From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

176 Views
Message 11 of 15

The biggest problem that this  WH  has is credibility.  For whatever the reason, they seem to be defending the indefensible.

In the case of the Porter, Moore situation. Trump has always made the decision to simply believe those men that claim to be innocent. What did he  expect.  a Mea culpa  confession?
Of course they are going to say they are not guilty. and that is they Trump, doesn't inspire confidence in what he says.

Regarding the Memo, is the same thing. Please do not pollute this board with  Opinion of individuals that agree with Trump.

I really want to see facts and the facts are only in the memo,  the complete memo. and nothing else will do.
So, your friend may say whatever, and I may say whatever but the truth is that neither of us really knows what's in that memo. 
sorry OP's   are not credible at all by anyone. that is simply writing what they happen to

believe.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
176
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
172
Views

Re: Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

172 Views
Message 12 of 15

@smca wrote:

It's not just the media that's yawning.  Do you honestly think that anyone gives a rip about GOP memos written by unscrupulous partisans or your interpretation of them?  Especially when the lying leader of those partisans is withholding the Dems' response?  Give it a rest, already.



And yet here you are...

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
172
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

179 Views
Message 13 of 15

It's not just the media that's yawning.  Do you honestly think that anyone gives a rip about GOP memos written by unscrupulous partisans or your interpretation of them?  Especially when the lying leader of those partisans is withholding the Dems' response?  Give it a rest, already.


Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
179
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
172
Views

Re: Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

172 Views
Message 14 of 15

**UPDATE**

 

On Tuesday evening, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released a “much-less redacted,” version of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s criminal referral of dossier author Christopher Steele.

Comey is in hot water. The unredacted memo reveals the FBI misled the FISA court about Christopher Steele’s contacts with the media outlets.

 

According to the Senate Judiciary criminal referral, Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media such as Yahoo News and Mother Jones. Steele previously told the FBI that he had not spoken to the media.

 

Grassley reveals the FBI KNEW Steele lied about his contact with media outlets, yet they DID NOT disclose this very pertinent information to the FISA court.

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
172
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
188
Views
14
Replies

Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

188 Views
Message 15 of 15

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

 

We need a full-blown investigation of how the FISA court came to grant warrants to spy on Carter Page.

 

In a word, the Grassley-Graham memo is shocking. Yet, the press barely notices.

 

Rest assured: If a Republican administration had used unverifiable hearsay from a patently suspect agent of the Republican presidential candidate to gull the FISA court into granting a warrant to spy on an associate of the Democratic nominee’s campaign, it would be covered as the greatest political scandal in a half-century. Instead, it was the other way around.

 

The Grassley-Graham memo corroborates the claims in the Nunes memo: The Obama Justice Department and FBI used anonymously sourced, Clinton-campaign generated innuendo to convince the FISA court to issue surveillance warrants against Carter Page, and in doing so, they concealed the Clinton campaign’s role.

 

Though the Trump campaign had cut ties with Page shortly before the first warrant was issued in October 2016, the warrant application was based on wild allegations of a corrupt conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Moreover, the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

 

With its verification by the Grassley-Graham memo, the Nunes memo now has about a thousand times more corroboration than the Steele dossier, the basis of the heinous allegations used by the Justice Department and FBI to get the FISA warrants. What the Grassley-Graham memo tells us is that the Nunes memo, for all the hysteria about it, was tame.

 

The Grassley-Graham memo tells us that we need not only a full-blown investigation of what possessed the Obama administration to submit such shoddy applications to the FISA court, but of how a judge — or perhaps as many as four judges — rationalized signing the warrants.

 

We need full disclosure — the warrants, the applications, the court proceedings. No more games.

 

Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are senior Republicans on the Judiciary Committee (which Grassley chairs, while Graham chairs a relevant subcommittee).

 

As we’ve previously detailed (in a two-part series, here and here), they composed their memo in support of a criminal referral recommending that dossier author Christopher Steele be investigated for making false statements to the FBI (which is a felony).

 

Initially, the senators’ memo was withheld, then it was released with extensive redactions because its contents were largely classified — covering submissions to the FISA court, the secret tribunal established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

 

But following the release of the Nunes memo — the memo prepared by Republican majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) — Senators Grassley and Graham stepped up their admirable efforts to get more information unsealed . . . so that the public can see it, even if the press prefers not to cover it.

 

Last Friday, the Nunes memo asserted that the FBI and Justice Department had significantly relied on the unverified Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants on Page. In the week that followed, House Intelligence Committee Democrats and their media echo chamber bleated about how things had been taken out of context, with some suggesting that there was plenty of other evidence to establish probable cause that Page was acting as a Russian agent.

 

 It was even implied that Nunes & Co. had deceptively reported committee testimony by the FBI’s then deputy director Andrew McCabe that the Steele dossier was essential to this probable-cause showing. We’re not hearing much of that now. No wonder.

 

Here’s the Grassley-Graham memo on the critical first FISA application, the basis for the warrant granted on October 21, 2016:

 

The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier. We’ll come to the news article — the stupefying circular attempt to corroborate Steele with Steele.

 

For the moment, suffice it to say that the senators have confirmed the Nunes memo’s account, except with much more information than House Republicans were able to include. Information such as this: When asked at the March 2017 briefing [of Judiciary Committee leaders] why the FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation — then-Director [James] Comey stated that the FBI included the dossier allegations about Carter Page in the FISA applications because Mr. Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau. (Emphasis added.)

 

On this score, Grassley and Graham quote directly from the warrant applications: “Based on [Steele’s] previous reporting history with the FBI whereby [Steele] provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes [Steele’s] reporting to be credible.” (Emphasis added.) I cannot stress enough how irregular this is. It is why there is abundant reason to demand that the judge explain his or her rationale for granting the warrant. As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge.

 

Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . .  and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that. For purposes of justifying a warrant, it does not matter that, in a totally unrelated investigation (involving corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization), the FBI judged that the hearsay information provided by Steele, then a British agent, checked out.

 

In his anti-Trump research, Steele could not verify his sources. Furthermore, he was now a former foreign intelligence officer who was then working for private clients — which is the advocacy business, not the search-for-truth business.

 

Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability.

 

The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims:

 

Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable. This is not esoterica.

 

In the investigations biz, this is so basic that to call it “Warrants 101” doesn’t do it justice. If you don’t have witnesses with verifiable, first-hand knowledge, you don’t have anything. Without them, to borrow Director Comey’s notorious dictum, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a warrant application to a federal judge, and no reasonable judge would issue a warrant.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456287/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dos...


 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
188
Views
14
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors