Well, the memo was released. You can read it in full here, and I recommend you do so because, on the evidence of much of Friday's TV and radio coverage, most commentators only want to talk about it in the most shallow political terms. Whereas the questions it raises about state corruption in an age of round-the-clock technological surveillance are far more profound.
Let's start with something I wrote back in October:
It seems a reasonable inference, to put it as blandly as possible, that the [Christopher Steele] dossier was used to justify the opening of what the Feds call an "FI" (Full Investigation), which in turn was used to justify a FISA order permitting the FBI to put Trump's associates under surveillance. Indeed, it seems a reasonable inference that the dossier was created and supplied to friendly forces within the bureau in order to provide a pretext for an FI, without which surveillance of the Trump campaign would not be possible.
So my view has always been that the dossier is not "evidence" but a mere simulacrum of evidence - a stage prop to lay before the FISA court judge to get him to sign off on Trump surveillance. Because a judge has to be given something before he'll cough up a warrant, even if what it is is no more real than the "secret papers" in a spy thriller. Nevertheless, for a group of highly placed FBI and Department of Justice officials, it was a very crude calculation: No dossier, no surveillance.
That much the memo appears to confirm:
Deputy [FBI] Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
So Robert Mueller's entire "Russia investigation" springs from this dossier: a huge sprawling multi-branch tree of a rotten poisonous fruit.
In order to pull that off, the fact that the dossier is garbage from a paid partisan could not be disclosed to the judge. Granted that the FISA court is a racket, the government is still bound before the bench by the most basic of lawyerly duties - candor toward the tribunal:
In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
In the "national security" sphere, the entire system is ex parte. Carter Page, the peripheral Trump campaign volunteer who was the target of the surveillance, was not represented in court. In fact, he did not even know he was on "trial". A year and a half after he attracted the attentions of Deputy Director McCabe and his chums, Mr Page has not been charged with a single crime, never mind (to be old-fashioned about these things) convicted of one. Indeed, the only reason he is even aware that he is/was under 24/7 surveillance by the panopticon state is because McCabe's FBI found it politic to leak that fact to the newspapers - via the coy disclosure that he briefly came under FISA surveillance as "Male-1" five years earlier.
Mr Page has committed no crime and been charged with none, but is routinely spoken of in the press as if he has been. In it is interesting to contrast his treatment with, say, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whom the Department of Justice designated as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a major terrorism-funding case, but which designation is apparently no obstacle to their continued respectability in the media, their invitations to speak at small-town libraries, churches and schools (for example, a CAIR operative will be spreading the word at Firelands College in Huron, Ohio next month), and even their influence upon Robert Mueller's FBI.
But the FBI didn't care what it did to Carter Page - because he was necessary to get them to Trump.
The first request [UPDATE: See Jeffrey Gilbert's important clarification below] for a surveillance warrant was made on October 21st 2016 - less than three weeks before the presidential election. Did the Department of Justice and the FBI inform the tribunal of "all material facts" relating to the dossier. Did they disclose inter alia..?
a) that it was the work of a former foreign spy now hawking his Rolodex for fun and profit;
b) with a passionate, indeed obsessive anti-Trump bias;
c) who was being handsomely paid for his work;
d) by Trump's political opponents at the DNC and the Clinton campaign;
e) and was collaborating on anti-Trump oppo research for Hillary with the wife of the self-same Associate Deputy Attorney General heavily involved in the warrant application.
Did they disclose, to boil it down, that this "evidence" was, in fact, the work of a paid Hillary campaign operative (at two removes) whose private business would be greatly enriched were he to take out the GOP candidate?
Or did they pass it off as either routine FBI work-product or intelligence from a respectable source that had been independently verified by the FBI?
The memo makes plain all the answers to the above. The DoJ/FBI did not "inform the tribunal of all material facts" but misled the judge, seriously, on fundamental matters necessary to "enable the tribunal to make an informed decision". They misled him/her as to the nature of the document, its provenance, its credibility, the motivations of its author, and his financial ties to the Clinton camp.
They did, however, argue that the dossier had been independently "corroborated" by a September 2016 story in Yahoo News - even though that Yahoo story came from the same guy who authored the dossier: in effect, the Government got its surveillance warrant by arguing that its fake-news dossier from Christopher Steele had been independently corroborated by a fake-news story from Christopher Steele. Either the FBI is exceedingly stupid, which would be disturbing, given their lavish budget. Or the same tight group of FBI/DoJ officials knew very well what they were doing in presenting such drivel to the FISA court.
They're really the two choices here: either "the world's premier law enforcement agency" was manipulated by one freaky Brit spook, or "the world's premier law enforcement agency" conspired with the freaky Brit spook to manipulate the judge.
Me again from months ago:
There was enough of a pseudo-dossier, by the debased standards of the bloated US 'intelligence community', to be used as a pretext to get the rubber-stamp FISA court to approve 24/7 surveillance of everyone around Trump - and maybe that would turn up something to destroy him.
But, again, it didn't. Every sentient creature knows that - because everyone understands that if they'd found anything they'd have leaked it.
I get some pushback when I use expressions like "rubber-stamp FISA court". Shepard Smith was arguing on Fox yesterday that a FISA court judge is almost like a Supreme Court justice - I was laughing so much I nearly drove off the road. A judge can only judge what's laid before him. In this case, almost every material fact about the "evidence" was withheld, or coyly skirted. For example, Christopher Steele was said to be in the employ of a "US person", but not Fusion GPS or Glenn Simpson, who were being funded by Perkins Coie, who were being paid by the DNC - all of whom are cutouts, as the spooks say, for Hillary.
A FISA application has to be signed off on by the highest figures at both Justice and the Bureau - in this case Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey. Given the sensitive nature of the case, it is difficult to believe that they did not know the answers to all the questions above: they were demanding surveillance of a major-party presidential campaign in a two-party system on the basis entirely of uncorroborated rumors provided by the other party's operative. Yet Yates and Comey saw nothing wrong in denying the judge "all material facts".
A surveillance warrant against a US person also has to be renewed every 90 days - which this one was, thrice: That would presumably be just before the inauguration in January, and again in April and July. By the time of the first renewal, signatories Yates and Comey were aware that Steele had been fired as an FBI informant for blabbing to the press about being an FBI informant. In addition, an internal FBI investigation had found his dossier "minimally corroborated". Yet evidently the diminished value of both the dossier and its author were not disclosed to the judge - in January or subsequent renewals. Indeed, one can be fairly confident that Deputy AG Rosenstein and the FBI would have been happy to apply for a fourth renewal, were it not for the fact that the general crappiness of Steele's dossier was by then all over the papers and even a judge kept in the dark by the feds for a year might have begun to notice it.
In the middle of all this is an American citizen who was put under 24/7 surveillance by the panopticon state because it enabled the ruling party to eavesdrop on its political opponent. As much as Steele's dossier, Carter Page was a mere pretext: The dossier was the pretext to get to Page, and Page was the pretext to get to Trump.
Here are the only references Christopher Steele makes to Mr Page in his garbage dossier. First:
Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.
Evidently not as much as Christopher Steele "both hated and feared" Donald Trump. Whoops, sorry, my mistake: Donald TRUMP. We want it to look all official and dossier-like, don't we? Christopher STEELE said that he was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected". He told this to Bruce OHR, the now demoted Associate Deputy Attorney General - the one who failed to disclose that his wife was one of a mere seven employees of Fusion-GPS and the one charged with working on Trump oppo research for the aforementioned Hillary CLINTON.
But put that aside. The above paragraph would not be admissible in your county courthouse - because it's several degrees of hearsay. What it means is that a) Christopher STEELE was told by b) an unnamed Russian that c) an unnamed "ethnic Russian close associate" of Donald TRUMP passed on to him that d) Paul MANAFORT was using e) Carter PAGE to "co-operate" with "the Russian leadership". In a functioning justice system it would have as much value as you standing up in court and saying that Smith was told by Jones that Bloggs assures him that Christopher STEELE has sex with goats.
But we're in "national security" court here, where due process is honored institutionally in the breach. To be able to reach a judgment on what value to place upon that paragraph the judge has to know something about the document, where it came from, and the man who wrote it.
You can get a sense of the circularity of the argument here from Carter PAGE's remaining appearances in the dossier - a "secret meeting" in Russia, followed by somebody else holding a "secret meeting" to "clean up the mess" left by the press disclosure of Carter PAGE's "secret meeting" - which was almost certainly disclosed by Christopher STEELE, who was briefing gullible journalists all the time. So the author of the dossier leaks hints of a "secret meeting" to drive other people to hold other "secret meetings" to discuss the press stories about the previous "secret meeting".
"Secret meeting" in this case means a meeting to which Christopher STEELE was not invited. For example, if I call you on the telephone and don't issue a press release, that's a "secret conversation". As it happens, Carter PAGE was in Moscow for a non-secret meeting - a public speaking engagement at the Higher Economic School. I shall be in Colorado Springs for a public engagement next weekend, but that's just elaborate cover for the "secret meetings" I'll be having afterwards. Anyway, at Carter PAGE's "secret meeting", the Russian supposedly (via the usual degrees of hearsay) reveals that the Kremlin has in its possession two dossiers. So now we have a dossier about other dossiers - or, in evidentiary terms, dossier hearsay about other dossiers:
Their agenda had included DIVEYKIN raising a dossier of 'kompromat' the Kremlin possessed on TRUMP's Democratic presidential rival, Hillary CLINTON, and its possible release to the Republican's campaign team.
However, the Kremlin official close to S IVANOV added that s/he believed DIVEYKIN also had hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat' on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them.
Do the Kremlin dossiers also capitalize surnames? Or is that just a Christopher STEELE thing? But note the salient fact here:
A source so far removed from the US Government that Christopher STEELE does not even know his/her sex says that the Kremlin has "kompromat" on both CLINTON and TRUMP. Yet, oddly, only the "kompromat" on TRUMP has been released: the "golden showers" rubbish that James COMEY's FBI leaked to the press after COMEY met with TRUMP to "brief" him on the "kompromat" - a presidential briefing which COMEY only held in order to be able to leak to the media afterwards that he'd briefed TRUMP on his golden showers.
So the Kremlin has "kompromat" on TRUMP and CLINTON, but only the TRUMP "kompromat" gets leaked ...by STEELE and the FBI. Gee, I wonder why STEELE doesn't leak the CLINTON "kompromat". Could that interesting difference in treatment be because he's on the payroll of the CLINTON team? Oh, and wouldn't you like to know exactly what the "kompromat" the Kremlin has on Hillary is? What a shame that seems to be locked in a far more secure vault than the TRUMP "kompromat"...
As I said to Tucker the other night, there's no evidence of Russian government interference with the 2016 election, but there's plenty of evidence of US government interference with the 2016 election. The latter ought to be far more disturbing. All foreign governments can be expected to pursue their national interests as they see fit. That the most powerful forces within your own government decide to subvert the election result is far more bizarre, and far graver.
The surveillance of Carter Page was a cover for the surveillance of Trump. The creation of the Steele dossier was a cover for the "Full Investigation" of the Trump campaign. The rumors of Kremlin "kompromat" are a cover for the widespread dissemination of Democrat "kompromat". And "foreign interference" in the US election is cover for domestic interference in the US election.
~If you've a friend who'd appreciate the gift of Steyn, we've introduced a special Mark Steyn Club Gift Membership that lets you sign up a chum for the Steyn Club and then choose a welcome gift for them - either one of two handsome hardback books or a couple of CDs, all personally autographed to your loved one by Mark. You'll find more details here - and don't forget, over at the Steyn store, our Steynamite Specials on books, CDs, mugs, T-shirts and more.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
93 Member Comments
This comment is a bit late I understand but I want to touch on your comment about county judges' duty to evaluate and scrutinize applications, ask questions pertaining to the evidence for such warrants. If everything I know about the approval of this Page surveillance warrant it certainly raises the possibility that the signer of the initial warrant either because it was a FISA warrant from the 'greatest law enforcement agency in the world' or he agreed that this just must be approved in order to save America. If what I know of the applications contents are true the judge is 1. a stupid, incompetent, lazy moron or 2. he/she just took it, signed it and handed it back to the FBI without examination, because it was an 'FBI' request or 3. agreed this must be approved in order to save America as did Comey, Yates, Page, Ohr, Stroktz (spl), McCabe and Steele. No honorable county judge would have ever approved such a warrant application.
