So About the Memo …

The Memo has to be attacked at all costs; not so much because of what's in it but because of what comes behind it.

By Al Perrotta Published on February 4, 2018

I was surprised to wake up this morning and discover the nation still here, our democracy intact, and the Constitution still the law of the land. After all, we were promised everything short of Armageddon if Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released their 4-page Memo on the abuse of the FISA court by FBI/DOJ partisans. Sources and methods exposed. The Department of Justice and FBI reduced to rubble. Vladimir Putin weeping for joy in the Kremlin. The ghost of J. Edgar Hoover weeping into his mumu.

Even the increasingly creepy James Comey bounced between wondering “That’s it?” — as in “There’s nothing there” — and doom and gloom.

What a crock. The nation remained intact and able to enjoy the Super Bowl.

So why the big lie from the Democrats and their media partners? We’ll get to that in a second.

What the Memo Said

You can read the memo here. (And you can read the House Intelligence Committee’s responses to the many charges against the memo here.)

But here’s a quick summary:

The FBI accepted unverified and salacious information from a foreign agent with an expressed interest in stopping Donald Trump. Information they knew was gathered and paid for at the request of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

They used this “Steele Dossier” to gain FISA warrants in order to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page not once, not twice, not three times, but four; all while knowing the dossier was not verified. Yet they vouched for the dossier’s validity. They used as evidence of its validity a Yahoo News article confirming information in the dossier — knowing full well the Yahoo News article’s source was the same foreign agent. In other words, the same allegations from the same source, just in a different font.

They never told the FISA court that the dossier was a Hillary Clinton work product. 

The key line in the Memo? “Deputy Direct McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” No dossier, no surveillance.

What the Memo Shows

As noted by the Conservative Treehouse, the memo makes a point of indicating the warrants for Carter Page were under Title I, not Title VII of FISA. Title VII you’re talking about information gathered during surveillance on a foreign national. With Title I, you’re saying the American target is a spy. You are saying the target is actively working to harm the United States. The distinction is crucial.

The FBI were not targeting Page incidentally as an outcome of foreign intelligence collection; the FBI was targeting Carter Page directly. AND as such they carried full surveillance authority upon all of this activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein.

Because of this direct approach, any group, organization or entity who came in contact with U.S. Person Carter Page was then open for ancillary review and FBI investigation.  Those who engaged in contact with Carter Page became subject to surveillance and searches in the same manner as if Page was an actual foreign agent.

Here’s what we know: The Clinton-funded dossier led to the granting of the warrant and surveillance of a Trump campaign official. A warrant that allowed the surveillance of anyone who came into Page’s sphere. In other words, the Trump campaign. This warrant allowed FBI/DOJ partisans to spy on the Trump team during the height of the presidential campaign and beyond.

Further, the FBI/DOJ didn’t bother to tell Congress’ Gang of Eight intelligence oversight group they were conducting this surveillance on the Trump campaign. They waited eight months.

A question to ask before going any further: Did the FBI agents, with their bias becoming clearer with each passing text, truly believe Carter Page was a Russian spy out to hurt America? Or were his past contacts with Russia a pretext for conducting surveillance on the Trump operation?  

Seems the answer is pretty obvious.

Donald Trump said Obama had “wire-tapped” him. He was loudly mocked and ridiculed. However, Obama’s spokesman only said “neither Obama or any White House official” had ordered surveillance. That only means Obama’s signature wasn’t on the warrant.

But were his fingerprints?

Little Round Top

The memo itself is very narrow. It’s talking only about one FISA warrant (with renewals) against one guy. In the big stew, this is one potato. Reading the memo, I see why people would agree with Comey’s tweet. Or at least the first couple words. “That’s it?” Sure, the implications are criminal. But why in the world were Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, the DOJ/FBI establishment brass and all their media minions throwing tremendous firepower down on one little memo? You heard it all week. You are still hearing it today. It’s apocalyptic.


We’re at the Battle of Gettysburg at Little Round Top. Remember from history class or the movie Gettysburg? Joshua Chamberlain and his 20th Maine were on Little Round Top, at the very end of the Union Army’s left flank. The Confederates were preparing an attack at that very spot. Chamberlain and his commanders knew the score. If they did not hold that small bit of ground, if they gave way there, the rest of the Union defensive line would be rolled up. The battle — and likely the war — would be lost. It was that simple. It was that life-or-death.

Chamberlain and his men flung themselves down Little Round Top at the enemy in a furious, maybe even suicidal, bayonet charge. The Confederate attack was repelled. The Union was saved.

The stakes are the same here. If this one story about how the FBI and DOJ misused the FISA court to spy on this one Trump advisor takes hold, the rest of the party line starts to collapse. (See the questions below.) The memo is only about 10% of what the House Intelligence Committee has coming, Sara Carter reported Friday night. Committee Chairman Devin Nunes revealed the memo is the first of many such memos. The State Department’s actions in regards to the Russian collusion narrative are currently under investigation. That’s just the House.

Chuck Grassley’s Senate Judiciary Committee is also set to release a report. As the Stream reported a couple weeks ago, we already know the CIA and White House were using the (false) dossier to push the narrative on Congress and the media. Musician and Clinton pal Moby and Obama official Evelyn Farkas publicly admitted it.

And then there’s the DOJ Inspector General’s report, expected within a month. While the MSM has been spending a year ranting about Trump-Russia collusion without offering proof, IG Michael Horowitz has been quietly collecting evidence of what the DOJ and FBI were up to during the 2016 election. According to The Washington Post and CBS News, some of its findings already cost Andrew McCabe his job. 

Questions Raised by the Use of the Dossier

On Saturday, Donald Trump said the Memo “totally vindicates” him in the Russia probe.

It is premature to declare total vindication. But answers to the following questions will go a long way to exposing the effort to overthrow the president.

  1. What Obama agencies used the false dossier as a basis for pushing the Russian collusion claim in an effort to undermine the President?
  2. Is it just chance that these agencies, from the FBI and DOJ to CIA to DOD were pushing the same dossier? The same narrative? Who in the Obama Administration gave the green light?
  3. Who gave the order for CIA agents to tell Moby the dossier was “100% true” and to spread it on social media? (Does this explain why anti-Trumper and former CIA director John Brennan was leading the anti-Memo charge?)
  4. Who exactly unmasked and leaked names and information to further the Russian narrative? Why did National Security Advisor Susan Rice lie about her knowledge of the unmasking? (This alone puts the story close enough to the Oval Office to give the MLK bust noogies.)
  5. If a minor Trump adviser like Carter Page was considered a Russian agent worthy of surveillance for his contacts with Russia and connection to a Presidential candidate, why not Clinton campaign manager John Podesta? Podesta (along with his company) was an actual lobbying agent for Russia. Where was the surveillance against him?
  6. Michael Flynn’s judge was a FISA court judge. He was recused just days after Flynn’s guilty plea and the revelations of the Strzok-Page “plans” and “insurance policy.” And now, right before the Memo was released, Flynn and Mueller ask the court to delay sentencing. Did revelations about the FISA abuse independent of the House revelations lead both to the recusal and the delay? Will fruit of the poisoned tree get everything Mueller’s done so far tossed into the trash?
  7. What was the wife and writing partner of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson doing at the White House when this dossier business was getting underway?
  8. Since Hillary and DNC paid for the dossier what exact role did they play in the dissemination? After all, they owned and controlled the dossier.

These are just a few questions connected to the dossier and surveillance. The abuse of American citizen Carter Page in the pursuit of selling a political narrative is only the start.

Or maybe the middle. Just ask the video-maker jailed for the video Obama blamed for Benghazi.

Again, if the memo revelations gain traction, the rest will fall.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Chip Crawford

    We need to keep in mind that so much of this involves assertions without the corroborating evidence at this point. While I credit the authors and handlers of the memo, we do need to stick to a standard of proper authentication with all such serious assertions. They know more than they can reveal in one session, but given the force of the opposition, I pray they be proof producing as much as possible with all assertions.

  • Patmos

    To the left, leak after leak from unnamed sources published by biased news outlets are definitive proof of guilt, but their response to information released through proper channels by governing bodies whose job it is to investigate this kind of thing? Waaaahaaahaa! Lies! Lies!

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Nicely outlined & w/test questions to boot. Questions that won’t be addressed by the MSM.
    Democrats will likely swing even further to the left ( is that possible ? ) to solidify their base.
    I don’t know. Are there enough WAPO & NYT’s readers to stabilize their diminishing base ?
    There are certainly not enough BLM folk to do that. Neither are there sufficient numbers of Hollywood elites, near elites & never will be elites to make that much of a difference.
    Looks like DACA is their last hope for a return to democratic party rule. The ” memos” that will follow this first of many other likely even more incriminating revelations of duplicity, disingenuousness & disregard for the American people are incubating .
    In the world of political intrigue there may finally be the equivalent for the party of resistance, a contemporary take on that bloody battle on the western plains. Question is who will be playing the leading role in this rendition of ” Custer’s last stand ” ..?!

  • Concerned Christian

    Let’s add #9

    Do we really have an accurate picture considering democrats have not released their version of the story?


    If Trump and/or members of his administration are found to have actually colluded with the Russians would this vindicate Obama and the justice department?


    Again if guilty, will republicans, in congress, who have protected trump be forced to resign in shame?

    • Bryan

      I have to ask: If your #10 and #11 are not true, will you consent that maybe there is a bias against the current president that has little to do with fact and substance and more to do with politics and partisanship?

      • Concerned Christian

        This is a funny one. Think about this:

        Trump brags about grabbing women by their privates

        Billy Bush is fired from his job

        Trump is accused of sexually harassing 26 women

        Steve Wynn, casino mogul and republican doner resigns from his own company amid sexual misconduct allegations

        Trump trashes the NFL over the anthem protest

        Papa Johns CEO is fired for making the same comments.

        Action Plan:
        Trump makes racist comments about Mexicans.

        Fired from NBC and becomes president.

        This list could go on and on. Any bias against Trump is certainly in his favor. You can’t be the public face of any public company in America and you can’t be on tv doing the things that trump has done. Yet, he is still president.

        If there’s bias, it’s that Trump can clearly do and get away with anything that even billionaires can’t get away with. 🙂

Lessons From a Stolen Bike
Alex Chediak
More from The Stream
Connect with Us