The Nunes Memo is out, here it is

This is a memo from the White House to Devin Nunes telling Nunes it is OK to release the memo, followed by the memo itself.

(At this point you may want to know about this guy, the person running against Nunes for his seat in the House.)

The memo is from the staff of the House Intelligence Committee to the majority (Republican) members of that committee, with the subject line “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

The memo claims that there is a concern about certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the FISC (FISA) court which it troubling. Somehow that concern is listed as two separate items, but really, it is just one long sentence.

The memo complains about the Steele Dosier as well as surveillance of Russian Agent (an American working on behalf of Russia) Carter Page.

It is generally felt that these complaints are absurd, and that on even a moderate reading, this memo will expose Devin Nunes (did I mention this guy, the person running against Nunes for his seat in the House?) as an agent of the Trump-Putin conspiracy centered in the American White House and Kremlin.

Read it over, tell us what you think.

Spread the love

65 thoughts on “The Nunes Memo is out, here it is

  1. So a heavily edited (for partisan reasons, by partisans on the right) memo is a big deal? The fact that the people who released it voted against releasing anything relating concerning the original memo’s contents they changed or omitted is telling.

  2. Dean, no, it is not a big deal at all. Which is the point.

    I agree — my sarcasm didn’t come through. However, we both know the usual suspects who will take the dishonesty in it as fact and hyperventilate while screaming about it.

    1. Right. But, the total percentage of those folks drops, though it will not go below 33 or so. But that’s enough!

  3. The people who were saying release of this memo is damaging to national security and the like are looking pretty foolish right now. This was confirmation of things that were reported before.
    Steele has already been referred for criminal prosecution for lying to the FBI.
    Only thing missing is a mention of a rejected FISA application in the summer as Guardian reported. It says one was issued in Oct. Clapper did say it was for a reauthorization which would make the original in July but memo says original. Before that in March, Clapper said there was no warrant on any member of Trump campaign, which he would have seen as they were given.

    1. Steele has already been referred for criminal prosecution for lying to the FBI.

      Let’s dig into this…

      What exactly was Steele accused of lying about? What’s the evidence? What’s the significance? And if Steele (who is after all a foreign national and an Allied operative who has no direct responsibility to the USA) lied to the FBI and this is a Bad Thing, then how much worse it is if US politicians and White House staff lied to the FBI on far more substantive matters, and in so doing compromised the USA’s national security and interests?

    2. Steele is accused of lying to the FBI about his contacts with the media. The FBI reported to the committee what Steele told them. This is at odds with what Steele testified to in court in Britain.

      It is possible Nunes & Grassley are lying. Namely they don’t think Steele lied, but that the FBI is lying to the committee about what Steele said- ie they knew he was talking to the media and were in on it. So in making a criminal referral, they are calling out the FBI.

    3. If you are referring to Flynn and the Greek about lying to the FBI, then what Steele did is far more damaging to US interests. Because at the point that Flynn and the Greek lied to the FBI, the FBI already knew the correct answers. Their crime requires prosecution because you can’t have people lying to the FBI, but there is no damage beyond that(and indeed no damage if no one ever finds out they lied). In Steele’s case, the FBI doesn’t know that Steele is lying to them, and the particularly media contacts he made had the effect of destroying their surveillance. Read the Isikoff article on Carter Page, which was published before the FBI got their FISA warrant(and was used as supporting evidence in the warrant).

  4. I suspect the Republicans are relying on the fact that most people have no iead how warrants are issued. All you need is probable cause, and that includes biasd sources all the time. Now, a FISA warrant may be more strict in what it requires, but it cannot be that much more.

    Here’s an article by conservative law professor Orin Kerr about issuing warrants: https://lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo

    I also wonder, do the Republicans this they will be in power forever? Because a new Democratic President could (and should) reopen any investigation that Trump shuts down to protect himself from the law.

    1. >do the Republicans this they will be in power forever? Because a new Democratic President could (and should) reopen

      This works two ways. Obama illegally rewrote ObamaCare and liberals said nothing. The end result is that Trump is free to gut ObamaCare with impunity. Now if liberals look the other way as intelligence agencies were used (again) against a political campaign, then Trump can put his own people in charge and do the same thing.

