Release The Memo

[mchammer]

I thought Nunes was going to recuse himself. He's doing a poor job of it.

He got a clean bill from ethics committee

 

[Clean]

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?

Uh, wut?

 

[Joe Fan]

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.

It definitely seems the FBI is in a bit of a panic
Ever since Wray went and read it

 

[Joe Fan]

Nunes responds to the FBI, holding no punch -- "Its clear that top officials used unverified info in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intel agencies & courts are never misused like this again.”

Ouch
He is sick of their delays

 

[Joe Fan]

In addition to her point here, if the FBI had "grave concerns" about the allegations in the dossier (which is the root of the memo), then why use it as the basis for their application to the FISA Court? Wouldnt prudence have dictated they hold off if that's how they really felt? What it looks like is that their partisanship during a heated election caused them to toss prudence aside.

 

[Garmel]

It definitely seems the FBI is in a bit of a panic
Ever since Wray went and read it

There is that plus the stonewalling that you mentioned is suspicious.

 

[Joe Fan]

I thought Nunes was going to recuse himself. He's doing a poor job of it.

It's always easy to tell who Dems fear the most. They preemptively attack them. Which is what happened here. You never see Dems attacking Graham. Why is that?

Indeed, the Daily Beast (which is often the PR arm for certain Dems) was caught lying just today about Nunes. And were forced to issue a retraction.

 

[Joe Fan]

The Nunes response could easily be read this way

 

[Joe Fan]

....

Something else interesting about the FBI's stated opinion is that, in this one, they dropped one of their arguments.
They dropped their original claim of dangerous disclosures of "sources & methods"
It's a bit of a leap from there to "material omissions"
It gives the look that their attorneys are just grasping at straws

 

[Joe Fan]

Nunes issued a second statement, or perhaps just a remark, that specifically addresses the FBI's charge that the 'FISA abuse' memo contains 'material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy':

 

[NJlonghorn]

@Joe Fan, you and others on this board assume that everything Nunes says is true and everything the FBI says is false. If you operate on these assumptions, then yes, it is reasonable to conclude that the FBI is desperately trying to protect itself from the hammer that is about to fall.

On the flip side, liberals assume that everything the FBI says is true and everything Nunes says is false. From this set of assumptions, it is reasonable to conclude that Nunes is desperately trying to protect Donald Trump from the hammer that is about to fall.

Then there are those of us who don't assume anything and wait until we have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. I know, I know -- that makes me a crazy liberal. lol

 

[Joe Fan]

...On the flip side, liberals assume that everything the FBI says is true and everything Nunes says is false. From this set of assumptions, it is reasonable to conclude that Nunes is desperately trying to protect Donald Trump from the hammer that is about to fall....l

There is no hammer, jeez
lol

 

[Joe Fan]

@Joe Fan, you and others on this board assume that everything Nunes says is true and everything the FBI says is false. If you operate on these assumptions, then yes, it is reasonable to conclude that the FBI is desperately trying to protect itself from the hammer that is about to fall.....

Didnt the FBI itself conclude there were no "factual inaccuracies?"

Look, if you mean to say, in the political world, facts often have nothing to do with eventual outcomes, then OK. We must concede that might happen here. But if it does, it will not be due to a lack of facts.

Lastly, have we not already seen some concession on the part of the FBI/DOJ (and even Mueller himself) that Nunes is onto something?
Strzok reassigned for political bias (by Mueller)
Page (more quietly) reassigned (also by Mueller I think)
Oher - demoted not once but twice
McCabe -- "retiring early" lol
Baker- "reassigned"
It also sounds like Rosenstein himself is hanging by a thread
And I will give you one more name of someone you might not know who I think they are planning to make a "fall guy" to protect folks even higher up -- Bill Priestap
These are not just rank and file FBI/DOJ folks. This is the upper ranks

 

[NJlonghorn]

Didnt the FBI itself conclude there was no "factual inaccuracies?"

Yes, that is my understanding. But telling cherry-picked facts with complete accuracy can still paint an inaccurate picture. That's why witnesses take an oath to tell not just the truth but the "whole truth".

 

[mchammer]

Yes, that is my understanding. But telling cherry-picked facts with complete accuracy can still paint an inaccurate picture. That's why witnesses take an oath to tell not just the truth but the "whole truth".

Yes, let’s have the whole truth. Only the Dems are objecting to that.

 

[Joe Fan]

Yes, that is my understanding. But telling cherry-picked facts with complete accuracy can still paint an inaccurate picture. That's why witnesses take an oath to tell not just the truth but the "whole truth".

