Well, Well, Well: Nunes Admits The Partisan Origins Of The Dossier *Had* Been Disclosed After All

[Suppressed]

Well, Well, Well: Nunes Admits The Partisan Origins Of The Dossier *Had* Been Disclosed After All
Posted at 10:00 pm on February 5, 2018 by Patterico
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/02/05/well-well-well-nunes-admits-the-partisan-origins-of-the-dossier-had-been-disclosed-after-all/
 
[...]

Now Devin Nunes is in line to be Emily Litella’s successor. Today he admitted that his huge, explosive #TheMemo — which alleged that the FBI concealed the political origins of a dossier — got one fairly significant fact wrong: namely, that detail had not been concealed, but rather had been disclosed:

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

. . . .

“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’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo alleged.

But in an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Nunes was asked about reports over the weekend that the FBI application did refer to a political entity connected to the dossier. It is unclear precisely what language the application might have used.

Nunes conceded that a “footnote” to that effect was included in the application, while faulting the bureau for failing to provide more specifics.

“A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,” Nunes said on “Fox & Friends.”

Never mind!

News flash, fellas: if this revelation comes as news to you, you got suckered. It was always obvious that Devin Nunes was a partisan, unreliable character — and thus it was always likely that this memo was, essentially, garbage. The clues were all there, for anyone who bothered to look. For example: #TheMemo claimed that James Comey had testified that the entire dossier was “salacious and unverified,” when Comey’s publicly available testimony showed that he had said nothing of the sort. And #TheMemo implied (and countless partisan commentators repeated) that Carter Page had been employed by the Trump campaign when the initial FISA application was sought, when in reality he had stepped down from the campaign nearly a month before.

And now this.

[...]

[edpc]

"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’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo alleged.


This was the basis of my contention they were engaging in clever wording and legal speak on other threads.  Notice how they specify the DNC, parties, and campaigns.  The footnote likely refers to 'political opposition' and not a specific entity.  That would keep the memo wording accurate.  Also, they mention the application.  There's no way of knowing whether the political organizations were discussed in the FISC proceedings, because they aren't mentioned as part of the memo.

[Suppressed]

This was the basis of my contention they were engaging in clever wording and legal speak on other threads.  Notice how they specify the DNC, parties, and campaigns.  The footnote likely refers to 'political opposition' and not a specific entity.  That would keep the memo wording accurate.  Also, they mention the application.  There's no way of knowing whether the political organizations were discussed in the FISC proceedings, because they aren't mentioned as part of the memo.

@edpc  Yes, I should have pinged you!  And I think @Oceander and someone else had similar concerns.  I wish I could recall who.

[mrclose]

While the FBI admitted that the information came from a politically motivated source, the bureau did not disclose that the source had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That is a damning omission.

When told the source is political, the next question is "who is the source".
Surely this was asked.

Sounds to me like the Obama appointed Judge (guessing here) needs to be investigated if the warrant was approved without the obvious question being asked!

You democrat shills can now return to the DU.

[skeeter]

OK. The FISA judge was aware he was issuing a surveillance warrant for political purposes. Thats worse.

Now what?

[edpc]

When told the source is political, the next question is "who is the source".
Surely this was asked.

The named source wasn't on the application, but you have no idea if the question was asked or answered, because we don't have any record of the FISC proceedings.  How convenient.  You must be fantastic at handstands, with all the talking that you do out of your ass.

[Frank Cannon]

While the FBI admitted that the information came from a politically motivated source, the bureau did not disclose that the source had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That is a damning omission.

When told the source is political, the next question is "who is the source".
Surely this was asked.

Sounds to me like the Obama appointed Judge (guessing here) needs to be investigated if the warrant was approved without the obvious question being asked!

You democrat shills can now return to the DU.

Top Notch!

[Emjay]

@edpc  Yes, I should have pinged you!  And I think @Oceander and someone else had similar concerns.  I wish I could recall who.

That 'nevermind' thing was all over Red State yesterday.

I don't think it is as big a factor as some people do.  I think Nunes has plenty of ammo left and I hope he fires.

[Emjay]

While the FBI admitted that the information came from a politically motivated source, the bureau did not disclose that the source had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That is a damning omission.

When told the source is political, the next question is "who is the source".
Surely this was asked.

Sounds to me like the Obama appointed Judge (guessing here) needs to be investigated if the warrant was approved without the obvious question being asked!

You democrat shills can now return to the DU.

@mrclose   You are not just close, you are THERE!

[Emjay]

@mrclose   You are not just close, you are THERE!

You raise another interesting point.  Who are these people who act for all the world like democratic shills?

Are they really democratic shills or do they just play them on TBR because their brains are so infused with Trump hate they can no longer think rationally.

I actually know a couple or more like that here and they have been all about discrediting this memo from the get.

[Bigun]

Top Notch!

Yes indeed!  Nailed it IMHO!

[Hoodat]

More fake news.

The truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

-Joseph Goebbels-

[edpc]

Again, I will refer all of you to the interview Nunes conducted last Friday with Bret Baier.  He asks Nunes about the 'political nature.' They show the clip of the CNN interview and Swalwell says specifically that the information was disclosed and it was from a 'politically motivated source.'  When Nunes is asked if that is true, he says no. At no time during that exchange was he asked about the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, or the DNC. 


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9h1Lw-uQpM

There is no room for wiggle room on it.  He's either wrong or he lied.  You can see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears.  Start at the 6:55 mark.

[skeeter]

More fake news.

The truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

-Joseph Goebbels-

All this shows is someone is desperate to avoid a Fraud on the Court rap.

[anubias]

OK. The FISA judge was aware he was issuing a surveillance warrant for political purposes. Thats worse.

Now what?

“Political”, but not that it was from Hillary and the DNC.     This article does not merit a “Well...well.. well.”, but of course, that’s what we got.

I suspect the judge didn’t even read it and just went on the FBI’s word that it was a good warrant.  I’ve read many articles that claim that the judge/FBI relationship is a one built on trust.  The FBI obviously can no longer be trusted.  Something must be done.

[aligncare]

While the FBI admitted that the information came from a politically motivated source, the bureau did not disclose that the source had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That is a damning omission.

When told the source is political, the next question is "who is the source".
Surely this was asked.

Sounds to me like the Obama appointed Judge (guessing here) needs to be investigated if the warrant was approved without the obvious question being asked!

You democrat shills can now return to the DU.

Exactly right. The FBI was hiding behind a deception. And now those that want to excuse the deception say see! there was no deception. And funny, too, that these are the same folks who are also Trump’s harshest critics here....

[Frank Cannon]

This article does not merit a “Well...well.. well.”, but of course, that’s what we got.

It's Red State, the house organ for the Evan McMuffin dead enders. All they do is pump out irrational Trump hate screeds desperately trying to find viewership.

[Fantom]

Ah, but for a footnote, the Kingdom was lost.

Can anyone say "bait". Putting aside whether a "footnote" is risible to the FBI's duty to inform the Court of great failings in the central piece of their FISA applications, failings the FBI is well aware of.

Putting that aside, Bait... the dems know of this "flaw" and demand to present propaganda explaining their prior Steele propaganda.

Now with competing narrative, little choice but to supply the underlying FISA. What with the narrative that it does not destroy Intell operations of the USA debunked.. only of the obama/Clinton regime use of State power to spy on it's political opponents.

Maybe I chose the wrong analogy. Perhaps Brer Rabbit would be more to the point.

Wheels within wheels.

[edpc]

I suspect the judge didn’t even read it and just went on the FBI’s word that it was a good warrant.  I’ve read many articles that claim that the judge/FBI relationship is a one built on trust.  The FBI obviously can no longer be trusted.  Something must be done.

We know from various reports last year a FISA warrant was denied in summer 2016.  I guess that was one of the 'good judges' that didn't trust the presenters and actually read it.

Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

[mystery-ak]

Gowdy on FNC now saying the judges did not ask about the Dossier..where or who paid for it..

[mystery-ak]

Gowdy also said that the investigation into the State Dept is very very disturbing...asked if this has anything to do with Sid Blumenthal Gowdy said that is very very close...

[Fantom]

Gowdy on FNC now saying the judges did not ask about the Dossier..where or who paid for it..

Leads one to wonder if they even cared 'Bout a footnote.

Folks, if this ever gets cleared up... it won't just be the FBI,DOJ, obama/clinton regime.... it will take down dirty judges too. Likely ones appointed by obama.

[mrclose]

There is a reason why FISC judges, regardless of ideology, are likely to rule in the government’s favor.

No opposing party is present, FISC judges who rule against government applications are not occupying the familiar role of a neutral adjudicator in a contest between adversaries.

Instead, they have effectively become the government’s adversary or, at least, they may create that perception.

Very few Judges are eager to take on that role especially when it comes to National Security!

That is not the role courts are supposed to serve under our constitutional system of checks and balances.

[anubias]

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

Statement for the Record
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
James B. Comey June 8, 2017

(Comey’s own report)

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

[anubias]

The above was in response to the lying author of the posted article that Comey did not say that the doc was salacious and unverified.  In fact, he has said it several times.  This is an example of 1.