If you only watch or read Lame Stream Media (aka Mainstream
Media – MSM), you’d think Shifty Schiff’s Dem Party Minority Memo upstaged and
refuted the Nunes GOP Majority Memo. Shifty’s Memo only obfuscates the actual
facts found in the Nunes Memo. A close comparison of the two Memos shows that
Shifty’s Memo corroborates Nunes but with a classic display look-here-instead-of-here
language.
Jason Beale writing for The Federalist demonstrates just
how shifty Adam Schiff is.
JRH 3/2/18
**********************
How House Democrats’ FISA Memo Confirms Republicans’
Charges Of Abuse
By Jason
Beale
MARCH 1, 2018
The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (HPSCI) finally dropped their Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act abuse rebuttal memo Saturday afternoon, and the reaction is murky.
If you had your money on a comprehensive, point-by-point
refutation of the “scurrilous allegations” of evidentiary malfeasance laid out
in the majority (Nunes) memo, you’re going to need to cut a check. If your bet
was on the construction and destruction of straw-men unassociated with the
proceedings, and confirmation the use of raw, unevaluated intelligence to argue
probable cause that an American citizen “knowingly acted as an agent of a
foreign power,” you can proceed to the cashier window to redeem your ticket.
Some background. The HPSCI majority memo (the Nunes memo),
which was released to the public on February 2, contained a number of specific
allegations of inappropriate conduct by Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Department of Justice officials seeking the approval of the FISA court (FISC)
to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
These allegations included the introduction into evidence of unconfirmed,
uncorroborated sections of the infamous Christopher Steele dossier; the
omission of material context in vouching for the reliability of their source
(Steele); and the deliberate obfuscation of the fact that the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee paid for the dossier.
The Democrat HPSCI minority, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, fought
the release of the Nunes memo on the grounds that it would recklessly expose
sources and methods and, according to Schiff, erode public confidence in the
FBI’s ability to protect sources to the extent that releasing the memo might
enable another Oklahoma City bombing. Schiff and his colleagues composed a
rebuttal, and assured us that it would effectively “correct the record” on the
Nunes memo—particularly on the reliability of the evidence presented to the
FISC, and the Nunes contention that the judge wasn’t fully apprised of the
“partisan, political” provenance of the funding behind the dossier.
None of this came to pass with the release of the Schiff
memo.
What Actually Happened Inside That Counter-Memo
A close read of the Schiff memo reveals the incredulity of
the Nunes memo claim that the Steele dossier initiated the FBI investigation
into Trump associates’ engagement with Russians. A close read of the Nunes memo
reveals that it makes no such claim. In fact, the Nunes memo clearly states the
investigation was initiated after the FBI received information concerning
suspicious interactions between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and
a sketchy professor with alleged ties to Russian officials.
It’s written very clearly in the memo, in plain English. Yet
the Schiff memo works hard to undermine that strawman, and effectively confirms
the Nunes memo description of the event that triggered the investigation.
Schiff then addresses the issue of source and evidence
credibility. This is key to the Nunes memo allegations and to confidence in the
FBI and DOJ officials charged with protecting every citizen’s Fourth Amendment
rights, even in the course of seeking legal access to citizens’ most private
communications.
In lieu of providing a single word of confirmation that any
of the Page-related dossier information had been corroborated or validated
prior to providing it to the court, the Schiff memo constructs a Page avatar
whose past associations and contact with Russian spies, Kremlin officials,
shady businessmen, and FBI agents represent an insurmountable trail of
suspicion that can only be assumed to be criminally conspiratorial, and likely
treasonous.
They do this by noting Page’s 2013-2014 recruitment attempt
by Russian spies in New York City, whose approaches inspired the FBI to alert
Page and warn him away. Those spies were eventually arrested and convicted of
espionage offenses after an investigation aided by information Page willingly
provided. They further highlight Page’s three-year residency working for
Merrill Lynch in Moscow, separate trips to Russia in July and December of 2016,
and numerous interviews with the FBI regarding, presumably, his interactions
with Russians suspected of nefarious intentions.
Building a Tower of Suspicion Around Carter Page
All of this builds a tower of suspicion around Page, the
idiosyncratic Naval Academy graduate whose quirky and paranoid behavior on
nationally televised interviews has inspired the derisive head-shaking of
dozens of talking heads. They chortle at the naiveté of this man’s eagerness to
repeatedly throw himself into the lion’s den of “The Situation Room” or “All In
with Chris Hayes.” They wonder what could possibly compel this man to subject
himself to the open mocking of his declarations of innocence, again and again?
The Schiff document describes an FBI/DOJ presentation of evidence that appears
to draw from these instincts of suspicion and disbelief yet, significantly,
offer no proof.
But they must offer proof, as Andrew McCarthy points
out in the latest of his series of
analytic National Review articles devoted to making sense of the FISA
proceedings. McCarthy notes that: “(B)ecause Page was an American citizen, FISA
law required that the FBI and the DOJ show not only that he was acting as an
agent of a foreign power (Russia), but also that his ‘clandestine’ activities
on behalf of Russia were a likely violation of federal criminal law.
