It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Irishhaf
Right, this backs up what I was saying to Ketsuko, which is that it isn’t just about sex in either case.
As far as the FISA warrant goes, my opinion is that it had other evidence besides the dossier to go on, and that the FISA court was told accurately about the dossier’s veracity and its origins as far as they knew.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Carter Page had been under US intelligence scrutiny since 2013 due to his foreign business dealing and public statements that he made. He went from working at the Pentagon to a Kremlin-connected company so him being under surveillance should be expected IMO.
originally posted by: Grambler
How this doesn’t outrage everyone is beyond me
Comey admits that the most crucial piece of evidence used to spy on a person connected to trumps campaign, the Steele Dossier, was never verified before or after it was presented to the fisa court
Think what this means
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Grambler
Are you throwing a whataboutism out there?
I hoped you were better than that. So sad.
originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: ketsuko
I don’t think any Democrats I know are wanting to impeach Trump over sex. I certainly don’t care if he had an affair. Honest. I care about the fact that he tried to skirt the law and cover up the affair to affect the election by keeping it under wraps. Even now, he is still weaving spin to try and stay out of trouble. I have a problem with Trump’s lies and corruption, not his sex life.
June 29, 2010
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.
Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.
Democrats, however, say that the FISA warrant on Page was justified because of his contacts with Russia, and they argue that the FBI and Justice Department followed proper procedure in seeking and getting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve the warrant.
Nunes' memo, which was cited by President Donald Trump in his attacks on the Mueller investigation, alleges that the author of the dossier, ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, harbored anti-Trump motivations that were not disclosed in the FISA application. Worse, the memo alleges, the FISA court was not told that Steele's dossier was funded through a law firm by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Democrats responded with their own memo, which argued that the FBI's interest in Page predated the FBI's knowledge of the Steele dossier. It also argues that it was not the dossier and the Page FISA warrant that prompted the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia, but rather an earlier conversation that former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had with an Australian diplomat about alleged Russian dirt on Clinton.
Even though the payment for Steele's work had come from Democrats, the Justice Department and FBI considered Steele trustworthy enough to include his reporting in their application to surveil Page. That's one lesson in the new documents:
"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign," it says.
The document avoids making many direct references to people or institutions as part of national security Washington's practices called "minimization."
The application continues: "Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."
Democrats argued in their countermemo that law enforcement had made the appropriate disclosures given the expectations involved with FISA applications: DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not 'unmasking' U.S. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.
DOJ instead used generic identifiers that provided the court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele's research. That's why "Steele" is "Source #1" and "Trump" is "Candidate #1" and so forth.
Republicans argue this document should have contained much more detail. Democrats, the Justice Department and the FBI argue that what's included, and how, was appropriate.
The facts also do not support McCarthy’s second point (one that Congressman Devin Nunes misleadingly emphasized in his infamous memo about the warrant): that the FISA court was not informed about the Clinton campaign’s financial support for Christopher Steele’s work.
In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias.
Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments – which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS – is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias. Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.
The material suggested that Russia had launched a war of influence against the United States — which investigators have subsequently confirmed
The potential case that Donald Trump's campaign may have conspired with the Russian attack on the 2016 election has always been about more than the infamous dossier. Trump and his supporters deny colluding and make the dossier a favorite target because of its salacious contents and because it remained unverified.
NPR and other news organizations have not detailed the contents of the dossier because it remains unproven, but Schiff's memo suggests that the Justice Department actually has corroborated parts of it.
Which parts? That is blacked out. So there is no way to know whether it's some of the anodyne background aspects of the file — or the more infamous passages. All the same, it is significant that the Justice Department has established for its own purposes that at least some of the contents of the dossier aren't either simply false or Russian disinformation.
Even putting aside the large portions of redacted material (which likely further support the application but are redacted because of the highly sensitive nature of the information), the unredacted portions easily meet this probable cause standard and support the FISA court’s multiple orders.
The third point, and the crux of McCarthy’s argument, is that the FBI did not properly “verify” the information in the application, which is a technical requirement in a FISA application. McCarthy claims that the FBI was not permitted to rely solely on hearsay information provided by Steele, its source of information, but rather was required to test the credibility of, and reliance on, each sub-source who gave information to Steele. But that is simply not what is required in FISA applications (or criminal wiretap applications), and in particular under the Woods Procedures that govern FISA applications. Under FISA, “verification” simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation. That does not mean, however, that the FBI is required, for example, to travel to Russia to interview a sub-source to confirm that the sub-source actually did tell Steele what Steele reported to the FBI. That, of course, almost certainly would not be possible. It is therefore not surprising that McCarthy cites no authority for his assertion that such a step is required.