REP devin nunes r CA released his memo on Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation of russian collusion with the drumpf/trump-pence 2016 presidential election campaign and brought it back to prominence in news coverage. Now the Democratic memo, written in response to the nunes memo, has been approved for release unanimously by the House Intelligence Comm and is pending approval for release by NOT MY pres drumpf/trump. He has until Friday to decide, the longer he takes to make his decision the longer the media remains focused on the Mueller investigation. From The Atlantic, Politico and NPR......
The Full Text of the Nunes Memo
On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee released the controversial document, which alleges surveillance abuses by the FBI.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
LENA FELTON is an editorial fellow at The Atlantic.
On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by Republican Representative Devin Nunes, released a four-page memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI. Earlier this week, Republicans on the committee voted to make the document public. The classified document has drawn criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who argue it is misleading, as well as from law enforcement officials. In a rare statement, the FBI warned against the document’s release, saying it had “grave concerns” about its accuracy. Despite pushback from officials, the White House approved the release of the memo Friday.
Below, read the memo in full.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Nunes FBI Memo, Annotated
By |
The House Intelligence Committee released a memo that alleges bias and wrongdoing by FBI officials while investigating then-candidate Donald Trump. The four-page document was compiled by staff of the House Intelligence Committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and released against strong opposition from the Justice Department, FBI and Democratic lawmakers.
The text of the memo is annotated by POLITICO staff below.
FISA MEMO
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 2, 2018
The Honorable Devin Nunes
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
A tale of two memos
The House Intelligence Committee actually released two documents, leading off with a letter from White House Counsel Donald McGahn, which lays out the justification for President Trump’s decision to declassify the House memo.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter "the Committee") voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classified information provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the "Memorandum," which is attached to this letter). As provided by clause 11(g) of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has forwarded this Memorandum to the President based on its determination that the release of the Memorandum would serve the public interest.
The House Intelligence Committee actually released two documents, leading off with a letter from White House Counsel Donald McGahn, which lays out the justification for President Trump’s decision to declassify the House memo.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter "the Committee") voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classified information provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the "Memorandum," which is attached to this letter). As provided by clause 11(g) of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has forwarded this Memorandum to the President based on its determination that the release of the Memorandum would serve the public interest.
A partisan roll call
House Republicans say the vote “was absolutely procedurally sound” and followed the chamber’s rules. But it was nonetheless a typically partisan affair. Democrats objected throughout the closed-door session last week for refusing to release their own competing version and also because they didn’t give the Justice Department and FBI more time to vet the document.
The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President's responsibility to classify, declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods and national defense. See, e.g., Dep 't of Navy v. Egan , 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). In order to facilitate appropriate congressional oversight, the Executive Branch may entrust classified information to the appropriate committees of Congress, as it has done in connection with the Committee's oversight activities here. The Executive Branch does so on the assumption that the Committee will responsibly protect such classified information, consistent with the laws of the United States.
The Committee has now determined that the release of the Memorandum would be appropriate. The Executive Branch, across Administrations of both parties, has worked to accommodate congressional requests to declassify specific materials in the public interest¹. However, public release of classified information by unilateral action of the Legislative Branch is extremely rare and raises significant separation of powers concerns. Accordingly, the Committee's request to release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassification pursuant to the President's authority.
The President understands that the protection of our national security represents his highest obligation. Accordingly, he has directed lawyers and national security staff to assess the declassification request, consistent with established standards governing the handling of classified information, including those under Section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526. Those standards permit declassification when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any need to protect the information. The White House review process also included input from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. Consistent with this review and these standards, the President has determined that declassification of the Memorandum is appropriate.
House Republicans say the vote “was absolutely procedurally sound” and followed the chamber’s rules. But it was nonetheless a typically partisan affair. Democrats objected throughout the closed-door session last week for refusing to release their own competing version and also because they didn’t give the Justice Department and FBI more time to vet the document.
The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President's responsibility to classify, declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods and national defense. See, e.g., Dep 't of Navy v. Egan , 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). In order to facilitate appropriate congressional oversight, the Executive Branch may entrust classified information to the appropriate committees of Congress, as it has done in connection with the Committee's oversight activities here. The Executive Branch does so on the assumption that the Committee will responsibly protect such classified information, consistent with the laws of the United States.
The Committee has now determined that the release of the Memorandum would be appropriate. The Executive Branch, across Administrations of both parties, has worked to accommodate congressional requests to declassify specific materials in the public interest¹. However, public release of classified information by unilateral action of the Legislative Branch is extremely rare and raises significant separation of powers concerns. Accordingly, the Committee's request to release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassification pursuant to the President's authority.
The President understands that the protection of our national security represents his highest obligation. Accordingly, he has directed lawyers and national security staff to assess the declassification request, consistent with established standards governing the handling of classified information, including those under Section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526. Those standards permit declassification when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any need to protect the information. The White House review process also included input from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. Consistent with this review and these standards, the President has determined that declassification of the Memorandum is appropriate.
The hot mic
Was the White House review of the Nunes memo pre-baked? President Trump’s remarks Tuesday night after his State of the Union address would suggest so. As Trump was leaving the House chamber, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) was heard on the C-SPAN feed saying “release the memo.” To which, Trump replied, “100 percent.” It’d be another three days before Trump’s White House would sign off on a document with no obvious redactions.
Based on this assessment and in light of the significant public interest in the memorandum, the President has authorized the declassification of the Memorandum. To be clear, the Memorandum reflects the judgments of its congressional authors. The President understands that oversight concerning matters related to the Memorandum may be continuing. Though the circumstances leading to the declassification through this process are extraordinary, the Executive Branch stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests consistent with applicable standards and processes, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods.
Sincerely,
Was the White House review of the Nunes memo pre-baked? President Trump’s remarks Tuesday night after his State of the Union address would suggest so. As Trump was leaving the House chamber, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) was heard on the C-SPAN feed saying “release the memo.” To which, Trump replied, “100 percent.” It’d be another three days before Trump’s White House would sign off on a document with no obvious redactions.
Based on this assessment and in light of the significant public interest in the memorandum, the President has authorized the declassification of the Memorandum. To be clear, the Memorandum reflects the judgments of its congressional authors. The President understands that oversight concerning matters related to the Memorandum may be continuing. Though the circumstances leading to the declassification through this process are extraordinary, the Executive Branch stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests consistent with applicable standards and processes, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods.
Sincerely,
Donald F. McGahn II
Counsel to the President
A familiar name to Russia probe
McGahn is a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation,with roles in the Michael Flynn and James Comey firings. He also told fellow White House colleagues he was ready to resign last June if the president didn’t stop badgering him about ways to fire Mueller. McGahn also was interviewed by Mueller last November.
McGahn is a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation,with roles in the Michael Flynn and James Comey firings. He also told fellow White House colleagues he was ready to resign last June if the president didn’t stop badgering him about ways to fire Mueller. McGahn also was interviewed by Mueller last November.
cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The memo and the GOP agenda
The House speaker’s attempts to focus this week on big policy wins like the tax bill have been overshadowed by the pending release of the memo. Ryan also was forced to note at the Republican House retreat Thursday that the Nunes memo “does not impugn the Mueller investigation or the deputy attorney general.” Odd, given they are two clear targets of the memo.
The House speaker’s attempts to focus this week on big policy wins like the tax bill have been overshadowed by the pending release of the memo. Ryan also was forced to note at the Republican House retreat Thursday that the Nunes memo “does not impugn the Mueller investigation or the deputy attorney general.” Odd, given they are two clear targets of the memo.
