NAMAZU , AAB's LEADING POLITICAL ANALYST EXAMINES AND EXPLAINS THE INFAMOUS "FBI MEMO"
WARNING: Reading this memo could be fatal to certain political delusions you may have, especially if you have any liberal tendencies.
GREETINGS AMERICAN BIPEDS!
By now you are no doubt aware that the infamous "FBI Memo" so feared by the Democrats as "damaging to national security" and "a bald faced partisan document" has now been released as redacted by the FBI. So the Democrats now refer to it as a "Nothing Burger", "Over hyped", and yet insist on being able to publish their own rebuttal document which they are certainly free to do, they just don't have the right to release it as an official release of any Congressional committee. That document has been released, over the Democrat's strenuous objections, and their demanded FBI redactions . The official memo indicates that a "dossier" prepared by a former British intelligence operative now thought to be an operative to the Democratic party by Republican analysts "formed an essential part" of an Obama administration request for a warrant to eavesdrop on Carter Page who at the time was a foreign policy adviser to the Trump presidential campaign. T
The document contains direct quotes by FBI officials and other indications even after extensive FBI redactions that throw a revealing light on the so called "Russian Investigation" of Russian interference in the last Presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump. Indeed this document now declared a "nothing burger" by the Democrats is in fact something that should be read by all Americans. When carefully read, examined for accuracy and sources, and understood it will be found frightening by the portion of the American people who aren't brain dead from propaganda. What will the American people fear after reading the infamous "memo" ? They will and should fear the "Deep State" operatives still very much acting within many branches of the Federal Government and especially within the FBI, and Democrats in general.
After careful consideration of the "memo" as redacted and released and considerations of such Democratic Party developed "rebuttals" as are currently out there ; I offer the following observations and opinions for your consideration:
OBSERVATIONS / OPINIONS (REDACTIONS AND REBUTTALS, GENERALLY)
1. (Observation): The redactions include not only the expected and allowed redaction of confidential FBI informants, methods of investigation but also of adjectives. (Opinion): Reading in context it seems that words like "significant" that appear near descriptions of information, or effects of events are eliminated to make the narrative read more inconsequential. Step one in making an important document appear to be a "nothing burger".
2. (Observation): The document was delivered to Congress but the Democrats who objected to the release to the public describe it as a "Republican document". This controversy starts and ends with FBI documents submitted to a court. (Opinion): That document certainly appears to support a suspicion that the Intelligence Surveillance Court was a victim of lies of omission by the Obama Administration. This trail of falsehood begins with leading the court to believe that independent journalists corroborated the information that led to the granting of a warrant to put the Trump election team under surveillance very early in the election process. In fact the information came from unsupported assertions by a former British intelligence agent (a Mr. Steele) thought by many to be a mercenary agent of elements within the Democratic Party. This agent also generated false news reports that appeared to support allegations that are more probably than not invented from whole cloth by agents of elements within the democratic party. (Observation;) By offering uncorroborated evidence and suggesting that it was corroborated by independent sources, by more probably than not inventing evidence out of whole cloth, by making unsubstantiated claims and presenting them as substantiated the presentations of the Obama era administration and /or FBI to the court constitute more than lies of omission, this would appear to be perjury.
OBSERVATIONS/ OPINIONS/ (THE WARRANT APPLICATION PROCESS)
1. INESCAPABLE FACT: COMEY SIGNED THREE APPLICATIONS TO AUTHORIZE SURVEILLANCE OF ELEMENTS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, McCABE SIGNED ONE.
IT WOULD BE AN ALLOWABLE BUT REBUTTALABLE PRESUMPTION IN CIVIL LAW TO ASSUME COMEY KNEW EVERYTHING WITHIN THE PRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. (Opinion): AND THAT HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO CHECK THE INFORMATION PRESENTED FOR ITS FACTUAL BASIS AND EITHER DID NOT DO SO OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PRESENTATION OF FALSE AND / OR UNRELIABLE DATA TO THE COURT.
2. (Observation): Through the initial application and 3 renewals of the FISA warrant , no corroboration was furnished. (Opinion): The impact of this fact goes to the weight of the evidence that the prosecutors for the warrant, the FBI /Comey et al either failed in their due diligence or were intentionally running an unlawful persecution. The lack of any attempt to secure corroboration also cast doubt on the due diligence of the Obama era court.
3. (Observation): Information was withheld: FISA judges were not told that Democrats paid at least $160,000 to commission the report submitted to the court, making everything submitted suspect of simply being partisan political maneuvering.
4. FACT: Steele (The British Intelligence agent mentioned earlier and suspected of being in the employ of elements within the Democratic Party) briefed Yahoo News for the article by Mr. Iskoff which was sighted as part of the evidence supporting the FISCA warrant application. (Opinion): This goes to the weight of the evidence that the "evidence" submitted for the warrant application was "manufactured", false, and should have been known to be so by COMEY et al. (Observation): The FBI under Comey continued working with Mr. Steele, evidently without any scrutiny of his media contacts, and submitted the warrant application despite a gross lack of corroboration and indicators of fabrication and coordination by political operatives determined to undermine the political campaign of their leading opponent.
5. (Observation): Mr. Steele apparently lied about contacts with the FBI. This would make him eligible for Obstruction charges. There seems to be, even today ,a strange immunity to obvious charges if the apparent miscreant is a Democrat or fellow traveler.
6. (Observation): Steele, more probably than not committed a prosecutable offense when he disclosed his relationship to the FBI to reporter David Corn in an October 2016 article in the hyper liberal Mother Jones magazine. (Opinion): Steele's communications with the FBI and the Media indicate a pattern of simple advocacy against the Trump presidential campaign. When it appears to bolster his stature with the media he touts his FBI connections. When his media communications would tend to taint the "evidence" these are omitted from the court presentations. Never a peep out of the FBI about his obligations toward confidentiality.
7. FACT: Steele admitted to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ohr that he was passionately committed to preventing the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency. Yet the FBI and the Department of Justice continued to allow his use as a "source" despite his admitted prejudice and partisan intentions.
8. FACT: Deputy AGA Orh 's wife was an employee of Fusion GPS, the political opposition firm connected with the production of the Steele dossier. The FISA court was never told of this relationship.
9. FACT: McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that no warrant would have been issued without the Steele Dossier. .(Opinion) The Steele Dossier being suspect of both being a fabrication and having obvious partisan political origins and financing is more probably than not just a collection of false hoods, half truths, and argument not evidence of any wrong doing. Any and all "evidence" flowing from the FISA warrant is tainted and more probably than not inadmissible".
10. (Observation); despite all of the fabricated documents there appears to be no evidence of collusion with the Russians by Carter Page, the Trump adviser who visited Russia.
11.(Observation): McCabe apparently attended a meeting with Strzok (Peter Strzok, the FBI agent formerly Chief of the Counter Espionage Section during the FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton's use of a personal E- mail server transmitting classified material. No charges came of that investigation despite obvious and ample evidence of mishandling of classified material). Strzok subsequently was promoted to Deputy Director of the FBI's Counter Intelligence Division which led the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election) and Page to discuss an "insurance policy against Trump's election". (Observation): Why would an FBI agent need an insurance policy against the election of anyone to political office unless he had acted unethically and / or illegally to thwart the election of a legitimate candidate?
As an observer of American history since before the Revolution (remember I'm a 3,000 year old catfish) I have to say that this is a new twist. Before the electronic media and "fake news" "yellow journalism" was a major component in many American elections including the first and second runs by Thomas Jefferson for the job of President. "Yellow journalism" was unethical but given the "freedom of the press" of the day hardly considered illegal at the time. Any of the Yellow Journalists operatives would have been quite pleased with themselves if their efforts resulted in an indictment of the candidate they were paid to tarnish as long as they weren't hauled into court and made to testify under oath. Libel and slander civil actions were rare then and are now with the courts having a long standing view that public figures especially politicians must have thick skins and be prepared for the "slings and arrows" of "vigorous public debate".
What we see in this recently released memo is something new. The memo, to say the least in the temperate words of White House Spokeswoman Sarah Sanders; "raises serious concerns about the integrity of decisions made at the highest levels of the department of Justice and the FBI to use the government's most intrusive surveillance tools against American citizens." My own catfish instinct, so often unerring,is that despite the constant and ever erupting "rebuttals" of the Democrats the "memo" rings true and scary. Minions of the Obama administration did not hesitate to lie, fabricate documents, and posture in order to unlawfully bring the FISA court into play against their political opposition. It is clear that some officials within the FBI and DOJ even today, a year after the departure from formal power of the Obama gang, are quite willing to go to extra legal means to nullify an American election. If nothing else the memo demonstrates the still lingering presence of the "Deep State". America, drain the swamp!