Does Schiff Memo Rebut Nunes Memo? You Judge

President Trump has declassified the memorandum prepared by the Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also known as the “Democrat” or “Schiff Memo.”

The Schiff Memo is designed to rebut the three key points set out in the Republican Nunes memo. On Feb. 22, I wrote that the Nunes memo “suggests that the FISA process was abused.”

The purpose of this op-ed is to set out the Republican memo’s three key points and the Democratic responses thereto, to allow you to judge whether the Democrats have succeeded or failed in rebutting:


Nunes Memo, Point 1:

“That the Steele dossier was compiled by (Christopher) Steele on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia. ... That information, although known to the FBI and DOJ, was not disclosed to the FISA Court.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: The Department of Justice disclosed that Steele (Source 1) “was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source No. 1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired identified U.S. persons to conduct research regarding Candidate No. 1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia. They identified the U.S. Person and Source No. 1 as having had a longstanding business relationship. The identified U.S. person hired (Steele) to conduct research. ... The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate No. 1’s campaign.

Nunes Memo, Point 2:

“In September 2016, Steele admitted to (the DOJ’s Bruce) Ohr that he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’ This clear evidence of Steele’s ‘bias’ was recorded at the time, but not disclosed in any application made to the FISA court to surveil (Carter) Page.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: “Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, ... the DOJ repeatedly informed the court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias. DOJ explained in detail Steele’s prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI and the likely political motivation of those who hired Steele.”

Nunes Memo, Point 3:

“Deputy Director (Andrew) McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information.”

Schiff memo rebuttal:

I can find no attempt to rebut the Nunes’ memo’s third point.


Witnesses testifying in every U.S. court take an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A half-truth is not the whole truth. Affidavits for search warrants must set out facts, not conclusions.

They must describe with “particularity.” Had I been the judge, asked by the FBI and DOJ to issue a FISA warrant to spy on Americans involved in a political campaign, I would have demanded the specific facts—as opposed to conclusions. I would have wanted the whole truth, not half-truths. Particulars!

That Source 1 was approached by an identified U.S. person was “conclusory.” Were I the judge, I would have wanted the particulars that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had sent Clinton Campaigm law firm attorneys to hire Steele to dredge up damaging information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia” to undermine his presidential campaign. I would have wanted to know that Steele composed the dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and that they paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm.

I would have wanted to know that the FBI knew—rather than “speculated”—that the Clinton campaign and the DNC—rather than “identified U.S. persons”—were obviously looking—rather than “likely looking”—for information useful in taking down the Trump campaign.

And I would have wanted to know the full extent of Steele’s anti-Trump bias that made him desperate and passionate that Donald Trump not get elected president. Obvious bias and likely motivation are two very different things.

Would the FISA judge, had he been presented with the detailed facts set out in the Nunes memo, have issued the warrant? Or would he have concluded that Steele’s opposition research, paid for with 160,000 Democratic dollars, and created by an operative with a visceral hatred of Trump, wasn’t trustworthy?

As a judge who issued numerous search warrants in my 26 years, I would not have issued the warrant(s) had I been provided with the matters set out in either memo.

How about you?



Posted: QCOline.com April 5, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea