- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,566
- 2,493
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Read the Full Text of the Nunes Memo
The full text of the memo can be read at the link above.
Here is the stated purpose of the memo:
The Nunes memo states in October of 2016 a FISC found probable cause and issued an order to conduct electronic surveillance of Carter Page. The Nunes memo states, "The 'dossier' compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application."
Nunes' memo, apparently, is objecting to the use of the dossier. Nunes' memo is also objecting to omission of information and/or facts. "[F]ISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans...is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted."
The rights of Americans are protected by the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment, as construed by the Court, requires a warrant, based on probable cause, to be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate before a search/seizure may be conducted, unless an exception to the warrant requirement exists. So, what difference does it make whether "material and relevant information was omitted"? The important question is whether the affidavit of probable cause did indeed establish probable cause? A related question is whether inclusion of the omitted "material and relevant information" would have negated the existence of probable cause?
The Nunes memo does not allege the application, order, and/or warrant lacked probable cause. The Nunes' memo does not claim inclusion of the omitted "material and relevant information" would have negated the existence of probable cause. Probable cause may still have existed even if the omitted "material and relevant information" was included.
The affidavit of probable cause submitted to the FISC would be very helpful in determining whether PC existed. If PC existed, and would have existed with the omitted information, then the Nunes' memo is not as alarming as Trump and other suggested. Indeed, the Nunes memo, as presented at this moment, is not alarming at all and should not alarm anyone. Much more information and facts need to be disclosed before justifying any hysteria in relation to what is in Nunes' memo.
The full text of the memo can be read at the link above.
Here is the stated purpose of the memo:
1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
Nunes' memo, apparently, is objecting to the use of the dossier. Nunes' memo is also objecting to omission of information and/or facts. "[F]ISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans...is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted."
The rights of Americans are protected by the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment, as construed by the Court, requires a warrant, based on probable cause, to be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate before a search/seizure may be conducted, unless an exception to the warrant requirement exists. So, what difference does it make whether "material and relevant information was omitted"? The important question is whether the affidavit of probable cause did indeed establish probable cause? A related question is whether inclusion of the omitted "material and relevant information" would have negated the existence of probable cause?
The Nunes memo does not allege the application, order, and/or warrant lacked probable cause. The Nunes' memo does not claim inclusion of the omitted "material and relevant information" would have negated the existence of probable cause. Probable cause may still have existed even if the omitted "material and relevant information" was included.
The affidavit of probable cause submitted to the FISC would be very helpful in determining whether PC existed. If PC existed, and would have existed with the omitted information, then the Nunes' memo is not as alarming as Trump and other suggested. Indeed, the Nunes memo, as presented at this moment, is not alarming at all and should not alarm anyone. Much more information and facts need to be disclosed before justifying any hysteria in relation to what is in Nunes' memo.
Last edited: