The memo's out

[brewer]

Are you saying that the memo release and the change in the market are directly related?

I think they might be. Ofc, I could be wrong. But I had CNN on all day yesterday and they had a window up where you could clearly see real time stock fluctuations and it wasn't looking good. That happened the day the president released the memo, so you tell me.

The market analysts say not likely related and has more to do with rising interest rates, increase in wages and threat of inflation.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, what part of the memo says they didn’t disclose that the Steele dossier was their source?

No part of it. What they didn't disclose is that Steele was paid to produce the dossier by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

I was responding to A Theist who said "they [the FBI] didn't tell FISC that they were using the Dossier as their source".

Whether they didn't disclose who paid is up for debate. The memo says they didn't, but apparently the Democratic one says they did. This has become a game of political he said, she said, unfortunately.

---

The memo effectively destroys the argument that the Steele dossier caused the Russian investigation. As the memo states, the investigation began when Papadopoulos got drunk with an Australian diplomat.

hmm.  From the memo itself:

4) .... Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrent would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

and this:

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

You are conflating two things: the FISA warrant, and the Russian investigation. The memo states that the Russian investigation began when Papadopoulos got drunk with an Australian diplomat and ran his mouth. The diplomat then reported this to the FBI. A lot of conservatives have been arguing that the Russian investigation began when Steele sent his dossier to the FBI, but that wasn't the case (if we believe this part of the memo).

The FISA warrant came later.

But thanks for the link. I love reading comments from readers. Like this one, which sums up what is wrong with Spying on Americans; which is the WHOLE POINT.

So one drunk, low-level staffer mouths off to an Australian and that is enough to MEET THE STANDARD of being able to use all the tools of government (FBI, CIA, etc.) to spy on one's political opponent during a very heated campaign. If that is the case, then it is FAR WORSE than even the memo implies and 3 things really need attention:

1) The person, working for Obama, that took this hearsay to the judge to try to get approval to SPY ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT during a very heated campaign needs to be JAILED.

2) The judge that authorized the SPYING ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT during a very heated campaign, based on this hearsay, also needs to be JAILED.

3) The SYSTEM that permits a sitting administration to SPY ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT during a very heated campaign needs to be SCRAPPED. It's MUCH SAFER for this country to take its chances with Russian ghosts trying to influence an election than it is to allow a sitting administration to SPY ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT (during a very heated campaign, I may add).

We can argue whether spying on American citizens is right or wrong, but that seems like a separate argument. Unfortunately in the world of espionage, it's a little complicated, because you don't know if an American citizen is working for a foreign power or not, without at least a little spying (or you get really lucky).

I don't agree with how that comment describes this as "spying on a political opponent". The political opponent in this was Donald Trump, and as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong, with sources) there was never actually any spying done against Donald Trump himself. The targets of surveillance were people in his campaign, and in every case there was supposedly evidence to suggest that they had been compromised by the Russians.

I disagree vehemently with point 3 of the comment. The integrity of our democracy is paramount, it's more important than partisan politics. If, in 2020, the FBI got word that the Democratic campaign were trying to manipulate voting machines in swing states, do you think the FBI should sit back and ignore it, or investigate and (to use the commenter's phrase) "spy on a political opponent"?

---

1. Yes. The memo states that that it "formed an essential part" of the FISA warrants. It was the key element and the foundation for those warrants, which, in its "infancy", had only been "minimally" corroborated by the FBI. It was also testified by former DAG, Bruce Ohr, who had contact with Christopher Steele, that Steele said he was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president". Christopher Steele, a British spy who was trying to undermine our election process along with others within the FBI who also was trying to undermine the Trump campaign and now his presidency. Also, Comey, briefed President Trump on the dossier, calling it, "salacious and unverified". Other sources for FISA warrants, a Yahoo news article that focused on Carter Page's trip to Moscow in July of 2016....and the source for that article, Christopher Steele..."This article does not corroborate the Steele Dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News".  
So yeah, I would say that it was pretty much the basis for the FISA warrants. (bolding mine, for direct quotes from the memo).

See, for me the word "part" is key there. That implies there was other evidence used.

The fact that the dossier had only been "minimally" corroborated is also only relevant if they used uncorroborated parts to back up the FISA application. There is nothing in the memo that states the FBI did this.

The fact that Steele didn't like Trump is also only relevant if uncorroborated parts of the dossier were used to back up the FISA application. Whether someone is a supporter of a candidate or not doesn't change the veracity of claims. Also, playing devil's advocate here, but let's assume Steele believed every claim in his dossier. To him, Trump is compromised by the Russians. So it makes sense that he was passionate about him not being President.

