The Memo

Those who pay attention to this kind of stuff have been waiting with baited breath for "the memo" to be released to the general public.  Well, today they got their wish.  It was pretty interesting and for some, it was a bombshell.  Of course, the Dems call it a nothing burger.  Like everything else these days, it is political theater.

For those not paying attention, here's the Reader's Digest version of what happened.  In 2016 the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign paid a company called GPS Fusion to produce opposition research on the Trump campaign.  Part of that research was a "dossier" authored by a Brit named Christopher Steele.  Steele seems like a sleaze bag and there is no doubt that he was strongly anti-Trump.  So he made up a bunch of stuff that portrayed Trump in the worst light. And I mean the worst light.  One of the things (among others) he claimed was that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to piss on beds that Obama slept in.  Nice, huh?  Only trouble is, it was all bullshit.  Anyway, meanwhile there was the low level, unpaid Trump advisor (and it is questionable how close he really was to the campaign) named Carter Page who supposedly had some Russian connections.  So here's what the FBI and the DOJ did.  They used this opposition research dossier to go to the FISA Court (this is the super secret court that issues warrants for wire-tapping) and got a warrant to tap Page's phone.  And since this warrant needs to be renewed every 90 days, they didn't just do it once.  They did it multiple times.  And several very high-level FBI and DOJ people signed off on this.  You've heard all the names.  Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, etc.  They are all implicated.

If you've not read the memo and are interested, here it is:

January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation Update

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. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

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)(l)), 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. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

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. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) 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.

a) 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.

b) 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.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) 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.

b) 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.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with 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.

a) 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.

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

5) 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. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

Now, you might say what's the big deal?  No harm, no foul.  Trump was elected anyway.  The thing is that we have this document that guides every thing we do in this country called the Constitution.  We believe in government by, of and for the people.  Of course we want to uphold the law, but we generally don't countenance spying on American Citizens.  And we especially are against that kind of thing going on as a result of politics.  That goes on in many, many countries around the world that don't believe in rights of their citizens.  Not here.  That the FBI and DOJ would use opposition research funded and produced for a political party to spy on members of the political opposition is quite simply appalling.  And it should result in not only some major firings, but criminal prosecution.  Simple as that.

I don't know where we're going from here.  One side says they have more damning info.  I hope that's not the case because it's already pretty terrible.  And unsavory.  And I don't want to believe that the FBI and DOJ would do further terrible things.  The other side is in the deny and blame mode.  But no matter how much they deny and blame, at some point most people who are interested are going to see what's gone on and the reality will be easy to see.   Laws were broken.  The Constitution was trampled.  High level FBI and DOJ people should be ashamed.

People talk about the resistance.  They go around blithely throwing around accusations about the worst things they've heard from this or that media source without ever getting substantiation.  Hashtags are very popular to indicate outrage or support.  #resistence is the word of the day.  They protest, they utter unbelievably foul accusations, they repeat obscenities about the other side as if they are carved in stone and there is no question as to accuracy, and they seem willing to go to radical lengths to undermine and even harm their political opponents.  And yet...the rhetoric on the other side doesn't seem to match the vitriol.

I remember very clearly when Obama was elected.  He wasn't my guy but I was willing to give him a chance because he was the President.  I think most people were.  It didn't take very long for him to show his true colors.  He was quite simply an incompetent, inexperienced, naive, divisive, horrible President.  It had nothing to do with race.  It had to do with him as a person.  And there were a ton of people who believed and still believe that.  There is no doubt that we were much worse off after his 8 years in office.    But we didn't resort to violence.   We didn't trample on the Constitution.  We didn't resist things that might have been good for the country just because he was for it.  We didn't think of our little world instead of the country as a whole.  But that's what's happening.  I just hope they wake up.  We can all move forward together.  Or there will be some dark days ahead.