themarketswork

a common sense approach to a liberal world

About that Schiff Memo – An Extensive Rebuttal

by

Why did it take Adam Schiff and the Democrats so long to release their Memo if it was so important. And why release the Memo on a Saturday afternoon.

The answer is simple.

The problem was the Grassley Memo.

It was so packed with damning information regarding the credibility of Steele – and the FBI – that it utterly superseded the Democrat’s Memo, rendering Schiff’s Memo worthless.

But that hasn’t stopped those on the Left from claiming vindication. So I thought it worthwhile to take a walk through the Schiff Memo and overlay it with what we’ve uncovered.

For those interested, I cover the Nunes House Memo in detail:

The House Memo – An Examination & Some Implications

A Detailed Rebuttal to Media Criticisms of the Nunes Memo

Before we proceed, let’s address a significant issue the Schiff Memo chose to simply ignore.

The Steele Memo had not been corroborated at the time of the FISA application.

Corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application – per testimony by FBI Counterintelligence Head Bill Priestap.

Following Steele’s termination by the FBI, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within the FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.

James Comey would later refer to the Steele Dossier as “salacious and unverified” in his written prepared statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.

The information presented to the FISA Court as fact had not been verified by the FBI as factual. The FBI either knew the Dossier was NOT factually based or they had no idea if it was factual or not.

DNI James Clapper also verified the lack of corroboration and validation of the Steele Dossier.

On January 11, 2017, Clapper issued a formal statement after meeting with President Trump regarding Intelligence Leaks:

We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it.

I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.

Clapper is talking about the Steele Dossier.

You can read more in, Did Clapper & Brennan Use the Steele Dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment.

Schiff Memo Point 1 – FBI and DOJ officials did not “abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.

An April 26, 2017 unsealed FISA Court Ruling directly contradicts this claim.

Findings by the FISA Court regarding the DOJ’s National Security Division, NSA and FBI:

The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA Analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court.

The Court ascribed the government’s failure to disclose the IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing [Obama’s NSD Director John Carlin – NOT NSA Director Mike Rogers] to an institutional “Lack of Candor” and emphasized that “this is a very serious Fourth Amendment Issue”.

A non-compliance rate of 85% raises substantial questions about the propriety of using of [Redacted – likely “About”] query FISA data.

There is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015-April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high rate.

The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to a [Redacted]

[Redacted] could be “independent contractor”.

Is largely staffed by private contractors.

The {Redacted} contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.

The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI’s apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported.

The FISA abuses were flagrant and systemic until NSA Director Mike Rogers uncovered and put a stop to them.

One other thing the Schiff Memo fails to address is the FISA application date of October 21, 2016. Note the following timeline:

  • November 2015-April 2016 – The FBI and NSD uses private contractors to access raw FISA information using “To” and “From” FISA-702(16) & “About” FISA-702(17) queries.
  • April 2016 – National Security Agency (NSA) Director Rogers orders NSA compliance officer to run full audit on 702 NSA compliance.
  • April 18 2016 -Mike Rogers shuts down FBI/DOJ contractor access to the FISA Search System. The FBI is forced to discontinue private contractor access to raw FISA information.
  • April 2016 – Fusion GPS hired by Perkins Coie on behalf of the DNC.
  • April/May 2016 – Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele.
  • April/May 2016 – Fusion GPS hires Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ Assoc. Deputy AG Bruce Ohr.
  • October 20 2016 – NSA Rogers briefed by NSA compliance officer on 702 NSA compliance audit.
  • October 21 2016 – NSA Rogers shuts down all “About Query” activity. Permanently. Reports activity to DOJ and prepares to go before FISA Court.
  • October 21 2016 – DOJ & FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC.
  • October 26 2016 – NSA Rogers personally informs FISA Court of 702(17) violations.

The FBI lost its improper independent contractor access to the NSA database on April 18, 2016.

At the same time, Fusion was hired and began the process of assembling information using Steele as the processor and Ohr as the DOJ conduit.

The NSA investigation begun by Rogers moved towards a close. Rogers prepared to brief the FISA Court on his findings.

The FBI & DOJ made their FISA application on the same day NSA Rogers shut down all “About” queries and reported the activity to the DOJ – knowing NSA Rogers was preparing to go before the FISA Court in five days.

Which begs the question – why wasn’t Page’s FISA application revisited when Rogers went before the FISA Court on October 26, 2016.

That’s a likely question for FISA Judge Contreras…now forcibly recused in the Flynn case.

I cover this in greater detail in, The Uncovering – Section 702 “About” Queries, Independent Contractors & a New Narrative.

This is one of my most read pieces – the details are alarming.

Schiff Memo Point 2 – Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI’s decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.

This is one of the few correct points within the Schiff Memo. But note that Schiff omits what actually did trigger the FBI’s July 2016 counterintelligence investigation.

The answer was George Papadopoulos. Which is even worse.

Papadopoulos plead guilty to lying to the FBI about an earlier conversation.

This is a process crime – an offense alleging criminal conduct related to an investigation of a crime – but not to the crime itself.

From a New York Times article:

Papadopoulos, 30, first communicated with a professor in London with links to the Russian government, according to court documents unsealed Monday.

At the time, he told agents that Professor Mifsud was “a nothing.” But Mr. Papadopoulos now acknowledges that he knew the professor had “substantial connections to Russian government officials.”

As the Nunes House Memo detailed:

The Page FISA application mentions information regarding Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos. There is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Peter Strzok.

There was another problem.

The FBI did not even bother to interview Papadopoulos until January 15, 2017. The conversation in question took place in May 2016. The FBI knew of this conversation no later than July 2016.

If the Papadopoulos information was enough to open a FBI counterintelligence investigation in July 2016, why did the FBI wait until January 2017 to even speak with him.

And if the Papadopoulos information was so critical, why was there no mention of either the information or Papadopoulos in any of the three Intelligence Community Reports on Russian Election Interference. More on those Intelligence Reports here.

You can read more on Papadopoulos here. There are other strange details as well.

Schiff Memo Point 3 – DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page — but made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.

This one is easy. Let’s start with the most damning response – from former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe:

Deputy FBI Director McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

McCabe acknowledged that not only would the FISA Court have refused to grant a FISA Warrant – the FBI would not have even attempted a FISA application without the Steele Dossier.

The implication of this is simple – and devastating.

The FBI relied almost solely on the Steele Dossier to obtain a FISA Warrant and the three subsequent FISA extensions.

House Democrats disputed McCabe ever said this but offered no proof. Which prompted an immediate response:

Byron York reported the following:

Republicans who have read the McCabe transcript said the memo’s characterization of McCabe’s statement is accurate. In addition, they cited another FBI official who, when asked what the application’s chances of being approved would have been without the dossier, answered about 50-50 — unacceptably low odds when applying for a surveillance warrant.

Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests. An application with 50-50 odds would not be considered for submission to the FISA Court by any historical standard.

If the Steele Dossier was not completely valid, the entire basis for A FISA Warrant was granted on false pretenses.

In addition, the Grassley Memo’s entire purpose was to prove that the bulk of the allegations made against Carter Page came from the Steele Dossier.

Points made in Grassley’s Memo:

  • The FBI relied heavily on the Steel Dossier in their FISA application.
  • The FBI relied on Christopher Steele without corroboration.
  • There was no corroborating information other than the Circular Reporting done by Steele.
  • The FBI stated in the FISA application that they did not believe the news reports stemmed from Steele. The news reports came directly from Steele.
  • The FBI continued to vouch for Steele’s credibility to the FISA Court after terminating Steele for leaking. The FBI continued to defend the September 23 Yahoo article.
  • The FBI continued to vouch for Steele during subsequent FISA Renewals.
  • The FBI continued to hide evidence of Steele’s media leaking.
  • Steele admitted to using unsolicited – and unverified – information from unvetted sources.
  • The State Department contributed information. Information actually flowed into Steele’s Dossier from the Clinton Campaign.

Grassley’s Memo by itself demolishes the Schiff Memo.

Schiff Memo Point 4 – While explaining why the FBI viewed Steele’s reporting and sources as reliable and credible, DOJ also disclosed:

  1. Steele’s prior relationship with the FBI;
  2. the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and
  3. the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.

Steele’s reporting and sources were not credible. As noted earlier, the Steele Dossier was entirely uncorroborated by the FBI or other Intelligence Agencies.

The FBI has admitted they did not corroborate the Steele Dossier to any testable threshold internally. A Yahoo News article was instead provided to the FISA Court for this purpose.

Steele has admitted in British Court filings that he leaked to Yahoo News’ Isikoff – along with several other media outlets – at the direction of Fusion GPS.

Isikoff has confirmed that Steele was his source. As he noted:

Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had.

So it seems a little odd that they would be citing the Yahoo! News story about the matter that they are investigating themselves based on the same material that had been separately presented to the FBI before I was ever briefed by Christopher Steele.

The Isikoff Yahoo article is derived from information that Steele leaked to Isikoff and Yahoo News. The source of the Isikoff article (Steele) was not disclosed to the FISA Court.

The FBI used Circular Reporting to falsely corroborate the primary piece of evidence they were unable or unwilling to corroborate themselves.

The FBI presented uncorroborated evidence to the FISA Court as fully corroborated – both internally (FBI) and externally (Isikoff) – when it was neither.

Steele leaked to Isikoff who wrote the article for Yahoo News. The Isikoff article was then used to help obtain a Title I FISA grant to gather information on Page. This search was then leaked by Steele to David Corn at Mother Jones. Circular Reporting.

By failing to maintain confidentiality, Steele had violated the cardinal rule of source handling and become a “less than reliable source”. By the FBI’s own internal rules Steele should have been terminated in September 2016, and his research disallowed.

The FBI knew of Steele’s leaks to Isikoff in September 2016 but did not terminate the relationship until October 30, 2016 – after the FISA Warrant had been granted.

And the FBI continued to vouch for Steele’s credibility in subsequent FISA Renewals despite Steele’s multiple media leaks.

As noted in the Grassley Memo:

  • The FBI stated in the FISA application that they did not believe the news reports stemmed from Steele. The news reports came directly from Steele.
  • The FBI continued to vouch for Steele’s credibility to the FISA Court after terminating Steele for leaking. The FBI continued to defend the September 23 Yahoo article.
  • The FBI continued to vouch for Steele during subsequent FISA Renewals.
  • The FBI continued to hide evidence of Steele’s media leaking.

The initial FISA application does not include Steele’s employment by Fusion GPS or founder Glenn Simpson. Fusion GPS was paid by Perkins Coie – a law firm representing the DNC. The application does not mention that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the Dossier and related information.

The FISA application ignored or concealed Steele’s anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations.

The FBI willfully – and overtly – hid material facts from the FISA Court that might prove damaging to their chances of obtaining a FISA Warrant grant.

The FBI failed to disclosed:

The role of the DNC and/or the Clinton Campaign’s funding of the Steel Dossier.

Steele’s employment by Fusion GPS or founder Glenn Simpson.

It had separately authorized payment to Steele for the Dossier and related information.

It used opposition research secretly funneled to it from a senior DOJ official – created by that official’s wife.

The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS.

Steele’s self-stated political motivations in the creation of the Steele Dossier.

This also leaves aside the far more serious charge the FBI presented uncorroborated evidence to the FISA Court as fully corroborated.

Schiff Memo Point 5 – DOJ’s warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause to believe Page was knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities in the U.S.

If this was so, why did the actual FISA Application rely so heavily on the Steele Dossier and not the activities of Carter Page.

If so, why has Carter Page never been charged with anything.

If so, why did the FBI not even speak with Page.

From a letter Carter Page sent to FBI Director Comey on September 25, 2016:

This also raises another issue captured in a September 20, 2017 letter from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley regarding Carter Page:

I write to inquire about whether the FBI ever provided the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing or other warning regarding attempts to infiltrate the campaign by people connected with, or compromised by, Russian intelligence.

If the FBI  did not alert the campaign, then that would raise serious questions about what factors contributed to its decision and why it appears to have been handled differently in a very similar circumstance involving a previous campaign.

If the FBI was truly concerned about Carter Page’s allegiances, one can only assume the FBI would have a duty to inform the Trump Campaign. There is also historical precedent as noted by Grassley.

As far as I know, the FBI took no such action.

The FISA order was NOT under Title VII (Section 702) – which specifically relates to an American person caught up in the process of Foreign Surveillance. This implies a likely Title I Request – or a Traditional FISA.

A Title I FISA grant would allow not only for surveillance of the targeted U.S. person, but also follow up surveillance of any of his direct contacts. The intent behind Title I is to capture a complete network.

Carter Page became a direct target of Title I surveillance – despite having been previously cleared by the FBI.

As Byron York noted:

Page was caught up (and wiretapped) in a 2013 case against Russian agents in New York who were trying to recruit Americans, including Page. Page was never charged, he was not a Russian agent, and the case ended with no action against him.

The truth of this appears to be more complicated. It appears that Page actually served as a witness in the 2016 case against the Russian Agents. More here.

One last point to consider, if the FISA Application was “based on compelling evidence and probable cause to believe Page was knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities in the U.S.”, why did the DOJ and FBI wait until after completion of the Steele Dossier to file the FISA Application.

Schiff Memo Point 6 – DOJ never paid Steele for the “dossier”.

This is technically correct. However, the FBI had authorized payment to Steele. That payment was rescinded after Steele was terminated for making unauthorized leaks to the media. Meanwhile, the FISA Application had already been granted. Steele’s financial motivation via the FBI was in place when the FISA Application was made.

Schiff Memo Point 7 – The Majority’s reference to Bruce Ohr is misleading.

Ohr’s wife Nellie Ohr was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. The Ohr’s have known Glenn Simpson since at least 2010 – when Bruce & Nellie Ohr worked with Glenn Simpson on a report for the DOJ.

The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was concealed from the FISA Court in all FISA applications – as was the transfer of information by DOJ’s Bruce Ohr.

The FBI was knowingly using opposition research secretly funneled to it from a senior DOJ official in order to obtain a FISA Warrant.

Information created by the senior DOJ official’s wife. And funded by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

Steele told Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president” in a September 2016 conversation.

Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time of occurrence – but this information was omitted from any of the FISA applications.

The FBI knew of this because it was relayed to the FBI when they interviewed Ohr several times following the election to document Ohr’s contacts with Steele.

Schiff Memo Point 8 – Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s text messages are irrelevant to the FISA application.

I personally find this response almost silly.

Peter Strzok was the:

  • Lead FBI agent in charge of the Clinton email investigation.
  • FBI Agent who interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.
  • FBI Agent who interviewed Hillary Clinton.
  • FBI Agent assigned to the top level of Mueller’s Russia-Trump investigation.
  • FBI Agent who served as the contact person between the FBI and Richard Steele – the author of the Trump Dossier.
  • One of the two FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn on January 24, 2017. This interview is what led to Flynn’s guilty plea.
  • One who changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in the FBI’s Clinton Email Investigation.
  • FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Strzok was also the FBI Agent who referenced the “insurance policy” in a text message that appeared to indicate collusion with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to alter or influence the 2016 Presidential election by utilizing the Trump Dossier:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe] office that there’s no way he [Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

Strzok appears to be discussing a plan to use the Trump Dossier to obtain the FISA Warrant. The matter seems to have been discussed with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe – in McCabe’s office.

Decide for yourself if the inclusion of the Strzok/Page texts was relevant.

And decide for yourself if the Schiff Memo has any credibility.

newer post  Why I Support Trump’s Tariff Proposal

older post  A Telling Tweet from President Trump