[awm]

Hmm... are we talking about the same FBI that released information that they were reopening an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails mere days before the election? An investigation that just a few days later was closed once again having found absolutely no new information of interest?

The same FBI which many analysts believe swung the election in favor of Trump? An organization lead by a registered Republican throughout Obama’s term?

An organization which was pursuing multiple investigations of members of the Trump campaign for months before the election, several of whom have now plead guilty to working for foreign powers? And which refused to make any public statement about such investigations for fear they might bias the electorate against Trump?

This is the FBI we are supposed to believe is weaponized against Trump? Really?

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 14:44, said:

This memo is not a serious investigation, it is a summary of the conclusions drawn from a serious investigation.

Would you support the declassification and release of the supporting documents? Then we could all come to our own judgments.

A few days back I had a brief post on this. Basically I said that if all of the data could be released then fine, release it and as you say we can all draw our own conclusions. But I doubt that will be done and I doubt that it could be done responsibly.

My history on this has not been totally pro-Dem. Back in 2016 when Comey re-opened the investigation shortly before the election I thought it at least possible and probably likely that Comey was doing what he thought was right. It might or might not have been right, I think it did have a big effect, possibly a determining effect, on the election. It did not follow from that that it was a Comey scheme. I thought, and think, that if HC wants to find someone to blame she should look carefully at herself.

Well, these are old wounds, I mention them to indicate that I am not one of those who thinks the FBI is always right when its actions favor the Dems and always wrong when its actions favor the Reps. I at least allow for the possibility that both the agents and those in charge are trying to do a serious job. This doesn't mean they are always right, of course.

This will be looked at closely. Facts will come out, and we will all have to try to evaluate them. Some agents did not like Trump. Probably some agents did not like Clinton. Or Sanders. I am a retried math prof. Here is how I graded papers. I would put them in a stack and grade all problem 1s. Then all problem 2s. Going at it this way I usually did not know, and I tried hard not to know, as I was grading problem 2, whose paper it was. Then I added the scores. After that I might smile if a student I liked did well. It is possible to have likes and dislikes and still be accurate in what you do. It's inevitable that agents will have political opinions. And probably inevitable that some of them will have affairs. And they will informally chat. That comment about a secret society struck me as just something I might say to my wife. Everyone seems to be able to check up on everyone at every moment. I am not doing anything that the cops, or my wife, can't know about but I and many of us are a little unhappy with this modern way of being able to track anyone anywhere anytime. Her comment did not mean that there is some secret society as in The Da Vinci Code. It was idle chat, or so it seemed to me.

What we have is a powerful group of Rs doing their best to discredit the FBI as it pursues a very serious investigation. If the charges are all hooey, that will come out. But this simply is not the time or the manner to derail the investigation. I have not studied the memo yet, but I did not get the idea that it all that much disputed the facts. It mostly asserts that some people involved in it don't like Trump. And Trump doesn't like them. That can happen during an investigation.

[Al_U_Card]

awm, on 2018-February-02, 15:16, said:

Hmm... are we talking about the same FBI that released information that they were reopening an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails mere days before the election? An investigation that just a few days later was closed once again having found absolutely no new information of interest?

The same FBI which many analysts believe swung the election in favor of Trump? An organization lead by a registered Republican throughout Obama’s term?

An organization which was pursuing multiple investigations of members of the Trump campaign for months before the election, several of whom have now plead guilty to working for foreign powers? And which refused to make any public statement about such investigations for fear they might bias the electorate against Trump?

This is the FBI we are supposed to believe is weaponized against Trump? Really?

The US has an intelligence "community" that makes Game of Thrones look like pikers. Their internal rivalries and "values" were questionable from the git go. Trump, like his recent predecessors knows that they are weapons and that they must be pointed in an appropriate direction. The rest is just "stagecraft" and for show. Smoke and mirrors are the rule of the day so the more time you spend trying to figure them out, the less time you can spend keeping them at bay.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 14:41, said:

Also, if the facts contained in the memo are accurate, and they have already been vetted by the DOJ/FBi (although the DOJ/FBI assert that their is omission of facts), then the basis for Mueller's investigation is severely questionable and any results may not withstand court scrutiny.

1. Your conclusion is unwarranted

2. The "facts" contained in the memo clearly are not accurate

3. Both the DOJ and the FBI opposed the release of the memo

Lets start cataloging mistakes in the Nunes memo (note: I am quoting / summarizing analysis by Seth Abraham here)

1. It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant. The specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'"

2. The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.

3. A *third* legal error on just the *first page* of the memo is it says "all potentially favorable" information—i.e., favorable to the proposed warrant target—must be included in the warrant application. Uh, no, and moreover, this *never* happens in the criminal justice system.

