quote:A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in an ideology, state, or other community, often by intrigue, usually unbeknown to persons outside their group...
quote:For the Real Collusion Story, Look at Hillary Clinton
The mainstream media has spent two years relentlessly pushing the narrative that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with shady Russians to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton and then cheated with the Russian government to steal the election from her.
That’s not what happened.
What actually happened was that the Clinton campaign paid a political opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to frame Trump and his campaign by creating fake evidence of Russian collusion. To do this, Fusion GPS hired several people, including former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, to compile a dossier full of questionable second- and third-hand stories told by anonymous Russian sources about Trump and some of his campaign personnel.
Then that fake dossier was laundered to make it look like it came from intelligence agencies, not from political operatives paid by Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The dossier was then used by the FBI to obtain a surveillance warrant on the entire Trump campaign team through a minor team member named Carter Page.
To get their FISA warrant on Page, top Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials deliberately misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) judge by hiding the fact that Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
Payments to Fusion GPS were hidden by passing them through the law firm Perkins Coie. Not only is that an FEC violation, it’s an attempt to get Clinton’s and the DNC’s fingerprints off the dossier.
That’s important to note because it’s going to be explored thoroughly in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report. Both the money used to pay for the dossier and the truth of who really created it were deliberately laundered to hide its true origins from the FISA Court.
That’s a major crime, and Horowitz will thoroughly lay out how it happened.
It’s been public information since last October that Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paid for the production of Steele’s dossier. Everything that’s come out in the intervening 10 months has only confirmed what we already know.
So evidence continues to mount that the Trump–Russian collusion narrative is actually a hoax—a massive political dirty trick that was hatched by the Clinton campaign, paid for with DNC cash, and laundered through Perkins Coie, all to create a fake dossier that was used to justify an FBI investigation as well as to spawn a strategic leaking campaign to the media.
However, many journalists have a vested interest in pretending the Steele dossier is authentic. They engage in fantasies that it hasn’t been debunked.
Mainstream media has been playing favorites between two competing narratives.
The first narrative is that the Steele dossier is real; Trump colluded/cheated with the Russians and that’s why he won the election; and Mueller is going to prove it. This is the only narrative the mainstream media wants to cover. They give the vast majority of their air and print time to discussing it.
The other narrative is one that mainstream media journalists resent every second they have to spend covering it. They want to suppress it and pretend that only right-wing conspiracy theorists discuss it.
This is, of course, the narrative where all the evidence keeps surfacing—that the real collusion during the 2016 presidential election was between the Clinton campaign, top officials in the DOJ, and the FBI, the intelligence community, and key members of the mainstream media. And this collusion involved framing the Trump campaign for stealing the election with the help of the Russian government.
And now even more evidence has surfaced that top DOJ and FBI officials were colluding with Democratic operatives to influence the 2016 election.
Er zijn geruchten uit verschillende bronen, nog niks bevestigd, dat A.J. Sessions een nieuwe zaak heeft geopend.quote:
quote:What Was Bruce Ohr Doing?
Justice releases some damning documents, but much of the truth is still classified.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department have continued to insist they did nothing wrong in their Trump-Russia investigation. This week should finally bring an end to that claim, given the clear evidence of malfeasance via the use of Bruce Ohr.
Mr. Ohr was until last year associate deputy attorney general. He began feeding information to the FBI from dossier author Christopher Steele in late 2016—after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a confidential informant for violating the bureau’s rules. He also collected dirt from Glenn Simpson, cofounder of Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and employed Mr. Steele. Altogether, the FBI pumped Mr. Ohr for information at least a dozen times, debriefs that remain in classified 302 forms.
All the while, Mr. Ohr failed to disclose on financial forms that his wife, Nellie, worked alongside Mr. Steele in 2016, getting paid by Mr. Simpson for anti-Trump research. The Justice Department has now turned over Ohr documents to Congress that show how deeply tied up he was with the Clinton crew—with dozens of emails, calls, meetings and notes that describe his interactions and what he collected.
Mr. Ohr’s conduct is itself deeply troubling. He was acting as a witness (via FBI interviews) in a case being overseen by a Justice Department in which he held a very senior position. He appears to have concealed this role from at least some superiors, since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that he’d been unaware of Mr. Ohr’s intermediary status.
Lawyers meanwhile note that it is a crime for a federal official to participate in any government matter in which he has a financial interest. Fusion’s bank records presumably show Nellie Ohr, and by extension her husband, benefiting from the Trump opposition research that Mr. Ohr continued to pass to the FBI. The Justice Department declined to comment.
But for all Mr. Ohr’s misdeeds, the worse misconduct is by the FBI and Justice Department. It’s bad enough that the bureau relied on a dossier crafted by a man in the employ of the rival presidential campaign. Bad enough that it never informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of that dossier’s provenance. And bad enough that the FBI didn’t fire Mr. Steele as a confidential human source in September 2016 when it should have been obvious he was leaking FBI details to the press to harm Donald Trump’s electoral chances. It terminated him only when it was absolutely forced to, after Mr. Steele gave an on-the-record interview on Oct. 31, 2016.
But now we discover the FBI continued to go to this discredited informant in its investigation after the firing—by funneling his information via a Justice Department cutout. The FBI has an entire manual governing the use of confidential sources, with elaborate rules on validations, standards and documentation. Mr. Steele failed these standards. The FBI then evaded its own program to get at his info anyway.
And it did so even though we have evidence that lead FBI investigators may have suspected Mr. Ohr was a problem. An Oct. 7, 2016, text message from now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok to his colleague Lisa Page reads: “Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT,” which could be a reference to Mr. Ohr.
The FBI may also have been obtaining, via Mr. Ohr, information that came from a man the FBI had never even vetted as a source—Mr. Simpson. Mr. Steele had at least worked with the FBI before; Mr. Simpson was a paid political operative. And the Ohr notes raise further doubts about Mr. Simpson’s forthrightness. In House testimony in November 2017, Mr. Simpson said only that he reached out to Mr. Ohr after the election, and at Mr. Steele’s suggestion. But Mr. Ohr’s inbox shows an email from Mr. Simpson dated Aug. 22, 2016 that reads, in full: “Can u ring.”
The Justice Department hasn’t tried to justify any of this; in fact, last year it quietly demoted Mr. Ohr. In what smells of a further admission of impropriety, it didn’t initially turn over the Ohr documents; Congress had to fight to get them.
But it raises at least two further crucial questions. First, who authorized or knew about this improper procedure? Mr. Strzok seems to be in the thick of it, having admitted to Congress interactions with Mr. Ohr at the end of 2016. While Mr. Rosenstein disclaims knowledge, Mr. Ohr’s direct supervisor at the time was the previous deputy attorney general, Sally Yates. Who else in former FBI Director Jim Comey’s inner circle and at the Obama Justice Department nodded at the FBI’s back-door interaction with a sacked source and a Clinton operative?
Second, did the FBI continue to submit Steele- or Simpson-sourced information to the FISA court? Having informed the court in later applications that it had fired Mr. Steele, the FBI would have had no business continuing to use any Steele information laundered through an intermediary.
We could have these answers pronto; they rest in part in those Ohr 302 forms. And so once again: a call for President Trump to declassify.
Hiermee laat imo wel heel erg blijken geen idee te hebben wat er speelt, behalve datgene volgens de talking points van Rachel Maddow en Brian Stelter.quote:
Je vergeet even een dingetje -waarschijnlijk omdat je niet bepaald goed in de materie zit en weer teveel emoties laat leidenquote:
Nee, jij overschrijdt een lijn door de media zonder bewijs te beschuldigen van kwade opzet. Je claimt nota bene dat ze de juryleden willen intimideren.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 11:18 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Je vergeet even een dingetje -waarschijnlijk omdat je niet bepaald goed in de materie zit en weer teveel emoties laat leiden
Deze zaak loopt al even en het verzoek werd gedaan vlak nadat de jury om extra uitleg vroeg over de definitie van "reasonable doubt".
En doe eens niet zo persoonlijk maken, aub! Dit is de Mean Girls niet!
