Release The Memo
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
They can have the heroin...maybe they can get a 'hot shot' and we can be done with the lot of them via the overdose...
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
So I've seen at least two MSM outlets that have entertained the idea that Devin Nunes is a Russian spy. So please tell me again about how conservatives are consumed in conspiracy theories...
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
So far, the FBI and DOJ have been lobbying Trump to block release of the memo. They are using "sources and methods" as the excuse. But it looks more like they are just circling the wagons and digging in their heals.
However, the best way to protect these institutions, after everything that is already out and that which is still to come, would be to stop fighting the memo's release. Make a public admission that mistakes were made, and US citizens were wronged. Admit reform is needed. And then set about to make those reforms. This would include the immediate sorting out of those employees who did the wrongs.
Nothing would restore public faith in these folks better than this.
However, the best way to protect these institutions, after everything that is already out and that which is still to come, would be to stop fighting the memo's release. Make a public admission that mistakes were made, and US citizens were wronged. Admit reform is needed. And then set about to make those reforms. This would include the immediate sorting out of those employees who did the wrongs.
Nothing would restore public faith in these folks better than this.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Paul Ryan seems to agree^ --
Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Cal) opposes release, of course, saying disclosure will do damage to the public trust in these institutions.
But Ryan replied that “covering up mischief would be worse.”
Another Congressman likened the details contained in the memo to "KGB activity in the former Soviet Union."
“Let it all out, get it all out there. Cleanse the organization. I think we should disclose all this stuff. It’s the best disinfectant. Accountability, transparency — for the sake of the reputation of our institutions.”
Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Cal) opposes release, of course, saying disclosure will do damage to the public trust in these institutions.
But Ryan replied that “covering up mischief would be worse.”
Another Congressman likened the details contained in the memo to "KGB activity in the former Soviet Union."
Last edited:
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Given the importance of the memo, it should be released unless the DOJ can point to something compelling and concrete about why it shouldn't be. Of course, that could be going on behind the scenes and we would never know. But I have heard nothing of the sort, so I'm ready to see the damn thing.
What I have concern about is the refusal to permit release of the Democrats' response memo. What if the Republicans' memo does not have any "factual inaccuracies" but is highly misleading because of what it omits? Isn't the public best-served by seeing both sides of the issue?
What I have concern about is the refusal to permit release of the Democrats' response memo. What if the Republicans' memo does not have any "factual inaccuracies" but is highly misleading because of what it omits? Isn't the public best-served by seeing both sides of the issue?
Can’t disagree with this. However, the Dems sure seem afraid.
Ergo the Schiff memo that will likely be realeased next week. A GOP rep said the Schiff rebuttal memo ought to be released cause it is so poorly thought out and actually supports the problems in the Nunes memo.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
My prediction: Trump will continue to play the game awesomely and will wait to release the memo until the next phony anti-Trump hype is in full bloom, forcing an about face to full blown *** covering. I think that is the main reason much of the media dispises him. He schools them at their game.
I read he wants it released immediately like soon after SOTU address. However it has to go through inter-agency review first. Likely released end of tomorrow or Thursday.
And the Republicans voted to release the libs’ anti-memo. No libs voted to release Nunes’ memo. Read between those lines.
Voted to release to Congress.
Which is the same process used with the Nunes memo.
This is a lie being spread by the MSM. The GOP did not block the release of the Dem memo, they voted to release it to Congress first - the very same procedure used with the "GOP" memo.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
The Republicans voted to release their own memo to the public (subject to POTUS approval) and the Democrats' rebuttal memo to the full Congress. They voted no on a motion to authorize the release of the rebuttal memo to the public, even though House rules permit them to do so.
The Democrats argued that the two memos should be released simultaneously if they are to be released at all. This sounds reasonable to me. Yes, the rebuttal memo will probably be released eventually. And yes, the process will be superficially equivalent. But it won't be equivalent in any meaningful way because the Republicans' memo will be out a week or two before the rebuttal.
Of course, the Democrats would have done the same to the Republicans if the tables were turned. At some point, one party or the other needs to take the high road and put an end to the noxious partisanship. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-percent-after-he-s-asked-to-release-gop-memo
All things being equal, I guess releasing a known false narrative to distract from an investigation that is getting closer and closer to the Oval Office is better than nuclear war with North Korea. Is that the "glass half full" outlook?
All things being equal, I guess releasing a known false narrative to distract from an investigation that is getting closer and closer to the Oval Office is better than nuclear war with North Korea. Is that the "glass half full" outlook?
According to an anonymous source of course. This is typical MSM reporting. Perhaps it's true but we'll have to wait and see.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The FBI has released a public statement. Strike 2, Nunes.
Rep Schiff is equally partisan but that's what he's stated on multiple occasions.
Rep Schiff is equally partisan but that's what he's stated on multiple occasions.
Last edited:
I wouldn't trust the FBI's word as absolute fact, Husker. We know between McCabe being pushed out and the e-mails that some dirtiness was occurring in the FBI. I'd advise you not to try to defend the FBI because if you do you're going to be wrong about this just like you were with the IRS. Just some friendly advice.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It's all about the narrative, right?
BTW- I'm not defending the FBI. This thread was a about a memo drafted by Nunes' staff that was proclaimed to show information that "worse than Watergate".
The Dems claimed the information was cherry picked information to form a narrative. Hey, they are partisan so we can write them off. Now the FBI is saying that the omission of information in the memo makes it factually inaccurate. In other words, the FBI is saying the same thing as Schiff.
Paraphrasing your response "it doesn't matter if the information is accurate because we've gotten McCabe fired and have some texts between 2 lovers that demonstrate bias."
OK. I'll let the facts stand there.
Back to the memo...#ReleasetheMemo. Most should be able to see through it as a political stunt built on a thread of truth.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The FBI made a statement
For which there seems to be an easy fix. The FBI could simply release all the documents it's withholding from Congress. Unless, of course, the FBI is trying to simultaneously use its obstruction as both a sword and a shield.
The FBI actually complains here that it had a "limited opportunity to review" -- its own documents!
In addition, accuracy is not really a question of “concern.” Either the facts stated are accurate or they are inaccurate. Whether FBI brass likes it or not is irrelevant. Not to mention they never voiced "concern" about any of the prior 12 months leaks of classified material
This is stonewalling. If facts are omitted or missing, then fill them in. Now or later.
For which there seems to be an easy fix. The FBI could simply release all the documents it's withholding from Congress. Unless, of course, the FBI is trying to simultaneously use its obstruction as both a sword and a shield.
The FBI actually complains here that it had a "limited opportunity to review" -- its own documents!
In addition, accuracy is not really a question of “concern.” Either the facts stated are accurate or they are inaccurate. Whether FBI brass likes it or not is irrelevant. Not to mention they never voiced "concern" about any of the prior 12 months leaks of classified material
This is stonewalling. If facts are omitted or missing, then fill them in. Now or later.
Last edited:
You know that for sure? It could be but we sure don't have any proof of this as of yet. Hell, it hasn't even released yet. Again, like most libs, you're letting feelings dictate reality.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Curious to see the connection with McCabe's situation. Hearing a few indications that he may have been using his position to support his wife's campaign, in addition to the whole non-recusal issue and other things along that line.
In terms of the memo, since the memo is simply (supposedly) a summation of the majority impressions of their investigation, it likely would be short on specific facts and long on conclusions. So the FBI's argument has more to do with the idea that it doesn't agree with the committee's conclusions. Well... if the conclusions are that the FBI didn't proceed as it should, isn't that to be expected?
They need to de-classify as much of this as possible, including the initial FISA warrant. It's shocking to me that the response to an allegation that the executive branch may have been illegally (or at least recklessly) surveilling a U.S. citizen from the opposing party during an election/transition cycle has been met with such forceful objections to getting specific answers. I've never heard so many leftists praise the fairness and purity of the FBI before, and certainly never heard them make the argument that we shouldn't be pressing them or criticizing their activity.
In terms of the memo, since the memo is simply (supposedly) a summation of the majority impressions of their investigation, it likely would be short on specific facts and long on conclusions. So the FBI's argument has more to do with the idea that it doesn't agree with the committee's conclusions. Well... if the conclusions are that the FBI didn't proceed as it should, isn't that to be expected?
They need to de-classify as much of this as possible, including the initial FISA warrant. It's shocking to me that the response to an allegation that the executive branch may have been illegally (or at least recklessly) surveilling a U.S. citizen from the opposing party during an election/transition cycle has been met with such forceful objections to getting specific answers. I've never heard so many leftists praise the fairness and purity of the FBI before, and certainly never heard them make the argument that we shouldn't be pressing them or criticizing their activity.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
And btw, "factually inaccurate" is a pretty loaded term that could mean a lot of things. It should mean something like "The committee argued that events happened in this sequence by this or that person, and they got their facts wrong." If the memo says "the FBI used unethical tactics to predetermine the outcome of the Hillary probe," and the FBI says "that's factually inaccurate," and their basis for that is that "we believe we acted ethically and properly," that has more to do with not agreeing with the conclusions the committee reached. That's not about accuracy. So we'll see...
Good link Bubba.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
You are speculating about what the FBI might have meant by a generic statement that the memo was "factually inaccurate", but that isn't what the FBI said. They said that "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
So what important facts does the FBI think were omitted from the memo, impacting its accuracy? I have no clue, and I'm pretty comfortable saying none of you do, either. If you are sure that the FBI's argument has merit, you are a lefty hack. If you are sure that the FBI's argument lacks merit, you are a righty hack.
I'll throw an extreme, totally hypothetical, almost certainly false scenario on the table just for the sake of discussion. Suppose that the FBI had solid evidence that a Russian-born KGB officer with falsified US citizenship had risen through the ranks to become a Trump confidant. Suppose further that the FBI got a judge to approve surveillance on this guy, and the surveillance happened to intercept this guy's communications with then-candidate Trump. And finally, suppose that the House wants to release a memo that confirms that the FBI conducted surveillance on a member of Trump's inner circle, without mentioning that the target was a known KGB agent who was infiltrating our government at a very high level. This could be because the House is being deceptive, or because the House hasn't been read in for one reason or another.
Obviously, surveillance would be warranted in the above fictional scenario. Equally obviously, surveilling a candidate (or someone who works for one) just because he is a political foe would be unwarranted and highly inappropriate. Somewhere between those two extremes, there is a fuzzy line that separates that which is warranted from that which is not. If the truth lies somewhere near that fuzzy line (or past it), then releasing a statement without context would be misleading, and potentially harmful to the investigation.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'm not saying it's one or the other. I would definitely say that what I said and what the FBI said are the same. Factually inaccurate versus "fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy..." I think we're saying the same thing there. Nonetheless, my point was pretty much what you said - what does "accuracy" refer to? Is it a misstatement of facts? Is it a misinterpretation of events or intent or timing or need? Is it a disagreement on the assessment of what was or was not valid action? It could mean any of those things or none of them. So using the FBI's statement to say "that means the memo's bogus" is ridiculous without seeing the memo and without knowing more of the underlying information. Which is why I said we should open as much of it up as possible.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