4. Page 2 says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were. This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them. In fact for the first 8 months that Steele working on the project he was being funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

[cherdano]

Lol confusing "probable cause" with the "highest standard of proof" on the first page?? I knew Nunes was a hack, but I didn't realise he's be such a completely ridiculous hack. And of course our little Larry falls for such idiocy. Poor little guy.

[ldrews]

awm, on 2018-February-02, 15:16, said:

Hmm... are we talking about the same FBI that released information that they were reopening an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails mere days before the election? An investigation that just a few days later was closed once again having found absolutely no new information of interest?

The same FBI which many analysts believe swung the election in favor of Trump? An organization lead by a registered Republican throughout Obama’s term?

An organization which was pursuing multiple investigations of members of the Trump campaign for months before the election, several of whom have now plead guilty to working for foreign powers? And which refused to make any public statement about such investigations for fear they might bias the electorate against Trump?

This is the FBI we are supposed to believe is weaponized against Trump? Really?

That is the conclusion of the House Oversight committee. The evidence apparently points that way. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 15:56, said:

1. Your conclusion is unwarranted

2. The "facts" contained in the memo clearly are not accurate

3. Both the DOJ and the FBI opposed the release of the memo

Lets start cataloging mistakes in the Nunes memo (note: I am quoting / summarizing analysis by Seth Abraham here)

1. It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant. The specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'"

2. The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.

3. A *third* legal error on just the *first page* of the memo is it says "all potentially favorable" information—i.e., favorable to the proposed warrant target—must be included in the warrant application. Uh, no, and moreover, this *never* happens in the criminal justice system.

4. Page 2 says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were. This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them. In fact for the first 8 months that Steele working on the project he was being funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

1. My conclusion is apparently shared by Nunes and other knowledgeable people.

2. The facts in the memo were reviewed by the DOJ and FBI and no inaccuracies were found. The FBI subsequently asserted that material facts were omitted, but did not assert that the facts presented were incorrect.

3. It is predictable that the DOJ and FBI would object to the release of the memo. In addition to placing several senior executives in danger of losing their jobs and possible facing criminal prosecution, all the cases in which those same executives were involved are now tainted and subject to challenge.

Your "mistakes" are all cosmetic and do not address the underlying scandal. The basic issue was captured by another poster:

Quote

In a nutshell: Federal officials conspired to spy on a rival political campaign using information they had not verified from people they knew were untrustworthy. And these officials deliberately and repeatedly defrauded the judiciary by withholding key information.

[jjbrr]

lol. what a mental midget.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 16:15, said:

1. My conclusion is apparently shared by Nunes and other knowledgeable people.

This would be the same Devin Nunes who previous worked for the Trump campaign and was then forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation for misrepresenting intelligence to benefit Trump...

Quote

The facts in the memo were reviewed by the DOJ and FBI and no inaccuracies were found. The FBI subsequently asserted that material facts were omitted, but did not assert that the facts presented were incorrect.

The direct quote from the FBI is that they have "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

"FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes release of a classified Republican memo alleging bias at the FBI and Justice Department because it contains inaccurate information and paints a false narrative"

Quote

Your "mistakes" are all cosmetic and do not address the underlying scandal.

Please recall, ***** for brains, YOU were the trumpeting the accuracy of the memo and review cycles it went through.

And these mistakes are FAR from cosmetic. They are issues of basic law and speak to the competency of the individuals drafting this memo.

[jjbrr]

andrei, on 2018-January-31, 12:41, said:

I am willing to bet my life this is the reason FBI does not want memo released:

You lost this bet, for the record.

[ggwhiz]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 16:51, said:

This would be the same Devin Nunes who previous worked for the Trump campaign and was then forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation for misrepresenting intelligence to benefit Trump...

How does recusing oneself square with this nonsense from a "knowledgeable person" who apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word recuse.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 16:51, said:

Please recall, ***** for brains, YOU were the trumpeting the accuracy of the memo and review cycles it went through.

Do you always make things up? Please point me to where I was "trumpeting" the accuracy of the memo, etc.

The DOJ and FBI reviewed it indicated there were no factual inaccuracies. Do you dispute this?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 16:51, said:

This would be the same Devin Nunes who previous worked for the Trump campaign and was then forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation for misrepresenting intelligence to benefit Trump...


The direct quote from the FBI is that they have "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

"FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes release of a classified Republican memo alleging bias at the FBI and Justice Department because it contains inaccurate information and paints a false narrative"

I believe the House Ethics Committee cleared Nunes of any problems.

If Wray is concerned about the problems caused by missing information, then I would invite him to supply it and remove the problem. If he is concerned about inaccurate information, then I would invite him to provide corrected information supported by documentation.

At this point the DOJ/FBI must be considered untrustworthy with respect to this issue. And perhaps other issues as well.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-February-02, 18:41, said:

If Wray is concerned about the problems caused by missing information, then I would invite him to supply it and remove the problem. If he is concerned about inaccurate information, then I would invite him to provide corrected information supported by documentation.

