All posts by admin

About Kevin Ready Kevin Ready on Twitter (Click) Kevin Ready on Facebook (Click) The primary source of this Blog are the writings and opinions of Kevin E. Ready, Sr., an attorney, author, former military officer and former Congressional candidate. Kevin Ready is an attorney with forty years of experience. He is admitted to practice law in the Unites States Supreme Court, many federal court jurisdictions and in the states of California, Colorado and Iowa. He has primarily worked as a legal counsel for the government at both the federal and local government level. He has advised government agencies and officials on a myriad of legal issues, including administrative law, law enforcement operations, election law, taxation law, public policy law, legislative drafting, real property law and many other areas. Kevin has practiced general advisory law, trial advocacy and appellate advocacy. As an appellate attorney, Kevin was primary counsel on several landmark cases, including those ruling on government activities involving elections, taxation legislation and environmental law procedures. Kevin Ready served as a commissioned officer in both the US Army and US Navy. In the US Navy, Kevin was a Surface Warfare Officer with duties both as a missile officer on a guided missile cruiser and as Tactical Action Officer for a carrier battle group. As a US Army officer, Kevin was a Judge Advocate General corps officer with service as the command judge advocate for the US military agency responsible for military procurement of ordnance systems and supplies. Prior to his commissioned military service, Kevin served as an interpreter of Arabic and Russian languages for a US intelligence agency. Kevin was decorated for his service in the Persian Gulf, in Vietnam boat people rescue operations and was commended for intelligence activities in Cold War-era West Berlin. Kevin was a major party candidate for US Congress in general elections in both Iowa and California. In both elections, he lost to an incumbent Congressman, but received many important endorsements, including from major newspapers and national organizations. Kevin served as an aide, advance person and campaign coordinator in presidential and congressional elections. Kevin Ready has written several books, including an analysis of the TWA 800 incident, a book on global warming and several novels. He lives on the central coast of California with his wife, Olga, and family. Both of Kevin’s older sons served in the Iraq War, in-country, in Kuwait and Iraq.

Democratic Response to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Republican Memo

Converted from PDF to Word doc to post.

Republican memo is prior post.



TO: All Members of the House of Representatives

FROM: HPSCl Minority

DATE: January 29, 2018

RE: Correcting the Record – The Russia Investigations


The HPSCI Majority ‘ s move to release to the House of Representatives its allegations against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the De partment of Justice (DOJ) is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel, and Congress’ investigations. It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.

FBI and DOJ officials did not ” abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.

In fact, DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency. and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirement, by demonstrating:

  • contemporaneous evidence of Russia’s election interference;
  • concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials;
  • Page’s history with Russian intelligence; and

o                                          I Page’s suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.

The Committee’s Minority has therefore prepared this memorandum to correct the record:


  • Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBl’s decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI’s closely­ held investigative team only received Steele ‘ s reporting in mid-September – more than seven weeks later . The FBI – and, subsequently, the Special Counsel’s – investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates  has been based on troubling law enforcement and intelligence information unrelated to the “dossier .”


  • 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,                    . 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 meeting s in Moscow with Russian                                         . In fact,

the FBI interviewed Page in March 20 I6 about his contact with Russian intelligence, the very month candidate Donald Trump named him a foreign policy advisor.

As DOJ informed the Court in subsequent renewals,

Steele’s reporting about Page’s Moscow meetings

applications did nQ! otherwise rely on Steele’s reporting, including any “salacious” allegations







about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting. While explaining why the FBI viewed Steele’s reporting and sources as reliable and credible, DOJ also disclosed:

  • Steele’s prior relationship with the FBI;
  • the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and
  • the assessed political  motivation of those who hired


  • The Committee Majority’s memorandum, which draws selectively on highly sensitive classified information, includes other distortions and misrepresentations that are contradicted by the underlying classified documents, which the vast majority of Members of the Committee and the House have not had the opportunity to review – and which Chairman Nunes chose not to read 1




On January 18, 2018, the Committee Majority, during an unrelated business meeting, forced a surprise vote to release to the full House a profoundly misleading memorandum alleging serious abuses by the FBI and DOJ. Majority staff drafted the document in secret on behalf of Chairman Devin Nunes (and reportedly  with guidance and  input from Rep. Trey Gowdy), and then rushed a party-line vote without prior notice.


This was by design. The overwhelming majority of Committee Members never received DOJ authorization to access the underlying classified infonnation, and therefore could not judge the veracity of Chairman Nunes’ claims. Due to sensitive sources and methods, DOJ provided access only to the Committee’s Chair and Ranking Member (or respective designees), and  limited staff, to facilitate the Committee’s investigation into Russia’s covert campaign to influence the 2016

U.S. elections. 2  As DOJ has confirmed  publicly, it did not authorize the broader release of this

infonnation within Congress or to the public , and Chairman Nunes refused to allow DOJ and the FBI to review his document until he permitted the FBI Director to see it for the first time in HPSCI’s secure spaces late on Sunday, January 28 – IO days after disclosure to the House. 3


FBl’s Counterintelligence Investigation


In its October 2016 FISA application and subsequent renewals, DOJ accurately informed the Court that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 20I6, after receiving information                                                            . George Papadopoulos revealed

–            that individuals linked to Russia, who took interest in Papadopoulos as a campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late April 2016 that Russia


_.      Papadopoulos’s disclosure, moreover, occurred against the backdrop of Russia’s aggressive covert campaign  to  influence our elections, which the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn  in Papadopoulos’s plea that that the information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails . 5


DOJ told the Court the truth. Its representation was consistent with the FBl’s underlying investigative record, which current and former senior officials later corroborated in extensive








Committee testimony. Christopher Steele’s reporting, which he began to share with an FBI agent

  • through the end of October played no role in launching the FBl’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference and links to the Trump campaign. In fact, Steele’s reporting did not reach the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBf headquarters untiI mid-September 20 I6, more weeks after the FBI opened its investigation, because the probe’s existence was so closely held within the FBI.6 By then, the FBI had already opened sub-inquiries into – individuals linked to the Trump


As Committee testimony bears out, the FBI would have continued its investigation, including against- individuals, even if it had never received information from Steele, never applied fora FlSA warrant against Page, or if the FISC had rejected the application. 7


DOJ’s FISA Application and Renewals


The initial warrant application and subsequ .£l renewals received independent scrutiny and

approval by four different federal judges, thi-ee of whom were appointed by President George W. Ov\( l,’f

Bush and one by President  Ronald Reagan. DOJ first applied to the FISC on October 21, 2016       t1u w <, –: . for a  warrant to permit the FBI to initiate electronic surveillance and  physical  search of  Page for  f-t ·W  f.1>.-<i   1 90 days, consistent with FISA requirements. The Court approved three rene wals – in early

January 2017, early April 2017, and late June 2017 – which authorized the FBI to maintain surveillance on Page until late September 2017. Senior DOJ and FBI officials appointed by the Obama and Trump Administrations, including acting Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, certified the applications with the Court.


FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign. As the Trump campaign and Page have acknowledged, Page ended his formal affiliation with the campaign months before DOJ applied for a warrant. DOJ, moreover, submitted the initial application less than three weeks before the election, even though the FBJ’s investigation had been ongoing since the end of July 2016.


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.:


  • Page’s Connections to Russian Government and Intelligence Officials: The FBI had an independent basis for investigating Page’s motivations and actions during the campaign,

transition, and following the inauguration. As DOJ described in detail to the Court, Page had an extensive record as

1 prior to joining the Trump campaign. He resided in Moscow from 2004-

2007 and pursued business deals with Russia’s state-owned energy company Gazprom-









Page remained on the radar of Russian intelligence and the FBI. In 2013, prosecutors indicted three other Russian spies, two of whom targeted Page for recruitment. The FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian intelligence contacts, including in March 2016.10 The FBI’s concern about and knowledge of Page’s activities therefore long predate the FBl’s receipt of Steele’s information.


  • Page’s Suspicious Activity During the 2016 Campaign: The FISA applications also detail Page’s uspici •s activity after joining the Trump campaign in March

Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, during which he gave a university commencement address – an honor usually reserved for well- known luminaries.


  • It is in this specific sub-section of the applications that DOJ refers to Steele’s reporting on Page and his alleged coordination with Russian Steele’s information about Page was consistent with the FBI’s assessment of Russian intelligence effo1ts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest.
o        In particular, Steele ‘ s sources reported that Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Rosneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and “an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.” Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton (“kompromat”) and noted “t he possibility of its being released to Candidate

#1 ‘s campaign.” 11 [Note : ” Candidate #1″ refers to candidate Trump.] This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos .


  • In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s



















This infonnation contradicts Page’s November 2, 2017 testimony to the Committee, in which he initially denied any such meetings and then was forced to admit speaking with








Dvorkovich and meeting with Rosneft’s Sechin-tied investor relations chief, Andrey Baranov.


  • The Court-approved surveillance of Page allowed FBI to collect valuable The FISA renewals demonstrate that the FBJ collected important investigative information and leads by conducting Court-approved surveillance. For instance,




DOJ also documented evidence that Page






Page’s efforts t

sworn testimony to our Committee.


DOJ’s Transparency about Christopher Steele


Far from “omitting” material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims,17 DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias. DOJ explained in detail Steele’s prior relationship with and compens<\tion from the FBI; his credibility, reporting history, and source network; the fact of and reason for his termination as a source in late October 2016; and the likely political motivations of those who hired Steele.


