And Trump Blocks The Democratic Memo

Submitted by: normalfreak2 8 months ago in News & Politics


So we as Americans are only allowed to hear one narrative, the one Trump wants to put forward.  Nunes Memo goes through despite all the concerns from the FBI and DOJ (Even though I didn't see nor read anything that compromised National Security) no concerns about national security from Trump. The Democratic Memo which evidently shits all over the Nunes Memo and picks it apart (Which would make Trump look bad) is blocked.  Sorry not buying the FBI/DOJ excuse Trump is putting on it.

If this isn't weaponizing Government to push propaganda I don't know what else is.

An excerpt from Politico:

Trump blocked the public release Friday of a classified House Democratic memo written in response to Republican claims that the FBI inappropriately spied on a Trump campaign adviser in 2016, prompting furious Democratic charges of hypocrisy and political exploitation of intelligence secrets.

The House of Representatives can still vote to release the memo despite Trump’s action, which could set the stage for a partisan brawl in the House next week over the document's fate.


There are 57 comments:
Male 854
This might surprise some of you who know me as a liberal, but I think Trump has a valid point.  To my understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong - The FBI & CIA were against releasing the Nunes memo without giving them a chance to look at it and make whatever revisions they feel are necessary.  I believe that they did get access to it, albeit a very limited amount of time, and they stripped out some of the classified stuff.  They didn't redact it - they just revised the text.  

That said, the Democrats' response was a point-by-point rebuttal of the Nunes memo, and their memo actually did discuss some of the removed/revised classified info - and in some ways actually revealed more than what Nunes' memo did.

Now, I have a healthy amount of doubt that my understanding of things are correct - especially since my source claimed the memo was revised and not redacted.  That's not standard operating procedures with classified info - but then again, quick declassification of info to make political points hasn't happened before.  Regardless, if my understanding is correct, then I think Trump actually does have a valid point.  Does anyone have a better understanding of this story?  I'm certainly open to being corrected.  I'm going to post this to the other discussion that boredhuman posted too.  
1
Reply
Male 9,482
skeeter01 Here's one rebuttal to this.  Remember after the State of the Union when the Congressman asked him to release the memo?  Trump emphatically and immeadiately said he will don't worry 100%.  This was BEFORE he read it.  He wasn't concerned about classification then, why?  Because the Nunes Memo was written in a way to push his agenda.   I don't think Trump gives two shits about classification if it's not the narrative he wants to push.
0
Reply
Male 910
Neither of the memos are particularly condemning of either party. There is no novel information. It only shows the partisan slant from the White House against his rivals. This isn't news. It only reinforces the president's bias.
1
Reply
Male 4,027
Where's a grassy fucking knoll when you need one?
1
Reply
Male 18,176
I believe it was a trap, forcing the president to redacting, delay, or suppress, making him look bad (worse).

That doesn't mean he didn't want to suppress it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 2,689
Draculya   And in reality if it never comes out, it will be up to history to fill in the blanks, and you cant always rely on history.  
0
Reply
Male 7,000
Hey, by the way, you remember when he said he would release his taxes if he became president?

What ever happened to that?  Where those taxes at?
2
Reply
Male 289
daegog Don't know if you have noticed, but Trump often says one thing, and does the exact opposite.  Seems like there is a name for that kind of behavior.
1
Reply
Male 910
david-morris He is a proven liar. The words are useless. He can only be judged on his actions.
1
Reply
1

