Here’s the FISA Memo Nobody’s Talking About. It’s Much More Damning Than the Much-Discussed Nunes Version.

We’ll bring you Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel’s tweetstorm in a moment, but I’ll take a stab at answering her question about the media right out of the gate.  Three possibilities: (1) The GOP hyped the Nunes memo, which quickly became the center of this whole firestorm — replete with counter-memos, FBI objections, etc.  The press followed the spotlight. (2) As we’ve been saying, there are so many complex pieces of this larger puzzle, following the plot is difficult.  It’s not just news consumers wondering, “which memo is this now?” — it’s many of the people trying to cover this drama, too.  The document in question here is a second, less redacted, version of a Senate memo that few people have even heard of. (3) The Senate memo, produced by non-bomb-throwers Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, is substantially more disruptive to the Democrats’ narrative than the Nunes document.  And the press generally prefers Democratic narratives to Republican ones because most journalists are liberals.

My guess is that some blend of all three factors helps explain why the Grassley/Graham memo has barely registered on the national radar, even after we’ve endured multiple high-octane news cycles starring Nunes and Schiff.  But on the substance, does Strassel have a point, or is this just the latest shiny object the right-wing is waving around to distract from “the real story,” now that the Nunes memowas arguably a bit of a dud?  Here’s her case:

Does that all of check out?  Allahpundit digs into the document (a much more redacted version had been released previously) and seems to agree that Grassley/Graham is a significantly bigger deal than Nunes.  In our analysis of the latter document last week, we wrote that a major question was how much the DOJ relied on the Steele dossier itself to gain a FISA warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.  According to Grassley/Graham, the answer is a lot.  I posited that if investigators had used the unverified dossier as a starting point from which to chase down leads and produce more solid evidence to present to a FISA judge, that’d be one thing.  But if they leaned heavily on Steele’s file itself as the “evidence,” that would be sketchier.  According to the two GOP Senators, the FBI did the latter.  From AP’s excellent summary (the relevant bits of the memo itself are here and here):

…“The bulk of the application” against Page was dossier material…“The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.” In other words, they seem to have treated the dossier as evidence, not as a lead. That’s big news.

But that’s not all. Grassley/Graham allege, based on intelligence, that the man behind the anti-Trump dossier was known to be unreliable by the FBI (they eventually severed ties with him) because he was caught lying either to US law enforcement or to British courts, telling each entity different stories about a key fact. Either way, FISA judges who approved and renewed the Page warrants weren’t told about the proven unreliability of the foreign agent whose work product was (apparently) the central basis for said warrants. The FBI might counter that Steele seemed credible at first, then they dumped him when he burned them, but that doesn’t mean their hands are clean, Allahpundit writes:

(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible…Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.

Two big points there: Even after the FBI recognized Steele was an established liar, his dishonesty was not disclosed to judges deciding whether to keep the warrants active during renewal applications, which were largely predicated on Steele’s credibility. And the topic about which he apparently lied was whether he blabbed to folks in the media about his work, which could have opened up the floodgates for disinformation from shady characters eager to make the anti-Trump case as juicy and brimming with salaciousness as possible. That’s where Blumenthal and company, whom I wrote about here, may have come in. What a mess. Also, speaking of not revealing pertinent information to the courts, it looks like Nunes was technically incorrect that the judges weren’t made aware that the Steele dossier was paid political oppo research. But he was more broadly correct that the judges didn’t have even close to the full picture of who was behind the unverified partisan document upon which they were primarily basing the surveillance of a US citizen — who happened to be a former aide to a major presidential campaign from the out-of-power party.

“As Nunes himself later admitted, the Bureau apparently did disclose in a footnote that the material was paid political research. It just didn’t mention who, precisely, had paid for it,” AP writes.  The memo reads, “in footnote 8, the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm that had hired an “identified US person” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS…the application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson’s ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC.”  So the disclosure came in a footnote and didn’t mention that the parties who paid for the unverified dossier were the Trump campaign’s explicit opposition.  Maybe there was no misconduct in any of this, but even as someone who believes neither that suspicion of Carter Page was unreasonable, nor that this is all part of a grand anti-Trump conspiracy (remember, the Trump angle of the Russia probe started earlier, for an unrelated reason), there’s enough in the Grassley/Graham memo to make me uncomfortable with the standards by which Page was surveilled by the US government.