At this point the DOJ/FBI must be considered untrustworthy with respect to this issue. And perhaps other issues as well.

If Wray were to do this, he would be leaking classified information which is a criminal offense.

The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee attempted to provide correct information.
The Republicans on the committee are refusing to allow this to be published.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 20:25, said:

If Wray were to do this, he would be leaking classified information which is a criminal offense.

The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee attempted to provide correct information.
The Republicans on the committee are refusing to allow this to be published.

That seems to always be the cop-out. "We would tell you but it is classified, so just trust us." Sorry guys, but you are no longer considered trustworthy.

Apparently the Democratic memo was full of intelligence methods and sources that needs to be scrubbed and redacted. It is going through that process right now. It has been released to the full House for review. Which is the exact process that the Nunes memo went through. Or do you think the Democratic memo should have been released in its original form?

[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 15:56, said:

Lets start cataloging mistakes in the Nunes memo (note: I am quoting / summarizing analysis by Seth Abraham here)

1. It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant. The specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'"

2. The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.

cherdano, on 2018-February-02, 16:01, said:

Lol confusing "probable cause" with the "highest standard of proof" on the first page?? I knew Nunes was a hack, but I didn't realise he's be such a completely ridiculous hack. And of course our little Larry falls for such idiocy. Poor little guy.

LOL guys, did you read the memo?
It is funny how you pretend to be so smart but you lack basic comprehension skills.

"
On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC.
......
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.
"

It seems Nunes is well aware probable cause is what is needed for a FISA warrant.

Now here is the entire highest standard quote:

"
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public's confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest standard ­— particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC's rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.
"

Did it really seem to you he is speaking here about proof beyond reasonable doubt?
He says government should act beyond reproach when requesting FISA warrants.

hrothgar, on 2018-February-02, 15:56, said:

4. Page 2 says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were. This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them. In fact for the first 8 months that Steele working on the project he was being funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

This is obviously so far remote from the truth is not even funny.

https://www.newyorke...-dossier-speaks

"
Simpson, who founded Fusion GPS in 2010, began his testimony by explaining his background as an investigative reporter at the Wall Street Journal and at Roll Call.
....
But in September or October of 2015—Simpson was vague about the exact date—a client hired Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump. (The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative Web site that has received funding from the hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, has acknowledged hiring Fusion GPS to investigate candidates during the Republican Presidential primaries.) Simpson said the mandate was to carry out an “open-ended” examination of Trump’s business record, including his bankruptcies, and, he added, “it evolved somewhat quickly into issues of his relationship to organized-crime figures.”
.....
Things changed in the spring of 2016, after Fusion GPS got a new client, which we now know to have been the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. (This fact emerged in October, well after Simpson’s testimony, when lawyers from the Judiciary Committee demanded Fusion GPS’s bank records.) In “May or June of 2016,” Simpson recalled, he engaged Christopher Steele, an old associate of his, who was the former head of the Russia desk at the British foreign-intelligence agency, MI6. He and Steele, who was by then running his own intelligence consultancy in the U.K., shared an interest in the Russian kleptocracy and in organized-crime issues, Simpson said.
"

[jjbrr]

"Rep. Devin Nunes, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee admits he did not read the FISA applications before writing the memo."

[hrothgar]

Very good podcast on the Nunes memo

https://lawfareblog....n-memo-released

Some of the same gets covered in

https://lawfareblog....alk-about-devin

[ldrews]

From a Machiavellian point of view Trump and the Republicans are missing a tremendous opportunity.

The Obama administration and its political appointees in the DOJ and FBI have demonstrated how to use the NSA databases and the DOJ/FBI as a political weapon to mount an adversarial campaign against a political candidate and subsequently a sitting president.

Trump and the Republicans, rather than working to expose and bring to light the various transgressions of the DOJ/FBI should attempt to hide it all. The Democrats would seem to be more than willing to comply. Then Trump and Republicans could take over those clandestine operations with their own people and begin focusing on upcoming political opponents. With the full power of the DOJ/FBI/NSA at their disposal, finding criminal or indictable offenses committed by political opponents should be relatively easy. Or evidence could be manufactured and planted. And if the actual opponent seems immune to such actions, then his/her family members can be entrapped and pressure applied to the opponent to withdraw. Of course one would leave weak opponents alone.

The 2020 and 2024 elections would be in the bag. The Republican dominance could last for decades, even generations.

Trump and the Republicans should thank Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats for showing the way.

[y66]

The memo will backfire everywhere except among the base. Nunes will be seen for the hack he is, not just for his selective editing but for incompetent editing. Mueller will press on. Trump will go down. This thread too will end.