Oh the irony
After attempting to de-legitimize the press, WH+GOP going after Justice department.
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Oh the irony
The question is whether any dossier information was used and whether it was separately corroborated beyond what the Clinton hired goons presented. If there was other information presented to support the fisa warrant, then that is fine but does not get them off the hook for any dossier info that may have been presented to the court unless the fbi can demonstrate separate corroboration. If that did happen, it may be a FISA judge seeking their prosecution by making a referral. Attempts to argue that the court relied or could have relied on other matter are out of order and will not fly. It is axiomatic that the DOJ would not have submitted it with the fisa application- if they did that- unless they felt it would help or make a difference. Otherwise why would it be included.
It's called committing a fraud upon the court. Good luck to them. If they did not do that then fine because your attempt to minimize it in advance will not work.
Yes, the irony of the Democrats working to suppress releasing information and open government -- the very ideals they claim to uphold.
Because truth and facts are kryptonite to the left. Their world of delusion is crumbling all around them and desperation has set in. Everything, and I mean every single thing they're trying to pin on Trump is actually what they are and have been guilty of all along. Collusion, obstruction, lies, deceit and blatant corruption at the highest levels, all of it on them.
I suspect the memo will show which ongoing investigations are tarnished already.
You are assuming there are no tarnished investigations?
Then why isn't the Dem memo being blocked from release? You Cons are all for Transparency yes? Then why block this?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...tigation.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Republicans are pushing the narrative that a cabal of politically biased law enforcement officials set out to sabotage Mr. Trump. And they are portraying a dossier written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, which laid out unverified claims that Russia had compromised Mr. Trump and was conspiring with him, as the fountainhead of the Russia investigation. That assertion disregards unrelated evidence that Russia sought to influence the election and the pattern of contacts between Russians and Mr. Trump’s associates.
Democrats on the committee produced their own classified memo that they said pointed out and explained inaccuracies in the Republican memo and filled in the missing context. But on Monday, the committee voted along party lines to make the Republican memo public and rejected a request to simultaneously make public the Democrats’ rebuttal.
Asked on Tuesday about why it would not be more appropriate to make both memos public at the same time, Mr. Ryan was evasive. He said the Democratic memo first had to go through a process in which House members outside the Intelligence Committee could read it. Pressed on why the Republican memo should not be held back until that process was done, he said a reporter had asked enough questions.
Mr. Ryan then began remarks he said he had prepared, stressing that he respected the F.B.I. and the Justice Department as important institutions for “keeping the rule of law intact.” But on Monday, Intelligence Committee Republicans signaled a widening attack on both institutions — informing Democrats that the committee has opened an investigation into them, according to Mr. Schiff — as they voted to make their memo public.
Image
Representative Devin Nunes, center, leads the House Intelligence Committee, which released the memo.CreditMichael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency
Of particular importance, the Republican memo is said to cite the role of Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general appointed by Mr. Trump last year, in signing off on an application to extend the surveillance of Mr. Page — meaning he approved the resubmission of Mr. Steele’s information to the court. Mr. Rosenstein’s role could provide critics of the inquiry ammunition to go after him.
ADVERTISEMENT
Under Justice Department regulations, only Mr. Rosenstein can fire Mr. Mueller, and only if he finds that the special counsel has committed misconduct — something he has repeatedly said he has not seen any sign of. But if Mr. Trump were to fire Mr. Rosenstein, he could install a more accommodating replacement willing to say that he or she had spotted a reason to justify removing the special counsel and shutting down the investigation.
On Tuesday, when Mr. Ryan maintained there was no connection between the memo and Mr. Mueller’s work, the speaker also portrayed Mr. Nunes’s committee as trying to be transparent as it carried out oversight into whether the executive branch had violated civil liberties using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“There’s a very legitimate issue here as to whether or not an American’s civil liberties were violated,” he said.
But Mr. Nunes’s history in Congress undermines the idea that he is motivated by a good-faith concern that law enforcement officials might have conspired to abuse their surveillance powers and trample on civil liberties.
ADVERTISEMENT
For one thing, Mr. Nunes was a chief architect of Congress’s move this month to extend by six years the government’s power to conduct surveillance without a warrant under certain circumstances. He and his allies turned back a push by reform-minded lawmakers to impose significant new safeguards to protect Americans’ civil liberties against the potential for abuses.
