Trey Gowdy breaks with Trump: FISA memo doesn't have 'any impact' on Robert Mueller's investigation

[mystery-ak]

Trey Gowdy breaks with Trump: FISA memo doesn't have 'any impact' on Robert Mueller's investigation
by Daniel Chaitin | Feb 3, 2018, 8:55 PM

Rep. Trey Gowdy broke with President Trump on where the controversial House Intelligence Committee memo leaves special counsel Robert Mueller and his Russia inquiry.

While Trump tweeted Saturday morning that the memo "totally vindicates" him in regards to the federal Russia inquiry, Gowdy, a key player in the development of the report, said he doubts Mueller's probe, which is looking into possible collusion between members of Trump's campaign and the Kremlin, will be impacted.

"I would say this. I'm sure the president is frustrated," Gowdy, R-S.C., said in an interview for CBS News' "Face the Nation" when asked about Trump's tweet. "You know, [House Intel ranking member] Adam Schiff prejudged the investigation before we interviewed the first witness, so I — I'm sure that that instructs some of what he said. I — I actually don't think it is has any impact on the Russia probe for this reason —."

more
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trey-gowdy-breaks-with-trump-fisa-memo-doesnt-have-any-impact-on-robert-muellers-investigation/article/2648046

[edpc]

"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."


I’m not sure what obstruction he’s referring to, but he’s unfortunately right about the rest.

[Concerned]

I think Gowdy is right (as usual).  As he said:  "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier."  Further, according to the memo:

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.

Further, the FISA warrant against Page apparently had nothing to do with the Trump campaign.  When the warrant was issued, Page had either taken a “leave of absence” from the campaign (according to him) or had “never been part of the campaign” (according to campaign spokesperson Jason Miller).  The timeline is as follows:

Sept. 23: The Trump campaign denies Page was ever part of the campaign. "Mr. Page is not an adviser and has made no contribution to the campaign," campaign spokesperson Jason Miller said. "He's never been part of our campaign. Period." The statement comes as Yahoo News reports that a U.S. intelligence probe was trying to determine if Page had "opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."

Sept. 26: Page himself announces he is taking "a leave of absence" from the campaign, saying the reporting on his remarks has created a "distraction."

Oct. 21: Nearly a month after the Trump campaign says Page was never part of the campaign, FBI seeks and receives a FISA court order to begin surveillance on Page.

So the counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign was triggered in July based on Papadopoulos and the FISA warrant on Page was issued in October after he had left the campaign (assuming he was ever on it) so I don't see how any improprieties in obtaining that warrant impacts Mueller at all.

http://www.readingeagle.com/ap/article/does-the-gop-memo-show-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaign

[jpsb]

This

So the counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign was triggered in July based on Papadopoulos

Is a lie.

[edpc]

This

So the counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign was triggered in July based on Papadopoulos

Is a lie.

How?  It's in the memo, which was said to 'contain no factual errors.'  The 2nd sentence of section 5 on the final page says:

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.

[Concerned]

This

So the counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign was triggered in July based on Papadopoulos

Is a lie.

Maybe you should let Devin Nunes know since it was in his memo.  I was just quoting the memo.  If that's a lie, I wonder what else in the memo is a lie? 

[jpsb]

The facts will come out. The FBI (and the NeverTrumpers) is desperate to blame the Russia
investigation on anything other than the Steele doc. Papadopoulos is just the FBI's latest lie.

[edpc]

The facts will come out. The FBI (and the NeverTrumpers) is desperate to blame the Russia
investigation on anything other than the Steele doc. Papadopoulos is just the FBI's latest lie.

Again.....the memo is made up from notes Gowdy gathered and presented to the committee.  The way it's written is the summation of the information.  That means it's what Gowdy, Nunes, and staff gathered from poring through everything and they're presenting it as fact. 

[Oceander]

This

So the counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign was triggered in July based on Papadopoulos

Is a lie.

So now you’re saying the Nunes memo is a lie?  You must, because it says right there in black and white that the Papdopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. 

[Oceander]

The facts will come out. The FBI (and the NeverTrumpers) is desperate to blame the Russia
investigation on anything other than the Steele doc. Papadopoulos is just the FBI's latest lie.

No, that would be a Nunes/House Intelligence Committee lie, since they said so in the memo that was just released.

[edpc]

The last sentence in Section 4, page 5 says.....

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.

Chris Stewart, R-Utah, was on FNS and Wallace asked him specifically if this is what McCabe said.  Stewart replied it may have not been the exact quote, but that's what he meant.

Being cute with the wording may score political points, but if it's not what he actually said, don't undercut your credibility by presenting it as the actual testimony.  Amateur hour.

[Oceander]

The last sentence in Section 4, page 5 says.....

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.

Chris Stewart, R-Utah, was on FNS and Wallace asked him specifically if this is what McCabe said.  Stewart replied it may have not been the exact quote, but that's what he meant.

Being cute with the wording may score political points, but if it's not what he actually said, don't undercut your credibility by presenting it as the actual testimony.  Amateur hour.

Are you saying that the memo does not say what it in fact says in the second sentence of section 5 on the last page?

[edpc]

Are you saying that the memo does not say what it in fact says in the second sentence of section 5 on the last page?

No, I'm saying the memo presents the sentence as something McCabe actually said.  It's not and Stewart admitted it wasn't.  Screwing around with wording in that fashion plays into the hands of those that say the memo distorts facts.

[Victoria33]

bookmark

[Oceander]

No, I'm saying the memo presents the sentence as something McCabe actually said.  It's not and Stewart admitted it wasn't.  Screwing around with wording in that fashion plays into the hands of those that say the memo distorts facts.

No, it’s a direct statement of fact by the authors of the memo itself.  So, if that statement is false, then the memo itself is dubious.  Do you want to go down that road?

[edpc]

No, it’s a direct statement of fact by the authors of the memo itself.  So, if that statement is false, then the memo itself is dubious.  Do you want to go down that road?

I think we are saying the same things and somehow not understanding each other.  Perhaps I am not being clear. My contention is that reporting it in the memo as if it were something actually stated, when it is not, is problematic for the credibility of that part of the memo.  Finding one loose thread can cause the rest of the garment to unravel.

[Oceander]

I think we are saying the same things and somehow not understanding each other.  Perhaps I am not being clear. My contention is that reporting it in the memo as if it were something actually stated, when it is not, is problematic for the credibility of that part of the memo.  Finding one loose thread can cause the rest of the garment to unravel.

I think we are closer together than I had been thinking earlier, based on the other thread.  My apologies.