It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: introvert
In my opinion, this is the big setup before a potential storm in order to create the mechanism for damage control.
I don't care what you want to call it. It's still the truth.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Assassin82
Why all the drama behind it when most of the pertinent information was already leaked? What purpose did that serve? Was it to drag the Dems through the mud for as long as they could? To distract us from something else? Maybe negotiation leverage for the government budget showdown? Why now and why so dramatic?
Bingo. There is no logical reason for them to produce this memo, considering that it did not prove anything whatsoever, unless they are trying to cast doubt on what may be coming.
I wonder if the OIG report is going to be a dud itself.
I wonder if Mueller is about to blow this issue wide open.
We shall see.
No. You began with the outright statement that the dossier was not used in the FISA applications. That is incorrect. That is not "truth," that is a weasely untruth
The memo is what it is -- nothing more and nothing less. It is not the end-all-be-all and was never intended to be. The Memo is just the beginning. If you do not/can not/will not understand that, that's on you. It's your truth, not thee truth.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
What purpose does it serve to make people question how the FBI uses the FISA courts, except to case doubt on the FBI?
In this case, the FBI had a policy that required Christopher Steele to tell them if he talked to the press. Christopher Steele violated that policy. So, the FBI will be absolved of any intent to mislead the FISA court. The FBI severed their ties with Steele, a month after the Isikoff article, for violating that policy (with a different news agency, of course).
originally posted by: Assassin82
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Assassin82
Why all the drama behind it when most of the pertinent information was already leaked? What purpose did that serve? Was it to drag the Dems through the mud for as long as they could? To distract us from something else? Maybe negotiation leverage for the government budget showdown? Why now and why so dramatic?
Bingo. There is no logical reason for them to produce this memo, considering that it did not prove anything whatsoever, unless they are trying to cast doubt on what may be coming.
I wonder if the OIG report is going to be a dud itself.
I wonder if Mueller is about to blow this issue wide open.
We shall see.
From my military experience...an OIG report is usually one of the most truthful, accurate and ethically created document one can put together. It will be plain, direct and free of drama. It will either validate the memo, or make it look like a waste of paper and ink. I would say that we will have a solid understanding of where this is all heading from there. But military IG’s may be different than their civilian counterparts.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
In this case, the FBI had a policy that required Christopher Steele to tell them if he talked to the press. Christopher Steele violated that policy. So, the FBI will be absolved of any intent to mislead the FISA court. The FBI severed their ties with Steele, a month after the Isikoff article, for violating that policy (with a different news agency, of course).
The problem is not that the FBI misled the FISA courts or intended to.
The problem is the appearance that the FBI used the dossier in trying to get the warrants, which is what the memo implies but does not prove. That is where they are trying to cast doubt on the FBI, along with trying to cast doubt on the investigation.
Can you prove the dossier was used to get the FISA warrants? If so, please share.
I agree with this part. I think it's meant to absolve the FBI of any *intent* to mislead the FISA court. The memo puts the blame on Christopher Steele for not telling the FBI he talked to Isikoff.
2.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.
And, Nunes doesn't even question why the FBI never even asked Isikoff where he got his info.
originally posted by: Boadicea
"2.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."
Also, when I wrote this, "And, Nunes doesn't even question why the FBI never even asked Isikoff where he got his info," I was referring to what's in the memo as it was released. Without that question in the memo, in black and white, I don't think most people would think to question it.
originally posted by: Boadicea
I haven't read the Isikoff article in question yet, but if the information he was reporting was that close to the secret memos they were getting from Steele -- close enough to "corroborate" Steele -- then shouldn't they have suspected it was the same source?