By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe #releasethememo #FISA #Nunes
For the past week or more I’ve been distracted by this
strange, FISA-centric spectacle. It was distracting because this closed-door,
hidden-away thing called FISA was being brought into the light of day kicking
and screaming. FISA, a cloaked phantom that once roamed in the depths of the deep-state,
was going to be unmasked for examination and condemnation.
In short order, the gilded memo arrives and is immediately taken
up as fodder for conjecture creators and idea hustlers. The memo is nearly
ideal for such an exercise. It names individuals. It provides full and usable
alleges of wrongdoing. It pulls back the curtain and provides a basis for public
investigation. It’s a gem!
Then there was nothing. The memo became nothing more than a
summary; a piece of written work proving nothing. The spectacle was over. –
Except for this one, pesky little thing…right…there: how was The Washington
Post made aware of the contents of a Top Secret document prior to its
declassification?
Think about it!
Prior/On 1 Feb 2018, someone with knowledge of the
classified FISA-memo provided information to The Washington Post prior to
declassification.
On 1 Feb 2018, The Washington Post
reported that “a controversial congressional memo” was going to allege “that
the FBI, when obtaining a surveillance warrant, relied in some part on a
dossier of allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump that was
underwritten by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee.”[1]
Something stinks!
Now consider what The Washington Post reported:
·
The FBI obtained a surveillance warrant against
a person using a dossier (a file or database) of allegations against
then-candidate Trump. – Stop! How did the FBI obtain a warrant against a target
(not Trump) using information that was derogatory towards Trump?
·
That dossier was funded and bankrolled by the
Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. – Stop! How did
the FBI counter the financial and ideological bias present in the dossier with
other facts? And, what were those facts?
The smell is compounding!
Preparation of the Battlespace – Factions Posture
For a period of several days the news media facilitated the
drawing of battle lines: wrongdoing with evidence vs. ignoring of facts; fear
FISA abuse vs. intention to smear; duty to report vs. duty to fairness; the
ends justify the means vs. the means were unjustified to start.
2 Feb 2018 – The memo is
declassified by President Trump.
Republican voices wanted us to
agree that “officials and crucial institutions” abused FISA authorities and intentionally
misled the FISA court (FISC) for political purposes;[4]
that “damning” evidence exists; and that making the public aware fulfills “an
obligation to the American people.”[5]
[6]
Democrat voices wanted us to agree
that the memo is incomplete and a “shameful effort to discredit” the FBI and
DOJ; that the memo is intended to distract from the Mueller probe;[7]
that the memo is an astounding and shocking ignoring of facts and reality.[8]
CNN voices wanted us to agree that the
renewal of FISA orders was just. The line of reasoning was that the renewals were
just because a FISC judge determined prior surveillance was yielding
information about the target acting as an agent of a foreign power and that yielding
merited continued monitoring.[9]
3 Feb 2018 – Republican voices
wanted us to agree that American citizens were not protected under FISA by
those trusted to exercise protection; and that “the only place that can protect
[American citizens] is the US Congress;”[10]
and that the FISC issued a wrongful order because of biased dossier;[11],[12]
and that only a single member of the Committee was allowed to see the FISA
documents; and that the briefing of this single member was sufficient to
support the memo;[13]
and that the Committee was engaged in a multi-phased investigation into
FISA-related abuse and misuse.[14]
4 Feb 2018 – Republican and
Democrat voices wanted us to agree that the FISA application should be opened.[15]
5 Feb 2018 – The memo was
released. Actually, the Committee Majority memo was released; whereas, the
Minority memo was not released.[16],[17]
Republican voices wanted us to
agree that the Minority memo was passed to the President using the same
procedures as the Majority memo.
Democrat voices wanted us to agree
that release of the Minority memo was a matter of fundamental fairness and in
the interest of the American people.[18]
7 Feb 2018 – Fox News voices
wanted us to agree that the content of the Minority memo was intended to pressure
the White House to either block the memo’s release or significantly redact it.[19]
The Smell will Pass, but the Mess is not Going Away
It appears to me that there are too many open questions concerning
Constitutional rights and due process for this spectacle to be explained away
by, or dismissed as, party politics.
Who leaked Top Secret material prior to its
declassification? What was the purpose of the leak? Who authorized/directed the
leak?
How does FISA facilitate abuse and misuse of the public
trust?
How is the Majority memo incomplete? And, why were those details
withheld?
If the ends (surveillance collection) justifies the means
(multiple renewals), then how were the initial means (the original order) initially
justified?
- What was collected?
- Where is the original FISA application? Where is the initial determination by the FISC? Where is the original order? Who reviewed/ordered what?
- Where are the renewal FISA applications? Where are the renewal determinations by the FISC? Where are the renewal orders? Who reviewed/ordered what?
Was Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) the only party to review the
FISA documents?
- If yes, then why was he the only person, and what did he review?
- If no, then who else reviewed the documents, what did they see, and why was their names not made public?
What event or circumstance prompted the Committee to take up
an investigation? Who agreed and disagreed? Where is the transcript of those
discussions? Where is the Committee record of the decision to investigate?
If the Minority memo is released, then is it reasonable to
expect the American people to be sufficiently knowledgeable and civically engaged
to judge the situation for themselves, as Schumer suggests?
- If yes, then are the People going to be in a position of sufficient power to do anything substantial about it?
- If no, then how can the public be expected to contribute to, or settle, the matter?
Are the Constitutional rights of American citizens 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
[1] Carol D. Leonnig, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima and Karoun
Demirjian. “Trump to approve release of GOP memo Friday over objections from
law enforcement, intelligence community”. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-expected-to-approve-release-of-memo-following-redactions-requested-by-intelligence-officials/2018/02/01/a55210e6-0757-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.6e3f9ccf00f4
(accessed 180205)
[2] US
House of Representatives. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Memorandum dated 18 Jan 2018. SUB: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses
at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Declassified by order of the President February 2, 2018
[3] Jeremy
Herb. “Disputed GOP-Nunes memo released with Trump's approval”. CNN. 2 Feb
2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/republican-intelligence-memo/index.html
(accessed 180205)
[4] et
al
[5] 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)
[6] Jeremy
Herb. “Disputed GOP-Nunes memo released with Trump's approval”. CNN. 2 Feb
2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/republican-intelligence-memo/index.html
(accessed 180205)
[7] et
al
[8] et
al
[9] et
al
[10] 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)
[11] et
al
[12] Jeremy
Herb. “Disputed GOP-Nunes memo released with Trump's approval”. CNN. 2 Feb
2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/republican-intelligence-memo/index.html
(accessed 180205)
[13] 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)
[14] et
al
[15]
Rebecca Morin. “House Intel members: Release the FISA application.” Politico. 4
Feb 2018. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/04/congressmen-release-fisa-application-nunes-memo-389088
(accessed 180206)
[16]
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)
[17] Joseph
Weber. “Schumer urges Trump to allow Dems' 'FISA memo' to also be released”.
Fox News. 5 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/04/schumer-urgers-trump-to-allow-dems-fisa-memo-to-also-be-released.html
(accessed 180206)
[18] et
al
[19] Fox
News. “Dems set Trump trap? Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with
sensitive details”. 7 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/06/dems-set-trump-trap-source-says-fisa-rebuttal-memo-loaded-with-sensitive-details.html
(accessed 180210)
No comments:
Post a Comment