The DOJ did disclose that the Steele dossier was probably based on oppo research.
I’m going to do something that should only be done with much humility and trepidation. I’m going to disagree with my colleague Andy McCarthy. Yesterday he wrote a sharp and detailed analysis of the newly released Adam Schiff memo. Schiff’s memo purports to rebut key claims in the four-page memo that Devin Nunes released last month. Andy argues that the Schiff memo hurts Democrats more than it helps, that it actually exposes problems with the FBI’s approach.
While I share many of Andy’s concerns, my bottom-line takeaway is the opposite. To the extent that the memo has any bearing on the public debate, it undermines Republican claims. Specifically, it indicates that parts of the infamous “Steele dossier” may now be verified, asserts that Carter Page’s lies may have helped trigger the FISA application, and provides an exact quote from the FISA application that undermines GOP claims of deception.
……..
But the memos are not entirely useless. They’re just mostly useless. And to the extent they’re not entirely useless, they do seem to collectively establish the following basic facts:
1)The so-called “Steele dossier” formed at least part of the Carter Page FISA application;
2) The DOJ informed the court that the Steele dossier was commissioned by a person “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit” Donald Trump’s campaign;
3) The DOJ ultimately terminated Steele as a source and disclosed that termination to the FISA court;
4) Four GOP-nominated judges approved or renewed the FISA warrant; and
5) The investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia began months before the Page FISA application.
…….
Does the Schiff memo help us understand whether the DOJ used the Steele memo in bad faith? Maybe. There are a lot of Republicans laboring under the impression that use of the Steele memo in any capacity is scandalous. The words “salacious and unverified,” used by James Comey, in his congressional testimony, to describe parts of the Steele dossier, are seared into their brains. So is the phrase “Hillary Clinton opposition research.” No doubt the Steele dossier is salacious, but never forget that “unverified” is not the same thing as “false.” Moreover, no one should think that opposition research is always inaccurate. Sometimes even partisan investigations can reveal real wrongdoing.
………
While the Schiff memo only hints at important evidence about the dossier, it does do something important that the Nunes memo does not. It provides the exact quote of the footnote in which the DOJ disclosed the source of Steele’s funding. According to the Schiff memo, the footnote disclosed that Steele
was approached by an identified U.S. Person [Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson], indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s [i.e., Trump’s] ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign. [Emphasis in Schiff memo, p. 5]
There are those who argue that this disclosure is insufficient. I disagree. “Information that could be used to discredit” a campaign is basically the very definition of opposition research. It clearly communicates bias.
……..
Republicans have made serious claims of scandal and abuse. They have not yet adequately supported those claims. The Democratic rebuttal undermines important Republican assertions without decisively refuting the key allegations. The only thing we know for certain is that the show will go on, and we now suspect that we can’t look to the House to provide sober and competent assessments of the evidence. The Senate, however, is still doing its work. We can only hope that it will continue to resist the urge to dominate the news cycle and instead provide the carefully researched and comprehensive reports that Americans need to see.
- Discussion
-
In which I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague @AndrewCMcCarthy — While I share many of his overall concerns, the Schiff memo I believe undermines GOP claims of FISA abuse: https://t.co/esuuVnGqKn
— David French (@DavidAFrench) February 26, 2018
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.