Dissecting the MEMO: Is It More Important to Know Steele’s Funding or Trump’s Russia Connections?

One thing absolutely beyond any doubt is that the MEMO does not, as Trump wrote, “This memo totally vindicates ‘Trump’ in probe.”  It has no effect at all on the probe no matter how you twist or turn it. The reason Trump is so wrong is there is great doubt that he read the three and a half pages.

The MEMO complains “material and relevant information was omitted” from the application for the FISA warrant. It suggests that the omission was done by someone at the highest level of the DOJ or FBI. It states this without the slightest bit of evidence that the people at that level knew about that information. Those who made the application may have known about it but they were at the working level where the investigations are done. Even then it is not certain that they knew it, or, if they knew must have decided it was not material and relevant. Proof of this seems essential to the MEMO yet it is totally lacking.

Aside from that, let’s examine the information missing to see how  relevant and material it was in the application.

The MEMO notes: “The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele . . . on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the . . . FISA application.” It goes on to note Steele was a long time FBI source –  the MEMO states: “the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on unrelated matters” and he was paid $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton to get derogatory information on Trump’s ties to Russia. 

The MEMO  notes none of the applications showed how Steele was funded. The initial application in October 2016 noted he worked for a U.S. person without disclosing that person’s identity.  It states “it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier.”

It does not tell us who in the DOJ knew of this. We are supposed to assume it is someone at the top although it is most likely if anyone knew it was someone at the working level. There has been no investigation to show who knew what when.

To understand this and why it is neither material or relevant that those matters were not disclosed it is important to understand the history of the dossier.

Steele was not hired until May or June 2016. For the company that hired him Steele wrote 17 memos of information he had gathered between June and December 2016. There is no evidence offered that Steele knew who was funding the people who hired him.

Steele quickly found “troubling information” indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government as well as the exchange of information between Trump’s campaign and Russia. In June he reported this information to the FBI. In June the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation against Papadopoulos.  It seems obvious that they would have combined both together with other knowledge they may have had  because there seemed to be corroboration between the two.

As time passed by September 2016 as Steele learned more about the Trump/Russia connection he was becoming alarmed. Not wanting a Russian lackey in the presidency he told Deputy AG Bruce Ohr that as stated in the MEMO  that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” While the MEMO states that this was “clear evidence of Trump’s bias” I’d suggest it a bias well placed against a man Steele believed was being handled by Russia. It was a bias in favor of not having America compromised by Russia.

Under normal circumstances the FBI would seek to corroborate Steele’s information. I assume it did. The issue is though in doing that and using some of the information Steele provided them was it necessary to say that Steele was hired by a firm that was hired by the DNC and Hillary. The issue in an application is not who hired the person but whether the person can be believe and whether the information he offers can be corroborated.

Or put another way, if it was disclosed that Steele was hired by the DNC to get dirt on Trump and he got the dirt that was corroborated should we not do anything about it. If Joe the Bum beat up his wife and kids but he witnessed a bank robbery should his information be discarded?

However you come down on this one thing is certain. It had no effect on the election. The securing of the FISA court order was done in secrecy. At election time in November no one knew about it.  If the FBI or DOJ was intent on not having Trump elected each one surely went about it in the wrong  way by doing something none knew about. 

 

4 thoughts on “Dissecting the MEMO: Is It More Important to Know Steele’s Funding or Trump’s Russia Connections?

  1. To answer the Headline’s(Caption’s) question: It’s more important to know Bill and Hillary’s and the Clinton Foundation and CGI and the Podestas manifold decades long hundreds-of-millions of dollars PAYOLA connection with RUSSIA and COMEY’S and the DOJ’s grotesque failure to Equally investigate the Clinton Machine

    If EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW means EQUAL ENFORCEMENT, APPLICATION, INVESTIGATION . . .then DOJ shouldhavebeenaimingwithlaserbeam accuracy on the Clinton-Russian Connection

    Yesterday, the phoney NYTimes listed all the Trump’s teams’ connectionsin an op-ed column. Do you think today they will detail all the Clinton’s teams?

    Of course, not. This is worse than McCarthyism . . .which was government excess predominantly . . .this is the cabal of Media and Government favoring One Party over another . . . .P.S. I won’t mention the M.A.F.I.A. it is self-evidently corrupt

  2. 2. The FBI/DOJ have whitwashed Hillary, thought her election was a shoe-in . . . all they had to do was cover up for Her and the Clinton Foundation and the DEMs’/FEDs BigState Deep State Black Hole anti-American Interventionistic (libya, iraq) Party of th e Libs would be in charge once more . . .Happy Days would have been here again for the anti-life imperialistic interventionistic big state paternalistic high tax nanny state of the Leftist exemplified by Hillary and its equal application of the laws exemplified by Comey and the DOJ in DC and in Boston

    Thank God HIllary lost and Trump won, despite the shennanigans ofComey, MSM etc

  3. There’s no need or reason to choose “which is more important.” Investigate both. Don’t worry a bout any future prosecutions and protect only essential sources. The most important thing is to get all the information out. End the leaks and wild speculation.

  4. Perkins Coie estaba al tanto de esos contactos iniciales de Steele con los medios porque fue la sede de al menos un encuentro en Washington DC en 2016 entre Steele y Fusion GPS en el que se discutió este tema. a) Steele fue suspendido y luego cancelado como fuente del FBI por lo que el FBI define como la más seria de las infracciones: una revelación a los medios, no autorizada, sobre su relación con el FBI en un artículo del 30 de octubre de 2016 publicado en Mother Jones por David Corn. Steel tendría que haber sido exonerado por sus anteriores contactos no divulgados con Yahoo y otros medios en septiembre, antes de que en octubre se enviara al FISC la solicitud para Page, pero Steele lo ocultó al FBI de manera impropia y mintió [al FBI] sobre esos contactos. b) Los numerosos encuentros de Steele con los medios infringieron la norma central del manejo de las fuentes —mantener la confidencialidad— y demostraron que Steele se había convertido en una fuente menos que confiable para el FBI. 3) Antes y después de que Steele fuera eliminado como fuente, mantuvo contacto con el DOJ por medio de entonces asistente asociado del Fiscal General Bruce Ohr, un oficial superior del DOJ que trabajaba cerca de los fiscales generales adjuntos Yates y luego Rosenstein. Poco después de la elección, el FBI comenzó a interrogar a Ohr, y documentó sus comunicaciones con Steele. Por ejemplo, en septiembre de 2016 Steele reconoció ante Ohr sus sentimientos contra el entonces candidato Trump, cuando Steel dijo que él “estaba desesperado porque Donald Trump no fuera elegido y estaba enardecido porque no fuera presidente”. Esta prueba clara de la parcialidad de Steele fue registrada por Ohr en su momento y luego en archivos oficiales del FBI, pero no se reflejan en ninguna de las solicitudes FISA para Page.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *