Okay, I've read it. It's already being misreported. Nunes' memo says McCabe said the warrant would not have been *sough* absent information from the Steele dossier.
Nunes' memo does not say, as @DailyCaller tweets, that the warrant would not have been granted by the FISC.
Nunes' memo does not say, as @DailyCaller tweets, that the warrant would not have been granted by the FISC.
This matters because the crucial question when it comes to whether an abuse of FISA has occurred is whether the FISC had probable cause to grant the Page warrant application. The Nunes memo doesn't answer this question.
We're back where we started. We don't know if the FISC should have rejected the Page warrant application because we don't know what was in that application.
Nunes says the Steele dossier played an essential role. Okay. What else was in the application?
Nunes says the Steele dossier played an essential role. Okay. What else was in the application?
Additionally (and I've said this before too), recall that the FBI investigation into Russian attempts to influence the Trump campaign began, per Comey's testimony, in July 2016, long before the Page warrant was obtained.
Amusingly, Nunes' memo appears to confirm the NYTimes' report, much disputed by Trump supporters that called it too convenient, that it was Papadopoulos' oopsie with the Australians that caused the launch of the investigation, not the Steele Dossier.
To sum up, so here's what we learned.
(1) The Steele dossier was used in the warrant app.
(2) The Steele dossier's provenance was not disclosed in the warrant app, despite some FBI knowledge of it.
(3) The app relied in part Steele's history other credible reporting. (cont.)
(1) The Steele dossier was used in the warrant app.
(2) The Steele dossier's provenance was not disclosed in the warrant app, despite some FBI knowledge of it.
(3) The app relied in part Steele's history other credible reporting. (cont.)
(4) McCabe says the warrant would not have been sought absent information in the Steele dossier.
Here's what we didn't learn.
(1) What else was in the warrant app?
(2) Did the other things in the app (if any) independently support probable cause for a warrant?
Here's what we didn't learn.
(1) What else was in the warrant app?
(2) Did the other things in the app (if any) independently support probable cause for a warrant?
Finally, right at the beginning, Nunes' memo claims his findings "raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the [FISC]."
There is nothing in the rest of the memo that suggests illegality on the part of DOJ or FBI.
There is nothing in the rest of the memo that suggests illegality on the part of DOJ or FBI.
There is some irony that Nunes' memo, which has been accused of "material omissions," accuses the FBI of omitting material information in its Page warrant application.
I want to see the Democratic memo now.