      Nixon in his autobiography apologized for Watergate but did not apologize for using the IRS against political opponents, because he felt that was the rules of the game having been audited himself.

    2. The FBI director and whoever was presenting to FISA, was saying they had probable cause to believe Carter Page was a Russian agent. This is despite having him (reportedly) under surveillance 3 years prior and dropping the surveillance.

  5. This memo is nothing, perhaps less than nothing, but its purpose is to set up the sacking of Rosenstein. I greatly fear that Trump is winning. When everything is lies, the search for truth becomes a farce.

    1. Yup. If even one person buys into the “mainstream media is against the President because he’s doing so much good” then their lies have worked.

  6. Empty accusations about
    president Obama aside ( made because he isn’t white so clearly everything he did was illegal), this memo full of false claims is turning into the gift that keeps on giving. Nunes has admitted he didn’t read the things the memo summarized , for example. And, when the guy who wrote the torture memo for Bush says he has no confidence that anything in it is true, well…

    For the humor minded folks, check out the “yo memo” jokes that are going around. My favorites so far:

    “Yo memo so dumb it will be co-hosting Fox and Friends.”

    “Yo memo so dumb Mike Pence finds it boring.”

    “Yo memo so dumb it has to go to a Betsy DeVos Charter school”

    “Yo memo so dishonest it identifies as an Evangelical”

    “Yo memo so poor Republicans want it to die before it qualifies for Medicaid”

    My initial statement that it was worthless was a little off. It’s generating laughs

  7. “Now if liberals look the other way as intelligence agencies were used (again) against a political campaign, ”

    It is indeed a very good thing that is not happening now and never did happen (except in the minds of conspiracy mongers)

    1. You don’t think Obama’s passport file was looked at? How about files on Bill Clinton when he was in London? LBJ bugging Goldwater?

      Here we have a dossier paid for by one candidate used to initiate surveillance of a member of a campaign team, which would then allow surveillance of more people as contacts. The playbook is available now. If the investigation hadn’t been done, the Democrats couldn’t even argue it’s a setup as their candidate is declared a foreign agent.

  8. It’s like The Post but if Katherine Graham, Ben Bradlee, and the Sulzburgers decided the Pentagon Papers should not be published.

  9. “Here we have a dossier paid for by one candidate used to initiate surveillance”

    No, nothing in there says it initiated it. And don’t go with the dishonest crap that the Steele dossier was HRC’s creation: the people who had it created were the cretins at the Washington Free Beacon. That’s the lie behind all of this. The fact that the Steele thing was constructed by people with an agenda is completely meaningless: that’s the issue with essentially every complaint filed with a court by someone: bias is expected. You’re also ignoring the fact that this steaming pile of crap memo itself mentions the investigation was based in part on the behavior of Papadopoulos (read the part about the “Papadopoulos information”

    And that also ignores the fact that the FISA investigation has to be re-examined every three months. Had nothing been there it would have stopped.

    “It’s reapproved if you have new information justifying the original probable cause and the government’s need to listen,” writes Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and current Yale lecturer. “Kind of the point of requiring the extension. Sounds like the gov [made] its burden not once, but THREE times.”

    But the memo itself is, essentially, the wet-dream paranoia of a republican liar and idiot.

    * The primary claim is that FBI surveillance was

    a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

    The only problem with the assertion that it was an attempt to spy on Trump’s campaign was that Page was long gone from the campaign when the FISA request was made

    * The claim is made that the steele dossier was key for the application, and that important aspects about it were omitted. No evidence is supplied for that claim, so it can’t be judged. The claim could be correct, it might not be. It is interesting to note that this aspect was apparently discussed in a Democratic response memo, one that Nunes successfully had blocked from being released

    Julian Sanchez makes an interesting point.

    “What matters is whether the Steele specific findings *actually material to the application* were unverified,” Julian Sanchez, an expert on surveillance at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote after reading the memo. “Memo doesn’t seem to make that claim.”

    “It’s like The Post but if Katherine Graham, Ben Bradlee, and the Sulzburgers decided the Pentagon Papers should not be published.”

