Nunes Memo Suggests that FISA Process Was Abused

On Feb. 2, President Donald Trump declassified a memorandum by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuse at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”Referred to as the “Nunes memo,” it deals largely with four applications made by the FBI and DOJ to the FISA court to intercept electronic communications of Carter Page.

The first was made on Oct. 21, 2016. Each application was good for only 90 days. Three were signed by FBI Director James Comey; one by Deputy Andrew McCabe. Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein signed the applications on behalf of Department of Justice.

As in the case of an ordinary search warrant, the judge hears only the government’s side of the case. As such, it is essential that the application tell the truth, which means the whole truth.


Proper use of the FISA application is “necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts” which includes information favorable to the target of the FISA application then known to the government.

The memo charges that in the case of Page, “the government had at least four independent opportunities to provide the FISA court with evidence favorable to Page.” Four times it failed to do so.

The memo further charges that:

1. The Steele dossier was compiled by Steele on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary 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.

2. In the FISA application to surveil Page, the Steele dossier was buttressed by a seemingly independent news article in Yahoo News by Michael Isikoff, detailing Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. “This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.” (Steele has since admitted in a British Court that he met with Yahoo News and several other outlets in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.) For these and other media contacts, Steele has now been terminated as an FBI source, for violating the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality.

3. Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr, who worked with Yates and later Rod Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr.

In September 2016, Steele admitted to 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 Page.”


To make things, worse, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS “to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump.” Fusion’s work was also paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

The memo concludes:

“While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting in other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steel dossier information.”

In every U.S. jurisdiction, an attorney has a “duty of candor” to the court. The lawyer cannot knowingly make a false statement of fact to a judge. He cannot withhold material facts from the court. And he has a duty to correct any false statement of material fact previously made.

A prosecutor in his official capacity, is the representative of all the people, including the defendant. It is as much his duty to safeguard the constitutional rights of the defendant as those of any other citizen, (the People v. Cochran, 1924). The U. S. Supreme Court said essentially the same thing in Berger v. U.S. (1935). That includes a duty to disclose to the defendant and the court all evidence that tends to negate guilt.

Lawyers who lie to the court, or withhold material facts, subject themselves to sanctions, including disbarment. Finally how Ohr could investigate in a case involving his wife’s employer, especially where his wife was actively involved, screams “conflict of interest.”

Posted: QCOline.com February 22, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

You Design U.S. Immigration Policies!

President Donald Trump and the Democratic leadership are at loggerheads over immigration.

The president wants a wall, and merit-based immigration. Democrats want open borders. What’s your solution?

Who would you allow to enter our country? Would you require that immigrants be literate? Would you require that immigrants be able to speak English? At least, broken-English?

Would you accept immigrants who believe Catholic Canon Law should be the supreme law of the land? Who believe Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the land?

Would you require that immigrants should be able to support themselves?

Would you accept immigrants who will not be able to support themselves, and who will immediately go on welfare? Is it the duty of taxpaying Americans to provide the new immigrants with free housing? Free food? Free medical care? Free schooling through high school? Free college?

Are you comfortable with accepting immigrants with no job skills who will compete for low income jobs with Americans who lack job skills? If you flood the job-market with immigrants with no job skills, will you depress wages? Make it harder for Americans with no or minimal job skills to find employment?

Would you accept immigrants who believe America is an evil country? The “Great Satan?” 

Would you accept immigrants who have no desire to assimilate? Who come to create in America a somewhat better version of the country from which they just emigrated?

Would you accept immigrants with criminal records for murder, robbery, burglary, rape, gun crimes, thefts, manslaughter? Would you accept immigrants who are drug dealers? Who have made a living transporting cocaine into the USA? Heroin? Who have worked for foreign drug cartels?

Would accept immigrants who have made their living by smuggling illegal aliens into the U.S. or come to America to fly airliners into our great buildings or drive a truck into a crowd of children? To plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, etc.?

Are you willing to admit immigrants who believe their “religion” requires them to kill heretics? Apostates? Americans of different faiths? To replace courts within our judicial system with courts that make their religious law the supreme law of the land?

With open borders and no wall, how would you propose to keep our "undesirable immigrants" you do not believe should be allowed in this country? Or are there no "undesirable immigrants, "as far as you’re concerned?

Should America open its borders to all, and concern itself with terrorism, heroin and cocaine sales, and criminal conduct only after the fact? Should we leave such matters exclusively to our criminal justice system after the crimes have been committed and perpetrators have been caught?

Or should our country be pro-active to prevent terrorism, drugs sales, and criminal misconduct at the hand of immigrants by carefully vetting, to keep such immigrants out of our country altogether?

As you consider each of the questions, ask yourself whose policies are better for dealing with these issues? The Democratic solution is keep the borders open! Therefore, a wall is unnecessary. Accept anybody who wants to come, any distant relative of anybody who is already here. Keep the visa lottery system, ignore the fact that, for all intents and purposes, only people from certain countries fly airliners into civilian buildings, engage in suicide bombings at weddings and funerals, use ambulances to perpetrate suicide bombings, and behead those they regard as infidels.

President Trump’s solution would give amnesty to over a million “Dreamers,” build a wall, end chain migration, end the visa lottery system, and go to a merit based immigration system.

Mr. Trump says he wants people to come who will love our country, and who will help better our country. Who do you agree with?

Whose program better addresses the issue I have set out above? What’s your program for dealing with those issues?

One other question: Why should we have less security at our borders than we do at our airports?


Posted: QCOline.com February 15, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Why Volunteer to be Burned at Stake?

President Donald Trump has repeatedly denied Russian collusion.

He further said he is willing to speak to special prosecutor Robert Mueller. But if the president speaks without preconditions, he’s utterly insane.

Even with preconditions as to the scope of the interrogation, he’s insane. Here’s why.


Mr. Trump could go in expecting to be questioned about Russian collusion—and “any matters that ... may arise directly from that investigation.” But Mr. Mueller’s powers are even broader. If Mr. Mueller feels a full investigation requires him to inquire into additional matters, Mr. Trump might suddenly find himself being examined on foreign investment violations pertaining to a hotel he built 10 years ago in Timbuktu, or on claims that he willfully understated his income to avoid taxation in 2013.

If you think that’s fanciful, consider that Paul Manifort has already been charged with money laundering, which seemingly bears no relationship to Russian meddling. Special counsel (prosecutor) Mueller was appointed to investigate the “Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” But the law also allows prosecution of related perjury, lying to the FBI, etc.

And if the special counsel feels that additional jurisdiction is necessary to fully investigate, that could be granted, upon his request, by acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him.

One danger Mr. Trump faces is prosecutor Mueller deciding that the president has lied during the interview—even if the statement in question was not made under oath.

This danger is real, even if Mr. Trump is pure as the driven snow on the collusion issue. He still is in grave danger of saying something contrary to what one or more other witnesses have already said, and being charged with lying to the FBI, or some similar process crime.

Prosecutor Mueller and his team—many of whom are Democrat donors—have been investigating the president and his associates since May 17, 2017. They must have piles of statements. It is almost inconceivable that among that mountain of transcripts, Mueller wouldn’t be unable to find some statements of material fact that will contradict something the president says. That will afford the prosecutor a basis for charging the president with lying.

It matters not that that prior statement itself may be a lie, as long as it has the appearance of truthfulness to Mr. Mueller. Just consider the damage that has already been done by the bogus “Fusion GPS Dossier.”


What the president is up against, is equivalent to being dragged before the Papal Inquisition, circa 1250 A.D. Imagine the following taken scenario from “The Inquisition of the Middle Ages.” Would you voluntarily appear?

“The Inquisitor summons everyone within a certain radius to come forward and reveal to him whatever they have known or heard of anyone leading to the belief that he might be a heretic ... or that he had spoken against any article of faith ....


“In a trial by the Inquisition, a man would be reported to the Inquisitor ... for heresy, or his name would occur in the confession of another prisoner. A secret investigation would be made, and all accessible evidence against him would be collected. He would then be cited to appear or arrested. ... The accused was presumed to be guilty—or he would not have been put on trial!

“The Inquisitor prepared himself by collecting and studying all the adverse evidence that could be produced, while the prisoner was kept in sedulous ignorance of the charges against him.”

Generally, the Inquisitor was a well-educated cleric; the accused, more often than not, was illiterate, and entirely unfamiliar with mortal danger of being a witness against himself on a charge of heresy, while facing a trained interrogator.

This is what President Trump faces unless he sets limits on the scope of the interrogation: an educated and astute businessman facing a squad of trained prosecutors, most with Democratic leanings, who are looking to charge him with making false statements, while sitting on a mountain of depositions.

It is inconceivable, that with all the evidence already gathered, the president will not say something that an earlier depositions belies. If he talks to them at all, he’s insane.

If he goes in without preconditions, limiting the scope, he’s utterly insane.

If Mueller insists, without strict preconditions, the president should sue at least to delimit the scope of the investigation.

Posted: QCOline.com February 8, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Aren't the Rich Already Being Taxed to Help the Poor?

On Jan. 6, The Dispatch-Argus ran an article headlined, "Tax the rich to help the poor." But since the Great Depression, hasn't the federal government been doing just that?

In 2016, IRS published data concerning 2014 federal income tax collections showed 139,562,034 taxpayers filed 2014 individual (as opposed to corporate) federal returns, and paid $1,374,379,000,000 in federal income taxes. They included:

-- 139,562,034 taxpayers, the top 1 percent paid $542,640,000,000 - 39.48 percent;

-- 6,978,102 taxpayers, the top 5 percent paid $824,153,000,000 - 59.98 percent;

-- 13,956,203 taxpayers, the top 10 percent paid $974,124,000,000 - 70.88 percent;

-- 34,890,509 taxpayers, the top 25 percent paid $1,192,679,000,000 - 86.78 percent;

-- 69,781,107 taxpayers, the top 50 percent paid $1,336,637,000,000 - 97.25 percent; and

-- 69,781,017, the bottom 50 percent paid $37,740,000,000 or 2.75 percent of all individual federal income taxes paid.

Imagine the plight of the bottom 50 percent, if the top 50 percent didn't exist, or if the top half paid no taxes. There would have been $1.336 trillion less revenue in individual federal income taxes. That would have increased the 2014 deficit from $483 billion to $1,819 billion.

In 2014, U.S. military spending was $800 billion, pensions, $914 billion; health care, $921 billion; welfare, $370 billion; transportation, $92 billion; interest, $229 billion, etc. The $37.7 billion paid by the bottom 50 percent, would not have covered 50 percent of a single one of those expenses!

Without the top 50 percent, there would have been no money for defense, health care, transportation, interest, and only $37 billion on welfare costs of $370 billion. That $370 billion for welfare is 10 times more than the bottom 50 percent paid in federal income taxes.

In 2014, the Census Bureau reported the numbers of Americans who received welfare, i.e., participated in means tested programs in 2012, included:

-- 82,679,000, Medicaid.

-- 51,471,000, food stamps

-- 22,526,000, Women, Infants and Children programs,

-- 20,355,000, SSI

-- 13,267,000 lived in public housing or received housing subsidies.

-- 5,442,000 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families


-- 4,517,000 others received some other form of federal cash assistance.

And the poor also benefit from roads, bridges, courthouses, and a strong military.

Somebody paid, and it wasn't the 50 percent taxpayers who paid 2.75 percent of all individual federal income taxes.

So, when the top 10 percent of all taxpayers -- incomes over $133,445 -- pay 70.88 percent of all federal income taxes, how much more must they pay to be deemed righteous? Fair? Doesn't a wage-earner with a wife and two children have a right to spend the greatest part of his $150,000 earnings on his own family?

And when 25 percent of all taxpayers -- over $77,714 -- pay 86.78 percent of federal income taxes, how much more must they pay to be deemed fair? Doesn't that wage-earner with a wife and two children have the same right to spend the bulk of his $80,000 earnings on his own family? Or is it just those with incomes over $542,640 paying 39.48 percent of all federal income taxes who aren't being fair?

Do the math. If 100 million Americans are receiving some share of the $37 billion in welfare benefits, is it fair to cry "tax the rich to help the poor?" Aren't the top 50 percent already carrying 97.25 percent of the burden?

If the top 1 percent -- incomes over $542,640 -- had been required to pay at a 50 percent rate, they would have paid $687,189,500,000, rather than the $542,640,000,000 they paid at 39.48 percent in 2014. That would have generated an additional $144.5 billion in revenues, more than enough to relieve the entire bottom 50 percent from paying the $37.5 billion they paid.

Clearly, the poor who are disabled or otherwise in genuine need can't be expected to pay taxes. But they are only a part of the bottom 50 percent.

So, would it be fair for the other part of the bottom 50 percent to claim all the benefits of citizenship while paying no income taxes? To demand his neighbor pay more? Should fairness not require that they at least pay the "widow's mite?" Is that 2.75 percent?

Fairness to some degree is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted: QCOline.com January 25, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Taxing Rich to Help Poor - Some Background

On Jan. 6, The Dispatch-Argus ran a piece, "Tax the rich to help the poor."

Some years ago, Father Bob Lee gave a short sermon. It ran only five minutes. I've listened to thousands of others. But Fr. Lee's is the only one that has stuck with me. The topic of his homily was, "What must we do to be saved." Matthew 25: 31-46.

“When the Son of Man comes ... he will separate the people ... He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“He will say to those on his right, ‘Take your inheritance .... For I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink ...

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me ... for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink ... Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Christ enjoined these duties on us as individuals. He wasn't speaking to governments. We were individually charged with being charitable to those in need. Christ said he came to save men; not to set up either a capitalist or socialist utopia. Had he wanted to be king, he could have continued multiplying loaves and fishes. The people would have made him king. John 6:25

Did Christ ever tell the Roman government that it had a duty to support the poor through taxes? Nevertheless, based on Christ's teachings, the church's catechism has extrapolated that message. But even so, does one get to heaven by paying his taxes? Would Christ buy the argument, "OK, I was never charitable, but I paid my taxes, and thereby helped the poor. Therefore, I belong in heaven?

In his great social encyclical, "Rerum Novarum" (1891), Pope Leo XIII penned what is generally regarded as the church's foundational document on social justice. Pope Leo, in the main, discussed the co-relative rights/duties of capital and working men, affirmed the right of private property, and condemned Socialism and the excesses of capitalism.

Speaking critically of socialism, Leo wrote:

"The socialists ... are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State .... The remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own ... [Without private property] no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry... [Socialism would result in] the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. The main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected."

Perhaps because the focus of the encyclical is on the rights/duties of capital/laborer, it speaks only briefly of the duties of the state to the poor, but appears to define the poor.

"The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family ... is a great ... error.

"True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid."

Prior to our Great Depression, aid to the American poor was largely provided by charitable individuals, the churches, some civic organizations, and units of local government. When during the Depression, those sources were overwhelmed, the federal government necessarily became involved and remains involved to this day.

Today it is generally agreed that some part of the nation's resources should be used to help those in genuine permanent, and even temporary, need. But who is in need and how much is debated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church - dealing with the Seventh Commandment - sets out at considerable length the church's current teachings on social justice, private property, common stewardship, and our duties toward the poor, inter alia. (Word limits preclude further discussion here. Read it!) That article provides guiding principles. It does not, however, set out specific numbers as to what is fair, just, and enough in a particular case.

My next op-ed will marshal some specific numbers to help you start to judge for yourselves: What is fair? Just? How much more, if any, the rich must be taxed to help the poor? The needy?

Posted: QCOline.com January 16, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What if Jurors only Listened to Accusors?

Don Wooten and I don't often agree politically. But for once, we do - at least in part ("Women force out a potent champion," Viewpoints, Dec. 17).

Former state Sen. Wooten wrote in reference to the allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Sen. Al Franken, "Congressional women [have forced] the resignation of one of their champions. ... What I found unconscionable was the rush to pass judgment before there was evidence to do so. ... No one should be drummed out of office this way, without some kind of objective judgment."

Sen. Wooten deplores the rush to judgment" He states his case in terms of evidence and objective judgment, I agree with him on that, although, I would prefer to make the argument in terms of due process: procedural due process, fundamental fairness.


Due process in America addresses the question, what process is or procedures are, required in a given case, consistent with fundamental fairness.

In our country, due process in a state criminal trial has come to mean essentially the procedures specified in our Bill of Rights. But even within the narrow context of U.S. criminal law, what amounts to due process varies depending on the stage of the proceeding.

For an arrest or search warrant to issue, the state must establish "probable cause." At trial, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a probation revocation hearing, the state must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant violated his probation.

Due process also applies to civil cases. For example, at a hearing to suspend or revoke a liquor license, the moving party must prove the violation by the greater weight of the evidence.

In a state court felony (criminal) prosecution, due process requires that the defendant has the right to hire an attorney; if he can't afford an attorney, he gets a free one. Due process does not require that in most civil cases. If you run somebody over with your car and get sued, you may have the right to hire an attorney, but you generally don't get a free one.

At a minimum, however, procedural due process in America means you get a written specification of the charge against you, and an opportunity to dispute that charge before an impartial tribunal - but not necessarily before a jury.


So when a man is charged with sexual misconduct by a woman in the newspapers, or on radio or TV, what does due process require? The argument has been made that a woman would never lie about being sexually abused. That is as mindless as saying that a man would never lie when he denies engaging in sexual abuse.

Attorney Lisa Bloom has now been accused of offering a woman $750,000 to make allegations of sexual misconduct against President Trump. That woman apparently refused. However, another did "speak out" - after her $30,000 mortgage was paid off, and after she received "fees for licensing photos."

My experience in the affairs of life tells me that some women lie. Others, like my mother and my Aunt Nell wouldn't have lied at gunpoint. Some men lie; others don't.


The point is simply this: When a woman publicly asserts that she has been the victim of sexual misconduct, abuse, or exploitation, she deserves a fair hearing. If the male accused then makes a denial, he deserves a fair hearing.

In politics, most of these charges and denials appear in the papers, and on TV, etc. They never get to court. Nevertheless, as rational voting citizens, we become the jury, and have a duty to use our best judgment to decide the truth or falsity of the charges.

In doing so, we employ the tools that any juror would employ, i.e., is there corroboration? Why has the victim waited 50 years to make her charge? If $55 million is being spent to win a House seat, is part of that money being used to induce victims to come out of the woodwork to accuse one or both candidates of acts of sexual misconduct? Do the accuser and the accused have reputations for always being truthful? For occasionally being truthful, etc.?

I agree with Don Wooten. A has a right to accuse. B has a right to defend. Truth is best served when the voters behave like an impartial jury.


Posted: QCOline.com January 4, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What Next for PBC? A Golf Course?

I was appalled when I read The Dispatch-Argus’ lead editorial on Sunday, “Rock Island Board, say yes to PBC courthouse plan.”

The editors wrote, “Kudos to the Public Building Commission for voting to set a hard and fast deadline for Rock Island County to either demolish or renovate the old courthouse.

“We urge members of the county board ... to endorse the PBC-approved intergovernmental agreement that says if a buyer has not come forward to purchase the courthouse, or if no funds are available to renovate the building by July 18, 2018, board members will hand the deed over to the PBC for demolition.”

Since my editor has asked us to “share our views,” here’s my opinion ...

On Oct. 1, 1981, the PBC was established by the county board and taxpayers were solemnly assured in the resolution creating that commission, that “the sole purpose of such Public Building Commission” was “to provide a good and sufficient jail.”

That “good and sufficient jail” was built and completed 25 years ago. Now, 27 years later, a runaway PBC, an unprincipled county board and an overreaching chief judge want to use that PBC to demolish the antiquated century-old courthouse.

The PBC was created to build a jail. Where was it granted any other power or authority? Where does it get authority to issue ultimatums? To engage in urban renewal? To create landfills, or golf courses? How does any honest public official—judge or county board member—stretch a grant of authority to build “a good and sufficient jail” and claim with a straight face that it authorizes courthouse demolition 26 years later?

This is not a situation where the courthouse had to be demolished so that the land could be used to build the new jail in 1981. The new jail was built on land formerly occupied by the old St. Joseph’s Catholic School, not on the land presently occupied by the courthouse. The old obsolete courthouse remains in use next to the new jail even today.

Make no mistake, I think the old courthouse probably should be taken down for reasons I have expressed in earlier op-eds. But I think the county board should have the guts and integrity to do the job itself.

If a tax has to be levied to pay for the demolition, it is the job of the county board to levy that tax, rather than sloughing off the decision to an un-elected commission.

America fought a revolution over the principle that our taxes were to be levied by our elected representatives—not by a British Parliament—and not by commissioners or dogcatchers.

In 1981, in setting up the PBC, the county board operated under statutory authority granted to the counties by the Illinois Legislature, which gave counties a choice. They were authorized either (a) to set up a commission to be used whenever necessary, or (b) to set up a commission for the “limited purpose” of doing one or a limited number of projects.

The Legislature did not require county boards to hold a referendum before initially setting up the building commissions.

Rock Island County chose Option B. Its commission was set up for a limited, sole purpose, providing “a good and sufficient jail. The Legislature also required a referendum “be submitted to the electors ... and approved,” before that purpose can be expanded.


This is the third effort by the county board and the judges to ignore or stretch the plain language of the statute.

In 2001, three criminal courtrooms, with jury rooms and offices, were built in the Justice Center. Fair and reasonable argument could be made for that use of the commission there.

Criminal courtrooms at least have an arguable connection with a jail. (I retired before those courtrooms were finished, and never used them). Then in 2015, a whole new courthouse was begun.

I have expressed my opinion that the use of the commission without a referendum was illegal. Now, in December of 2017, the commission is about to be—in my opinion—used again in a way no rational citizen would ever have imagined back in 1981 when the taxpayers of the county were assured that the commission was created for the “sole purpose” of building a “good and sufficient” jail.

I don’t believe a good end—getting rid of an obsolete courthouse—justifies using means not authorized by law—without the voters first granting approval by referendum.

In my opinion, this all stinks!

Posted: QCOline.com December 21, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea