The first paragraphs give the game away.
The memo purports to update the Intelligence Committee on “significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the [DOJ and FBI] and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle.”
Except that is not what the committee is supposed to be investigating. The committee is supposed to be investigating whether and to what extent Russia and Trump colluded to with the 2016 presidential election. But, evidently the author of the memo (we do not know who authored the memo, voices in and around Washington believe the piece could easily have been written within the White House, something that Representative Nunes had ample opportunity to deny and did not) the authors did not like the real task, determining whether or not Trump and Russia colluded in the election. Instead, the authors recast the committee’s purpose as one of tearing apart the FBI and its investigation, and thus it did seek to look into the FBI’s use of the FISA during the 2016 election cycle.
Distilled to its essence, the author of the memo attempts to tie the people who signed FISA applications (Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications on behalf of the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ., four of these people are Republicans, two remain in the Trump administration) all who did so, signed those applications without telling the FISA court that part of the information gleaned in the application came from a person on the payroll of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
That’s the revelation that Sean Hannity refers to as the “biggest scandal in the history of our nation.” (Yes, he said that).
Withholding the fact that Steele was hired to investigate Trump and that some of the material forming the basis of the affidavit comes from that assignment would be far more damning if the Steele dossier were the only evidence used within the affidavits, and-or if the assertions in the dossier were inherently weak. Neither is the case. It is already well-established that the FBI and Democrats insist the memo to be reckless precisely because it leaves out the other evidence put forth in the affidavits for a FISA warrant that came from other sources not affiliated with the Clinton campaign.
The memo does nothing more than regurgitate two other talking points now old to the average Hannity viewer. The memo states that Obama associate attorney general Bruce Ohr had met with Steele and says he was politically biased. You will need to figure out how that makes any sense because an associate attorney general meeting with a man who has been investigating a campaign that is involved with Russians doesn’t set off alarm bells in my mind. Last, it appears there was once an FBI agent who was not a fan of Trump and texted about it. I am positive Hillary Clinton supporters are highly sympathetic, goodness knows what it would be like to have FBI agents opposed to a political campaign, one might ask Rudy Guliani who described the FBI in a near “coup” over Comey’s refusal to charge Hillary Clinton, but I digress.
I digressed because there’s nowhere else to go! There is no “there” there.
What little there “is” could easily be rebutted by releasing the Democrats memo which would provide “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say. But, we won’t hear the “rest of the story.” The Trump White House didn’t write this memo in a pursuit of truth, that much, now, is for sure.