MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Senate Memo on the Surveillance of Carter Page Suggests FBI Was Misled by Steele

The Nunes memo says the FBI deceived the court. Grassley's memo suggests the FBI was tricked itself.

Chuck GrassleyJeff Malet Photography/NewscomDid the FBI mislead the federal surveillance court about the credibility of the information it submitted to get authorization to snoop on an aide to Donald Trump's presidential campaign? Or did the source of the information mislead the FBI about his own behavior, prompting the FBI to mislead the court accidentally in its warrant applications?

Essentially the question is this: What did the FBI actually know about the controversial "Steele dossier" that alleges all sorts of ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and what did it know about former British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele when it used his information to get authorization to snoop on former Trump aide Carter Page?

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee released a redacted copy of a January memo by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), asking the Department of Justice to consider charges against Steele for lying to the FBI.

The release of this Senate Intelligence memo relates directly to the "Nunes memo," produced by the staff of House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in January and made public last week. In some ways the two documents dovetail nicely. Both memos argue that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was not properly informed that the dossier was put together by Fusion GPS and funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign. And both argue that Steele's motivations to keep Trump from getting elected prompted him to leak information inappropriately to the media while he was working with the FBI.

But a close look at the Grassley memo shows an important difference from what Nunes has claimed. Nunes' memo argued that the FBI knew that Steele had been leaking to media outlets and concealed this information from the court. After all, the FBI continued using his information after it learned Steele was leaking and cut ties with him. But the Grassley memo suggests that that Steele misled the FBI:

Grassley memoSenate Judiciary Committee

A few paragraphs down:

Grassley memoSenate Judiciary Committee

This disagreement matters in terms of determining whether the FBI had a good sense of Steele's credibility when using his documents to bolster its wiretapping request. The bureau acknowledged to the court that there were some political motivations behind the dossier's creation, but it didn't go into detail. How much did it grasp that Steele wanted to stop Trump from getting elected president, and how much should the court have been able to consider those circumstances when authorizing Page's wiretapping?

This different interpretation of how the dossier was actually used to justify snooping on Page is yet another reason why the underlying warrant documents should be released. As Reason's Jacob Sullum just noted, the public is not seeing much actual evidence of lawbreaking that can be pinned on Trump as a result of this surveillance. It's very much worth exploring whether this investigation was a fishing expedition.

Read Grassley's memo here.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • wef||

    excuse making

  • GILMORE™||

    ""The Nunes memo says the FBI deceived the court. Grassley's memo suggests the FBI was tricked itself.""

    Clearly, the rational thing to do is to give the benefit of the doubt to the professional investigative institution which had a political motive to 'trick itself'

    And for our next trick, we will pen an op-ed bemoaning how Lois Lerner was just doing her job.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Is it not the rational thing to do as you wait for further evidence?

  • GILMORE™||

    "further evidence"

    as noted below... you don't need more evidence to conclude that misconduct occurred. the quibbling is about how innocent the motives were.

    My point was that you're talking about people whose job it is to vet evidence. they're professional investigators. Has Reason not written enough articles about the professional-mendacity of prosecutors for you to yet conclude that when they "fuck up" with evidence, its by design rather than by accident?

    Nevermind that those insisting there's nothing to see here will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence.

    Did you need to see the emails the IRS was hiding to conclude they had done something very very wrong? the fact that their emails kept trying to destroy themselves wasn't evidence of anything by itself, naturally. Nor the fact that FBI text messages vanished as soon as they started to provide 'evidence' of political motivations.

    You can hand people rock solid proof of criminal behavior in DC, and they'll always find ways to pretend that it is all just an innocent mistake. See: Clinton, et al.

  • GILMORE™||

    *

    to be clear - i have no problem with mccabe, yates, comey, rosenstein telling the judge that they were 'tricked' at their disbarment hearing.

    the judge would note that it makes no fucking difference and that its their job to make sure they're not being 'tricked' before submitting evidence to a court.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Has Reason not written enough articles about the professional-mendacity of prosecutors for you to yet conclude that when they "fuck up" with evidence, its by design rather than by accident?

    It's a good presumption.

  • GILMORE™||

    'the most reasonable', even.

    when the national security infrastructure of the US is used to spy on a competing presidential campaign during an election year... there are a limited number of plausible explanations for what motivated it.

    imagine yourself in early 2016 saying, "no really, they weren't spying on their political enemies.... they thought the Russians were trying to overthrow the US!"... and realize that it only sounds remotely "not idiotic" *now* because you've been drowned in bullshit "RUSSIA!!" screeching for over a year.

  • hello.||

    Especially when you're a partisan shill who has spent a year and a half calling for the impeachment of the president based on a fake oppo dossier and it's becoming more and more evident every second that passes what a stupid piece of shit you are.

  • silver.||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Thank God one Republican came to his senses and realized the Federal Bureau of Investigation could never willingly lie, only be duped.

  • GILMORE™||

    There is often a content between "Liars, or incompetent?" in any given royal-fuckup.

    I believe the answer is often "both", rather than one or the other. The point is that there is no good choice, and that even if you accept the most-generous-possible interpretation, some gross misconduct occurred.

  • GILMORE™||

    "contest"

    (grumble, spellcheck, phones)

  • Sevo||

    "Fool or knave?", G.

  • damikesc||

    For me, it all boils down to this:

    These "errors" never seem to negatively impact Democrats.

    It's basically Republicans who are always harmed by them.

    Makes it hard to buy them as "mistakes".

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Nunes has admitted that he never actually saw any of the documents he was talking about the memo, and that contrary to his accusation, the FBI did disclose the political source of the Steele Dossier:

    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.

    But you keep carrying that GOP water, Shackford!

  • Scott S.||

    From a commenter under my blog post about the contents of the Nunes memo:

    "Like the rest of their friends in the so-called "mainstream" media, as far as the frauds at Reason are concerned, the ends justify any means when it comes to Trump and his associates."

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Now you know you're a real libertarian.

  • GILMORE™||

    i don't think "but i get hate from both directions" is ever the best retort to any criticism.

    that said, stormy is an idiot.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    ^^^

  • completely impervious||

    "Nunes has admitted that he never actually saw any of the documents he was talking about the memo"

    This has been disuxcused ad nauseum. He collaborated with several people on the memo. One of them had access the documents in question.

    "Nunes memo" doesn't actually mean "only Nunes was involved."

  • completely impervious||

    *discussed

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    """Nunes memo" doesn't actually mean "only Nunes was involved.""'

    That seems pretty easy to understand. But if it doesn't match someone's partisan beliefs, you can bet they will ignore it.

  • the_decadents||

    "The application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson's ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC."

    But you keep carrying that Clinton water, Stormy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    So, either they're lying, mendacious, partisan hacks or they're incompetent morons. I'm not sure which is worse.

    Actually, they're probably both. That's the one thing that gives me some comfort as we slide into banana republic status: our would be overlords are too stupid to be completely effective tyrants.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    If at this point you think that Obama, Hillary, Comey, Lynch, and a horde of other dipshits weren't doing shady shit I have a bridge to sell you. All bullshit from both sides aside, this will go down in future history books as one of the most corrupt moments in American politics since inception.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    why

  • Tony||

    No doubt. The greatest nation in the full 6,000-year history of earth let Russia spend pocket change to elect an apocalyptic head-case president. And a third of the country took Russia's side!

  • completely impervious||

    "The greatest nation in the full 6,000-year history of earth let Russia spend pocket change to elect an apocalyptic head-case president."

    This is what he actually believes.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Tony is a living example of why you never go full retard.

  • Tony||

    Apart from the age of the earth thing, that actually happened. And you'd give a shit if they helped a democrat.

