The Memo Release Thread

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 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.

And, Nunes doesn't even question why the FBI never even asked Isikoff where he got his info. Without that question appearing in black and white, it won't occur to most people to even ask it.

Needless to say, I disagree with this part: "It's meant to cast more doubt on the FBI..."

I do agree it undermines the investigation though. But then, I already have my theory on how this investigation is supposed to conclude and this memo fits with it.

a reply to: introvert

I don't care what you want to call it. It's still the truth.

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.

And, obviously, you knew it from the start, so you have used weasel words and weasel tactics to play semantics and nitpick. If that's all you've got, okay. Can't get blood out of a turnip.

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: 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.

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?

a reply to: Boadicea

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

Can you prove the dossier was used to get the FISA warrants? If so, please share. The memo does not prove that and relies itself on "weasel words", like "essential", to imply something that it cannot prove.

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.

It is just the beginning and that is what I said before you posted this. But the truth is, the memo does not prove what people think it does.

It's a piece of propaganda and people are falling for it.

Sheep to the slaughter.

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. IOW, they were simply confident that Isikoff got his info from another source because "they would have known about it if it came from Steele -- he was required to tell them."

Anyway, the FBI severed their ties with Steele, a month after the Isikoff article, for violating that same policy (with a different news agency, of course).

HOWEVER, it does undermine the investigation, because the corroborative info came from the original source. So, it may be that all the fruit is poisoned.

***

ETA: And, again, this all fits with my theory that when the investigation ends, people on both sides will be unhappy with the conclusion.

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.

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.

Civilian OIG's are usually very similar, in my experience.

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.

There's nothing wrong with using info from the dossier IF THE INFO THEY USE HAS BEEN CORROBORATED. And, in this case, they used Isikoff's article to corroborate the info they used.

Even if info comes from a political source...if it's good info, the source doesn't automatically make it bad.

However, it turns out the info they used about Page's itinerary in Moscow was not corroborated.

a reply to: introvert

Can you prove the dossier was used to get the FISA warrants? If so, please share.

Of course not and I never claimed or even suggested otherwise. I quoted what is available in the article initially referenced and The Memo, clearly attributed, as you well know. I'm not the one misrepresenting the information.

This back and forth is just soooooooooooo sad and petty. And it isn't worth my time.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

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.

A couple thoughts about that... First, I'd very much like to see the original memo -- before the requested FBI changes. It may not be pertinent, but that perception could esily be changed with a one word edit. Second, according to The Memo, the Isikoff article wasn't the reason the FBI cut Steele off:

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.

That we know of. In fact, I can find nothing anywhere about when or how the FBI found out that Steele was Isikoff's source. Maybe it's just getting lost in the buzz, but I'd like to know much more about the FBI/Steele/Isikoff connection. I don't know if the FBI was getting taken for a ride by political propagandists... or if the FBI was helping political propagandists take us for a ride... or both.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I believe you are correct.

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."

Ah, yes. I forgot it was for violating a different policy. Although, I think my point still stands. (ETA: I mean, I knew he wasn't suspended for talking to Isikoff. It was for press contact that came a month later....and in that case, yes, it was for disclosing his relationship with the FBI.)

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.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

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.

I understand what you're saying, and the significance, but that's just one of many significant questions that are not addressed in the memo.

For legal criminal liability purposes, the only thing that matters is when the FBI knew it and how they found out. Did they speak with Isikoff at all about his source before using Isikoff as a corroborating source in the FISA application? Were they required to? Should they have at least tried to find out if it was the same source (Steele)? Maybe they did ask him, he declined to name his source, and they said, "Okeydokey." Maybe they didn't even bother talking to him, and just said, "Yippee!" when they saw his article.

Or maybe they were all part of setting up the whole self-corroborating "evidence" in order to get that elusive FISA warrant.

All of that -- and how it's kind of glossed over in The Memo -- doesn't sit right with me. That's crucial to understanding exactly how this played out -- who played who -- and whether there was criminal intent in providing false information -- evidence -- to a court.

And remember, there were three renewals of the FISA warrant (if I remember right) every 90 days, and as I understand it, the "dossier" was used as "evidence" in each renewal also. When did the FBI know they were using self-corroborating evidence?

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?

This memo raises far more questions than it answers.

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?

I read it and it was so obvious the info came from Steele or someone who had read the dossier.

My bet is that as long as the FBI has a policy that their 'people' must report if they talk to the press, then if they have no record of such a report, they have plausible deniability. "We had no report Steele spoke to Isikoff so we were safe to assume it couldn't have come from him...it had to have come from another source." That kind of thing.

The Yahoo story was used as corroboration (secondary evidence) to primary evidence in the dossier. I bet that makes the test much lower.

What I think we are learning is that the FBI could tell an agent to go leak some info to the media and ask that their identity be withheld, then they never report after-the-fact that they spoke with the media...*voila* now the FBI has corroborating evidence for whatever.

And the FBI is completely absolved of knowledge and intent to deceive and fabricate evidence, because the agent never reported they spoke with the press per the FBI's policy.

THAT is what this looks like. It's another opportunity the FBI has created to operate arbitrarily, unethically, and unlawfully.