The FBI today alleged "omission of material fact."
Which is not a lie, but could be substantial nonetheless.
The problem for the FBI with this claim, however, is that the reason for the omission is the FBI itself.
So today's FBI claim smells disingenuous

 

[VYFan]

Yes, that is my understanding. But telling cherry-picked facts with complete accuracy can still paint an inaccurate picture. That's why witnesses take an oath to tell not just the truth but the "whole truth".

“...so help me God.”

 

[ProdigalHorn]

So this morning we have hysteria that Devin Nunes changed the memo, making substantial changes to the one which was approved for release. My first response was "that's about right. The GOP was due to screw this up at some point, and this fits the bill." My second response was that since this accusation came from Schiff, it might be useful to know WHAT the changes were.

 

[Clean]

Keep calm and RELEASE THE MEMO!!!

The Public has a right to know if bias on the part of the FBI/Justice Dept was the basis of an insider campaign to influence a Presidential election. That scenario is much scarier than the nutty Russia collusion thing.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This issue is starting to grate on me, and I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. It's a memo drafted by House Republicans, so it's obviously going to be self-serving as it would be if Democrats has written it.

Because it's obviously self-serving, nobody is going to accept it on face value and shouldn't. The contents are going to have to be verified and put into context.
In light of all that, I don't see why this should be treated as some big bombshell or why people are engaging in wild speculation over what's in it.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Phil Elliott]

I don't see why this should be treated as some big bombshell or why people are engaging in wild speculation over what's in it.

Then why are Dems working so hard to keep it from being released?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Then why are Dems working so hard to keep it from being released?

Because if it's self-serving for Republicans to release it, it's going to be self-serving for Democrats to not release it. I don't but that they really care about national security implications. If they did, then they wouldn't have been willing to tolerate the private email server.

 

[Clean]

Trump will declassify the memo, as expected. Release could be today. I think he sends it back to the committee and they release it.

Dems are furious. Nancy Pelosi calls for Devin Nunes to be removed as Committee Chairman.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Trump will declassify the memo, as expected. Release could be today. I think he sends it back to the committee and they release it.

That's pretty much right. House rules allow a committee to release classified material to the public, but only if the President is given 5 days to block the release. If he doesn't block it, the committee can pull the trigger.

 

[Joe Fan]

One of the things the media has not yet caught onto with regard to the Nunes memo, is that it is not the only one.

Sen. Grassley will have his own memo on much of this same general area -- which I would put under the umbrella of "the Obama administration's abuse of power." Grassley is willing to release his to the public as well but the procedure to declassify his is different than it was for Nunes and the House.

Furthermore, on top of those two memos, there is the IG's report coming soon as well. In a tweet, the IG indicated he has the missing Strzok-Page texts that the FBI claimed it could not find. Which he pointedly and publicly CCd to McCabe. That report may have even greater potential to shake up DC.

So, the Nunes memo is just the tip of the iceberg. I do not see how the Dems and their lapdog media will be able to stem this tide. But they are trying.

 

[Joe Fan]

Rand Paul is calling out FBI investigator Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page by name. He is demanding that FBI Director Christopher Wray disclose whther Strzok and Page still have access to sensitive information, and the status of their security clearances. He has also demanded to know if the FBI has a procedure in place to examine database searches agents conduct, to make sure they’re not looking up information for “political or personal reasons.”

“James Madison warned that men are not angels. The exposure of political bias at the FBI is exactly why many of us advocate for greater oversight of the FBI, especially since recently passed legislation leaves [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Section 702 surveillance largely without checks and balances. If openly biased agents such as Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page still have access to classified databases, one might argue that the FBI’s internal controls are inadequate.”​

 

[Crockett]

Bring it. I see the memos as pretty much an indictment. I'm hopeful they will be followed by a careful accounting of the facts. I'm really, really tired of all the fake news from every kind and color of politicians, the "butwhatabout" deflections and the partisan Bevo droppings that dominate or mainstream, conservative biased and liberal biased media. And don't even get me started on the junk being peddled through social media.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hehe...oh wait. Wouldn't this be analogous to asking the entire appellate court system (or at minimum an entire circuit) to recuse themselves?

 

[Crockett]

If they did, then they wouldn't have been willing to tolerate the private email server.

If by "tolerate" you mean feel it was no big deal and didn't damage our trust in Hillary... I think you are misreading us. We centrists had show a stiff upper lip and do the best we can. The choices were limited and the alternatives ranged from nutty to repugnant.