    No, now you’re just being silly. There is nothing in this faked out memo that compares to the Pentagon Papers or the issues disclosed therein– those items were filled with documentation and evidence that clearly demonstrated a decades long history of lies by politicians on both sides of our political spectrum. Those lies resulted in tens of thousands of deaths for America’s sons and millions of deaths for men, women, and children in Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia. Even if the crap you believed were true it would pale in comparison to the consequences of what the Pentagon papers revealed. You (and everyone else making that comparison) should be monumentally ashamed.

    A more reasonable point for discussion over this would be this: work to get the 1978 FISA
    surveilance crap, as well as all of the other surveilance laws, deleted.

    Sanchez (again) sums the “Worse than Watergate” bullshit up perfectly.

    “If this is their evidence of ‘Worse than Watergate,’ it’s thin,” Sanchez concludes. “This reads like something you’d put together to *sound* scandalous to someone who isn’t going to parse it closely.”

    This memo was created for one purpose: to demonstrate to people with low critical thinking skills that the FBI was and is corrupt. Apparently it is working.

    1. Washington Free Beacon was involved in initial research to get Trump. Steele was hired later when Hillary campaign hired Fusion GPS.
      Papadop investigation was so unserious they didn’t interview him until after Trump was President. They likely just used Google and saw his statements were in line with public news stories. Only after they got Flynn did they see if they could get The Greek too.

      > re-examined every three months. Had nothing been there it would have stopped.
      According to WSJ, four different judges approved these warrants. There are only 3 FISA judges in DC(one of whom recused from the Flynn case after taking the first plea). If WSJ is correct about this, they were going out of their way to get a new judge who didn’t see the prior application.

      >attempt to spy on Trump’s campaign was that Page was long gone from the campaign when the FISA request was made

      A valid point. We only know that Page was a target. We don’t know the specific where and what for the surveillance. Did they include Trump Tower? Guardian reported a failed application in July, without the Steele dossier presumably. This memo makes no mention of it. Also, getting a warrant helps them push the narrative that Trump is under investigation. They had gotten Yahoo to publish it even without the warrant(and this was then added as corroboration when they applied for the warrant!) The Yahoo story had essentially blown the surveillance even before they applied for it, naming Carter Page and specific contacts. How serious could Steele have been if he was willing to do that?

      >The claim is made that the steele dossier was key

      This was Andrew McCabe testifying as such under oath. Perhaps the Dems had a different view of his testimony.

      >What matters is whether the Steele specific findings *actually material to the application* were unverified,

      Well evaluation of other findings helps evaluate the credibility. For example, was Michael Cohen in Prague? They could check his passport to show it. (an example. I don’t think FBI had the Cohen portion at the time). As for Carter Page specific items- here is what it said about him:
      Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Donald Trump admitted that there was a well developed conspiracy of cooperation between them and and the Russian leadership. This was managed by Paul Manafort who was using Carter Page as intermediaries.
      Then there is an earlier memo(for some reason Steele has these out of order) that lists two secret meetings by Page with Russians, each sourced to a close associate of the respective individual.
      I’m going to go out on a limb and say FBI was unable to verify the story of someone close to Trump who told someone who told Steele. The second they could have maybe done so.
      That brings us to the third item, which it’s unclear if it was available to the FBI. Application for FISA was on Oct 21. The Michael Cohen item is dated Oct 20, so I assume that was out. However, his name is also in an earlier one from Oct 18. This one has a separate source confirming the meeting with Carter Page. It is not known if this item was available to the FBI but I think this and something not in the dossier but referred to as a company report dated Oct 19 would both have been available. Key point is if these items are included, it would have taken FBI a matter of minutes to find out the Michael Cohen detail is not just unverified but false and throw out the whole thing.

  10. So now that we know that there is nothing in the memo of substance to indicate ill-doings by the FBI in this case, and that it actually works against their own claims about such, what happens?

    We see people will bend themselves into knots to weave a fake story about how everything Nunes says is true, but since the facts show otherwise, what are the next steps?

    1. Well Sharyl Atkinsson has reported there is a Woods protocol, where all details in a FISA application have to be verified. There appears to be no evidence this was done, especially given the false statement about Michael Cohen’s travel to Prague.

  11. One thing I want to know more about is whether Steele was getting paid by the FBI, and if so, for what?

    The same stuff that the Clinton campaign and the dnc, through FusionGPS, were paying Steele for?

    That issue is relevant to me to judge how partisan the FBI was being in their spying on the Trump campaign, via the FISA warrant.

    1. Yes the same stuff. Steele told a court in London that some of the material in his reports was coming from outside sources. It looks like Sidney Blumenthal was the source for info on Michael Cohen.
      If Jake Tapper is correct, then Sid had someone in the State Dept look up Michael Cohen’s travel history, to accuse him of being a Russian agent along with Page, Manafort, and Trump. This was added to the dossier so the FBI could then ‘verify’ this detail. FBI should have been able to verify that it was false within minutes and realize that there was a different Michael Cohen with the same birthday (according to Tapper) who traveled to Prague and see that they were being set up.

  12. I assume Steele’s company, which gathers intelligence for a fee because it is, well, a company, was paid. If not, then they may be suspected of political bias. If, however, they are simply professionals doing their job, then there is no reason to suspect some sort of political bias that caused them to do dangerous, extensive, and intensive work for free.

    1. The Nunes memo quotes the FBI in saying Steele had an anti-Trump bias, desperate to keep him from getting elected. Andrew McCarthy points out that bias by Steele is largely irrelevant, because he is not the witness. He is merely providing information from other sources. The source is someone in Russian who knows a guy in Trump’s organization. Name is not given, but we an assume Steele gave it to FBI. Later in the dossier, the source is a (the?) Russian close to Trump, again with name given. FBI would have had to evaluate the credibility of these people, not Steele.

    2. “Speaking separately to the same compatriot in mid-October 2016, a Kremlin insider with direct access to the leadership confirmed that a key role in the secret TRUMP campaign/ Kremlin relationship was being played by the Republican candidate’s personal lawyer MICHAEL COHEN.”

      Steele didn’t just report a name. He reported Trump lawyer Michael Cohen as a key player. Yet the trip to Prague never happened, but a different Michael Cohen traveled to Prague. What should be the FBI reaction when a highly regarded professional brings you a dossier with a false detail like this?

    3. BernardJ

      “This is worth reiterating. It’s often such people who are sought out as active suppliers of information, given that such information may otherwise not be easy to procure from camps around which wagons are encircled. It’s the FBI’s job to ascertain the veracity of claims made.”

      MikeN’s argument seems to be that unless the information has been vetted to the extent that a prosecution could go forward with nothing else, it can’t be used as a basis to execute a warrant to gather actionable evidence.

      Sad.

    4. For a FISA warrant yes. Robert Mueller was involved in setting up the rules, known as the Woods procedures.

      Bernard, it is fallacy of association to declare that when a source says Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen is a major player in Trump-Russia conspiracy and he traveled to Prague to meet with Russians as part of the conspiracy, that we should not believe this source given that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague but a different Michael Cohen with the same birthday did?

    5. You do realsie that you’re continuing the fallacy, don’t you? Obviously herring red is your colour…

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hero-or-hired-gun-how-a-british-former-spy-became-a-flash-point-in-the-russia-investigation/2018/02/06/94ea5158-0795-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.e97b0c4eed28

      What the motivation for your ongoing and determined attempts to discredit Chris Steele? Steel worked in good faith and found a long litany of evidence that reveals Trump and his associates to be a threat to the US’s national interests, and you vociferously refuse to acknowledge the danger that Trump represents – and that from the rest of the world’s perspective he is imposing on the US even as we debate.

      Are you so rusted on to being a Republican fanboy that you won’t hear a bad word against Trump, even if he sells the entire country’s assets, integrity, reputation and influence to the people pulling his strings?

    6. It’s not about Steele. He may have worked in good faith. But the FBI did not verify the info he provided. They ran to the courts to get a warrant without doing due diligence. False info about Michael Cohen should have tipped them off they were being setup. Indeed, most liberals hate Trump so much they still believe the dossier is real. Steele testified in Britain that he has no idea if the material is true; he gave it to the FBI to investigate if it is true.

      Is it now acceptable practice to find a third party as a cutout to feed a story to allow the ruling party to engage in surveillance against a political opponent?

  13. Nunes stated yesterday that the FISA warrant request made clear that the source of the information was at least in part politically motivated. So the original claim in the memo that the FISA court wasn’t informed of this turns out to be false. Nunes new line is that the statement in the warrant request wasn’t specific enough.

    As the story continues to unfold it’s going to be fun to watch MikeN backpedal …

    1. Since there is nothing in the memo, or that nunes has said, that matches reality, backpedaling is all its supporters have to do.

      Well, lie repeatedly, but that’s a give for them.

  14. MikeN:

    “What should be the FBI reaction when a highly regarded professional brings you a dossier with a false detail like this?”

    Why would the FBI believe that the dossier would be 100% accurate. The point of the FISA warrant was to give them the legal tools to investigate the claims made in the dossier. Even if the dossier were to prove to be 100% inaccurate, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t probable cause to issue the warrant.

    Also, warrants for various searches and surveillance in the regular legal system are often based on information from informants with a grudge against the target, or who are paid to give information on the subject, etc. It’s normal. Only in the fevered imagination of the likes of MikeN must the facts in Steele’s dossier be ignored because Steele dislikes Trump.

    1. “The point of the FISA warrant was to give them the legal tools to investigate the claims made in the dossier”

      And other sources, of course …

    2. FBI for a FISA court surveillance warrant is supposed to verify the details they are presenting to the court. This was not a warrant to search a guys house, listing the place to be searched and the items to be seized, but a full surveillance package.
      Saying well we need to investigate this, is what you do before you go for the warrant.

    3. Also, warrants for various searches and surveillance in the regular legal system are often based on information from informants with a grudge against the target…

      This is worth reiterating. It’s often such people who are sought out as active suppliers of information, given that such information may otherwise not be easy to procure from camps around which wagons are encircled. It’s the FBI’s job to ascertain the veracity of claims made.

      Further, Steel’s antipathy for Trump only manifested after he had commenced his investigation and the data were coming in to reveal the degree of the malfeasance of Trump and his allies. If this sort of antipathy, concern, or inside knowledge disqualified an investigator from having their evidence considered, no crime would ever be able to be brought to trial.

      MikeN’s wrist-flapping at Steel is a red herring, pure and simple.

  15. Gee, Nunes’ memo lied about whether the FBI had mentioned the dossier’s origin in their filing — something he now admits he did. Interesting, that.

  16. While people are still lying about the Nunes memo that reality has completely shot to shreds, it is now emerging that the (also false) assertion that a leaker had spilled the beans on HRC and a uranium sale (one that the Clintons were not part of) is being undermined: it turns out that, contrary to what Republicans had claimed,

    senior Justice Department officials told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee staffers in a December 15 briefing that the whistleblower had offered no evidence about Clinton.

    Further:

    The Justice Department officials also said during the briefing that they considered the whistleblower, who has been identified in media reports as William Campbell, too unreliable to use as a witness due to inconsistencies in his story

    It will be amusing, in a sad way, to see how the right-wing water carriers twist themselves into knots to lie about this.

    1. But Steele was reliable despite ‘inconsistencies’ in his dossier?

      The Justice Department investigated Campbell, and after their professional and expert work they determined that he was unreliable. Process and conclusion, whether you like it or not.

      Similarly it’s the FBI‘s job to investigate in order to ascertain Steel’s reliability. At least, that was the paradigm under which we used to operate in the real world.

      You appear to have access to the inner workings of the FBI and the results of such investigation, going on your repeated assertions that Steel’s testimony is not reliable, so it would be nice if you shared…

  17. Relying on Schiff for talking points is going to make you look foolish. First it was that release of this memo would be damaging to national security and reveal sources and methods. This was a lie.
    Then it was that the FISA application contains much more evidence and not just this Steele dossier. Grassley memo just revealed that was not the case, and that Comey testified it is mostly uncorroborated.

    What’s next, that it was merely some agents were worried about Trump so it was their duty to investigate even the possibility? Or perhaps that it is their duty to interfere in a partisan election against Trump because they thought he was a danger?

    1. “First it was that release of this memo would be damaging to national security and reveal sources and methods. This was a lie.”

      Actually DOJ and the FBI opposed this, and how do you know it was a lie? How do you know that there’s not information in there that’s of value to (say) the Russian intelligence people? One of the last pieces to the jigsaw puzzle?

      We’re again asked to believe that MikeN has super-duper powers beyond those of ordinary mortals, which, when applies, vindicate Trump at every turn.

  18. The fossil fuel powered goof ball known as Carter Page basically deserved a FISA warrant. An Annapolis grad, he had a history of being enamored of the Russians, and not in any sort of good way. Putin? Russian Mob? Annexation of Crimea? These things did not seem to bother Page as long as he could profit off of Russian petro interests. If he had nothing to hide, why would he care if he were bugged anyway? And wouldn’t a former US Naval officer expect to be bugged if he were to spend a lot of time with Russian businessmen/thugs/spys/government officials????? Jaysus….

  19. So this “Rusher” mess was not even started by the FISA warrant against Carter Page, whom, I believe was already under suspicion and observation long before the 2016 election. Nor was it started by the Steele report. It was started by a Trump operative (
    Papadopoulis. George Papadopoulis…. secret agent! Ha !) trying to meet with a known agent of US adversary “Rusher”. The inept Mr. Papadopoulis , while in Britain to pick up dirt from the Russian Professor, proceeded to blab his secret plans to a high level diplomat of a government friendly to the US ( Australia) who then tipped off the FBI.

    Funny how Trump denies knowing Papadopoulis despite having been photographed in a least one meeting with him. Does Trump have memory problems, or just problems with telling the truth? Or both?

    So “Rusher” is a known bad actor whose actions have ended up costing tens of thousands of US lives in hot spots around the world ( Viet Nam, North Korea, the Middle East ) and yet Republicans don’t mind the fact that Trump is so in bed with the Russians that he is infested with Russian fleas ( Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulis, Carter, Don Jr.).

    Russian gangsters hate the FBI and now, apparently Republicans do too.

    Can someone explain this troubling phenomenon? Ignorance? Hypnosis? Brain washing? Brain damage? Right wing radio wack job disease? Whatever the cause, it sure looks like the GOP choo choo train has hit a garbage truck, both literally and figuratively.

    1. Yea, that was a foolish claim. For one thing, Comey had reported two months earlier that the investigation was complete. So there was no reason for Obama to ask about it even if he was inclined to interfere.

      It makes perfect sense for Obama to want to involve himself in a counterintelligence investigation, which is what the Russia investigation is.

    2. Old news now, but the fact that McIntyre turned out to be a rightwing conspiracy theorist does rather put his history of intensive anti-science activism into perspective. As with all you lot, it’s all and always about politics.

  20. Looking thru what people were claiming vs what happened when facts came out.

    1) Ds said Release of the memo harms national security. I don’t see anything in there.
    2) Rs said Steele Dossier was used to get a FISA warrant. It was used.
    3) Early on Ds said Steele Dossier was not used, this was by people not in the committee with knowledge but in the media. It was used.
    4) Rs said People are going to jail based on the memo. No one has gone to jail.
    5) Ds said there was more than dossier used to get the warrant. Grassley memo suggests otherwise. Inconclusive.
    6) Rs said this is worse than Watergate. Watergate was a breakin to DNC headquarters. Breaking in to e-mail is the same thing. This allegation would be similar to what other presidents have done and is generally considered a bad thing- Nixon & LBJ.

    1. “Rs said Steele Dossier was used to get a FISA warrant. It was used.”

      Yeah, except not so much. We know that the dossier was not a major factor — even Nunes says so now.

      “Rs said this is worse than Watergate. Watergate was a breakin to DNC headquarters. Breaking in to e-mail is the same thing.”

      Good lord what a stupid comment. You’re really reaching.

    2. All right — something odd is going on. The ‘Anonymous’ post directly above is mine. Once before I ended up with that label; that time I thought I had just neglected to enter my name, but this time I made sure I did and it still labeled me that way.

      No intent to mislead, just an oddity, but they’re my posts so I’m responsible.

    3. >Breaking in to e-mail is the same thing.”
      >
      >Good lord what a stupid comment. You’re really reaching.

      I would have thought you would have agreed with that. See, the breaking in to e-mail was the DNC’s e-mail, not Carter Page’s.

  21. > The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page,

    Schiff and the rest of the liberals were saying that Nunes was lying about McCabe said the dossier was essential to getting the warrant. Now Grassley is repeating it with more detail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.