Read The #NunesMemo Here

Monitoring Twitter, a number of people are reporting some download sites aren’t working. So, since WUWT has been setup to handle such things (Climategate for example) here is the memo in full. Some might say “Why is WUWT getting into the polictical mess that has nothing to do with climate?”.

Well, if you monitor Twitter like I do, you’ll see that many of the major players in climate alarmism are Tweeting about it. I figure if Michael Mann can rail about it

…the least I can do is provide a link for the document.

370598711-House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses (PDF)

(updated to include Mann’s Tweet)

Advertisements

440 thoughts on “Read The #NunesMemo Here

  1. Steele shopped the “dossier” to several news outlets, none of which thought enough of it to publish, except perhaps the Carter Page trip. But the FBI used this to get FISA warrants.

    • Huh? But John (War Hero) McCain thought enough of it to distribute the “Dossier” widely. Sorry, but I would like to see McCain put BACK into a Hanoi Hilton … American style

      • McCain could be defended on the grounds that he does not have his full mental faculties, which is a reasonable assumption of a good portion of senators, and it would hard to argue otherwise

      • I don’t think that’s true. IIRC, McCain received it, and forwarded it to the FBI in case they were interested. Seems to have acted as a good citizen.

      • I see where McCain has put out a statement taking the side of the criminals in the FBI and DOJ. What happened to you, John?

      • I think McCain’s involvement in the Discredited Dossier needs to be investigated. His story sounds a little unbelievable to me.

      • Don’t be too hard on the guy he had his brains beat in 50 some years ago; and I suspect he has suffered some loss of brain function due to brain cancer. We don’t know. One less Senate term and he would have gone out a hero. My Father in-law died of brain cancer and changed his opinions about many thing his last 5 years.

      • As a proud Arizonan and Air Force veteran, I will gladly admit the McCain is the poster child of the DC swamp-dweller. He should have retired 20 years ago.

      • McCain is simply a classic RINO. He’s as much a swamp-dweller/gravy-train rider/status-quoer as all the others.

      • “I don’t think that’s true. IIRC, McCain received it, and forwarded it to the FBI in case they were interested. Seems to have acted as a good citizen.”

        You mean seems to have acted as a good false witness against his neighbor?

      • Great thinking, Kenji. Anyone who doesn’t support Trump belongs in jail. MAGA!

        Don’t worry about the fact that McCain says he simply gave the Dossier to the head of the FBI. That’s fake news. Everything that doesn’t help Trump is Fake News.

      • Those of you who believe that McCain is simply a swamp creature should look back to 2005 and 2006, when McCain was the leading candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. At that point, our strategy in Iraq was failing and public support for the war was fading away. The last thing any candidate wanted to do at that time was support an unpopular war. Nevertheless, McCain had made many trips to Iraq and believed that our strategy was flawed and needed more resources. McCain spoke out vigorous and disappeared in the polls. After wasting another year and a half, President Bush took the advice first suggested by McCain and began a surge. In six months, the tide had turned and within two years Iraq was essentially free of violence. (Unfortunately, Obama, Biden, and Clinton threw away that victory and ISIS captured Mosul in 2014.)

        Was it worth the cost? Maybe not, but it avoided another defeat like Vietnam. John McCain sacrificed his place as the leading candidate for the nomination to prevent such a defeat. When the Surge succeeded, he came out of oblivion to win the nomination. With a financial crisis and Bush and Cheney so unpopular that they didn’t even attend the Republican convention, it wasn’t a good year to be a Republican candidate for President.

        Whatever you idiots want to believe about McCain (and he has many weaknesses, including his age today), it is idiocy to suggest that he doesn’t act on principle: From the day he turned down early release from an North Vietnamese POW camp (offered because he was an admiral’s son) until now. You might compare him to a similarly flawed “war-monger” featured in Darkest Hour.

      • Remember when McC first ran for Congress? His platform was “fixing” the VA. And once in Congress he did NOTHING to fix the Va, he hopped right into the swamp and wallowed about merrily. As for Iraq in ’05-’06, W had taken the sage advice of Leaders in Congress, McC among them, and ignored what the military was advising. John McC has always operated on principle, the principle of advancing John McC at any cost.

      • Except that McCain made very sure he didn’t criticize Obama. And Sarah Palin was prevented from doing the same, even though there was a mountain of evidence that Obama wasn’t the candidate he claimed to be. Even back then the MSM were carrying tons of water for they guy.

    • Just love that word “dossier”, take a few scraps of information, call it a dossier, and voila. Rather like taking some climate data, and calling it “multiple lines of evidence”.

    • Steele/Fusion GPS shopped the Discredited Dossier to numerous news outlets. The reason none of them ran with any of the stories is because they couldn’t verify any of them.

      One or two news outlets wrote stories saying the Discredited Dossier existed, but gave no details of anythig in it.

      Steele, Fusion GPS and Hillary Clinton and the DNC were definitely trying to get these lies about Trump out to the public to harm Trump’s candidacy.

      If Hillary had been elected we wouldn’t know anything about this and the Deep State would be tightening its grip on our freedoms with encouragement from Hillary.

      We got SO lucky on Nov. 8, 2016! Dodged a bullet, we did.

      • We delayed the socialist movement by at least 4 years, but wasn’t the crushing blow I had hoped for. All it did was enrage the left and start the process of their revenge by ramping up the same smear tactics they employed before the election. All of this is only meant to disrupt the progress of this administration. All these people who perpetrated this appear to me to have dabbled in treason. Can anybody set me straight on that?

      • Stay strong Pop. Who knows whether the delay you mention will extend to 8 years?

        I would argue in just a single year, much of what went before is being steadily reversed and will continue to be. That’s what happens when you rule via EO, rather than have your policies enacted into law. Perhaps Trump will understand this as well. It would seem he’s no fool.

        What you see as “treason” they see as “patriotism”, for at the present time at least 1/2 of the country and even more of the young are convinced that some form of Statism is the only viable political solution. When you’re fooled in such a way your actions can’t be treasonous, on the contrary, it’s treason not to commit treason to rid the country of the vile pest that is your political enemy. This is the way of the Statist.

        Perhaps the wiser ones will recognize everything they’d been taught from their youth was a lie…all they know is false and there’s another way. The American way of old.

        It can happen. With God all things are possible.

      • We’ve been told by reliable sources that the Nunes memo is only a tenth of what’s to come. There are still other areas of government abuses and criminality that have to be investigated.

    • Actually, Buzzfeed did publish it.

      They are currently being sued into oblivion, as is Christopher Steele.

  2. Wow. That memo is pretty damning. It kind of blows up the whole Russian collusion story.

    The collusion story was dubious all along, but with this memo, it is confirmed to be all DNC funded non-sense.

    • Actually, this validates Russian collusion with Obama/Clinton surrogates at the highest levels in US Intel and Justice to alter a US presidential election and after failing to do so, to bring down an elected US President. I would suggest the former is fraud and the latter is treason. Further, the exchange of a significant portion of US uranium to Russia for $140 million to the Clinton (non-charity) slush fund involving some of the same players begs thorough investigation. We should all be very thankful for President Trump’s victory over these crooks.

      • Now they need to go back to the Clinton emails ….. and have a deep and very close look at the Clinton foundation and its funding .

        There is a series of articles about the Clinton Foundation and operations in Papua new Guinea (PNG) which makes for very “interesting” reading:
        http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/.services/blog/6a0177444b0c2e970d017c316da33e970b/search?filter.q=clinton+foundation

        The 5th article down the page is entitled: “Wall St analyst grills Turnbull on Australia’s breach of US law in funding Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative “

        The 6th article makes fascinating reading and is headed “Letter accompanying my 1st criminal complaint to the FBI re Clinton Foundation and Australian taxpayer funded donations.”

        I came across this a few weeks ago through a link in an article at Jo Nova’s site.

      • Second that, absolutly correct.

        Classic leftist projection, accusing Trump of what the Democrats are guilty off. The Clintons got 500k$ from the Russians for Bills speech, and she pushed the Uranium deal through. The DNC and Hillary’s PAC paid for the Steele dossier, and he got the information from the Russians.

        There is the infamous Bill/attorney general secret tarmac meeting, and the FBI caught delaying and softening the Hillary e-mail scandal so it did not come out before the election.

        If anyone else would have handled classified like she die, there would be an indictment.

      • “Further, the exchange of a significant portion of US uranium to Russia for $140 million to the Clinton (non-charity) slush fund involving some of the same players begs thorough investigation.”

        Yes, definitely.

        One significant player during the Russian Uranium One deal was FBI Director Robert Mueller. The FBI had an informant right in the middle of this swindle; one who knew all the players and knew who was doing what to who, and he was in this position for years. So you have to assume that the FBI Director would also have know all about this deal. The president, too.

        The “Deal” consisted of paying bribes and other illegal activities on both the Russian side and the American side and was clearly an illegal conspir@cy in order to facilitate the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to what ultimately was Russia.

        So I wonder what Robert Mueller’s role in all this was. Why didn’t Mueller call attention to all this illegal activity and kill this sale? If he knew about these crimes and then did nothing, that makes him complicit in the crime. And now he is in a position to prosecute President Trump.

        Yeah, we are going to need a lot more investigations going in the future.

        Trump’s saving grace is he is as clean legally as the driven snow. If he wasn’t, they would already have found it. So they have nothing on Trump with which to change the focus of this criminality that has and is taking place at the FBI and the DOJ.

        The Democrats and the MSM will be working overtime to try to protect the Obama administration officials involved in these crimes. These are the times when we need an unbiased media, but we have just the opposite: a leftwing propaganda machine bent on gaining political power for the Left, not on seeking the truth.

        At least now we have a Rightwing media that balances out the Leftwing.

      • @TA
        The point is not to find a smoking gun, which they know they can’t. It’s to keep the pot boiling for as long as they can for maximum negative impact and disruption to the President’s agenda.

    • Everything that followed from the fake dossier and its misrepresentation to the FISA courts should be viewed as fruit from the poisoned tree. There would be no Mueller investigation without it. People would not have been put under a microscope for infractions, no one feeling cornered and resorting to a lie. Everyone indicted or convicted of anything should be given complete and absolute pardons. Not to do so would be rewarding the bad actors who supported the Democrat Party.

      Every one of us has or is violating laws of one sort or another, from the elderly who put their prescription medicines in pill-reminder cases (a felony in most states not to carry the pills in their original bottles, complete with the prescription and your name on it) to those putting regular gasoline in cars requiring high-octane fuel to maintain emission standards. Turning a person’s life up-side down to find violations in a political-motivated witch hunt should not be allow any successes.

      And it should be clear, if there were obstruction, which I doubt, it was to obstruct an injustice, not justice.

    • The Democrats wanted an insurance policy to protect them and their past deeds. They needed desperately to keep a Republican admin off-balance. The obvious political bias in disregarding IRS and EPA crimes by the Obama DOJ needed protecting from being investigated.

      • Did you ever try to knock an elephant off-balance? Trump is crazy like a fox and already knows their game.

    • I don’t know. I don’t really see any new information in this. The FBI used the Steele Dossier despite it being funded by partisans and didn’t disclose conflicts of interest. That’s really it. It also reveals that a number of personnel involved had severe conflicts of interest involved.

      Where’s the outrage coming from, y’all? What am I missing that makes this worthy of so much discussion?

      • not quite
        the dossier was created to be used for a fake narrative of russian collusion.
        it was an attempted coup.

      • The Discredited Dossier was used to lie to the FISA Court in order to get permission to listen in on the Trump campaign and presumably to find some dirt or illegality with which to attack the Trump campaign and bring it down.

        The political party in power, the Democrats, the Obama administration, was using the power of the federal government to try to sway an American presidential election using lies and half-truths. You don’t have a problem with that?

      • TA, however, there was other evidence against Page. A significant amount of it. Reason.com has no love for the Mueller investigation, but they posted an article a few days ago listing all the evidence the FBI would have had available at the time. There is no way they could not have legitimately had probable cause for a warrant.
        Note, the memo itself does not state what other information was available.
        This seems to be evidence of sloppiness or padding a case with weak evidence. At worst, an attorney is deserving of censure from the Bar Association.

      • Sadly, the FBI does not appear to have used that info in their request. Don’t know if they found it ‘incredible’ or not, the fact is they didn’t use it.

      • The outrage is that fake information, paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, was used by high level government agents to spy on and try to discredit a Presidential nominee.

        Are you really to dim to see that?

      • I think the worst infraction that the memo brings to light is that FBI and DOJ leadership, who are required to sign off on a FISA warrant to bring it in front of the FISC, lied to the court by leaving out the politically motivated “dossier”, as stated under 1a of the pdf.

      • You’re kidding right? They used a dossier that they knew was BS to get a warrant to wiretap and surveil members of the opposition party during an election with the hope of damaging Trump’s campaign.
        The next question is if they lied to the fisa judge.
        It’s every bit a big deal as watergate.

      • They also included a Yahoo news article.
        The memo does not note whether these were central pieces of evidence or included as an “other references” in the back of the proposal. That’s a critical difference. One would be a problem. The other would be essentially mandatory.

      • “There is no way they could not have legitimately had probable cause for a warrant.”

        Then why didn’t they use the legitimate probable cause for the warrant rather than the illegitimate, which it would appear they knew as such??

      • The outrage is quite simple Ben –numerous laws have been broken in the game they played using the concocted dossier to obtain the FISA warrant to spy on Trump and his team.
        Also if they had all this evidence on Page why has he not been charged?
        They used the Page issue to widen the FISA scope into a Title 1 warrant –this allows them to spy on anyone that Page had contact with. That is, they had their excuse to spy on Trump and team –their ultimate goal. You should note in the memo they under line not when they say “not under Title VII “

      • Ben …. the outrage, is that the National Intelligence System and the FBI were weaponized by the Democrat Party and Obama Administration to target an opposing political candidate, AND that they literally BROKE the law on behalf of the DNC by violating the FISA rules and 4th Amendment of the US Constitution by deliberately omitting important information when applying for the FISA warrant.

        Also, you say there was other evidence. That is not true in context. McCabe is on record that they could not have gotten the warrant without the dossier, AND the Yahoo story was not independent corroboration of the dossier, but same sourced from Steele. The other two pieces of info, Papadopolis was not relevant to a warrant on Page, and the previous interest in Page was not relevant to the underlying allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia. Thus …. as McCabe said, there would have been no warrant without the dossier, as that was the piece that provided any link to Trump.

      • @Ben of Houston: the source for the Yahoo news article was Steele himself. It was a trick to lend credibility to the dossier, a circular reference.

      • Ben, the FBI’s Former Assistant Director McCabe testified before Congress and told them that the FBI would not have sought the FISA warrant if they did not have the Discredited Dossier. So it appears the Dossier was central to their obtaining a warrant.

        The Democrats claim this is not true, but Congressman Nunes is now working on making McCabe’s testimony public as a result of this Democrat criticism, so we shall see.

  3. Climate alarmists are all over this because they are more about partisan politics than science.

    • Climate warming has impacted the brains of ALL conservatives and lovers of our US Constitution … what else could be the tie-in ? Soon … NASA will report that 2018 is destined to be the HOTTEST EVER …no really … EVER ! on record.

    • Well, it’s because this is the way progressives handle EVERYTHING.
      And don’t forget – it would be absolutely impossible without the collusion of the press.
      Remember how Climategate was shoved back up the horse’s a$$?
      Then think back about how EVERY scandal on that side of the aisle was dealt with similarly?

    • The Alarmists also have an interest in seeing Trump’s influence diminished or eliminated because Trump is about the only one standing in the way of their proceding with their CAGW delusion.

      So just about anything that has to do with Trump and his success or lack thereof, also has something to do with Global Warming/Climate Change.

      As Trump goes, so goes the climate change debate.

    • Leftists are by definition Borg like. No surprise they have little ideological diversity among them and swarm together across a large number of political issues.

    • There’s an Inspector General report that is due to be made public in about 30 days that is supposed to be a thorough investigation of the DOJ and the FBI.

      The U.S. Congress needs to keep digging in this mess. They got us this far, and it’s their job to get us to the finish line. We don’t need special prosecutors or others to be involved if Congress and the Attorney General will do their jobs.

    • Ask Iceland. Something like 29 confederates/reps of the same financial criminal cabal (that also enabled/perpetrated/encouraged what has just been revealed in America) are now in prison after they deliberately ran up untenable debt, then tried to foreclose on the country. Iceland missed a handful of the perps who made it to the airport and managed one-way tickets to anywhere ahead of the citizens .

      America has the law to shut treasonous acts like this this down and give those who were behind this giganticus raticus fornicus nice sabbaticals and quiet places to think about what went wrong.

      The question is, are there enough honest people left in Washington who care about America enough to do it? Or have they all been compromised by the international financial cartel–The City–headquartered on a square mile independent nation located in the middle of London that answers to no other nation on earth because of their mega wealth that’s estimated into the hundreds of trillions, and to whom billionaires defer?

  4. The memo seems pretty dry and non-partisan to me. It just runs through (some of?) the information knowingly withheld from the FISC, with all the implications of enabling corruption in the FBI and DOJ.

    I don’t see any reason for Democratic Party leaders to complain about release of the memo as a political attack, or to worry that the release is an assault on national security or an insult to due process.

    • The Democratic Party is directly involved in trying to impeach Trump because of Russia ties. Of course they are offended by the truth. Of course this is all they have on Trump and they want to find any dirt they can by spying on their competitors…

      • Most of what I know of US law comes from “Law and Order”. So I could be way off base here, but…

        Doesn’t this memo essentially remove all collusion evidence due to the whole “Fruit of the Forbidden Tree” rules?

      • I’m not sure if “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” would exclude collusion evidence; but at this point there appears to be no collusion evidence to exclude.

      • So far the only evidence of collusion is between the Clintons, Obama Admin and multiple foreign nationals. Oh, and several high ranking employees of DoJ/FBI/IRS and EPA/DeptInterior.

      • Jeff,

        Not a lawyer but remember hearing this from a different case. If a prosecutor can prove material could reasonably have been found without the poisoned information they may convince a judge to let it stand. Of course the defense lawyers will be arguing that all evidence needs to be tossed so it would come down to a judges legal opinion. If that judge allows evidence to remain it gives the defense lawyer that much more ammo to use in an appeal if their client is found guilty.

        As an aside, earlier this week Mueller delayed sentencing of Flynn. I’ve been wondering if he’s preparing to defend his actions against Flynn from the fruit of the poisoned tree defense Flynn’s lawyer will be hitting him with now.

      • Dale,

        “I’m not sure if “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” would exclude collusion evidence”

        “Collusion” is not even a crime . . this has been more like an attempted coup, I’m convinced, by what many now call a “deep State”, than a real investigation of anything. That’s why the establishment mass media went “all in” for the election, and beyond; They are the intended/expected public relations arm of an intended/expected post-Constitutional Republic Government, that was about to go full “globalism”.

    • OK … here’s an idea to make the Dems suddenly care … The RNC should hire a retired Mossad Agent to develop a Dossier on each and every Democrat running for Congress in the 2018 midterm election. The results should be both leaked and given to the DOJ and FBI to form a basis for secret surveillance (don’t call it “wiretapping”) into each and every Democrat candidate. All “approved” by the FISA Court of course. Simply DO the EXACT same THING that SHE did. I am impatiently waiting for HER perp walk. Has SHE Lawyered-up today ?

    • The FISA judge who was lied to should call to account the attorneys who misrepresented their facts to the Court. I don’t know any judge that likes being lied to. I wouldn’t want to be those lawyers.

      • That’s the part where I would think there are actual laws that were broken, no? Shouldn’t there be requirements in place that all facts and reasons for obtaining a warrant need to be disclosed, and that withholding any relevant facts is tantamount to lying to the court/judge?

    • Pat, what’s your take on the extreme defensive reaction taken by the msm on this though? PBS just had a round table of pundits waving their hands saying “nothing to see here!”.

      My view is that the thrust of the memo hinges on whether or not it is true that McCabe testified that without the Steele dossier the FISA surveillance request qould have been denied.

      • If there was nothing to see, then why was the FBI saying so loudly that it would undermine national security and reveal ‘methods’?

        If there is no ‘there’ there, why all the fuss? For the FBI this is a Catch 22. They should not have opposed releasing it.

      • Oh, the memo revealed “methods”, alright–those of a secretive, anti-Trump, pro-Hillary cabal designed to give Hillary a pass and attempt a coup against President Trump.

        Those are some “methods”!

        I’m just wondering what were the “sources” for these “methods”?

  5. It’s really becoming an invariable law that whatever Democrats accuse others of doing is exactly what the Democrats themselves are doing.

  6. Just a Canadian here observing. Can’t say as I am a big fan of Trump (the man) but it seems anywhere the Clintons find purchase a great stink is bound to appear. Hillary is worse than Bill, or clumsier, or both.

    • Bill is easy to figure out. If it jiggles he is motivated. Hillary is vile and evil. She is the most cheated on woman in America.

      • Hillary blamed Bills upbringing/mother/nofather for Bills stuff. Bill conned her (and she thought she was smarter than him so she went along with it). Bill is motivated by conning people … jiggly people, greedy people, stupid people, envious people … it’s what he does. The con is more important than the outcome.

        (with Trump, the outcome is primary)

      • “Hillary blamed Bills upbringing/mother/nofather for Bills stuff.”

        There is something to these realities. Take a look at ‘Obama’s’ childhood, at least what we actually know about it. Recipe for what he became and for a readily manipulated puppet.

      • The Memo refers to the illegal surveillance of Carter Page; how many additional FISA warrants were obtained by The Obama Administration and Dept of Justice? Deprivation of rights under color of law is a Federal crime punishable by 10 years in a Federal prison if found guilty by a court of law is the relevant statue of the abuse of state power violated by the DOJ, FBI and Obama Administration personnel who requested a FISA court warrant to surveil Trump campaign people using False information supporting a FISA application. Lying under oath to a Federal Judge would be another crime. That the counter intelligence application to surveil Carter Page was submitted 4 times, in part to renew the warrant, each with the phony Steele Dossier included, removes all doubt about intent to lie, an intentional failure to validate and confirm the details in the dossier, while revealing a pattern of abuse of power and the corruption of the Dept of Justice by appointees at the highest levels that far exceeds the historical and political significance of the Watergate break-in of the DNC head quarters by dirty tricks plumbing squad of the Nixon campaign in the months prior to the 1972 election. How many in the Obama White House knew of this illegal FISA surveillance, the leaking of confidential information to the media and the illegal unmasking of innocent Americans caught up in a so called counter intelligence operation after the election to try to discredit a newly elected President and to create a rationale for a Special Prosecutor to impeach him.

  7. The memo seems to be truncated. There’s no wrap up, conclusion, or summary. Just as they get rolling it suddenly stops.

    • this just the first memo. It has been reported that there are others and that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

      • That perception is because we have become used to “journalism” in place of “reporting.”

        Who – the DNC, Steele, Perkins-Coie, McCabe, Rosenstein, etc. Notice no mention of Obama, Clinton, Lynch; there is nothing certain (right now, prior to a full investigation) to say that they were involved beyond “Will no-one rid me of this troublesome candidate,” wink, wink, nod, nod.

        What – multiple FISA warrant requests, signed by top FBI and DOJ officials.

        Why – to prevent the election of Donald Trump, and by default the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton.

        Where – in the FISC courtroom, where the arguments for “probable cause” were made while omitting any mention of the partisan origins of the “dossier,” the bias of its author, and the lack of any real corroboration. (The main “corroboration” appears to be Yahoo! News…)

        When – during the primary election campaign (after Trump became a serious possibility for the nomination), during the general election campaign, after the defeat of Clinton, continuing to the present day.

        Just the facts, ma’am. We’ll leave it up to the American people to decide what those facts mean. Which very much makes the screams about “partisanship” look ridiculous.

        (As Republicans do make the inevitable partisan use of the memo, though, they should run Chuck Schumer’s statement that the American people are too stupid to understand what is in it. Even those who are stupid do not like to be called stupid. Hammer that, 2018 campaign managers!)

      • livermoron: Yes, this first memo explains that the underlying classified documents will show that the FISA court was lied to by the FBI and DOJ plus, importantly, it lists the names of the principal parties behind the lies.

        Assuming Sessions acts as a functioning AG, he will now start investigations into those principals, impanel a grand jury, and seek indictments of everyone mentioned in the memo. They will be forced to lawyer up, for starters, and then their lawyers will start to see if they can cut deals to get their particular principal off lightly for spilling his guts.

        And getting someone to spill is essential to stopping the madness surrounding this entire matter. Until someone does, the liberal press can, and will, continue to obfuscate. But once a principal they’ve been defending to the hilt as an upstanding citizen comes out and admits serious wrongdoing and starts naming names, liberal members of the press will be forced to reassess their coverage, since they will be proven to have been dead wrong for months.

        Serious jail time is required for two key reasons. First, so anyone considering doing it in the future knows the likely consequences. And second, to convince the liberal journalists that they not only missed the most important political story of this century (so far at least), but that they even took the wrong side and helped cover it up.

  8. It escapes me why National Security should be so imperiled by this to warrant a top-secret classification on that ground. Covering up incompetence and bias are another disgraceful matter

    • The specifics on who signed what is definitely at lease CONFIDENTIAL. I guess the fact that this memo will make Americans doubt the legitimacy of the FISA may be a National Security concern. But you are correct. I don’t see how this could have ever been TOP SECRET. Seems kind of ridiculous.

    • You are absolutely correct. If there are any good journalists left, they should badger the DOJ and FBI to explain what they found objectionable to the memo’s release.

      • sorry can’t provide you with that information … it could give insight to sources/methods that could then shed light on other programs, which of course could threaten national security.

      • ‘If there are any good journalists left…’

        If you sit through even one modern journalism class, you’ll see what’s being taught – and it’s no longer journalism. I was extremely lucky to have very ethical teachers on the subject (back before liberalism became progressivism) – and I have been aghast to watch the metamorphosis from objectivity, to bias, to open propaganda and social engineering.

        It’s also worth nothing that editors control content, not reporters. They are the gate-keepers of the messaging.

        Climate skeptics have gotten a front row seat for this kind of thing, but I think even here, there is a narrow view that doesn’t go on beyond the specific subject of AGW – it’s actually everywhere, on every issue, in every outlet.

    • The current and former FBI directors have now be-clowned themselves for all the world to see by their moaning, hand-wringing, and Chicken-Little behavior. Thank God my uncle has passed, he’d be mortally embarrassed by their antics.

    • lsvalgard: Just speculation on my part, but the memo was clearly prepared using classified materials that were provided to the Committee with restrictions that they remain classified. It’s probably standard practice in such cases that all derivative documents carry the same classification level, and hence must be properly declassified before general release.

      I agree, I don’t see anything here that imperils anything other than certain people’s careers.

      The truly damning information, which is not contained in this memo, would be evidence that intelligence gathered through FISA-approved surveillance made its way back to unauthorized people and used in the political campaign.

      • I expect the next step is to de-classify and release the FISA warrants and applications. As much as the democrats and swamp fought release of the memo, they’ll go insane fighting this next step. Could drag out to October.

      • Alan, You are correct. Documents prepared from classified material are deemed “automatically” to be classified themselves. Still it doesn’t explain, what was reported in the media, why the present FBI Director and some at DOJ objected on the grounds the memo describe methods and sources. Not that the memo is out it appears their objection was actually based on avoiding embarrassment or partisan politics.

      • Edwin:

        That is the obvious follow-up question, which I fully expect the MSM to ignore completely. There are two explanations, one sinister in a mundane way and the other just plain sinister. The first is simply that the swamp is protecting itself — senior officials at DOJ and FBI don’t want it disclosed they committed gross violations of procedure (what James Comey would probably describe as “extreme carelessness”) and are hiding behind the claim of vital national security.

        The second explanation is that this particular FISA warrant was not unusual; that the FBI and DOJ routinely waltz into the FISA court with a song and a dance and a dash of pixie dust and then waltz back out with permission to spy on whomever they please for whatever reasons seem good to them. And that possibly the FISC judges are selected precisely to be compliant in this regard. A whole bunch of people wouldn’t want that idea getting getting any traction and they may figure they have to conceal even the worst excesses to prevent people realizing there’s so much more of the same.

        It’s hard to tell who’s crazy these days — people wearing tinfoil hats or those not wearing them.

      • That’s just it. Where’s the fire? We knew essentially all of this already. The only real new information is that the FBI knowingly used bad information in court, which the cynical among us highly suspected anyway.

        That being said, I find the objections raised by those whom this shows in a negative light far more revealing than the memo itself. When the FBI actually stated that this presents a national security risk, and the result is simply that they presented questionable evidence without known qualifications (and thus might present a personal risk to reputation). I have to question why they would knowingly exaggerate to such a degree.

      • ” Still it doesn’t explain, what was reported in the media, why the present FBI Director and some at DOJ objected on the grounds the memo describe methods and sources. ”

        It’s easy to understand if their ‘methods and sources’ are to use fake evidence provided by the Russians to spy on their political opponents.

      • “That’s just it. Where’s the fire?”

        They knew the evidence for the FISA warrant was bogus. They used the bogus evidence to obtain the FISA warrant.

        Therefore, they knew the FISA warrant …was…bogus.

        This isn’t a problem why again?

      • Ben of Houston: Here’s what you don’t seem to get. The FISA court was scammed by the people named in the memo into authorizing surveillance on an American citizen. That in itself is probably a punishable crime. But this is the first memo. We also know that once the surveillance was underway, hundreds of requests were then made to unmask the names of other American citizens in the gathered intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, most of which were apparently granted.

        None of this should have happened. Most of it is probably criminal. But, beyond that, think about why it was going on. Without doubt, it’s purpose was to either get Clinton elected or, later, get Trump out of office. This constitutes weaponizing the DOJ/FBI by one political party to be used against the other party.

        If you see nothing wrong in all this, so be it.

        I would add that I, too, was somewhat disappointed in the memo, and maybe for the same reason as you. Anyone following credible news coverage of this entire matter already knew most of what the memo revealed. All it did was confirm, not reveal, except for adding a name or two to the list of culprits perhaps. The next memos, should they come, will reveal some of what I wrote above. Importantly, they won’t include the revelation that Trump colluded with the Russians because no such evidence exists. If it did, the people listed in that memo would have leaked it long ago.

    • TS was the appropriate original classification because it detailed sources used for information brought to FISA court. The fact that sources were bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC is the heart of the matter. The FBI misled by omission material information to a federal court.

      • TS was the appropriate original classification because it detailed sources used for information brought to FISA court.
        How do we know that? Or is it just assumption?

      • Usually when sources redacted or are not ascertainable from the info provided.
        TS when HUMINT sources are exposed is the usual classification guidance. That is the general principle that applies to all classification of foreign derived intelligence because HUMINT sources can be and have been killed if exposed. In this case, it was supposedly about Russian interference or Russian involvement with the targeted US citizen, Carter Page.

      • Usually Secret when sources redacted, omitted, or are not apparent…

        Basis: Career in the Air Force, with an SCI clearance, and a as a security manager. And conducting several investigations of various incidents.

    • Make you wonder doesn’t it? Hoe much other stuff out there is classified Top Secret only because is contains evidence of corruption?

    • FBI Warns Republican Memo Could Undermine Faith In Massive, Unaccountable Government Secret Agencies

      WASHINGTON—Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the “Nunes Memo” could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. “Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale,” said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. “If we take away the people’s faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that’s left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons.” At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating constitutional rights.

      https://politics.theonion.com/fbi-warns-republican-memo-could-undermine-faith-in-mass-1822639681?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing

  9. “By any means available” is a bit troubling, even from Mann. How far are the lunatics willing to take things?

  10. OK, it is now abundantly clear from the Nunes-Gowdy memo/summary that the totally bogus Steele “dossier” was used as the principal justification for the Obama DOJ/FBI to request surveillance of Carter Page, allegedly involved in “collusion with the Russkies”.

    With THREE subsequent extensions of that surveillance authority, the OBAMA administration used the vast powers of the DOJ/FBI to spy on various members of the Trump campaign/transition/administration without oversight – until now.

    This is the very definition of sedition/treason.

    My question: How could the FISA court judges be so fri**en’ stupid as to approve the surveillance in the first, second, third, and fourth place – – given that it was based on the politically motivated Steele “dossier” paid for by the Hillary campaign?

    Apparently, skepticism and critical thinking are not required skills for FISA judges.

    Bring them all down.

    • “My question: How could the FISA court judges be so fri**en’ stupid as to approve the surveillance in the first, second, third, and fourth place – – given that it was based on the politically motivated Steele “dossier” paid for by the Hillary campaign?”

      The information about the background to the Steele dossier was withheld from the FISA court. It should not have been.

      • Absolutely correct. In a probable cause hearing, the judge is only presented with information from one side – the side that wants a warrant to find evidence for prosecution. It does not matter whether the judge is the most venal, corrupt lapdog of the political machine / mob, or the free hand of blind Justitia is resting on their shoulder – they have to rule on the information they were given.