  • DOJ was transparent with Court about Steele’s sourcing: The Committee Majority, which had earlier accused Obama Administration officials of improper “unmasking,” faults DOJ for not revealing the names of specific S. persons and entities in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. fn fact, DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not ·•unmasking” U.S. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject ofa counterintelligence investigation. DOJ instead used generic identifiers that provided the Court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele’s research. In an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that Steele


“was approached by an identified U.S. Person, 111 who indicated to Source #1{Steelej19 that a U.S.-based law .firm 20 had hired the ident(fied U.S. Person lo conduct research regarding Candidate #1 ‘s21 lies to Russia. (I’he identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long­ standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #I to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #I as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1 ‘sties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate 111’s campaign.” 12


Contrary to the Majority’s assertion that DOJ fails to mention that Steele’s research was commissioned by “political actors” to “obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump ‘s ties to Russia,” 23 DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by








politically-motivated U.S. persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use “to discredit” Trump’s campaign.


  • DOJ explained the FBl’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible: The applications correctly described Steele as

. The applications also reviewed Steele’s multi-year history of credible reporting on Russia and other matters , including information DOJ used in criminal proceedings. 24 Senior FBI and DOJ offic ials have repeatedly aflirmed to the

Committee the reliability and credibility of Steele’s reporting, an assessment also reflected in the FBI’s underlying source documents.25 The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’ s reporting, including with regard to Page.26


  • The 1′,BI properly notified the FISC after it terminated Steele as a source for making unauthorized disclosures to the media. The Majority cites no evidence that the FBI, prior to filing its initial October 21, 2016 application, actually knew or should have known of any allegedly inappropriate media contact s by Steele. Nor do they cite evidence that Steele disclosed to Yahoo! details included in the FISA warrant, since the British Court filings to which they refer do not address what Steele may have said to Yahoo!.

DOJ informed the Court in its renewa ls that the FBI acted promptly to terminate Steele after learning from him (after DOJ filed the first warrant application) that he had discussed his work with a media outlet in late October. The January 2018 renewal further explained to the Court that Steele told the FBI that he made his unautho riz ed media disclosure because of his frustration at Director Corney’s public announcement shortly before the election that the FBI reopened its investigation into candidate Clinton’s email use.


  • DOJ never paid Steele for the “dossier”: The Majority asserts that the FBI had “separately authorized payment” to Steele for his research on Trump but neglects to mention that payment was cancelled and never As the FBI’s records and Committee testimony confirms, although the FBI initially considered co mpensation

‘ Steele ultimately never received payment from the FBI for

any “dossier”-relatcd information.27 DOJ accurately informed the Court that Steele had been an FBI confidential human source since., for which he was “compensated

by the FBI” – payment for previously -shared information of value unrelated to the FBl’ s Russia investig a tion. 28


Additional Omissions, Errors, and Distortions in the Maiority’s Memorandum


  • DOJ appropriately provided the Court with a comprehensive explanation of Russia’s election interference, including evidence that Russia courted another Trump campaign advisor,  Papadopoulos,  and  that  Russian  agents  previewed  their  hack  and dissemination of stolen emails. In claiming that there is ” no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos ,” 29 the Majority misstates the reason why DOJ specifically explained Russia’s courting of Papadopoulo Pa padopoulos’s interaction  with Russian agent s, coupled with real-time evidence  of  Russ ian  election  inter ference ,  provided the Court with a broader context in  which  to evaluate  Russia’  s clande  stine  activities and Page’s history and alleged contact with Russian officials. Moreover, since only Page-








.                                         no evidence of a separate conspiracy between him and

–                                         DOJ would have been negligent in omitting vital information about Papadopoulos and Russia’s concerted efforts.

  • In its Court filings, DOJ made proper use of news The Majority falsely claims that the FISA materials “relied heavily” on a September 23, 2016 Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff and that this article “does not corroborate the Steele Dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself.” 30 In fact, DOJ referenced Isikofrs

article, alongside another article the Majority fails to mention, not to provide separate corroboration for Steele’s reporting, but instead to inform the  Court of  Page’s  public denial of his suspected meetings in Mosco),Y, which Page also echoed in a September 25, 2016 letter to FBI Director Corney.


  • The Majority’s reference to Bruce Ohr is misleading. The Majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr’s role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the timeframe of Ohr’s communication with the FBI. In late November 2016, Ohr informed the FBI of his prior professional  relationship with Steele and  information  that Steele shared with him (including Steele’s concern about Trump being compromised by Russia). He also described his wife’s contract work \\’.ith Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele separately. This occurred weeks after the election and more than a  month after the Court approved the initial FISA application. The Majority describes Bruce Ohr as a senior DOJ official who “worked closely with the Deputy Attorney General, Yates and later Rosenstein,” in order to imply that Ohr was somehow involved in the FISA process, but there is no indication this is the

Bruce Ohr is a well-respected career professional whose portfolio is drugs and organized crime, not counterintelligence. There is no evidence that he would have known about the Page F[SA applications and their contents. The Majority’s assertions, moreover, are irrelevant in determining the veraci_ty of Steele’s reporting. By the time Ohr debriefs with the FBI, it had already terminated Steele as a source and was independently corroborating Steele’s reporting about Page’s activities . Bruce Ohr took the initiative to inform the FBI of what he knew, and the Majority does him a grave disservice by suggesting he is part of some malign conspiracy.

  • Finally, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s text messages are irrelevant to the FISA application. The Majority gratuitously includes reference to Strzok and Page at the end of their memorandum, in an effort to imply that political bias infected the FBl’ s investigation and DOJ’s FISA In fact, neither Strzok nor Page s<;rved as affiants on the applications, which were the product of extensive and senior DOJ and FBI review.32 In demonizing both career professionals, the Majority accuses them of “orchestrating leaks to

the media” – a serious charge; omits inconvenient text messages, in which they critiqued a wide range of other officials and candidates from both parties; does not disclose that FBI Deputy Director McCabe testified to the Committee that he had no idea what Page and Strzok were referring to in their “insurance policy” texts; 33 and ignores Strzok’s acknowledged role in preparing a public declaration, by then Director Camey, about former

Secretary Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” in handling classified information-which greatly damaged Clinton’s public reputation in the days just prior to the presidential election.









1 Letter to HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, Department of Justice, January 24, 20I8.


2 Letter to HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, Department of Justice, January 24, 2018. DOJ also confirmed in writing to Minority Staff DOJ and FBl’s terms of review:


the Department has occommodatcd HPSC!’s oversight request by allowing repented in camera reviews of the material in an appropriate secure facility under the general stipulations that (I) the Chair (or his delegate) and the Ranking Member (or his delegate) and two staff e1ch, with appropriate security clearances, be allowed to review on beh11lf of the Committee, (2) that the review take place in a reading room set up at lhe Department, and (3) that the documents not leave the physical control of the Department, and (5) that the review opportunitiesbe bipartisan in nature. Though we originally requested that no notes be taken, in acknowledgment of a request by the Committee and recognizing that the volume of documents had increased with time, the Department eventually allowed notes to be taken to facilitate HPSCl’s review. Also, initial reviews of the material include [sic] short briefings by Department officials to put the material in con text and to provide some additional information.


Email from Stephen Boyd to HPSCI Minority Staff, January 18, 2018 (emphasis supplied).


3 Letter to HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, Department of Justice, January 24. 201.8.

s Papadopoulos’s October 5, 2017 guilty plea adds further texture to this initial tip, by clarifying that a Russian agent told Papadopoulos that “They [the Russionsj have dirt on her”; “the Russians had emails of Clinton”; “they have thousands of emails.” U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (I: I7-cr-182, District of Columbia), p. 7.

7 Under the Special Counsel’s direction, Flynn and Papadopoulos have both pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and are cooperating with the Special Counsel’s investigation, while Manafon and his long-time aide , former Trump deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, have been indicted on multiple counts and are awaiting trial. See U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn ( I :17-cr-232, District of Columbia); U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort , Jr., and /?ichard W. Gates Ill (I: l 7-cr-20 I, District of Columbia); U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (I: I7-cr-182, District of Columbia).


11 Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Applica tion , October 21, 2016, p.18 , Repented in subs equent n:newal applications


12 Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, June 29, 2017, pp. 20-21.











14                                                                                                                                           the FBI and broader Intelligence Community’s high

confidence assessment t”l’h-at-t”l’h-e”‘l!R!”‘u-s””‘si_a_n_g_o_ve_m_m_e_nt_w_asengaged in a covert interference campaign to influence the

2016 election, including that Russian intelligenceactors “co mpromised the ONC” and WikiLeaks subsequently leaked in July 2016 “a trove” of ONC emails. Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, October 21, 2016, pp. 6-7. Repeated and updated with new information in subsequent renewal applications. Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, June 29, 2017, pp. 20-21.


  1. I) Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, June 29, 2017, pp. 36, 46,


16 Department of Justice , Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, June 29, 2017, p. 56.

17 HPSCJ Majority Memorandum, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and

/he Federal Bureau of Investigation, January 18, 2018, pp. 2-3 (enumerating “omissions” of fact, regarding Steele and his activities, from the Page FISA applications).


18 Glenn Simpson.


19 Christopher Steele, 20 Perkins Coie LLP. 21 Donald Trump.

22 Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, October 21, 2016, pp. 15-16, n. 8. Repeated in subsequent renewal applications.


23 HPSCI Majority Memorandum, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Departmentof Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, January 18, 20I8, p. 2.


24 Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, October 21. 2016, p. 15, footnote 8. Repeated in subsequent renewal applications.


25 Interview of Andrew McCabe (FBI Deputy Director), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, December 19, 2017, p. 46, 100; Interview of Sally Yates (former Deputy Attorney General), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, November 3, 20 17, p. 16; Interview with John Carlin (former Assistant Attorney General for National Security), House Permanent Select Committee on Intellige nce, July, 2017, p. 35.

26 Jntervicw of Andrew McCabe (FBI Deputy Director), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, December 19, 2017, p. 100-10 I , 115.


n Interview of FBI Agent, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, December 20, 2017, p. 112.


18 Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, October 21, 2016, pp. 15-16, n. 8. Repeated in s ubsequent renewal applications.


29 HPSCI Majority Memorandum, Foreign  Intelligence S11rveif/ance  Act Abuses at the Department ofJuslice and the Federal H11reau of Inv estigation.January 18, 2018, p. 4 (“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.”)


10 HPSCI Majority Memorandum, Foreign Intelli ge nc e Surveillance Act Abuses at the Depal’lment of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, January 18, 2018, p. 2. Neither lsikoff nor Yahoo! are specifically identified in the FISA Materials, in keeping with the FBl’s general practice of not identifying U.S. persons.

31 Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, October 21, 2016, p. 25; Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Application, January 12. 2017, p. 3 I; Carter Page, Letter to FBI Director James Corney, September 25, 2016.                                     9







n Interview of Andrew McCabe (FBI Deputy Director), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Decembi:r 19, 2017, p. 157.













































Presidential Order and House Committee Memo



February 2, 2018

The Honorable Devin Nunes

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

United States Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter “the Committee”) voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classified information provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the “Memorandum,” which is attached to this letter). As provided by clause 11(g) of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has forwarded this Memorandum to the President based on its determination that the release of the Memorandum would serve the public interest.

The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President’s responsibility to classify, declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods and national defense. See, e.g., Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). In order to facilitate appropriate congressional oversight, the Executive Branch may entrust classified information to the appropriate committees of Congress, as it has done in connection with the Committee’s oversight activities here. The Executive Branch does so on the assumption that the Committee will responsibly protect such classified information, consistent with the laws of the United States.

The Committee has now determined that the release of the Memorandum would be appropriate. The Executive Branch, across Administrations of both parties, has worked to accommodate congressional requests to declassify specific materials in the public interest. However, public release of classified information by unilateral action of the Legislative Branch is extremely rare and raises significant separation of powers concerns. Accordingly, the Committee’s request to release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassification pursuant to the President’s authority.

The President understands that the protection of our national security represents his highest obligation. Accordingly, he has directed lawyers and national security staff to assess the declassification request, consistent with established standards governing the handling of classified information, including those under Section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526. Those standards permit declassification when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any need to protect the information. The White House review process also included input from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. Consistent with this review and these standards, the President has determined that declassification of the Memorandum is Appropriate.

Based on this assessment and in light of the significant public interest in the memorandum, the President has authorized the declassification of the Memorandum. To be clear, the Memorandum reflects the judgments of its congressional authors. The President understands that oversight concerning matters related to the Memorandum may be continuing. Though the circumstances leading to the declassification through this process are extraordinary, the Executive Branch stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests consistent with applicable standards and processes, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods.


Donald F. McGahn II

Counsel to the President

cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan

Speaker of the House of Representatives

The Honorable Adam Schiff

Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence


Declassified by order of the President — February 2, 2018

January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation


This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 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.

Investigation Update

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. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, 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.

1) 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. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

  1. a) 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.
  2. b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ 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.

2) 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. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

  1. a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.
  2. b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

  1. a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) 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. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.




A Personal view of the Republican Tax Plan

My wife came home from work yesterday and asked, “Ok Mr Attorney, how is this new tax plan going to affect us, you and me? Real money?”

My answer was “Well, our biggest tax problem last year was getting hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), hard, and the new tax plan moves the range for AMT so high we don’t need to worry about it. We still have one child on our return, so we will get bit more child credit. The changes the Senate made to the awful House version moved the state/local tax exemption high enough to not impact our credit for Santa Barbara property taxes on our house, since we have paid it down below the personal home cap of $750,000. We have medical insurance from your job, so we won’t immediately feel the pain of the impacts of the tax bill that many in the country will feel on their medical insurance bill. All in all, we are a bit better under the new tax bill.”

My wife smiled and said “Good, I was worried about everything I heard.”

Then I continued, “HOWEVER, my greatest concern looking forward is that I still feel that a government debt crisis, both in the US and worldwide, will cause a massive financial failure in 2020 to 2022 and beyond. This tax bill worsens the potential that the US Deficit and government debt system will add to the world debt problem. The tax plan pulls the revenues out of the system without paying any of the bills. I have no reason to believe the lofty guesses they are making about the economic impact of the Tax Plan; they are talking smoke and mirrors. AND, the proposed Defense spending shows the Republicans cannot see the way to significant cuts in spending. The proposed defense and debt service budgets outweigh any possible cuts in other government departments that Republicans could make. And, what is worse, the Republicans have set themselves up for a fall in 2018 elections since most people are not in our tax bracket and will hurt from this tax bill, so you could have a Democratic Congress facing a Trump White House in the years I worry about preparing to stop the debt crisis (2019-2020). No chance a Democratic Congress and a Trump presidency will effectively deal with debt and spending. So, the long range prognostication of the Republican Tax Plan is chaos. … you asked.”