(See FISA, Section 1801(b)(2)(A) through (E),
Title 50, U.S. Code.) It is the Steele dossier that alleges Page was engaged in
arguably criminal activity. The Democrats point to nothing else that does.”
The Schiff memo offers that proof, the crucial passage of
the Steele dossier undeniably used as the crux of their “criminal activity”
contention. They present it as follows: “It is in this specific sub-section of
the applications that DOJ refers to Steele’s reporting on Page and his alleged
coordination with Russian officials. Steele’s information about Page was
consistent with the FBI’s assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit
him and his connections to Russian persons of interest.”
“In particular, Steele’s sources reported that Page met
separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir
Putin and executive chairman of Rosneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and
Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the
prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and ‘an associated move to
lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.’ Divyekin allegedly
disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on
Clinton (‘kompromat’) and noted ‘the possibility of its being released to
Candidate #l’s campaign.’ (Note: ‘Candidate #1’ refers to candidate Trump.)
This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump
foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos.”
The problem with this crucial passage is that it contains a
fatal flaw, in that it is almost-certainly wrong. Page has testified
repeatedly, under oath, that he had no such contact, meetings, or conversations
with either Sechin or Divyekin. He did so both to the members of the HPSCI
committee and during his numerous interviews with the FBI. He has further
testified that he has never met Sechin in his life. He even issued a written
denial in a letter he sent to former FBI director James Comey in September
2016, wherein he offered to meet with the FBI to resolve the issue.
If Democrats Are Right, Page Should Be Arrested
The Democrats show little faith in the disputed, yet legally
essential, evidence of these “meetings.” In fact, they include in their memo
this intriguing passage: “This information contradicts Page’s November 2, 2017
testimony to the Committee, in which he initially denied any such meetings and
then was forced to admit speaking with (Arkady) Dvorkovich and meeting with
Rosneft’s Sechin-tied investor relations chief Andrey Baranov.”
That’s one way of saying it. Another way to say it would be:
“Carter Page’s testimony contradicts the unverified, third-hand hearsay
information contained in the dossier, as he expressly denied meeting either of
those officials. As to contacts with Russians unrelated to information
contained in the Steele dossier, Page confirmed that he spoke with
Arkady Dvorkovich and met with Andrey Baranov. “
But we don’t have to take Page’s word for it, nor should we.
If there is evidence to the contrary, Page should quite rightly be arrested and
charged with, at a minimum, lying to the HPSCI and to the FBI. Were there
evidence or corroboration to confirm illicit engagements with Sechin and
Divyekin, as reported in the dossier and declared to be
credible by the FBI/DOJ officials testifying to the FISC judge, Page is
dead to rights.
Yet Page walks free. The absence of evidence sufficient to
arrest and charge Page with lying about his alleged treasonous and
conspiratorial activities, coupled with the critical role those very
allegations played in convincing a judge to approve a FISA warrant targeting
his communications, leaves Citizen Page in a rather unique state of judicial
and political limbo.
Yet for Page to regain his battered reputation and get on
with his life, the FBI, DOJ, and HPSCI Democrats will have to admit that the
information provided to the court regarding his activities in Russia was wrong.
In doing so, they would have to further admit that the rest of the information
in the 35-page Steele dossier was tarnished, and inadmissible. That’s not going
to happen.
We Refuted Something Republicans Never Said
The Schiff memo confirmed that the Steele dossier was used
to obtain the warrant. It added nothing to suggest that the dossier information
had been corroborated. The Democrats aren’t talking about this part of their
memo on cable news shows, because they would like you to forget it.
What they are talking about—a lot—is their refutation of a
phantom Republican claim that the dossier triggered the FBI investigation. The
Republicans made no such claim, but Schiff and his colleagues are nonetheless
eager to address this straw man at every opportunity. Why? Because their focus
isn’t on Page’s civil rights, or even on his possible guilt. They don’t seem to
have much of an opinion on these either way.
Their focus is on the future, and the Democrats believe
their immediate future depends on a positive (for them) outcome of the Robert
Mueller investigation into Russian influence on the election. They fear the
slightest acquiescence to doubt about the validity of the Steele dossier will
somehow impact that investigation, and their future. Page is just some guy in
the way.
In advance of the release of the Schiff memo, I wrote here that the only
question it needed to answer was whether the Steele dossier information used
against Page had been corroborated and validated prior to its use in the FISA
court. That question was answered, albeit not intentionally. The information
was not corroborated or validated. Although Schiff and his colleagues will do
everything they can to convince you otherwise, it’s the only thing that
matters.
___________________
Jason Beale (a pseudonym) is
a retired U.S. Army interrogator and strategic debriefer with 30 years
experience in military and intelligence interrogation and human intelligence
collection operations. He's on Twitter @jabeale.
Copyright © 2018 The
Federalist, a wholly independent
division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment