Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 31, 2018

The House Intelligence Committee has voted to release the Nunes Memo, which allegedly outlines widespread abuses by the DOJ and FBI in obtaining a surveillance order against former national security advisor to the Trump Campaign, Carter Page. As a former FBI agent who has been through the process of obtaining these kinds of warrants under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), I know that such an allegation, if true, would require a vast number of people – across two branches of government – to be on board and willing to put their careers on the line for a conspiracy. To that end, in advance of the memo being released, I want to highlight five questions that the Nunes Memo must clearly address in order for its allegations of abuse to be substantiated and credible.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

If the Nunes Memo does not indicate when the investigation underlying the Page FISA application was opened or how many months/years of investigative activity preceding the dossier is detailed in the Page FISA application, it is not telling a sufficiently complete or accurate story.

If the Nunes Memo doesn't address who conducted the Woods Procedures for the Page FISA application, any material deficiencies in those procedures, or address this part of the DOJ review process at all, it is skipping over a critical part of the vetting process.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article:

Alleging a concerted conspiracy by the FBI/DOJ in obtaining the Page FISA necessarily implicates the judge who approved it, and suggests they are incompetent (at best) or corrupt (at worst). If Nunes is alleging serious crimes on the part of the FBI and DOJ, he must put his money where his mouth is and identify the judge who approved the FISA application. If he doesn't, it's likely because even he knows that this would be taking his accusations too far.

Neither the FBI nor the DOJ has the power to extend a FISA surveillance order, they must request it. If a request to extend FISA surveillance that began in September 2016 was made by DAG Rosenstein in or around March 2017, the FBI had shown a federal judge that it had collected additional foreign intelligence information justifying the original order at least once already, around December 2016. The Nunes Memo should address the fact that additional information validating the original FISA order was obtained, and reviewed and approved by a (potentially additional) federal judge, in addition to new administration staff at the DOJ.

Anything that discredits the Page FISA application by definition is intended to cast doubt on the Mueller investigation. (This may also be an attempted implication of the Nunes Memo if it tries to tar DAG Rosenstein, since each major step that has been taken by Mueller have been approved by DAG Rosenstein.) If this is the case, then Mueller should be named directly in the memo as someone who has personally engaged in misconduct in reliance on the Page warrant. If he is not, it is because Nunes knows that this is a line he cannot politically cross directly without real evidence – and is trying to do so indirectly.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 01:12 PM | Reply

FBI challenges accuracy of GOP's surveillance memo

By Karoun Demirjian and Elise Viebeck January 31 at 12:42 PM

The FBI spoke out publicly Wednesday against a GOP memo criticizing the bureau's use of surveillance authorities, challenging the classified document's accuracy as the White House and congressional Republicans are expected to soon make its contents public.

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy,'' the FBI said in a statement.

more

www.washingtonpost.com

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-31 01:29 PM | Reply

One question it does answer: How far is his head up Trump's ass? A: He can see his dentures.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-31 01:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy,"

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-31 01

If this memo didn't lie in some big ways it wouldn't be useful to Herr Trump.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-31 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We knew there would be no freedom of information.

In fact we are about to officially ban freedom.

You ruined it.

#5 | Posted by mutant at 2018-01-31 02:00 PM | Reply

This is the point I was trying to make in another thread that Jeff and RoC poo-pooed (from Corky's WaPo link):

Current and former law enforcement officials said a major concern inside the FBI is that the rules governing classified information will leave them handcuffed in trying to respond to the memo's accusations. Senior FBI officials believe the allegations of abuse are inaccurate and unfair, but they also believe the FBI will not be able to effectively counter those claims because many of the details of any counter-argument would be classified, according to current and former officials.

#6 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#6 Some classified information that is no longer sensitive could easily be declassified. Also, classified documents can still be released as long as sensitive information is redacted.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 02:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If the Nunes memo is a hit-piece set to discredit the FBI and the DOJ it's going to blow up in Nunes' (and everyone else involved who helped draft it) face BIG time. Probably not right away, but within a couple of weeks. If this hasn't been properly handled it could have serious repercussions for them. This is a dangerous game they are playing and they'd damn well better be right about this. If not, this could morph into a legitimate scandal.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 02:19 PM | Reply

Yes, but is the GOP going to allow the memo to be reviewed and classified info redacted, or is Trump just going to declassify the whole memo because he can without consultation with folks in the FBI and DOJ?

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 02:19 PM | Reply

Yes, but is the GOP going to allow the memo to be reviewed and classified info redacted, or is Trump just going to declassify the whole memo because he can without consultation with folks in the FBI and DOJ?

#9 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Trump is impulsive, but he's not stupid. He has legal and national security experts on his staff. I don't think he'd release it unless he was confident that this wouldn't backfire on him. It's one thing to make all of the political blunders he's made with offensive tweets and whatnot. This has much bigger implications and for as much disdain as I have for Trump personally, I don't think he'd be so reckless if experts whom he trusts strongly advised him not to release it.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 02:23 PM | Reply

From one of Et Al's articles:

"The President also has other tools to shape an investigation. For example, the President is in charge of classified markings for the government, and will decide on whether and with what redactions or restrictions the Nunes memo will be released. "

www.lawfareblog.com

Since he has already revealed classified info to the Russians and since he wants this memo to come out to help him thwart the Russian investigation, I fear he will do the narcissistic thing and declassify the memo without consultation and without any other consideration but his own potential fate.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I don't think he'd be so reckless if experts whom he trusts strongly advised him not to release it."

That's were we disagree. Trump thinks he knows more than anybody in the room, generals and national security advisors included, and if he thinks he is fighting for his political and financial future as well as the financial future of his kids, he will do whatever it takes to "win" including taking down the FBI and the DOJ. What does he care if he compromises national security methods and procedures? He doesn't, and he's already said that something that brings the country together (like a terrorist strike) would be good for him and good for the GOP in the 2018 elections. In short, he doesn't care who in the country loses as long as he wins.

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 02:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Never forget that Trump is a political day trader (to use Scarborough's term). He does and says what he has to do and say to get through the day; he's not big on long term strategies and consequences.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 02:42 PM | Reply

Trump is impulsive, but he's not stupid. He has legal and national security experts on his staff. I don't think he'd release it unless he was confident that this wouldn't backfire on him. It's one thing to make all of the political blunders he's made with offensive tweets and whatnot. This has much bigger implications and for as much disdain as I have for Trump personally, I don't think he'd be so reckless if experts whom he trusts strongly advised him not to release it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 02:23 PM | Reply

Talking sense last night but shilling for the right wingers today. Typical.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-31 02:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is impulsive, but he's not stupid. He has legal and national security experts on his staff. I don't think he'd release it unless he was confident that this wouldn't backfire on him. It's one thing to make all of the political blunders he's made with offensive tweets and whatnot. This has much bigger implications and for as much disdain as I have for Trump personally, I don't think he'd be so reckless if experts whom he trusts strongly advised him not to release it.
#10 | Posted by JeffJ

Trump admitted to obstruction of justice in a televised interview and completely at odds to all the prior messaging his white house had done.

Relying on Trump's advisor's judgement to dictate Trump's actions is a fools gamble.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-31 02:47 PM | Reply

"He has legal and national security experts on his staff...I don't think he'd be so reckless if experts whom he trusts strongly advised him not to release it." - #10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 02:23 PM

"He says he's going to get the best people around. But he doesn't do that – he never has," said the source.

"Because he doesn't listen to them, and then they leave."

source

#16 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-31 02:53 PM | Reply

"He has legal and national security experts on his staff...I don't think he'd be so reckless if experts whom he trusts strongly advised him not to release it." - #10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 02:23 PM

But Mr. Trumps's unwillingness to listen to anyone is disturbing because he has no experience governing. ... Everything Mr. Trump has done so far suggests that even if he were able to identify the most knowledgeable people in the world on any subject, he probably wouldn't listen to them anyway.

source

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-31 03:00 PM | Reply

Talking sense last night but shilling for the right wingers today. Typical.

#14 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

How am I shilling. I'm making a prediction. Nothing more. If my prediction proves wrong, then it proves wrong.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:03 PM | Reply

Keep in mind he was talked out of firing Mueller by someone on his team. He obviously listens to his staff at least a little bit.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:04 PM | Reply

"Keep in mind he was talked out of firing Mueller by someone on his team." - #19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:04 PM

He was threatened with a resignation by the very person who would have had to start the firing process in the first place.

