Nunes memo: Is that all there is?

[This is long, but I think worth reading it all.]

President Trump has approved the release of the controversial Nunes memo by the House Intelligence Committee -- meaning that Trump declassified the material contained in it.    So now you can read on the internet what everyone's been talking about.

In truth, after all the hype -- Sean Hannity calling it the most scandalous government malfeasance in history -- it really under whelms.    Let's try to get a little perspective.

We have laws that prevent our government from spying on its citizens.   There are two exceptions.  (1)  If a citizen is inadvertently heard talking to a foreign national, who is legitimately under surveillance.   In so, the American's name is "masked" and can only be revealed if the need meets requirements of necessity.   Or (2) if the FBI has gotten a warrant to spy on an individual citizen from a special FISA Court judge.  The application for this is rigorous, and the judges are specially trained to use the warrant process only for very legitimate and proven national security interests.

The Nunes memo concerns the application process for a FISA warrant obtained for American citizen Carter Page, who was listed by Trump himself during the transition as one of his foreign policy advisers.   The first warrant was obtained in late October 2016, just before the election.   It has been renewed three times, the latest by request of Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.

The truth is that Carter Page first came to the attention of the FBI in 2013 when he became a "target" of Russian spies working in New York.    It's unclear whether Page was aware he was being used by the Russians, but apparently they were attempting to bring him into their network as an agent working for the Kremlin.   This is usually done over time, beginning with what appear to be innocent contacts -- meeting a businessman with interest in Russia, or oil production, etc.  In this case, they asked him to supply information about the oil industry, which Page gladly gave them.   Mostly it's initially about establishing a relationship, and then they draw you in, with the eventual goal of having something incriminating on you that they can use to manipulate you into ever-increasing leverage.

That's the case with Carter Page.   He has background as a business consultant in oil production, as well as an academic background that made him an ideal target -- invitations to speak at Russian universities were excuses to travel to Moscow, for example.   And Page has admitted that he met a number of high officials in the Russian government.

At one point even after he was listed as a member of the Trump Advisory Board on Foreign Affairs, he made a speech in Moscow in which he reportedly made some anti-US comments.   What the Russians were getting from him, apparently, was information, specifically about US sanctions against Russia, as well as favorable comments about Putin and the Russian government.

Now, to back up a moment:    The FBI had an interest in following Carter Page all the way back to that 2013 connection with the Russian spies -- when he was under FBI surveillance for about 2 years.   That spy ring was eventually broken up and Pages' two contacts in New York were arrested.    Apparently the FBI had no evidence that Page knew he was a target or that he had done anything illegal.

Nevertheless, from 2013 on, he was already a person of interest to the FBI in relation to Russia.   So it did raise concerns when he was named as a member of the Trump transition advisory board in 2016.   This background, his frequent trips to Russia and contacts with high Russian officials, plus perhaps other information we don't know, was all part of the application for a FISA warrant in October 2016 to renew surveillance on Carter Page.

The Nunes memo -- and the hype in the media, with some evidence that the Russians are doing their amplification of it on social media with thousands of fake accounts pumping out bot messages of "release the memo" -- are putting all the focus on the fact that, along with many other justifications -- the FISA application also listed the Steele dossier, which contained some information on Page.

The "big scandal" they're pushing is that the FISA warrant that "violated an innocent citizen's civil rights" was based on an unproved claim (Steele dossier) which was paid for by Democratic sources.   Thus it's all a political witchhunt and proves that the whole Russia collusion story is false.

There's a small problem with that, as pointed out by Rachel Maddow:   In the last paragraph of the memo is this sentence:   "The [George] Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok."   Now the context shows that they included this to discredit the whole thing because of their belief in the anti-Trump bias of FBI agent Strzok.   In fact, however, what this shows is that it was not the Steele dossier that triggered the investigation.  It was the much earlier information obtained about Papadopoulos --  fully three months earlier than the October 2016 FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.

So, as Rachel says:   The memo itself disproves the main thrust of the memo -- that of the corruption of the application for a FISA warrant on Page.

Rep. Adam Schiff, lead Democrat on the House Intel Committee, plus the FBI and Justice Department, in opposing the release, have said that there is other material evidence from the FISA application that justifies the warrant, even without the Steele dossier material.  But the Nunes memo leaves that out.   In addition, Nunes has essentially admitted that he did not read the underlying documents that were listed in the application.

As Chris Hayes put it:   "The memo is not evidence;  it's a book report written by someone who has not read the book."

As to the memo's accusations of Steele's anti-Trump bias, quoting him as expressing his strong feelings, even passion about Trump not getting elected president -- the memo leaves out the context of that statement from Steele.   But it is contained (again as pointed out by Rachel Maddow) in the transcripts of his testimony before congressional committees by the head of Fusion GPS, which commissioned Steele's work.   It quotes Steele having said that his strong opposition to a Trump presidency stemmed from evidence he was finding that Trump could be vulnerable to being influenced by a hostile foreign power. even including possible blackmail.

Schiff has also sounded the alarm that the version of the memo that Nunes sent to the White House is not the same as the memo that the Intel Committee voted to release -- and it's not just cosmetic editing, he says, but material differences.   Thus, according to Schiff, that negates the vote to release it.    But that fell on willfully deaf ears.

Speaker Paul Ryan fully supports the release as a matter of the possible violation of civil liberties of a citizen.   But he did also caution not to conflate this with the FBI's function in general or the Mueller investigation in particular.   They are entirely separate, Ryan says.   That also has fallen on deaf ears -- as has the FBI's impassioned and unprecedented pleas not to release what could be giving damaging information to enemies about our intelligence methods and sources.

The blind partisan position of the Republicans is simply astounding.  Just three weeks ago they voted to renew the FISA warrant process.   Now they're not willing to trust the process they just voted to renew.   If Carter Page has a complaint, the FISA court has an appeal process.   That has not been pursued, as far as we know.

This is total politics cooked up by Nunes -- and most likely the White House itself -- trying to save Trump by obfuscation and false sideshow narratives.  Trump wants it as ammunition to get rid of Rod Rosenstein and possibly Mueller -- and to damage the reputation of both the FBI and Justice, and to discredit whatever damaging report Mueller  eventually files.

The indictment of Rosenstein is that he signed off on the renewal application for the Page FISA warrant, which was the third renewal, required every 90 days.   It's not something he originated, but he did have to certify and back up that findings warranted continued surveillance.   That's it.   That's the whole "case" against Rosenstein.

This is the big crime that has Sean Hannity foaming at the mouth?    That the man who certified a third renewal of surveillance of a man who was originally caught up in attempts to recruit him by Russian spies at least five years ago, who has since then made numerous trips to Moscow, met with high officials in the Kremlin, and given speeches that were at times anti-US in tone and praising Putin -- plus whatever secret information we have no knowledge about.

I am totally underwhelmed -- except by the perfidy and shamelessness of the Republicans -- starting with Donald Trump and going down the list from there.  Trump told the press, "This completely vindicates me."   But, for a man suddenly vincidated, his affect did not match.   Instead of smiles and jubilation -- he looked downright grim and enraged, like a man betrayed by his chief adviser, Sean Hannity.

Ralph

PS:  Meanwhile, when former FBI Director James Comey finally saw the Nunes memo, his reaction was an incredulous, "That's it? . . .  Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House Intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.   For what?"

Senator John McCain, writing from home in Arizona as he deals with brain cancer treatment, said:   "The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests -- no party's, no President's, only Putin's. . . .  If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin's job for him."