        There are some who argue that the “sensational” parts of the dossier should have been a big red flag. Um, not so – given the known antics of the rich, famous, and / or political. The Russian prostitutes fable is rather mild compared to the facts of the waitress sandwich, the Lolita Express, etc.

      • I can’t find the link right now but it shows that historically, over 99.9% of the requested FISA warrants get approved. Judges rely (way too much it seems) on the integrity of the applicants. Big mistake.

    • In addition to phaedo”s observation: we do not know (or at least I don’t) what judge signed off on it. Many have been appointed by Obama, many subscribe to the ‘by whatever means necessary’ philosophy. It is false to believe that all judges are politically neutral and competent.

      • There are 3 in DC, one of which was the judge that accepted Flynn’s plea in December. He was subsequently recused by SCOTUS a week later for undisclosed reasons.

    • James Comey sent out a tweet about an hour ago that starts, “That’s it?” My exact same reaction when I learned today just how easy it was to get a FISA warrant. No “dossier” = no FISA warrant. I am very concerned that a FISA warrant was previously issued for something/somebody simply based on a spirited comment thread here at WUWT that gave heartburn to a Mann/McKibben/Gore type, then converted to a “dossier” by friends in high places. /s

      • They used fraudulent information to get the warrants and the renewals. It would seem to me that is all that needs to be known for people to start going to jail. Someone had to swear to the judge that the information provided was to the best of their knowledge, factual in each of the four instances.

      • “Someone had to swear to the judge that the information provided was to the best of their knowledge, factual in each of the four instances.”

        Comey signed off on the Dossier being valid.

        He did this in Oct. 2016, two weeks before the election, and then when he talked to Trump personally in Jan. 2017, he told Trump the Dossier was “salacious and unverified” but Comey didn’t reveal to Trump that the Dossier had been sponsored by Hillary.

        When Trump wanted Comey to tell the public that there was nothing in the Dossier implicating Trump in anything, Comey refused and then this request was leaked to the MSM who then falsely claimed Trump was trying to subvert justice by “ordering” Comey to clear him.

        Comey signs off on a phony Dossier, which he knows is unverified, in order to get a wiretap warrant, and then after Trump is elected, Comey tells Trump there is nothing to the Dossier. Sounds like deliberate lying to me. To the FISA Court judge and then to President Trump.

        Comey should definitely be prosecuted for lying to a federal judge.

  11. Former president Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.

    https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&data_type=efiling&committee_id=C00199570

  12. the fact that no one at the FBI and DOJ have not been fired says that they are not fit to clean their own house.

    • FBI Director Comey was fired by Trump. Acting AG Yates was fired by Trump. McCabe has now gone on terminal leave. Had he not, he would have been fired. All were part of the Left’s Deep State shadow government attempting to run a coup against the constitutionally elected Trump.

      • If Comey was part of a shadow government trying to bring down Trump then he did an appalling job since he was responsible for getting him elected in the first place. All the polling evidence suggests that if he didn’t mention that he had reopened the investigation into Clinton’s missing emails then she would have won the election. Additionally he could have been “balanced” and stated that
        “we are investigating Clinton for missing emails and Trump for collusion with Russia” and again that would almost certainly have stopped Trump from winning. There might be a left wing deep state government but if there is then Comey is almost certainly on their enemies list.

      • LOL. SJWs always double down.

        If Comey had done his job, Clinton would have been in jail. Hopefully she soon will be.

      • Nobody said Comey was competent, Geronimo, just criminal. The whole scheme was drought with incompetence at every level, predicated on the belief that Cankles would win the election. She didn’t, and now the very tools they used to violate Trump’s (and others’) 4th Amendment rights are being used legally to bring them down. The irony (colloquially).

      • Comey had no choice, the Republicans had the evidence and were going to make it public.
        By doing it this way, he minimized the damage to the FBI and the Clinton campaign.

      • The re-opening of the Clinton email “matter” by Comey was an attempt at a damage control exercise, the information was about to enter or in severe danger of entering the public arena anyway.

        Problem for the Clinton campaign and their deep state operatives was that the discovery of the new material (the Weiner PC stuff) was so scandalous that no damage control exercise could do much to lessen its impact at that time.

      • For Geronimo — You do not understand the role of James Comey in the conspiracy/conspiracies. If you study Comey’s background, you can find how he and his career has been mentored and groomed over the years along with his family members to serve the interests of the RICOs, particularly as a Fixer whenever a member of the conspiracy became entangled as a suspect in civil and criminal legal proceedings. With respect to the 2016 election, Comey’s job was to ensure Hillary Clinton was falsely exonerated to clear her path as the DNC candidate for POTUS. However, the higher leadership of the conspiracy became concerned about Clinton’s REAL polling numbers being unsatisfactory, so they attempted to create plausible deniability very late in the campaign and election for James Comey in the event Clinton did lose the election and Comey ended up as new POTUS Trump’s Director of the FBI. The leadership of the conspiracy wanted Comey to remain as Director of the FBI, where he could continue to obstruct investigations of their corrupt activities and conduct activities to blackmail or otherwise defame and depose POTUS Trump and anyone else who got in their way. They viewed any damage done to Clinton’s campaign would be relatively inconsequential and very much less important than the need to protect the conspiracy’s infrastructure in the U.S. Government and themselves at all costs.

    • During the investigations by the House oversight committee, large numbers of text messages went missing from key players within the DOJ and FBI, who are all mentioned in the memo.
      It has also been learned that Andrew McCabe solicited members of his team to redact and amend their 302 (investigation interview) reports.
      Preliminary “reports” indicate that this mess will be revealed to be far worse than what we’ve seen, so far.

  13. A few technical points from this former lawyer. The FISC judge only knows what is put before him/her. The Nunes memo shows FBI knew Steele was anti-Trump but hid that from the judge. Knew Steel was paid by Fusiin GPS and Clinton plus DNC were paying Fusion. It was the FBIs legal obligation to present these facts also.
    Similar issues in the Texas DOJ reprimand (judge was so incensed that ordered all DOJ attornies attend mandatory judicial ethics training) and in the Bundy mistrial where Navada prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. Related is Holder held in contempt of Congress over fast and furious scandal. A lot of rot being exposed.
    Manns tweet is half right. We are in a constitutional crisis. His description of what that crisis is, is bigly wronger than his hockey stick.

    • The memo hints at the fact that because the target has no way to defend themselves, it is the obligation of the FBI to present the contrary facts. Obviously in this case they did not.

    • His description of what that crisis is, is bigly wronger than his hockey stick.

      Spell woken, sir!

    • I’m not a lawyer, but it appears to me that the Nunes memo is aimed at the FISC and the judge(s) who signed off on the order. If these judges are as competent and impartial as has been claimed by all, I would think there will be hell to pay by those at DoJ & FBI who failed to disclose clearly relevant info.

      • The FISA Court approves nearly every request put before it. That doesn’t necessarily make them a rubberstamp, but it’s worth looking into.

      • @Jeff and TA – don’t forget that the first warrant request was denied. Which is a very rare occurrence. I think we will find that the second one was mounted only when they had the Steele “dossier” in hand (which is why McCabe had an “oopsie” and testified that without that “evidence,” there would have been no warrant).

      • The second one came after Steele, yes. What hasn’t been reported was that Fusion GPS actually had access to the database until Admiral Rodgers discovered the illegal 702 abuses in April 2016 and shut them down. This was the reason for the dossier in the first place: to get their access back.

      • “@Jeff and TA – don’t forget that the first warrant request was denied. Which is a very rare occurrence.”

        I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder. Another little twist to this story.

    • does anybody not know that the hos peeing on the bed story came from 4chan?
      the same folks who successfully floated the meme that the OK sign was a white supremacist symbol (for the lulz, man!)

    • It needs to be observed how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was composed of 11 judges, all of whom were appointed by POTUS Obama. The FISC judge who granted the FISA warrant after another FISC judge denied it was Rudolph Contreras, who is also a controversial figure that recused himself in the case involving the Flynn case.

      • Clarification: It needs to be observed how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was composed of 11 judges, all of whom were appointed to FISC by Chief Justice Roberts during the Administration of POTUS Obama, and a few of whom were appointed as Federal District Court Judges by POTUS Obama, including Judge Rudolph Contreras.

  14. Some people are just in denial. I hope they go after this @sshole for fraud at some point.

    • Michael Mann: “once impeachment proceedings have commenced”

      Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, Michael.

    • He really seems to be a very nasty man. I do not think I have ever read anything he has said that was remotely nice or even neutral. Every word he says or writes seems to be pure spitefulness.

      I always thought Twitter was a stupid thing (how many times could anyone have anything to say in 140 characters that would be soooo worth reading?), but now I detest it because most people seem to use it as a vehicle for hate and abuse.

      • He’s usually defending against very nasty people. But really never read anything nice from his tweets?

  15. See how in lockstep they move. A germiane remark on the general state of Western media is this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-nixonian-media-buy-ticket-post/

    I believe there was a time when the main stream media, whatever it could be called in its earlier days, actually served the public good. True, there was and is yellow journalism, but the current form takes the propaganda machine to a whole new level. Like Madge says to her unwitting patron, “You’re soaking in it” – and not even Orwell fans take notice.



    I once thought that Joseph McCarthy was a complete nut. Now I wonder whether there was a kernel of legitimate concern in that form of thinking.

    • I concur with D.J. Hawkins comment. I would suggest getting a copy of “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans or at least view the decrypted files from the “Venona” project

    • Senator McCarthy was a pompous, egotistical, alcoholic politician who was led astray. While McCarthism is thrown around a lot most people don’t know that Robert Kennedy served as a committee staff attorney. Most people didn’t pay attention when the Venona Project was declassified and KGB files were open for review for several years. Both proved that McCarthy may not have been a 100% correct but he was headed in the right direction. Few people ever understood why Nixon was so hated by the news media and American progressives. He chaired a similar committee to McCarthy’s in the House but didn’t have McCarthy’s personal flaws for the left to exploit at the time.

      • Senator McCarthy was certainly pompous and egotistical (what politician isn’t?), and he did have an alcohol problem and he did sometimes go astray but he was mostly right and was crucified for being right by both the left-wing politicians and the MSM of that era.

      • Thanks for the reference to ‘Blacklisted by History’, Ricdre. I will read it.

        I believe it was in ‘A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America’, that Bruce Gibney described Richard Nixon in rather admirable terms, referring to what seemed to me to be rather progressive policies. This view of history was not one I was well acquainted with, since Nixon is the butt of all ‘crook’ jokes and Watergate has become a measurement standard of scandal.

        I also happened to watch ‘All the President’s Men’ at around the same time and it dawned on me that the young, inexperienced, Bob Woodward having a contact like ‘deep throat’, summoned through balcony planter arranging, was far fetched, not to mention the cast of characters playing burglars.

        Sure enough, it did not take long for me to find seemingly well researched arguments suggesting Nixon ‘was removed’ from office, for a variety of reasons, by what people sometimes call ‘the deep state’ – perhaps what Eisenhower meant as the military industrial complex.

        Not surprisingly, one then finds that Bob Woodward came from Naval intelligence, had been magically parachuted into the Washington Post having next to no journalism experience but instead a glowing letter of commendation from a highly placed Naval commander, and required Carl Bernstein do the writing for him.

        This is well removed from climate science indeed, but it does suggest a climate of news and information that now has me wondering what I have been told, about the ‘right wing’ if not the Russian Revolution itself.

      • McCarthy may have been a bit of an ass, but he *under*estimated the communist infiltration of American society. If he’d been successful at draining the communist swamp, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.

      • “Senator McCarthy was certainly pompous and egotistical (what politician isn’t?), and he did have an alcohol problem and he did sometimes go astray but he was mostly right and was crucified for being right by both the left-wing politicians and the MSM of that era.”

        The MSM of the McCarthy era were not unbiased. They defended the communists of that era with the same vigor that they defend the criminals in the Obama administration today.

        McCarthy’s personal behavior did make it easy for the MSM to demonize him, though.

      • “Sure enough, it did not take long for me to find seemingly well researched arguments suggesting Nixon ‘was removed’ from office, for a variety of reasons, by what people sometimes call ‘the deep state’ – perhaps what Eisenhower meant as the military industrial complex.”

        No, there was no Deep State conspir@cy to remove Nixon from Office.

        Nixon removed himself from Office. First, he set the illegal activity (theft) in motion, and then when the thieves got caught red-handed, Nixon orchestrated a cover up which was also subsequently revealed to the public during the Watergate public hearings.

        At first it was just the Leftwing MSM hounding Nixon, but as the facts came out in the Watergate hearings, it became obvious that criminal activity had occured and it was obvious that Nixon was involved. Nixon claimed he wasn’t a crook, but he really was. Not a very good crook, but nonetheless, he was crooked.

        So when the public saw that Nixon was definitely involved, the Republicans in Congress joined the Democrats in calling for Nixon to resign or face impeachment and removal from Office.

        Nixon, rather than fighting all this in the courts decided it was best for the nation than he resign and so he did. It was his decision and he saw the writing on the wall. Nixon, in the end, did the right thing.

        This resignation also caused the loss of South Vietnam, imo. Gerald Ford took over as president, but the Office was seriously weakened by Nixon’s resignation, and so Ford was reluctant to fight back against the anti-war Left that was in charge of Congress, for fear a big fight over the war would do further damage to the United States.

        So when the Liberal appeasers in the U.S. Congress refused to go to South Vietnam’s aid in 1975, even though the U.S. was legally obligated to do so, Ford did not defy the Liberals, although he could have taken military action without Congress’ approval for long enough to have destroyed most of North Vietnam’s offensive capability (a matter of weeks). But he chose not to and the rest is history.

      • Nixon was responsible for his own downfall, however, the MSM has been very effective in suppressing the context and reasons which prompted Nixon’s illegal activities; i.e. the pervasive Democrat and Communist corruption and unconstitutional actions including the assassination of Presidents, attempts to pack the Supreme Court of the United States, collusion with Soviet espionage, theft of the 1960 Presidential election by vote rigging and fraud, DNC robberies of GOP offices, and more. Nixon basically tried to out do the Democrats using their own illegal tactics and badly bungled the efforts like an amateur in such affairs.

    • “I believe there was a time when the main stream media, whatever it could be called in its earlier days, actually served the public good.”

      Nope, not for a long time. The mainstream media became dedicated lefty propagandists during the 1960’s and they have been spreading their lies and half-truths on behalf of their political biases ever since.

      I heard some people the other day discussing the new movie “The Post” about the making public of the Pentagon Papers back during the 1970’s, by the Washington Post and how that was an example of good journalism, “like it used to be”.

      Well, that “good journalism” was just a pack of lies. According to the Left, the Pentagon Papers show a vast conspir@cy within the government to cover up the “fact” that the Vietnam war was unwinnable.

      The Pentagon Papers were a series of studies done by the military over the years of the Vietnam war accessing what was good and what went wrong, and is perfect for leftwing, anti-war activists to twist into meaning anything they want it to mean. And that’s just what they proceeded to do, twist it into a false reality.

      It’s easy to put the lie to the claim that the Pentagaon Papers revealed that the Vietnam war was unwinnable because the actual truth is the Vietnam war was won in 1973, when the Paris Peace Accords were signed and North Vietnam withdrew its troops from South Vietnam. General Giap, the Supreme Commander of all North Vietnames forces said in an interview after the war that the U.S. won every major battle in the Vietnam war. But he also said, that didn’t matter because the North Vietnamese had the American anti-war Left and the Leftwing MSM on their side.

      Had the U.S. left American troops in South Vietnam, it would still be South Vietnam today. Or if the U.S. government would have come to the aid of South Vietnam in 1975, when North Vietnam violated the Peace agreement, South Vietnam would also have been saved.

      But in 1975, when the North Vietnames made their final attack, the U.S. government was run by radical leftwing anti-war Democrats (think Ted Kennedy) and instead of going to the aid of South Vietnam, as they were morally and legally required to do, they turned their backs on South Vietnam and let it fall into anarchy and death and dislocation.

      The Pentagon Papers accouding to the Leftwing spin said it was impossible to win the war in Vietnam, but the war was won, and then the leftwing radicals threw it all away as if all that blood, sweat, tears, and money meant nothing. I don’t think the Pentagon Paper every considered a situation where the radical Leftists in the U.S. would be the cause of losing the war. They should have. Leftwing activism was a bigger battle than fighting the North Vietnamese. At every turn, the Liberals hampered the efforts of the military. And yet we still won the military battles despite these restrictions.

