Trump, FOX, et al Gaslighting:Time to Close Their Carter Page FISA Propaganda BS

The GOP FISA Conspiracy Spin Has Gone Too Long

This post is rather long but needs to be stated hopefully for the last time with this update on the Carter Page FBI “spying” charge (word recently used by AG Barr) and GOP FBI/FISA spin by Trump and pals. 

Below from two major sources (my emphasis added in a few spots).

First source is the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU:

FBI Would’ve Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant

Introduction: Commentators like National Review’s Andrew McCarthy try to discredit the Mueller investigation by sliming the process to surveil (not “spy” on a former Trump advisor Carter Page).

Here’s why they’re wrong.

Authors: Daniel S. Goldman, Barbara McQuade, and Miriam Rocah (their bios at end of this article)

July 25, 2018

Cross-posted from: The Daily Beast (the second source)

Now that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application (called a joke in this link) for an order to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page has been released in heavily redacted form (412 pages), the attacks on the FBI’s application have been predictably loud yet incorrect. 

They miss the critical question related to such an application: Was there probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power? 

Even putting aside the large portions of redacted material (which likely further support the application but are redacted because of the highly sensitive nature of the information), the un-redacted portions easily meet this probable cause standard and support the FISA court’s multiple orders. 

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 – re: The first Page FISA application: It 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) both 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 Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) 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. And nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.  

The third point, and the crux of McCarthy’s argument, is that the FBI did not properly “verify” the information in the application, which is a technical requirement in a FISA application. McCarthy claims the FBI was not permitted to rely solely on hearsay information provided by Steele, source of information, but was required to test the credibility and reliance on each sub-source who gave information to Steele. 

But that is simply not what is required in FISA applications (or criminal wiretap applications), and in particular under the Woods Procedures that govern FISA applications.

Under FISA, “verification” simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation. That does not mean, however, that the FBI is required, for example, to travel to Russia to interview a sub-source to confirm that the sub-source actually did tell Steele what Steele reported to the FBI. That, of course, almost certainly would not be possible. It is therefore not surprising that McCarthy cites no authority for his assertion that such a step is required. 

The reason why hearsay information is permitted in warrant applications is simple: It is hard enough for law enforcement to develop sources who can infiltrate criminal organizations or foreign threats to our national security. 

If the FBI were required to not only learn of the information from its own sources but also confirm that information with the sub-sources, it would not be able to do its job. Instead, the FBI is legally entitled to rely upon the assertions of a previously credible source, such as Steele, in relaying information from other sub-sources to whom the FBI does not have direct access.   

  

Our nation’s law permits this process because the standard for a warrant such as this one is probable cause, not the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that applies in a criminal trial. 

McCarthy characterizes the FISA application to include: “serious, traitorous allegations against an American citizen and, derivatively, an American presidential campaign.” That is wrong – the FISA application made no such allegations nor did it charge Page with a crime or violation of law.

Rather, in order to further investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing, the FISA application simply provided evidence that there was probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power and may have, or may be about to, commit violations of criminal law. 

Note: Probable cause means a “fair probability.” It is more than a “mere suspicion” but far less than the “reasonable doubt” standard required to convict someone of a crime.

While information from a source such as Steele’s more than meets this probable cause standard that is clearly not all that the warrant relied upon. Just from what we can see in un-redacted form — and the majority of the application is redacted — it also walks through Page’s interactions several years ago with Russians who were eventually charged with being agents of Russian intelligence. 

McCarthy somehow claims that he knows that the redacted sections do not corroborate or add to Steele’s information. But he misses the point. Even if the specific details in the Steele dossier are not directly confirmed, the fact that other evidence unrelated to the dossier corroborates the dossier’s main allegations is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. 

Even from the limited un-redacted information available to the public, including the criminal charges brought against the Russian individuals who associated with Page, the repeated and expanded applications for renewals, and the fact that the RNC platform on Russia and Ukraine were changed during the operative time period of Page’s involvement in the campaign (favorable to those two countries), it is our view that the FISA application sufficiently makes out the necessary showing of probable cause to support the court’s approval. Four separate federal judges also agreed. 

McCarthy says that the FBI: “Which I can’t help but think of as my FBI after 20 years of working closely with the bureau as a federal prosecutor, would never take an unverified screed and present it to a court as evidence,” we cannot imagine the FBI that we know after decades of combined experience would ignore the evidence that was presented to them and decline to seek a warrant for Page when it did. If the FBI failed to investigate such allegations, we and the American people would’ve been entitled to find them derelict in carrying out their duties.

Brennan Center article authors:

Daniel S. Goldman, currently a Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2007 to 2017. 

Barbara McQuade, currently professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School, was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017. 

Miriam Rocah, currently a Distinguished Criminal Justice Fellow at Pace University Law School, served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2001 to 2017.

Background up until now:

Trump in his routine rant tweeted about the documents: “As usual they are ridiculously heavily redacted but confirm with little doubt that the Department of 'Justice' and FBI misled the courts. Witch Hunt Rigged, a Scam!”

This release also appears to undercut some of the contentions in a memo prepared by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) earlier this year wherein and some other Republicans said: “The anti-Trump research in a dossier prepared by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele and paid for by Democrats was used inappropriately to obtain the warrant on Page.”

Rep. Adam Schiff: “It was a solid application and renewals signed by four different judges appointed by three different Republican presidents.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees: (Broke ranks with Trump) saying: “I don’t think the FBI did anything wrong in obtaining warrants against Page.”

Key: While the documents confirm that the FBI relied, in part, on information from Steele to obtain the initial warrant, they also informed the court of his likely motivation – Opposition on Candidate Trump – started under the GOP then dropped after Trump was nominated and then picked up by Clinton supporters and the DNC (see below specifics).

A page-long footnote in the warrant application lays out the FBI's assessment of Steele's history and the likely interest of his backer, adding that despite the political concern, the bureau believed some of his report to be “credible.”

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Note: Before that DNC agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary (re: Paul Singer below).

Free Beacon reply (October 27, 2017) in part: “… during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton.”

(I insert: Christopher Steele, former British MI-5 agent was contracted by the Washington research firm Fusion GPS to gather background on Trump – now called the “Dossier.” – that is how Fusion GPS operates: hires independent contractors like Steele to work for them).

     1.  The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier.

     2.  Did not pay for the dossier.     

     3.  Never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.

     4.  Had no knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the DNC, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

/s/ Matthew Continetti, Editor in Chief

/s/ Michael Goldfarb, Chairman

Who funded Free Beacon (October 2017): The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded in large part by New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer (Elliott Management Corporation).

Singer initially retained the firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research (OPPO) on Trump and a number of other Republican candidates, but then Free Beacon told Fusion GPS to stop doing the research on Trump in May of 2016 since he was close to clinching the GOP nomination.

Then in the following month, April of 2016, according to the New York Times, the Clinton campaign and the DNC picked up where Fusion GPS and the company had left off with Trump OPPO by enlisting them – they contracted the services of former British agent, Christopher Steele, who in return produced the infamous so-called “Steele Dossier on Trump and Russian Ties.”

After the Washington Examiner discovered and reported that, the Free Beacon confirmed its accuracy in a post on its own website.

Key player list:

Christopher Steele, former British MI6 agent (MI6 is like the CIA / MI5 is like the FBI), contracted by Fusion GPS to do OPPO on Trump and produced the “Dossier.”

Fusion GPS OPPO research office who hires work on candidates and other big clients.

Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to do OPPO on several GOP candidates in 2016 including Trump, who hired Steele and then when they stopped after Trump got the nomination, he was hired by the DNC on Clinton’s behalf – all perfectly legal and SOP in politics.

Marc E. Elias, lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research, who in turn contracted with Steele to continue the Trump OPPO.

The GOP’s February memo says in part: “The FBI failed to 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 DOJ and FBI officials.” 

However, Democrats at the time contended that the court had been told that the research had politically motivated origins in their page-length explanation that does alert the court that the person who commissioned Steele’s research was “likely looking for information to discredit” Trump’s campaign. But, it did go on to explain why that even notwithstanding Steele’s “reason for conducting the research (to get discrediting info on Trump – which BTW is the goal of OPPO), and “The FBI believed the reporting was credible.”

My 2 cents: After reading this background and mostly GOP-FOX-Trump, et al ranting nonsense and update above this question remains:

Is this chapter (Carter Page FISA) complete now that the Mueller report is ready for public release? Well, not if you listen to these spoilers reported on here, in part and especially the ranting on FOX and Rightwing Talk Radio – sample from here (Just Security.org):

Many Republicans on the right are declaring it’s time to pivot back to investigating the investigators now that the Mueller report is done.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) an erstwhile Trump critic who has reinvented himself now as one of his fiercest defenders, announced his intent to lead the charge, with particular focus on whether the FBI abused the FISA wiretap on Carter Page (as discussed above in hard-to-dispute facts).

Even Trump himself has vowed to release a more complete version of the FISA applications targeting Page along with related documents (we wonder what those are?).

Graham says: “The FISA warrant issued against [former Trump advisor] Carter Page, based on a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, is at a minimum disturbing.”

Also, echoing that claim is former House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) in his own notorious memorandum, added Graham: “Whether or not it’s illegal, I don’t yet know. So I’m going to get answers to this.”

Much has been written about the lack of merit raised by Nunes, and the portrait they paint of a politically-motivated so-called “Deep State conspiracy” against Trump, also without merit. True, some aspects of the FBI’s surveillance of Page deserve further scrutiny, but NOT the aspects that Nunes, Graham, and their fellow co-partisans are most agitated about.

We shall see but keep in mind all this heading into 2020 election – which Trump needs this issue to run on. It must not stand, but the way he lies and campaigns and his loyal base, who knows?

Also important to counter this sustained FOX-rightwing BS.

Thanks for stopping by.