The fact that it was not disclosed shows that either the leadership of the FBI was overzealous or also very biased.
Legally, if there is even an apparent conflict of interest, an FBI officer is supposed to recuse.
The same way that whether a prosecutor likes or hates you doesn't matter to a warrant application.
It matters whether they have probable cause or not.
If they have probable cause, there is no malicious prosecution claim you can make.
Judge is supposed to look at the evidence, see if there is evidence of probable cause, and if so, approve it. Otherwise, deny it.
Either that happened or it didn't. Either all the relevant (and again, bias is not relevant) evidence supporting the warrant were provided or it wasn't.
The judge is the neutral adjudicator, not the investigator.
There is a lot of caselaw on this because bias of informants is always challenged (and pretty much always loses):
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/31/the-dubious-legal-claim-...
"Legally, if there is even an apparent conflict of interest, an FBI officer is supposed to recuse."
This is not correct AFAIK. There is no legal statute or local court rules i'm aware of saying any such thing. If you know one, please cite it. (I used to be very heavily into this area when i interned at the Center for Democracy and Technology many years ago).
The FBI is only driven by the attorney general's guidelines, which are not overseen or approved by anyone else, and carry no force of law.
Again, an FBI officer is supposed to recuse if there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's the legal standard. So, obviously biased FBI officials should not have been involved in preparing or approving the FISA warrant application.
What evidence, precisely, do you think? As all the caselaw i cited says, bias is not evidence. The standard for probable cause is not very high.
Fun fact: it's also not legally actionable, even if evidence was hidden, if it's likely the warrant would have been approved anyway.
"Again, an FBI officer is supposed to recuse if there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's the legal standard. "
Please cite actual caselaw instead of bare assertions. I'm aware of no caselaw that says this, and i'm a lawyer with a significant amount of knowledge about FISA warrants and FBI guidelines/rules.
The only regulations here are internal to the FBI (though published in the CFR i believe), which are not "a legal standard" and are 100% irrelevant to what they need to do in front of a court.
(also note that there is a separate set of FBI guidelines that are classified that cover certain types of investigations. I do not remember if they cover the investigation type that occurred here)
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-stateme...
Let's not forget that this memo was voted to be released by republicans, the democratic one was voted down. Take politics into consideration when reviewing the memo.
How would you like the FBI to make a similar case about you or your favorite politician to the FISC? The FBI is there to protect our rights, not infringe on them.
Many of the FBI officials who had approval authority had at least an apparent conflict of interest and should have recused.
That said, I'm not an expert in these matters, and I'm looking forward to the rebuttal memo to see what the other viewpoint is.
The Republicans have prohibited the release of the minority memo.
https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle...
Rep Adam Schiff not doing his homework soon enough for it to be released in tandem with the Republican memo is his fault. They're not stopping it, they're just requiring he follow the same rules.
There's no rule that all memos on a subject need be released at the same time. Each is released once it completes the release process. If there's a "rebuttal memo" from the Republicans upon the contents of the Democrat's memo, should we wait for that as well? How about the rebuttal to the rebuttal?
The only requirement is that the vote and review process is followed.
> Also, its true that there are Republicans on the committee that don't want to see the Dem's memo released at all!
The comment to which I responded claimed that "Republicans have prohibited the release of the minority memo" which is false.
If you're going to make a claim that some Republicans are preventing the Democrat's memo from being released then feel free to name the names involved. My understanding is that it's entirely a process issue and Rep Schiff is a tool for claiming otherwise.
In the absence of the actual rebuttal memo, a kind of preview that doesn't require declassifying anything for release is available:
https://thinkprogress.org/3-lies-in-the-nunes-memo-4c6498aad...
An FBI official's political beliefs do not constitute a conflict of interest. If that were true, why should the Special Counsel (Mueller) be allowed to be a Republican? Are we supposed to be erring on the side of the accused (Trump)?
If a police officer is investigating you for committing a crime, they don’t recuse themselves because they think you’re guilty. That’s why they’re investigating you.
It only shows bias if there is evidence that the feeling confessed arose prior to the assembly of the dossier.
> The fact that it was not disclosed shows that either the leadership of the FBI was overzealous or also very biased
Or that the history of back-and-forth with FISC over FISA applications led them to believe that, in the totality of circumstances, this is not information that FISC would consider material in the application.
The FBI officials had clear conflicts of interest, but I guess they thought they could get away with it since its all classified.
That's a different issue than the issue of whether or not Steele’s personal strong opposition to Trump after gathering the dossier shows “bias” that negates it's credibility, which was the topic under discussion in this subthread.
Incredible.
We now have the spectacle of a partisan organization laundering opposition research through the FBI in order to engage the full power of the intelligence community to eavesdrop on the opposition.
If this doesn't signal the need for FISA reforms, what will?