Three weeks ago, House Republicans publicly released a much-hyped memo written by representative Devin Nunes of California. It alleged, through a series of allusions, tangential facts, and seeming misdirections, that law enforcement officials had abused their power in obtaining a surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Now, in a 10-page memo of their own, House Democrats are attempting to set the record straight.

The Democratic memo, though redacted in part, fills out the partial picture Nunes had painted. And while it's worth reading in full—especially for any fans of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's inner workings—a few portions stand out as particularly illuminating. It doesn't tell us much, if anything, about the investigation into potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. But it says everything you need to know about the Nunes memo's sophistry. Here are the key points.

The Carter Page Timeline Comes Into Focus

While redactions hide some specifics, the Democratic memo makes clear that the FBI had interest in Carter Page long before he joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Russian agents attempted to recruit Page at some point prior to 2013. And then, per the new memo: "In 2013, prosecutors indicted three other Russian spies, two of whom targeted page for recruitment."

The FBI also apparently interviewed Page about his contacts with Russian intelligence agents "multiple times," including in March 2016, the month Page joined the Trump campaign. In fact, the FISA application includes information about Page's activity prior to joining the Trump campaign at all. All of that previous interest and activity helps dispel the notion that the focus on Page amounted to a "witch hunt" targeting Trump; it was surveillance into an individual with business ties to Russia whom the country had also spent years trying to recruit.

Steele's Dossier Wasn't a Determining Factor

Republicans claimed in the Nunes memo that the FBI sought to surveil Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page in large part because of information from former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. “The ‘dossier’," according to the Nunes memo, "formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source.”

The Schiff memo controverts this interpretation. “Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI’s decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016,” Democrats write. “In fact, the FBI’s closely-held investigation team only received Steele’s reporting in mid-September.” The memo also emphasizes that the Steele dossier was extensively vetted and largely contained information that the FBI had either already obtained during its investigation or that it later corroborated. And contrary to the Nunes memo's claims, the Schiff memo notes that the FBI never actually paid Steele for the dossier.

The Court Knew Who Paid For Steele's Research

The Nunes memo claimed that law enforcement officials presenting to the FISA court did not provide context that Steele’s research and the dossier he produced were funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,” the memo said. This would have meant that key US law enforcement officials illegally misrepresented facts and crucial context to the court.

'This memo repudiates a key allegation that was made in the Nunes memo: that the FBI and DOJ were untruthful to the FISC.' Former FISA Lawyer Carrie Cordero

The Schiff memo contradicts these assertions, though: "Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias." In fact, the FISA warrant application even explicitly stated that Steele “was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit” the Trump campaign. DOJ also let the FISA court know why it trusted Steele nonetheless—and informed them when the FBI dropped Steele as a source, for talking to the media.

Though the Nunes memo's original assertion had always been in doubt, because of the pure impropriety and partisan manipulation it would have represented, analysts were relieved to see the Democratic rebuttal.