  • completely impervious||

    "Apart from the age of the earth thing, that actually happened"

    This is what he actually believes

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.7.18 @ 3:42PM|#
    "Apart from the age of the earth thing, that actually happened."

    Scumbag, I have a hint: An assertion is not an argument, and even if it was, it needs evidence. Neither you, nor those idiots still trying to find that unpaid parking ticket have yet found any.
    Asside from that, an assertion by you is simply NWS.
    Is that clear, scumbag?

  • Tony||

    Drinking this early on a Wednesday?

  • the_decadents||

    All Tony hears is, "Who wants cake?"

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.7.18 @ 4:05PM|#
    "Drinking this early on a Wednesday?"

    No, scumbag. Is that the best you can do?

  • Tony||

    Not at all.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""nor those idiots still trying to find that unpaid parking ticket have yet found any."'

    But when they find a unpaid parking ticket next to the car in question, they think they have struck gold and claim collusion.

  • Sevo||

    "But when they find a unpaid parking ticket next to the car in question, they think they have struck gold and claim collusion."

    Yeah, that meter is within 8 blocks of the Russian Embassy! Do I have to connect the dots for you?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    let Russia spend pocket change to elect an apocalyptic head-case president

    I'm baffled how this is even a thing. As I understand, Hillary spent a ridiculous amount of money, more money than most people will ever see in a lifetime, trying to get elected. But somehow the $250 that Putin spend on nutty Facebook ads is what got Trump elected. This doesn't add up. Why do people persist in believing it?

  • Tony||

    Aren't you people always explaining how money doesn't really buy elections?

  • completely impervious||

    That's not an explanation.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You brought up the money, nitwit. You're asserting that everyone who has a Facebook account was so stupid that $250 worth of ads made them vote Trump. For some reason Hillary's millions should have been enough.

  • Tony||

    I still read people online regurgitating fake talking points from the election that are now known to have been exploited by Russians. The election was decided very, very closely in a handful of states. Given the amount of propaganda circulating in the days before the election, to say it had no effect makes you naive at best.

  • completely impervious||

    100 million > 100k

    until you explain why that doesn't hold, you sound like a moron.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" Given the amount of propaganda circulating in the days before the election, to say it had no effect makes you naive at best.""

    Propaganda is facebook's middle name. There was lots of it, everywhere. Before facebook there were magazines and newspapers. There has been no election without propaganda floating around.

    Whatever BS you need to fill yourself to pull a lever in the voting booth has existed since voting begin. In the earliest of days, it was rumors.

  • Tony||

    If Russia helped elect Hillary Clinton would you be so "nothing matters" about all this?

  • completely impervious||

    I doubt anyone would stupidly be claiming a pittance spent on Facebook ads were the cause, at the very least.

    You do understand how insane your claims make you sound, don't you Tony?

    Like, Thorazine-requiring, chew your fingers to the bone deranged.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    If all things are the same, I would say the same if Hillary won.

    Because I'm not invested in any political party.

  • hello.||

    If Russia helped elect Hillary Clinton would you be so "nothing matters" about all this?

    They did. Her campaign colluded with Russian agents via FusionGPS on the fake oppo dossier. The only candidate in this election who was secretly paying off Russians to try and fuck their opponent was Hillary. And this is not even controverted information. You might want to distance yourself from that narrative. Or at least keep your stupid mouth shut until someone from the DNC gets you some fresh copy.

  • Sevo||

    "I still read people online regurgitating fake talking points from the election that are now known to have been exploited by Russians."

    "Known" by those voices in your head, you pathetic piece of shit.
    Tell us about "treason" again; it's always good for a laugh.
    You lost; grwo up and get over it.

  • DesigNate||

    In proglandia 100k of Russian money on ads for AND against BOTH candidates is more important than completely ignoring Wisconsin, refusing to go back to Michigan, and calling for the destruction of West Virginia and Pennsylvania coal miners jobs.

    And let's just completely ignore that most of those voters she lost voted for Obama. Twice.

    Never change Tony.

  • Tony||

    Nobody said Russia was the sole cause. Only that it was enough.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.7.18 @ 4:19PM|#
    "...Given the amount of propaganda circulating in the days before the election, to say it had no effect makes you naive at best."

    Tony won't read this and it's not aimed at him anyhow.
    But do the lefty imbeciles (including Tony) not recognize that the legacy press in the US, that stuff we get 24/7, print, vid, audio, text,; every bit of it cheerfully predicted and promoted the hag as the 45th POTUS? While several two-bit vids on Youtube said otherwise.
    If propaganda were to have carried the day, we'd all be suffering under the idiotic policies of that fucking hag.

  • damikesc||

    Well, one candidate had their campaign illegally funnel money to their lawyers to pay a "research" group to pay a spy to provide a false dossier to allow the candidate's former boss to spy on her opponent.

    I'd say that seems like "collusion", but hey, YMMV.

  • damikesc||

    And the money illegally funneled to the spy was done to allow Russian propaganda to be used to allow the candidate's former boss to spy on her opponent...

  • hello.||

    ^^^^^

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    What word is stronger than hyperbole? I think Tony did it.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""the underlying warrant documents should be released.""

    I am glad that many people seem to agree on this point.

    i'd be happier if it were the headlines, rather than buried in a pile of 'to be sure's'

    as noted the other day: Andy McCarthy @ National Review was calling for the release of the FISA applications before it was cool. and he specifically said, "the problem with the 'memo's' is that they can only be seen through partisan lenses - the raw intel by itself will cut through that.'

    i think he also suggested it was unlikely, because no one actually wants to send anyone to jail in DC. see: Clinton.

    I think everyone knows misconduct occurs/occurred, but no one wants to 'police the police', or start throwing real charges around, because everyone has dirt on everyone else.

    its sort of like the rice / powers 'unmasking' stuff. i think everyone knew that violations happened. but if you start punishing the prior administrations for their sins, the cycle of recriminations and investigations never stops. so they prefer the kibuki fights in the press.

  • silver.||

    The EFF has some folks that oppose the whole concept of the FISA courts being separate, thus making the practice of diluting it to a rubber stamp fairly easy.

    There is essentially no differentiation between tabloid journalism and the MSM these days, and that's as much the fault of the consumers as the people providing the supply for the demand.

    That sounds really pretentious. Sorry.

  • GILMORE™||

    There is essentially no differentiation between tabloid journalism and the MSM these days, and that's as much the fault of the consumers as the people providing the supply for the demand.

    That sounds really pretentious. Sorry

    nothing to apologize for. its entirely true. I've been saying as much for years.

    news media has turned into shitty gossip-columns between partisan wonks. no one actually does any reporting or fact-checking anymore. they mostly propagate rumors and innuendo and spin, and have no problems contradicting themselves in the span of a week, and pretending that they are just serving the public interest.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I've been saying for a couple of decades now. 24 hour news channels are loaded with shows that are opinion editorials, not news.

    One of the problems is that a lot of people don't know the difference.

  • GILMORE™||

    I remember when "news" was,

    'traffic, weather, sports, stock market prices, how many bombs went off in israel today, and wedding announcements'

    now it involves endless shirt-rending outrage at some retarded overinterpretations of something someone tweeted

  • The Last American Hero||

    It ain't just 24 hour news channels. Dan Rather fabricated "fake but true" evidence in a vain attempt to take down Bush II, and let's not forget about Brian Williams and his "exaggerations", or so-called debate moderators that decide to debate Presidential candidates. Fox News is no different, they just root for a different party than the others.

  • Sevo||

    Wasn't the hag shot at somewhere or other?

  • damikesc||

    Dude, the press covered the Tet Offensive as a loss for the US and S Vietnam when it basically eradicated the Viet Cong and deeply harmed North Vietnam.

