Release the memo

[Seriati]

I recommend reading the declassified Senate criminal referral.  It covers most of the same ground, with a lot more detail on the role of the memo and Steele's involvement.

[TheDrake]

That's where I got it from. But the memo clearly was misleading. The fact that the criminal referral is less misleading doesn't infuse me with confidence.

[Seriati]

So we may get to see the Democratic response memo today.  Even though its been generally acknowledged as not as clean as the original memo, I note that there has been no outcry over sensitive and confidential information it discloses.

So why no takers on defending the lies about the risks inherent in the original memo?  Looks to me, like Shiff, among others, flat out lied about the security risk.  I doubt, you're going to stay silent after you have the Democratic memo in hand.

[TheDrake]

Acknowledged that to me there's no security risk. But its pretty much standard procedure for any leo or other information gathering agency to not release anything. Could somebody glean something from this? Doubtful, and outweighed by the public interest.

[LetterRip]

So we may get to see the Democratic response memo today.  Even though its been generally acknowledged as not as clean as the original memo, I note that there has been no outcry over sensitive and confidential information it discloses.

So why no takers on defending the lies about the risks inherent in the original memo?  Looks to me, like Shiff, among others, flat out lied about the security risk.  I doubt, you're going to stay silent after you have the Democratic memo in hand.

Could you clarify what specific 'lies' you are talking about?  A quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything said by Schiff that could be characterized as such.

The security risks weren't the content of the memo itself - rather that by showing a willingness to reveal FBI informant names for political purposes it will have a chilling effect that will dissuade people from reporting to the FBI because people now they are no longer assured of their reports being confidential.  So people will err on not reporting in ambigous situation - since a false positive could result in an angry neighbor, or accusations of being a bigot, etc. due to no longer being assured that your report is anonymous.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/04/rep_adam_schiff_suggests_fisa_memo_release_will_dissuade_sources_from_reporting_domestic_terrorists.html

[Seriati]

You could start with his opening statement from the House Intelligence Committee transcript:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf

Or you could look at his comments from before the release, where he repeatedly characterized the memo has revealing classified information.  Heck, you could look at the FBI and DOJ statements, which also falsely characterized it as releasing things it shouldn't have.

I'm fascinated too, that the left seems to have little problem with leaks of classified information, or say a Senator releasing a non-public transcript "because she was sick" but a lot of problems with declassifying this information.

Shiff also used misleading misrepresentations every time he talked, "Nunes chose not to review the underlying information."  Well duh, the DOJ restricted it to review by one member and if it had been Nunes everyone on the left would have instantly discounted it.  Nunes didn't write the memo, so it's not even clear why Shiff made this point - other than for purely political reasons because Nunes is a Bogey man.

[LetterRip]

I skimmed the transcript - could you clarify where you are referring to by page number, I don't see anything supporting your contention.

[TheDrake]

Well, number one, it was classified at the time he made the remarks. So how can it be inaccurate to say it has classified information in it?

In the transcript, he uses these phrases. I've tried to be thorough, but I could easily miss something.

"highly sensitive"
"could potentially reveal sources and methods"
"want to make sure that nothing [would] ... impair the FBI's investigation"

Later on, he continues to drive the point that it should be reviewed by FBI, DOJ, etc. To determine if any of those concerns were valid. He never makes the assertion "It does contain information that would impair the FBI" or "It will reveal sources and methods"

So calling an expression of uncertainty "a lie" seems a bit of a stretch.

[Seriati]

So the Democratic rebuttal has been released.  A couple points.  First, there's literally no way to reconcile Democratic claims of the dangers of releasing the Republican memo because it risked exposing investigative techniques that could harm the national interest, with the far far more specific memo the Democrats produced.  It does seem, at this point, that such a claim was little more than a lie.

Second, Shiff and his cronies have been claiming that the political nature of the Steele report was part of the application.  With the implication that the court knew who it was funded by.

This consisted of a statement that, "(t)he FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit (Trump's) campaign."  (emphasis and changes in paren's mine).

That doesn't sound remotely like telling the court - that the FBI knew that the information was paid for by the DNC and the other campaign that could have literally been anyone in the country and half or more of the organizations involved in the election.  And that's significant because, revealing it was the DNC would have been an admission that the DNC and the campaign paid a foreign spy in violation of the campaign finance laws interesting omission

[LetterRip]

DNC and the campaign paid a foreign spy in violation of the campaign finance laws interesting omission

The DNC didn't pay a foreign spy.  The DNC paid a lawfirm.  The lawfirm paid a US based research agency Fusion GPS.  Fusion GPS hired a foreign born individual (an ex-spy) who did the research.

