In response to my Rosenstein article, I received a simple question from someone I respect:

Why did you focus on “media reports” regarding the FISA application?

This was in reference to the questioning of Rosenstein by Matt Gaetz:

I mumbled something about not intending to focus on media reports. Then I went back and re-read my article. Here’s the salient bit:

The public information on the Carter Page FISA Application does not match the briefing Rosenstein received prior to signing the renewal. This is a highly significant revelation.

Those documents were sworn to – under oath – and vetted by FBI Agents. Consider the ramifications if they were false…

or…

Perhaps its the leaks regarding what’s in the FISA Application that are false.

Rosenstein signed the final FISA Renewal – sometime around June 29, 2017. After Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.

On July 27 2017, IG Horowitz notified Mueller of the Strzok/Page texts. On August 2 2017, Rosenstein issued Mueller a revised “Scope of Investigation & Definition of Authority” Memo. It was heavily redacted.

I really want to see the instructions laid out in that Memo. I also want to know when – and if – Rosenstein discovered discrepancies regarding his briefing for the FISA Renewal. And what those discrepancies might be.

If Rosenstein was correctly briefed and the press reports are wrong, who leaked the information and how does it differ from the actual FISA Application.

This was most important segment of the video. Period.

And…I referenced press reports.

The significance of Rosenstein’s statement is completely diminished by this portrayal.

Here’s a transcript of the Gaetz/Rosenstein Exchange. First the buildup:

Rep. Gaetz: Did you read the FISA application before you signed it?

Deputy AG Rosenstein: I won’t comment about any FISA application.

Rep. Gaetz: You won’t say to the committee whether or not you read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign.

Deputy AG Rosenstein: I dispute your characterization of what that FISA is about, sir.

Rosenstein’s statement “I dispute your characterization of what that FISA is about” is tantalizing – but not necessarily inconsistent. Page had left the Trump Campaign prior to the FISA Issuance.

Nevertheless, the Page FISA Warrant allowed for two-step surveillance. People associated with Page – like those still involved in the Trump Campaign – could also be surveilled.

Now we get the payoff:

Deputy AG Rosenstein: My responsibility at that time was to approve the filing of FISA applications. Because only three people in the department are authorized to sign it: the Attorney General, the Deputy, and the Assistant Attorney General for national security, which was vacant at the time.

…We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice. All of whom review that and provide a briefing for us for what’s in it. And I’ve reviewed that one in some detail, and I can tell you the information about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed, but I think it’s appropriate to let the Inspector General complete that investigation. These are serious allegations. I don’t do the investigation — I’m not the affiant. I’m reviewing the finished product, sir.

If the Inspector General finds that I did something wrong then I’ll respect that judgment, but I think it is highly, highly unlikely given the way the process works.

Here’s the important connection.

The Page FISA Application was discussed extensively in both the Nunes Memo and the Grassley Memo. It was later discussed in the Schiff Memo.

The Page FISA Application was viewed by the following members of Congress no later than January 31, 2018:

Chuck Grassley

Bob Goodlatte

Trey Gowdy

Lindsey Graham

Jerrold Nadler (or staff)

(or staff) John Ratcliffe

Adam Schiff

Dianne Feinstein

Sheldon Whitehouse

On April 6, 2018, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd took the unusual step of allowing all House and Senate Intelligence Committee Members to view the FISA Application (Boyd’s letter here):

The Department and the FBI agree to permit all members of the Committee to review the FISA applications and renewals in camera at the Department. The Department considers this an extraordinary accommodation based on unique facts and circumstances.

We are also extending this review opportunity to the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The DOJ agreed to allow all members of the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee to review the Carter Page FISA Application.

And here we have the full significance of Rosenstein’s statement.

Rosenstein was stating that what he’d been formally briefed on by DOJ lawyers was different than what had been disclosed in any of the three Congressional Memos detailing the FISA Application.

What Rosenstein was formally briefed on was different than the FISA materials put before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees by the DOJ.

I understood all this – I’ve written about the FISA Applications many times. But I failed to convey the full significance of Rosenstein’s statement in my recent piece.

We know that Goodlatte wrote the presiding judge of the FISA Court, Rosemary M. Collyer on January 16, 2018, requesting the contents of the Carter Page FISA Application and Order. Judge Collyer’s response letter is here.

Collyer is the FISA Judge who wrote the 99 page April 26, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the findings by NSA Mike Rogers.

This FISA Court ruling, unsealed by DNI Dan Coates, revealed some grave FISA abuses. See, The Uncovering – Mike Rogers’ Investigation, Section 702 FISA Abuse & the FBI.

The implication of Goodlatte’s letter was significant. Goodlatte wanted to compare the FISA Court’s Carter Page FISA Applications with the ones provided to him – and later to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Note: As far as I know, there was no follow-up from Goodlatte regarding Collyer’s response letter.

Goodlatte’s letter is all the more intriguing given Rosenstein’s statement – which leaves us with several possibilities:

The briefing given to Rosenstein by DOJ lawyers was factually inaccurate (one set of FISA documents). The FISA Application used to brief Rosenstein does not match the FISA Application presented to the FISA Court (two sets of FISA documents). The FISA Application presented to the FISA Court does not match the FISA documents given to Congress (two sets of FISA documents). The FISA Application given to the FISA Court does not match documents given to Congress or Rosenstein (three sets of documents).

All of the scenarios presented are extremely serious. Options 2-4 are the most serious given the required creation and existence of differing sets of actual documents. Option 4 is probably the least likely.

Although we are not privy to the actual FISA Documents, the Nunes, Grassley and Schiff Memos all detail the same basic information on the Page FISA Application.

Nunes Memo:

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign.

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.

The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow.

The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.

Grassley Memo:

On March 17, 2017, the Chairman and Ranking Member were provided copies of the two relevant FISA applications, which requested authority to conduct surveillance of Carter Page. Both relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims, and both applications were granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

The documents we have reviewed show that the FBI took important investigative steps largely based on Mr. Steele’s information – and relying heavily on his credibility. Specifically, on October 21, 2016, the FBI filed its first warrant application under FISA for Carter Page. This initial application relies in part on alleged past Russian attempts to recruit Page years ago. That portion is less than five pages. The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier.

Although here Grassley again hints:

The FBI repeatedly represented to the court that Mr. Steele told the FBI he did not have unauthorized contacts with the press about the dossier prior to October 2016. The FISA applications make these claims specifically in the context of the September 2016 Yahoo News article. But Mr. Steele has admitted publicly before a court of law that he did have such contacts with the press at this time, and his former business partner Mr. Simpson has confirmed it to the Committee. Thus, the FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Mr. Steele said he did not provide dossier information to the press prior to October 2016, or Mr. Steele made materially false statements to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier information to his business partner and the FBI.

Schiff Memo:

DOJ’s October 21, 2016 FISA application and three subsequent renewals carefully outlined for the Court a multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page, who, at the time of the first application, was no longer with the Trump Campaign. DOJ detailed Page’s past relationships with Russian spies and interaction with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign, [Redacted] DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page – but made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials.

As DOJ informed the Court in subsequent renewals, [Redacted] Steele’s reporting about Page’s Moscow meetings [Redacted] DOJ’s applications did not otherwise rely on Steele’s reporting, including any “salacious” allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting.

In its October 2016 FISA application and subsequent renewals, DOJ accurately informed the Court that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving information [Redacted].

FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign…DOJ’s warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause to believe Page was knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities in the U.S.

All three Memos provide slightly different takes from slightly different angles – but the primary information is essentially the same. A FISA Title I Warrant on Carter Page that relies heavily on information from the Steele Dossier.

So what exactly, was Deputy AG Rosenstein briefed on prior to signing that final FISA Application on or about June 29, 2017…

And which DOJ Lawyers did the Rosenstein briefing.

There is another issue as well. From my Rosenstein article:

Rosenstein signed the final FISA Renewal – sometime around June 29, 2017. After Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.

On July 27 2017, IG Horowitz notified Mueller of the Strzok/Page texts.

On August 2 2017, Rosenstein issued Mueller a revised “Scope of Investigation & Definition of Authority” Memo. It was heavily redacted.

When Rosenstein issued his revised directive to Mueller, he would have been doing so based on his FISA Briefing by the DOJ Lawyers.

We already know the Inspector General is investigating FISA Abuse. Now we know the IG is investigating the discrepancies noted by Rosenstein:

I can tell you the information about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed, but I think it’s appropriate to let the Inspector General complete that investigation. These are serious allegations.

There are two huge missing puzzle pieces. The unredacted contents of Rosenstein’s August 2, 2017 Memo to Mueller. And the FISA Court’s Carter Page FISA Application.

Much could be revealed from these two sets of documents.

Note: The Schiff Democrat Memo specifies that Page FISA Application and renewals were approved by four different Federal (FISA) Judges and appointed by the following: One by Reagan. One by G.H.W. Bush (elder). Two by G.W. Bush (younger).

Judge Contreras was appointed by Obama. Despite speculation, Contreras did not sign a Page FISA Application or Renewal.

Anne Conway signed a Page FISA Application or Renewal.

Either Raymond Drearie or Martin Feldman (FISA Court 5-19-10 to 5-18-17) signed FISA Application or Renewal.

Two of the following Judges signed a FISA Application or renewal: Collyer, Egan, Kugler, Mosman, Saylor.

It’s possible Contreras denied an earlier June/July 2016 FISA Application – likely on Papadopoulos.

newer post A Strange & Unsettling Day

older post A Letter from Devin Nunes – 17 Recognizable Names Referred for Open Interviews