Mr. Nunes also has earned a reputation of being a staunch Trump loyalist — or “Trump’s stooge,” as his hometown newspaper, The Fresno Bee, called him last week. Last year, he dramatically announced that a whistle-blower had shown him materials revealing that Obama administration officials had improperly “unmasked” the identities of Mr. Trump’s associates in intelligence reports based on surveillance, and that he intended to inform the White House about what he had learned. But it later emerged that Mr. Trump’s aides at the White House had shown him those materials, and other Republicans who later examined them concluded no one had been improperly unmasked.
That Mr. Nunes’s actions undermined his credibility does not mean, however, that law enforcement officials made no mistakes in the highly fraught political environment of the day. The Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is finishing an inquiry into the handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, and he is expected to deliver some harsh findings about senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials in the Obama administration.
As part of its examination, Mr. Horowitz’s team uncovered the texts between two F.B.I. officials who also worked on the Russia investigation in its early stages, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, expressing intense animus for Mr. Trump. Mr. Horowitz brought those messages to the attention of Mr. Mueller, who immediately removed Mr. Strzok from his team; Ms. Page had already left by then. The final inspector general report is expected to sharply criticize both.
For now, however, Mr. Nunes’s memo is coming to define a political landscape already cratered by Mr. Trump’s recurring calls to reinvestigate Mrs. Clinton; his firing of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; the recent revelation that Mr. Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel last summer but backed off when his White House counsel threatened to resign; and Senate Republicans’ own attempts to discredit Mr. Steele, including two leading senators’ decision recently to ask the Justice Department to investigate whether he committed a crime.
One potential clue to the strategy behind the Republican memo may be lurking in the broadcasts of the Fox News personality Sean Hannity, a close ally of Mr. Trump whose programs often function as a conduit for his messaging.
On the day House Intelligence Committee Republicans revealed the existence of their memo and voted to share it with the House, Mr. Hannity built his evening programaround what he said his sources had already told him about its contents — saying Americans would soon learn “beyond any shadow of a doubt that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his band of Democratic witch hunters never should have been appointed and they need to be disbanded immediately.”
And, though it was not yet public that the memo revealed Mr. Rosenstein’s role in extending the surveillance of Mr. Page, Mr. Hannity himself raised the question: “Did Rosenstein sign off on extension of this FISA warrant?” He also emphasized that “I’m very interested about Rod Rosenstein in all of this” — and called for him to be fired.
Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter: @charlie_savage.
A version of this article appears in print on January 31, 2018, on Page A1of the New York edition with the headline: G.O.P. Memo Uses Offense As a Defense. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Related Coverage
How to Get a Wiretap to Spy on Americans, and Why That Matters Now
JAN. 29, 2018
Image
Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein
JAN. 28, 2018
Image
Republicans Claim Surveillance Power Abuses in Russia Inquiry
JAN. 19, 2018
Image
Sign Up for the Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
SEE SAMPLE
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times products and services.
ADVERTISEMENT
Site Index
Go to Home Page »
NEWS
OPINION
ARTS
LIVING
LISTINGS & MORE
Site Information Navigation
Republicans are pushing the narrative that a cabal of politically biased law enforcement officials set out to sabotage Mr. Trump. And they are portraying a dossier written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, which laid out unverified claims that Russia had compromised Mr. Trump and was conspiring with him, as the fountainhead of the Russia investigation. That assertion disregards unrelated evidence that Russia sought to influence the election and the pattern of contacts between Russians and Mr. Trump’s associates.
Democrats on the committee produced their own classified memo that they said pointed out and explained inaccuracies in the Republican memo and filled in the missing context. But on Monday, the committee voted along party lines to make the Republican memo public and rejected a request to simultaneously make public the Democrats’ rebuttal.
Asked on Tuesday about why it would not be more appropriate to make both memos public at the same time, Mr. Ryan was evasive. He said the Democratic memo first had to go through a process in which House members outside the Intelligence Committee could read it. Pressed on why the Republican memo should not be held back until that process was done, he said a reporter had asked enough questions.
Mr. Ryan then began remarks he said he had prepared, stressing that he respected the F.B.I. and the Justice Department as important institutions for “keeping the rule of law intact.” But on Monday, Intelligence Committee Republicans signaled a widening attack on both institutions — informing Democrats that the committee has opened an investigation into them, according to Mr. Schiff — as they voted to make their memo public.
Image
Representative Devin Nunes, center, leads the House Intelligence Committee, which released the memo.CreditMichael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency
Of particular importance, the Republican memo is said to cite the role of Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general appointed by Mr. Trump last year, in signing off on an application to extend the surveillance of Mr. Page — meaning he approved the resubmission of Mr. Steele’s information to the court. Mr. Rosenstein’s role could provide critics of the inquiry ammunition to go after him.
ADVERTISEMENT
Under Justice Department regulations, only Mr. Rosenstein can fire Mr. Mueller, and only if he finds that the special counsel has committed misconduct — something he has repeatedly said he has not seen any sign of. But if Mr. Trump were to fire Mr. Rosenstein, he could install a more accommodating replacement willing to say that he or she had spotted a reason to justify removing the special counsel and shutting down the investigation.
On Tuesday, when Mr. Ryan maintained there was no connection between the memo and Mr. Mueller’s work, the speaker also portrayed Mr. Nunes’s committee as trying to be transparent as it carried out oversight into whether the executive branch had violated civil liberties using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“There’s a very legitimate issue here as to whether or not an American’s civil liberties were violated,” he said.
But Mr. Nunes’s history in Congress undermines the idea that he is motivated by a good-faith concern that law enforcement officials might have conspired to abuse their surveillance powers and trample on civil liberties.
ADVERTISEMENT
For one thing, Mr. Nunes was a chief architect of Congress’s move this month to extend by six years the government’s power to conduct surveillance without a warrant under certain circumstances. He and his allies turned back a push by reform-minded lawmakers to impose significant new safeguards to protect Americans’ civil liberties against the potential for abuses.
Mr. Nunes also has earned a reputation of being a staunch Trump loyalist — or “Trump’s stooge,” as his hometown newspaper, The Fresno Bee, called him last week. Last year, he dramatically announced that a whistle-blower had shown him materials revealing that Obama administration officials had improperly “unmasked” the identities of Mr. Trump’s associates in intelligence reports based on surveillance, and that he intended to inform the White House about what he had learned. But it later emerged that Mr. Trump’s aides at the White House had shown him those materials, and other Republicans who later examined them concluded no one had been improperly unmasked.
That Mr. Nunes’s actions undermined his credibility does not mean, however, that law enforcement officials made no mistakes in the highly fraught political environment of the day. The Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is finishing an inquiry into the handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, and he is expected to deliver some harsh findings about senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials in the Obama administration.
As part of its examination, Mr. Horowitz’s team uncovered the texts between two F.B.I. officials who also worked on the Russia investigation in its early stages, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, expressing intense animus for Mr. Trump. Mr. Horowitz brought those messages to the attention of Mr. Mueller, who immediately removed Mr. Strzok from his team; Ms. Page had already left by then. The final inspector general report is expected to sharply criticize both.
For now, however, Mr. Nunes’s memo is coming to define a political landscape already cratered by Mr. Trump’s recurring calls to reinvestigate Mrs. Clinton; his firing of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; the recent revelation that Mr. Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel last summer but backed off when his White House counsel threatened to resign; and Senate Republicans’ own attempts to discredit Mr. Steele, including two leading senators’ decision recently to ask the Justice Department to investigate whether he committed a crime.
One potential clue to the strategy behind the Republican memo may be lurking in the broadcasts of the Fox News personality Sean Hannity, a close ally of Mr. Trump whose programs often function as a conduit for his messaging.
On the day House Intelligence Committee Republicans revealed the existence of their memo and voted to share it with the House, Mr. Hannity built his evening programaround what he said his sources had already told him about its contents — saying Americans would soon learn “beyond any shadow of a doubt that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his band of Democratic witch hunters never should have been appointed and they need to be disbanded immediately.”
And, though it was not yet public that the memo revealed Mr. Rosenstein’s role in extending the surveillance of Mr. Page, Mr. Hannity himself raised the question: “Did Rosenstein sign off on extension of this FISA warrant?” He also emphasized that “I’m very interested about Rod Rosenstein in all of this” — and called for him to be fired.
Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter: @charlie_savage.
A version of this article appears in print on January 31, 2018, on Page A1of the New York edition with the headline: G.O.P. Memo Uses Offense As a Defense. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Related Coverage
How to Get a Wiretap to Spy on Americans, and Why That Matters Now
JAN. 29, 2018
Image
Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein
JAN. 28, 2018
Image
Republicans Claim Surveillance Power Abuses in Russia Inquiry
JAN. 19, 2018
Image
Sign Up for the Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
SEE SAMPLE
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times products and services.
ADVERTISEMENT
Site Index
Go to Home Page »
NEWS
OPINION
ARTS
LIVING
LISTINGS & MORE
Site Information Navigation
- Contact Us
- Work with us
- Advertise
- Your Ad Choices
- Privacy
- Terms of Service
- Terms of Sale
- Site Map
- Help
- Subscriptions
Posting too lengthy to read. The first few lines contained numerous falsehoods and there was no need to continue on.https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...tigation.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Republicans are pushing the narrative that a cabal of politically biased law enforcement officials set out to sabotage Mr. Trump. And they are portraying a dossier written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, which laid out unverified claims that Russia had compromised Mr. Trump and was conspiring with him, as the fountainhead of the Russia investigation. That assertion disregards unrelated evidence that Russia sought to influence the election and the pattern of contacts between Russians and Mr. Trump’s associates.
Democrats on the committee produced their own classified memo that they said pointed out and explained inaccuracies in the Republican memo and filled in the missing context. But on Monday, the committee voted along party lines to make the Republican memo public and rejected a request to simultaneously make public the Democrats’ rebuttal.
Asked on Tuesday about why it would not be more appropriate to make both memos public at the same time, Mr. Ryan was evasive. He said the Democratic memo first had to go through a process in which House members outside the Intelligence Committee could read it. Pressed on why the Republican memo should not be held back until that process was done, he said a reporter had asked enough questions.
Mr. Ryan then began remarks he said he had prepared, stressing that he respected the F.B.I. and the Justice Department as important institutions for “keeping the rule of law intact.” But on Monday, Intelligence Committee Republicans signaled a widening attack on both institutions — informing Democrats that the committee has opened an investigation into them, according to Mr. Schiff — as they voted to make their memo public.
Image
Representative Devin Nunes, center, leads the House Intelligence Committee, which released the memo.CreditMichael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency
Of particular importance, the Republican memo is said to cite the role of Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general appointed by Mr. Trump last year, in signing off on an application to extend the surveillance of Mr. Page — meaning he approved the resubmission of Mr. Steele’s information to the court. Mr. Rosenstein’s role could provide critics of the inquiry ammunition to go after him.
ADVERTISEMENT
Under Justice Department regulations, only Mr. Rosenstein can fire Mr. Mueller, and only if he finds that the special counsel has committed misconduct — something he has repeatedly said he has not seen any sign of. But if Mr. Trump were to fire Mr. Rosenstein, he could install a more accommodating replacement willing to say that he or she had spotted a reason to justify removing the special counsel and shutting down the investigation.
On Tuesday, when Mr. Ryan maintained there was no connection between the memo and Mr. Mueller’s work, the speaker also portrayed Mr. Nunes’s committee as trying to be transparent as it carried out oversight into whether the executive branch had violated civil liberties using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“There’s a very legitimate issue here as to whether or not an American’s civil liberties were violated,” he said.
But Mr. Nunes’s history in Congress undermines the idea that he is motivated by a good-faith concern that law enforcement officials might have conspired to abuse their surveillance powers and trample on civil liberties.
ADVERTISEMENT
For one thing, Mr. Nunes was a chief architect of Congress’s move this month to extend by six years the government’s power to conduct surveillance without a warrant under certain circumstances. He and his allies turned back a push by reform-minded lawmakers to impose significant new safeguards to protect Americans’ civil liberties against the potential for abuses.
Mr. Nunes also has earned a reputation of being a staunch Trump loyalist — or “Trump’s stooge,” as his hometown newspaper, The Fresno Bee, called him last week. Last year, he dramatically announced that a whistle-blower had shown him materials revealing that Obama administration officials had improperly “unmasked” the identities of Mr. Trump’s associates in intelligence reports based on surveillance, and that he intended to inform the White House about what he had learned. But it later emerged that Mr. Trump’s aides at the White House had shown him those materials, and other Republicans who later examined them concluded no one had been improperly unmasked.
That Mr. Nunes’s actions undermined his credibility does not mean, however, that law enforcement officials made no mistakes in the highly fraught political environment of the day. The Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is finishing an inquiry into the handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, and he is expected to deliver some harsh findings about senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials in the Obama administration.
As part of its examination, Mr. Horowitz’s team uncovered the texts between two F.B.I. officials who also worked on the Russia investigation in its early stages, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, expressing intense animus for Mr. Trump. Mr. Horowitz brought those messages to the attention of Mr. Mueller, who immediately removed Mr. Strzok from his team; Ms. Page had already left by then. The final inspector general report is expected to sharply criticize both.
For now, however, Mr. Nunes’s memo is coming to define a political landscape already cratered by Mr. Trump’s recurring calls to reinvestigate Mrs. Clinton; his firing of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey; the recent revelation that Mr. Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel last summer but backed off when his White House counsel threatened to resign; and Senate Republicans’ own attempts to discredit Mr. Steele, including two leading senators’ decision recently to ask the Justice Department to investigate whether he committed a crime.
One potential clue to the strategy behind the Republican memo may be lurking in the broadcasts of the Fox News personality Sean Hannity, a close ally of Mr. Trump whose programs often function as a conduit for his messaging.
On the day House Intelligence Committee Republicans revealed the existence of their memo and voted to share it with the House, Mr. Hannity built his evening programaround what he said his sources had already told him about its contents — saying Americans would soon learn “beyond any shadow of a doubt that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his band of Democratic witch hunters never should have been appointed and they need to be disbanded immediately.”
And, though it was not yet public that the memo revealed Mr. Rosenstein’s role in extending the surveillance of Mr. Page, Mr. Hannity himself raised the question: “Did Rosenstein sign off on extension of this FISA warrant?” He also emphasized that “I’m very interested about Rod Rosenstein in all of this” — and called for him to be fired.
Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter: @charlie_savage.
A version of this article appears in print on January 31, 2018, on Page A1of the New York edition with the headline: G.O.P. Memo Uses Offense As a Defense. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Related Coverage
How to Get a Wiretap to Spy on Americans, and Why That Matters Now
JAN. 29, 2018
Image
Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein
JAN. 28, 2018
Image
Republicans Claim Surveillance Power Abuses in Russia Inquiry
JAN. 19, 2018
Image
Sign Up for the Morning Briefing
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.
SEE SAMPLE
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times products and services.
ADVERTISEMENT
Site Index
Go to Home Page »
NEWS
OPINION
ARTS
LIVING
LISTINGS & MORE
Site Information Navigation
One subscription.
- Contact Us
- Work with us
- Advertise
- Your Ad Choices
- Privacy
- Terms of Service
- Terms of Sale
- Site Map
- Help
- Subscriptions
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...te-house-was-sent-altered-russia-memo-n843556
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, said in an open letter Wednesday night to the committee's chairman, Republican Devin Nunes of California, that he and other Democrats on the panel had since learned that the version of the memo that was sent to the White House isn't the same memo the committee voted to release on Monday.
Schiff described the differences in general as "substantive" and "material" alterations that committee members "were never apprised of, never had the opportunity to review, and never approved." That means "there is no longer a valid basis for the White House to review the altered document," he wrote.
According to a transcript of the hearing that was made public Wednesday, Himes pressed Nunes to clarify whether the final version of the memo, if it were released to the public, would be "word for word" the same document that the committee reviewed or whether it would be "redacted or altered in any way."
According to the transcript, Nunes responded: "We will send the content over to the White House, and the president has five days to either agree with us that it should be made public, or the president could say that he does not want it made public."
Schiff called that response "misleading" Wednesday night — an assessment that Himes agreed with.
"In a formal meeting, I asked Chairman Nunes not once, but twice, if his memo would be released precisely as we reviewed it," Himes said on Twitter. "He said yes. Then altered it."
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, said in an open letter Wednesday night to the committee's chairman, Republican Devin Nunes of California, that he and other Democrats on the panel had since learned that the version of the memo that was sent to the White House isn't the same memo the committee voted to release on Monday.
Schiff described the differences in general as "substantive" and "material" alterations that committee members "were never apprised of, never had the opportunity to review, and never approved." That means "there is no longer a valid basis for the White House to review the altered document," he wrote.
According to a transcript of the hearing that was made public Wednesday, Himes pressed Nunes to clarify whether the final version of the memo, if it were released to the public, would be "word for word" the same document that the committee reviewed or whether it would be "redacted or altered in any way."
According to the transcript, Nunes responded: "We will send the content over to the White House, and the president has five days to either agree with us that it should be made public, or the president could say that he does not want it made public."
Schiff called that response "misleading" Wednesday night — an assessment that Himes agreed with.
"In a formal meeting, I asked Chairman Nunes not once, but twice, if his memo would be released precisely as we reviewed it," Himes said on Twitter. "He said yes. Then altered it."