By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe #releasethememo #FISA #Nunes #deepstate
So, what is it, the memo? – Setting aside the difficulty of
the news media to agree on how many pages are involved, the hype seems to
suggest that the memo is some sort of blinding revelation. Perhaps it’s time to
leave the news media behind, check the document itself, and realize that the
memo is nothing more than a third-party complaint that is tall on allegation
and short on evidence.
An Initial Read – At First Glance
The first two pages are a cover letter; a legal review by
Counsel, really. In my view, there is nothing earth-shaking about a legal
justification confirming that appropriately placed government officials have the
authority to declassification and release information. However, I cannot say
the same for the next four pages.
The Memo as Evidence
While I claim that the memo is simply a complaint, I must
also acknowledge that there is some evidentiary value to it as well. With this
in mind, it appears that the following can be taken as true and factual on its
face.
On 18 Jan 2018, on behalf of the HPSCI Majority Staff, the
HPSCI Majority Members make the following claims:[1]
1) The
FBI and DOJ misused/abused their FISA-granted authorities to wrongfully seek a
non-Title-VII order during the 2016 presidential cycle.
2) The
FBI and DOJ mislead the FISC, resulting in the issuance of a wrongful
non-title-VII order, during the 2016 presidential cycle.
To my mind, what’s interesting here
is the actual originating party. While the news media would lead consumers to
agree that the originator was Rep. Nunes himself, or the Committee itself, or
even the Republican Party at large, the memorandum clearly shows two facts: 1)
the originating party is the HPSCI Majority Staff; and 2) the Complainant are
the HPSCI Majority Members (pg-1, header). Thus, the memo is actually a
third-party complaint.
On 2 Feb 2018, President Trump declassified the document
from Top Secret to Unclassified (pg-1, header).
Outside of these facts, the memo is a complaint (not a stack
of “damning” evidence).
The Memo as a Complaint
As a complaint, the memo is an excellent. The Complainant
expresses intent as purposes and presents multiple claims, with supports and
warrants, from which allegations can be built. While this complaint is by no
means full and complete, it’s far and away better than I expected.
It appears that the memo intends to serve two purposes: 1) to
raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI
interactions with the FISC; and 2) to represent a troubling breakdown of legal
processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the
FISA process.[2]
I have no problem with the first purpose. In my view, the
Complainant is in a position to identify and raise concerns relating to FISA,
its actors, and its interactions. In fact, because I am not a big fan of cloaked
legal proceedings as they relate to US citizens, I am pleased that the
Complainant wants to do this publicly.
As for the second purpose, how does this memo “represent” a
breakdown in legal processes? I wonder if this purpose statement is more
accurately expressed as follows: “to (present) a troubling breakdown of legal
processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the
FISA process.” – For the time being, as “present” better aligns the second
purpose along the first, I’m assuming this is the most correct representation
of their intention. Again, it seems reasonable for the Complainant to be in a
position to identify and raise such concerns.
A point of glaring bias: my own. – The
motive of human governance is power; the purposes of “power” are to expand and
augment a base, or dominate and control an opposition.[3] Because the HPSCI is an institution
of the governing Legislature, the nature of governance cannot be ignored.
The First Issue – Because of the actions of
the FBI and DOJ, the FISC was not able to uphold its duties to the citizenry
under the FISA.
In my view, the Complainant’s leading claim can be
summarized as follows: The ability of the FISC to uphold the integrity of the
FISA was undermined by the presentation of improper information before the FISC.
Warranting of the claim seems to be reasonable: the rigor of the FISC in
protecting the rights of Americans is necessarily dependent on the government's
production to the court of all material and relevant facts. However, their
support seems to be lacking, as it reads like another claim: The FBI and DOJ purposely
omitted “material and relevant” information potentially favorable to the target
of the FISA application.
The Second Issue – FISA authorities were
misused and/or abused in order to mislead the FISC into providing an unlawful
surveillance order of an American citizen.
In my view, the majority of the memo seeks to press this
issue ahead of all others.
Claim-1: The DOJ and FBI did seek and obtain FISA orders
from a FISC. There is no support for the claim. However, there is sufficient
detail about signatories to warrant the claim. Again, there is no evidence.
Claim-2: The FBI and DOJ conspired to act against President
Trump’s election using FISA and the FISC. In my view, this is the heart of the
complaint. Unfortunately, the claims offered as supports and warrants are just
that: claims. Again, there is no evidence; just claims of smoke and fire.
However, should the claims be true, then the potential damage to rights and due
process is tremendous.
The Implied Purpose
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room. – The
unavoidable fact is that everyone on the HPSCI is a professional politician. Therefore,
every single person represented by the complaint, or was involved with the
release of the complaint, is acting under at least one of the following
intertwined purposes: to expand and augment a base, or dominate and control an
opposition.
Example-1: On 29 Jan 2018, during a business meeting of the
HPSCI, the Committee entertained multiple memorandum release options: 1) the
vote to release the Majority and Minority memos together was 8 Ayes (all D’s),
12 Nos (all R’s), 1 Present (1 D, Rep. Speier); 2) the vote to separate the memos
was 11 Ayes and 9 Nos; [4] 3)
the vote to release the Majority memo (standing alone) was 21 Aye and 0 Nos.[5]
NOTE: During this meetin, Rep. Speier
(the “D” that voted “Present”) stated, “Colleagues, I truly believe this is a
step too far. And I would suggest to you that…before long there will be a
demand for the FISA application to be made public.” “And I truly believe…how
irresponsible it is for us to vote to make public something that we have not
even viewed ourselves.” “This is a political act, pure and simple, and we all
know it.”[6]
– However, in the end, Rep. Speier voted to release the Majority memo.
Example-2: On 3 Feb 2018, Rep. Nunes said it was actually
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who reviewed the FISA documents and later briefed the
rest of the committee.[7]
– To the best of my knowledge, no other person reviewed those documents.
Something stinks!
It appears to me that there are too many open questions
concerning Constitutional rights and due process. In my view, given the scope
and authority granted by the FISA, there are too many open questions…period. – The
list of questions continues to grow.
Why did the Committee agree to present the Staff as a third
party?
Who are the Majority staffers?
Where are the applications?
Where are the FISC reviews?
Where are the orders?
Where are the depositions that corroborate a timelines and
intentions/motivations?
What are the specific legal standards in play?
What is the governing theory of (criminal) law?
How is it reasonable that someone, anyone, is at risk of
being convicted of a felony? – Let’s not kid ourselves. The Legislature has no
law enforcement powers, the Executive does. The Legislature operates no
prisons, the executive does. The Legislature does not hands down convictions,
the Judiciary does.
Are the Constitutional rights of American citizens
sufficiently protected from harm via FISA?
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section.
© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
Related Posts
[1] HPSCI Majority Staff. “Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation”. 18 Jan 2018. Declassified by order of the President on 2 Feb
2018.
[2] HPSCI Majority Staff. “Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation”. 18 Jan 2018. Declassified by order of the President on 2 Feb
2018.
[3] John Patrick Diggins, “John Adams”, Times Books, 2003,
ISBN 0-8050-6937-3
[4] http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106822
(accessed 180211)
[5] US
House of Representatives Committee Repository. Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. “Meeting: Full Committee Business Meeting: Consideration of the
public disclosure of executive session material, pursuant to House Rule X,
clause 11(g) and other matters.” http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106838
(accessed 180210)
[6] http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106822
(accessed 180211)
[7] Paulina
Dedaj. “Nunes tells Fox News memo was released out of public obligation”. Fox
News. 3 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/nunes-tells-fox-news-memo-was-released-out-public-obligation.html
(accessed 5 Feb 2018)
No comments:
Post a Comment