quote:

The House Intelligence Committee has released its controversial memo outlining alleged abuses of secret surveillance by the FBI and Justice Department in the Trump-Russia investigation. Here are some key points:

* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the intial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.

The FBI and Justice Department mounted a months-long effort to keep the information outlined in the memo out of the House Intelligence Committee's hands. Only the threat of contempt charges and other forms of pressure forced the FBI and Justice to give up the material.

Once Intelligence Committee leaders and staff compiled some of that information into the memo, the FBI and Justice Department, supported by Capitol Hill Democrats, mounted a ferocious campaign of opposition, saying release of the memo would endanger national security and the rule of law.

But Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes never wavered in his determination to make the information available to the public. President Trump agreed, and, as required by House rules, gave his approval for release.

Finally, the memo released today does not represent the sum total of what House investigators have learned in their review of the FBI and Justice Department Trump-Russia investigation. That means the fight over the memo could be replayed in the future when the Intelligence Committee decides to release more information.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
End this sham of a investigation now.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Seems kind of underwhelming.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Seems kind of underwhelming.

quote:

Not a bit.

It is akin to having a policeman arrest you and falsely tell the court you had a pistol. On that basis you are kept in custody and prosecuted.

False information, known unverified, unsupported “evidence” is very bad.

quote:

Fodder for a Clancy novel, really.

quote:

False information, known unverified, unsupported “evidence” is very bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Shifferbrains:
Keep in mind that this is not everything, but just the tip of the iceberg. The snowball has just started to run downhill.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

False information, known unverified, unsupported “evidence” is very bad.

As such, doesn't this whole bag of crap fall into some legal variation of "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" and any/all proceedings based on such information thrown out completely?

That this kind of flawed process was allowed in the first place demonstrates the need for oversight and public transparency. Whatever the argument for hiding this error, simply can not support the claim 'secrecy' is essential. This demonstrates the very vital need for that oversight.

This is evidence failure of the people IN the system, not the architecture of that system. The flaw of the system, is to have allowed suspension of transparency far too long. IMHO.