https://ricochet.com/492444/the-memo-for-dummies/

The Memo for Dummies

February 3, 2018

There is a lot of confusion out there about The Memo and its significance. There shouldn’t be because this really isn’t very complicated. I’m going to explain it simply so that even our more august yet occasionally mystified podcast hosts and hostesses can get it.

We have something called a FISA Court. This was created back in the 1970s, in response to Congressional allegations of abuse carried out by our intelligence agencies. The Court exists to assure that we have some control over the reach of our intelligence agencies, and to hold them accountable. Why do we need that? Because the government has to spy on people to keep us safe, but giving the government the authority to spy on people is inherently risky. So that authority has to be controlled, and that’s the function of the FISA Court.

What The Memo alleges, and what has yet to be refuted, is, most bluntly, that the Clinton campaign paid for a salacious document — the Steele Dossier — to be created attacking its political foe, Donald Trump; that this document, though its charges were unconfirmed, then became a critical element in a request, brought before the FISA Court by the FBI, to spy on people associated with the Trump campaign; and that the Court was informed neither of the fact that the Clinton campaign commissioned the document nor that there was no substantiation of the document’s truthfulness — worse, the Court was misled, by the FBI, into believing that there was independent confirmation of the document, when in fact there was not.

As a consequence, US intelligence agencies were authorized by the incumbent administration to spy on the campaign of the opposition party candidate during a historically contentious and critical national election.
It gets worse, but you don’t need more. All you have to know is that there are credible allegations that, in spite of the protections supposedly provided by the FISA Court, one administration was able, under incomplete and false pretenses, to spy on the opposition’s political campaign during the presidential election.

This isn’t about Mueller. This isn’t about Nunes. This isn’t about Schiff. This isn’t about Trump. This isn’t about Obama. This isn’t about Clinton. This isn’t about Russian collusion. This isn’t about how the press is going to spin it, or what it will do for our respect for institutions. This isn’t, as the smart people over at Need to Know like to say, about “a failure to follow ‘best practices.'”

This is about the FBI spying on a political campaign.

There’s nothing subtle or ambiguous here if the allegations in The Memo are true. When the Court having the ultimate duty to prevent abuse of our intelligence services is asked, during an election season, for permission to spy on the opposition candidate’s campaign, all sorts of alarms should sound. Of all the possible requests, this should be the most problematic, and the most troubling, and the one for which the highest standards should be upheld by the Court.

So when we’re told, by the New York Times, that the Court was informed that the Steele Dossier had “political” connections behind it, but that the Court was not told that it sprang from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, that should prompt us to ask, immediately: What? Did the Court not ask what “political” connections meant, in this context? Or did the Court ask, and the FBI decline to provide a factual response? Just what happened here?

Democracy dies in darkness, as they say. It’s time to shine some light on the FISA Court and find out what happened during the campaign. There is nothing in this matter that shouldn’t be unclassified, if necessary, to answer that question.
Published in Politics

https://ricochet.com/492444/the-memo-for-dummies/

The Memo for Dummies

February 3, 2018

There is a lot of confusion out there about The Memo and its significance. There shouldn’t be because this really isn’t very complicated. I’m going to explain it simply so that even our more august yet occasionally mystified podcast hosts and hostesses can get it.

We have something called a FISA Court. This was created back in the 1970s, in response to Congressional allegations of abuse carried out by our intelligence agencies. The Court exists to assure that we have some control over the reach of our intelligence agencies, and to hold them accountable. Why do we need that? Because the government has to spy on people to keep us safe, but giving the government the authority to spy on people is inherently risky. So that authority has to be controlled, and that’s the function of the FISA Court.

What The Memo alleges, and what has yet to be refuted, is, most bluntly, that the Clinton campaign paid for a salacious document — the Steele Dossier — to be created attacking its political foe, Donald Trump; that this document, though its charges were unconfirmed, then became a critical element in a request, brought before the FISA Court by the FBI, to spy on people associated with the Trump campaign; and that the Court was informed neither of the fact that the Clinton campaign commissioned the document nor that there was no substantiation of the document’s truthfulness — worse, the Court was misled, by the FBI, into believing that there was independent confirmation of the document, when in fact there was not.

As a consequence, US intelligence agencies were authorized by the incumbent administration to spy on the campaign of the opposition party candidate during a historically contentious and critical national election.
It gets worse, but you don’t need more. All you have to know is that there are credible allegations that, in spite of the protections supposedly provided by the FISA Court, one administration was able, under incomplete and false pretenses, to spy on the opposition’s political campaign during the presidential election.

This isn’t about Mueller. This isn’t about Nunes. This isn’t about Schiff. This isn’t about Trump. This isn’t about Obama. This isn’t about Clinton. This isn’t about Russian collusion. This isn’t about how the press is going to spin it, or what it will do for our respect for institutions. This isn’t, as the smart people over at Need to Know like to say, about “a failure to follow ‘best practices.'”

This is about the FBI spying on a political campaign.

There’s nothing subtle or ambiguous here if the allegations in The Memo are true. When the Court having the ultimate duty to prevent abuse of our intelligence services is asked, during an election season, for permission to spy on the opposition candidate’s campaign, all sorts of alarms should sound. Of all the possible requests, this should be the most problematic, and the most troubling, and the one for which the highest standards should be upheld by the Court.

So when we’re told, by the New York Times, that the Court was informed that the Steele Dossier had “political” connections behind it, but that the Court was not told that it sprang from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, that should prompt us to ask, immediately: What? Did the Court not ask what “political” connections meant, in this context? Or did the Court ask, and the FBI decline to provide a factual response? Just what happened here?

Democracy dies in darkness, as they say. It’s time to shine some light on the FISA Court and find out what happened during the campaign. There is nothing in this matter that shouldn’t be unclassified, if necessary, to answer that question.
Published in Politics

AntiE, once again you have shed light for the deniers. I'm curious how many Trump haters will continue vomiting the left media spin, without even casting an eye upon the memo.
I can't help but wonder if the FISA court judge was on the side of the many leftist Trump hating Federal Court judges that were more concerned with stomping out President Trumps executive orders than upholding the constitution and to the extent knowingly did not ask questions that in other non Trump spy requests would be certain to dot every i, cross every t. Then one must ask, how involved was Obama? How many leftist congressman or senators knew the details? I'm not settled in believing after Hillary fixed the primaries, was exonerated by the same FBI that orders didn't come from the oval office.

I think the fecal matter is going to hit the fan. There are more reviews forthcoming. The president is quietly, behind the scenes, pushing the exposure of all of this. He knows what has transpired and despite what AF1 and his ilk think, the President is not stupid. He is staying out of the fight but letting the appropriate people handle it.

I'm thinking that the Republicans are finding this President to be smarter than they originally though and are now coming on board with him.

Funny thing is, I don't think he gives a shit about either of them. I don't blame him, if it were me I wouldn't trust either side, snakes all. Mike

I think the fecal matter is going to hit the fan. There are more reviews forthcoming. The president is quietly, behind the scenes, pushing the exposure of all of this. He knows what has transpired and despite what AF1 and his ilk think, the President is not stupid. He is staying out of the fight but letting the appropriate people handle it.

I'm thinking that the Republicans are finding this President to be smarter than they originally though and are now coming on board with him.

Funny thing is, I don't think he gives a shit about either of them. I don't blame him, if it were me I wouldn't trust either side, snakes all. Mike