Last night was the Golden Globe awards where celebrities gathered on stage to pat each other back and tell each other how great they are. Of course, there was your typical President Trump bashing by wealthy liberal elitists who think they know better than the average American with the same tired jokes. However, the celebrity brouhaha took an absurd turn when they paraded Oprah Winfrey out on stage to lecture all of white America about sexual abuse and harassment running rampant in the country.

Um, really?  Well, it appears that Oprah has forgotten that the majority of sexual deviants are hiding in those glass houses in the Hollywood Hills.

Not only did Oprah forget about all those pesky sicko’s, but also the allegations made against her, and since it appears she is flirting with a 2020 presidential run, we should remind how terrible those charges really were.

For decades, Oprah has crafted a persona of a caring and nurturing woman who supports women making it big in the media world, but that is not who she truly is. As it turns out, Oprah has some nasty skeletons in her closet that she has kept hidden to keep up her squeaky-clean image to make a presidential bid in 2020. However, someone just opened that closed closet door, and the truth has come out about her sex scandal that will destroy any chance of her running for president for good.

Oprah Winfrey has touted herself as a champion for women and minority causes aligning herself with liberal elitists like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Oprah has always been a favorite of the left since she parrots the talking points they want her to say and lulls the modern housewife into voting for progressive agendas under the guise of empowerment. However, these liberal women may change their opinion of Oprah after it was discovered that she helped Harvey Weinstein in procuring potential victims for him to abuse.

Oprah Winfrey and sexual deviant Harvey Weinstein with an unknown actress, not Kadian Noble.

In a stunning report released last month, British actress Kadian Noble charged the talk show queen of failing to warn her about Weinstein’s sexual deviancy and even prodded Noble to speak with him to advance her career. Noble claims that Winfrey also went as far as to say that she could trust Weinstein and even praised the serial rapist alongside former supermodel Naomi Campbell knowing full well that he would sexually assault her.

Kadian Noble

Here is more from Page Six:

An aspiring actress says Harvey Weinstein used Oprah Winfrey and Naomi Campbell to dupe her into thinking he would help her with her career — only to use her for sex.

British actress Kadian Noble said Tuesday she was head-over-heels impressed when she first met Weinstein at an event in London because he was hanging out with model Campbell and had megastar Oprah “swinging off his arm.”

“I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me,” she said during a teary-eyed press conference in Manhattan to discuss the sex trafficking lawsuit she filed a day earlier against Weinstein in Manhattan federal court.

Instead, Weinstein used promises of career advancement to lure the actress to his hotel room in Cannes, France, where he forced himself on her, she said.

“I felt completely played,” she said.

Noble is the latest in a long line of actresses and models who claim Weinstein either forced himself on them or coerced them into sex with promises of career advancement. 

“Mr. Weinstein denies allegations of non-consensual sex,” his spokeswoman said. “Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances.”

After meeting Weinstein in London, Noble said she thought nothing of bringing her “show reel” to his hotel room when she saw him again in Cannes in February 2014.

Once inside the hotel room, however, “he didn’t seem that interested in my show reel,” Noble said.

Instead, he began touching her while discussing hooking her up with a modeling agency in London.

“He said, ‘I need to know you really like me,’” Nobel said. “’I have all the information we need. I just need to know you really like me.’”

The incident ended in the bathroom, where he “forced” Noble to perform sex acts in front of the bathroom mirror, she said.

Afterward, Weinstein failed to help her with her career as promised, she said. She blames him for destroying her acting dreams and said she has since reported her case to the NYPD.

Noble’s lawsuit claims that Weinstein’s practice of luring aspiring actresses to his casting couch with promises of career advancement makes him no better than a seedy sex trafficker.

Her lawyer, Jeff Herman, said he is hoping for “millions of dollars” in damages. “The jury will decide what they think her damages call for,” Herman said at the same press conference. But it will be “significant,” he said. “It will go into the millions of dollars.”

These allegations against Oprah Winfrey are quite severe, and they need to be heard.

If the left is genuinely concerned about those that were sexually assaulted, then they need to call out Winfrey for her part in it and not allow her to profit off the misery of others anymore.

Source:The Gateway Pundit,