Release The Memo

[ProdigalHorn]

If it doesn't matter who initiated it then don't mention the DNC or HRC? It should also say funded by ____________.

Because it mattered who funded it. It mattered who employed Steele. Steele was actively working in the employment of the Democratic party under the direction of Hillary Clinton when he compiled the dossier. If you're going to claim that shouldn't matter to a FISA court, then you are truly living down to the ethics of your user icon.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Mike Huckabee said last night that this made Watergate look like a fraternity prank. I agree.

Example of "wild oversell"?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

How would you classify the action of the Trump campaign providing demographics to people purchasing facebook ads targeting specific regions and voters? Those people might work in..., I don't know,.....St. Petersberg.

Fiction?

And btw, the fact that you somehow think it requires connections with Donald Trump to get that information tells me you really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[OUBubba]

Because it mattered who funded it. It mattered who employed Steele. Steele was actively working in the employment of the Democratic party under the direction of Hillary Clinton when he compiled the dossier. If you're going to claim that shouldn't matter to a FISA court, then you are truly living down to the ethics of your user icon.

I don't disagree that it doesn't matter. My point is, it also matters that a non DNC/HRC person (GOP candidate) also helped pay for it. If I were trying to determine it's veracity, I might want to see a pie chart indicating the % paid by all substantive parties.

 

[bystander]

If it doesn't matter who initiated it then don't mention the DNC or HRC? It should also say funded by ____________. Heck, that would go further to support why all of these GOP people are supposedly out to get the president.

I think they thought as did many people that a Trump nomination would result in a Democrat as President. I'm losing track of the dates and all of that but Trump flummoxed the RNC and his harsh rhetoric made it impossible for them to stand behind him because they didn't want the entire party to be saddled by him. So maybe that's why all the initial push by the GOP against him. Then he continued to win primaries and they were just unable to contend with is wild personality. He destroyed light-weights such as Jeb Bush who was unable to calmly remain Presidential with a clear-minded vision in the face of the Trump onslaught. Now that he has won and successfully made some in-roads (including the Gorsuch nomination) they are making the best of it FOR THEIR AGENDA.

 

[OUBubba]

Fiction?

And btw, the fact that you somehow think it requires connections with Donald Trump to get that information tells me you really don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe. Maybe not. Remember, there were no meetings or contacts with the Russians....until there were.

I'd add that Trump = Trump's people. So, if Jared or his company did something it's the same as DJT doing it.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

My point is, it also matters that a non DNC/HRC person (GOP candidate) also helped pay for it.

Explain why? First, can you show that the dossier was in existence before Steele was hired by the Dems? And how much of it? And what parts? Second, can you explain why a GOP opponent is less motivated than a Dem opponent to cook up oppo research on Trump? Why does that make it any less reliable? Do you think the Trump ads in the GOP primary were more reliable than his other ones, because it was GOP-on-GOP? I don't even understand your point here.

If I were trying to determine it's veracity, I might want to see a pie chart indicating the % paid by all substantive parties.

I hope you don't work in a field that requires understanding of analytics. Because that makes no sense at all. Again. Steele and his bias/activity are the primary driver behind this issue. Steele was hired by the DNC. Even if you can show that the dossier was intact and around before Steele came around, it doesn't explain the fact that it was still biased research which was not verified by the FBI and was not disclosed to the FISA court.

 

[bystander]

Maybe. Maybe not. Remember, there were no meetings or contacts with the Russians....until there were.

I'd add that Trump = Trump's people. So, if Jared or his company did something it's the same as DJT doing it.

"Maybe. Maybe not" is the key. It's like Nixon. You have to prove he knew about it right? Are you saying that Donald Trump personally hired some Russians to put up FB ads to target voters with campaign propaganda?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Maybe. Maybe not. Remember, there were no meetings or contacts with the Russians....until there were.

I'd add that Trump = Trump's people. So, if Jared or his company did something it's the same as DJT doing it.

Perfect. All you have you have to do is go make up a bunch of stuff, get the FBI to present it before the FISA court and get your warrant to start spying on people.

 

[bystander]

Perfect. All you have you have to do is go make up a bunch of stuff, get the FBI to present it before the FISA court and get your warrant to start spying on people.

Weren't the Left complaining about that sort of thing when the Patriot Act was passed?

 

[OUBubba]

"Maybe. Maybe not" is the key. It's like Nixon. You have to prove he knew about it right? Are you saying that Donald Trump personally hired some Russians to put up FB ads to target voters with campaign propaganda?

You say you'd be stunned if ______. I asked if my scenario would count. That's simply a hunch on my part of what's going to eventually come out.

 

[OUBubba]

Explain why? First, can you show that the dossier was in existence before Steele was hired by the Dems? And how much of it? And what parts? Second, can you explain why a GOP opponent is less motivated than a Dem opponent to cook up oppo research on Trump? Why does that make it any less reliable? Do you think the Trump ads in the GOP primary were more reliable than his other ones, because it was GOP-on-GOP? I don't even understand your point here.



I hope you don't work in a field that requires understanding of analytics. Because that makes no sense at all. Again. Steele and his bias/activity are the primary driver behind this issue. Steele was hired by the DNC. Even if you can show that the dossier was intact and around before Steele came around, it doesn't explain the fact that it was still biased research which was not verified by the FBI and was not disclosed to the FISA court.

Then why does it matter who paid Steele? You can't reference one and not the other. Heck, 16 of the other GOP folks may have been involved because it was assumed that DJT was, essentially, an enemy of the state.

 

[bystander]

You say you'd be stunned if ______. I asked if my scenario would count. That's simply a hunch on my part of what's going to eventually come out.

If someone in his campaign did that then I would say it's pretty freakin' bad. As for saying I'm stunned I'm only saying that it would be stunning that anyone who is President would actually try to pull that off and think they could get away with it. And if he did it then he must pay the price. As for someone in his campaign, without proof that Trump knew about it (and remained silent at best or actively managed it at worst) then it's not a high crime or misdemeanor. I'm not a lawyer but that's how I see it.

 

[Crockett]

Explain why? First, can you show that the dossier was in existence before Steele was hired by the Dems? And how much of it? And what parts? Second, can you explain why a GOP opponent is less motivated than a Dem opponent to cook up oppo research on Trump? Why does that make it any less reliable? Do you think the Trump ads in the GOP primary were more reliable than his other ones, because it was GOP-on-GOP? I don't even understand your point here.

Wow, I wish there was a good answer for folks demanding results that would be revealed from an investigation from folks who are not privy to the investigation. Maybe I don't know what an investigation is. I always thought it a search for information we don't know. Then we have a trial or a report and everyone interested can clue in.

Hell, if OU Bubba knows the scoop, I'll chip in to buy a ticket so he can go to Washington and clean this mess up.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Because you just keep getting everything else right about this situation?

Hoping we don't find out, but at the Progressive SOTU rant-fest, Michael Moore said in so many words "I'll take care of Pence." They hate him every bit as much as they hate Trump - maybe more - and the hit job will begin immediately. I'm not saying he WILL be impeached. I'm not saying the mainstream Dems will push for it. I'm saying you'll hear several liberal magazine/publications and at least two or three progressive congresspeople call for it in some way, shape or form.

It will likely take the form of an immediate attack on his religious beliefs. Bernie Sanders has already set the precedent in his statement that someone who holds relatively conventional Christian beliefs has no place in federal leadership.

Wait...so we are measuring our dialogue against what a few crackpots might say that has no hope of ever coming to reality? Did we just stumble onto why our dialogue on these issues fails every time? Rather than focus on the snowflakes we should hold the mainstream accountable and discuss reality. Sure, the extremes are more fun to lambaste but we're mutually giving them too much credit.

 

[OUBubba]

Wow, I wish there was a good answer for folks demanding results that would be revealed from an investigation from folks who are not privy to the investigation. Maybe I don't know what an investigation is. I always thought it a search for information we don't know. Then we have a trial or a report and everyone interested can clue in.

Hell, if OU Bubba knows the scoop, I'll chip in to buy a ticket so he can go to Washington and clean this mess up.

I call my theatrics "impeachment porn". As I said, a hunch. That's all.

Lordy, I hope there are tapes....

 

[Seattle Husker]

This comes from the last paragraph in the memo:

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.

Remember that when someone claims the investigation was based on the Steele dossier and is a sham. Of course, it's an afterthought in this politically driven memo and I suspect was one of the "edits" to keep the FBI happy.

The FBI should potentially be held accountable for withholding information on the FISA application (i.e. research funded by R and D political ops).

 

[Clean]

Example of "wild oversell"?

You don't think politically motivated abuse of power by the FBI/DOJ and the subsequent attempts by those groups to cover up that abuse is worse than a ham handed burglary attempt?

 

[Garmel]

Of course, it's an afterthought in this politically driven memo and I suspect was one of the "edits" to keep the FBI happy.

If anything in there is false all the FBI has to do release the documents and make Nunes look foolish.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You don't think politically motivated abuse of power by the FBI/DOJ and the subsequent attempts by those groups to cover up that abuse is worse than a ham handed burglary attempt?

You're VASTLY underplaying what went on in Watergate. The "ham handed burglary attempt" was simply the catalyst for many other events and wasn't what landed in the impeachment charges.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Wait...so we are measuring our dialogue against what a few crackpots might say that has no hope of ever coming to reality? Did we just stumble onto why our dialogue on these issues fails every time? Rather than focus on the snowflakes we should hold the mainstream accountable and discuss reality.

When you guys stop having Maxine Watters and Joe Kennedy present SOTU responses, we can talk about the Dems not allowing "a few crackpots" to speak for them. I seem to recall Dems in the House have already voted on impeachment once. Would you consider that to have been an appropriate move based on what we knew then or now? How many Dems equal a "mainstream?"

I call my theatrics "impeachment porn". As I said, a hunch. That's all.

Then you'll understand why most of us don't think your input on this subject is relevant in any way. You're refuting arguments based on your gut and acting as if that should carry some sort of weight. As Crockett said (meaning to back you, I think - it was hard to follow that sentence structure), you don't know anything more than what we know, which is what is in that memo. Since your "hunch" is based on a desperate desire to see Trump and the GOP fry, there's absolutely no reason I should take any of it seriously. But that does tell me that there's no point in having this discussion with you, since I can't dispute that your gut is telling you all this stuff. I can only dispute what actually is happening.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The FBI should potentially be held accountable for withholding information on the FISA application (i.e. research funded by R and D political ops).

See now? Was that so hard?

 

[Seattle Husker]

If anything in there is false all the FBI has to do release the documents and make Nunes look foolish.

Sure, just release any of the information that is currently being leveraged to "make Nunes look foolish" to impact an active investigation? That's your perspective? The FBI is in a no-win situation.

It's now come out that excerpts of the memo were released to Foxnews and the Washington Examiner before the memo was released to the media. Yes, this is a political circus.

 

[Clean]

This link allows you to download and read the actual 4-page memo.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-gop-memo/2746/

 

[bystander]

You're VASTLY underplaying what went on in Watergate. The "ham handed burglary attempt" was simply the catalyst for many other events and wasn't what landed in the impeachment charges.

"The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate complex on Saturday, June 17, 1972. The FBI investigated and discovered a connection between cash found on the burglars and a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), the official organization of Nixon's campaign.[4][5] In July 1973, evidence mounted against the president's staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee. The investigation revealed that Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.[6][7]

After a series of court battles, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that the president was obliged to release the tapes to government investigators (United States v. Nixon). The tapes revealed that Nixon had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in, and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.[5][8] Facing virtually certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974, preventing the House from impeaching him.[9][10] On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him."

 

[Garmel]

Sure, just release any of the information that is currently being leveraged to "make Nunes look foolish" to impact an active investigation? That's your perspective? The FBI is in a no-win situation.

It's now come out that excerpts of the memo were released to Foxnews and the Washington Examiner before the memo was released to the media. Yes, this is a political circus.

Weak excuse. The FBI can black out any info that relates to the active investigation and still show that Nunes is wrong. It's really not that hard. You're trying to make excuses for a corrupt government agency. Sound familiar? IRS Part Deux.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Just to reset, this memo pretty much did what I thought it would do - makes some pretty substantial claims in general ways that really can't be confirmed or supported without the actual supporting docs. A lot of the language may well be overly vague and probably is leaving out some information. All it seems to show is that the FBI appears to have been seriously overzealous in their investigation, or at least didn't appear to do proper vetting of source material. If there's more to the story, then more digging is required.

Vox is making the argument that Nunes's points are sufficiently vague that they don't require that anyone at the FBI actually knew that the document was unverified. Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly worth some subpoenas to find out.

And while it doesn't invalidate the Russia investigation, it probably warrants some more investigation into how the probe started to begin with. The Papawhatshiname connection has always seemed pretty weak, and based on this memo I'd definitely like to know if there was something more going on that prompted the investigation. Some guy getting drunk and mouthing off in a bar doesn't seem like a lot to go on, unless there was something else there.

It also tells me that a whole lot of Dems had a very interesting definition of what constitutes a danger to our intelligence community. Nothing in this looked particularly dangerous from what I could see, so I'm puzzled - if it is so flawed - why the Dems didn't just dare them to put it out and then pick it apart? Why the desperation to keep it under wraps?

 

[Seattle Husker]

When you guys stop having Maxine Watters and Joe Kennedy present SOTU responses, we can talk about the Dems not allowing "a few crackpots" to speak for them.

Kennedy was the "official" response. The fact that Watters gets more attention from the right wing than the left wing. She gets virtually zero attention from MSM. I get why you want to portray Watters as mainstream but that's because conservative media want Maxine to be the "stereotypical liberal".

I seem to recall Dems in the House have already voted on impeachment once. Would you consider that to have been an appropriate move based on what we knew then or now? How many Dems equal a "mainstream?"

The voted on impeachment of Trump...not Pence. Still, 60 Dems in the House voted for impeachment. 60 out of 200+ in a political vote that everyone knew was going nowhere.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Vox is making the argument that Nunes's points are sufficiently vague that they don't require that anyone at the FBI actually knew that the document was unverified. Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly worth some subpoenas to find out.

Here's what I don't understand. Nunes could have subpeonead the FBI to explain themselves but didn't. The goal of his investigation wasn't to get the full story or even "fix" the problem but rather to get enough information to build a smokescreen. Success.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Here's what I don't understand. Nunes could have subpeonead the FBI to explain themselves but didn't.

I'm not sure that's completely true, especially since they've been calling for FBI records since June or so from last year, and have been slow-walked all the way. It may well be that he's tried unsuccessfully to get that information. Or maybe he sucks at his job. Which I have not ruled out.

The sad thing is that in many cases, congressional investigations are conducted by people whose investigative experience includes watching Scooby Doo cartoons as children, Law & Order as adults, and doing Al Pacino impersonations in the mirror. That's one reason I wish Gowdy weren't going away.