Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Tero]

Totally. Deep state proven. Hillary runs FBI from the building that burned at her country house recently.

[Tyrannical]

Totally. Deep state proven. Hillary runs FBI from the building that burned at her country house recently.

How does it feel to be an (un)willing Putin Patsy?

Nobody expected Trump to Win, and as soon as he did the fake Russian propaganda became anti-trump

All your anti-Trump rhetoric has been coordinated by Russian intelligence. Congrats

[L'Emmerdeur]

The Nunes memo is garbage--forget about the bullshit 'transparency' song and dance, it fails to achieve even its political objective.

'Even If You Take the Nunes Memo Seriously, It Makes No Sense'

Under the most fair reading of the memorandum, the argument it makes is as follows: The Steele dossier—a collection of reports filed by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele—is a biased and flawed document produced by someone out to “get” the president; FBI and Justice Department officials knew of the bias and did not disclose it to the judges of the FISA court who approved the FISA warrant; as a result, the rights of an American citizen (Carter Page) were violated; and (more importantly, from the perspective of the Republican Party) the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier corrupted the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign—all of which is, in effect, the “fruit of a poisonous tree” that should no longer be credited.

Given that story line, one can only conclude that the Nunes memo fails to make its case—and fails quite badly at that.

Consider, first, the obvious timing problem. The Nunes memo begins with a FISA application dated October 21, 2016. That date is significant for a number of reasons. As an initial matter, coming less than 20 days before the election, it seems a particularly poor way of trying to influence the outcome of the election. A FISA application just a few days before November 9 would not actually have produced any evidence until well after the election—making Nunes' implicit charge of a corrupted investigation chronologically implausible. In addition, the focus on this date has to deal with the uncomfortable fact that the surveillance of Page it authorized started roughly a month after Page officially left the Trump campaign—so, again, it is a poor way of effectuating a bias against Trump to collect evidence relating to the actions of a former campaign volunteer.

But the most important reason to focus on the 2016 date is that it ignores another, earlier date. We know from public reports that the FBI opened its inquiry into Page’s Russian connections as early as 2013, at which time the bureau already had probable cause to think Russian intelligence operatives might be trying to recruit him. (The Russian spies, by the way, thought that Page was “an idiot,” according to court documents.) Any story of the investigation of Page that starts in the middle is incomplete at best—and since we don’t know what was in the earlier Page application or in the rest of this October application, we can’t really know how incomplete it is. But that careful incompleteness is, by itself, grounds to doubt the memo’s conclusions.

The other timing problem arises from the effort to tie this allegedly flawed FISA application to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein (for whom the president apparently has great disdain). Of course, before the election Rosenstein wasn’t the deputy attorney general—he was a U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland. To link him to the earlier “Steele-based” October application, the Nunes memo has to tie that original application to the application for a renewal of the FISA surveillance order that Rosenstein authorized in 2017, after he was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate.

But that timeline weakens the Nunes case for bias rather than strengthening it. Between the original application and the Rosenstein renewal, the Page surveillance was renewed two other times, for a total of four approvals altogether (and public reports say that there were four separate judges who did the reviewing—suggesting that four independent reviews validated the FBI’s investigation). But these renewals mean that it is utterly implausible (if not borderline impossible) for the renewal that Rosenstein approved to be reliant on the Steele memorandum.

Here’s why: When a FISA order is obtained to conduct surveillance on an American, the FBI must get a reauthorization from the FISA court every 90 days. In seeking renewal they cannot simply recycle the original application—they must demonstrate that the surveillance has been fruitful. In other words, they need to show the judge that the surveillance has developed foreign intelligence that reaffirms the original probable cause determination and shows that their suspicions had merit and the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power. If the FBI cannot show new evidence like this, the surveillance is likely to be terminated. In other words, the fact that the FISA order was renewed means that the original “poison” of the Steele memorandum did not taint the subsequent renewals—it means that there actually is a “there there”—at least in the eyes of the renewing judges.

Next, the Nunes memo reduces its credibility by including language that is intended to create a misimpression. For example, in order to buttress the idea that the Steele dossier was central to the original application (and thus a critical tainting factor) the memo says that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without Steele.

This is potentially explosive. It is meant to leave the impression that Steele was the central, critical basis for the probable cause submission to the FISA court. But that isn’t what the memo says. What it actually says—a much better reading (one likely to be borne out when the transcripts are eventually published)—is that McCabe acknowledged that the Steele dossier was part of the impetus for seeking the warrant—which is not the same thing as saying it was the probable cause basis for obtaining it.

Perhaps even more significant is how the memo tries to bury the admission deep in the document that the entire FBI counterintelligence investigation of Russian influence was not triggered by the Steele dossier. Instead, as the memo admits only in its final paragraph, it was information about another Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, and his meetings that began the inquiry.

Trump thinks that this twaddle 'vindicates' him, and perhaps he'll try to use it to move forward with removing Rod Rosenstein. I expect that Republicans in Congress will play along, if he does.

[Brian Peacock]

The Republican argument encapsulated in the Nunes memo implies that FISA courts should undertake some kind of political test of those whose evidence the FBI have gathered and are relying on in support of a warrant application. By the memo logic Steele's evidence would then have failed due to his apparent personal failure to politically endorse the man who employed the man who was the focus of the FBI's application. The argument goes beyond simply charging the FBI with partisan bias - it clearly implies that Page should never have been under-investigation in the first place, even though he'd been an individual of interest to the FBI since 2013. That fact is, it seems, neither here nor there.

Nunes recently expended much energy on making the case for extending the standing section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows the security services to undertake warrantless surveillance of US citizens and foreign nationals and to hoover up any amount of private data, provisions which Trump signed into law a few weeks ago. Nunes and Republicans are obviously intensely relaxed about the security services secretly investigating, surveilling, and amassing information on individuals without reference to the courts, only becoming 'concerned' when FISA warrants are applied for and issued on those close to the Republican party and/or it's delegate presidential nominee.

[Tero]

Yes, Trump got the government off our backs with ”regulation” only to put it back as spies.

[JimC]

42 seems mostly concerned with the legal niceties. Perhaps, even if the involvement of the Trump team with Russians is as suggested, technical legal reasons may prevent convictions. However, I find it extraordinary that he shows little concern for the damage to US national security that accrues when a dangerous foreign power is allowed to meddle in US politics...

[pErvinalia]

Do we know that Trump Jr actually came away from that meeting empty handed?

[Brian Peacock]

... I find it extraordinary that [Trump] shows little concern for the damage to US national security that accrues when a dangerous foreign power is allowed to meddle in US politics...

Not to mention his and his administration's systematic undermining and compromising of judicial and investigatory independence.

[Brian Peacock]

Do we know that Trump Jr actually came away from that meeting empty handed?

Of course we do. We have his word on it.

[Seabass]

Do we know that Trump Jr actually came away from that meeting empty handed?

Of course we do. We have his word on it.

The Trump family is nothing if not honest. Much more honest than "anonymous sources".

[Gord]

No one who runs an online university could be dishonest.

[pErvinalia]

Do we know that Trump Jr actually came away from that meeting empty handed?

Of course we do. We have his word on it.

The Trump family is nothing if not honest. Much more honest than "anonymous sources".

Imagine how much Hillary would have lied about it!

[Forty Two]

Do we know that Trump Jr actually came away from that meeting empty handed?

Of course we do. We have his word on it.

If there was anything good, wouldn't it have been publicized? What good is dirt on one's opponent if it doesn't get distributed?

[Forty Two]

... I find it extraordinary that [Trump] shows little concern for the damage to US national security that accrues when a dangerous foreign power is allowed to meddle in US politics...

Not to mention his and his administration's systematic undermining and compromising of judicial and investigatory independence.

Systematic undermining and compromising? By doing what, exactly?

[Forty Two]

42 seems mostly concerned with the legal niceties. Perhaps, even if the involvement of the Trump team with Russians is as suggested, technical legal reasons may prevent convictions. However, I find it extraordinary that he shows little concern for the damage to US national security that accrues when a dangerous foreign power is allowed to meddle in US politics...

Well, sure, like the main "legal nicety" I like to call, oh, what was that again.... oh, yeah - evidence.

Oh, wait -- "as suggested?" What is that suggestion? What's the involvement of the Trump team with Russians that has been suggested, and who is making the suggestion?

I am not concerned with National Security when a dangerous foreign power is "allowed to meddle?" Oh, I'm concerned alright. I just need you to be specific as to what sort of meddling you believe has been established -- i.e. what specific conduct has been ESTABLISHED to your satisfaction such that you would consider yourself convinced that they had good, solid evidence of it? And, what would you do each specific thing.

The reason I ask that is that I make distinctions as to what conduct we're talking about. All countries meddle around to some degree. The US definitely meddles in other countries' elections. For the most part, that meddling takes the form of the publishing and selling of ideas and the supporting of candidates overseas that would have our interests in mind. In that sense, there is very little, if anything, that can lawfully be done about it. If Russia is putting out facebook ads, or using Pokemon Go to try to get out a pro-Russia or pro-Trump or pro-Hillary message, or just to spread discord and chaos -- well, so be it. They are allowed to meddle that way just like the next guy.

If, however, they're are, indeed, hacking or trying to hack into election related and other computers, and getting into political party computer systems and such, then yes, indeed, that's a deep concern. However, I think it's fair to say that there is not a shred of "evidence" that they've done that. Do they try? I wouldn't put it past them. I wouldn't put it past the US and the UK and France and Germany either. Are you naive enough to think we're not peeking into other countries' affairs? Stealing their data and info? The fucking CIA director just publicly declared that that's part of the CIA's job - to go out there and steal secrets.

So, let's stop, perhaps, pretending that we're all naive, wilting flowers, who go through life thinking everyone plays fair and that it would be some shocking departure from standards of international interaction to have countries fucking with each other. I mean, any reading up on the last 75 years of cold war and covert events would disabuse one of any illusions in that regard.

Does that mean we do nothing about it? No, of course not. We fight them.

That being said, fighting them doesn't mean we accept the word of our intelligence agencies without question. They deserve our respect, but not our blind trust.