berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 20,826
- 17,427
- 2,320
It came up in a few posts today so I thought I'd seek to clear up the false assertion. The assertion being that the FISA warrants that were part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation relied heavily on "lies supplied by the Clinton campaign," a reference to Steele's infamous dossier. For the purposes of this thread I'll put aside the fact that Steele had no idea who Fusion GPS's client was, Marc Elias had no idea who was doing the research on Trump, and when the dossier was ultimately leaked to the media in Jan. 2017 (not by Hillary) the election was over.
At issue is whether the federal probe into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties is infected with political bias, as Republicans say — or whether the GOP is using deceitful tactics to quash the probe, as Democrats insist.
www.politico.com
One source upon which many of these critiques rely (including those of President Donald Trump) is Andrew C. McCarthy, who, like the three authors, is a former federal prosecutor. On Fox News and in the National Review, McCarthy makes three primary arguments: (1) the so-called Steele dossier was “the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation”; (2) the FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work; and (3) the FBI did not “verify” the factual allegations contained in the dossier.
McCarthy’s first two points should be quickly dismissed. The first Page FISA application, however, was not obtained until October 2016, well after the Trump-Russia investigation began and even after Page himself had left the campaign. McCarthy (and Trump) attempt to pinpoint the Page FISA application as the central reason for the initiation of the Trump-Russia investigation in a sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit the investigation, but the facts just don’t support that assertion.
The facts also do not support McCarthy’s second point (one that Congressman Devin Nunes misleadingly emphasized in his infamous memo about the warrant): that the FISA court was not informed about the Clinton campaign’s financial support for Christopher Steele’s work. In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias. Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments — which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS — is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias. Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.
www.brennancenter.org
Sadly, because the dossier meme is firmly entrenched in the wing nut lexicon the facts are not going to matter one little bit.
Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant
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.At issue is whether the federal probe into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties is infected with political bias, as Republicans say — or whether the GOP is using deceitful tactics to quash the probe, as Democrats insist.
Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant
Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.
www.politico.com
One source upon which many of these critiques rely (including those of President Donald Trump) is Andrew C. McCarthy, who, like the three authors, is a former federal prosecutor. On Fox News and in the National Review, McCarthy makes three primary arguments: (1) the so-called Steele dossier was “the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation”; (2) the FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work; and (3) the FBI did not “verify” the factual allegations contained in the dossier.
McCarthy’s first two points should be quickly dismissed. The first Page FISA application, however, was not obtained until October 2016, well after the Trump-Russia investigation began and even after Page himself had left the campaign. McCarthy (and Trump) attempt to pinpoint the Page FISA application as the central reason for the initiation of the Trump-Russia investigation in a sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit the investigation, but the facts just don’t support that assertion.
The facts also do not support McCarthy’s second point (one that Congressman Devin Nunes misleadingly emphasized in his infamous memo about the warrant): that the FISA court was not informed about the Clinton campaign’s financial support for Christopher Steele’s work. In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias. Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments — which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS — is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias. Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.
FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant
Commentators like National Review’s Andrew McCarthy try to discredit the Mueller investigation by sliming the process to spy on a former Trump advisor. Here’s why they’re wrong.
Sadly, because the dossier meme is firmly entrenched in the wing nut lexicon the facts are not going to matter one little bit.
Last edited:
) didn't enter into issuing the FISA warrant.