That's a bit different than being talked out of it.

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-31 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He wasn't talked out of firing Mueller. McGahn refused to do it and made the bet that Trump wouldn't have the balls to do it himself. Trump wanted the cover of McGahn doing it for him. His cover regarding releasing the memo will the House GOP begged him to do it.

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Keep in mind he was talked out of firing Mueller by someone on his team. He obviously listens to his staff at least a little bit."

Bannon told him not to fire Comey, but then Miller and Kushner got him to do it. Who in the WH is going to tell him not to release the memo isn't as important as who is going to tell it's okay.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 03:12 PM | Reply

His cover regarding releasing the memo will the House GOP begged him to do it.

#21 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

If he releases it and it's as fraudulent as Democrats are portraying it, at that point he owns it. He can recommend it not to be released and kick it back to the committee, then it would be totally on them should they vote to release it anyway. He has NO cover if he recommends it to be released.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:15 PM | Reply

dell cameron‏ @dellcam

The memo was written by a member of the Trump transition team, which is the target of the investigation that the memo is about.

It couldn't be less objective if it was written by an actual Russian hacker.

(Privacy & security @Gizmodo.)

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-31 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If he releases it and it's as fraudulent as Democrats are portraying it..." - #23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:15 PM

And therein lies the problem: the way Democrats are portraying it. For example...

GOP memo: The world is flat (released to the public)

Democratic memo: (contains scientific facts that the world isn't flat, but is blocked from releasing it by the GOP majority so no one sees it)

Public conclusion: The world is flat

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-31 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jesus Jeff, what's it going to take before you give up the ‘Trump might suddenly turn into a statesmen' hope?

This isn't going to go down well at all and it being a brazenly wrong pile of garbage isn't going to have any ramifications for Trump with his base. They read and believe Brietbart and sites like the Young Cons for f -- -s sake.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-31 03:27 PM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY JPW

That is true of his hardcore base. Having said that, if this blows up in his face tepid supporters are going to abandon him and if this blows up in the general public GOP midterm voters aren't going to show up in sufficient numbers. If this goes as bad as you are predicting, it could very likely trigger a wave election in '18.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:31 PM | Reply

If the Nunes memo is a hit-piece set to discredit the FBI and the DOJ it's going to blow up in Nunes' (and everyone else involved who helped draft it) face BIG time.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nope. It won't. Because the FBI can't release records to defend itself. The President gets to decide what gets released.

Aren't you glad you helped elect him?

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-31 03:32 PM | Reply

Aren't you glad you helped elect him?

#28 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I didn't.

I'm a registered Republican. My last votes were Dole, Bush twice, McCain and Romney. If anything my third party vote helped Hillary, not Trump.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-30 06:13 PM

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 03:37 PM | Reply

#27 I hope you're right. I'm too cynical regarding the voting population's apathy to bank on their being moved enough to make a difference.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-31 03:50 PM | Reply

Aren't you glad you helped elect him?

#28 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
I didn't.
I'm a registered Republican. My last votes were Dole, Bush twice, McCain and Romney. If anything my third party vote helped Hillary, not Trump.
POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-30 06:13 PM

#29 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Sorry. I didn't realize Hillary got elected! My bad!

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-31 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think that when the Memo is released, the FBI should just start leaking the Trump investigation findings like a sieve. Just let it all out there as retaliation for lying about the agency to cover for Trump.

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-31 03:55 PM | Reply

#31

She didn't get elected. My vote didn't add to Trump's vote tally. My vote didn't help either one of them.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 04:09 PM | Reply

#31
She didn't get elected. My vote didn't add to Trump's vote tally. My vote didn't help either one of them.

#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nope. You helped. Sorry. That's a fact.

You had a choice to help stop him by voting for someone who could potentially beat him or vote for a third party with no chance of having an effect on the election.

Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, you threw your vote away. If every idiot who voted third party had voted instead for someone who could have stopped Trump, he wouldn't be in office and we wouldn't have these problems.

You made your choice. You are as guilty as the Trump voters.

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-31 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A typically stupid response from syco.

He would have thrown his vote away if he voted for Clinton too, you retard.

#35 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-01-31 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils,

I thought they were both equally evil but for very different reasons.

you threw your vote away.

I voted for whom I felt was the best candidate on the ballot. You may regard that as throwing away a vote, but I don't.

You are as guilty as the Trump voters.

I didn't vote for Trump. Your logic is terrible, especially given the fact that I'm a registered Republican and my presidential voting history.

I didn't want Trump in office and I didn't want Hillary in office. I felt both were so thoroughly unfit that I didn't have a lesser of 2 evils choice available to me.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 04:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A typically stupid response from syco.
He would have thrown his vote away if he voted for Clinton too, you retard.

#35 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

I have no idea how to respond to a comment this stupid. It's literally mind boggling.

#37 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-31 05:16 PM | Reply

I didn't vote for Trump. Your logic is terrible, especially given the fact that I'm a registered Republican and my presidential voting history.

#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You not voting would have had the same effect as voting third party.

A train is barreling down the track and is going to hit a school bus full of children. But there is a switch you can throw which would derail the train and kill only the conductor. You have the choice to make between a lesser of two evils, i.e. letting the conductor die. You can't choose neither and escape blame for your steadfast refusal help save as many lives as possible.

You had a chance to help make a difference. You didn't. You can't rationalize that way. Life sucks and comes with shitty choices. Time to grow up and try taking responsibility.

#38 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-31 05:23 PM | Reply

God I'm tired of watching people get berated for using their right to vote as it was intended to be used.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-31 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#38

I do take responsibility - I voted for whom I felt was the best candidate on the ballot. I have a clean conscience regarding my vote.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-31 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

DRtards like Syco, Corky and Indy will NEVER get over the fact that The Chosen One wasn't coronated as they were promised. I also voted for Johnson, but here in California, where the Hildabeast won by over 4 million votes.

Syco, why don't you try to pull together a convincing argument that my vote was thrown away as well...bet you it's not possible.

#41 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-31 07:02 PM | Reply

Syco, why don't you try to pull together a convincing argument that my vote was thrown away as well...bet you it's not possible.
#41 | Posted by Rightocenter

Here's an irrefutable argument. It was every American's sacred duty to do all in their power to keep a madman out of the White House.

You failed in your duty.

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-31 07:05 PM | Reply

"why don't you try to pull together a convincing argument that my vote was thrown away."

Do you believe the candidate you voted for had a greater than zero chance to win?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-31 07:10 PM | Reply

If there are omissions, the FBI can fill in the blanks.

#44 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-01-31 07:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If there are omissions, the FBI can fill in the blanks.

Sounds good when you say it but the reality is much different.

The information is classified. Only two people on the HIC can even see the underlying information, only eight in all of Congress, only a select few in the executive branch. No one can just "fill in the blanks."

That is the problem with this memo BS.

#45 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-31 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The FBI can give the classified stuff to Schiff. He will leak it. Problem solved.

#46 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-01-31 08:43 PM | Reply

The FBI can give the classified stuff to Schiff. He will leak it.

The FBI doesn't have to give it to him. He's one of the two on the HIC and one of the eight in Congress that has seen the underlying intelligence. Where are his leaks of the information? Or are you just FOS.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-31 09:51 PM | Reply

Hey, stop me if you've heard this one.

Does anyone else remember that time -- it was around a year, as I recall -- when Devin Nunes was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation for engaging in a coverup on behalf of dementia don?

#48 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-02-01 05:39 AM | Reply

ET Al. That is exactly my point.

Schiff was quick to leak info to CNN that was critical to Trump.

But now that the info would help Trump he is not leaking it.

I was being just a bit sarcastic.

Also, there are some who believe that the memo that was leaked to CNN with the bad date (7 vs 17) was a sting perpetrated on Schiff to expose his leaking.

Notice there have not been as many leaks from that committee since that memo.

#49 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-01 08:32 AM | Reply

Talking sense last night but shilling for the right wingers today. Typical.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-31 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What you saw last night was TeleTrumpter.

#50 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-01 11:44 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort