No products in the cart.

News

The Nunes memo has been released

The House Intelligence Committee has released, without redactions, the classified Nunes memo on alleged FISA abuses. The release was vehemently opposed by the intelligence community, with the FBI issuing a rare public statement to express its “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

What the memo alleges:

  • The dossier authored by Christopher Steele was “an essential part” of the FBI and the Justice Department’s justification for conducting electronic surveillance of Carter Page. It also notes the dossier was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
  • Steele said he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected.”
  • This “clear evidence of Steele’s bias” wasn’t reflected in any of the applications to authorize the electronic surveillance.
One more thing: The memo also says that information about Trump campaign adviser George Papadopolous “triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation” in July 2016 by Peter Strzok, one of the FBI agents who later got in trouble for texts about Trump and Clinton.
  • Twitter is abuzz with speculation — like this tweet from David French — that this fact undercuts the memo’s thesis that the Russia investigation sprung mostly from the Steele dossier.


Read the memo here

 

0

nancy.larned

Oath Keepers Merchandise

4 comments

  1. I read the 2 page letter from the Executive Branch documenting the Presidents approval of the House Committee memo and the 4 page House Committee memo. It is clear deputy Attorney General Rosenstein committed one criminal act and must be immediately terminated as he will be tried for the crime. Multiple crimes committed by Comey, McCabe, and many others at both the Justice department and the FBI, in addition to criminal violations of the law , together this group acted in collusion to commit illegal acts against the American citizens (treason) and committed illegal acts against targeted American citizens and colluded to invalidate the 2016 Presidential election, subsequent transition of the Executive Branch and operation if the Executive Branch by the duly elected and sworn President, his appointed cabinet, advisor’s and sides.

  2. While the committee memo exposes crimes against the American people there is zero classified information in the memo that warranted it being classified, shows how the government employees are criminally using fraudulent national security classifications to hide their crimes.

  3. Search
    Zoom
    p. 1
    THE WHITE HOUSE

    WASHINGTON
    February 2, 2018

    The Honorable Devin Nunes

    Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
    United States Capitol

    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter fthe
    Committee f) 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 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 Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from it
    disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President fs responsibility to classify,
    declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods
    and national defense. See, Dep of Navy v. Egan, 484 US. 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 fs 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 interest.1 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 fs request to
    release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassification pursuant to the
    President fs 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

    1 See, e. S. Rept. 114 f8 at 12 (Administration of Barack Obama) ( fOn 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 f); 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).

    Search
    Zoom
    p. 2
    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 Of fce 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.

    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

    cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan
    Speaker of the House of Representatives

    The Honorable Adam Schiff
    Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

    Search
    Zoom
    p. 3

    ssnua

    Declassified by order of the President
    February 2, 2018

    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 fs ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F ISA) 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 ISA process.

    Investigation Update

    – On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a ISA probable cause order
    (up; under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a
    US 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. a FISA order on an
    American citizen must be renewed by the ISC 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.
    Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more
    FISA applications on behalf of

    Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including
    renewals) before the ISC are classified. As such, the public fs confidence in the integrity of the
    FISA process depends on the court fs ability to hold the government to the highest standard f f
    particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the rigor in
    protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90 day renewals of surveillance
    orders, is necessarily dependent on the government fs production to the court of all material and
    relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA

    PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    TGIF-SEW

    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)

    2)

    The fdossier f- 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 fs ties
    to Russia.

    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 fs efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then
    known to senior and FBI officials.

    b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named US. person, but
    does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a US. law
    firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOI 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.

    The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo
    News article by- Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page fs 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 flings that he met with Yahoo Newly and several other. outlets fin
    September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele fs
    initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC. in
    2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.”

    a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines
    as the most serious of violations fan 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’ 1n September before the Page application was submitted to

    PROPERTY OF THE US. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    3)

    4)

    the FISC in October-but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about
    those contacts.

    b) Steele fs 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.

    Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via
    then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce 0hr, a senior DOJ official who worked
    closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the
    election, the FBI began interviewing 0hr, documenting his communications with Steele.
    For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to 0hr 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. f This clear evidence of .
    Steele f bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files but
    not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

    a) During this same time period, Ohr fs 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 fs opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via
    Fusion GPS. The Ohrs f relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably
    concealed from the FISC. .

    According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill

    Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its infancy f 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 fs 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

    and unverified. f While the FISA application relied on Steele fs

    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.

    r; .r
    i. a:
    3:4 ,af- .9.-

    PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    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 fs 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 fs election.

    I

    PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Leave a Reply