      The war in South Vietnam WAS won, and then the anti-war Left threw the victory away.

      So the lying leftwing media was going full force in the 1970’s and they are still going full force today, and with many more outlets to spew their untruths and distortions, and this new movie “The Post” is just more leftwing anti-war propaganda like they have been putting out for years.

      The Pentagon Papers movie is a lie. The U.S. *did* win the war. Then the U.S. military was withdrawn from South Vietnam, and then Ted Kennedy and his soulmates said “to hell with South Vietnam.

      The Left is still lying about the Vietnam war all these years later. Don’t believe a word they say because they will lead you astray, away from reality and into a nightmare.

      • @TA
        You make a fair point regarding my charitable and naive opening line. The newspapers, like Hollywood or any other institution in a position to influence public opinion about itself, do a fine job applauding their public service and can be persuasive. Without a critical, watchful eye, and especially lacking the information eventually leading to news articles, such as ‘the facts’, it is impossible to measure news coverage quality.

        Let us hope we are able to share facts among ourselves in light of whatever Internet censorship develops.

        Like many, I wish to get close to facts and assess matters for myself. Two more books presenting antidotes to the usual hagiographic treatments of their subjects are:

        Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, Humberto Fontova
        Freud: The Making of an Illusion, Frederick Crews

      • “Let us hope we are able to share facts among ourselves in light of whatever Internet censorship develops.”

        The Free World seems to be losing the censorship battle. Europeans get thrown in jail for some of their internet postings now.

        The last bastion of free speech seems to be the United States. And I guarantee you we are going to fight to keep it that way, come hell or high water.

        If Hillary was elected I think it is a pretty good bet she would start talking about curtailing free speech in the U.S. like the European Elites do now.

        But, she didn’t get elected. :)

  16. All democratic politicians should wear uniforms, like NASCAR drivers, so then we can identify their sponsors, they should also only serve 2 terms,
    1 in parliament and 1 in jail !
    ( the 10×10 rule, 10 minutes in parliament 10 years in jail )

  17. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    FROM Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky: “Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.” (Quote also attributed to Karl Marx and Goebbels.)

    HILLARY Clinton and Barack Obama both seriously engaged with Alinsky’s ideas — Clinton knowing him personally. Her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky.

    What did Alinsky actually believe?
    Rules for Radicals was Alinsky’s last book, completed the year before his death, and it laid out his organizing philosophy in detail. Its centerpiece is a list of rules of “power tactics,” meant as basic guidelines for community organizers (Obama) and community activists (Clinton):

    1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
    2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
    3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
    4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
    5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
    6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
    7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
    8. Keep the pressure on.
    9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
    10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
    11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
    12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
    13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    MOST of these are elaborated upon in more detail in the book. For example, on #5, Alinsky notes, “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react (Trump tweets!) to your advantage.”

    IT’S not hard to see the link between the modern Left’s tactics of identity politics; PC, division, smear and slime and Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

    LOCK ‘EM ALL UP!

    MORE info on links between Clinton/Obama and Alinsky:

    Clinton/Alinsky : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-and-lucifer-explained/?utm_term=.dee58d37f9a6

    Obama/Alinsky : https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0128/Who-is-Saul-Alinsky-and-why-is-Newt-Gingrich-so-obsessed-with-him

  18. I have often said. 96% of lawyers give the remaining 4% a bad name. Come to realize the number of lawyers involved in this, starting with the Clintons and Obama. Does ethics or morality have any meaning to them or are they just words? Why do we elect lawyers to anything? Look at what we always get when we do.

      • I thought of this too late but I should have added a Shakespeare quote, “Kill the lawyers.”

        Lawyers can be intelligent but clever, sly, cunning and devious are better fits.

      • Ben thanks for your reply.

        This whole thing has been thought provoking to me.

        It took me back to my time in high school in St. Petersburg, Florida when I lived through the Cuban missile crisis. I can still remember the principal announcing over the intercom that the Russian ships had turned away. We would have been a target for missiles with MacDill Air Force base nearby.

        At that time Democrats ran Florida. Before I could finish high school I had to take a course called “Americanism vs. Communism.” I liked the course. Both parties were pro-American.

        Kennedy was pro-American and a capitalist. He would not know his party today.

        They are the party of the ends justify the means. Can we get the old Democrat party back?

      • “They are the party of the ends justify the means. Can we get the old Democrat party back?”

        Yes. Vote Republican.

  19. Mann’s reaction and call to “defend our nation” is predictable. Trump is dismantling the state-sponsorship of the Climate Religion. One must expect they will fight back with whatever means they can, constitutional or not, when their pseudoscience pagan climate religion is under assault. Mann has profited nicely from his 20 years of climate dishonesty and he has risen to be one of its top theologians.

    The Left had for 8 years of Obama fallen into the belief they owned the US Federal government and they could run roughshod over the Constitution and federal laws at will . That belief was based on the assumption (wrongly of course) that Hillary Clinton would follow Obama. Obama established an imperial presidency, one that could ignore separation of powers and agencies and could disregard laws as long as they held the Presidency and a DOJ/FBI would look the other way. A complicit media with a Double-Standard on reporting of course enabled Obama an this administration to act with sufficient opaqueness before the American people.

    That this memo details political bias in the FBI and DOJ against Candidate Trump, as it occurred during the Obama admin, the NYTimes, WaPo and other liberal media outlets want no transparency on this. Clearly a double-standard to WaPo’s Trump era declaration “Democracy dies in the darkness.” The WaPo clearly does not want “light” on Obama Admin crimes.

    This episode fits in to the larger pattern of misdeeds by the Obama Admin. Other examples include the illegal unmasking of politically-targeted US citizen’s names in intelligence intercepts by Obama White House National Security staffers.

    As we look forward, we can expect additional animated responses from the Left and the compliant media who wishes this issue FBI-Dossier buried. This is damaging to their desire to take back control of the US Senate from a Republican majority.

    What has become apparent in this Ideological Warfare between the Left and the Right has been goal of the US Left is to bring about a neutralization of Congress as a source of new laws to restrict the Deep State bureaucracy expansion of control and over every facet of American life and economics. We see this very clearly in the absence of fiscal controls, and loss of Control by Congress in its ability to pass annual budgets and more to the fact, bring spending under control. This began in 2007 under then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and has continued to this day. This neutralization of Congress has led to ideological warfare now shifting to US federal judiciary. Liberal, activist Federal judges are now being weaponized against President Trump at every opportunity. But they need a Liberal Supreme Court for this to be effective.

    Most of what now animates the Left desire to bury their misdeeds against Trump is the desire to retake the US Senate majority this November.
    What we know is that Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is likely to retire this summer, opening up another opportunity for President Trump to fill his seat, seen as a swing vote on the court, with another Conservative justice. The Left had banked on filling the Supreme Court with liberal justices under a President Clinton administration. Now they are desperate to stop the further appointment of Conservative justices who will interpret faithfully the words of US Constitution. Their may be little they can do to stop a summer 2018 confirmation process. But they also know that between Justices Ginsburg or Breyer, due to their age, one or both may not make it to 2021.

    So expect even more extreme TDS from the Left as the summer approaches and Justice Kennedy’s expected retirement gets closer.

    • The only reason we know anything about this at all is that the Repulicans control the House and the Senate. If they didn’t, none of this would have seen the light of day and we would already have a different President as well.

  20. Colour me dim , but I fail to understand why Mann and other climate scientists are bothered about this.
    Should he not be out on the Alaska coast flying weather balloons to check on Arctic warming or something more useful than twittering.

      • For the Deep State, that Mikey Mann is just a small lower gut-microbial minion of (feeding as he does on what is offered), it is much much bigger than a Cash Cow. It is about ultimate control and power of the US itself and its economic power and military power in the world.

    • Whether it is CAGW or just attacking conservatives in general from the Left’s view it is all the same game. They want power, absolute power. They care nothing about the country as it was founded only for the wealth and power it represents. Remember to the American Left the USA as it was founded and even as it exist today represents all that is wrong, all that is evil by their definition in the world. We are the evil capitalists. You do not hear them attacking China, India or the EU or if they occasionally criticize them at least not as vehemently as they do the USA.

      • Agree,. This whole Climate Hustle, the deep State resistance to Trump, the trampling on the Constitution by Obama, the desire for uncontrolled immigration,… it is all about Power, Absolute Power for the Left.
        Obama put the US on the path to being a Banana Republic, controlled by Leftist interests and groups like Ceres.org. The Trump victory made an abrupt 180. The Left is now in an apoplectic derangement at trying to stop it.
        This is a Cold Civil War.

    • Because Mann and other activist scientists are Leftist Globalists, whose ideology is anti-human, anti-Capitalist, anti-Freedom. They seek to seize power and impose their ideology on humanity, and the end justifies the means to them. Hence, they do not attempt to persuade the Public, because they would not be able to do so in a free-speaking, diverse-thinking society, instead they employ deception. The largest of these tools of deception, which was CREATED for this purpose, is the Humanity-caused Climate Change deception. This group of people, not because they are on the Left, but because they are Human, think they know best for the World, and seek to impose their Worldview. We have seen these kinds of “seizing of power at all costs” through-out history. The one thing that stands in the way of this kind of Totaliatarianism and Fascism, is the American Constitution, and Trump’s unwavering allegience to it and his belief that government is meant to serve the People, not subjugate them.

  21. Can anyone say “Star Chamber?”

    Let’s see… a secret court uses a secret document compiled by paid operatives of Trump’s political opponents to approve a witch hunt against Trump.

    Every American should see this for what it is….a Constitutional crisis engineered by the Democrats and their evil ilk to delegitimize an election. Lord knows, I was not a fan of Trump. I even have public statements on record from before the election saying that exact thing, but wow…this is mind boggling.

    • This whole episode is third world sh*thole level politics. Nixon talked about doing this sort of thing and Agnew and the Chief of Staff shut him down. Apparently Democrat Party leadership happily jumped right into it.

      • Unfortunately, you have it backwards. The Democrats and their precursors have been engaging in these types of political subversion, treason, and assassinations since the founding of the Republic. Political indoctrination in the U.S. educational system and news media has suppressed an awareness of these corrupt Democrat & Establishment Republican activities. It is oft said politics begin at the level of the local government. Accordingly, organized crime groups have very often targeted their local governments to gain control of the major political parties, including Democrat and Republican, to in effect result in one of their chosen representatives being elected no matter which political party won the election. No matter how honest people try to elect an honest representative, the organized crime groups take actions designed to suppress the election of anyone they cannot control. Democrats used vote fraud, assassinations, murder, intimidation, and a variety of other means to rig secession referendums, local elections, and other public meetings; and still many of the Southern counties and States refused to agree to secession. So, the Democrats held more such events until they got the result desired by the Democrat leadership and some of their foreign sponsors. During the election of 1860, local governments were not allowed to include Abraham Lincoln on the Southern states’ voting ballots. When Lincoln won election as President anyway just from the northern states’ ballots, the Democrats attempted to assassinate President-Elect Abraham Lincoln while he was enroute by railroad train from Illinois to Washington City, District of Columbia. With the assistance of the Pinkerton Detective Agency and others, the Democrat’s attempt to Assassinate President-Elect Abraham Lincoln failed, and Lincoln was safely inaugurated as President of the United States. It was not until the end of the Civil War in 1865 that the Democrats finally succeeded in assassinating President Lincoln.
        More such political corruption and crime took place throughout the late 19th Century and right into the 20th Century. President Woodrow Wilson was touted for his socialist and Progressive policies. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to “socialize” America, unsuccessfully attempted to stack the Supreme Court of the U.S. with his hand selected socialist judges when SCOTUS voted against his unconstitutional and dictatorial socialist program/s, knowingly harbored Stalin’s spy as his White House Chief of Staff, included an American Communist as one of his earlier U.S. Vice Presidents, gave the spies of the Soviet Union free reign during World War Two to U.S. industrial and military secrets, and described his desire to become the first President of the United Nations. Republicans, Establishment and true conservative, have not had a super-majority control of the Senate, House of Representatives, and White House required to enact and ratify legislation without the consent and cooperation of the Democratic Party since 1932 or 86 years ago! After the Democrats defamed Nixon in the 1950s and stole the 1960 election from Nixon, he became determined to employ the same illegal Democrat tactics against the Democrats, and he failed miserably. So, Nixon emulated longstanding Democrat tactics, and not the other way around

  22. Ok, that seems a lot of more credits assigned to WUWT, when it comes to climate, politics of it, and the mess mentioned, than it actually may be deserved.

    None of it was started, instigated, maintained or fueled by WUWT, as far a the political mess in climate concerned…as per and from my point of view and understanding…

    Most that can be contemplated in these lines consist, as only played as it was served.

    As far as I can tell, is in no way that the fault or the delusion of Mann can be blamed on WUWT.

    If Mann happens to live in a prospering and what may be called a country with great potential and with the best chance to great human achievement….it is not the fault of WUWT, that Man still considers, envisions and treats this country, his own, as one belonging and subjected to “Rats” and ‘Monkeys’ to rule, “rightfully” so, as that happens and supposes to be an indisputable outcome in the means and conclusions of “the ruling” of the “Rats” and the ruling “monkeys”…

    I know this may be to harsh, but that how it is from my position.

    As the saying goes: “Save one and you save the world”

    Sorry but as far as I can tell, that was not, and it is still not about men, ever, but actually was only meant in context about “rats” and “monkeys”…as far as my understanding permits.

    Save one of them, if you can, and maybe you have saved the world… tough,really really tough… I know…:)
    (but at least you maybe could claim some credit when at that point..:) )

    Please do be kind to my harsh position…
    Trust me, you need not to extra remind me about it…very aware of.

    cheers

    • Truth should not rely on political persuasion. When only the Left is trying to bury the Truth, then the Left is evil… and every last one of their supporters.

  23. Something tells me that if the memo made Republicans look bad, Mikey wouldn’t see it as a Constitutional crisis but rather a call to action.

  24. I’ve no view on the memo – too hard for someone this side of the pond to follow it all

    What is disappointing is that the discussion in comments proves just how politically partisan the followers of this site are. I would have hoped that at least some climate sceptics would have different political views.

    If all climate sceptics are on the political right, what does that say about sceptics, the right, or the left?

    • The right and the left is a red herring. This has been the uni-party, posturing in public.

      ‘Skeptics’ are LABLED as ‘on the right’ whether they are or not. The views here are expressing empirical reality, not partisanship, and only appears that way to someone who IS, in fact, partisan – SO partisan, in fact, that they are completely unaware of their own bias. That, in a nutshell, is why Progressives lost Independents.

      And as far as how to ‘follow it all’ – simple: those making the accusations have been guilty of what they accused the opposition of all along. That’s been their cover. It’s that simple.

    • Just because someone supports the US political right doesn’t mean they are wrong in much of what they say.

      • I know that
        I would have hoped that the cross-section of people who follow a climate-sceptical site would include at least some people not on the political right. Science should be cross-party.

      • Seriously AndyL, I believe actual science IS cross-party or at least, non-political.

        The reason “climate change” is so political is not because of the science but because of the proposed “solution” to the problem which involves more governmental control over people’s lives. That “solution” is clearly one supported by the American Left.

    • The memo, that you have no view on – evidences that intelligence services acted in concert to corrupt court processes & allow a President to spy on a political opponent during Presidential campaign.

      Yet, your only concern is that people commenting here are not saying ‘oh no they didn’t’?

      • I’ve no idea whether a 4 page memo is evidence of anything. Some people say it is, some people say it isn’t, and everyone seems to have taken the conclusion based on their political prejudice. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just today’s hot topic and tomorrow there will be another.

        What is interesting to me is that this is purely political topic. And on a science based site everyone seems to have the same political viewpoint. I actually think that is a shame. This site would be stronger if it had supporters from left and right (and even the middle if there is one…)

      • AndyL, you are at least partly wrong. I am a registered indepndent because I dislike much of what is both right and left.
        Two illuminating points for your edification.
        One, THIS IS a BIG CONSTITIONAL DEAL. Democrats are calling for Trump impeachment based on bogus (no evidence yet at all) Russian collusion. Collusion alleged in a dossier paid for by the DNC and Clinton’s campaign. Intentionally and knowingly misrepresented to FISC to get a FISA search warrent on Carter Page, the dossier’s alleged collusion intermediary between Trump campaign and Russia.
        Two, the same perps on CAGW nonsense as point 1. Mann’s two tweets are sufficient evidence. Obama behind both is the deepest layer.
        So there are deep connections making this post quite appropriate.

      • ristvan (I hope this ends up below your 1:22 post)
        Interesting to hear your view as an independent. I’ve no idea who Carter Page is or what FISC or FISA are, so I’m in no position to form my own judgement.

        Unfortunately I can only form a view when someone comments who is not politcally motivated or who steps away from their natural political home. One thing I learned from years of reading Steve McIntyre is not to take at face value anything put together by someone picking cherries – especially when they are motivated to make cherry pie.

      • Latitude, You and I both know that and that it matters here in US as additional evidence against FBI, but not in Europe. An old hunting rule : once game is dead, a second kill shot isn’t necessary.

      • AndyL it’s not hard to find out who Carter Page is, or what FISC or FISA are. I didn’t know either but was very easy to find out. You’re sounding very much like a concern troll.

      • My kind of guy, sort of. Roger you on the unload the entire clip mode. We did that in the Army against Congs. Not later against my Wisconsin dairy deer. Highest regards.

    • While there is some partisan politics involved, there is just no other way to view this as anything but what you have read here. No matter what you personally think of Trump, it is an outrage that the actions of the very people who are supposed to protect the Constitution were taken to purposely subvert the Constitution.

    • AndyL,

      You are right that most sceptics are at the right side of the political spectrum. In the USA even more right, as the bipartisan system makes little choice inbetween possible (to a lesser extent the same problem in the UK, due to its voting system). In the rest of Europe we have a lot more diversity in the political spectrum: from far right to far left you can have 7-10 political parties with different nuances in ideas and accents, even when in the government.
      The drawback: forming a government with 3 and (much) more parties may be a hell of a job. The benefit: as near everybody is represented in the Parliament and can have its say, there is no need to use more drastic methods to be heard. Except for the most extreme fanatics (of both sides)…

      BTW, I am from the left side (as far as that says something about one’s personal idea’s), be it rather central here in Europe, but that is already (too) far left for some on the other side of the Atlantic…

    • At a loss as to what you are saying. Does it bother you that most skeptics in the US skew right (by American political standards) or does it bother you that there aren’t a lot of those who skew left (by American political standards) on these boards.

      I will admit that I struggle to comprehend the political platforms of other countries, say for instance, the U.K. I also am amused by those from other countries who do not comprehend American politics. In the U.S., there are now 4 very distinct groups, 1 on the far left, 2 in the middle and 1 on the right. But to get that you have to understand what left and right are in the U.S. Don’t pay attention to our media. Journalists nowadays are almost entirely incapable of logic and completely unable to show a diversity of opinion that is reflective of our far from monolithic culture.

      The left is for more government, the right is for less government – domestically. Foreign policy wise it is far more complicated.

      AGW is all about more government. The left likes this. The right hates it. By nature then, a skeptic is much more likely to lean right in the United States. Lefties like bigger more powerful government with a heavy foot, so the AGW is a beautiful fit for them.

      • The latter. I’m concerned that this site only seems to attract people from the political right

        It is a trap that climate sceptics have fallen into. It is much easier to dismiss scepticism if it only comes from one political viewpoing.

      • AndyL, I don’t know if you are for Trump, against him, against Republicans, don’t like the American right, or just like to see a diversity of opinions.

        What I tried to explain to you is that the left in America likes AGW because it fits their political views. End of story. They won’t go against it. You will see very few leftist American skeptics because AGW is a useful tool for the left.

        Useful idiots, all.

      • Andrew Cooke
        Thanks, I can see your point.
        Unfortunately the reverse is also true. It is too easy to accuse the right of being sceptical purely because they are against the big-government solutions that might be required if CAGW turns out to be true.

        To win the argument, you either have to convince some people belonging to the opposite political persuasion, or wait an awfully long time until the evidence can no longer be disputed.

      • naw- to win the argument you don’t negotiate at all. you just say NO.
        i know it’s complicated for somebody who is trained to obey like a serf or a slave, but:
        winning and fighting are 2 entirely different things.

      • AndyL,

        I suspect that people who lean more “right” are more likely to comment on this article. I also think that the oversimplification of political leanings can obscure where people might fall on the political spectrum overall. Reading between the lines on various comments (on multiple articles), many commenters lean “right” in some ways but lean “left” in others. The degree to which people get riled up varies based on the exact issue being discussed, and it is interesting (to me, at least) how differently people react to different issues. Some commenters really surprise me, because based on where they stand on issues X and Y, I would think they would react a particular way to issue Z, but their actual take is quite different.

        Personally, I consider myself to be fairly moderate. I lean right on a lot of issues, but I am willing to consider other viewpoints, and I do not think that something should be rejected simply because it came from “the other side”. However, most of the vocal left (and the media) insist on absolute party loyalty and adherence to the “approved” viewpoints, and having seen what happens to anyone who dares voice a different opinion, I am rather disdainful of leftist ideology and practice.

        Currently, diversity of thought seems to be tolerated mostly by the right. If leftist leaders were more accepting of a thought spectrum rather than only supporting a single specific opinion, I suspect there would be more people identifying as center left. Look at what happens to people who support the AGW but disagree on a tiny little part of it: denier!!! On the left, it often only takes one disagreement to get kicked out of the fold.

        Regardless, a plurality of Americans have identified as conservative/right for decades, so statistically, it is likely that more Americans on this site will lean right (as opposed to left).

    • Much of this is still hard to believe although the evident overall government corruption goes back to “Rapido y Furioso,” the gun aiding and abetting gun smuggling to Mexican criminals in the last administration. I learned about this from a Spanish program of that name on Univision, gleaned with poor language skills and some English in the program. CNBC covered this a couple of years later. Long before this many of us saw serious problems developing in science and academia.

      It is unfortunate that so much has pulled scientists into politics. It happened because some scientists themselves, not just in climate science per se, succumbed to a number of false narratives and methodologies in their field. Many of us witnessed it, were to some degree a victim of it, but few had the fortitude and ability to counter it as in retrospect we should have done earlier and better.

      I look forward to WUWT being able to stay with their primary goal, but it unfortunately will take a long while to clean it all up (as in Cook University and a lot of sloppy papers). The good news is that it is being cleaned up, which I guess has to be repeated time and time and time again. It is not a partisan issue. Someone non-partisan and just retired, told me–“All the university is interested in is money.”

    • It’s true that in the USA skeptics are skewed right, and alarmists are skewed left. But if I were a left-wing American skeptic, this thread is certainly NOT where I would promote my minority views. The subject of the memo is a specific abuse of government power against an opposition party. That’s not easy to defend on merit, and certainly isn’t ideologically a left/right issue.

    • AndyL: You miss the point. Most WUWT readers are skeptics. Skeptics need reasoning to believe in something. They are typically on the side of sensical things. If you think there are two sides of the issue, what side would like like to see endorsed?

    • “What is disappointing is that the discussion in comments proves just how politically partisan the followers of this site are. I would have hoped that at least some climate sceptics would have different political views.”

      Anthony: How about running a couple of polls re WUWT-ers’ poitical tendencies?

      One would be a survey of how members voted in the last five (say) presidential elections. The other would be a choice of which among ten tranches of leftness or rightness a member identifies with: e.g., 50–59% Right.

    • “If all climate sceptics are on the political right, what does that say about sceptics, the right, or the left?” It shows the political left will use any lie, any backstabbing tactic to advance their anti-America ideology.

    • AndyL: I was noticing the same thing, i.e., the absence of leftist comments in this thread.

      After considering it a bit, I wonder if it isn’t that both climate skeptics and those on the right are less likely to be influenced by outright propaganda, preferring instead to find out what the facts of matters are instead of accepting at face value whatever the general public is being told at the time. In support of that proposition, I would point out that those of the opposite bent on climate are permitted to make their cases here, whereas many who frequent this site have been banned from commenting on websites that espouse global warming/climate change. That is, one side prefers emphasize facts, the other propaganda.

      Not all of those on the right are climate skeptics, nor are all climate skeptics on the right, but as you pointed out, there’s apparently a strong overlap between the two, as evidenced by this comment stream.

    • “If all climate sceptics are on the political right, what does that say about sceptics, the right, or the left?” I was skeptical of a climate change crisis long before I was politically conservative. I did not vote for Trump or Clinton, but I am extremely grateful for those who did vote for Trump.

      I became a climate crisis skeptic when I naively believed it was about climate science, and didn’t think it had anything to do with politics. I found the science to be so poor and illogical, that I became skeptical of any real danger. That was 28 years ago. The climate crisis science today is even worse, but continuous because it is financially and socially rewarded by the left, who control academia and the much of the media. Thus it is no longer about science, but about politics.

      I am not a climate crisis skeptic because I was conservative. I am conservative because I was a climate crisis skeptic. Climate crisis skeptics are on the right, because the left has no room for someone who doesn’t adhere to their doom and gloom narrative. I oppose the left, because the left is clearly anti-science. They project the ‘anti-science’ label onto their scientific challengers, just like they have projected their political crimes on their political enemies.

      • Andy L: Let me answer your question directly and clearly: Climate crisis skeptics are largely found on the political right because the political right embraces skepticism in the climate debate. The political left has zero tolerance for climate crisis skepticism. (Having no tolerance for skepticism is an extremely ‘anti-science’ behaviour).

        I cannot speak for everyone here, but I believe the majority would agree with me: My stance on climate change is not politically motivated. My stance on politics is ‘climate change’ motivated.

  25. I discovered the tail of the dragon when I first started investigating climate change in a serious way.
    In my humble opinion, the only thing that’s left is to decide who’s eligible for the firing squad.

  26. The unethical behavior (and maybe illegal behavior) occurs because those perpetrators do not think they will ever get called to account.
    Clinton-Obama crimes and the IRS-EPA-DOJ bureaucrats all expected they wouldn’t get caught or that even if exposed, like Lois Lerner, they would not be investigated or prosecuted. And the Left-biased media remains quiet as in the WaPo’s “Democracy dies in the darkness” mantra apparently only applies to Republicans.

    Similar unethical data manipulation behavior at NOAA and GISS happens because those involved believe they won’t get caught or investigated.

    Those assumptions are now being challenged by a Trump Presidency they have actively tried to unseat.

    • And while Strzok and Page are being mentioned, how are these two still employed by FBI? They were involved in a clandestine extra marital affair, and last I heard such activity is cause for immediate termination of employment at FBI, especially seeing as Strzok was deeply involved in FBI Counter Intelligence. Funny how nobody in all this has mentioned those small facts.

      • Good point. The number of things that are broken in gov/politics is far far bigger than I ever imagined.
        And Trump has been carrying a big bucket of bleach trying to clean it up.

  27. Quite frankly this twitter nonsense turns me off. I would like WUWT to scrub these and return to proper discussion of the science.

    • This is just an observation, Alasdair, but one can ignore any thread/discussion easily by not opening it.

    • The science of climate has become politicized. The data most relating to climate, the long-term temperatures records, are being adjusted out of recognition by politically-motivated activists masquerading as scientists, mostly at NOAA and GISS. The perpetrators of this science perversion have behaved so because they have believed they would never get caught with their thumbs on the scale, so to speak.

      Those assumptions of immunity and their pseudoscience misdeeds remaining in the dark are slowly being destroyed.

      • Alasdair, this is a proper discussion of the science. From the very beginning, climate change has been more about politics than science. The IPCC is a political body, looking for scientific evidence to support its political aspirations, completely ignoring any evidence to the contrary. An actual discussion of JUST the science is what all ‘skeptics’ have been requesting for decades, but such discussions always end when the fear-mongers invoke the precautionary principle, which is a political tool designed to circumvent science. In order to discuss the science (as you desire), we must overcome the politics that prevents that from happening.

  28. The real issue has little to do with Trump and his campaign. The tragedy here is the gross and fraudulent misuse of the FISA court by DOJ and the FBI to obtain a warrant to surveil American citizens. It is that the previous administration and the “deep state” used the powers of the federal government to try and manipulate an election. The Democrats and MSM screaming about Trump-Russia collusion was to try and cover this travesty. This is far worse than Watergate. After all Watergate was just about covering up a botched burglary. The Democrats and their handmaidens in the mainstream press will continue to scream about Trump-Russia collusion and that all this memo or any other materials in support of this memo is just a ploy by the Republicans. They will make every effort to make this about Trump and not about the misuse of power by federal bureaucrats.

  29. Let’s just hope the Russia collusion investigation gets finished, so we can all know the full facts and move on in the appropriate direction.

    • There will not be a finish to the investigation till after the mid-term elections. You can take that to the bank. If the Democrats get a mid-term majority, the investigation will come to a miraculous conclusion, probably with some finding against Trump that has nothing to do with Russia (since we all know that is a stupid, ignorant lie), however, if the Democrats lose in the mid-terms, it will probably continue in some form until 2020.

      We all know this.

      • “since we all know that is a stupid, ignorant lie.” Please tell me how we know this? Seems to me his son met with the Russians on the promise of getting dirt on Clinton. Then the dirt came out a short time later. I think that is worth investigating don’t you? If only to clear the good name of the honourable Mr Trump.

      • That was investigated, the truth came out, the meeting was a sham meant to get a reversal of Magnitsky Act. Claiming it was about Hillary was a deception since Trump had earlier said he would leave Magnitsky Act as is if elected.

      • Oh, nice try Simon. Here let me give you the “Atta-boy” award.

        First, I have no idea what happened in that meeting..and neither do you. What I do know is that the meeting occurred because Jr had a bad case of stupid disease or was poorly advised – although I doubt he sought advice. He saw opportunity and reached for it. Excusable, no….collusion, no to that as well.

        But that is not what the FISA warrant was about, was it? No, the FISA was about a secret memo paid for by the Democrats, wasn’t it?

        I will make this plain in a language even a cultish Democrat can understand. A memo, paid for by the political opposition, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the campaign and the person of a man running for office by a secret tribune not answerable to anyone on false pretenses.

        If that doesn’t chill your blood, you are…..well, I won’t this post to stick around so I won’t say what I think of people who would justify this.

      • “But that is not what the FISA warrant was about, was it? No, the FISA was about a secret memo paid for by the Democrats, wasn’t it?”
        Actually paid for by Republicans first…. they started it.

        “I will make this plain in a language even a cultish Democrat can understand. A memo, paid for by the political opposition, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the campaign and the person of a man running for office by a secret tribune not answerable to anyone on false pretenses.”

        It was not a memo, it was an investigation (dossier) paid for by the Republicans and the Democrats. The memo was released today. Seems Trump has a few foes in both camps. And… we don’t know that it was only the dossier that was used to get the warrant. The FBI can’t tell their side of the story so we don’t know what else they used… and nor do you.

        So…if Mr Trump has nothing to hide, he may as well let it all finish so we can all sleep well. And let’s not forget, Mueller is a Republican, so how could he possibly not be straight as an arrow. Actually by all accounts he is a fine man.

      • So it seems that Simon is not bothered by the fact that a US citizen was targeted for surveillance by the government based on false testimony of US agents of the government using fabricated evidence.

      • The so called “Steele Dossier”. Political opposition research bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary campaign using a foreign agent working with Russian “sources” and used to get the initial FISA warrant and all three of the renewals by being presented to the Judge by the FBI as vetted intelligence.

        Name one material thing in that “Dossier” that has been corroborated by a reliable source. ONE MATERIAL THING!

      • @Simon – it has long been known that the discussion at that meeting was about the Magnitsky Act.
        DJT Jr. was snookered into it by promises of “dirt,” which he wasn’t even offered when he got there. Now, that might be stupidity on his part. I view it as more ignorance about how to swim with the sharks. (If it is stupidity, which is not correctable, I hope that DJT is easing him out of any decision position in the family business – or he’ll end up with a one generation wealth.)

      • RH
        “Name one material thing in that “Dossier” that has been corroborated by a reliable source. ONE MATERIAL THING!”
        I admit much of it has not been verified… yet… but that does not mean it is not true. It may well be that some of it may prove to be inaccurate later, but that is dilemma for a spy collecting info.

      • Simon: “So…if Mr Trump has nothing to hide, he may as well let it all finish so we can all sleep well.”
        If you have nothing to hide, let’s have the FBI crawl all over your life and listen to all of your phone calls and emails, trying to find anything they can find from your entire life –just to prove you have nothing to hide.

        We already know the answer… the collusion was with the Democrats and the FBI. And we know the Trump investigation actually started because Comie leaked classified information to start the process of looking into obstruction of justice… which is what Comie is guilty of! They are not looking into collusion because that is not a crime.

      • What was fabricated? Most of it.
        So it is your opinion that until it is refuted, it must be treated as accurate.
        Funny how you only say that when the data is damaging to your enemies.
        For your friends you reverse the burden of proof.

      • Democrat Party keeps publicly and loudly standing with illegal aliens and in opposition to American Citizens and they are going to crater. Massively.

      • Simon, you do realize that most of this information has probably come from the very Investigation that you want “completed”.
        As soon as Mueller got the players talking all this information started coming out.

    • Simon February 2, 2018 at 2:24 pm
      “But that is not what the FISA warrant was about, was it? No, the FISA was about a secret memo paid for by the Democrats, wasn’t it?”
      Actually paid for by Republicans first…. they started it.

      No, the Republicans did not pay for the Steele dossier. Not one cent. It was entirely paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. This is public knowledge. You are woefully misinformed, Simon.

      • They started the ball rolling…
        In October 2015, during the Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.[1] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him…..

        It also must be remembered it was Fusion who hired Steele not the Democrats. They just paid to get dirt on Trump, which is what politicians do to each other. But usually they don’t go looking to get it from the government of a foreign enemy. that’s the difference here.

      • “You are woefully misinformed, Simon.”

        And he will remain so.

        Wilfully.

        “There’s none so blind…”

      • catweazle666 February 2, 2018 at 5:25 pm
        “You are woefully misinformed, Simon.”

        And he will remain so.

        Wilfully.

        “There’s none so blind…”

        Tell me where I am wrong?

      • Sadly Simon and others buy into anything and everything the mainstream news media is selling. Even when the MSM broadcasts or prints corrections you have got to be looking or you will miss it. Simon misses most of the time. If Simon hasn’t figured out that the Washington Post, New York Times, the broadcast news programs and two of the 24/7 cable news channels are little more than propaganda for the Left, not just the Democratic Party well we probably aren’t going to change his mind. I learned long ago that politics, CAGW and environmentalism is religion to people like Simon. They believe anything that doesn’t fit the orthodoxy is a lie created by some corporation or secret society.

      • Edwin
        So what you are saying is you are right coz you are well… “right.” There are good and bad people on both sides of the political divide, so being right of centre does not automatically mean you own the truth. Like I say, tell me “where ” I am wrong, not just that I am.

      • Simon: You’re not too bright. The Steele Dossier was not funded by the Republicans. They stopped paying for that when Trump was running for President. The Clinton Campaign pained for the dossier. Or do you know know that?

      • Simon. There is nothing wrong with the Clinton machine paying Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump. That is probably standard practice and not illegal. But the dirt should only be useful if it can be cooperated to be true. The Steele report does not fall into that category. There is no evidence that it is true. Yet, members of the FBI, who have demonstrated their dislike for Trump, presented it to the FISA court as if it was verified, knowing full well that it wasn’t. They knowingly tricked a FISA judge in order to put surveillance on the Trump organization, in order to get some dirt that might derail his campaign.

        While this is similar in concept to Watergate, it is much more egregious, because it involved a coordinated illegal effort from the FBI, the DOJ, the Clinton Campaign and the sitting President of the United States. Watergate was just a few rogue members of the White House Staff illegally taking matters into their own hands by trying to break into an office to find some dirt. They never got the chance, and Nixon tried to cover up for them. (That was Nixon’s crime). The FBI illegally broke into Trump’s offices and stayed their for months! They still haven’t found anything, but they continue to harass the president and his staff, prosecuting individuals for not telling the complete truth to the FBI, which is the same crime the FBI committed with the FISA court; lying under oath.

    • “Simon
      Let’s just hope the Russia collusion investigation gets finished, so we can all know the full facts and move on in the appropriate direction.”

      The government at no time has ever presented a single piece of evidence that any investigation was warranted. There was no probable cause for the issuance of a FISA warrant. You seem to think that the POTUS and his family, and all others surveilled don’t deserve the Constitutional protections we all are supposed to enjoy.

      “Amendment IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      What was the probable cause? That is the key question that the FBI has to answer to justify the FISA warrant and what Mueller and those that appointed him has to answer to justify the current investigation.

      That is unless one went to the Maxine Waters school of law.

  30. Obviously, the investigation into Trump’s election organization is illegal based upon tainted and biased information willing submitted to a federal judge. The fact the did so in the first place might be incompetence, but in repeating the submissions after its clear they should have know better looks like malfeasance to me. People involved need to be indited.

    If the entire investigation is based on illegal submissions, it needs to be stopped. They need to fire the entire investigatory team and *IF* there is sufficient legal evidence, they can start a new investigation. This time they need to limit the reach of the investigation instead of just fishing for any crime possible.

    The corruption of the previous administration is just mind-reeling. I still find it hard to believe that the DOJ and FBI were so easily led down this corrupt political-charged path. SHAME ON THEM.

    And shame on anyone who is hyperbolizing social media with thin veiled references to violence.

    • Argh, hit “Post” accidentally before I was able to review all of my writing… Sorry about the mistakes, how does one correct their posting anyhow?

  31. Those who signed off on the phony info given to the fisa court to obtain permission to, in effect, illegally spy on American citizens, should be summarily fired and prosecuted. And Trump may be one of the few with the cojones to do it! It would be a great way to begin draining the swamp and given the memo from Schumer warning against doing this as potentially creating a “constitutional crisis”, it is exactly what the democrats fear most.

  32. What’s really telling is how leftists claim to be so concerned about civil liberties and government abuses, until they aren’t.

  33. Am I the only one to think that Mickey Manns’ reference to Paul Ryan (a pretty straightforward guy by any accounts) as part of a “coalition of hostile interests” (in association with Putin of course) indicates that Mann is either potty, bent or utterly prejudiced?

    • “…Mann is either potty, bent or a dangerous extremist?”

      Those three things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

      • Yup. All three. Remember his congressional testimony when live on a congressionally televised hearing he said he had never called Judith Curry a denier, and then she interupted saying: “ you did, in your written testimony for this hearing. Read it again!” My favorite 17 second youtube short, permalinked. Googlefu will take anyone directly to it.

    • Mann is far left. I read that he addressed some leftist gathering in Pennsylvania two or three (?) years ago and led a group chant with a fist-pumping “The people united / shall never be defeated.” Somewhere else he listed the sites he follows, which included some fairly far-left ones. Ditto for the periodicals he reads, IIRC.

  34. What I think people are really missing isn’t so much the Russia thing, its more like:

    1) The USA has a secret court. This is something previously only ever seen in totalitarian, banana republic states. It is an anathema to democracy and almost certainly forbiden by the constitution, if the SCOTUS had any balls.

    2) Congress allowed the secret court only with a set of requirements that were used to buy off SCOTUS and a large portion of congress, supposedly differentiating the secret court from the secret courts of other dictatorships: a) In applying for a spying warrant, they had to give ALL the evidence, not just that in favor of a warrant. b) A warrant against a US citizen had to be renewed every 90 days, and follow the same rules – ALL the evidence, including ALL the evidence gathered by previous iterations of the warrant.

    So what happened here is that the DOJ/FBI did not present all the evidence, either at the initial application, or at the renewals.

    They could claim that some of it was unknown initially (but that is a stretch, especially for an organization billing itself as the world’s best law enforcement/investigative agency). By the time of subsequent renewals it is not credible that they didn’t know that a lot of their evidence was bogus and the motives of those providing it politically motivated.

    Using a secret court for political motives has to be a big no-no. It is an attack on the integrity of the state.
    Those that lied have to face jail (or worse). The court judge(s) have to face an inquiry as to whether they acted as a rubber stamp or not (it looks like they may have).

    The real problem is not spying on Trump (although that is bad enough) it is perverting the mechanisms of state for political motives.

    People have found themselves against a wall for less.

  35. … how does one correct their posting anyhow?

    One does not. It cannot be done here. When you hit that “post” button, you’d better be psychologically ready to display all your typos to the world. … No second chances. You’re doomed to look bad sometimes. This is a website about reality, and so this no-edit situation somehow seems appropriate. [Oh God, did I type “the” correcly … uh, … corretly, … damn, correctly?]

  36. “We must defend out nation by any means available.” As by having top Democrat FBI appointees lie to FISA court about the Democrats’ phony Trump, Russia, Putin opposition research in order to attack an opposition candidate and then to try to overthrow the democratic election result. Got it.

    Always knew Gorebal warmists were radical leftists to the marrow of their bones. Good to see them self-identify.

    • “We must defend out nation by any means available.”
      That phrase is right out of the playbook for North Korea . . . for the KGB . . . for the Stalinists . . . for the Nazi Gestapo and SS . . . for the KKK . . . for the Salem (US) witch hunters . . . for the Spanish Inquisitors . . . for . . .

      Well, I could go on and on, but need I.

  37. This site has been way ahead of this story and was just proven correct with this release. Very in depth and detailed investigation and coverage:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/

    Right now the MSM et al are screaming that this memo is ‘disputed’ (CNN headline) and doesn’t have all the background details to support it. That’s the next step in the trap. Those missing details they are demanding to see just add more ammunition.

    This is only shocking news if you have forgotten all the in-your-face corruption we saw from Obama and Clinton. Hard to imagine but they are more corrupt than the CAGW industry.

    • Graduated cum laude from Harvard Law. Never thought highly of Dershowitz depite his obvious legal chops because of his extreme liberal views—until the last couple,of years after he retired. Seems he has shed his ‘forced’ Harvard liberalism yet remains a legal lion.

      • I knew Dershowitz was a liberal but as you pointed out he started to appear publicly. My first recollection of that was the Trayvon Martin case. On that one, he said the prosecutor should be brought up on charges.

        I think he really cares about the law and integrity. I have gained a lot of respect for him since. He is rare. He is a liberal you can talk to. I do trust him.

        Maybe Dershowitz and Giuliani can form a team to clean up the mess we have at the DOJ. Is it possible to have dual special prosecutors?

    • According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz collusion is not a crime.

      And this touches on the fineness of semantics. When does collusion become conspiracy? at what point is the threshold crossed to conspiring to commit the perversion of the course of justice?

      Since I am not a US lawyer, it is not clear to me whether any affidavit in support of a FISA warrant/order/application requires a full and frank disclosure of all material facts, or whether some lesser threshold is required say merely showing reasonable cause.

      Perhaps one of the US lawyers can elucidate precisely what standard is required on such an ex parte application.

  38. It would have been better if the Clinton Foundation had funded the operation. Try harder next time.

  39. I just finished reading the memo when BBC here in the UK had it near top item on the evening news. A very interesting spin put on it by the Beeb, implies the document contains (may contain) deliberate fabrications. Why on earth would you classify a fabricated/false set of statements as “Top Secret!”? Furthermore they do not report the actual detail of anything in the document (show it scrolling in the screen with print too small to read). 50% of the report then talks about the Russia/Trump allegations. Left biased reporting at its best – is there an award category for this?

    • Proves they do not follow the news. The FBI reviewed it, and said that everything it contains is factually true.

    • The BBC do not do news, they only do views.

      BBC is nothing more than a relentless SJW/left wing/global elitist propaganda channel. It surely must be one of the biggest purveyors of fake news.

      All very depressing, in what used to be a free country and proponent of free speech and democracy. How times have chaged.

  40. The Democratic Party wants to reverse the result of democratic elections. Resist! Impeach! It is a sacred goal. Do it by any means necessary. Who cares for honesty or integrity. A corruption on a third world scale. Damage control institutions have been compromised.

  41. The thing is that multiple sources, including several congressmen are saying this is just the beginning. We’re just getting a whiff of the pile of excrement they are wading through in the intel committee with this first memo. And that there will be more to come that will be even more damaging.

  42. Some have asked how could something like this happen.

    From 1979-2013 there were 35,529 FISA warrant requests. Only 12 of those requests were denied.

    Clearly the FBI & DOJ knew the FISC is a rubber stamp court.

  43. For those less informed on this topic let me summarize:
    1) A salacious anti-trump dossier was paid for by operatives of the Clinton campaign, preceding and during the USA presidential campaign of 2017.
    2) It was delivered to democrat operatives in the Obama administrations FBI and DOJ by cats-paw John McCain.
    3) The uncorroborated dossier, asserting ‘russian collusion with Trump campaign personnel’, was used to corruptly secure a secret FISA court surveillance warrant.
    4) The corrupted FISA warrant was used for surveillance of the Trump campaign and nominee/president elect/President Trump.
    5) A now +1 year long investigation of ‘russian collusion with the Trump campaign’ by special council Robert Mueller was authorized by the corrupt FISA warrant, based on the uncorroborated anti-trump dossier.
    6) Mueller staffed his investigation team with Obama and Clinton supporters, further demonstrating overt reliance on socialist democrat operatives and his own political bias.
    7) The + 1 year of ‘investigation’ by the politically biased Mueller team has resulted in no published evidence of ‘russian collusion’. Nada. Zip. Nuthin. Zero…

    The civil liberties of a host of American citizens have been violated by Obama and Clinton operatives colluding to create a salacious and patently false ‘russian dossier, corruptly securing a FISA surveillance warrant, and then illegally spying on employees of the Trump campaign, President-Elect Trump transition team, and President Trumps administration.
    “High Crimes And Misdemeanors” indeed!

    Why did they do it?
    a) To keep Trump from being elected. FAIL.
    b) To discredit the President-Elect Trump transition team. FAIL.
    c) To cripple and destroy the President Trump administration. FAIL
    F. A. I. L.

    It wasn’t ‘russian collusion’ at all. It was Obama and Clinton operatives colluding to corrupt a presidential election and personally destroy political opponents. The politically motivated operatives that colluded in these ‘High Crimes’ must be indicted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated! Here lies the real ‘investigation’.

      • C’mon Rud. “That sums it up nicely”? What it sums up is the conspiracy theory du jour, straight out of Fox News and Breitbart.
        Both sides are guilty of this behavior. There seems to be no middle ground nor exercise of any common sense. A perfect sign of the times.
        But if you choose to align yourself with one side or the other of this nonsense – well, it’s a free country.

      • ristvan, what do you know about the other evidence provided in support of the FISA application? Anything at all? You’re making a bunch of not very skeptical assumptions to reach the conclusion you have on the basis of Nunes’ memo, which he wrote without actually having read the FISA applications himself.

      • “Both sides are guilty of this behavior.”

        Which FISA warrant was brought against any individual or volunteer of the Obama or Clinton election teams by the previous administration’s top DOJ and/or FBI brass on the sole basis of “We JUST don’t like him”, for the sole purpose of undermining that duly elected individual’s term in office?

        When did that happen again????

        And don’t show yourself an utter moron by citing Nixon as an example…you insult our intelligence while belying your own.

      • “…which he wrote without actually having read the FISA applications himself.”

        But Gowdy did, hence your objection is specious.

      • sy computing said:

        “But Gowdy did, hence your objection is specious.”

        If I was going to write such a memo, I’d make sure that I actually read the FISA application myself.

        Right now all we have is one mans opinion, without the necessary information to independently weigh up the claims fairly.

        What was actually in the FISA application? I don’t know and neither do you. And the fact is that Page was being investigated long before the dossier existed. As early as 2013. The Russian spies who were trying to turn him into an asset were actually caught, and one of them jailed in the US.

      • “Philip Schaeffer February 2, 2018 at 8:49 pm
        ristvan, what do you know about the other evidence provided in support of the FISA application? Anything at all? You’re making a bunch of not very skeptical assumptions to reach the conclusion you have on the basis of Nunes’ memo, which he wrote without actually having read the FISA applications himself.”

        What we KNOW is:
        “* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

        * Andrew McCabe [Deputy Director of the FBI] confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

        * The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

        * DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele’s bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.”

        Not a material thing in the so called “Steele Dossier” has been corroborated by a reliable source despite the fact that “Dossier” has been out in the public for months.

        So where’s the beef? Where is the probable cause required for the warrant and extension and to justify the designation of a special counsel for an investigation? Nothing in the public square justifies either and the evidence we have now clearly indicates that the neither the FBI or the DOJ have operated in compliance with the law.

      • Both sides are guilty of this behavior?
        Do you have any evidence to support that whine?

        I also love the way you try to slime Fox and Breitbart. As always, it’s easier to attack the messenger since we both know you can’t attack the message.

      • They guy in charge of the investigation is on record as saying they couldn’t have gotten the warrant without the dossier.
        Please to try to keep your evasions up to date.

      • RAH said:

        “* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.”

        How do you know that?

        “* Andrew McCabe [Deputy Director of the FBI] confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.”

        How do you know that? Exactly what did McCabe say?

        ‘* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.”

        How do you know that? Exactly what did the FISA application say?

      • ristvan – so I’ve already lost? Lost to what, majority opinion on this thread?

        Gimme a break. You’ve drunk Trump kool-aid and believe anything they say. Some skepticism.

      • “ristvan – so I’ve already lost? Lost to what, majority opinion on this thread?”