Trump is joke

2
Reply
Male 326
Seriously? We can have a post about this but not the original memo? I’m boycotting this thread. Well, I mean staring now of course. 
0
Reply
Male 1,335
johndplorable Apparently we can submit a post, but the post won't be put up... I have copy-pasted the contents of my post below... 
1
Reply
Male 326
boredhuman I sincerely appreciate you doing this. I suppose I could have done the same, but it felt better just to complain...
1
Reply
Male 12,918
johndplorable Did you submit it?
1
Reply
Male 326
holygod Sure did, just the document, no spin. Damn it! Back to my boycott.
1
Reply
Male 9,482
johndplorable don't boycott, I enjoy talking with you.  I can actually have a meaningful conversation with you.  When I respond to 5cats, casaledana, spanz I may be talking to a brick wall, at least you have a cogent perspective.  I love "thinking" Conservatives/Liberals/Independents.
1
Reply
Male 2,689
I was not surprised by the results of this memo, you can look at it either way, 1 the prez would never release the memo, 2 the dems purposely put in sensitive material to force him to block it. (he, the FBI, and DOJ have claimed that its not releasable in its present form) ( and don't forget that the first memo was also checked by the DOJ and FBI)So the only course we can take is that the most hated president in modern history has subjugated  the FBI and the DOJ, and the great man that he is, in only a year. Or the dems released an un-releasable memo. Your decision  and we see what most of you have chosen.
-1
Reply
Male 6,496
casaledana, "the dems purposely put in sensitive material to force him to block it."

That must be the partisan pundits talking point excuse of the day as it's pretty much what Spanz said. I take back telling him he was being creative. He was just being a parrot like you are doing. You do realize the the House panel voted unanimously to release the Democrats' memo, don't you?
2
Reply
Male 2,689
markust123   Sooo what source are you using oh ya your pundunts, sense the memo has not been released there is no way anyone can tell me what it says. If you can't understand my tongue in cheek response, your prejudice is showing. 

In 40 years or more of watching politics there is no  telling at this point what is going on. Not that the FBI and DOJ just sent it back and said you can't say that, they sent cliff notes on how to make it releasable, so let's just wait and see how the dems respond, rewrite it or just sit on their hands and call "wo is me, we are being taken advantage of and they won't let us talk"  which is there standard fall back. And don't forget the talk shows that will have every talking head yell at the top of their voice. (Which has already started)

Of course marsii you and I know from all the proof  that the investigation has shown, and all the indictments, that Putin is truly a partner in crime.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
casaledana, “Sooo what source are you using oh ya your pundunts..”

I don’t ever go to cable news or read partisan blogs. I don’t listen to pundunts. They’re poison.
1
Reply
Male 2,689
markust123  So what you are saying?  You just pulled all this out of your ass what with no sources and all. 
0
Reply
Male 1,839
casaledana and they told Putin to help him just so he would get in trouble too!
1
Reply
Male 1,335
Submitted this post a day ago, but it still wasn't put up. So, I'll copy-paste it here: 

Russia Interference: Nunes Memo


If you came here to reinforce your beliefs, skip to the end!

The Nunes Memo is the latest development in the Russia Interference investigation. The Nunes Memo alleges that the FBI received a FISA warrant to wire-tap Carter Page based solely on the questionable Steele dossier.

The Nunes memo basically presents how the republicans' perspective on the Russia interference investigation. The FBI attempted to block the memo from being released, due to omission of important facts. The democrats may already have a response ready, but it will need to be declassified first. The FBI may also have something to say about it in the near future. 

Excerpt from Trump, Nunes and the politicisation of intelligence
Far from undermining the validity of the Russia investigation into president Trump, as the White House hoped, the memo actually reveals the Russia investigation is wider, and independent, than the memo’s narrow claims. It is a spectacular own-goal for Republicans trying to undermine the Trump-Russia investigation.

The memo was driven through by the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, and declassified on the authorization of the president himself.

The Nunes memo, as it was known even before its release, attacks the “legitimacy and legality” of the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) during the 2016 presidential campaign and suggests a “troubling breakdown” of US legal order to protect abuses of spying on US citizens.