    Say what you want about the Vietnam War, the media absolutely skewed reality there horrendously.

  • Ron||

    and Steele was misled by the State department.

    According to my sources a respected friend of Hilary gave info to the state department who then gave it to Steele who then put it in a dossier payed for by the DNC and then that was given to the FBI. one big circle of self confirmation. if you hide the original source far enough out but still make it look like multiple sources then it becomes confirmation bias or parallel investigation. all orchistrated as a back up plan If Hillary were to loose and she did.

  • GILMORE™||

    "" a respected friend of Hilary"'

    this sounds like code-language for a hitman

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Mechanic might be more the term.

  • Tony||

    Anyone who's not simply patiently waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude is participating in water-muddying by desperate partisans who are trying to protect the president. And why does he need protection, what with being so innocent?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.7.18 @ 3:41PM|#
    'Trump is as big poopyhead and I don't like him! And therefore he is guilty of something!!!!!!!!!!!'
    Thanks, scumbag.
    Go fuck yourself.

  • Tony||

    He is a big pooyhead but I certainly never predicted that he was a useful idiot for Russians until the news broke.

  • Sevo||

    "He is a big pooyhead but I certainly never predicted that he was a useful idiot for Russians until the news broke."

    What "news"?

  • completely impervious||

    "Anyone who's not simply patiently waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude is participating in water-muddying"

    So, shut the fuck up then?

  • Demosthenes3000||

    Countdown to more Strzok / Page text messages releases showing they were leaking pro-FBI talking points to Shackford and Reason.

  • hello.||

    No need. That would be like leaking it to Mother Jones. They just regurgitate the talking points they get from the DNC. You only need to leak it there.

  • Sevo||

    "...FBI Was Misled by Steele..."
    And those Russki Youtube vids? The FBI never tumbled to it!
    I don't know about you, but I sleep better at night knowing I'm protected by an agency staffed with such penetrating intellects!
    Hey, Tony! We found you a BF!

  • LynchPin1477||

    Did the Democrat's memo ever get released? If so, did it say anything of consequence?

    As said elsewhere, Steele's (or anyone's) motivations ought to be immaterial. What should matter is whether the information they produced was backed up with verifiable facts. If the court didn't have enough information to decide if that was the case it shouldn't have issued the warrant. If it simply didn't care (more likely) then it's a broken court (but we already knew that).

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Did the Democrat's memo ever get released? ""

    Jerry "stomach staples" Nadler wrote one. People were not impressed

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....persuasive

  • GILMORE™||

    "'He posits four points, the last two of which are strictly political red meat. Of the other two, one provides an inaccurate explanation of the probable-cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); the other is an ill-conceived argument about Christopher Steele's credibility.""

    "Proceeding from the erroneous premise that former British spy Christopher Steele is the source of the dossier information, these analysts posit the inarguable proposition that the government is not required to provide the court with all of the potential credibility problems of an information source. Therefore, the theory goes, there is nothing untoward in the government's failure to inform the FISA court that Steele's information was bought and paid for by the Democratic presidential candidate, and then used in an application in which agencies run by the Democratic president sought court-authorized surveillance of the Republican candidate's campaign.

    Here's the problem: Steele is not the source of the information. For purposes of the warrant application, he is the purveyor of information from other sources. The actual sources of the information are Steele's informants — anonymous Russians providing accounts based on hearsay three- and four-times removed from people said to have observed the events alleged"

    and more

  • damikesc||

    They are, apparently, loading their memo with info that will likely have to be redacted so they can bitch about censorship.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...consider charges against Steele for lying to the FBI.

    Are we considering charges to the warrant applicant should the FBI be proven to have lied to the court?

  • Ken Shultz||

    My understanding is that the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 32,000+ warrant applications, and the FBI's application to spy on the Trump campaign was one of the few that was rejected.

    It wasn't until the FBI's application was rejected--twice--that they suddenly realized they needed to use the Steele dossier in the application to get the warrant approved by the FISA court.

    That's too convenient.

    And, excuse me, but didn't the FBI fire the person associated with the dossier for discussing the information in the dossier with Yahoo? The FBI quoted the person who made the dossier by way of a Yahoo! News story--after they fired him for leaking information to Yahoo! in that same story--and now they want to claim they didn't know he was full of crap?

    If they didn't know he was full of crap, then why did they fire him for leaking to Yahoo! News?

    How could they know he was full of crap enough to fire him for leaking to Yahoo! News but not know that he was full of crap when they cited his dossier--AND the Yahoo! News story they fired him over?

    The FBI's credibility is out the window on this.

  • GILMORE™||

    "" the FISA court has only rejected 11 out of 32,000+ warrant applications""

    someone, somewhere is using the claim that they reject any applications at all as proof that the ones accepted must clearly then have been convincing and credible and beyond reproach.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just for the record, I see different numbers in different places, all different because of the time period they're citing. For some it's from 1979 - 2013, this one's from 1979 to 2015:

    "The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) rejected only 12 of 38,169 requests for surveillance warrants between 1979 and 2015."

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/03.....-rejected/

    Over the summer of 2016, when Hillary was supposedly on her long march to victory, the FISA court rejected the FBI's warrant application to spy on the Trump campaign twice!

    They only got the warrant when they 1) added the Steele dossier and 2) went to a different judge.

    They had every incentive to ignore that they'd fired Steele for acting like a partisan hack, and that's what they did.

    You don't fire an informant for being an embarrassment to the investigation and then accidentally cite his dossier and his own planted stories about it in a warrant application. It stretches credibility too far. It's laughable.

  • Tony||

    So the more relevant question is how corrupted is Mueller? What are your thoughts on that?

    Whatever Steele did, by all accounts he was simply a Russia expert who discovered extremely disturbing info on Trump and shared it out of a sense of basic decency. Whatever happened after that, to assume that this remains a conspiracy implicated a lot of law enforcement officials, most of whom are Republicans. Is there a limit to how absurd you'll allow your conspiracy theory to get, or will you simply believe whatever purports to absolve Trump?--clearly a president you'll want to tell your grandkids you were all in for.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't give a shit about Mueller.

    I care if the FBI allowed itself to be used by the Clinton campaign to throw a presidential election.

  • Tony||

    But if there is some deep well of factlessness and even corruption, you must care whether Mueller is in on it or if he's principled and professional enough to separate bullshit from fact, right? It all comes down to him.

    Your second sentence is so bizarre I don't even know how to respond. The Clinton campaign wanted to throw the election to Trump? She should be given an Oscar for pretending to be so disappointed.

  • Sevo||

    "But if there is some deep well of factlessness and even corruption, you must care whether Mueller is in on it or if he's principled and professional enough to separate bullshit from fact, right?"

    If you had a brain, you might post something worthy of intelligent consideration.
    You don't, and nothing you have posted is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Your pathetic attempts at hand-waiving aren't distracting anyone here.

  • completely impervious||

    It's kind of sad really, he keeps trying to turn concern about FBI malfeasance into partisan concern about Mueller.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Because you don't question Mueller's character, you think that means the FBI didn't allow itself to be used to try and throw a presidential campaign?

    Because you don't question Mueller's character, the FBI didn't knowingly withhold pertinent information from the FISA court on at least four different occasions (the successful warrant +3 renewals)?

    You're not even making sense, Tony.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The Clinton campaign wanted to throw the election to Trump?""

    No, the idea was that she made Trump a pied piper candidate so he would win the primary and be easy to beat in the general election.

  • Tony||

    Seemed like a good idea at the time.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    You do realize that if Trump is as bad as you think he is, this means that Hillary facilitated Trump's ascendancy just to make her own path to power easier, right?

  • Tony||

    If that happened, I'd call that good politics. T'ain't beanbag you know. But I don't think that happened.