Steele bought a bottle of liquor and settled in one evening to write this dossier. He never talked to any russians as they would have wanted to be paid which would have cut into his take home pay. He was 'deep cover' MI6 in Moscow so how was it he would have meet and become so chummy with russians from his 'deep' cover that he could enlist their help years after he left Moscow. Not a chance. He made it up.
Thank you Mark for your comprehensive coverage of this serious attack on democracy. As a background to this I recommend you and our members read a paper compiled by Professor Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph in Canada entitled "The Nunes Memo and the Horowitz Report: Popcorn edition" published on 29 January 2018. Just go to Ross's website to read or download and read. His forensic mind has unusually turned itself to this topic and he says "I find the backstory to be as gripping as any paperback spy thriller."
So, as someone famous once said, it's the corruption that is the overriding issue here. And nobody EVER goes to jail!!!! WHY?!?!
The media tout all of this with about as much excitement as day-old sushi for breakfast, meanwhile they just make things up out of whole cloth to express cataclysmic outrage over some purportedly racist or sexist thing the President may have said. Or thought. Or may have been in the presence of 50 years ago at some rich white guy club or something...
But, alas-this whole situation could cause the American people to lose faith in the institutions...WHAAAA??? We lose faith because you guys are CAUSING IT!!! You are so corrupt, you are so slanted, you never tell the truth, I mean hey-what's left to believe in American media? Honestly?
Looking at the usual media suspects this morning, I see no evidence so far that the MEMO is going to cause serious consequences for any of the crooks and lowlifes involved. And the beat goes on......
One weakness in reaction that is helping sustain this circus is that, during times of uncertainty or doubt, many Americans have great faith in "the investigation" as some sort of unbiased search for 4-leaf clovers in the field, and suggest just to "let it continue". What they fail to remember, as Mark has pointed out, the process is the punishment; the "investigation" is anything but unbiased, with obvious incentive to find something to justify its existence, even if no other gain were to be had. This unjustified faith in the State is at the root of Leftist fix-all prescriptions as well as all prosecutorial & legal abuses, and perplexes me as the largest impediment to true liberty.
Dems are running around insisting the issue is Trump trying to dig up "Russian dirt" on Clinton. But what is the dossier except an attempt by Clinton/DNC to dig up "Russian dirt" on Trump? Using cut-outs to cover up payments to foreign actors PLUS a Democrat administration making sure the FBI, DOJ, and the "intelligence community" were active accomplices. This is banana republic stuff! Dirt at the management levels of these agencies ensures dirt throughout the organization. This swamp needs draining—with extreme prejudice!
So Comey & Yates, with Ohr and his wife's help were in on it? Interesting.
"Candor toward the Tribunal" = "The Tribunal shall be informed of ALL MATERIAL FACTS". The wielders of power at the FBI & DOJ for the most part were not "kids of the 60's". They probably never sat in front of a TV and were told by Dragnet "the facts, nothing but the facts". The wielders of power were and are protecting the power couple hatched in the 60's who live by the lyrics "I get by with a little help from my friends". That credo has served HILL & BILL quite well for decades. Let's pray that the MEMO brings that to an end.
Reading through 'Un-Candid in Camera', find a reference to Jeffery Gilbert's important clarification, but don't find below which of the wisdom is his. Enlightenment please!
The name, date and time stamp for Gilbert's comment is: Jeffrey Gilbert • Feb 3, 2018 at 09:46
He raised the interesting question of what were the differences between the failed FISA request that was made in the Spring and the "successful" request based on this fraudulent dossier in the Fall. (my browser accepts CTRL-F as a request to find a tetx string, in this case "Gilbert", on the webpage, but I also recalled reading his comment yesterday.)
Many thanks!
Dear Mark Steyn: On the "is this becoming so bad the FBI/DOJ will fess up and begin the cleanup" front, CNN analyst says FBI will "win" vs. Trump. So there's every indication Dems are standing their ground, that using FISA Court in campaign is okey dokey (BTW, gotta hand it to Hillary. Most campaigns pay for dirt, then spill it publicly in a presser or leak it to Sydney Blumenthal types. Not good enough for Hill, she leaked it to law enforcement! How DID she lose?!).
So if this is within the boundary of proper electioneering, suppose Trump decides not to run, and Tillerson SOS runs. Turns out Till kept all his emails on his own private server (do I want to go there? Nah, too long.) Seems an opponent, K. Harris has been rubbing elbows with BLM, maybe video of her wanting to "necklace" white cops. Till could just hold a presser to release the video, or leak it to Breitbart, but no, Till wants to go "Clinton" on 'em. See, Till hears that BLM gets $ from russians,so he tells his oppo research team to take it to Jeff Sessions. Jeff gets FISA warrant, not on Kamala but on some low level schmoe who actually once spoke to a russian. Then when it's leaked, it's not some dirty political campaign buzz, it's A THREAT TO NAT. SECURITY GAAAGH!!!!! I'm just trying to get the parameters here, this is all part of the game of "fair and transparent elections" now. Got it, Mr. Comey.
Further to some of the points that are being made in the Comments, it appears that Carter Page actually stepped down from Trump's campaign on September 26, 2016. Here is a link to an article that also includes a letter that Page wrote to the FBI on September 25, 2016.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carter-page-steps-down-from-campaign
In case you can't access it, here is a link to Page's letter to Comey on that date:
https://tinyurl.com/j5egzor
Yet we now know from THE MEMO that on October 21, 2016, the FBI and DOJ "sought and received a FISA probably cause order authorizing electronic surveillance of Carter Page from the FISC."
I don't understand how they were able to get such an order after the fact, when Page was no longer working for Trump.
This stinks even worse than I thought.
Patty: "This stinks even worse than I thought." Yes, but with "Hillary stinks" as category, we are in D. Rumsfeld's "known unknown" and "unknown unknowns" fields. As to your point Page-left-campaign-before-warrant point, my take is that it's one more sign that this is a Hillary bag job all the way down. See, as we learn more (wasn't that long ago the greasy lawyer-for-Hill was denying any $ went to fusion; etc.), this will be another deflection- some Adam Schiff or another will claim Obama DOJ didn't actually investigate Trump, just Carter Page". Caution: my predictions are not as good as our host, who once again does the "as I wrote last _____ (fill in blank- Oct, Jan, 5 yrs ago, ten yrs ago, on and on)" schtick.
The "memo" and the dossier nicely tie together the FBI, DoJ, DNC and Clinton world, but I think the rubber will really hit the road when/if the multiple unmasking efforts of the Obama administration's highest levels shows that the whole episode was targeting the Donald and his family, not Carter Page and Paul Manafort. I don't know whether the details of unmasking can be unmasking can or will be disclosed, but that, to me, would really show the impropriety of this sleazy enterprise
One thing that must be said, apparently, is that this is nothing against the FBI rank and file who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. Okay, there, I said it. Now let me say I'm a big no on that. I imagine that most of the FBI don't risk their lives on a daily or even a yearly basis. With all the memos and dossiers, I imagine that paper cuts might prove a hazard. The possibility of Mrs. Manafort pulling a gun from under her nightgown is also a big threat.
As for keeping us safe, puhlease. They don't even stop terrorists who've been handed to them on a silver platter from killing us. Boston or Orlando anyone? However, that being said, at least they protected us from Scooter Libbey and Martha Stewart.
Steven- excellent points and I totally agree. My thoughts are why didn't all these brave heroes say something about the corruption in their organization that anyone with half a brain must have known was going on?
What I don't understand is how there appear to be no repercussions for all of this mischief. I have yet to hear one commentator suggest that something beyond a demotion or early retirement is forthcoming. Seems to me that some of these responsible individuals should be planning to spend their retirement years in a federal prison somewhere. Instead, people like Ohr are still receiving compensation from the US taxpayers. If these despicable actions are not a violation of some very serious laws, then it would seem that the swamp is impossible to drain and the battle is lost.
An excellent summary Mark, to say that it is a worrying picture is a gross understatement.
Meanwhile as the world turns on, we get an inkling of what one of Hillary's highest *paid* priorities was to be. Now sitting at 10 million barrels/day, the US oil and indeed the shale oil industry is truly a world saver and is providing billions in benefits to mostly red states the US as far as I can tell. It has seriously depleted the bank accounts of the likes of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other delightful nations, significantly reducing their ability to cause strife and draining (literally) their appetite for conflict.
Does anyone doubt that one of the highest priorities of a Hillary Presidency was to "save" the US from all that dirty, nasty oil through regulation, the EPA and other avenues to slowly strangle production. Without the increase in US oil, the price would be north of $100 a barrel and that would represent hundreds of billions of additional work free revenue to all those wonderful democracies listed above.
The less free money you have, the less strife you can make, the easiest equation you will find either for a person or a nation. Bugger those ridiculous superhero movies, have a look on youtube for some shale oil and fracking footage and Rejoice! as a great Lady once said.
I was looking forward to Mark's analysis and I wasn't disappointed--as usual. It is an excellent synopsis.
The worst characters in the crazed MSM media and the Dem party are the hypocrites that trash Trump for "tweeting" his frustrations and for fighting back in other ways. He's supposed to remain "presidential" and let the foul mouthed vocal opposition trash him and the Deep State investigate him 24/7 without a peep. But their is a never ending campaign to deliberately get Trump off his game and to over react and maybe make an imprudent tweet that can legally bit him later. He seems to be quoting others more now which seems wise with a SC still dogging him. All this abuse for no pay!
It will be difficult to keep up with the internecine American Uncivil War but I recommend "The Last Refuge" as a great site that follows this ongoing legal and political battle in accurate and detailed articles like:
FISA Court Judge James Boasberg Rules Comey Memos Will Remain Secret...
Posted on February 3, 2018 by sundance
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/03/fisa-court-judge-james-boasberg-rules-comey-memos-will-remain-secret/
I hope this site isn't associated with anyone involved in the cancellation of Mark's fabulous show; but it is a very useful site to keep up on the relevant updates. It has a chart of the FISA judges etc.
Another "spot on" analysis by Mark. He is amazing for not only for his insight but also his wit and irony when writing about such monstrous events. I would also like to recommend the recent article (see link below) in National Review Online (a former employer of Mr. Steyn). It is by the inimitable Victor Davis Hanson ... to my mind VDH is on a par with Mark for his acute analytical skills, but also for his clarity of style - not so witty as Mark's, but very readable and highly informative. Since this Steyn club comment thread inexplicably bans live links please copy/paste the link below to see the VDH article.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/456084/nunes-memo-fbi-doj-corruption-ticking-memo
I don't think it's inexplicable. It's easy to become distracted and lose focus by the fairly passive act of clicking one link to the next. Extra steps of selecting, copying and pasting a link might tend to reserve it for those who are more likely to examine it in depth.
What is incredibly frustrating is that this scandal that makes Watergate look like child's play will be ignored or mischaracterized by the mainstream media, those brave stalwarts of the republic, the irrepressible heroes of the people. They only manage to find their courage on the big things, like the outing of Valerie Plame, the faux spy of spies.
I am beyond nauseated by the actions of the Barry regime, and see no chance he or any of the scum bags involved will ever see justice, at least not in this lifetime. As long as the Republican leadership lacks the will, our nation is doomed.
The state of western civ is such that I can think of few examples of nations willing to defend basic freedoms, starting with freedom of expression. Now add "Freedom from FBI and DOI political collusion", or its EU equivalent, suggesting the hour is late. If there's any fight left for liberty, it had better come now.
Mark, You may well charitably describe the FISA judge as being wilfully misled as to all material facts but could it not also be the case that the Judge was, in fact, quite partisan and chose to see the case through a "Nelsonian eye"?
I was very worried by the term "Male 1".
How do they know which of the 57 genders this person identifies as?
I had to go to my safe space.
This has changed the face of American vernacular. No longer can you say, "What, didn't you get the memo?"
Now where are those TPS Reports...
Another sterling piece of writing from Mark. I'd offer one small point I haven't seen discussed.
An FBI counterintelligence agent and another FBI agent apparently questioned Carter Page in 2013, allegedly investigating whether he might be acting as a Russian agent, or perhaps a naive dupe.
That would be a few months after President Obama was captured on a live mike telling Medvedev to "tell Vladimir" he would have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. It was also a few months after Obama's clever debate zinger against Romney, "The 1980s are calling - they want their foreign policy back." Agent or perhaps a naive dupe?
Ironies continue to abound.
My sons and I used to have annual marathons of "The Shield" - this beats that TV show hands down. I keep thinking there's something more behind Steele's involvement than just money. Diane Feinstein has been surprisingly nonvocal - remember the stink she raised when she discovered her phone calls had been captured?? - where's her outrage now?
Speaking of US Senators, what did John McCain know, and when did he know it?
Mark, are you as puzzled by the apparent need to "classify" this memo as I am? The notion that the classification system can be used to protect malfeasance by senior government officials is the stuff of pulp fiction, but it seems to explain the concern over declassifying the memo. The only "harm" to the national security that I can see is that it should result in the need to replace the top two levels of bureaucrats in the DoJ and the FBI. But I'm sure that men and women of integrity can be found as replacements. I'd start my candidate search with all those senior officers who were denied promotion by Obama. What an obvious way to make America great again!
1. Steyn needs to add "headline writer" to his bio and give himself a raise.
2. Carter Page's treatment is a scandal and a disgrace that rouses a big ho-hum among the calcified media. I would like to see Fox do a feature special on it, with a panel that includes Mark Steyn and Alan Dershowitz. If not a dedicated show or town hall, at least a Tucker.
3. Loved the way Mark zeroed in on the capitals -- very Austin Powersish -- So, Trump sold his soul for ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
The Mueller fishing expedition and collusion of FBI top brass to feed it with information obtained by illegal surveillance and anonymous sources reminds me of visiting the Spanish inquisition museum in Lima Peru. One of the doors that was leading to the inquisition court room had a hole in it and it was used for people to provide to the judges anonymously verbal proof about sins of the accused. This was something comparable to FISA document that gave the court the justification to use enhanced investigation tools to extract confession from the accused
Some critical missing pieces of the story. Yes they first got a FISA warrant in October weeks before the election, but that isn't when they started listening.
We learned this from Admiral Rogers testimony (head of NSA). He explained that US persons were getting caught - and revealed via unmasking - in searches originatec on non US persons, through NSA systems. He got wind of it, and threw a flag on the play. He ordered review of the system and whether it was complying with legal requirements to protect the 4th amendment rights of US citizens and concluded that it was not. He therefore shut down access to the NSAs systems.
He did that in September. Steele tells Ohr his anti Trump despair in September and leaks to the media then and Isikoff publishes the echo corroborations then. They take the fraudulent application to the court in October and get a warrant, for the first time.
They've been spying since April. They first get legal justification to do so - by fraud - in October. They were only cut off between Rogers flag in September and the FISA court approval in October. The whole rest of the calendar, they are listening to everything, legal anything be damned.
Rogers visits Trump November 17 after the election and tells him he is being bugged. Trump moves his entire transition operation out of Trump tower to a golf course site in New Jersey the next day.
This is way bigger than the FBI FISA Page route in. It included State, the UN ambassador and the unmasking epidemic, misuse of the NSA system, and almost certainly the White House as well (Obama's White House, not Trump's).
Mark, you really should research and discuss the Admiral Rogers information and testimony and lay its timelines alongside this Page, dossier, and memo stuff. There is a lot more here and it reaches a lot higher that little Mr. Steele and his fan fiction factory.
Meanwhile in Canada amidst the homegrown #Metoo revelations, Trudeau visits a university in Hamilton and encourages students to get involved in politics because election campaigns are exciting "with pizza,sex and lots of fun!" Completely tone deaf but the media has not commented on this. Imagine if a conservative politician had dared say such a thing right now!
Treasonous acts have been committed by higher-ups within our own government. Using the offices of the FBI, DOJ and possibly the White House itself to sway a presidential election and change its rightful outcome is a knife to the heart of our democracy. I want charges of sedition brought with a trial being held for those involved. And if they are found guilty, facing a firing squad would be in order. Let the evidence take US where it will!
Mark, You are absolutely correct about so much noise being generated about the palace intrigue aspects of this crime that we overlook the real substance of their corruption and the true nature of the crime they were perpetrating which very possibly could have resulted in the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Justice cannot be truly served until that is understood. I will be very interested to see if Sessions and Congress are up to the task. Meanwhile, back to the palace intrigue - McCain's loud protestations against releasing the memo is a reminder that his fingerprints are on the weapon/dossier, too.
Perhaps Mark could do a movie review of Absence of Malice with Paul Newman since it has a similar storyline played out on a much smaller scale.
A truly excellent synopsis of this whole wretched business. My faith in the integrity of the FBI has evaporated.
My basic question is whether judges, either in a FISA court or a regular one, often regard newspaper stories as corroborating justification for a search warrant? It's a bit unclear from the memo. If that's standard procedure, it's a bit troubling.
My suspicion is that a whole lot of search warrants are based on shaky grounds. I remember this discussion coming up in the Waco hearings and the dubious justifications given for that warrant.
The whole TRUMP investigation shows that, yes, the DEEP STATE is a dragon that can find all sorts of uses for the gold horde of information they have.
I don't fear Russia as many as some, but they are masters of creating chaos in opposing countries. And the Mueller investigation and the Democrats are doing just that whether or not STEELE made up his information out of whole cloth or was fed some disinfo by his "trusted Russian sources".
Listening to some ex-CIA guy on the International Spy Museum's podcast, he made the lame observation that STEELE's dossier seemed to be consistent with Russian methods. (This was many months ago.) Well, if STEELE is an expert on Russian intelligence, I guess he'd know enough to fake that wouldn't he?
In my more conspiratorial moments, I wonder if STEELE was officially encouraged in his efforts by the UK government.
The UK government would not of had anything to do with this.
Remember Obama tried to blackmail us over Brexit. Hillary and Obama were better friends with Germany and airhead Merkel. Follow the money I would say. STEELE was in it for money. It will all come out in the wash. Also remember it is Corbyns Labour party and the SNP are stirring it up against Trump. Not the Tory Government.
Corbyns is a Marxist. SNP are just idiots.
Hello. I read a piece posted on Patriot Post by a Grove City College professor named Caleb Verbois that included the following, I thought you might find it interesting:
"The FISA court is a secret court of review that considers warrant applications under FISA. The FISA court process is somewhat different than an ordinary attempt by the police to get a warrant because it is designed to act quickly. In addition, the attorney general typically has to sign off on every warrant request, which means his or her credibility with the court is at stake. That is partly why the court approved 99.97 percent requests from 1979 to 2012, denying only 11 requests out of 33,900."
That bolsters Mark's point about laughing at Shep Smith calling the FISA judge an equivalent of a Supreme Court Justice. They appear to be little more than a rubber stamp for the bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy does not appear to have earned its trust.
George, interesting perspective. 'Tis a pity that Caleb Verbois is a bit of a #NeverTrumper, what? For that matter, for Verbois (absurdly credulous when it comes to the Mueller probe) to authenticate tbe FISA court's absurdly high rate of warrant approval is so contradictory it comes off as an "admission against interest".
On the other hand, bonus points for name-checking "Americans' other/i> Hillsdale", Grove City College. Lux Mea! Lux Mea! Go Wolverines!
Excellent piece of writing. You have upped your game each time you have written about this scandal. Has the FISA judge who issued the original warrant been named? Might it be Contreras, the Obama appointee who recused himself mysteriously from the Flynn case when it was assigned to him, without explanation? Speaking of Flynn, wasn't Strzok the one who interviewed Flynn, and upon whose notes the notion that Flynn "lied" during his interview would be based? Flynn pled guilty around December 1, and Strzok's emails with Page (and their bias) did not come to light until two weeks later.
So, Mark and friends. The left is grasping at straws with the last page of the memo, where the vaguely referenced "Papadopoulos information" triggered the opening of an FBI investigation in July 2016, much earlier than October, as proof that the Steele dossier was a sideshow in the whole matter. They say that the Republicans should have included that information, which would have been damning to Trump. I have not had the time to chase this "information" down... what do you think of this straw they are grasping at?
The Papadopoulos angle is a joke. This whole charade is a farce, and Trump is right to label it a disgrace. The Obama administration's surveilling of the opposition party's presidential campaign, and then their surrogates' continuation following the election is a scandal that dwarfs anything in my recollection of American history. And the shame of it is how few Americans actually care.
Did you hear the one about 2 struggling Russian screenwriters who were approached by a flakey UK producer, asked to do a treatment on a Trump dirty trick mini series ? Much to their surprise their script got green lighted.
The project was financed by a reclusive grand dame and central casting assembled an A list of stars from the FBI talent agency. The "hot" Director Dolt Kometchky attached himself to the project and given final cut.
The premiere episode got boffo ratings.
The 2 writers will be honored with lifetime achievement awards. They had been working out of a dreary Daca but VLAD productions has given them a long term contract , a studio bungalow, and back end points on their next project.
There is a Wall Street Journal article suggesting they would have never published a story with such a sketchy basis. So why did the FISA judge swallow it hook, line and sinker?
Granted that some in FBI and DOJ were wrong to request the warrant, but should the FISA court not have denied the application? Is the court not intended to protect us from such abuses?
I understand the FISA court started in 1977. Perhaps it needs another look.
Your explanation of the content and events surrounding the "dossier" is excellent. Unfortunately I have no faith whatsoever that the Republicans in Congress have either the spine or the desire to do anything about it. They hate Donald TRUMP as much as Steele does.
Although a retiree of limited means, I too find the "dues" paid to become a charter member of the Steyn club to be well worth it. I do not feel as if I am in an echo chamber of like minded pablum, but rather your gifted insight into the affairs of state are welcome, sharp, and true. Thank you, and I hope we get some sort of renewal notice when the need to support you comes again. Sorry, that should be STEYN, I guess.
Mark, even by your high standards this is superlative. Terrific work, thanks.
The contrast in the response to this scandal and the Nixon "tapes" scandal couldn't be more stark. Republicans did not attempt to dismiss the Watergate break-in as politics as usual, despite the fact that they knew the Democrats had done such things under JFK and LBJ. The Democrats hadn't been caught, Nixon had, and they was enough to dispense with partisan loyalties. Today, after four decades of self-delusion by the progressive left, these sorry little worms haven't the slightest bit of shame, and everything must be judged solely by its value to furthering their cause. Republicans delude themselves if they think these minions on the left will finally agree on some shared values regarding conduct and behavior. The simple fact that the Democrats are hell bent on shaping the demographic future of our country by encouraging illegal immigration should have been sufficiently alarming, but not for our representatives, nor the Camber of Commerce, apparently. The face of the Democrat Party is now one that can smile and smirk while lying non-stop during a television interview, never conceding an inch, all the while pretending to share a sense of right and wrong. But the truth is that the only "right" they are interested in is furthering their control of the rights of all the little people, the ones who aren't in thrall to progressive dogma.
Have you seen on the newsstand, a recent commemorative paean Time issue to itself as the "most influential magazine?" There in stark black and white cover photo are RFK and JFK facing each other hunched in deep contemplation. That is AG RFK ! This is either stunning lack of self awareness by the praetorian media, now howling about the sacred independence of the DOJ ; or it's just more in your face , look what we've been doing for over a half century.
Manufacturing "evidence" in a seditious plot (requiring cooperation between very powerful organs of law enforcement and foreign intelligence) is defended by the perps and half of Congress. If the "Deep State" can take out a duly elected president, we have reached the logical end of the "living constitution" scam: The people and states are no longer sovereign and the central government (no longer federal) is a barely disguised tyranny.
I wonder whether it is now incumbent upon Mueller to investigate the FISA warrant. If I were in Mueller's position, I would very much want to know whether any and how much of the information I had collected could be legitimately used.
Perhaps he could use his broad powers to unravel what apparently was very difficult for congress to get facts on.
OK, now I'm dreaming, but it seems to me it's within his power to do so:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
Seems to me FBI partisanship to railroad Trump "directly arises," and it would be a wonderful thing to see Mueller using his power to help clean up America.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Mark, I posted this on Facebook and one of the replies was this:
Mark Steyn redefines brilliant. I am diminished in his presence. God be thanked that he is one of the Good Guys. We have witnessed the first salvo in what promises to be a long, never-ending war between Patriots and those who would rot our Nation from within for inexplicable nefarious reasons. We can only hope that there as enough Mark Steyns among us to win the battles that are undoubtedly ahead.
To which I replied: There's only one Mark Steyn, sadly, and he's already fought and fighting battles on our behalf, to his great cost.
Yes!
I've attended two speeches given by Mark. Both times, I grabbed opportunities to speak with him one-on-one. He was completely **present** -- friendly and down to earth. (Not something one counts on with people who have attained wide renown or, at least, exposure.)
That's on top of his manifest brilliance.
Surely we'd clone him if we could.
Did Cameron and May know?
And when did they know it?
A friendly back scratch favour for the upcoming obvious landslide winner of a can't lose presidential election?
What's the harm in that, right?
Believe me they would not get involved. They worry about the UK too much and the consequences.
Now if you had said Tony Bliar he is like Hillary. Just cares about himself.
Mark- I have been reading and hearing about the MEMO non-stop for the past 24 hours and I believe that your article is by far the best (and most entertaining) explanation of what happened with this disgraceful mess.
For those of us who are your loyal followers, there were few surprises when the MEMO was finally released; rather, it was just a confirmation of your very well founded speculations that you have shared with us over the years. Once again we see the truth about our American legal system- that it is a stinking, clogged CESSPOOL l from the lowest Village court to the highest tribunal.
The evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the RULERS of our County, is overwhelming. Yet I would be glad to wager a significant sum of money that the FREAKS COMEY, CLINTON and their CRONIES will never see the inside of a prison nor suffer any substantial punishment for their crimes.
TRUMP has proven himself to be a genius on so many levels with the way he has handled himself during the relentless assault by the MAINSTREAM MEDIA and the DEEP STATE. I am hoping and praying that he can use the MEMO and anything else he can throw at the BASTARDS to turn things around and restore the RULE OF LAW and JUSTICE to our GREAT COUNTRY.
Thanks for all that you do.
Well-said Patty.
My club dues are one the best contributions to freedom that can be made.
The tentacles, so to speak, of this putrid and sprawling conspiracy are difficult to keep fully in mind. One detail that still interests me is at slight variance to the your remark that "The first request for a surveillance warrant was made on October 21st 2016". I believe that should be "The first *successful* request for a 'Trump world' surveillance warrant was made on October 21st 2016." News articles have alluded to an earlier request, generally characterized as "in the spring", that was denied. It would be quite interesting to compare the two applications and look at the FBI/DOJ efforts to buttress the request for the (eventually successful) re-do.
Thanks for all you do.
Mark replies:
That's an important point, Jeffrey. Thank you.
Another point that may help with Jeffrey's point. Apparently the Steele dossier was originally a bit of opposition research undertaken by a Republican candidate during the primaries. It was later picked up by the Clinton campaign and DNC. I would guess that the FBI and DOJ did not have access to the dossier prior to its adoption by the Clinton campaign. So there may be a clue in the timing of the first (failed) FISA request versus when the Clinton campaign adopted the Steele dossier?
The news media says that, but it wasn't. The Washington Free Beacon did initially employ Fusion GPS to do GOP primary opposition research, but ended that relationship before the dossier work began.
What's with Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman of the House Oversight committee, tweeting yesterday afternoon:
"I also remain 100 percent confident in Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The contents of this memo do not -- in any way -- discredit his investigation."
But as Mark pointed out, Robert Mueller's entire fruit-of-a-poisonous-tree "Russia investigation" springs from this dossier.
So why would Gowdy say that?? Even for a lame duck, that's pretty lame . . . .
Kent- I too have been wondering for about Gowdy for quite some time. He sure talks a good show but somehow he never does anything. His remarks about Mueller are disgusting and it makes me wonder why he (Trey) has decided to leave the hallowed halls of Congress. Maybe he's not so squeaky clean as he pretends to be. Not to mention that he has the worst hair of anyone in the media.
I was wondering right along with Kent and Patty.
And I agree with Patty: Gowdy is unusually prominent for a fourth-term congressman, but he seems to be "all hat, no cattle" as I think the saying goes.
Patty,
It is sadly very simple. Gowdy is leaving Congress with the intent to get back into Justice. He would be doing himself no favors in that regard by being anything other than highly complimentary of Mueller.
Bing-o!
You still have to ask, to what end? Is it likely they would have run the same kind of operation , with different players and script, against any Republican candidate by Obama year 8? From Uranium 1 through Fast and Furious and Lois Lerner, there was no check on them, or very little because the press had decided Obama was a demi-god floating above the fray. So much so that the shocking picture of millions of dollars of small bills in different currencies on a pallet shipped as a bribe to Iran was a one day story ; and only on some outlets. Would they have needed to cover their tracks of Obama's proto-tyranny, or would any other Republican just have gone along with Jeff Sessions, noblesse oblige "This country does not prosecute its political opponents"-- oaths to uphold the Constitution be da--ed ? To me, this is the point of the whole drama, to preserve the Obama legacy, after all, it's getting stale as you put it,to just "roll out another Kennedy. "
Great insight Paul G.
On one level, I can understand not prosecuting your political opponents for actual crimes. At the worse, that leads to the chaos of the late Roman Republic when Caesar decided that, no, he wasn't going to submit to prosecution so he crossed the Rubicon.
On the other hand, if your opponents don't go quietly away to lick their wounds and, instead, try to actively subvert your rule, then there's no reason not to behave reciprocally and prosecute them.
But, with all this being said, are any heads going to roll. I know there have been some firings and some retirements but it looks like those people are walking off into the sunset and will never be heard from again.
The Dems are still standing as one and with a straight face debunking the whole thing. Unless there are some high prices to be paid such has trials, juries, and sentences, to quote our favorite "most intelligent and truthful women ever", "at this point, what difference does it make!"!!!
Bravo, Mark! Well said.
Mark, you said it better than the DOJ or FBI could, themselves. It always comes down to that old saw... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The administrative state makes its own rules and judges its own decisions. That is the antithesis of 'separation of powers'. Along with the complicit knowledge of the press, and a do-nothing Congress, democracy truly does die in darkness.
