Russia Interference: Nunes Memo

Submitted by: boredhuman 3 months ago in News & Politics


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

There are 73 comments:
Male 918
Having a hard time understanding the republican playbook here, this is why I think you should run for things you believe in, and not against everything someone else believes in.

They say Trump has great judgement and picks people that drive his goals, until they leave his team then they never had any real influence. 

If Trump says something untrue, they go the all politicians lie, better than Hillary route. Ok so he's bad and Hillary is worse, but he's in office now, is he doing things you like (like actual policy)?

Then elections are rigged and politicians are crooked and we should investigate, but we should stop the investigation into Trump? Didn't Hillary get investigated several times, if she was guilty and got off why are we trying so hard to derail the investigation Trump did nothing?

People who wanted Hillary to win, upset by FBI announcement about emails so close to election, but now FBI/CIA is a deep state that was always against Trump?

Hacked emails ignore the source don't trust the DNC. Dossier may have lead to investigation(that was ongoing before dossier?), who cares about the results consider the source (started by republicans continued by Dems?).

Trump blames congress for not getting things done, Congress says he doesn't know what he wants.

If the government shuts down Dems did it, then he says he wants it shut down. He also said before that a shutdown govt is the result of weak leadership not getting everyone to make a deal in 2013.

Who/what are people supporting right now, and why?
2
Reply
Male 42,934
mischeif954 YES he absolutely is doing things I like. Is he perfect? No, and no one expected him to be. We're darn happy he's doing anything good at all!

Hillary got investigated only once (since Bill left office I mean): it is now being proven that the FBI (From Comey on down) concluded she was "innocent" BEFORE they even did the investigation. They investigated ways to NOT charge her with the crimes they freely admit she carried out.

There are a dozen other things Hillary should be investigated for: no doubt she's guilty on most of those too.

Before the Dossier the "investigation" was literally: One guy (popadopalos) said (while drunk) he heard from some other guy that Russia did something. This was reported by an Australian diplomat months later. It is LITERALLY "3rd hand information" and thus counts as gossip, not evidence.
The Dossier was the DNC/FBI's "insurance policy" to use against Trump if needed, even though they themselves admit it is entirely unverified, unproven and just plain trash.
Remember: many news outlets would not touch it when given the chance! But once it was "briefed by Trump" then they could report THAT angle of it without getting their asses sued. And WHO leaked the info to the press? Comey himself!

No one has ever denied the 'hacked DNC emails' are 100% true and actual e-mails. No one ever said they weren't real. If they ARE real, who cares what the "source" is? They remain REAL e-mails, facts not gossip.

Shutdowns: same thing happened in reverse under Obama, no one blinked an eye. Trump does it? They LOSE THEIR MINDS! This same pattern over and over again!

Hope that clears things up!
0
Reply
Male 8,967
5cats Hillary Colluded with Russia to lose the Election to Trump?  Boy love that stupid logic you are using
0
Reply
Male 42,934
normalfreak2 You really are retarded.
Hillary (Campaign) wrote the Dossier which they passed to Steel who used his well-known "Russian Connections" to try to legitimize the fictions and gossip.
That was done illegally, that constitutes collusion.
So unless you have PROOF that Russian tried to influence the election against Hillary (other than by supporting Sanders of course) who was 'their girl'? AND that Trump knew about it? You are mistaking two entirely different events as being the same thing.
You really are that stupid, eh?
0
Reply
Male 987
5cats "Hillary (Campaign) wrote the Dossier which they passed to Steel who used his well-known "Russian Connections" to try to legitimize the fictions and gossip." - who has been feeding you this fiction?

Let me speculate on how the FBI fits into this fiction!
The FBI colluded with Russia as well. They investigated Hillary just to keep up appearance of being non-partisan, but acquitted her all the same.

No wonder it's been a year and the FBI couldn't find a single thing about the dossier!!! They're keeping the fact that the dossier is a complete fabrication secret. In fact, the FBI is probably working closely with Putin right now to manufacture fake evidence to make the dossier seem legit.

The FBI is illegally spying on the innocent members of the Trump campaign, looking for dirt. If they can't find any, the FBI will just plant evidence. FBI will coordinate with Putin, who will tell his Russian officials to come out and start telling lies. 

The Muller investigation is also part of the conspiracy, providing yet another avenue to attack Trump. The deep state couldn't put crooked Hillary in the white house by interfering with the election. Now they'll use the FBI and DOJ, both of which have been over the years infiltrated by Russian spies, to bring down the president. And the judges, who are working for the Democrats, will rule that it's all legal. 

It's so simple. It's so clear. And nobody knows any of this is going on, because the MSM keeps it all hidden. Only [insert 5cats source here] has the TRUTH! 
0
Reply
Male 8,967
0
Reply
Male 918
5cats Yes the government shutdown before it's not unprecedented, but at the same time Trump said a shutdown was a reflection of leadership.

Also not to downplay your opinion, I'd rather hear a vote of confidence from someone in the states. You follow US politics far more than I follow Canadian, but not living in the political climate just doesn't hold the same weight.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
mischeif954 How was Obama's multiple shut-downs not a 'reflection of leadership'? The leaders of the 3 branches: White House, Congress and Senate are supposed to get together for the good of the American people and pass a proper Budget: something they haven't done in many years now...

It is a failure now, and it was then too. Not just of Obama/Trump but the 4 leaders in the House/Senate too.
Plenty of blame to go around! The KEY is that if it's the President's fault NOW? it was also the President's fault THEN too. Or vice-versa! I'm not saying it is: I'm asking for some consistency (honesty) from the liberal-left.
0
Reply
Male 296
5cats Every time the government shuts down I think how much my life doesn't change in the least and how we're saving money by furloughing non-essential government employees. Then I'm pissed when they all go back to work and we pay them back pay anyway. Government shutdowns are a big political performance no matter who is in office.   
0
Reply
Male 918
5cats I'm not saying it's the President's fault now or then per se to me it's more complex than that, I agree with the logic though either it's both's fault or it's neither's fault. The issue for me is you're asking for consistency from the liberal left, but the comment didn't come from them or republicans it came from Donald Trump. Is he taking ownership of the shutdown? I haven't seen it.

If I personally say Canadians are stupid, then move to Canada and claim I'm not stupid you can't ask Canadians and Americans to be consistent, it's his comments. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
mischeif954 The MSM tried to blame the Repubs (House and Senate) for the shutdowns under Obama. It isn't Obama's fault they screamed in unison!
Now? It isn't the DEMS fault! It isn't the House and Senate's fault at all, it is ALL TRUMP they scream in unison.

Except no one believes them any longer. The MSM Who Cried Wolf far too often is a joke now.
There were 5 persons to blame then, and 5 persons to blame now. The truth is usually pretty simple eh? :-)
0
Reply
Male 987
mischeif954 Are you really this naive about politics?
Politicians will do what is in their personal and their party's interest. Don't look at politics through the lens of consistency - look at it through the lens of power. You fool yourself, if you think democrats don't do the same...

What people keep ignoring about the Russian interference investigation is:
It's about RUSSIA, NOT Trump! The goal is to remove Russia from interfering with US politics. Muller is a patriotic republican - I'd like to think that even if he has evidence of Trump collusion, he'll keep it well classified, so as to not put the country into chaos. The goal is to root out Russia's influence!
0
Reply
Male 296
boredhuman You've said it's about Russia before. I wish the MSM and Talking Heads would too.
0
Reply
Male 987
johndplorable I'd like to see a movement for bipartisanship: a select number of moderate republicans and democrats uniting into a group. Maybe they could even make a bipartisan ticket with a president and vice president from different parties... 
Even if it's a small group, it could end up large enough to be a decisive force in most decisions. 
0
Reply
Male 8,967
boredhuman I'd like to think that even if he has evidence of Trump collusion, he'll keep it well classified, so as to not put the country into chaos. The goal is to root out Russia's influence!

I hope not!  The truth is the truth.  If there's evidence of collusion that needs to be brought up.  Yea it'll be chaos but it needs to be known. 
0
Reply
Male 987
normalfreak2 Timing is important. If the FBI doesn't have a bullet-proof case and they come out with their evidence too early, the entire country will be in a long legal battle. Additionally, if they reveal information, that will finding new information that much more difficult.
"The truth is the truth." - I'm sure you know it's not that simple. Remember the brief period of time when the truth was that Iraq had WMDs? 
0
Reply
Male 8,967
boredhuman Absolutely I remember.  But all the evidence was there that the WMD claim didn't have legs.  The Administration chose to ignore those warnings because they had an agenda and they wanted that agenda.
0
Reply
Male 578
boredhuman there is an obvious tactical difference though. The GOPs blatantly disregard logic and reason, and do so because apparently their base will eat it all and ask for more. On the other hand, the DEMs appear as the tough choices party, with strategic "inevitable" sacrifices on behalf of the big picture. So one appeals to a brainless gut and the other to a gutless brain. Politics are not uniform of course, but it's a perverted art as it is.

With that said, yes, the 2000lbs gorilla is the freaking Russians, and their useful fools in the social media industry. You'd think that would unite both sides, but lacking a real president is a horrible start. 
1
Reply
Male 987
bearbear01 There's a time and a place to appeal to emotion and to reason. Emotion has a stronger and more immediate impact, and that's what the GOP make good use of. 
I hope there's going to be a movement against partisanship. 
0
Reply
Male 578
boredhuman I don't see how. I think the bases are satisfied with the dung flinging and or the higher moral ground, these two being the one's and the other's regardless of the side. Meanwhile the independents see the show, know the show, but are not part of the two party show. And either stay home or are forced to align. Unless there is a third party, I don't see success in such a movement, the system works fabulously well for the puppeteers. I am not without hope, I see the movements that are coming out. We shall see. 
0
Reply
Male 296
bearbear01 With compromise now a virtual impossibility, I see a future with multiple parties creating voting blocks of priorities. In the way the Tea Party and Green party "back" a candidate during primaries, more splinter groups may form to fill voids in the political spectrum.  
0
Reply
Male 578
johndplorable I mentioned in a reply above something about this being a generational game. In that regard, I admire the greens and the libertarians for sticking to their principles and not folding in. A prime minister approach would ensure a more meaningful presence to smaller parties, I suppose. It is not the American model though. So, short of that, we are left with needing a better congress. Limiting the congress terms would be a first step. Setting up equal chance campaign rules too. Anyway, back to the generational thing, everybody wants immediate gratification and in politics that's a powerful weapon to disarm your opponent (you need results? Stick to the big parties!). It's humbling, but a real reform requires sacrifice that won't be seen by the ones who sacrifice. Bad news for all. But the greens stay green and the libertarians stay libertarians, through the years. Hats off. 
0
Reply
Male 987
bearbear01 The 3rd party you talk about would have no chance. If the 3rd party shows any promise, the puppeteers will just unite the 2 parties against the 3rd and crush it. 
My hope is that Trump is going to be a wake-up call for the country to take politics seriously. To learn the facts, to be informed voters. 
0
Reply
Male 578
boredhuman yes, so far it seems that third parties are effectively swallowed. It's an odd thing, though. The tea party was basically adopted and reinforced by the goppers in place, whereas the berniecrats, looks to me, are an unforgivable sin to be bleached out (something else to be determined). And still two big parties at the end. 
It's a generational game in the land of instant gratification.
We shall see if enough votes are disgusted enough in the right direction. The Alabama black women numbers are a good sign in this regard. The hope exists. 
0
Reply
Male 8,967
boredhuman passion resides at the extremes and thusly they are the most motivated to vote.  I wish we had mandatory voting to root out the extremists.
0
Reply
Male 918
boredhuman I get, the other side is bad, that's always been that way. This is new to me this isn't "hey there's some bad actors" or "some bad behavior". It's the Intelligence agencies are bad, congress is bad, people who were in his administration whom he chose to be in his administration that have since exited were bad, voters are bad, voters are fraudulent, the election is rigged, the media is bad, when people refer to him positively, it's mostly "he's not Hilary". The economy is (was?) good, companies announced passing tax money to employees, money is being repatriated, we'll see the effects of the tax overhaul. I'm not trying to avoid any positives, but even this comment you made "The goal is to remove Russia from interfering with US politics." is considered inflammatory.
0
Reply
Male 987
mischeif954 Vicious partisanship is a big problem in the US. The solution is for democrats to talk to republicans - try find common ground, common ideals, common interests. I see your post reinforcing partisanship. I'm trying to find common ground:

"'The goal is to remove Russia from interfering with US politics.' is considered inflammatory."

Breitbart says Hillary, FBI, and DOJ colluded with Russia?! - Fine! Let's change our relations with Russia, if they have so much influence in US politics. Let's intensify the special investigation into Russian interference. Let's see the democrats' reply to the Nunes memo to expose it as lies. 
Every republicans should be interested in the US affairs to be free of foreign interests. I see too many people calling it the "Trump investigation" - it's not all about him!
0
Reply
Male 918
boredhuman "I see your post reinforcing partisanship." Please explain.
0
Reply
Male 987
mischeif954 I'm referring to your original post, where you rattle off half a dozen examples of republicans being inconsistent. Do you really think republicans view themselves as inconsistent? From their perspective, you look misinformed and incorrectly compare different things. 

How did you think republicans would reply to your post? Did you think they'll patiently and rationally explain that you're wrong? In this toxic, partisan environment you should expect to be called misinformed, stupid, or worse!

That's what i call reinforcing partisanship... 
0
Reply
Male 918
boredhuman I see your point I wasn't trying to highlight their inconsistencies, (not that I don't think they are), but in this case I was highlighting the attack on the institutions of democracy. If they are saying everything is wrong, then what is right? 

Is any of what I said misinformed?
0
Reply
Male 987
mischeif954 You have different kinds of republicans, with varying viewpoints - some don't like or agree with Trump. Additionally, you vastly oversimplify things.

"If they are saying everything is wrong, then what is right?" - This is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with your post. No republican would say that. Republicans would disagree with each other about what is right and what is wrong...

"Is any of what I said misinformed?" A lot of it is misleading. You put together a lot of disjointed information and manufacture a narrative - it's not unlike Breitbart. 

What goal did you have? I'm sure other liberals would eagerly join you in venting their rage against the republicans - but what purpose would that serve? 
0
Reply
Male 918
boredhuman Ok ignore everything I said, you say I oversimplify everything but now you're being naive, all the responses I've seen tend to lack the diversity of thought that reflects the party, they have been in the form of not Hillary and references to former administration, hence my first post, the dangers of running against and not for.

What is right? What are some of support of right now and why?
0
Reply
Male 987
mischeif954 I have trouble understanding what you're saying - I think you're asking to understand republican view.... 

If you're asking about what Trump ran on, just check out the wiki: Political positions of Donald Trump. Remember: he promised to repeal Obamacare, build a wall, cut taxes, reduce environmental regulations, 'drain the swamp' and others... he wasn't just "running against."

I suggest you try to study republican's point of view from their sources. The heritage foundation is a conservative think-tank - look through their articles on various issues. If you'd like to understand how republicans view Trump in the perspective of conservatism, watch the author discuss his book: Whiplash! From JFK to Donald Trump, A Political Odyssey

There are many different kinds of republicans. If 5cats's views seem strange, it's because he gets a lot of his information from the David Horowitz Freedom Center. It believes the democrats are running the country right now and that there's a secret Civil war going on, which is about to turn violent... 

You don't have to agree with what republicans say, but it's a good idea to understand what their beliefs are and where they're coming from to be able to discuss politics with them. 

If republican views seem strange/stupid, remember: they likely think the same way about your views!
0
Reply
Male 918
boredhuman "he promised to repeal Obamacare, build a wall, cut taxes, reduce environmental regulations, 'drain the swamp'" 

Whether you're on either side of the issues his positioning is obvious.

Repealing Obamacare is not being against it? 

Immigration- Building a wall and the travel ban when the former administration wanted to welcome more refugees not against? (Yes they seemed aligned on deportation and a path to citizenship for DACA)

Taxes/Budget - Cut taxes and with those taxes things like the individual mandate, and expansions to medicaid from the former administration. Increased budget for military, and choose to increase nuclear and/or modernize our nuclear capabilities, opposed to the former administrations goal to reduce the nuclear arsenal (I hope infrastructure doesn't include this wall mexico was supposed to pay for, pretty expensive, I'd prefer money for faster safer transportation for most americans)

Environment - Reduced environmental regulations opposed to the former administrations, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement that the former administration joined. Budget cuts also include programs monitoring climate change. You don't have to agree with what [party affiliation] says, but it's a good idea to understand what the evidence shows to be able to have informed discussion.

'Drain the swamp' - He still has time, but he has thus far had some objectively bad people and appointments in his camp, but he did bring some outsiders. Are they doing anything meaningful? Time will tell.

If you were being genuine in your effort to reduce partisanship I applaud you, but it seems you are asking not to be critical of issues. Neither side should be coddled, especially standing behind someone who's been so nasty to a lot of people.

BTW: Thanks for the links
0
Reply
Male 42,934
mischeif954 The former (Obama) also had travel bans for many of the same countries... ok? And Obama wanted more ILLEGAL immigrants to enter, that's why he BLOCKED ICE from doing their job and told people to send their CHILDREN un-escorted into America.

Boredhuman is highly partisan, he just doesn't often admit it. :/

Trump's work in repealing Obamacare, over the objections of his own party (!) is what has kick-started the US economy. That and the tax cuts.
Industry was waiting for 'the other shoe to drop' the Employer's Mandate which would gut the US economy in the name of... not sure what. When Trump killed the Individual Mandate? The surge in productivity, hiring and investment began! There is no way he'll impose the EM after kicking out the IM, eh?

http://obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-mandate/

0
Reply
Male 987
mischeif954 "Repealing Obamacare is not being against it?" Every single one of these issues could be framed as "running against". Republicans frame it in terms of "more freedom" - which in reality means freedom for corporations/industries...

"If you were being genuine in your effort to reduce partisanship I applaud you, but it seems you are asking not to be critical of issues." I'm not asking to suspend criticism. I'm asking to listen to the opposition and try to understand THEIR criticisms. Try to find common ground and ONLY THEN voice your criticisms, while framing it in a way they will understand. Yes, it's a lot to ask - it's a lot of work. 

It's impossible to expect a serious conversation where you put a giant laundry list of contentions issues (as in your original comment). Each of these areas would be worth analyzing in multiple posts. You see, I'm taking one relatively small development in the Russia investigation, and make a giant write up with half a dozen sources, from all sides. 

My approach may not be good either - it's very time consuming, and people simply don't have the spare time to dedicate to politics. It's much easier to watch your favorite news source reinforce your well-established opinions. It goes for both left and right ... and the country continues to polarize and the partisanship only intensifies... 

If you'd like to have a critical discussion, pick one specific issue and really dig into it. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
Lolz, it's nothing! 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/11/former_cia_director_john_brennan_investigated_for_perjury.html

Bill Clinton was a perjurer, so what difference does it make? Now?
-4
Reply
Male 42,934
Trump doesn't NEED to "disprove" the Clinton/Steele Dossier: they need to PROVE the events it relates are facts. They do not, the Dossier is garbage and everyone knows it.