A Great Depression Historian Just Issued A Chilling Warning About The Republican Tax Bill

A Great Depression Historian Just Issued A Chilling Warning About The Republican Tax Bill

By Robert Haffey

Published on November 30, 2017 in


As one by one the holdout Republican Senators shed their spines and fall in line behind Trump ahead of the looming GOP tax bill vote, America’s prospects for future prosperity dim. The legislation is a colossal handout to the hyperwealthy built upon the backs of the middle class. It will skyrocket the deficit and make the lives of average Americans tougher. It’s classic Republican reverse Robin Hood economics.

In a newly published Washington Post article, historian Robert S. McElvaine says that the Republican bill is ripped straight from 1929, echoing what the GOP passed right before the Great Depression.

The historic economic crash of the 1930’s was precipitated by a decade of disastrous Republican policies which spurned the poor and middle class in favor of catering to the rich. The massive tax cuts to the 1% that Republicans of the time rammed through Congress led to an accelerated concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, draining the rest of the country.

Despite the fact that the myth of trickledown economics has been debunked over and over again in history, Republicans still cling to the ideology. The pattern is as rote as it is exhausting. A Republican president replaces a Democrat in the Oval Office and claims credit for the uptick in economic growth, refusing to recognize that the boom is largely a result of his predecessor’s policies.

The Republicans then gives handouts to the 1% and pushes deregulation and — since economic forces move slowly and the implications of policies can take years to materialize — he leaves office before the horrible effects of the GOP legislation can be seen. The Democrat then inherits a mess and cleans it up, just in time for the next Republican to scuttle all the progress. Rinse and repeat.

McElvaine writes about this GOP stubbornness:

 “In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt called for ‘bold, persistent experimentation’ and said: ‘It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.’ The contrasting position of Republicans then and now is: Take the method and try it. If it fails, deny its failure and try it again. And again. And again.”

Indeed, the Republican Party is so deeply entrenched in its ahistorical and unfactual economic worldview that it’s almost as if its members have taken to living in a parallel universe, addressing fabricated facts and playing make-believe.

McElvaine points out that Republicans attacked President Bill Clinton’s proposed tax hike on the wealthiest Americans as a harbinger of complete economic collapse. Instead, it led to an unprecedented economic boom and a budget surplus. George W. Bush took over after him and immediately tanked the economy by pursuing opposite policies. And yet somehow, the Republicans still think their backward ideas will work this time around.

McElvaine gave a helpful series of bullet points on the negative effects of Trump’s proposed tax bill:

  • Repealing the estate tax would allow generations of wealthy Americans to accrete wealth even easier than they do now, leading to a permanent aristocratic class.
  • Eliminating state and local deductions will lead to most Americans effectively paying taxes twice, further crushing the middle class.
  • Removing large medical expense deductions will make it even harder for many people to afford healthcare, bankrupting or even killing in some cases.
  • Removing deductions for teachers and student debt, encumbering our education system more than it already is, and foisting a monumental burden on future generations seeking to better themselves.
  • Ending the Affordable Care Act individual mandate, throwing millions of Americans off their healthcare.
  • 80% of Americans will see their taxes rise. Millionaires and billionaires will see theirs drop.

Any one of these provisions by itself would be an unmitigated disaster, swirled together in the noxious concoction the Republicans are proposing it will lead to a complete implosion of the middle class and an apocalyptic economic downturn.

Call your Senators and tell your loved ones to do the same. It’s not too late to avert the cliff we are hurtling towards, but we must act now. Failure to act will hurt the American people for decades to come.


A Comment on Trump’s Charlottesville Statements

In the course of discussions about the events of Charlottesville last week, one of my oldest friends, Bruce Brill, posted a reply to something I said about President Trump’s comment. I wanted to blog here both Bruce’s comment and my response.

In response to my posting about the corporate leaders response to Trump’s Charlottesville comment, Bruce Brill wrote two things:

I’m a Jew. I found nothing Trump said offensive in any way… the opposite I saw in what he said words of healing, unlike the perennial Trump-bashers’ divisive comments.”

and then;

You know I respect you and your opinions. On the two items that you brought up (1.”that he gave both sides moral equivalency”, and 2. that you saw nothing healing in what he said),…. We can discuss these two items by listening to and analyzing WHAT TRUMP SAID and not what the fake media said he said.”

My response to Bruce Brill’s post is as follows:

Bruce, we have great mutual respect and friendship that dates back 45 years. You prefaced your remark as coming from a Jew. You know my own background as a student of Jewish history and culture and I think you have a copy of my most recent book which tracks a young woman’s search for understanding and meaning of her own Jewish heritage. But, I am not a Jew, and any attempt by me to counter your opinion of Trump from the vantage point of a Jew would be cultural appropriation in its truest sense. I can report that the two most important organizations of American rabbinical leaders have gone public in their disagreement with Trump’s recent comments about Charlottesvile.

Also, I can comment, logically, and from the standpoint of an American, that I found Trump’s statement that there were “fine people” on “both sides” to be contemptible. “Fine people” would not have marched in an after hours foray through a college campus carrying flaming torches while slogans made famous by 1930 Nazis were shouted. “Fine people” would have left before marching alongside armed quasi-military garbed brown shirted men who also wore Nazi-themed symbols. “Fine people” would have had no part in a rally that was organized and peopled by the vilest types of hate groups.

On the other hand, I must admit Trump got a bad rap for his comments that both sides were at fault. Both sides did have organized groups of people who came with shields, clubs and chemical sprays meant to allow physical confrontation with opposing groups. I saw shields brandished and used to attack others that had Neo-Nazi and White Power emblems on them, and I also saw shields likewise used that had Code Pink and Antifa identifying marks on them. There are social media postings by both the Neo-Nazi and Antifa groups urging their followers toward involvement in Charlottesville and warning of intended open hostilities. The right to peaceful assembly and protest in America does not include the right to physically assault the opposing side. A person’s or group’s right to protest stops when the purpose or result of the protest is injury and physical harm to others, or when other citizens, including police, are put in danger by a protest activity. However, Trump’s attempt at communicating what I just said fell woefully short when he tried to say there were bad actors on both sides. He forgot to talk about how the initial protest by the Neo-Nazi groups and their intended threat of open confrontation over the Lee statue was wrong at the outset and that Charlottesville citizens were correct in their right to disagree with that hateful action. That the Antifa attack groups also opposed the neo-Nazi protest is irrelevant to whether the original Neo-Nazi action was a worthy cause.

Overall, Trump handled the entire response to Charlottesville very badly. Trump needs to get professional staffers and speech writers to craft a wise message in cases like this and a message worthy of the office of the President. And, Trump needs to stay on message and not let his spur of the moment comments blacken the image of his office. A little thought and statesmanship needs to be inserted in Trump’s public comments and he needs to lose the Twitter account, or at least hire a thoughtful staff who does it for him after the Tweet has been properly staffed through WH political and national security channels. A statement by the leader of the free world cannot be ad lib banter by a person inexperienced in world affairs, politics and security and law enforcement issues. Trump may be the elected leader, but he needs to learn to think for a moment before opening his mouth or Tweeting and trust the high-priced and experienced staff the US government provides for him and who are able to fully think out the ramifications of a Presidential comment in a very complicated world.

By the way, the book about the Jewish woman seeking her Jewish heritage can be found here, 

Statement on North Korea by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis


08/09/2017 11:53 AM CDT
Aug. 9, 2017
Statement by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis
The United States and our allies have the demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack. Kim Jong Un should take heed of the United Nations Security Council’s unified voice, and statements from governments the world over, who agree the DPRK poses a threat to global security and stability.  The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.

President Trump was informed of the growing threat last December and on taking office his first orders to me emphasized the readiness of our ballistic missile defense and nuclear deterrent forces. While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth.  The DPRK regime’s actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates.

Fearing Iranian Expansion Dr. Kissinger Warns Against Destroying ISIS


By David Israel

Dr. Henry Kissinger

The Iraq War that began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition that toppled the government of Saddam Hussein cost the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, and just under 5,000 American personnel; with a total financial cost to the US economy estimated at between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. The most profound results of the war were the elimination of the one serious Sunni bulwark against the Shiite Iranian expansion effort in the Middle East, resulting in the rise of a largely pro-Iranian, Shiite government in Iraq. The Sunni remnants of Saddam Hussein’s government and military eventually emerged as the ISIS “caliphate,” spreading fear and dread in Iraq and Syria, with the occasional terrorist eruption in Europe.

In an article published a week ago in CAPX, Dr. Henry Kissinger points out that by destroying ISIS, an endeavor that appears to unite East and West these days, the US would contribute to the further expansion of Iran: “If the ISIS territory is occupied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or Shia forces trained and directed by it, the result could be a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire,” he writes.

Kissinger notes that the “system of order that emerged in the Middle East at the end of the First World War,” largely expressed in the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement between the United Kingdom and France, “is now in a shambles,” as “four states in the region have ceased to function as sovereign: Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen have become battlegrounds for factions seeking to impose their rule.”

Not surprisingly, in every one of these battleground you’ll discover the long arm of Tehran, the only true beneficiary of US foreign policy next to Israel. And so, barring a full-fledged military effort against Iran, which would eliminate its nuclear potential and bring down its repressive clerical regime, the West should avoid doing to ISIS what it did to Saddam Hussein, who had today’s ISIS commanders on his payroll.

“In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be regarded as your friend no longer applies,” writes Kissinger. “In the contemporary Middle East, the enemy of your enemy may also be your enemy.”

Kissinger points out the complex role of the newly-Islamist and Sunni Turkey in the Middle Eastern calculus, seeing as Turkey is more troubled by the bolstering of the separatist Kurdish state in northern Iraq—natural enemies of ISIS but also potential allies of the large Kurdish minority in Turkey—than it is by the threats posed by ISIS. In this context, the relatively warm relationship between the Trump administration and Ankara could be worrisome.

Finally, the question that has troubled the West since the Napoleonic Wars: what to do about Russia? “The new role of Russia will affect the kind of order that will emerge [in the Middle East],” writes Kissinger. “Is its goal to assist in the defeat of ISIS and the prevention of comparable entities? Or is it driven by nostalgia for historic quests for strategic domination?”

He could have written “entrenched paranoia” instead of “nostalgia,” but then he wouldn’t be invited again to those Beluga and vodka balls at the Kremlin. The fact is, though, that international politics abhors a vacuum, and should the West—mainly because oil is no longer the magical and powerful commodity it used to be—finally walk away from the Middle east mess, rather than accept that it is a troubled garden that requires permanent weeding, “great powers like China and India, which cannot afford chaos along their borders or turmoil within them, will gradually step into the West’s place together with Russia. The pattern of world politics of recent centuries will be overthrown.”

Clearly, at 94 Dr. Kissinger’s understanding of world politics (he covers other areas of the globe in his piece) exceeds the wisdom of our three most recent presidents with many IQ points to spare.

This Day in History

It is interesting when you realize that a certain date is the same as some important historical or personal date. A lot of people think back on what they were doing on the day JFK was shot, or similar. Wedding anniversaries are good for that, but birthdays seem to merge into the ancient past for me.The eighth day of August is a day that works to remember the past for me. On 8/8/74, I was a 22 year old who had recently come home from the Army with my BA degree in hand and I had accepted admission in the University of Tulsa law school and was planning on moving to that unknown (to me) city to go become a lawyer.

Then, in the mail that day I got a letter from University of Denver, giving me a late admission chance to go to law school in my hometown, if I could confirm my intent to do so immediately. I quickly decided to surrender the $400 tuition deposit I had made to Tulsa and go to D.U. I was working that summer as driver and advanceman for Gary Hart’s US Senate campaign in Colorado. I drove downtown Denver to let the campaign manager know that I would not be available to drive Gary for the final push to the primary election in early September, since D.U. law started in mid-August. When I told the campaign manager, Hal Haddon, the news, he said, “I’m glad Gary and Dick’s letters helped get you in.”

It seems Gary Hart and gubernatorial candidate Dick Lamm, both of who I had driven around together that summer, had sent letters of reference as attorneys, adjunct professors and possible Senator and Governor, to D.U. Law school admissions office. I had not been network-savvy enough to ask for that assist, but Gary had been, after I told him I was thinking of going to Oklahoma for law school. Gary Hart had gone to undergraduate school at a private religious college in Oklahoma and he spoke strongly against the experience.

Anyway, on 8/8/74, I found out where I would become a lawyer and the part our future Colorado Governor and US Senator had played in that milestone. Then, as I turned to leave Hal’s office, we heard a cheer go up from the group of college age campaign workers stuffing envelopes with campaign brochures in the back room. They were watching TV as they worked and they had just seen the flash announcement that President Nixon was resigning. Quite an event for a bunch of Democrats working on an upstart political campaign to unseat Peter Dominick, the incumbent Senator who was a close Nixon ally. Our campaign’s main election poster was not our candidate’s picture, but a photo of Nixon and Dominick together in an arms high victory salute. It worked in those days of Watergate, especially for Gary, who had cut his political teeth as McGovern’s campaign manager against Nixon (see below).

So, after the jubilation in the campaign office settled down I went down to the D.U. Admissions office and gave them my acceptance and started to look for a cheap apartment in Denver’s Capital Hill area, near the law school. Thus, when I hear that today is the anniversary of the day Nixon announced his resignation from the presidency I have a flood of nostalgic memories of that day that changed my life, and the whole nation’s.

Trump to interview Joe Lieberman for FBI director

Trump to interview Joe Lieberman for FBI director

Joe Lieberman

Former Sen. Joseph Lieberman testifying during a hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee on Capitol Hill, Nov. 3, 2015. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

(JTA) — President Donald Trump will interview former Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman for the position of FBI director, which opened with the firing of  James Comey.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump would meet with Lieberman on Wednesday afternoon.

Lieberman was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, becoming the first Jewish candidate to place on a national party ticket. He campaigned for Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, in 2016 after endorsing Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008. Lieberman switched to being an independent in 2006.

In addition to Lieberman, Trump is also interviewing for the vacant post acting director Andrew McCabe, former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating and former FBI official Richard McFeely, Spicer said Wednesday.

Trump fired Comey last week, with aides citing the director’s missteps in an investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified emails. The firing also came as Comey was leading investigations into allegations that the Trump campaign and transition team had inappropriate contacts with Russia.