Ja dat klopt en ik leg dit ook door met de tijdsframe te komen waarna jij een come-back maakt met een herhaling en nog meer emotie.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 11:28 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Nee, jij overschrijdt een lijn door de media zonder bewijs te beschuldigen van kwade opzet. Je claimt nota bene dat ze de juryleden willen intimideren.
Terwijl het in de VS normaal is om de identiteit van juryleden openbaar te maken.
Denk verder dat juryleden meer hebben te vrezen van het Trump-kamp.
Waar jij vervolgens van maakt dat de media de juryleden willen intimideren. Hoe zie jij dat precies voor je? Op de redactie van de NYT wordt overlegd hoe ze de juryleden kapot kunnen maken om zo een veroordeling zeker te stellen? Wat voor mensen denk jij dat er bij de media werken?quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 11:31 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Ja dat klopt en ik leg dit ook door met de tijdsframe te komen waarna jij een come-back maakt met een herhaling en nog meer emotie.
De media hebben niet pas een motie ingediend, nadat de jury vroeg om extra uitleg over de definitie "reasonable doubt".
Ik heb nota bene een artikel in een van deze berichten bijgevoegd waarin wordt gemeld dat Judge T.S. Ellis III beveiliging krijgt van de U.S. Marshals.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 11:40 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Waar jij vervolgens van maakt dat de media de juryleden willen intimideren. Hoe zie jij dat precies voor je? Op de redactie van de NYT wordt overlegd hoe ze de juryleden kapot kunnen maken om zo een veroordeling zeker te stellen? Wat voor mensen denk jij dat er bij de media werken?
Robert Mueller's straf-aanbeveling voor George Papadopoulos is hoogstwaarschijnlijk 30 dagen opsluiting.quote:
En uit het feit dat Ellis wordt beveiligd concludeer jij dat de media de juryleden willen intimideren?quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 11:45 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Ik heb nota bene een artikel in een van deze berichten bijgevoegd waarin wordt gemeld dat Judge T.S. Ellis III beveiliging krijgt van de U.S. Marshals.
Gemakkelijker kan ik het niet maken, maar ware het niet door de verdomde emoties...
Het is nu best wel bekend dat de rechter van deze zaak niet zonder beveiliging over straat kan lopen en dat er media outlets zijn die heel graag de namen en adressen van de juryleden van deze zaak openbaar gemaakt willen zien.quote:
Naar ik begrijp onthulde Ellis pas dat hij is bedreigd met de dood nadat het verzoek was ingediend. Hij gaf dat ook als reden om de namen niet naar buiten te brengen.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 11:58 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Het is nu best wel bekend dat de rechter van deze zaak niet zonder beveiliging over straat kan lopen en dat er media outlets zijn die heel graag de namen en adressen van de juryleden van deze zaak openbaar gemaakt willen zien.
Ik wil het omdraaien. Hoe begrijp jij dit niet? Een retorische vraag...
Ja, dit klopt.quote:
Ongefundeerde verdachtmakingen. Er is helemaal geen sprake van jury tampering. In de VS is het niet ongebruikelijk dat de namen van juryleden openbaar worden gemaakt. Nadat diverse media een verzoek hebben ingediend, reageert Ellis met de mededeling dat hij bedreigd wordt en dat hij het verzoek niet wordt ingewilligd. Daarmee is het nu klaar.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 12:18 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Ja, dit klopt.
Het gaat er om dat judge Ellis de namen en adressen van tevoren heeft afgeschermd, omdat hij meende dat juryleden onder hun plicht vandaan zouden willen komen als ze op voorhand wisten dat hun privégegevens publiekelijk bezit zouden zijn.
Bij aanvang van deze rechtszaak was er geen "media coalitie" die meende dat deze informatie publiekelijk zou moeten worden gemaakt.
Nu de bedreigingen aan het adres van de rechter bekend is en de intentie van de :"media coalitie" vind ik dit intimidatie, omdat de jury nu naar huis is, maar nog middenin de beraadslaging zit.
Precies wat voor reden is het noodzakelijk juist nu de namen en adressen publiekelijk te maken?
En het is helemaal niet zeker of de "media coalitie' haar pogingen tot openbaar maken van de namen en adressen van de juryleden staakt. Het is als een Zwaard van Damocles; jury tampering.
quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 12:35 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Ongefundeerde verdachtmakingen. Er is helemaal geen sprake van jury tampering. In de VS is het niet ongebruikelijk dat de namen van juryleden openbaar worden gemaakt. Nadat diverse media een verzoek hebben ingediend, reageert Ellis met de mededeling dat hij bedreigd wordt en dat hij het verzoek niet wordt ingewilligd. Daarmee is het nu klaar.
Ik lees in de motie van de "Media Coalition" geen enkele specifieke reden waarom er noodzaak is de namen en adressen openbaar te moeten maken. Je zit gewoon niet goed in de materie en je reageert met teveel emotie.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 12:04 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Het argument "dat wordt wel vaker gedaan" geeft ook geen specifieke reden aan waarom er een media coalitie in het leven moet worden geroepen om juist tijdens de beraadslaging de namen en adressen openbaar te willen zien -nadat er om uitleg is gevraag over de definitie "reasonable doubt".
Media trekken wel vaker samen op. Zie ook de Panama Papers. Niets geks aan dus.quote:
Prima. Voor jou valt er niets te zien.quote:
Dat is blijkbaar relevante informatie in de VS. De namen van alle juryleden die betrokken waren bij de OJ-case zijn bijvoorbeeld ook openbaar. Zo werkt dat daar.quote:Op zaterdag 18 augustus 2018 12:38 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Ik lees in de motie van de "Media Coalition" geen enkele specifieke reden waarom er noodzaak is de namen en adressen openbaar te moeten maken. Je zit gewoon niet goed in de materie en je reageert met teveel emotie.
Dat geeft verder niks.
Niet zonder meer. Maar nog steeds is er geen specifieke reden.quote:
Werkelijk alle media melden dat Ellis wordt bedreigd en dat hij namen van de niet openbaar maakt. Ook op de NOS. Alleen laten die jouw verdachtmakingen logischerwijs achterwege.quote:
Dus vul jij die reden maar doodleuk in met ongefundeerde verdachtmakingen.quote:
Ik had het over de mediacoalitie en dat er een advocaat wordt gebruikt door de onafhankelijke media. Precies wat er in het bericht staat.quote:
quote:In the age of online mobs and media-doxxing, media request during deliberations to unseal names could be viewed as an attempt at intimidation.
bronquote:In a case such as this, that could be seen as an act of media intimidation -- the jury is not sequestered so they certainly would hear about it. In an environment of online mobs and CNN having threatened to doxx a gif maker who mocked CNN, the jurors rightly would be concerned if the judge released their personal information to the media.
The media could have waited until after the verdict, but that would not have allowed the media to camp outside jurors homes in time for the immediate news cycle. Jurors also could have been given the choice, after the verdict, whether to have their names revealed.
That's not to say these same media outlets won't take it on themselves to out the jurors, particularly if there is a not guilty verdict, but the judge wasn't going to make it easy for them.
quote:CNN Accused of Intimidating Paul Manafort Jury
As Bre Payton at the Federalist points out, “Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.”
To begin with, it is seen as unseemly to thrust jurors into the spotlight against their will when they are not volunteering for publicity; they are chosen.
What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.
Waarom zou het raar zijn dat de coalitie een advocaat inhuurt?quote:
Daarentegen heb ik de indruk dat George Papdopoulos graag zijn verhaal kwijt wil:quote:
quote:Did the FBI Use Formal Interviews With Ohr to Transmit Information From Steele?
Information contained in FD-302s could be the key to understanding how Steele’s information was transmitted to the FBI
The fourth highest-ranking official at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bruce Ohr, actively shared information he received from former MI6 spy Christopher Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source.
Interactions between Ohr and Steele stretched months into the first year of Trump’s presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s, which summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
The existence of the FD-302s detailing Ohr’s interactions with Steele calls into question who at the FBI—and possibly the DOJ—was aware of his activities.
As Associate Deputy Attorney General, Ohr reported directly to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
Ohr first came to the public’s attention on Dec. 7, 2017, when Fox News revealed that Ohr had been in repeated contact with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign—while Steele was in the ongoing process of constructing his dossier containing unverified claims about Trump.
Fox News also disclosed that Ohr met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson after the election. Fusion GPS had been hired by the Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) to produce the dossier on Trump, for which the company had hired Steele.
It was later revealed that Ohr met with Simpson prior to the presidential election as well.
On Dec. 11, 2017, it was revealed that Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, had worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election. Nellie Ohr was “paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016.”
Bruce Ohr never publicly disclosed the employment of his wife by Fusion GPS despite a requirement to file financial disclosure forms regarding his wife’s work.
Ohr was demoted following the initial Fox News report, losing his title of Associate Deputy Attorney General and his prestigious office on the fourth floor of the Justice Building. It appears the DOJ only took action after they learned of the Fox News investigation into Ohr’s role.
Newly released texts, emails, and handwritten notes have provided further insight into Ohr’s interactions with Steele and Simpson.
It appears that Ohr became the conduit between Steele, Fusion GPS, and the FBI after Steele was formally terminated by the FBI in late October or early November 2016. Steele’s termination occurred after he revealed—in violation of FBI policy—his relationship with the FBI in an Oct. 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn.
Interactions between Ohr and Steele are highlighted in a Feb. 28, 2018, letter from Senator Chuck Grassley to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which makes reference to documents the DOJ provided to Grassley.
“These documents have raised several serious questions about the propriety of the FBI’s relationship with former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele,” the letter reads.
“The documents also raise questions about the role of Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, in continuing to pass allegations from Steele and Fusion GPS to the FBI after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a source.”
Of importance is the specific wording by Senator Grassley. Ohr was “continuing to pass allegations from Steele and Fusion GPS to the FBI after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a source.”
Senator Grassley then provided specific evidence detailing his claims: “Numerous FD-302s demonstrating that Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr continued to pass along allegations from Mr. Steele to the FBI after the FBI suspended its formal relationship with Mr. Steele for unauthorized contact with the media, and demonstrating that Mr. Ohr otherwise funneled allegations from Fusion GPS and Mr. Steele to the FBI.”
FD-302s are used to report or summarize FBI interviews.
Grassley wasn’t insinuating that Ohr might have served as the conduit between Steele and the FBI. He was stating these occurrences as fact. Grassley had seen the underlying 302s and listed them in his letter to Inspector General Horowitz along with actual FBI interview dates:
• Ohr FD-302 12/19/16 (interview date 11/22/16)
• Ohr FD-302 12/19/16 (interview date 12/5/16)
• Ohr FD-302 12/19/16 (interview date 12/12/16)
• Ohr FD-302 12/27/16 (interview date 12/20/16)
• Ohr FD-302 1/27/17 (interview date 1/27/17)
• Ohr FD-302 1/31/17 (interview date 1/23/17)
• Ohr FD-302 1/27/17 (interview date 1/25/17)
• Ohr FD-302 2/8/17 (interview date 2/6/ 17)
• Ohr FD-302 2/15/17 (interview date 2/14/17)
• Ohr FD-302 5/10/17 (interview date 5/8/17)
• Ohr FD-302 5/12/17 (interview date 5/ 12/17)
• Ohr FD-302 5/16/17 (interview date 5/15/17)
Contact between Steele and Ohr continued through to at least mid-May 2017—six months after the election.
We know that Steele and Fusion GPS continued their work following the 2016 election.
Sometime in early 2017, Steele and Fusion GPS were hired by a former intelligence committee staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Daniel Jones, who runs the Penn Quarter Group. The stated purpose behind hiring Steele and Fusion was to “continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
Ohr’s role in this process is currently being investigated by Congress.
Ohr has been scheduled for an Aug. 28 interview before the House Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform. In advance of this interview, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Oversight and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) are requesting additional information regarding Ohr in the form of any and all FD-302s—including any generated from previously undisclosed FBI interviews of Ohr:
“In anticipation of this interview, we request DOJ provide the Committee access to all FD-302’s written as a result of any interviews conducted by the FBI of Mr. Ohr. These should include, but not be limited to, any 302’s previously made available to other congressional committees,” the letter reads.
The existence of additional FD-302s could reveal that contact between Ohr, Steele, and Simpson was more prevalent than previously thought.
The fact that Ohr was able to continue his communications with Steele and funnel information into the FBI through interviews formalized in FD-302s raises the question of who in the chain of command was aware of the interactions.
Information provided by Steele, which the FBI itself said it was unable to verify, played a crucial role in the FBI obtaining a FISA warrant on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. Information provided by Ohr could have made its way into subsequent FISA renewals.
Then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signed the original FISA Warrant on Carter Page in October 2016 along with the first FISA Renewal in January 2017. Ohr reported directly to Yates.
Yates was present at a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting with then-President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Vice President Joe Biden, and then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice in the oval office of the White House. That meeting was documented in an email sent by Susan Rice to herself and was disclosed in a letter from Senator Grassley.
According to Grassley, that meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI’s investigation of its claims.
The FD-302s detailing the FBI interviews of Ohr could shed more light on the role that senior Obama officials played in the set-up of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign based on Steele’s information.
Dit artikel beschrijft een ontwikkeling waardoor mogelijk de hierboven beschreven vermoedens kunnen worden bevestigd.quote:Why isn't the MSM clamoring for declassification of the memo? Maybe because some of them have already seen it, and it's bad.
James A. Wolfe, the Senate staffer who is accused of leaking documents, sent 82 text messages to his girlfriend Ali Watkins, the New York Times reporter, the evening after the Senate Intelligence Committee saw it. The FISA warrant is 82 pages, not including the signature page. Why would he send pages that were 100% redacted? Answer: He wouldn't. It was an unredacted version.
So the New York Times has seen the real FISA warrant, and possibly others have by now as well. And they are no longer crying for it to be declassified in order to show all the evidence the FBI had against Carter Page and the Trump Campaign! I wonder why not?
Because it's bad...real, real bad. But not for Trump, rather for the DOJ, FBI, and possibly the Obama Administration.
quote:‘Major Crack in Government’s Defenses’: We May Finally Learn How the FBI Handled the Steele Dossier
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta has ruled that the FBI cannot issue a Glomar response when it comes to whatever verification attempts they may have used for the contents of the infamous Christopher Steele dossier. In other words, the FBI can no longer hide behind the “we can neither confirm nor deny” response in order to stonewall records requests regarding how they may have tried to determine the validity of the synopsis of the dossier that raised concerns President Donald Trump might be compromised by Russia, pee tapes and all.
“In this case, the court must decide whether the February 2018 public release of two congressionally drafted memoranda—popularly known as the ‘Nunes Memo’ and the ‘Schiff Memo’—vitiates Defendants’ Glomar responses to Plaintiffs’ demand for records concerning a ‘two-page synopsis’ of the Dossier,” the judge began, noting that he had previously sided with the government.
Judge Mehta said that the disclosures in the Nunes and Schiff memos “constitute a public acknowledgement of the existence of the records sought by Plaintiffs from Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and that the FBI therefore may no longer maintain its Glomar responses.”
National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss, whose tweet on the news you can see above, told Law&Crime that this is a “major crack in the Government’s legal defenses.”
“[Those defenses were] designed to conceal whether the FBI has taken any steps to verify the accuracy of the ‘salacious’ allegations outlined in that synopsis provided to then-President-elect Trump in January 2017,” Moss said. “Ironically, if it turns out that the FBI has undertaken such efforts and has verified any of the claims, thereby embarrassing President Trump politically, the president will have no one to blame for that revelation other than himself.”
Moss said what made this “largely possible” was Trump’s decision to declassify the Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff memos. Moss works with the Law Office of Mark S. Zaid, Esq. and represents the James Madison Project, the named plaintiff in the judge’s response which you can read here.