Release The Memo

Garmel said:
If Nunes was doing purposeful omissions the part about what got the Trump investigation started would not have been there. Schiff, who has issues with truth in the past, is the person who's memo you need to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

I'm anticipating the inevitability that the Schiff memo is partisan, just like the Nunes memo.
 
OUBubba said:
Manafort will get more charges or cooperate.
Click to expand...

This is untrue. As I understand it, any charges that the FBI had on Manafort should have already been disclosed. No attorney in a million years would sign an immunity deal and agree to cooperate without a complete list of charges and an understanding that no further charges would be forthcoming. Once you've accepted the plea, that's pretty much it.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Has Trump taken the hard right turn toward Russia and away from NATO he advocated during the campaign? No, but he has tacked in that direction. Our relationship with NATO countries has deteriorated from where it was. That's only a positive for Putin.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. First, our NATO allies aren't a monolith. I would say our relationship with Germany is worse. Ditto for France and the Netherlands but not anywhere near as bad as many expected. Emmanuel Macron surprisingly gets along with the Administration pretty well. It also helps that he has turned out to be a much more conservative President than most expected. The UK? Mixed bag. The rest of Western Europe? Not much of a change. Eastern Europe? Our relations are probably a little better than they were.

Second, I think we have to ask what big change in our foreign policy has caused Germany and to a lesser extent France to be less favorable to us. If you asked a Trump-hater in Paris or Hamburg to answer that question, he couldn't tell you much in specifics. He'd call him a racist, bigot, sexist, xenophobe, etc., but for most, that would be the extent of it. The real source of Western European hostility to Trump is differences in style and worldview, not specific policy. They're not going to be fans of a brash, assertive, trash-talking white guy no matter what he says or does, because their white guys aren't like that. They're also not going to like a guy preaching national sovereignty when their worldview is centered on surrendering one's national sovereignty. That's the whole point of the European Union, and those countries are where the EU is most popular, because they are the countries that most benefit from it. Nevertheless, despite the differences, a big part of our buildup is happening in Germany. None of that would be happening without the cooperation and support of Germany.

Third, have we really tacked in the direction of the campaign? Well, Trump walked back the dumbass "NATO is obsolete" remark, fired the people who liked that comment, and we've engaged in a military buildup (including missile defense) in Europe that is under NATO command. It's hard to see that as tacking in the direction of the campaign. It's more of a flip-flop. Let's put it this way. Musburger (and therefore Putin) definitely liked "Campaign Trump." They don't like what he has actually done with NATO and Europe.

Seattle Husker said:
We allow NK to be a major distraction. Win for Putin?
Click to expand...

To be fair, NK has been a pretty big distraction for quite awhile - at least ten years, and I'd argue more like twenty. Does Putin benefit from that? In a way he does, but like China, he doesn't necessarily benefit from tensions really boiling over. He'd rather they just fester.

Seattle Husker said:
If anything, I'd argue that Trump's foreign policy has been inconsistent. There are some areas he's been good and deserves credit. He is getting Europe to think about it's own defense a little more which isn't bad.
Click to expand...

I'll actually mitigate Trump's credit on this. Yes, Europe is pitching in more for its defense, and that's a good thing, and Trump and his people brag about this as if it's an accomplishment. However, this process was already well underway. There's no question that Western Europe cut their defense forces far too much after the Cold War. They bought into "The End of History" crap too much. However, the terror attacks of the last several years coupled with the Russia's aggression and its own military buildup changed their mindset quite a bit, and most of these countries started reversing their defense cuts a good 3 - 4 years ago. It has a lot more to do with their own reassessments of various threats than anything Trump or anybody in the US has done. And to their credit, both the Bush and Obama Administrations pushed them on this, albeit more quietly than Trump did.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Who? A lot of people deal with the Russians. Clinton and Podesta had dealings with the Russians as well. It's not against the law. Russia is not the boogeyman.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Wasn't it Obama that was caught on an open microphone telling a Russian official that after the election (2012) he'd have more leverage to work with the Russians? That sounds more like collusion than anything Trump's been accused of and of course there was BO's famous rebuke to Romney about the Russians; "the 70s called and want their foreign policy back.

Rush Limbaugh related a claim from a book about the campaign penned by Hillary supporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes yesterday. The book stated that just a day or two after Hillary lost the election, campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mookmet assembled her communication team in NYC and penned the whole "the Russians caused us to lose narrative". They then set about making sure their minions in the MSM got the story and got to work.
 
Garmel said:
Who? A lot of people deal with the Russians. Clinton and Podesta had dealings with the Russians as well. It's not against the law. Russia is not the boogeyman.
Click to expand...
http://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/30/...mbassador-russia-probe-washington-627982.html This guy. It wasn't just some Russian supermodel.

Flynn certainly has some questions to answer. A month before Trump took office, the FBI overheard several phone conversations between Flynn and Kislyak in the course of routine surveillance of the Russian Embassy. According to accounts of the intercepts leaked to The Washington Post, the two men discussed sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration to punish Russia for hacking the servers of the Democratic National Committee, among other targets, as well as voter registration systems in up to 39 states. (The Obama White House also expelled 35 Russians on suspicion of spying—including the top four declared officers of Russian military intelligence working at Kislyak’s embassy— and shuttered two Russian diplomatic compounds in Upper Brookville, New York, and another on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.)
Click to expand...
Again, it's not necessarily what he said. Although, what was said is not known. The illegality relates to the cover up.
 
Turning back to clock here. But a succinct statement of what Dems used to believe with regard to NSA spying. This is Frank Church during hearings on the FISA Court back in 1975 --

"Now why is this investigation important? I'll tell you why: because I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."​
 
Just for the record. Trey Gowdy is a former AUSA. He is one of 3 people (I think it was 3) who read all of the FISA applications discussed here. In their entirety. In the SCIF.

Gowdy says --
(1) The dossier material is cited in all 4 FISA applications for the Trump adviser warrants, and
(2) Nowhere in any of the FISA applications did the FBI disclose that the Clinton Campaign/DNC funded the dossier, not even in a footnote
 
Joe Fan said:
Turning back to clock here. But a succinct statement of what Dems used to believe with regard to NSA spying. This is Frank Church during hearings on the FISA Court back in 1975 --
Click to expand...

That was back before the Dems lurched left 90 degrees. Now they hate capitalism, nationalism, patriotism, white people, apple pie, and baseball.
 
Clean said:
That was back before the Dems lurched left 90 degrees. Now they hate capitalism, nationalism, patriotism, white people, apple pie, and baseball.
Click to expand...
Both sides have polarized. Reagan might be a Democrat in the modern era.
 
OUBubba said:
Reagan might be a Democrat in the modern era.
Click to expand...

Which issues have the Republicans moved to the right on? You could maybe make an argument on immigration, but even then, the situation now versus the '80s is apples to oranges.

In addition... do you really think a politician who is pro life and brings the message that we need smaller government, patriotism, and self-reliance would be welcome in the modern democratic party? What about Reagan would make him fit ANYWHERE in the Democratic party? What planks of the most recent Democratic Party platform do you think Reagan would be on board with?
 
OUBubba said:
Both sides have polarized. Reagan might be a Democrat in the modern era.
Click to expand...

No chance in hell. However, Lowell Weicker and Jacob Javits would be Democrats today. But of course, 80 percent of Democrats from the South and probably 1/3 of Democrats from the Midwest and Rust Belt would be Republicans.
 
Here Trey Gowdy implies Sydney Blumenthal was a source for Christopher Steele's oppo dossier. This whole thing is so messed up. If you are still willing to defend these people, there is something wrong with you

DVZHGJHWkAEfp6H.jpg
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Which issues have the Republicans moved to the right on? You could maybe make an argument on immigration, but even then, the situation now versus the '80s is apples to oranges.

In addition... do you really think a politician who is pro life and brings the message that we need smaller government, patriotism, and self-reliance would be welcome in the modern democratic party? What about Reagan would make him fit ANYWHERE in the Democratic party? What planks of the most recent Democratic Party platform do you think Reagan would be on board with?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that the Democrats have NOT moved left. I'm saying the right has moved to the right.

Gun control. "Jade Helm!!! They're coming for your guns!" outfit.

Israel. Reagan stood up to them and was not considered. He was referred to as the most anti-Israel president. You can't disagree with Bibi these days and not be labeled suppressive.

Iran. They took our hostages in the late 70's and they were miraculously freed once Reagan was in office. Then, amazingly, we sold them arms. Crazy world!!!

The GOP requires fealty. If an elected official in DC doesn't toe the party line they get primaried by a Koch brother or some super PAC and we end up with hard liners like Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton who can't compromise.
 
Joe Fan said:
Does this count as collusion with the Russians?

"EXCLUSIVE: Adam Schiff sent his staff to try and collect 'classified materials for the FBI' after Russian pranksters told him Putin has NAKED blackmail pictures of Trump"​

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iff-spoofed-Russian-claim-nude-Trump-pic.html
Click to expand...
He was trying to gather it and give it to the FBI. Much like a few who passed the Dossier off to the FBI as well once upon a time. Seems like a patriot to me. :)
 
OUBubba said:
He was trying to gather it and give it to the FBI. Much like a few who passed the Dossier off to the FBI as well once upon a time. Seems like a patriot to me. :)
Click to expand...
Like Trump asking the Russians for Hillary’s emails?
 
Joe Fan said:
“Adam Schiff can be heard discussing the committee's Russia investigation and increasingly bizarre allegations about Trump with a man who claimed to be Andriy Parubiy, the chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament.”
​
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iff-spoofed-Russian-claim-nude-Trump-pic.html

DVYbDTPUQAAqztU.jpg
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the Cliff Claven "two people who've never been in my kitchen". There are some similarities. Schiff was not running for office. That's one difference.
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
I've been listening to podcast about the Watergate mess, Slow Burn. If Nixon had not recorded everything in the Oval Office he would have been fine. But, he did and his lies were outed. Ironically, his lies sound very familiar to the current "no collusion" guy.

...."Lordy, I hope there are tapes".... Did that seem predictive to anyone other than me?
Click to expand...
Yet the “collusion” patrol at the FBI and DOJ are being outed and fired because they made records of their misdeeds.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...intel-memo/article/2648340?platform=hootsuite

"All that raises eyebrows among some Republicans on Capitol Hill who have read the Democratic memo. They say it contains much more classified information than the Republican memo did. The GOP paper was written so that it had a minimum of classified information in it, they explain, and indeed, after inspecting it, the FBI asked for just one small change.

The Democratic memo, these Republicans say, is much different. "It's full of sources and methods," said one lawmaker, referring to highly classified information. "It includes material that they clearly cannot release," said another. "It's nothing but sources and methods," said a third. "Even to the footnotes."

The inclusion of all that classified information has Republicans speculating on Democratic strategy. (A Democratic spokesman declined to comment.) One widely held theory is that the memo was intentionally written in a way that the FBI, Justice Department, and White House would have little choice but to recommend extensive redactions.

"Part of what they are going to do is to talk about how the White House redacted their memo and didn't redact the Republican one," said one of the lawmakers quoted above. "Part of the plan was, let's create a document that gets eviscerated in the scrubbing and comes out with a bunch of redactions and they say, look, the White House is hiding something."

Those suspicions were fueled Monday when Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told reporters, "We want to make sure that the White House does not redact our memo for political purposes, and obviously that's a deep concern.""

So, get ready for that talking point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top