        Not just that, but also because of your own failure. You’ve undone yourself with your own ad hominem nonsense:

        “Gimme a break. You’ve drunk Trump kool-aid and believe anything they say. Some skepticism.”

        Doh.

      • To quote Trey Gowdy:

        Reporter: “The memo has nothing to do with the Russia probe?”

        Gowdy: “Not to me it doesn’t.There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent that memo deals with the dossier and FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’ meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there’s going to be a russia probe even without the dossier.”

    • “The civil liberties of a host of American citizens have been violated by Obama and Clinton operatives colluding to create a salacious and patently false ‘russian dossier, corruptly securing a FISA surveillance warrant, and then illegally spying on employees of the Trump campaign, President-Elect Trump transition team, and President Trumps administration.
      “High Crimes And Misdemeanors” indeed! ”

      Yes, the Obama administration “uncovered” numerous members of the Trump administration. Samantha Powers, Obama’s UN Ambassador supposedly uncovered something like 200 people and Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security Advisor also uncovered people.

      The question is did they use the Discredited Dossier to wiretap *all* these people? This particular FISA Court violation seems to be focused on Mr. Carter. But what about all the others?

      And what is a UN Ambassador doing requesting that hundreds of people be spied upon? What gives her the authority to do this? Obama, no doubt, but what law authorizes her to do this?

      The corruption in the Obama administration is deep. Lots of investigations needed.

      • “The question is did they use the Discredited Dossier to wiretap *all* these people? This particular FISA Court violation seems to be focused on Mr. Carter. But what about all the others?’
        No, that’s not the issue, not at all..
        Any criminal activity by the FBI and DOJ based on fraudulent, unverified, information is a crime — a very serious crime. And all of that evidence will be thrown out, as it was illegally obtained.
        Illegal search and seizure is a violation of our laws and Constitution.

    • J Mac, I am not so sure about this point.
      “7) The + 1 year of ‘investigation’ by the politically biased Mueller team has resulted in no published evidence of ‘russian collusion’. Nada. Zip. Nuthin. Zero…”

      I get the distinct impression that a lot of the details in this Memo have actually come from the Mueller investigation as he has followed the various trails that were started by the “Russian” connections.
      THey may have been followed up by others or by some of his “team”.

  44. I’m surprised Mann didn’t also mention Mark Steyn, the Koch Brothers, and Exxon.
    I’m not surprised Mann didn’t mention Steve McIntyre because he’s seemingly incapable of naming him.

  45. Obama promised the most transparent administration in history.
    Now that he’s out of office, his promise is finally becoming true.

  46. For a blog that claims it is all about science, climate, and weather, this posting is disgraceful.

    I do hope the people running this blog realize that delving into politics ruins it’s reputation.

    • “For a blog that claims it is all about science, climate, and weather, this posting is disgraceful.”

      Except that’s not true, this blog makes no such claims. It’s whatever interests Anthony, that determines what is posted. Sometimes that doesn’t include science, climate or weather directly.

      • I’m guessing that either reading comprehension was never your strong suit, or you are just desperate to change the topic.
        That a blog spends a lot of time one one or two subjects is not evidence that this is all it covers.

      • PS, What happened to that tolerance you lefty’s are always going on about.
        Cussing at someone for the crime of not agreeing with you. How progressive of you.

      • Remy Mermelstein February 2, 2018 at 4:59 pm
        For a blog that claims it is all about science, climate, and weather, this posting is disgraceful.

        It has become that.
        But all it ever “claimed” to be was, as someone also quoted,

        About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Wattshttps://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/

    • “For a blog that claims it is all about science, climate, and weather”

      Which it doesn’t, of course.

      • Poor little Remy, getting all upset because we spend our time talking about something that hurts his friends.
        Let’s see, one article out of 100 that is primarily political in nature, and now, all of a sudden, this site doesn’t care anything about science.
        If it is still possible, please grow up.

      • Remy Mermelstein February 2, 2018 at 6:27 pm
        Thank you very much catweazle666: “Which it doesn’t, of course.”
        …..
        It is nice to know that you acknowledge that this site has nothing to do with science.

        Twist and shout.
        I was never a big Beatles fan (though my older sisters were) but I think their version on was more entertaining.

    • Have you read the ClimateGate emails, Remy?

      Climate Science is Political Science, not actual Science. It’s been clearly documented — in their own words.

      Why would Anthony not realize and expose that?

      • Because Phil Jones of the CRU said so. Check it out in the couple of days following the release.

      • Once again, the troll tries to divert attention.
        1) There is no evidence that the e-mails were stolen, leaked is much more likely.
        2) What matters is what the e-mails say, not how they got into the public domain.

    • For a Mann who claims he is all about science, climate, and weather, this posting is disgraceful:

      I do hope the people funding this political Mann realize that his delving into politics undermines the illusion that it’s “all about science.”

      • Mann is a voing citizen of the USA, and as such he is entitled to his own political opinion. Can you please explain to me how his political opinion influences his work in the field of science?

      • “The people running this blog” are not voting citizens, thus are not entitled to any political opinions. They should abstain from posting content deviating from the parameters arbitrarily imposed by Remy Mermelstein.

        yours sincerely,
        Remy

        * * * * *
        About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/
        * * * * *

      • How fascinating, Mann is a voting citizen and is entitled to his opinion.
        But apparently Anthony, who is also a voting citizen is not entitled to an opinion.
        It really is fascinating how leftists change their definition of right and wrong based on whether it’s their goose being cooked or not.

      • “Can you please explain to me how his political opinion influences his work in the field of science?”

        Oh Remy! That one made me laugh out loud! It is so funny because every skeptic is being constantly accused of being a right-wing nut job in the pay of big oil, so anything a skeptic says can be ignored. Of course, there is no evidence of such.

        It is a matter of record that Mr. Mann is and always has been, supported and paid by organizations of the left. Does that taint his science? I don’t think so. I believe his far left ideology taints his science and he would publish crap science whether he was paid or not. But that is just my opinion.

      • Mann is tweeting as a professor of PSU, I’m not sure a member of a public tax exempt organization should be engaging in politics, it could jeopardize PSU’s tax exempt status.

    • What was the “reputation” that caused you to grace us with your presence ?
      Or were ya just slumming ?

      • It really is fascinating how leftists actually seem to believe that they have a right to determine what other people are allowed to talk about.

    • “I do hope the people running this blog realize that delving into politics ruins it’s reputation.”

      Don’t you contradict yourself Remy? As if you thought or cared that this blog had a good reputation in the first place…

      And did you see the “Category” drop-down list on the right-hand side, Remy?

      The one that says, “Politics”?

      Did you see that one?

    • “I do hope the people running this blog realize that delving into politics ruins it’s reputation.”

      I agree that it would have been wiser to have avoided starting this thread, because it will be cited by warmists as evidence of our bias and motivated reasoning on climate-related matters. To date, AW has prudently avoided the temptation to create threads on explicitly political matters, AFAIK. (Maybe there were a couple of exceptions.) This thread should have been posted elsewheree, at am’s-length from WUWT.

      • “I agree that it would have been wiser to have avoided starting this thread, because it will be cited by warmists as evidence of our bias and motivated reasoning on climate-related matters.”

        Let us dare not speak of any other truth in the world because it might make us look bad to outright liars, fools and Statists?

        Why should I care if they like me in the first place?

      • Roger, “CAGW climate science” has always been about politics, a lever to political power. Obama’s administration was a major enabler. Exposing and uncovering what happened under his watch is important.
        Show the corruption, the violations of the principles behind the bounds of the government “We The People” set up.
        Remove the taxpayers’ green and break the lever CAGW has provided to power.
        Others will come up, but this is part of breaking the many current levers in operation.
        Once that is broken, maybe this blog will get back to other green matters. Maybe asparagus?

      • “Let us dare not speak of any other truth in the world because it might make us look bad to outright liars, fools and Statists?”

        No—because they will be able to use it to convince fence-sitters that WUWT is a right-wing site and its opposition to the consensus is political, not scientific. That has been their claim all along, and now they have evidence they can cite.

      • “No—because they will be able to use it to convince fence-sitters that WUWT is a right-wing site and its opposition to the consensus is political, not scientific.”

        Haven’t you just made my point for me?

      • Gunga Din February 3, 2018 at 3:37 pm
        Roger, “CAGW climate science” has always been about politics, a lever to political power. Obama’s administration was a major enabler. Exposing and uncovering what happened under his watch is important.
        Show the corruption, the violations of the principles behind the bounds of the government “We The People” set up.

        By that logic, climate skepticism, enabled by Trump, could be tarred with the brush of climate-skeptic Trump’s mis-deeds. So that logic fails.

        Obama wasn’t a big enabler of clisci until his second term. Clisci has been enabled by dozens of non-corrupt governments around the world, and ditto by scores of local jurisdictions in the U.S. Collectively, their backing was more important than Obama’s. Funding for clisci research came mostly from supposedly independent agencies manned by civil service personnel, or by a revolving group of mostly non-governmental scientists at the NSF. But there’s been plenty of funding by U.S. foundations and Green NGOs, and by foreign entities.

        The link between misbehavior in one realm by an administration (trying to win an election by hook or crook, which is fairly common) and that in another (climate policy) is too tenuous to be convincing to most of the public. Claiming there is a link makes us look (at first glance, which is all many people will do) like a partisan site, and therefore likely opposed to the climate consensus for partisan reasons.

      • “By that logic, climate skepticism, enabled by Trump, could be tarred with the brush of climate-skeptic Trump’s mis-deeds. So that logic fails.”

        Except that you’ve failed to make the proper distinction between CAGW and “climate skepticism”. The former is a lie, pushed in part by agenda driven scientists (Mann, et al.) and used exclusively by certain politicians for a single political goal, i.e., power. The latter is founded upon sound reasoning and scientific principles. Therefore, it would appear irrational to link Trump’s misdeeds to climate skepticism.

        For what reason would one make the link? The advancement of…”non-power”???

        Some of Obama’s “stimulus” package monies went to local governments and was spent on air conditioning and other infrastructure “upgrades” that conformed to a green initiative. That’s a single example. Is it any wonder local governments would sign on to “clisci” when the Federal government is handing out candy for them to do so?

        But even were it true that Obama failed to push “clisci” policies until his second term, this evidences nothing except for the corruption in the agenda. He knew the American public wasn’t interested and therefore advanced nothing toward the lie until after he was re-elected, in which case, the second term is the final term. No need to worry about votes any longer. Had the matter truly been about “the Good” then it would’ve been addressed in the first term.

        Which “non corrupt” governments around the world have enabled “clisci”?

        “The link between misbehavior in one realm by an administration (trying to win an election by hook or crook, which is fairly common) and that in another (climate policy) is too tenuous to be convincing to most of the public.”

        Not when the link is a chain that’s never logically broken. The chain is “Power” and the link is “clisci”.

        “Claiming there is a link makes us look (at first glance, which is all many people will do) like a partisan site, and therefore likely opposed to the climate consensus for partisan reasons.”

        Why should such individuals come to a site like this? If such as these are as you say, you seem to contradict yourself to believe they’d ever come here in the first place. This is a site for the thinking man.

        And if a few do, how can such be convinced of anything other than what they already believe? Hence, why do I care if such non thinking individuals consider me a partisan?

      • Roger Knights: I agree that it would have been wiser to have avoided starting this thread, because it will be cited by warmists as evidence of our bias and motivated reasoning on climate-related matters.

        sy computing: Let us dare not speak of any other truth in the world because it might make us look bad to outright liars, fools and Statists?

        Roger Knights No—because they will be able to use it to convince fence-sitters that WUWT is a right-wing site and its opposition to the consensus is political, not scientific. That has been their claim all along, and now they have evidence they can cite.

        sy computing Haven’t you just made my point for me?

        Your point was “it might make us look bad to outright liars, fools and Statists”

        My response was that it will make us look bad to fence-sitters. So no, I haven’t made your point for you.

      • And in my opinion, a so-called “fence-sitter”, who would come to this site and conclude from thousands of articles on AGW versus just a rare few on political matters that the focus of it is to promote right-wing anything is foolish.

      • “a so-called “fence-sitter”, who would come to this site and conclude from thousands of articles on AGW versus just a rare few on political matters that the focus of it is to promote right-wing anything is foolish.”

        1) But if he’s heard on social media or elsewhere that WUWT is a right-wing site, he won’t even come here.

        2) One “slip-up” (as our opponents would call it) can taint everything else a site does. Look at how a few slip-ups by alrmist bigshots in the climategate emails negated all their “scientific” writings thereafter, because they were seen as “motivated reasoning.”

      • “1) But if he’s heard on social media or elsewhere that WUWT is a right-wing site, he won’t even come here.”

        Then it would appear my argument is sound. Any individual who chooses to believe the gossip of talebearers is a fool. A wise man looks into the matter for himself.

        “2) One “slip-up” (as our opponents would call it) can taint everything else a site does. Look at how a few slip-ups by alrmist bigshots in the climategate emails negated all their “scientific” writings thereafter, because they were seen as “motivated reasoning.”

        Agreed! And thank you for this excellent evidence for my argument! Indeed the truth seems to have it’s way with lying and liars alike. Truth seems to prevail, as it has in your example. Therefore, let this site be always for the truth, wherever it’s found, whatever the perceived “cost”, for in the end truth will never let you down.

      • Roger Knights: “1) But if he’s heard on social media or elsewhere that WUWT is a right-wing site, he won’t even come here.”

        sy computing: Then it would appear my argument is sound. Any individual who chooses to believe the gossip of talebearers is a fool. A wise man looks into the matter for himself.
        Yes, but 80% of fence-sitters and other uncommitted people are not wise men. They are followers—followers of opinion-leaders. And they are afraid of social pariah-hood. If WUWT becomes demonized as a right-wing (i.e., nutcase, to many), Nunes-pushing site, few of the 80% will admit publicly to even taking a look at it, never mind citing it. They won’t even take the chance of their opinion on climate change being modified in their own mind, to avoid cognitive dissidence.

        The effect in the non-wise, real-world of WUWT’s Nunes thread will be to diminish the general credibility and influence of WUWT. It would have been more prudent to post the thread somewhere else and then link to it in a WUWT thread devoted only that link—an arms-length tactic.

      • Roger:

        With respect, it would appear we’re covering old ground at this point.

        Much of your latest argument has been addressed already. I’m not sure what more I can say. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue, good sir!

        All the best!

    • When I first read the blog and the comments I thought the same as Mr. Mermelstein but then I realised that it is important to expose the culture that has developed among state employees (including, for example, those in the British Cabinet Office and Treasury) that truth should be made subservient to their wider aims.

      Is there any difference between the FBI using devious means to achieve a political objective and the EPA using devious “statistics” to promote the political CGAW hypothesis?

      Science depends on truth and the exposure of untruths, no matter where they occur, is essential of science is to flourish.

    • 1) The connection to climate was detailed in the header.
      2) This blog is about whatever interests Anthony, as it says in the description.
      3) I love it when left wingers whine that we are spending too much time embarrassing them.

  47. Nunes has admitted that he hasn’t actually read the FISA application himself before writing his memo. And Page was initially investigated back in 2013, long before the dossier.

    Without actually having access to everything that was put in front of the judge, there is no way to judge the veracity of this report.

      • If I was going to write that memo, I would make sure that I actually read the FISA application myself, rather than relying on the note taking of a third party.

        Also, Nunes hasn’t actually provided evidence to support his claim. Do you know what other information went into the application, and exactly what the judge was told?

        It is also a fact that Page was being investigated long before the dossier existed. All we have at this point is one mans opinion.

      • “If I was going to write that memo, I would make sure that I actually read the FISA application myself, rather than relying on the note taking of a third party.”

        No you wouldn’t have, otherwise you wouldn’t have had the opportunity to write the memo and expose this abuse of power by Progressives. The agreement between Justice and the committee was that a single individual would read the memo.

        “Nunes said he thought Gowdy would be the best choice because of his background as a federal prosecutor, and that Gowdy then shared his notes and observations with the rest of the members.”

        http://thehill.com/homenews/house/372119-nunes-admits-he-did-not-view-the-surveillance-warrant-applications-that-form

        “Also, Nunes hasn’t actually provided evidence to support his claim. Do you know what other information went into the application, and exactly what the judge was told?”j

        It is enough to know that the information that did go into the application was knowingly false, i.e., a LIE. As to what other evidence was submitted, if there were any, which I highly doubt (otherwise there would be no need to submit a LIE would there???) I don’t really care, and neither should any other American concerned with how the State is justifying spying on American citizens with FISC.

        “It is also a fact that Page was being investigated long before the dossier existed. All we have at this point is one mans opinion.”

        Do you not see that Page was a mere bait fish to Trump? The excuse for the warrant was Page, the fish the FBI was hunting was the President. The FBI had nothing on Trump, hence they used a patsy, i.e., Page, to obtain a warrant based upon a LIE in order to spy on the opposition candidate for President of the United States. Because they didn’t LIKE him. He represented a threat to everything the prior Progressive administration had “accomplished”.

        Furthermore, we have squealing Progressive Democrats and squishy left-leaning Republicans pretty much backing up every claim Gowdy is making simply by their actions alone. Not a single Democrat voted to release the memo and all publicly berated Nunes, et al., prior the memo’s being released, including the FBI brass.

        If there’s a “NothingBurger w/cheese” here, why the squeals of terror?

        I hope this helps.

      • sy computing said:

        “No you wouldn’t have, otherwise you wouldn’t have had the opportunity to write the memo and expose this abuse of power by Progressives. The agreement between Justice and the committee was that a single individual would read the memo.”

        Actually it was one person plus a staff member. And what exactly stops the person who read the classified information from writing the memo themselves? Who’s opinion is it we are actually getting?

        “It is enough to know that the information that did go into the application was knowingly false, i.e., a LIE. As to what other evidence was submitted, if there were any, which I highly doubt (otherwise there would be no need to submit a LIE would there???) I don’t really care, and neither should any other American concerned with how the State is justifying spying on American citizens with FISC.”

        How do you know the information was knowingly false? How do you know there wasn’t any other information? Do you know exactly what parts of the dossier are true or false? How do you know? Because Nunes said so?

        “Do you not see that Page was a mere bait fish to Trump? The excuse for the warrant was Page, the fish the FBI was hunting was the President. The FBI had nothing on Trump, hence they used a patsy, i.e., Page, to obtain a warrant based upon a LIE in order to spy on the opposition candidate for President of the United States. Because they didn’t LIKE him. He represented a threat to everything the prior Progressive administration had “accomplished”.”

        A lot of assertions. I’m sure you’ll be able to spell out exactly how you know all those things.

        “Furthermore, we have squealing Progressive Democrats and squishy left-leaning Republicans pretty much backing up every claim Gowdy is making simply by their actions alone. Not a single Democrat voted to release the memo and all publicly berated Nunes, et al., prior the memo’s being released, including the FBI brass.”

        Well, you’re entitled to your opionin.

      • Philip:

        To quote a phrase:

        “You’re not a moron if you can’t see the truth. But you are a moron if you refuse to see it.”

        All the best!

      • Come to think of it, I should’ve been kinder. My apologies.

        There’s a healthy kind of skepticism tempered with reason, logic and critical thinking skills that allow an individual to “see” certain truths they otherwise might not see. An example is AGW skepticism. And then there’s an unhealthy kind of skepticism that applies no critical thinking skills whatsoever to a proposition, but rather simply denies that anything can be known about anything unless the thing involving the proposition is empirically experienced by the subject evaluating it.

        In my opinion, you suffer from a version the latter, in which case, you’re not a moron at all and I’m sorry.

        All the best!

    • PS, a late return. The reason Nunes didn’t read the Fisa app was DOJ would not let him. The DoJ response to his subpoena was to place the subpoenaed documents in a secure room at DoJ, and let exactly three people see them and take notes but not copies. Thenthree were two staff investigators and one committee member. Nunes chose Trey Goudy, an experienced former federal prosecutor, rather than himself, a former dairy farmer. Quite sound, and shoots your objection down in flames.

  48. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of disorder of a system tends to increase over time. That means that constant work is necessary to maintain order. If order in a thermodynamic system is considered to be analogous to laws in a political system, then the second law can be restated for political systems as follows:

    The Second Law of Politics:

    The state of disorder in law of a political system tends to increase over time.

    Or in other words: All political systems will tend to totalitarianism over time. That means that constant work is necessary to maintain lawfulness.

    • Phil,
      Thomas Jefferson recognized that work must be input to maintain the engine of Liberty.
      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

  49. What makes me sad is that I am just not surprised anymore that these things are happening.

    What’s much worse is the people who will brazenly pretend that it doesn’t matter:
    1) The lame-stream media who claim to care about such things as truth and properly functioning electoral processes, and
    2) Some of the professional politicians who are paid to care, and are elected by the American people to both care about such things and to fix them when events like this occur.

  50. Regardless of all else, the BEST thing about the release of this Memo, is that we can now have an investigation into the entire matter that is out in the open. The act of declassifying the Memo and sending it to congress allows congress to hold investigations into all of the matters raised, and that will be raised.

    This is how you drain the swamp folks.

    • That’s right. The congress will start an investigation. If this investigation reveals that Obama, his government members or Democrats have acted criminally, they can hand over their posts and postmen as well as postpasts. In the case of offenses against the Constitution alone the President can pardon and in this case he will do a devil. I’ve been expecting that for a long time, this is just the first step that will bring down the House of Cards. The Trump side has not fallen on its head and will have more aces up its sleeve. That Trump does not play all at once is right, slowly, one after another is the right one. Revenge is best when it takes a long time.
      This reminds me a bit of the case of the lock of many Russian winter athletes for alleged area doping. Apart from a few athletes just a few days before the CAS won all plaintive athletes for the apparent lack of evidence. What kind of jurisdiction is this in sports, if you can not prove the reason for a ban, sometimes life long. It was a pure witch hunt against Russian athletes, who can now force their participation in the Winter Games, so that the Russian team will provide the numerically strongest Kontigent. Does the power of liberal American billionaires go so far as to influence international sports politics? In addition, the embarrassment of Wada comes because of commonly used urine containers, which can be easily opened, the contents exchanged and can be closed again. Since every investigation on doping is hopeless. Also in the “clean” western sport.
      It is clear to me why, e.g. US Billionaires like Soros in Hungary are “Persona non Grata”.

  51. This is relevant because “climate change” is a political issue not a scientific. All the usual climate alarmists tend to be lefties. Sorry, just the way it is.

    • To answer the criticism often posted,
      Not all leftists are AGW alarmists, but pretty much all AGW alarmists are leftists.

  52. It’s understandable that being called a denier and worse has embittered so many of us. I have been called such things by my liberal church and by some friends. My lukewarmer POV and centrist politics has also resulted in demonization by the right. I remember in the early years of WUWT when Anthony said he often voted Democratic. There was a lot more civility among posters back then and much fewer hominem attacks.

    The global warming/climate change science class I teach becomes more difficult every year as politics, nasty politics, shapes understanding,.and common civility, even listening to other POVs, is replaced by name calling.
    My students ask me, ” where can I go for a balanced view.” I say, “I don’t know.” The only web site remaining, that I know of, that still promotes understanding above agenda and polemic and has civil comments is “Science of Doom.” However, it’s too technical for most of my friends and students. It saddens me that WUWT, like most other climate blogs, is succumbing to the siren call of identity politics over the open-minded skepticism of science.

    • Another snowflake melting under the disinfectant qualities of sunshine. Let the truth come out and the voters will decide what to believe, and what to reject. That is what this is about, and what this site is about. Don’t tell me what to believe, show me the evidence, and I will decide what it says. If you have been following the “climate science drama” over the past 30 years, you would not be trying to separate the politics from the science. Climate science is political science. It is funded by political sources, and designed to produce results that empower political institutions. The climate is fine. It is the corruption of unethical political methods to obtain power that is unstable.

      • Well said.

        The political corruption was exposed by the Climategate emails and continues on unabated. They, high ranking climate scientists, sought to promote the “Cause” not the “Truth”.

        Doug Allen, if you seek to teach young minds about science, teach them the Scientific Method, and demonstrate how Climate Science does not adhere to this rigorous standard.

        Teach them about political corruption and how this corruption has infected once noble fields like Science. Teach them to think for themselves and question authority.

    • You seem to be missing something which it would normally be thought as blindingly obvious. If you seek to balance an object which is fundamentally flawed and doomed to destruction without the application of UNBALANCED corrective measures, anyone whose fate is tied to that object will be doomed to destruction as well, like a sinking ship kept on a balanced and even keel with counterflooding as it slips underneath the surface of the sea with all aboard. Maintaining civility does not require the compromising of fundamental principles of science, constitutional government, and the Rule of Law. That reality is one of the most important principles of life students can learn about the natural and social sciences.

  53. I am well pleased by the depth of understanding reflected in the comments. This is a very fact based group of commentators. One note on a matter I have not seen in the comments. The information gathered based on the bogus FISC approval for surveillance found its way into Obama’s daily security briefing where it was discriminated to a very broad audience. In that process the names of political opponents/American citizens were being revealed. Obama was spying and gathering political intelligence on Hillary’s opponents. I could easily imagine that Trump was not the only opponent being spied upon.

  54. I’m embarrassed for my country (UK) if, as seems likely, HMGov was in cahoots with USA spooks to undermine Trump candidacy.
    The only way the usual suspects are going to stop spinning what happened is when Obama and Killary are in gaol

    • Unfortunately, Christopher Steele may have implicated the UK in the attempt by a foreign government or foreign governments to influence the 2016 U.S. election, because he has now used his attorneys to invoke a claim the London court should not require him to make a deposition in a court case regarding his allegations against Trump and Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian businessman Steele accused of criminal hacking. This gives the appearance that Steele claims to be a retired MI6 intelligence officer operating as a private citizen with a commercial intelligence business, yet he wants to claim he cannot and/or must not be compelled to give a deposition to the London court on the basis of being subject to Crown law regarding official secrets? If so, this would raise the question of how an active British intelligence agent can conduct official espionage against a U.S. target and work under contract with the FBI of the United States at the same time without violating British law and the 5 Is agreement between the UK and US Governments? This information appeared in a Fox News story by Pamela K. Brown February 5, 2018.

  55. Thanks Anthony, for posting this for us!
    Thanks WUWT followers for all the good comments!
    Good to finally see some fair and balanced discussion on this issue.

    This past year and a half has been so frustrating, with respect to the main stream media reports on
    President Trump. WPR has been so unbalanced in their discussions that perhaps they should not be getting any tax payer funding what so ever. I had been a fan for a number of years of WPR Ideas network, too.

  56. I have a question regarding Carter Page. So the guy was under investigation for suspected ties to the Russian government starting in 2013 (he was “warned” but never charged). Then he again comes up for investigation again for the same ties in 2016. Yet somehow the guy got onto the Trump transition team. Exactly how did that happen? A suspected Russian SPY got onto the Trump transition team. A RUSSIAN SPY!? Don’t they do back-ground checks for that kind of thing? No hate towards President Trump, but if his team did not run any back-ground checks on people on their team they are out of their minds! Beyond the obvious insanity behind the Muh-Russian conspiracy BS bought and paid for by the DNC and Clinton Crime Syndicate, I see a different problem. If the Trump team did run back-ground checks, why didn’t the FBI tell the Trump transition team? Hmmm… could be they didn’t want to? Could be they did and no one cared?

    • So, you have proof Page is a Russian spy. Cool,get it to the FBI pronto!Apparently they could not find any.

      • No. That letter that the democrats heading the FBI used was a specific and deliberate lie paid for BY the democrat party specifically to CREATE the ability to apply to the FISA Court to justify the wiretaps and surveillance.
        And the HUNDREDS of subsequent “release requests” of NSA surveillance to reveal the private conversations of the Trump transition team were submitted BY the democrat United Nations ambassador specifically to USE those wiretaps!

      • Really, the Steele”dossier” is proof that Page is a spy and they arrested him. And the press did not cover this sensational news. You clearly need to be running things for us!

      • “Actually, the FBI had proof… hence the Title 1 FISA application.”

        You seem to misunderstand the nature of evidence. If the FBI already had proof that Page was a spy there would be no need for the FISA application.

      • It does not actually work that way… you have to have solid enough proof to justify a Title 1 FISA application.

      • “you have to have solid enough proof to justify a Title 1 FISA application.”

        How does one apply to FISA with the proof one is attempting to obtain from FISA?

      • Title I FISA approval is made with the implicit understanding the FBI is presenting factual and irrefutable evidence that the American citizen targeted – in this case Carter Page – is operating as a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign government. Mere contacts with governmental officials is not enough to gain a Title I FISA warrant; “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.” The evidence must show the American Citizen is an agent of a foreign government.

      • Remember the purpose of a FISA warrant: it is not “to investigate” but rather “to monitor.” Distinct difference.

      • “Title I FISA approval is made with the implicit understanding the FBI is presenting factual and irrefutable evidence that the American citizen targeted – in this case Carter Page – is operating as a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign government.”

        Then the FBI lied:

        “But investment banking wasn’t Page’s only contact with Russia: A Russian spy tried to recruit him as an asset in 2013. Page said he thought the spy was a businessman and provided him with publicly available energy-related documents.

        The man and two other operatives later decided that while “enthusiastic,” Page was an “idiot” and not worth their time.”

        http://www.newsweek.com/memo-nunes-trump-carter-page-russia-spies-796702

        You might think about researching the matter more in-depth on your own going forward. Unless you’re really a troll (this is now my suspicion) you’ll find your own answers readily available in online news sites.

        All the best.

    • I think you guys are missing my point though: Why was Carter Page CAPABLE of being hired by the Trump campaign? I am a full-bore Trump supporter, so don’t take my question as being hostile. Honestly think. Why was Page capable of being hired if in 2013 he was being investigated as a Russian spy. Not links to Russia – no – but an actual spy. How did he even get into the Trump team? How was it even possible?

      • Maybe the Trump team thought he was not a spy and had seen no evidence that he was?
        I’m not sure why you think they might have acted differently if they knew the allegations to be based on a fabricated document from the opposition, which would seem like the most likely probability in the run-up to an election.

      • The answer is quite simple: the first, and all subsequent, FISA warrant sought against Carter Page was classified. Trump had no access to that information as a Presidential candidate.

        As you point out, the FISA warrant against Page was Title I, the most severe accusation — i.e. that Page was, in fact, a foreign operative (not merely colluding with foreign governments). This gave the corrupt FBI, DOJ, Clinton and Obama much broader surveillance powers.

        BTW, Obama and Loretta Lynch first sought a FISA application warrant directly against Trump. This was denied, one of only twelve out thirty-five-thousand requests since 1979. It was only after this request was denied, that the went after Carter Page.

        Page was never charged with a crime and is now suing everyone who defamed him.

      • Any political campaign who accepts a volunteer or a paid consultant to provide valid advice about the Russian oil and gas industry requires a person with some degree of personal financial and business experience working in that Russian business sector with Russians in Russia. Any business person working in Russia is going to be vetted by the Russian intelligence services to determine whether or not they can be utilized to benefit Russian intelligence and/or business relations. Any person who works with any Russian oil and gas company is going to be in contact with the Russian intelligence officers they use in the management positions of those Russian companies. Consequently, every foreign business person working in Russia or in the international financial markets with Russian business representatives will unavoidably come into regular and irregular contact with Russian intelligence officers and agents. Even in circumstances where a foreign citizen visited the Soviet Union with no intentions whatsoever of doing anything wrong, the Soviet KGB had InTourist house the visitor in a hotel room specially equipped with one-way mirrors and audio-visual recording equipment. The KGB then attempted to entice the person to engage in sexual relations with adults or minors of different sexual persuasions in an effort to capture audio-visual recordings to be used for blackmail. If those measures were ineffective, the KGB would try to record any other activities they could discover, initiate, or fabricate out of nothing that could be used for blackmail. Whether or not the current Russian intelligence services still engage in these intelligence operations is open to investigation. Bottomline, the Clinton RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) is well aware of Soviet-Russian intelligence operational procedures and made use of that knowledge to accuse Carter Page, rightfully or wrongfully, of illicit activities with the Russians for the purpose of acquiring FISA warrants to spy upon the Trump political campaign and its operations. The FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) should have known to discriminate the difference between the mere customary business activities and associated exposure to customary and unavoidable Russian intelligence operations versus actual witting collusion or collaboration with Russian intelligence operations. In other words, is this Democrat allegation another fictitious ploy comparable to the false allegations Sessions colluded with the Russians because he exchanged customary pleasantries with the Russian Ambassador while serving as a U.S. Senator in the committees requiring contact with all foreign ambassadors, including the Russian Ambassador? Under such circumstances, how do you propose it was possible for the Trump Campaign or any political campaign in opposition to the DNC and Clinton RICO to choose anyone as an expert on the Russian oil and gas industry who COULD NOT be falsely accused by Democrats in the FISC composed of all Obama appointed judges?

Comments are closed.