Also the Trump campaign hiring Cambridge Analytica, a British analytics firm.

Neither of those is illegal.

The DNC however, may have done a campaign violation in that their payment to the lawfirm was described as 'legal services', where more accurately it should have been described as 'legal and research services'.

They probably broke the spirit of the law - but it is far from clear that they broke the letter of the law.

I'm all for a change in law that would require much stricter and more transparent disclosures on this type of passthrough payment.

So the Democratic rebuttal has been released.  A couple points.  First, there's literally no way to reconcile Democratic claims of the dangers of releasing the Republican memo because it risked exposing investigative techniques that could harm the national interest, with the far far more specific memo the Democrats produced.  It does seem, at this point, that such a claim was little more than a lie.

You keep misrepresenting what the Democrats said.  They feared the chilling effect on individuals submitting leads and on FBI doing investigations.

As to them releasing detailed information - the harm to the nation of letting the false and misleading memo by Nunes stand is a pretty serious harm to the nation.  Since Nunes already did the damage regarding people willing to submit information to the FBI there is very little in the way of additional harm by countering Nunes memo with fact that also does such disclosures.

[Seriati]

Out of curiosity, anyone want to rethink their reactions on these memos?  We now know based on the IG's report that Nunes Memo was accurate and I just reread it, and if anything it gave the FBI and the DOJ the benefit of the doubt on things we now know were  false.  https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-released-full-text-read-pdf-declassified

I also reread Shiff's response and it's literally misleading statement and false claim after misleading statement and false claim.  https://www.vox.com/2018/2/24/17048764/schiff-memo-nunes-read-full-text-pdf.

Schiff is really good at saying something other than what he actually said.  His statement that the FBI met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary burden to pursue a FISA warrant on Page is clearly false, but is it a lie or just a statement he thought was true?  Certainly not something he had seen evidence to support since the IG established it wasn't there.

Shiff's memo is chock full of statements that contradict reality as set out extensively in the IG report, many of which he had to know were false.  It's a document written to spin a story and when you recompare the two it should be really obvious.

In any event, this thread came to mind while I was reading a news report this week that the IG provided a new report on FISA abuse.  His office conducted a spot check of 25 FISA applications granted to authorize warrants against US persons in the last five years.  The IG's office found material problems in 100% of the applications reviewed, yes all 25.  It's hard to imagine why we should let this process continue.

[TheDrake]

On FISA, I've long been a critic of its existence and operation even when all the rules are followed. You'll have no complaints from me on proposals to demolish, dismantle, or overhaul that process.

I think it also demonstrates that it isn't necessarily a targeting of Page in any way - it is standard operating procedure to abuse the system.

I'm not going to delve into any of the Schiff statements one way or the other.

[wmLambert]

...It's hard to imagine why we should let this process continue.

There are three ways to see this: either we get rid of the whole thing because it is proved not to work. We prosecute anyone who lied and signed a legal document that claimed they verified everything on the forms. We look at the judges who allowed this transgression of justice to go on without doing anything about it.

Personally, I think number three is the way to go, with number two a half-step behind. We can't fix what's broken if we allow the perpetrators to get away with malfeasance, crimes, or incompetence. Dues must be paid.

[Seriati]

On FISA, I've long been a critic of its existence and operation even when all the rules are followed. You'll have no complaints from me on proposals to demolish, dismantle, or overhaul that process.

Or cut it completely back to non-US persons only.  There should be no end around to spying on US citizens.

I think it also demonstrates that it isn't necessarily a targeting of Page in any way - it is standard operating procedure to abuse the system.

I think it demonstrates that it is standard process to abuse the system.  The FBI sees this is a formality and completely ignores the fundamental violation of rights if it can get them a result.

It doesn't remotely show that Page wasn't targeted.  There's no question Page was targeted.  I think too, the falsification of information that occurred in respect of Page was unique.

I'm not going to delve into any of the Schiff statements one way or the other.

I think fairness requires it.  Schiff has been front and center of every step of this process.  He's used his position on the Intelligence Committee to prop up multiple anti-Trump lies.  Without review, there's no accountability.