The Honorable Adam Schiff
Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The Democratic response
The California congressman has been leading the fight against this memo’s release from the start -- with varying degrees of success. Earlier this week, he failed in a bid to make the House committee agree to release a Democratic memo about the same topics. On Friday, he blasted the president and his Republican allies during a CBS appearance for the memo’s sweeping attack on law enforcement. “It’s clear from the president that this is exactly the purpose behind this cherry-picking of information that Nunes wants to release…. This is designed to impugn the credibility of the FBI, to undermine the investigation.”
The California congressman has been leading the fight against this memo’s release from the start -- with varying degrees of success. Earlier this week, he failed in a bid to make the House committee agree to release a Democratic memo about the same topics. On Friday, he blasted the president and his Republican allies during a CBS appearance for the memo’s sweeping attack on law enforcement. “It’s clear from the president that this is exactly the purpose behind this cherry-picking of information that Nunes wants to release…. This is designed to impugn the credibility of the FBI, to undermine the investigation.”
Declassified memo
January 18, 2018
Declassified by order of the President February 2, 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.
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.
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 complicated history of Carter Page
Where to even start with Carter Page? Trump touted him early in his campaign as one of his foreign policy advisers at a time when critics were questioning his policy credentials. But Page been at the center of the Russia probe since well before Mueller arrived on the scene, including for a controversial July 2016 trip he made to Moscow with then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s permission -- on the condition he not be an official representative of the Trump campaign. In September 2016, Page even wrote then-FBI Director James Comey asking for him to put a “prompt end” to any inquiry looking at his ties to Russia.
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)(1)), 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.
Where to even start with Carter Page? Trump touted him early in his campaign as one of his foreign policy advisers at a time when critics were questioning his policy credentials. But Page been at the center of the Russia probe since well before Mueller arrived on the scene, including for a controversial July 2016 trip he made to Moscow with then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s permission -- on the condition he not be an official representative of the Trump campaign. In September 2016, Page even wrote then-FBI Director James Comey asking for him to put a “prompt end” to any inquiry looking at his ties to Russia.
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)(1)), 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.
The GOP's Russia boogeymen
Republicans made a point here of lumping together in one paragraph pretty much all the DOJ leaders who have had central roles in different parts of the Russia probe. There’s Yates, the former acting attorney general who warned White House counsel Don McGahn in Jan. 2017 about Michael Flynn’s susceptibility to Russian blackmail; Comey, the former FBI director whose firing launched the whole special counsel probe in the first place; McCabe, who just stepped down as the No. 2 at the FBI; and Rosenstein, who as the deputy attorney general is overseeing the Mueller probe following Attorney General Jeff Session’s recusal.
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.
Republicans made a point here of lumping together in one paragraph pretty much all the DOJ leaders who have had central roles in different parts of the Russia probe. There’s Yates, the former acting attorney general who warned White House counsel Don McGahn in Jan. 2017 about Michael Flynn’s susceptibility to Russian blackmail; Comey, the former FBI director whose firing launched the whole special counsel probe in the first place; McCabe, who just stepped down as the No. 2 at the FBI; and Rosenstein, who as the deputy attorney general is overseeing the Mueller probe following Attorney General Jeff Session’s recusal.
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.
Republicans paid Fusion GPS first
Republicans originally funded the research firm that created the controversial Steele dossier before the Democrats did. That’s overlooked here, but the conservative online news site Washington Free Beacon last fall acknowledged to congressional investigators that it had funded Fusion GPS’s work during the Republican primaries when Republicans were desperate to knock Donald Trump out of the presidential campaign.
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.
Republicans originally funded the research firm that created the controversial Steele dossier before the Democrats did. That’s overlooked here, but the conservative online news site Washington Free Beacon last fall acknowledged to congressional investigators that it had funded Fusion GPS’s work during the Republican primaries when Republicans were desperate to knock Donald Trump out of the presidential campaign.
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.
The scandal reporter who's everywhere
Journalist Michael Isikoff has been in the middle of presidential controversies before. He was poised to break the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story, but was famously scooped by the upstart Drudge Report in 1998 after Newsweek held his article. While CNN gets credit for reporting in August 2016 that the FBI and DOJ were looking at ties between Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and corruption in Ukraine, Isikoff’s story a month later was among the first pieces to highlight more of the questionable ties between Trump world — including Carter Page— and Russia.
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.
Journalist Michael Isikoff has been in the middle of presidential controversies before. He was poised to break the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story, but was famously scooped by the upstart Drudge Report in 1998 after Newsweek held his article. While CNN gets credit for reporting in August 2016 that the FBI and DOJ were looking at ties between Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and corruption in Ukraine, Isikoff’s story a month later was among the first pieces to highlight more of the questionable ties between Trump world — including Carter Page— and Russia.
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.
The curious role of Bruce Ohr
Republicans have expressed deep suspicion about Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official who oversees an organized crime task force. The memo reflects those concerns by noting that he worked closely with Obama appointee Sally Yates and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the Steele dossier. But the fact that Ohr reported Steele’s comments -- that he was intent on preventing Trump from becoming president -- to the FBI undercuts the notion that Ohr was a raging partisan.
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.
Republicans have expressed deep suspicion about Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official who oversees an organized crime task force. The memo reflects those concerns by noting that he worked closely with Obama appointee Sally Yates and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and that Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the Steele dossier. But the fact that Ohr reported Steele’s comments -- that he was intent on preventing Trump from becoming president -- to the FBI undercuts the notion that Ohr was a raging partisan.
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.
Did McCabe admit the dossier drove the Page surveillance?
A key dispute in the fight over the dossier has been the question of how large a role it played in obtaining the warrants to surveil Carter Page. One surprise in the memo is that Republicans claim former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI wouldn’t have sought to put Page under surveillance without the information from Steele and his dossier. McCabe’s statement is notable because the FBI’s defenders have argued in recent days that there was no way the dossier could have provided the bulk of the FBI’s rationale for seeking the warrants.
5. The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation of 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.
A key dispute in the fight over the dossier has been the question of how large a role it played in obtaining the warrants to surveil Carter Page. One surprise in the memo is that Republicans claim former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI wouldn’t have sought to put Page under surveillance without the information from Steele and his dossier. McCabe’s statement is notable because the FBI’s defenders have argued in recent days that there was no way the dossier could have provided the bulk of the FBI’s rationale for seeking the warrants.
5. The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation of 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.
Info on Papadopoulos, not the dossier, launched FBI's Trump-Russia probe
The memo confirms reports that the FBI formally opened their investigation into Russian efforts to compromise the Trump campaign back in July 2016 based on suspicions about Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. So, while the dossier may have played a critical role in putting Page under surveillance in October, the document — containing some salacious claims about Trump — was not the driving force behind the FBI’s scrutiny of the Trump team.
The timing suggests Papadopoulos came under scrutiny because of an reported episode in London in May 2016 where he told an Australian diplomat that Russia was offering the campaign “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. About a year after opening the investigation, the FBI arrested Papadopoulos on charges he lied to them. He pleaded guilty in that case last October and is cooperating with prosecutors.
Footnotes:
1 See, e.g., S. Rept. 114-8 at 12 (Administration of Barack Obama) ("On April 3, 2014 . . . the Committee agreed to send the revised Findings and Conclusions, and the updated Executive Summary of the Committee Study, to the President for declassification and public release."); H. Rept. 107-792 (Administration of George W. Bush) (similar); E.O. 12812 (Administration of George H.W. Bush) (noting Senate resolution requesting that President provide for declassification of certain information via Executive Order).
The memo confirms reports that the FBI formally opened their investigation into Russian efforts to compromise the Trump campaign back in July 2016 based on suspicions about Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. So, while the dossier may have played a critical role in putting Page under surveillance in October, the document — containing some salacious claims about Trump — was not the driving force behind the FBI’s scrutiny of the Trump team.
The timing suggests Papadopoulos came under scrutiny because of an reported episode in London in May 2016 where he told an Australian diplomat that Russia was offering the campaign “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. About a year after opening the investigation, the FBI arrested Papadopoulos on charges he lied to them. He pleaded guilty in that case last October and is cooperating with prosecutors.
Footnotes:
1 See, e.g., S. Rept. 114-8 at 12 (Administration of Barack Obama) ("On April 3, 2014 . . . the Committee agreed to send the revised Findings and Conclusions, and the updated Executive Summary of the Committee Study, to the President for declassification and public release."); H. Rept. 107-792 (Administration of George W. Bush) (similar); E.O. 12812 (Administration of George H.W. Bush) (noting Senate resolution requesting that President provide for declassification of certain information via Executive Order).
House Intel Committee Votes To Release Dem Countermemo. Will Trump Go Along?
Updated at 7:05 p.m. ET
The House intelligence committee voted without opposition on Monday to declassify a secret Democratic rebuttal to the once-secret Republican memo about alleged surveillance abuses that was unveiled on Friday.
The Democrats' document now goes to the White House, where President Trump will decide whether it should become public.
White House spokesman Raj Shah told reporters traveling aboard Air Force One on Monday that the administration would review the countermemo by intelligence committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as it did the first one by Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.
One additional wrinkle with Schiff's document is that he has also asked for the FBI and Justice Department to go over it as well. Those agencies already have copies of it, Schiff told reporters at the Capitol on Monday evening.
It wasn't immediately clear what effect the FBI and DOJ role in the review might have on the timing of the release, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. called on the administration to act fast.
"Now that the House intelligence committee has acted, the president should move quickly," Schumer said. "The president decided the public deserved to see the Nunes memo before he'd even read it, so he ought to be similarly eager for the American people to see this memo."
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and other leaders in the majority in Congress have said they thought Democrats' response should be released as Nunes' document was, so long as it also went through review and declassification.
Monday's vote started the clock on that process, and if the same timetable applies as before, Democrats' countermemo could be out by Friday.
Notwithstanding the White House's official willingness to treat Schiff's memo as it treated Nunes', Trump took a shot on Twitter at Schiff earlier in the day.
Schiff responded in short order.
Mr. President, I see you’ve had a busy morning of “Executive Time.” Instead of tweeting false smears, the American people would appreciate it if you turned off the TV and helped solve the funding crisis, protected Dreamers or...really anything else. twitter.com/realdonaldtrum…
Nunes' memo charges that "biased" officials in the FBI and Justice Department abused their surveillance powers in asking for a warrant to monitor the communications of a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, Carter Page.
Although the document makes a narrow case about the specific practices involving Page, Trump and his supporters also say it suggests a "systemic" pattern of abuse. That is not described.
Trump also said on Twitter that it "totally vindicates" him. It does not; the memo delineates how the FBI's Russia investigation began earlier with another foreign policy aide who has since pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard Burr, R-N.C., said in October 2017 that for the purposes of his investigation, the question of whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians who attacked the 2016 election remains "open."
Trump and the White House say there was no collusion.
Meanwhile, the FBI and Justice Department deny any wrongdoing on their part involving surveillance warrants.
Democrats argue the Nunes document glosses over some aspects of the story and leaves out others. Schiff and his minority say they prepared their secret rebuttal to fill in what they call these gaps.
Their allies also have prepared other memorandums of their own; House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., released a memo that he said makes the case while stopping short of the classified aspects of the matter.
Plus Nunes isn't finished with his own memos either. He told The Weekly Standard that he plans to release more documentation about what he calls abuse by the FBI and the Justice Department, although he hopes it will be via the "standard process" as opposed to with a secret document that must then be declassified.
Trump hailed Nunes on Monday and appeared to welcome these efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment