A. The Nunes Memo and Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinNadler's point 3 insists that "The Nunes memo provides no credible basis whatsoever for removing Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General." But the Nunes memo does not advocate Rosenstein's ouster, nor does any credible commentator claim that the Nunes memo provides a basis to oust him.
Proceeding from the erroneous premise that former British spy Christopher Steele is the source of the dossier information, these analysts posit the inarguable proposition that the government is not required to provide the court with all of the potential credibility problems of an information source.
According to the Nunes memo, the FBI's then-deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that there was not enough information outside the Steele allegations to show probable cause.
In effect, A tells B something that is reported to C, who tells it to D, Steele's guy in Russia, who passes it along to Steele.
Before elevating the vicarious-credibility theory to a new level of farce - by portraying Steele as an "Expert" witness - the congressman argues that "The Nunes memo does not provide a single shred of evidence that any aspect of the Steele dossier is false or inaccurate in any way." Again, this is backwards.
D. The Nunes Memo and FISA LawNadler's point 1 asserts that the Nunes memo does not "Rule out the possibility that considerable evidence beyond the Steele dossier" supported the FISA court's finding of probable cause to believe Carter Page was a Russian agent.
In any event, the Nunes memo asserts that Andrew McCabe testified before the committee that "No surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." I hasten to add that I am quoting from the memo, not from McCabe's testimony - of which the Nunes memo gives us a description, not a verbatim excerpt.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456093/jerrold-nadler-memo-rebuttal-weak-unpersuasive
Proceeding from the erroneous premise that former British spy Christopher Steele is the source of the dossier information, these analysts posit the inarguable proposition that the government is not required to provide the court with all of the potential credibility problems of an information source.
According to the Nunes memo, the FBI's then-deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that there was not enough information outside the Steele allegations to show probable cause.
In effect, A tells B something that is reported to C, who tells it to D, Steele's guy in Russia, who passes it along to Steele.
Before elevating the vicarious-credibility theory to a new level of farce - by portraying Steele as an "Expert" witness - the congressman argues that "The Nunes memo does not provide a single shred of evidence that any aspect of the Steele dossier is false or inaccurate in any way." Again, this is backwards.
D. The Nunes Memo and FISA LawNadler's point 1 asserts that the Nunes memo does not "Rule out the possibility that considerable evidence beyond the Steele dossier" supported the FISA court's finding of probable cause to believe Carter Page was a Russian agent.
In any event, the Nunes memo asserts that Andrew McCabe testified before the committee that "No surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information." I hasten to add that I am quoting from the memo, not from McCabe's testimony - of which the Nunes memo gives us a description, not a verbatim excerpt.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456093/jerrold-nadler-memo-rebuttal-weak-unpersuasive
No comments:
Post a Comment