Mark,
US Immigration officers are directed to use caps on all last names when documenting any interaction with interviewees. Even if you had Kinder Eggs seized at the border, your last name is annotated in caps. I saw Kinder Eggs on sale in a gas station in NC this week. I asked the clerk if the ban had been lifted and he said, apparently so. Reasonable border officers always joked about the absurdity of the Kinder Egg ban.
Mark replies:
I wish the ban had been lifted, but, alas, it is a hollow victory.
We shall all dine on Kinder Eggs if/when Mark gets around to holding his convention.
I've read the details piecemeal. Denial and avoidance has been the left's response every step.
How can anyone read the memo, and everyone should, and not have their eyes opened? The facts are presented clearly and concisely. I'm sure HRC will ask the left something about believing her or their own lying eyes. Or maybe she will go back to blaming the "vast right-wing conspiracy".
People should be absolutely sickened by this entire affair.
So now we enter the phase of the opposition talking heads looking at the cameras and smiling straight faced and in effect saying "What are you going to do about it?"
Exactly. They have thrown down the gauntlet. GOP must go all the way, or lose, imho.
If there is one thing President Trump has demonstrated, it is that you have to pick a fight and face down bullies or they will dominate you.
100% Laurence. Trump said he is going to clean up the Swamp, I hope he is able to do so. He is gradually winning, through toughness, and shrewd navigation; but overall, he's just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Beyond everything you so neatly sum up, Mark, is the overlooked heart of the story: namely that at the end of the Hillary/DNC-FusionGPS-Christopher Steele/MI6 conga line shimmies the topless buff figure of Vladimir Putin. Steele's "sources" were Russian. Russian. RUSSIAN.Having just finished the marvelous Kim Philby biography, I can tell you that Steele would be far from the first British spy hoodwinked by Russian "intelligence". Indeed, if he had to take a number, he'd have a shorter wait-time at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Putin offered dirt (real or invented) to both sides--getting as close to the Trump team as a meeting with Junior at the eponymous Tower. But the adults in the campaign, however few and far between, weren't interested. The Obama/Hillary/DNC/FBI/DOJ/FISA colossus, on the other hand? The bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
To finish my thought: however active Russian meddling was before election can't even begin to compare with its meddling after. As malicious as any computer virus, our obsession with Russian ghosts (spooks literal and figurative) has whole systems crashing. The criminal justice system, the judicial system, the system of checks and balances. I didn't like Obama bowing to foreign dignitaries, but I myself have to bow to Putin. It never takes much to pit Left against Right, but to wholly disrupt and corrupt the Second and Fourth Estates while seemingly eating crackers in bed is a masterstroke. Just wipe those crumbs and that smirk off your face, will you, Vlad?
I'm not giving the Second & Fourth Estates that pass. Vlad has done none of that - they are accountable & responsible for their own behavior and actions. They became useful idiots long before Putin was a KGB plebe. It's their susceptibility to manipulation that's the problem. Putin doesn't mind taking the credit but it's not due.
I am curious, Mr. Passell, which Philby biography you read. I have one that is about both Kim and his father, and I also read a book by a Russian who knew Philby in Moscow. If there is another marvel, please tell me!
This is a test of the strength of the American Constitution and the American Dream. Will it survive the challenge?
My guess is, it will. One side is the treasonous tyranny of the Democrats and the Deep State, aided in their Tyranny by Putin, VS the American People, who elected Trump, a tough, loyal, defender of the American Constitution and the American People, to drain the Swamp and represent their interests.
Trump is like Frodo, making his way to Mordor to destroy an evil threat that has been growing for a long time. Will he make it back to the Shire? Does Good triumph over Evil in the American Psyche? Yes it does.
"A Spy Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal", by Ben Macintire. Immensely readable, and jaw-dropping in places.
You are right, of course. In my defense, I implied that it took little or no effort on Putin's part ("eating crackers in bed") to sic the Leftist elements in our society on the rest of us. Indeed, the older among us can remember the days when Democrats believed in "reset buttons", auctioning off our uranium supply, "flexibility" after the election, and that wariness of Russia belonged back in the 1980s. It's not so much Putin that drives them mad as it is their innate corruption and spellbinding hypocrisy.
Josh, we've been at war with Russia for about a hundred years. Not news to most of us that they benefit from our troubles. They know that most of our internal strife is self induced, which makes their efforts much easier. But the popular conjecture seems to be the Russians preferred Trump over Hiliary. How is that even remotely rational? They're not stupid enough to believe Trump would trade a hotel in Moscow for US integrity. The dems apparently are. Does anyone know a rational explanation why Putin would prefer anyone over Hiliary who was already on their payroll?
Putin is good at evaluating people. Hillary was a known quantity but Trump was a blank slate. In sizing up Trump, surely he noticed that Trump evaluates people and issues from scratch. Examples are giving Lindsey Graham, Dick Durbin, and others the benefit of the doubt when beginning immigration negotiations. He did the same in giving Al Gore a chance, during the transition in Trump Tower, to make a case about the climate, and Trump afterwards ruled on Gore's case in a way that he felt was fair, saying, we just don't know. Putin may have calculated that he had more of a chance to "shape" Trump. With Hillary, he would have been up against one more kleptocrat.
David, I arrived to the same thought for the same reason: Putin already had corrupt Hillary in his pocket and so didn't need Donald. A second reason he prefers Hillary is that Vlad is tough, TOUGH in negatiating and Hillary is not, while Donald can be. And the Hollywood moguls and academic misfits Hillary surrounds herself with would not have been able to stand up to Putin in any negotiations, either. Two powerful reasons to think Putin preferred Hillary. In the end, though, Putin has lots of resources to devote to defeating either one, so I suspect the preference wasn't a particularly strong one.
Gotta agree and disagree, Sol. Disagree: Hillary had already taken one bribe from Russia, so she was already half in Putin's pocket. Agree: Putin knows he can "shape" people and events, with the resources he has at his disposal. On the whole, Hillary was a known "kleptocrat" and already had succumbed to her greed before, so was a more sure thing. But the election results changed it all...