them will deliver be distributed. do not provide that education that you hope for. mike, why not do what michael zeldin was it s interesting to me about the fisa law, so the fisa law was something devin nunes actually worked on and at the time it came up, a lot of democrats opposed it, right? it s something that became a partisan fight about fisa, and republicans said, look, when there s abuses of fisa, don t worry, we re going to call it out. devin nunes has been working to call out abuses of the fisa law. there have been other examples where they ve tried to bring doj and fbi witnesses up and schiff has fought it. he doesn t want this to happen. and so the partisan nature of this committee, i think we have to talk about how partisan i get that, but adam schiff is being. to michael s point about the inspector general as being one avenue to address this or have open hearings and call in yeah, look, i understand that. when you have a broken committee that is as lea
fisa process and even house speaker ryan uses the word may and makes it conditional. the civil liberties may have been violated. no one is saying this is an absolute direct abuse of power and they have not shown evidence because we don t have the underlying fisa application. and i m desperate to hear from the fisa judges about this. that the actual entire process application was based solely on this steele dossier. i hope everyone at home this weekend will read up on how you get a warrant through the fisa application process. it is absolutely riddled with traps and backstops. it is incredibly rigorous and you d have to conspire as a large group of people to try to break the law in this process. let s talk about devin nunes. devin nunes was somebody who recused himself from the russia investigation in house intel because of the debacle over what happened when he was trying to prove donald trump correct about wiretapping where he said he had information that wiretapping was
that s the process that both parties, by the way, passed in federal law n that s the process that appears to be followed here. the larger hypothetical inside this new memo is the argument that, well, maybe, maybe if the process went differently, carter page would not have ultmetly been surveilled. it s a hypothetical. and the other point, following this where the facts go, they make an allegation here. i don t qknow whether it s true but they allege andy mccabe made a similar hypothetical that he agreed with the republican theory that, quote, no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the court without the steele dossier information. is that true or not? we ll continue to work to report that out. but that strikes me as a big hypothetical and my knowledge of andy is he doesn t like to speak in hypotheticals because what that sentence really means is, if a judge knew more, they would have said no. 98% of the fisa warrants get approved.
issued and maybe if the fisa judge had more information they would have come down a different way. there already is under the law which republicans passed, by the way, and renewed in the fisa law, a remedy for that. carter page wants that remedy and he s entitled to that. none of that matters to many more people than carter page. we cover civil liberties cases all the time. if he ultimately wins this case through the fisa process, i ll cover that too and congratulate him. does this is a anything about the wider case, the mueller probe, the collusion under investigation and the meddling that s been proven? my reading of this memo is no. and as a journalist, it s disappointing because whatever the process is we got here, i prefer really big revealing documents to really narrow duds. this looks like a dud. i was talking to a producer meredith mandel. she was telling me the idea that the steele dossier is a smoking gun to say that this investigation should not be followed through is a li
ludicrous if you re looking at it from a legal standpoint if you were a judge looking at the case. if your neighbor says i went to a cop and said i believe this person, katy tur, is making meth in her house and the cops follow through and investigate and find, lo and behold, i am making meths in my house, i cannot go to a judge and say, you cannot use that evidence because my neighbor clearly does not like me. doesn t want to see me succeed. doesn t think i should be making money. that would not hold in a court of law. that s exactly right. this is something the legal unit has been researching. the meth case is a real one and the answer was the judge looks at whether the underlying facts provide the kind of suspicion to justify a warrant which means they gather more facts. it doesn t mean anyone is guilty. the fact that someone may have a reason to turn or snitch or complain doesn t undermine the issue. the issue is only whether the