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.

 

Isikoff Stunned That His Carter Page Article Was Used To Justify Spy Warrant

page: 1
25

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
isikoff-stunned-carter-page

From the horse's mouth. Lol, he must be sweating bullets being tied to this. Circular logic.


Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was “a bit beyond me” that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.

“Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had,” he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

“My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.




posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
isikoff-stunned-carter-page

From the horse's mouth. Lol, he must be sweating bullets being tied to this. Circular logic.


Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was “a bit beyond me” that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.

“Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had,” he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

“My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.






Probably and I bet he knows it was BS is why he stated he was shocked they used it. IMO.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
“Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had,” he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier."


What's ridiculous is how Nunes' memo pretty much absolves the FBI of blame for using it. Nunes' memo is putting the blame on Christopher Steele for not disclosing to the FBI that he had talked to Isikoff.

So...they didn't *intend* to use "self-referential" information to corroborate the dossier.

However, how on earth is it ok for the FBI to use a Yahoo article as 'probable cause' without even asking Isikoff who his source was? Obviously, he isn't protecting his source now...and I don't know why he didn't name Steele then, in the article.

This unnamed source crap is rampant in the press now. Reporters need to name their sources unless there is a very good reason to protect them.


ETA: I think Nunes' memo has done nothing but try to take the blame off the FBI and put it on the willing scapegoat, Christopher Steele.


edit on 2/3/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

Thats typical.

It would be funny if it werent so serious.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you kidding? This is a huge nothing burger. If only it played the other way, there'd be an army of paparazzi hunting this fool down the street for the next week. Lucky for him it makes liberal media look bad, so he can only expect 1/6th the amount of photographers this week as otherwise (given that the Propaganda Model has 5 "liberal" TV propaganda stations to the one "conservative" station to achieve the 50/50 split on election day).



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you kidding? This is a huge nothing burger. If only it played the other way, there'd be an army of paparazzi hunting this fool down the street for the next week. Lucky for him it makes liberal media look bad, so he can only expect 1/6th the amount of photographers this week as otherwise (given that the Propaganda Model has 5 "liberal" TV propaganda stations to the one "conservative" station to achieve the 50/50 split on election day).



Kidding about what? Are you saying it's a nothingburger or are you suggesting I am?

Unfortunately, I don't know what the rest of your comment is getting at either.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




What's ridiculous is how Nunes' memo pretty much absolves the FBI of blame for using it. Nunes' memo is putting the blame on Christopher Steele for not disclosing to the FBI that he had talked to Isikoff.


I see what you are saying but I am not sure that absolves the FBI at all. Whatever happened to vetting information? The FBI should have (and probably did) found out everything they needed to know about this so called validation of the dossier but apparently they did not (or rather they actually did but chose to ignore /hide that information).

I think we both know why that was.


edit on 3-2-2018 by Jonjonj because: grammar



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

I wouldn't take Isikoff's word for it if he told me the sun rises in the east.... and I don't believe that he's "shocked" about any of this. He's been around and involved too long for me to believe that.


“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.


Of course it is. And that's what makes this political instead of judicial. Steele compiles political propaganda in the form of "opposition research," which is then given to the FBI as "evidence," which is then leaked to a friendly mainstream media source (Isikoff), which is then represented as "corroboration" from an "independent source" to the court by the DOJ/FBI, with no evidence for any of it...

And I have no doubt Isikoff knew all along. Because, at the very least, if he didn't know, he should have been wondering. So "shocked"? No. Just no.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

God damn!

Another Russian agent, I hope he can make it rain Rubles with all of that evil Putin money!




posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Well people.

Clearly we don't need the FBI,CIA,DNI,DHS.

We gots 'news' organizations!

FAUX NEWS.

FAUX STUNNED.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't sense my sarcasm and cynicism??




posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: MotherMayEye




What's ridiculous is how Nunes' memo pretty much absolves the FBI of blame for using it. Nunes' memo is putting the blame on Christopher Steele for not disclosing to the FBI that he had talked to Isikoff.


I see what you are saying but I am not sure that absolves the FBI at all. Whatever happened to vetting information? The FBI should have (and probably did) found out everything they needed to know about this so called validation of the dossier but apparently they did not (or rather they actually did but chose to ignore /hide that information).

I think we both know why that was.



I agree...they should have vetted that info. But I think they are going to get away with not vetting it and blaming Christopher Steele.

Nunes mentions the FBI has a policy where their paid sources have to disclose contacts with the press. The FBI will take the position that they counted on that policy to work, so they were safe to assume Isikoff got it from another source which made it ok to use as 'corroboration.'

I just know that Congress has protected the FBI before. I think Nunes' is protecting them with this memo and then Democrats and Republicans in Congress did their best to sell it like we were getting a memo that was damning to the FBI.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't sense my sarcasm and cynicism??



Gah...I'm sorry. It was lost on me.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I disagree.

I think this makes the FBI look very bad. I think it mostly paints Steele as a tool of the FBI. Or probably more a co-conspirator.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I disagree.

I think this makes the FBI look very bad. I think it mostly paints Steele as a tool of the FBI. Or probably more a co-conspirator.


I think we know that...we pick up on the BS.

But the Nunes' memo is pacifying us while building a defense for the FBI. They shifted the blame onto Steele for not following FBI protocol.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Isikoff has a long history of writing for certain types of MSM.

So *of course* he now says he is "surprised".

😂



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
“Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had,” he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier."


What's ridiculous is how Nunes' memo pretty much absolves the FBI of blame for using it. Nunes' memo is putting the blame on Christopher Steele for not disclosing to the FBI that he had talked to Isikoff.

So...they didn't *intend* to use "self-referential" information to corroborate the dossier.

However, how on earth is it ok for the FBI to use a Yahoo article as 'probable cause' without even asking Isikoff who his source was? Obviously, he isn't protecting his source now...and I don't know why he didn't name Steele then, in the article.

This unnamed source crap is rampant in the press now. Reporters need to name their sources unless there is a very good reason to protect them.


ETA: I think Nunes' memo has done nothing but try to take the blame off the FBI and put it on the willing scapegoat, Christopher Steele.




Ummm...I don't agree with your read of the memo...

I don't think this exonerates the FBI at all...rather...it illustrates that they knowingly used an unsubstantiated document that they knew was unvetted for their primary "finding of fact"...they then used the Isikoff article which was a compendium of that same unvetted document...as the corroborating additional "finding of fact" in order to have a FISA warrant approved...

Further...the memo shows that both the FBI and DOJ knew that the document was unsubstantiated...yet withheld that information from the FISA court...

How this exonerates them...I fail to grasp...this...implicates...them...



YouSir



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

From the horses mouth indeed.

Just the fact that he is commenting on it is going
to cause the Schiff to hit the fan.





posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
“Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had,” he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier."


What's ridiculous is how Nunes' memo pretty much absolves the FBI of blame for using it. Nunes' memo is putting the blame on Christopher Steele for not disclosing to the FBI that he had talked to Isikoff.

So...they didn't *intend* to use "self-referential" information to corroborate the dossier.

However, how on earth is it ok for the FBI to use a Yahoo article as 'probable cause' without even asking Isikoff who his source was? Obviously, he isn't protecting his source now...and I don't know why he didn't name Steele then, in the article.

This unnamed source crap is rampant in the press now. Reporters need to name their sources unless there is a very good reason to protect them.


ETA: I think Nunes' memo has done nothing but try to take the blame off the FBI and put it on the willing scapegoat, Christopher Steele.




Ummm...I don't agree with your read of the memo...

I don't think this exonerates the FBI at all...rather...it illustrates that they knowingly used an unsubstantiated document that they knew was unvetted for their primary "finding of fact"...they then used the Isikoff article which was a compendium of that same unvetted document...as the corroborating additional "finding of fact" in order to have a FISA warrant approved...

Further...the memo shows that both the FBI and DOJ knew that the document was unsubstantiated...yet withheld that information from the FISA court...

How this exonerates them...I fail to grasp...this...implicates...them...



YouSir


Agree to disagree...I think it was carefully crafted to prepare for Steele to take all the blame.

"The FBI had no reason to believe that Steele gave Isikoff the info because he was supposed to tell them if he did according to their policy. Therefore, the FBI did not knowingly and intentionally deceive the FISA court judge."

I feel like Nunes set up this line of defense.

That said, I think it's a load of crap. But that's how Congress rolls...they protect the FBI, not us. Not to be a broken record, but Patrick Knowlton's story is a testament to that. Congress protected the FBI when Patrick Knowlton said the FBI falsified his witness statements.

The FBI falsified his witness statements on their dirty form 302, then when Knowlton found out about it and tried to bring his real statements to light, the FBI stalked, intimidated, and harassed him. Then they tried to say he was paranoid and crazy.

And Congress agreed...Patrick Knowlton was not credible because he was paranoid and crazy...the FBI would never be so thuggish.

Congress and FBI worked in tandem to bury the truth about Vince Foster's death. Congress protected the FBI and their corrupt and criminal methods of operation.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
A bunch of finger pointing politicians is what I'm seeing. I've read the memo and a few other relevant docs. In the end Trump's claims about somebody was out to get him were accurate. His paranoia was justified.







 
25

log in

join