the Court with a broader context in which to evaluate Russia’s clandestine activities and Page’s history and alleged contact with Russian officials.  Moreover, since only Page [………….], no evidence of a separate conspiracy between him and Papadopoulos was required.  DOJ would have been negligent in omitting vital information about Papadopoulos and Russia’s concerted efforts.

(bold highlighting in the original)

This is yet another straw man argument.

The GOP Memorandum in fact does not say or imply that the Justice Department and the FBI were wrong to bring up the subject of Papadopoulos in their application for a FISA warrant.  No doubt this information did provide useful background information to the Judge, and no one is saying it should have been excluded.

The point however that the GOP Memorandum is making is that since there was “no evidence of cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos” the evidence about Papadopoulos was not evidence against Page.

The implication – as I have previously pointed out (see above) – is that the Justice Department – if it was going to include the evidence about Papadopoulos in its application for a FISA warrant authorising surveillance of Page – should have told the FISA court that there was no evidence of “cooperation or conspiracy” between Papadopoulos and Page, so that the evidence about Papadopoulos was not evidence against Page.

It seems from the Democrats’ Memorandum that the Justice Department did not tell the FISA court this, in which case – as I discussed previously (see above) – this was a further serious violation of due process.

Summary

The Democrats’ Memorandum is actually an extraordinary document.

There is no doubt about the high intelligence and great political and legal skill of its author: Adam Schiff.  However in setting out to refute the case made in the GOP Memorandum – that there were very serious violations of due process in the handling of the application to the FISA court for a surveillance warrant of Carter Page – his Memorandum – if analysed properly – turns out to do the opposite: it concedes the entire case.

It effectively admits that information from the Trump Dossier was the key evidence used in the application for the FISA warrant authorising surveillance of Carter Page.

It does not deny that the FISA court was not told that the Trump Dossier upon which the application for the FISA warrant was based was only ‘minimally verified’.

It does not deny that the FISA court was never told that the Trump Dossier was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Nor does it deny that the FISA court was never told that there was no evidence of ‘cooperation or conspiracy’ between Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

The Democrats’ Memorandum does try to deny the GOP Memorandum’s claim that the FISA court was not told about the ‘political origins’ of the Trump Dossier.

However the evidence it cites in support – a single sentence in a convoluted paragraph in the original application for the FISA warrant – does not support the argument it is making.  On the contrary it refutes it (see above).

The Democrats’ Memorandum does also in one place in one sentence seem to deny the claim in the GOP Memorandum that the FISA court was not told about Christopher Steele’s strong anti-Trump bias.

However it never follows up on this, providing no information to support that denial (if denial it is) leaving the original claim in the GOP Memorandum uncontested.

The only conclusion possible from all these admissions, absences of denial, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs, has to be that the GOP Memorandum is right, and that serious violations of due process did take place.

In order to conceal this fact the Democrats’ Memorandum seeks to bury it under a mountain of verbiage and by creating a maze of false trails.

All I would say about that is that whilst this can be a very effective tactic in journalism and politics, it is one which is likely to fall apart in a Court, assuming of course that this case ever goes to Court, as it undoubtedly should.

The one qualification I must make is that Representative Adam Schiff – the person who drafted the Democrats’ Memorandum – is obviously not a representative of the Justice Department or of those individuals involved in the alleged violations.  They may have quite different things to say if they are ever put in a position where they have to justify their conduct.

Until that point comes we have however only the two Memoranda: the GOP Memorandum and the Democrats’ Memorandum.

Based on what they both tell us the Justice Department and the FBI have a very strong case to answer.

America’s choice

The American People and their political elite now have a choice.

They can continue with the Mueller investigation, which has just produced an indictment against a bunch of Russian internet trolls whose activities achieved precisely nothing, and who because they are located in a place which is far beyond the US’s reach will likely never be put on trial.

Or they can focus their attention and energy on clearing out the extraordinary malpractice which it seems exists at the highest level of their justice system and in their most important law enforcement agency.

They might also in that case wish to follow up the indications of serious abuse of power at the top of their political system which appears to have given rise to this malpractice.

If the decision was mine to make I have no doubt which is by far the more serious matter.

The decision however is not mine to make.  However it is upon that decision that the future of the American Republic depends.

It is America’s choice.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

The social media ‘DEPLATFORM’ end game: Self-censorship (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 82.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Alex Jones’ account was put in “read only” mode and will be blocked from posting on Twitter for seven days because of an offending tweet. Twitter declined to comment on the content that violated its policies.

A Twitter spokesperson told CNN the content which prompted the suspension was a video published Tuesday in which Jones linked to within his tweet saying, “now is time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag”.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey last week defended Twitter’s decision to not suspend Infowars and Alex Jones from the platform, claiming they had not violated Twitter policies.

Dorsey refused to take down Alex Jones and his popular Infowars account, even as his Silicon Valley buddies over at Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify were colluding to remove any sign of Jones or Infowars from their platforms…

“We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories,” Dorsey said in a tweet last week. He later added that it was critical that journalists “document, validate and refute” accounts like those of Mr. Jones, which “can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors.”

According to Zerohedge, still after a CNN report identifying numerous past tweets from Infowars and Jones that did violate Twitter’s rules, those posts were deleted. Tweets by Infowars and Jones deleted last week included posts attacking transgender and Muslim people; a claim that the 2012 shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax perpetrated by “crisis actors”; and a video calling David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland, Fla., high-school shooting, a Nazi.

Dorsey finally caved overnight, with a “temporary suspension”, which will likely become permanent upon Jones’ next violation.

Twitter’s crackdown came more than a week after technology companies, including Apple, YouTube and Facebook removed content from Jones and his site, Infowars. As the WSJ notes, the actions against Infowars intensified a growing debate over what role tech companies play in policing controversial content on their platforms while they simultaneously support the principle of free speech.

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou examine the aggressive purge of conservative right, libertarian, and progressive accounts from Silicon Valley social media platforms, and how Alex Jones’ was the first step towards driving so much fear into the population, that self censorship takes over and authoritarian rule over the Internet takes hold.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Via Zerohedge

In the latest media pit stop, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sat down with NBC News Lester Holt, where he defended the company’s decision to put Infowars’ Alex Jones under a seven-day timeout over an offensive tweet linking to a video in which Jones encourages his audience to “act on the enemy before they do a false flag,” and to get “battle rifles” ready.

Dorsey said that despite calls to ban Jones last week amid a seemingly coordinated multi-platform blacklisting, he resisted until now.

“We can’t build a service that is subjective just to the whims of what we personally believe,” Dorsey told Holt, while saying he believes a suspension can be an effect deterrent which can change user behaviors.

“I feel any suspension, whether it be a permanent or a temporary one, makes someone think about their actions and their behaviors,” Dorsey added – though he admitted he has no idea if Jones’ timeout will result in any changes in behavior.

Dorsey stated: “Whether it works within this case to change some of those behaviors and change some of those actions, I don’t know. But this is consistent with how we enforce.”

Jones was banned or restricted from using the services of at least 10 tech companies this month, including Facebook and YouTube. Twitter had been the most high-profile holdout, until it announced on Tuesday that Jones was suspended from posting for seven days.

Dorsey later clarified on Twitter that he was “speaking broadly about our range of enforcement actions” with regards to the company’s use of timeouts.

in a follow-up question on weighing the importance of Twitter’s rules versus its moral obligation, Dorsey said the company has “to put the safety of individuals first in every single thing that we do, and we need to enforce our rules and also evolve our rules around that.” –NBC News

Jack Dorsey said on Twitter.

“I don’t assume everyone will change their actions. Enforcement gets tougher with further reported violations.”

Continue Reading

Latest

The Discarded Wisdom of America’s Founders

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

A good example of the discarded wisdom of America’s Founders is George Washington’s Farewell Address to the nation, delivered by him not orally but instead solely in printed form, published in Philadelphia by David C. Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser, on 19 September 1796, and distributed to the nation. The following extended excerpt from it is the most famous part of it, and is being blatantly raped by today’s U.S. Government, and therefore it might indicate the necessity for a second American Revolution, this one to disown and throw out not Britain’s Aristocracy, but America’s aristocracy. America’s Founders had done all they knew how to do to conquer Britain’s aristocracy, and they embodied in our Constitution all that they knew in order to prevent any aristocracy ever from arising in this nation; but the Founders clearly had failed in this their dearest hope, because a domestic U.S. aristocracy has arisen here and destroyed American democracy, as this nation’s Founders had feared, and as Washington in this document effectively affirms — and, by these words, proves — to have happened (they’ve taken over this country, in and by both of its Parties, and so we have here a profound and scathing, blistering, criticism of today’s American Government):

