1] Comey never called the dossier "salicious & unverified", despite Nunes' and the GOP's partisan claims here. He said "parts" were salicious and unverified. You've got to remember the "document" really isn't a "dossier". Nor is it a report. Instead it is thirty-odd separate raw intelligence documents, acquired over six months, bundled together in one folder.
Comey didn't say "parts".
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the
incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious
and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to
publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of
the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the
extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt
any such effort with a defensive briefing.
Now, if you choose to, you may infer he was only referring to the hooker parts but then you'd have to infer that the rest of the dossier was solid ... but the overriding collusion charge within has still not been verified.
I'm aware that Steele compiled the dossier from a series of individual findings/memos written during the investigation that he started immediately in June when he was hired ... but I'm not sure why it matters that it was a compilation.
What would matter to the FISC is who paid for it, and it would have been quite easy to include that in the application unless .............
2] The FBI admitted to the judge that the dossier was a political document, despite that Nunes' and the GOP omitted that fact in the memo as well. HRC was not named specifically, but the judges were aware of it's political context.
Sorry, but calling it "political" is no substitute for neglecting to mention it was paid for by Trump's opponent. Is it?
The 1st warrant application would have been a good time to mention it ...
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named US person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a US. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOI at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of – and paid by – the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.
The memo is a partisan political document of omission. To have better understanding through context, you may consider waiting for the Democrat memo providing the omissions that Nunes' and the GOP on't want you to see (for good reason).
The FISA applications were the documents of omission.
Finally, there's been nothing stopping the Democrat memo other than the Democrats reluctance to follow the same procedure the Republicans followed. Swalwell and Schiff should never be believed without corroboration.
The solution is to get all the relevant documents released to see what the facts are. Right?
It should be noted that the Democrats resisted the subpoena to the FBI for the relevant documents.
Are they on board with looking at the underlying documents now?