  • hello.||

    You don't think. Let's just leave it at that.

  • hello.||

    Whatever Steele did, by all accounts he was simply a Russia expert who discovered extremely disturbing info on Trump and shared it out of a sense of basic decency.

    Basic decency and, oh, about 10 million dollars from Organizing for America, the HRC campaign, the DNC, the FBI and the Republican party operatives who first approached him to commission the dossier.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The memo says the FBI supported its FISA application by "extensively" citing a September 2016 article in Yahoo News that contained allegations against Mr. Page. But the FBI failed to tell the court that Mr. Steele and Fusion were the main sources for that Yahoo article. In essence the FBI was citing Mr. Steele to corroborate Mr. Steele . . . . the FBI never informed the court that Mr. Steele was in effect working for the Clinton campaign. The FBI retained Mr. Steele as a source, and in October 2016 he talked to Mother Jones magazine without authorization about the FBI investigation and his dossier alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The FBI then fired Mr. Steele, but it never told the FISA judges about that either. Nor did it tell the court any of this as it sought three subsequent renewals of the order on Mr. Page.

    ----Wall Street Journal

    https://www.wsj.com/articles /a-reckoning-for-the-fbi-1517617641

    So, we're supposed to believe that the FBI fired Steele for planting stories for the Clinton campaign in the news, but they also didn't know he was a questionable source with partisan motives?

    This whole thing is fucking ridiculous.

  • Tony||

    Rex Tillerson was on FOX News last night acknowledging Russian interference and that they'll do it again this year. Is he part of the conspiracy?

  • Ken Shultz||

    What do the Russians have to do with anything I wrote in that comment, Tony?

    I demonstrate with a source that the FBI repeatedly deceived the FISA court to get a warrant to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign, and you think the FBI's misbehavior has something to do with the Russians?

    Are you saying the Russians are running the FBI?

    WTF are you talking about?

  • Tony||

    I'm saying Trump pravda is running you.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm saying Trump pravda is running you."

    If you had a brain, you might post something worthy of intelligent consideration.
    You don't, and nothing you have posted is.

  • Sevo||

    "Rex Tillerson was on FOX News last night acknowledging Russian interference and that they'll do it again this year."
    Define "interference", scumbag.

  • Tony||

    If you don't know the basic facts of this story, why are you flapping your pie-hole?

  • Sevo||

    "If you don't know the basic facts of this story, why are you flapping your pie-hole?"

    So you have no evidence, nor any definition worthy of posting?
    Why is that not surprising?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Tony claims the Russians stole the election with $150 of Facebook ads and by arranging meetings with members of the Trump campaign. This is somehow a made up crime called collusion, which is apparently tantamount to treason.

    Meanwhile, Hillary's campaign hires a foreign agent to get dirt from the Russians on Trump having a hooker pee on a bed, and said dirt is used as an excuse for Obama to spy on Trump on behalf of the DNC, and there's nothing to see here. No "collusion" or "treason".

    Life through blue tinted glasses.

  • damikesc||

    Who fed Steele his false info, Tony?

    Guesses?

  • Tony||

    It wasn't false info. Stop taking Devin Nunes's word for everything. He has the least credibility of anyone in this story.

  • damikesc||

    It wasn't false info.

    Nobody can verify it, so "false" seems like an accurate description.

    Stop taking Devin Nunes's word for everything

    Well, Comey said it was unverified as well...

    He has the least credibility of anyone in this story.

    Of course he does, Sparky. Of. course. he. does.

  • Sevo||

    "It wasn't false info."

    Tony and three other equally deluded folks believe that.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Once again, the FBI is caught withholding exculpatory evidence. That's what happened to them in the Bundy case last month. They got caught lying.. saying that they didn't do things to Bundy that they did do. And they lost the case when the truth came out. Is it a new trend, or the way they've always done business?

  • LeRoi||

    A rhetorical question, obviously.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online