Notwithstanding the reprieved motivation in authoring and releasing the memo, if the underlying documentation supports the allegations raised the memo should have been generated and released. Regardless of ideology, everyone should be able to agree on three issues:
Foreign involvement, if any, in the election isn’t good.
A citizen’s civil rights should not be violated in an investigation.
Law enforcement investigations should be apolitical.
The FISA Process and Civil Rights
The memo’s first allegation raises concern as to the potential civil rights violations. The memo states:
1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
- a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, 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 and FBI officials.
This looks like the government withholding relevant information to the FISA court. Although not quite a Brady doctrine scenario, the withheld information meets the criteria for Brady and is in the setting of an adverse governmental action directed at a citizen. As such, it’s troubling that the information was not disclosed to the FISA court.
The government often withholds information when taking action detrimental to citizens. I see it all the time in my Social Security practice – the government cherry picks evidence from a prior application and doesn’t associate all the evidence from the prior application into the file. Or they conduct a cooperative disability investigation and will not tender the report. The adverse decision denying benefits is made based in part on the cherry picked information or the investigation. The remedy is that the Administrative Law Judge hearing the case allows for argumentation on the issue and orders the withheld information tendered or stricken as appropriate. The public can be confident in the process because a record of the proceeding is made and the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the issue is raised and determined.
This safeguard is absent in FISA situations because FISA issues are, by statute, ex parte. With the adversarial safeguard absent it’s not possible to ascertain if the target citizen’s civil rights are being protected. To that end, the memo exposes potential abuse which raises a serious concern with the FISA process rather than the Mueller investigation.
Is the Investigation Apolitical?
Nothing about allegations 1b through 4 are particularly striking, but then there’s allegation five. This allegation reads:
5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but 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 Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.
Wow.
What’s striking about this is the allegation is easily verified (or not). Simply follow the text message trail. Regardless of who is being investigated having a political slant to a criminal investigation is a threat to the integrity of the legal system. This goes even beyond bias. Texts discussing, “orchestrating leaks to the media” treads into conspiracy to commit criminal activity. The allegation goes even further with “include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.” If that verifies, then not only are those named treading into criminal activity, but also they are attempting to influence the election – the same issue they are tasked with investigating.
Does this mean that the investigating they did was fabricated or otherwise unreliable on the facts? No. It does, however, raise questions as to whether the investigation was looking at what occurred or looking to inflict harm to President Trump. It raises questions on was exculpatory evidence pursued? Was evidence that casts doubt on the veracity of information given equal weight as evidence that was not favorable towards President Trump?
The memo doesn’t prove fire, but it does show a whole bunch of smoke.
An outstanding post, Greg.
President Trump says the memo ‘”totally vindicates” him. Whoa, not so fast there! The memo does no such thing. While Trump himself may not have colluded with the Russians, that’s beside the point. Mueller is coming after Trump for obstruction of justice. And the firing of FBI Director James Comey after he refused to lay off of former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn may not exactly pass the smell test.
If Trump thinks the FBI and Justice Department investigations have been politicized, he ain’t seen nothing yet. He has thoroughly pissed off the FBI agents and U.S. Attorneys with his harsh public criticism, something that is likely to have them come after him with a greater zeal
Trump’s attorneys better succeed in talking him out of an interview with Mueller. The prospect has the Democrats licking their liberal chops. There is no telling how the thin-skinned Trump will react to some of Meller’s questions. The interview could easily turn out to be a gotcha event.
I totally agree that this memo, by and of itself, does not vindicate Trump. But it sure doesn’t hurt him.
What it does show is that the FBI and Justice dept were willing to behave in a grossly unethical fashion. Frankly, if there are FBI agents and U.S. Attorneys that are “pissed off”, they have only themselves to blame. They are the ones that politicized the investigation – they used the oppo research from one candidate to illegally investigate another candidate!
As for Mueller coming after Trump for obstruction – I though Mueller’s brief was to investigate possible Russian collusion? The firing of Comey – while possibly ill-timed, was perfectly legal. Comey worked for the President. And, given his actions since he was fired, it’s readily apparent that he’s a whiny weasel – who was quite possibly leaking classified materials himself
I do however agree – there’s no way that Pres. Trump should do an interview with Mueller. He should tell him to piss off and try a subpoena. Then Trump can claim executive privilege, and the whole thing will end up at the Supreme court. Meanwhile Mueller and his cohorts will have even more time to trip over themselves and prove themselves to be the partisan hacks that they really are.
If Trump thinks the FBI and Justice Department investigations have been politicized, he ain’t seen nothing yet. He has thoroughly pissed off the FBI agents and U.S. Attorneys with his harsh public criticism, something that is likely to have them come after him with a greater zeal
And you are OK with that? They are supposed to be ethical, impartial and professional, I have not see that in this instance. Partial, Partisan and unprofessional. It is a witch hunt…….unfortunately that are leaving the witch alone to break the laws as she sees fit.
Not okay with it at all. I think that Strzok and Page committed a crime and need to have the information in the text messages brought before a grand jury then the chips fall where they may.
My bigger concern is that the political running of the investigation is preventing examination of all the contacts with foreign governments regardless of the source. For example, if DNC paid Steele to generate the dossier, how much did the Russians know about the dossier and how much is a plant from the Russian government? Follow the facts where they lead you. In this case it may be much bigger than anyone is looking at.
Well, unfortunately, this post reads like a first year law student enthralled with newly discovered legal jargon. It needs desperately an experienced editor.
What exactly is the point ? It seems to be left to the reader to grab whatever they think is relevant from the insinuations and implications here. Say what you mean concisely, mean what you say briefly. Being obtuse and opaque won’t gain you any fans.
I generally try and be peaceable and constructive with discussion in the comments. Your comment has a toe across the line regarding that tolerance Kimmon.
You want to play lawyer and 1L? Fine, let’s play your game. That requires the Socratic method.
But before we have the lesson answer this:
You don’t understand the article; it appears to be over your head. Had you simply wanted discussion and explanation I would have been glad to entertain the same. Why should anyone answer criticism lodged in the manner you have raised?
Greg, I still think your post was outstanding. I don’t understand what is Mr. Johnson’s beef.