That the FBI failed to mention the Dossier was written by and paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign during an election when applying for FISA warrants FOUR times is not only irregular, it's probably illegal too.

The only 'hard fact' is that Hillary actually DID illegally collude with the Russians to throw the election and it has been proven beyond any doubt. Meanwhile after a year of unlimited searching there is NO evidence (never mind proof!) that the Trump campaign colluded at all. Period.
-4
Reply
Male 5,091
5cats you need more fiber in your diet
1
Reply
Male 1,528
5cats It appears you don't know what the words prove or proof mean. Must mean you have mad conservative street cred.
0
Reply
Male 11,991
5cats How can you believe Russia was colluding with Hillary when nearly all the propaganda and hacks coming out of Russia were anti Hillary. Are you saying she colluded with Russia for them to make her lose the election? 
1
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod Nearly all? Not even close. Most? Sure. But the ones supporting Sanders do NOT count as supporting Trump, ok?

Hacks? You have proof the various Hacks were engineered by Trump? Hillary's guy opened a virus and THAT is what let the Genie out of the bottle... not Trump.

Secondly: if that facebook things was ALL there was? And so far that's ALL there is: and Trump had not one single thing to do with it, then this is a huge joke, ok?
100,000 bucks vs 1,000,000,000 and you think THAT influenced the election? A ten-thousandth of the DNC spending made Hillary lose? It isn't even remotely possible... especially since some of it was anti-Trump too.

0.01% of the DNC spending... really? THAT constitutes "influence"? Seriously now...  are the Russians ten thousands times more influential than the DNC in America? Seriously...

She hired someone (illegally) to goto the Russians to get dirt on Trump who was her political opponent: that is the definition of collusion to influence the election. 
She also accepted millions of dollars FROM the Russians... how much did they give Trump??? Zero.

She colluded with them to WIN (Duuuuh!) but she is so useless she even screwed that up. The "reset" button indeed! The Facebook Ads were not collusion, the Dossier WAS. Get the BASIC FACTS straight ok?
-1
Reply
Male 11,991
5cats "Hacks? You have proof the various Hacks were engineered by Trump?" Where did I say that? Re-read what I said. I'm not going to let you argue against a stance I have not taken.

 "Secondly: if that facebook things was ALL there was?" Wikileaks. Wikileaks was a HUGE factor.

How come you never responded to my last equation post? I took a lot of time trying to explain that and I was interested in your feedback.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod Again, if you accuse Trump of "collusion" at all? There has to be SOME ACT that Trump knew about and/or financed.
If you say he colluded, then in the next breath say "Russian hacks" you HAVE TO prove a connection or it's fakenews. Otherwise it's just plain slander (or libel, whichever), a falsehood, a fallacy.

There are acts that Hillary and the DNC both knew about and/or financed that indeed colluded with the Russians to (illegally) influence the American elections. Proof and facts: not gossip and fakenews. Hillary Colluded.

The equation post is frozen, has 502 comments. I did reply then my PC froze and ate it, and I couldn't get back. I did a long reply too, and was very polite :-) But it went poof.
0
Reply
Male 11,991
5cats I didn't accuse trump of anything in my post. I didn't even mention trump.

I know the math post exploded. I copied my comment over to the musk rocket post and tagged you. Did you get a notification? We can pick up there if you want. If you go to profile and comments it will have your comment and you can copy it over to the other thread.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod Well not you specifically, but the entire Trump Collusion crap is literally based entirely on the Dossier... which was mostly written by Hillary's henchmen and is entirely "unsupported". ie: fiction.
Or, as I mention above, on the 3rd hand (!) report of an Australian diplomat about what Popadopalas said while drunk in a bar... that was the "Initial investigation" ok? :-)

Went there, made about the same comment as the one that got lost. Thx.
0
Reply
Male 668
This might surprise some of you who know me as a liberal, but I think Trump has a valid point sending the Democrats' rebuttal back for revisions.  To my understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong - The FBI & CIA were against releasing the Nunes memo because they weren't given enough time to look at it and make whatever revisions they felt were 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. 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
skeeter01 The FBI was against releasing the Nunes Memo PERIOD, because it was classified information not subject to the public.  The panel overseeing the release, those who objected to it were against it because it was highly edited to show misleading information to the public.

So you are correct, it was revised, not redacted.  The FBI, however, was against it's release in it's entirety.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 That's not true. The FBI didn't want the memo released because it had "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”  
Do you think the FBI should have the power to block information they disagree with? Think carefully: Trump appointed the current FBI director, and the FBI deputy director post is currently vacant. 

0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman Do I think that there is information that should be classified to the public: yes. 

It's not about blocking information they disagree with, it's about following the law in a non-partisan manner.

Here is a great article and conversation that I do agree with.  I would suggest listening to the interview with John Mclaughlin who handles the information perfectly. (audio halfway down in the middle)

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582379669/dems-charge-gop-secretly-altered-snooping-memo-sent-to-white-house-for-release
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 "Do I think that there is information that should be classified to the public: yes." Don't worry about classified information being released by the Nunes Memo. There is NONE - I was all declassified by the president!

"It's not about blocking information they disagree with, it's about following the law in a non-partisan manner."
Are you accusing somebody of not following the law here? No. It looks like you're complaining that (republican) politicians use the law in their self-interest... What else is new?!

"Here is a great article and conversation that I do agree with." Good article, great interview. Thanks!

So let me rephrase my question: Do you believe the FBI should have legal authority to deny release of information produced by a congressional committee, which the FBI deems inaccurate? 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman When the information is not by-partisan and is revised (not redacted) to suit a partisan agenda to mislead the pubic, yes.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 Perfect, answer!
Let's consider a few years down the line:
The  current FBI director was elected by Trump. Let's say the deputy director will be promoted by the FBI director, and both will act in the interest of Trump and republican party. Yet, the democrats received the majority in the senate and a non-partisan committee is formed to investigate the corrupt FBI.

The democrats have performed their investigation and attempt to release their results. BAMM! the FBI blocks their attempt. Reason? - democrats' information is inaccurate AND democrats present information that "suit a partisan agenda to mislead the pubic." 

You see the problem now?! 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman No, because what just happened is unprecedented, as described by John Mclaughlin.  While we many be witnessing a new era of FBI and non-partisan information, I still have hope that not only the Democrats, but the Republicans will back off from the stupidity this release of misinformation propagates. 
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 "No" - you DO NOT see a problem that a corrupt FBI could legally block an investigation by an oversight committee into the FBI... OK then...

"what just happened is unprecedented, as described by John Mclaughlin." Yeah, a committee that was designed to act in a non-partisan manner is being partisan. Did YOU listen to McLaughlin?! Did you hear his suggestion?

His suggestion was that the memos should have been dealt with behind closed doors. He further notes, that if transparency is the goal, then both memos, democrat and republican, should have been released simultaneuously. 

I completely agree with McLaughlin. I completely disagree that the FBI should be given more power. 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman 

I don't think the FBI is corrupt as you are suggesting.

I did listen to McLaughlin and I agree with him that the memo should not have been released to begin with at this point.

I disagree that "Republican" and "Democrat" memos need to exist, there is ONE memo, not 2 sides of a document.  Which is the whole point of McLaughlin's statement.  Nothing should have been released until the investigation has completed, which it has not.

The FBI is not being given more power, the FBI is doing their job.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27
"I don't think the FBI is corrupt as you are suggesting." I'm not suggesting, that it currently is. I'm suggesting it might become corrupted.

"The FBI is not being given more power, the FBI is doing their job." Agreed. Whether or not FBI was/is influenced by the president is another question entirely - Steele believed it was, so he stopped working with the FBI and released his dossier to the media.

You believe FBI should be given more "legal authority" = more power. And, you see no problem that IF the FBI were to become corrupt, they'd use this authority to block its investigation. Is that really your position?

Go re-read my comments carefully, if you're confused by this. I hate making it personal, but it's getting frustrating: work on your reading comprehension!
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman I see a lot of "ifs" and "mights" here as well as assumptions that I would agree with your "ifs" and "mights" if it were to happen.

All I can say is that I believe the FBI is still currently doing it's job as designed.  In addition, Muller is looking out for the public, without disclosing information before a non-partisan conclusion can be formed.

And try not to be so condescending, it doesn't help other feline individuals on this site.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 I don't know what to make of your response... I'll just reiterate my original point, which you conveniently ignored.

You are wrong about why FBI was against releasing the Nunes memo. 
The FBI released a statement that reads: “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy”

After reading the memo, "the FBI director did not raise any national security concerns."
Read the Washington post and aei.org for more details. 

I'm fine with 5cats, and had many fruitful discussions with him, despite having very different views. 
I'll shut up now at the risk of being condescending.  
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman Hee hee hee... both of you arguing EXACTLY like you do with me!!

Can't pin this one on ME boys! (Boys is an affectionate term here, not derisive) So many IABers claim I'm the one who "makes them talk like that" ie: argumentative, stubborn and loose with the facts :-)
It ain't my fault! lolz!
0
Reply
Male 987
5cats Ha! Well, enjoy while it lasts. If you'd like to see more,  take a look at my epic "adjusted data" discussion with whosaidwhat on climate change (IAB link)!  

I give you a lot of credit for being reasonable and willing to admit when you're wrong. Also, you do have facts backing up your statements. It's so frustrating arguing with someone who keep referencing facts/truths without showing them. 

When arguing with you, I can look up your facts and check them. They're often misleading, sometimes wrong, but I always learn something new and interesting in our discussions! 

I have been sucked into too many IAB arguments lately... I should learn to let it go - just accept a difference in opinion. 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman My response is simple.  You are using "what if" statements on possible situations that I have no opinion on because they don't exist.  You are speculating on possible futures.

The quote you have repeated to "prove me wrong" is the statement released by the FBI after the decision was made by the committee to release a revised memo to the public.  Prior to the decision to release the memo, the FBIs stance was no different than any other situation when classified information on a pending investigation is involved, it should not have been released in the first place.  That is the very first question asked of  John Mclaughlin in the interview I linked:

NPR - "Should this memo be released to the public?
John Mclaughlin  -  "No.  It is a complete perversion of the intelligence process."

There is no interview or statements released by the FBI prior to the committee's decision, but Mclaughlin provides some insight into the workings of the agency that would agree with my original statement.  The FBI, operating under standard procedures of the intelligence process, would have been strictly against any release of information, regardless of partisan influence.

0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 Please be very careful when arguing. I'd prefer you make the strongest case to defend your position rather than rely on misinterpreting facts.

My quoted FBI statement reads: "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
You have conveniently ignored the bold part.

"the statement released by the FBI after the decision was made by the committee to release a revised memo to the public."
That is true. However, the statement specifically explains FBI's position during their "initial review" of the memo - BEFORE a vote took place to release the memo.  
With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy. - FBI Statement on HPSCI Memo 
"Prior to the decision to release the memo, the FBIs stance was no different than any other situation ..." That is FALSE. That contradicts FBI's released statement.  

"John Mclaughlin  -  "No.  It is a complete perversion of the intelligence process."" He then proceeds to talk about partisanship in the oversight committee, which is supposed to be non-partisan. The perversion he refers to is the release of inaccurate partisan information. McLaughlin shows that this is not just like any other investigation. This contradicts your argument that the FBI would treat it just like any other investigation.  

You talk about FBI's position yet none of your evidence support your point. You'll need to research and present additional evidence to substantiate your point. 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

That is a quote AFTER the committee made revisions.  It says it right in the sentence.  It's doesn't represent what the FBI's stance on releasing the information to begin with.

"He then proceeds to talk about partisanship in the oversight committee, which is supposed to be non-partisan. "


I'm not talking about the committee, I'm talk about the FBI, they are 2 separate entities.  My statement is that the FBI is non-partisan and I still stand by it.

McLaughlin's conversation supports my point fine enough.  If you don't agree, then we will have to pleasantly disagree.


0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 You are misunderstanding facts and I attribute it to your lack of comprehension. This is not meant to be condescending - it is a repeated call for you to be EXTREMELY careful when reading. I will counter your points:

"That is a quote AFTER the committee made revisions. It says it right in the sentence." You're wrong. The sentence does not indicate the date of the quote. The FBI quote was made on January, 31.
"It's doesn't represent what the FBI's stance on releasing the information to begin with." The FBI quote states the FBI's position BEFORE the committee even voted to release the memo.

(my speculation:) Presumably, this was the first time the FBI director read the memo. Then the committee voted successfully to release it, then the memo was redacted and released. I claim the FBI's position was consistent from the first time they read the memo.
What evidence do you have as to FBI's position before the initial review? Do you have evidence that the FBI read the memo prior to their "initial review"?
If not, what evidence do you have that the FBI's position was different before the "initial review"?

"I'm not talking about the committee, I'm talk about the FBI," Was this an attempt at being condescending or was there a point? - I was talking about McLaughlin's views, not about yours - these are two separate people.

"My statement is that the FBI is non-partisan and I still stand by it." Very well. I also believe the FBI is not corrupt. That's not the discussion though.

"The FBI was against releasing the Nunes Memo PERIOD, because it was classified information not subject to the public." - Do you still stand by this factually FALSE statement?
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman Sorry, but my comprehension is just fine thank you very much, it just differs from your opinion on the subject at hand.  Again, I'd suggest you not tread down that road of condescending attitude with me.  I enjoy your insight, but you are not any better at reading the information because you have been speculating the results.

The FBI would have preferred that the memo, regardless of it's edited state, was not released at all.  Your speculation just adds to what I have been stating.  They read the memo in it's edited state, prior to redaction, but it was still edited to show partisan support.  The statement released is in reference to the edited memo, but the classified information should have been withheld from the public regardless if past protocol was followed.

"The FBI was against releasing the Nunes Memo PERIOD, because it was classified information not subject to the public." - Do you still stand by this factually FALSE statement? 

Yes, because it is not FALSE as you claim, it is your opinion that it is incorrect.  The FBI, regardless of this situation or any other, would be against such classified information being released to the public in any form until the investigation has been completed.  I stand by that statement.

Again, we will respectfully disagree.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 I don't understand why you're arguing... The reason I argue is because you are factually incorrect, and it matters!

What the FBI statement indicates is that the committee intentionally gave the FBI very little time to review and respond to the Nunes Memo. The first time they reviewed the memo, the FBI told the committee the memo was inaccurate. It shows that the committee knew FBI's objection from the very beginning, and proceeded to release it anyway.

Your SPECULATION suggests that the FBI knew about the contents of the memo. Despite this info, they didn't want the memo released ONLY because it had classified information. The committee voted on releasing the memo, not knowing that the FBI believed it to be inaccurate. Only AFTER the editing process, the FBI all of a sudden pointed out that the memo was inaccurate.

You have brought 0 facts relating to FBI's position. None. You've cited an interview with a former CIA director, which contradicts your point. All you have is speculation!

I have clearly separated my speculation from facts. The fact is the FBI didn't want the memo released due to its accuracy.

"The FBI would have preferred that the memo, regardless of it's edited state, was not released at all." - That is your speculation. That is not what the FBI said.

"The statement released is in reference to the edited memo"
 Read the FBI statement: Where does it say anything about an edited memo? It talks about the Nunes memo, PERIOD.

"I'd suggest you not tread down that road of condescending attitude with me."
What am I supposed to do, if you fail to  understand what "initial" means?
def. initial "Chronologically first, early; of or pertaining to the beginning, cause or origin."

"Yes, because it is not FALSE as you claim, it is your opinion that it is incorrect. " It is the FBI's opinion, not mine.

Here's the FBI's statement for reference. 

Do you insist that the FBI did not claim factual inaccuracies in the Nunes memo from the very beginning? 
I don't think you realize that you're arguing FOR a biased FBI... 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman OK, lets step back a moment.  Lets remove ourselves from the conversation specifically concerning the Nunes Memo.  Now, I will reiterate my statement without the Nunes context:

The FBI would be against classified information being released to the public while a pending investigation is underway.

I stand by that statement.  If you disagree, fine, but I don't have to justify that statement to you.  We can respectfully disagree.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 "OK, lets step back a moment." - Sure. Are you planning to return to the Nunes memo to address your original statement in the future?

"The FBI would be against classified information being released to the public while a pending investigation is underway." This is a reasonable opinion, that I would agree with.

"If you disagree, fine, but I don't have to justify that statement to you." This underlines that your statement is an opinion statement, not a fact. I think your opinion is justifiable by past FBI actions. 

Back to the Nunes memo: It's highly unusual for the FBI to make public statements concerning an ongoing investigation. I hope you can see now why I was so adamant about proving your original statement false, and that you'll agree you were wrong. 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman My original statement:

The FBI was against releasing the Nunes Memo PERIOD, because it was classified information not subject to the public.

My adjusted stated removing Nunes Memo relevence:

The FBI would be against classified information being released to the public while a pending investigation is underway.

One you agreed with, one you didn't, but they basically say the same thing minus the specific reference to NunesBoth are definitely my opinion on how the FBI operates.  But it is an opinion based on the past actions and procedures the FBI follows, not some quote to the media.  I'm not sure what you are looking for here from me at this point.  My opinion differs from yours respectively.

So to conclude: The FBI, in my opinion based on their past actions, would be again the release of the Nunes Memo PERIOD.  If you think I am wrong then show me when, in the past, they have felt otherwise concerning the release of classified documents pertaining to an open investigation.
0
Reply
Male 987
kalron27 You continue to argue that you're right, failing to see the nuance.

"So to conclude: The FBI, in my opinion based on their past actions, would be again the release of the Nunes Memo PERIOD." This interpretation ignores the FBI statement, and the special circumstances of this incident. Your opinion is basically: the Nunes memo is business as usual for the FBI.

No, it's not just like any other investigation. As McLaughlin noted, it's an oversight committee acting in a partisan manner, accusing the FBI of wrong doing while using inaccurate information.

"If you think I am wrong..." Yes, the FBI would be against release of any information. I already wrote: "This is a reasonable opinion, that I would agree with." "I think your opinion is justifiable by past FBI actions." But there's more...

Did I accurately interpret your view of FBI's reaction to the Nunes memo? Do you understand why the difference matters?

"What the FBI statement indicates is that the committee intentionally gave the FBI very little time to review and respond to the Nunes Memo. The first time they reviewed the memo, the FBI told the committee the memo was inaccurate. It shows that the committee knew FBI's objection from the very beginning, and proceeded to release it anyway. 

Your SPECULATION suggests that the FBI knew about the contents of the memo. Despite this info, they didn't want the memo released ONLY because it had classified information. The committee voted on releasing the memo, not knowing that the FBI believed it to be inaccurate. Only AFTER the editing process, the FBI all of a sudden pointed out that the memo was inaccurate."

I think I've sufficiently made my point... 
0
Reply
Male 4,756
boredhuman I'm not sure what you are arguing any more and I really don't care.  I stand by my statement about the FBI and my opinion on releasing ANY information to the public.  I don't have an opinion on the committee or what they did.  I simply feel that the FBI did not and would never want this type of information release in ANY situation...PERIOD.  Again, we can agree to disagree.
0
Reply