the man against whom the warrant was directed, Page, turned out to have lied repeatedly to the public about his many contacts with Kremlin officials and Kremlin-connected Rosneft executives. So there was ample reason for the FBI to suspect him of being a Russian spy.
Seth Abramson?Verified account @SethAbramson
Page is described as a "volunteer advisor" to the Trump campaign, suggesting Trump had no involvement in his participation in the campaign. In fact, Trump asked him to join, and named him to, his NatSec team—one of the first five men named.
Second, note the focus: a late October '16 FISA warrant, not—or not yet—the early July '16 one that's been much discussed. By late October '16, the FBI had a *great* deal of information on Page that would not have come directly from Steele (as might've been the case in July).
Recall that the former CIA Director was telling law enforcement and members of Congress throughout the summer of 2016 that, per allied intel agencies, Trump aides were meeting Russians in foreign cities. Page had traveled to Moscow under unusual circumstances in July of 2016.
It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant.
The legal standard for securing a warrant is the *lowest* standard of proof in the law—"probable cause." (Consider: *indictments* require probable cause, which is why they say "the average grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.") FISA warrants are granted in 99%+ of cases.
In '13, the FBI suspected Page of being a Russian spy—18 months before Trump announced his presidential run—because Page was meeting with a known Russian intelligence agent who was ultimately convicted of trying to recruit Americans. Page admitted he was a recruitment target.
So given that FISA warrants require the lowest standard of proof in the law, and FISA warrants are granted in 99%+ of cases, the idea that the FBI would have needed Steele at *all* to meet that standard and get that warrant as to Page is—to some degree—*literally* laughable.
A *third* legal error on just the *first page* of the memo is it says "all potentially favorable" information—i.e., favorable to the proposed warrant target—must be included in the warrant application. Uh, no, and moreover, this *never* happens in the criminal justice system.
Let me be blunt, law-and-order types: if our justice system worked the way the Nunes Memo says it does—thank god it doesn't—our crime rate would be ten times higher and our criminal justice system wouldn't have the resources to operate. Jail doors would have to be flung open.
Page 2 is worse. It says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were.
This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them.
Second lie: that Steele was paid by the DNC and/or Clinton. Totally false. Steele was paid by Fusion GPS and did not know who Fusion was working for. Fusion was paid by a law firm, which in turn was paid by the DNC. But Fusion had previously worked for GOP clients on Trump.
Fusion worked for GOP clients—digging for info on Trump—for *eight months*. Fusion had worked for a Democratic client for just 30 days when its sub-contractor (Steele) said, without knowing who Fusion's client was, that he wanted to go to the FBI with his information.
n other words, this memo is written like a campaign ad—not an official document, and *certainly* not a legal document. It gets every fact wrong and every point of law wrong and *wildly* so. |