As to the Yahoo News article, yes it uses Steele as a source, but again, it's only an issue if it wasn't corroborated. The memo doesn't state anything about this. It also doesn't state that the dossier and the article were the only pieces of evidence used.

2. If you have a "salacious and unverified" document that is intended to undermine a political opponent and that is only "minimally corroborated", it's not good enough. ( bolding mine, for quotes from the memo).

I hold that it *is* good enough *if* only the corroborated parts were used. I've seen nothing in the memo that suggests they attached the entire dossier as evidence in the FISA application, and doing that would make no sense anyway since most of the dossier wasn't about Carter Page. The dossier is a collection of claims, some are corroborated, some are not. Just because some claims may be untrue does not negate the claims that are true.

3. Yes. The original funding came from a Republican, (McCain ?), but it was abandoned only to be picked up by the Hillary Campaign and the DNC.

...and the memo fails to mention this. You asked for facts that were omitted. That's one. It was omitted (in my opinion) to keep up the narrative that the dossier is nothing but a partisan hit job, when it started out ironically enough within the Republican party.

At the very least it shows a level of incompetence by some higher ups within the FBI and the DOJ who hated President Trump to rush unverified evidence to the FISC to obtain FISA warrants.

Again, there's absolutely nothing in the memo that states "unverified evidence" was used in a FISA application. The memo is very cleverly written, it doesn't outright make that claim, it hints towards it in an ambiguous way, by saying that the dossier was "minimally corroborated". That fact, as I've pointed out, is irrelevant as long as the FBI only used corroborated claims from the dossier in the FISA application.

So really A Theist, you only have to do one thing to change my mind about all of this: show me that an uncorroborated claim from the dossier was used in the FISA application

Find that, and I'll change my mind, condemn the FBI, and write a 1000 word post here about why Trump is a great President. You have my word on that.

[Mr.wizard]

Yeah, what part of the memo says they didn’t disclose that the Steele dossier was their source?

No part of it. What they didn't disclose is that Steele was paid to produce the dossier by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

Which has absolutely no bearing on obtaining a FISA warrant, just because information comes from a biased source doesn't exclude it from demonstrating probable cause or from having truth to it and it certainly doesn't exclude it from being used to obtain a warrant. This memo was supposed to show clear cut corruption by the FBI, it was supposed to show that the FBI has some sort of biased political leanings against Donald Trump, the memo doesn't show any of this and instead we get some BS about a FISA warrant issued on Carter Page? The memo simply asserts that the Steele Dossier was the basis for the FBI obtaining a warrant but it does not demonstrate it and even if the dossier were used it certainly doesn't tell us which parts of the dossier were used. 

This is an obvious move to try and create some kind of justification for Trump to fire Mueller and not be brought up on obstruction charges.

[John V]

The memo asserts that a presidential election campaign and associated party basically bought a warrant for the FBI to spy on a member of the opposing campaign.

[Tiberius]

Literally the only thing that makes this memo important is the answer to the question "Did the FBI use uncorroborated claims from the Steele dossier in the FISA application?"

[Tiberius]

The memo asserts that a presidential election campaign and associated party basically bought a warrant for the FBI to spy on a member of the opposing campaign.

It doesn't assert that. Assert means to "state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully". In no part of the memo does it state that the Democrats and Clinton bought a FISA warrant.

You're interpreting it that way, there's a big difference.

[Brian37]

Literally the only thing that makes this memo important is the answer to the question "Did the FBI use uncorroborated claims from the Steele dossier in the FISA application?"

This memo is just another excuse for the GOP and 45. FISA has been around for decades.

45 still did this to himself regardless. You spend a campaign crapping on intel who is telling you the facts repeatedly, you can be right once, but because of all the rhetoric you undermine the objectivity and unity that law agents are supposed to have. 

45 started this erosion of public trust long before this memo, long before he took the oath of office.

[Mr.wizard]

The memo asserts that a presidential election campaign and associated party basically bought a warrant for the FBI to spy on a member of the opposing campaign.

The memo doesn't assert that, but even if it did that tells us nothing about the truth of the information used to obtain the warrant. How does Nunez know if the information used in obtaining the FISA warrant is uncorroborated or based solely on the Steele Dossier?

[Tiberius]

Also Nunes didn't actually read the FISA application: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018...t-erin.cnn

Plus the guy who actually did (according to Nunes), Trey Gowdy, stated on Twitter that:

"As I have said repeatedly, I also remain 100 percent confident in Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The contents of this memo do not - in any way - discredit his investigation."

https://twitter.com/TGowdySC/status/959495152770469888

It seems there are so many Republican talking points that contradict each other over this.

[Amarok]

Should this shock us. The Republican party is a house divided . Between Trumps lackeys and those who just wanted him in to push their agenda then toss him away.