At its core, the memo alleges that the FBI and DOJ used politically-biased information in an application for an electronic interception warrant, known as a FISA warrant, on a US citizen advising the Trump campaign, Carter Page. The information in question derived from the now-infamous dossier on Trump’s connections with Russia compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. 
...
The hard fact is that, after a year of scrutinizing the Steele dossier, nothing in it has so far been disproved. The Nunes memo does not allege the dosser is wrong— because it cannot do so.
Source link: published in prospect magazine, researched by Belfer think-tank

The Steele dossier has been discussed at IAB before (link). Here is the Steele dossier itself (link). 

The recently released Grassley/Graham Memo sheds more light
1. Attached to that referral letter was an eight-page classified memorandum (“Grassley/Graham memo”) setting forth the basis for the referral. 
2. The FBI, it seems, trusted Steele and relied on this information because of his background as a spy and because he had provided the bureau with reliable information. 
3. In summary, the initial FISA application and, most likely, the renewal applications, relied extensively on the credibility of Steele. 
Source link: The Heritage Foundation think-tank

So, will you read the memos, read the dossier, follow the Muller investigation, and really dig into what is happening? 
OR 
Would you like to just reinforce your beliefs and laugh at the stupid opposition?! I give you:

Conservatives: 16 Nunes Memo Bombshells the media do not want you to know about
"Yes, there was collusion with the Russians, and those in our government currently investigating Trump in the hopes of overturning a presidential election are the colluders."

Liberals: Nunes Memo Memes: From Watergate to Trump’s Nunes Nonsense 
2
Reply
Male 326
boredhuman Thanks for posting this, since talking about a memo that WASN’T released is a waste of time. I’m not replying to you so much as sharing my thoughts on the subject in the place it makes most sense.

To my knowledge, the only thing in the Steele dossier that has been proven is that the Russians are interested in splitting western alliances. None of the salacious allegations against Trump or his campaign have been proven.  

We don’t know if Trump or his people colluded with the Russians to somehow rig our presidential election. If they did, they should be tried and sentenced. If there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation, there should be an investigation. However, the investigation should be conducted by unbiased investigators. 

As far as I know, these things have proven true:

  1. The Steele dossier was financed by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC
  2. It was recorded by (I don’t know if he actually got it on tape or wrote it down) Bruce Ohr that Steele was desperate that Trump not become President.
  3. The dossier contained no actionable information (which is probably why it was leaked)
  4. The dossier played a major role in obtaining a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page
  5. McCabe testified that the warrant would not have been sought without the dossier.
  6. The investigators knew and never disclosed the Clinton Campaign and DNC paid for the dossier to the Court.
  7. Nothing from Page’s surveillance or 20 hours of congressional testimony has revealed anything against Trump or his campaign.
  8. FBI official Strzok sent his mistress anti-Trump/pro-Hillary texts, including something about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
  9. His texts revealed that he did not believe the probe into the Trump campaign was credible
  10. Though he was pro Hillary, Strzok investigated the the Clinton email server scandal before joining the Muller probe. As an aside, his texts confirmed that Clinton did in fact distribute classified material via her unsecured private server.

There’s not enough here to exonerate Trump or his campaign, but one does not have to jump all the way to deep state conspiracy theories to add all this up. At the very least,  these things raise some serious bias issues in the Department of Justice. If the DOJ is undermining one administration and covering up for another, as the evidence suggests, it’s a huge deal. We also have a privately financed dossier being used to solicit a warrant against a US citizen. That is no different than your neighbor paying someone to put together a dossier on you and leaking it to the police to get them to tap your phones to see if you have any weed. Big Brother much?
0
Reply
Male 9,482

First off your list is completely based off the Nunes Memo only, that's a problem and you'll see why if the Democratic Memo is ever released.  But let's break things down shall we?

johndplorable However, the investigation should be conducted by unbiased investigators. 
Completely disagree.  Do you think Prosecutors are always neutral?  HELL NO, that's what his defense team is for.  Presecutor's are there to FIND EVIDENCE and let the EVIDENCE speak for the facts.  Whether or not they are for or against Trump.  There are mechanisms in place to root out bad actors and people that falsify evidence or don't follow procedure.  Sorry I completely disagree with you here.  Tell me any situation where the Prosecutor's are looking out for the best interests of the Defendent?  You can't!  Because that's not their job.  


1.  Yes it was but don't forget this started out from a GOP donor Super Pack First.  Context matters.

2. It was recorded by (I don’t know if he actually got it on tape or wrote it down) Bruce Ohr that Steele was desperate that Trump not become President.

Could be true could not be true, in either case that is something factored in at the time of deliberation.

The dossier played a major role in obtaining a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page

Wrong, Carter Page had 3 prior FISA warrants on him, he was surveiled in the past.  Again I think he would have been surveiled with or without the Dossier.


McCabe testified that the warrant would not have been sought without the dossier.  
The investigators knew and never disclosed the Clinton Campaign and DNC paid for the dossier to the Court.

Yes they did, as a footnote, but regardless it should have been made perfectly clear.
 

This article pretty much breaks down a lot of your points and refutes some of them.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/31/what-we-know-about-the-warrant-to-surveil-carter-page/?utm_term=.2d21b36352f1

I hope you can see these are point by point refutations and you can have your opinion swayed by facts. Cheers.

0
Reply
Male 326
normalfreak2 I am just realizing that communication between opposing political views these days is less a matter of agreeing on facts, but agreeing on the definition of what a fact is in the first place. My comments in italic.


First off your list is completely based off the Nunes Memo only, that's a problem and you'll see why if the Democratic Memo is ever released.  But let's break things down shall we?

Your condescending tone aside, the Memo simply adds up events that have taken place and been recorded. I did not use the memo as my source.


johndplorable However, the investigation should be conducted by unbiased investigators. 


Completely disagree.  Do you think Prosecutors are always neutral?  HELL NO, that's what his defense team is for.  Presecutor's are there to FIND EVIDENCE and let the EVIDENCE speak for the facts.  Whether or not they are for or against Trump.  There are mechanisms in place to root out bad actors and people that falsify evidence or don't follow procedure.  Sorry I completely disagree with you here.  Tell me any situation where the Prosecutor's are looking out for the best interests of the Defendent?  You can't!  Because that's not their job. 

Ok, let’s agree on that exactly the way you have presented it, however, are racist cops ok with you? Strzok’s Trump-hating texts combined with the fact he volunteered for the Muller probe are suspect are they not? He would still be on the team if his texts had not been discovered by the inspector general of the FBI. There’s a difference between professional fervor for going after bad guys and hating someone to the point where your professionalism is called into question. I call it into question, you clearly do not.


1.  Yes it was but don't forget this started out from a GOP donor Super Pack First.  Context matters.

2. It was recorded by (I don’t know if he actually got it on tape or wrote it down) Bruce Ohr that Steele was desperate that Trump not become President.

Could be true could not be true, in either case that is something factored in at the time of deliberation.

Fair enough.

The dossier played a major role in obtaining a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page

Wrong, Carter Page had 3 prior FISA warrants on him, he was surveiled in the past.  Again I think he would have been surveiled with or without the Dossier.

You think he would have, I disagree. Comey testified the dossier was salacious and unverified. It should have been verified before it was used to get a warrant, don’t you agree? McCabe MAY have testified that the warrant wouldn’t have been sought without it. Prior surveillance warrants have nothing to do with this one. Frankly, I don’t care that he was surveiled, I care that enough evidence is piling up that this is a witch hunt in service of a politicaly charged narrative.


McCabe testified that the warrant would not have been sought without the dossier.  

https://www.quora.com/Did-McCabe-testify-that-no-surveillance-warrant-would-have-been-sought-without-the-Steele-dossier

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-devin-nunes-memo-is-100-wrong-about-andrew-mccabe-and-steele-dossier-for-carter-page-fisa-warrant

There is no proof of this.  This is speculation.

From your source: Asked if that was a true representation, a source familiar with McCabe’s testimony responded: “100% not.” I quote the honorable normalfreak2: “Could be true could not be true, in either case that is something factored in at the time of deliberation.” Mysterious “sources” don’t count in my book. Please hold echo chamber comments till the end.

The investigators knew and never disclosed the Clinton Campaign and DNC paid for the dossier to the Court.

Yes they did, as a footnote, but regardless it should have been made perfectly clear.
 

This article pretty much breaks down a lot of your points and refutes some of them.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/31/what-we-know-about-the-warrant-to-surveil-carter-page/?utm_term=.2d21b36352f1

You’re right, it refutes them in the same manner you have refuted them. My points are not points, they are a collection of facts (with the exception of the McCabe testimony and Ohr record on Steele. These items were not presented as hearsay in the articles I’ve read, but I’ll concede them until verified) that give me concerns. I have access to the same news you do. However, a fact is something that has happened and has been verified, not a bunch of if’s, may’s or could be’s. I find my liberal leaning friends talk about facts as if they own them, yet plow forth quoting speculative news articles with undisclosed sources as facts. How many retractions from the MSM does one need before one questions the news one is reading? I noticed you ignored completely #s 3,7,8,9,10. Obviously, you haven’t been swayed by facts, it is odd that you are so eager to make sure that I am.

I hope you can see these are point by point refutations and you can have your opinion swayed by facts. Cheers.



0
Reply
Male 1,335
johndplorable "If there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation, there should be an investigation." There is enough evidence, and an investigation does take place to gather more evidence.
"However, the investigation should be conducted by unbiased investigators." The investigation should be conducted by capable professionals who do not let their bias dictate their work.

I've been reading the Carter Page testimony. The Steele Dossier p. 30 reads:
"- Close associate of Sechin confirms his secret meeting with PAGE in July
- substance included a large stake in Rosneft in return for lifting sanctions on Russia. PAGE confirms, this is TRUMP's intention."

And then we have the Page testimony (page 140):
...
MR SCHIFF: You said that you may have discussed the sale of part of Rosneft with Mr. Baranov in July.
MR PAGE: He may have mentioned it to me. I had no discussions.
MR SCHIFF: He may have mentioned it to you.
MR PAGE: In passing, uh-huh.
MR SCHIFF: In passing. And you may have discussed or mentioned in passing your support for lifting sanctions on Russia.
MR PAGE: No, no direct support. Again, sanctions may have come up, which i thought was your - did the topic of sanctions -
MR SCHIFF: Okay. So you may have discussed sanctions and you may have discussed the sale of a part of Rosneft with him.
MR PAGE: No, No. He may have mentioned the sale of Rosneft if ti was in the market at the time. But what he didn't -- there was no definitive discussions about sanctions, and certainly no - not even conceivable -
...
MR SCHIFF: - evasive answer to a simple question
MR PAGE: Yeah. No serious discussions about anything.
MR SCHIFF: But you may have had discussions that you wouldn't characterize as serious?
MR PAGE: The topic - just like someone may have mentioned tax policy in November 2017 in Washington, there may have been an analogous brief mention in Moscow in July 2016. Briefly, yeah.

This doesn't conclusively confirm the dossier, of course. What troubles me is that Russians could decide to present their side of the story to undermine the president at any time, if they wish.
The target of the Russian investigation isn't Trump - it's Russia. Surveillance of Carter Page is not meant to reveal anything against Trump of his campaign. 
0
Reply
Male 326
boredhuman Your concern presumes the Russians side of the story will indeed undermine the President and presumes anything they came forward with was the truth. It’s messy. I find nothing to disagree with here, but I would say I find enough reason to suspect a lack of professional detachment within the Russian investigation. A fine exchange of ideas, thank you.
0
Reply
Male 1,335
johndplorable My submission has finally been posted! You should copy/paste your points there, so others can appreciate your work.

"Russians side of the story will indeed undermine the President and presumes anything they came forward with was the truth. " - Not at all. If the dossier is indeed a fabrication (or based on well produced lies) Russia could reinforce the lies by having Russian officials come forward and substantiate the lies in the dossier. In this case, it would be imperative to expand the investigation and to root out Russia's influence from US affairs, wouldn't you agree? 
Why is that extremely unlikely? Steele is a competent spy who has a lot of experience with Russia. I'm certain he would have not sent the dossier to first to the FBI then to the media unless he was absolutely sure of its veracity or he was converted by Russian agents. Steele doesn't personally like Trump? - would that be reason enough for him to help Russia - the country he has worked against his whole career?!
People look at it through political lens - Dems VS Trump. It's international: US vs Russia.
0
Reply
Male 9,482
boredhuman Great Summation.  My concerns with the Memo aren't really about the Memo itself.  One the FBI screaming that national secrets were at risk were baloney after reading the Memo from Nunes.  One thing I AM sick of is the FBI overclassifying everything.  We are adults let's see a lot of what the Government does on our Behalf.  There's SOME things that we can never know and that's okay.  But this memo should never have seen the light of day without the Democratic Memo.  


Also my other big issue, our INTELLIGENCE Committees used to be non-partisan, now they are being weaponized for the Administration, this is a scary outcome, one I'm not happy to see.

The Triablism of our Politics has infested the most non partisan ranks and that's scary.
0
Reply
Male 2,689
boredhuman   Yes you are correct that nothing in the Steele paper has been disproved, but you forgot to mention nothing in it has really been proven either.
-1
Reply
Male 326
casaledana Only that the Russians want to break up western alliances. And I don’t think that requires an investigation. 
0
Reply
Male 1,335
casaledana Some of the allegations have been independently verified over a year ago. 
Because of the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wouldn't be surprised that the media has not learned about everything the FBI has verified so far. 

Have you read the dossier, casaledana?
2
Reply
Male 326
boredhuman  From your source:

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals.
0
Reply
Male 2,689
boredhuman  So what you are saying is only the FBI knows the nature of the allegations that some of the wall journalist that in this day and age can't be trusted to much have verified some parts of it (which parts). I'll wait for the FBI report thank you very much.
0
Reply
Male 9,482
casaledana You have to take the blinders off bro.
0
Reply
Male 1,335
casaledana I have difficulty comprehending your sentence...
You can learn what the allegations are by reading the dossier

Let's take this dossier passage:
"Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries." - page 7

Was this conclusively proven? Of course not! This concerns extremely sensitive information with grave consequences. Even if this allegation were verified, the FBI would be wise to keep it classified and far away from the media until they have the whole picture. 

Testimony by Manafort and Page may shed more light into this passage as well. Innocent until proven guilty, of course!

Yes, let's wait on the reply by the democrats and FBI to the Nunes memo. There's little point to speculate before the FBI's report comes out. 
1
Reply
Male 2,689
boredhuman I'll make it very clear you, me and the general public do not know what in the binder (Steele) is true or not and yes some of it will be true, that's how you put in a loaded report some has to ring true or the hole thing will be rejected out of hand. And now it turns out that some of the info was being coming from Clintons people, that is not to mention that some of the things mentioned, talking  with the russians was not illegal or out of character for a incoming president. Despite the appearance, more and more, that High ranking members of the FBI, and the DOJ were using political pressure to help Clinton, and to try to set up Trump, I for one will wait for the Democrats to release there memo (or not) and hope that the FBI and the DOJ will clean house and get back on track as the premiere law enforcement agencies. (funny how there have been a large turn over in the upper exilon of both departments lately) 
0
Reply
Male 1,335
casaledana "me and the general public do not know what in the binder (Steele) is true or not" Yes, that's what I've been saying, too!
"loaded report"? Ok, keep speculating...
"coming from Clintons people?" If you're referring to the fact that Steele investigated and was paid by DNC? That was clear from the day it was released
"FBI, and the DOJ were using political pressure to help Clinton" Simpson's testimony contradicts it. According to head of fusion GPS, the reason Steele released the dossier to the media was because he felt the FBI was pressured by Trump not to investigate him.
"funny how there have been a large turn over in the upper exilon of both departments lately" Who gets to appoint the leadership in the FBI? - Attorney General, the head of DOJ. And who appoints him? - the president. The fact that the president can affect the leadership of the FBI is funny to you?  
0
Reply
Male 679
Memo? There was a memo?  You don't say!  Funny that Fancy hasn't posted anything about a memo that shows HUGE illegal activity on the part of some person(s) use of our legal system to spy on a US citizen.  
-1
Reply
Male 1,335
dkm458 I've posted something on the memo... but it wasn't put up yet... I guess I'll just copy paste the contents here.
2
Reply
Male 9,482
dkm458 The Nunes Memo is/was bullshit.  We are grown ups release it all, don't cherry pick and only give us ONE side.
1
Reply
Male 679
normalfreak2 I gladly await them releasing ALL of it!!
1
Reply
Male 1,841
bullshit.  He sent it back to the committee for them to revise it so classified sources and methods would not be disclosed.  

The memo was deliberately written by democrats to INCLUDE highly classified sources and methods, hoping that Trump would redact them.  By sending it back to these jerks, THEY have to do their own redaction, and can not blame trump when it is done.
0
Reply
820
spanz I'm curious: can you tell me how it feels to be so stupid as to swallow Trump's lies, hook, line, and sinker?

I mean, even the dumbest Trump voter back in the day has now had a year of him in office to figure out what's going on. It takes a really special kind of stupid to think he's on the level.
3
Reply
Male 2,689
barry9a   And so you are trying to say that the Democrats are completely incapable of subterfuge, really that's just amazing!!!! On this clear statement of clarity I am now a Democrat.
0
Reply
820
casaledana There is no need for subterfuge or 'gotcha!' politics. It's already beyond obvious that trump's die-hard backers won't change their opinions, and everyone else thinks he's a fuckwit. Getting a 'gotcha!' on this one is pointless.
0
Reply
Male 2,689
barry9a   Yes it's already beyond obvious that the Democrats die-hard backers won't change their opinions, and everyone else thinks there fuckwits. See how that works?  The point of that little post was to make fun of any one that thinks that the Democrats would not play politics with this situation, just as much as the republicans. 

 My point being we do not know what was in the memo, only that the DOJ and the FBI both said it had to much secret info in it. So you either trust them or not, If Obama and Clinton compromised them, we can't trust them really, and if you think Trump has  compromised them then they can't be trusted in any case so it comes down to if the Dems. will rewrite the memo for release or do you not believe what the FBI and DOJ said. 
0
Reply
Male 6,496
spanz, "The memo was deliberately written by democrats to INCLUDE highly classified sources and methods, hoping that Trump would redact them." 

I have to give it to you. At least you're creative when you are spinning your bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 289
markust123 Well, when you can make up whatever alternative facts that support your argument, bullshit spinning is easy
1
Reply
Male 167
spanz You KNOW they wrote the memo in a way specifically to get rejected because...  

Either you personally read it or talked to someone who has -or- it's the narrative you tell yourself (actually what Fox News told you to think) because there's no way Trump would ever block something just because it would make him look bad. 
1
Reply
Male 1,839
The FBI opposed the release of the Republican memo for the same concerns Trump is lying about fyi
1
Reply
Male 2,689
marsii   They opposed it but did not stop it.
0
Reply
Male 1,839
casaledana Explain how they would.
0
Reply
Male 679
PosisDas So tell us YOUR narrative and please explain, in detail, your sources and whatever information you used to come up with your completely independent viewpoint? 
0
Reply