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Continue Reading

Latest

Bruce Ohr Texts, Emails Reveal Steele’s Deep Ties to Obama DOJ, FBI

There are indications that the FBI knew that Steele was in contact with the media before the bureau submitted the first FISA application.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Sara Carter via SaraCarter.com:


A trove of emails and handwritten notes from Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr exposes the continuous contact and communication between the DOJ attorney and anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele, according to notes and documents obtained by SaraACarter.com. The emails and notes were written between 2016 and 2017.

The notes and emails also reveal that Ohr was in communication with Glenn Simpson, the founder of the embattled research firm Fusion GPS, which was paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to hire Steele.

In one of Ohr’s handwritten notes listed as “Law enforcement Sensitive” from May 10, 2017, he writes “Call with Chris,” referencing Steele. He notes that Steele is “very concerned about Comey’s firing, afraid they will be exposed.” This call occurred months after FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee and revealed for the first time that the FBI had an open counterintelligence investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign and alleged collusion with Russia.

Steele is also extremely concerned about a letter sent from the Senate Judiciary Committee asking Comey for information on his involvement with Steele. Grassley sent 12 questions to Comey regarding the bureau and Steele’s relationship and wanted all information on any agreements they had during the investigation into alleged Russia-Trump collusion. Grassley also wanted to know if the FBI ever verified any of the information in Steele’s reports.

In Ohr’s notes from May 10, 2017, he goes onto write that Steele is concerned about a letter from the Senate Intelligence Committee, writing:

“Asked them 3 questions:

  1. What info (information) did you give to the U.S. govt (government)?
  2. What was the scope of yr (your) investigation?
  3. Do you have any other info that would assist in our question?”

SaraACarter.com first reported this week text messages between Steele and Ohr, revealing that Steele was anxious about Comey’s testimony and was hoping that “important firewalls will hold” when Comey testified.

Those text messages in March 2017 were shared only two days before Comey testified to lawmakers.

The House Intelligence Committee revealed in their Russia report earlier this year that Steele–who was working for the FBI as a Confidential Human Source (CHS)–had shopped his dossier to numerous news outlets in the summer of 2016.  According to the report, the FBI terminated Steele after discovering that he was leaking to news outlets, breaking a cardinal rule by the bureau to not reveal ongoing investigations and information to the media.

However, there is growing concern that the FBI was well aware that Steele was in contact with media outlets about his dossier before the FBI applied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for its first warrant in the fall of 2016 to conduct surveillance on former Trump campaign volunteer advisor, Carter Page.

There are indications that the FBI knew that Steele was in contact with the media before the bureau submitted the first FISA application…

“There are indications that the FBI knew that Steele was in contact with the media before the bureau submitted the first FISA application and that question needs to be resolved,” said a congressional official with knowledge of the investigation.

The documents from March 2017, reveal how concerned Steele is with Grassley’s committee and the letter from the senator’s office seeking answers from Steele on the dossier.

In June 2017, Steele tells Ohr,  “We are frustrated with how long this reengagement with the Bureau and Mueller is taking.  Anything you can do to accelerate the process would be much appreciated.  There are some new, perishable, operational opportunities which we do not want to miss out on.”

In October 2017, Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau delivering information to Congress “about my work and relationship with them.  Very concerned about this.  People’s lives may be endangered.”

And in November 2017, Steele, who is trying to engage with Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel, writes to Ohr saying, “we were wondering if there was any response to the questions I raised last week.”

Ohr responds by saying, “I have passed on the questions (apparently to the special counsel) but haven’t gotten an answer yet.”

Steele then says,  “I am presuming you’ve heard nothing back from your SC (special counsel) colleagues on the issues you kindly put to them from me.  We have heard nothing from them either.  To say this is disappointing would be an understatement!  Certain people have been willing to risk everything to engage with them in an effort to help them reach the truth.  Also, we remain in the dark as to what work has been briefed to Congress about us, our assets and previous work.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending