Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian, readily admits that many others have beaten him to the punch in commenting on the Carter Page FISA Warrant Application. But Sunday morning, while in a public space, Mr. Menton was forced, as so often we are in public spaces, to watch CNN, thankfully muted, he reports.
CNN’s main focus was on the existence of some new tape recording of a conversation between Michael Cohen and Trump how to deal with the threats of some new blackmailer (not Stormy Daniels).
But hadn’t we just learned that it has now been proven that the FBI obtained a FISA warrant in 2016 to spy on the disfavored presidential campaign, basing the application on nothing more than unverified opposition research from the favored campaign and false statements to the FISA court made under penalty of perjury? CNN could not have been less interested.
The document is heavily redacted; indeed, well more than half of it is nothing but big black marks. You know from the long delay in releasing the document, from the timing of the release (the middle of summer?), and from the heavy redactions, that this is an extremely embarrassing document to the Justice Department and the FBI.
But, however bad you thought it might have been, it’s actually far worse.
Citing the importance of the “disgusting document”, Francis Menton gives readers a few comments:
- Are the redactions justified? In almost all cases, you can’t tell, because you don’t know what they have redacted. But you can get some flavor from various instances where there are obvious inferences to be made. Here are some of the things that you can see have been redacted: (1) They have redacted the exact date of the application. It’s“October [blank] “ Sure, that’s top secret! (2) They have redacted the sections of the U.S. Code under which the application has been made. “Title 50, United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections [blank] (FISA or the Act).” By the way, the relevant sections are 1804 and 1805. Of course, those statutes are completely public. Go read those sections yourself if you really want to get the FBI irritated! (3) As is required in classified documents, each paragraph is marked at the beginning with a letter indicating the level of classification of that paragraph. (U) indicates “Unclassified.” And yet there are extensive redactions in paragraphs marked (U). (4) They have redacted the name of the FBI “Supervisory Special Agent” who made the application and signed it “under penalty of perjury.” I’ve got news for you, pal — you can’t hide. Are you Peter Strzok? The blanks look to be just a little too long for his name, but perhaps they included his middle initial and a period. Anyway, since when do our public servants get to suddenly declare their names to be “classified information” when they are caught lying to a court under penalty of perjury?
- Question number one about this application that every intelligent observer has been asking is, did they have anything as their basis to seek to spy on the disfavored political campaign other than the completely unverified Clinton-campaign-financed Christopher Steele dossier? The answer is, essentially, no. Other than the Dossier, in the unredacted portions we are provided, everything else given as support for this application is a story in the news media that appears, for all you can tell, to be the result of an FBI leak tracing back to the Steele dossier itself and nothing else.
- At page 15-16, in a footnote, we get the official party line about the source of the information on which the application is based (i.e., the Steele Dossier, never labeled as such): “Source #1 [i.e., Steele] . . . was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S. based law firm [i.e., Perkins Coie] had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s [i.e., Trump’s] ties to Russia . . . . The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 [Steele] to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind this research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is a total lie, clearly intended to deceive the FISA judge. The FBI “speculates”? Everybody with a pulse today knows that the FBI was totally aware that this was opposition research bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. Seeking a warrant to spy on one (disfavored) political campaign based on nothing but unverified opposition research from the opposing campaign? There is no chance that the FBI would have gotten the warrant if they had been honest, so they lied.
- Several “news articles” are discussed in some detail to buttress the application. For example, beginning at page 22, we get a summary of a news article of September 23, 2016: “On or about September 23, 2016, an identified news organization published an article . . . which was written by the news organization’s Chief Investigative Correspondent, alleging that U.S. intelligence officials are investigating Page with respect to suspected efforts by the Russian Government to influence the U.S. Presidential election. . . . “ This line refers to a widely-discussed article on Yahoo News by Michael Isikoff. OK, exactly where is Isikoff supposed to have gotten this story other than via a leak from the FBI itself. So the FBI leaks to Isikoff that it is investigating Page, Isikoff writes the article, and then the FBI immediately uses the article as supposed additional support to ramp up the investigation of Page by getting a FISA warrant.
- The application is riddled with insinuations of improper communications between Page and various Russians. He held “secret meetings.” He discussed “future bilateral energy cooperation.” He discussed “prospects . . . to lift sanctions.” (What exactly is wrong with any of that?). Do you notice, in the flurry of Mueller indictments, the guy who has never been indicted? Page.
- The declaration“under penalty of perjury” that everything about Page in the application is “true and correct” is on page 54. It is signed by [blank], “Supervisory Special Agent.”
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
- A Quiz to the Guiding Principles on Racism and Sexism - August 13, 2018
- The New York Times: Applying Different Standards to Different Groups - August 10, 2018
- The Vindication of Justice Clarence Thomas - August 9, 2018