NYT: Nunes memo is attack on Rosenstein.
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Too many in the GOP actually believe there is a real war. So they fight it like they are on the eastern front in 1943.
The House GOP might as well be run by Alex Jones and Infowars.com
A new low in partisan behavior.
A new low in partisan behavior.
I don't get the problem here. We should all be interested in knowing the truth...shouldn't we? Or are you saying that we're better off in the dark?
There's been quite a lot of debate about whether or not they relied on the Steele dossier for the FISA request. This should at least put that debate to bed...and that's not a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure Twenty is referring to the fact that the House GOP is voting to release classified information in the form of a GOP memo, but refusing to release the same exact classified information in the form of a Dem response to that memo. It's inherently hypocritical for them to suggest that releasing the Schiff memo would threaten intelligence sources or methods immediately after voting to release the Nunes memo which threatens those same sources or methods. Hence the "new low" comment.
How is this not patently obvious to you? Or are you just trying to be contrarian?
We aren't seeing anything but what an extreme partisan hack (Nunes) wants us to see. Let's not for a second pretend this is anything more than dicking around with select classified intelligence to discredit the FBI and protect Trump.
He wasn't the only one who wrote it BTW.
I saw Gowdy talking about it and he's somebody I hold in high esteem (you may not, as is your prerogative...but we're all entitled to our opinions).
I don't mind others who wish to rebut its determinations being able to do so. But, as I said when the Mueller investigation started, all I'm intersted in here is the truth. If DOJ/FBI screwed up (or worse), we deserve to know that -- as that truth matters too, doesn't it?
Nobody should ever be angry or fearful of relevant facts seeing the light of day.
Yes I do -- so long as both of them are grounded in fact. If the Reps won't release the Dem memo, then I'd at least be curious to hear the FBI and DOJ's defenses of whatever the released one contains.
My guess is that you're spot on, only the deal is that Wray told McCabe that McCabe sticking around in his No.2 job just long enough to be fully vested in his retirement wasn't worth the crap coming down politically, and so McCabe could go work elsewhere in the department at no diminution of compensation until March. (McCabe is still "working" at the FBI.)
I might learn more about this on Friday . . . Wray came out of King and Spalding here in the ATL and a few retired attorneys with contacts at K&S weigh in on this kind of stuff in conversation at men's breakfast.
Well, if they need to be grounded in fact to be released, why in hell and tarnation is the Nunes memo being released?
Again, Friday he was reportedly fine. By Monday he was *forced* to resign -- by Wray, that is.
What does that even mean? Grounded in fact? We don't know what is in the memos exactly, but we do know one of them is a GOP interpretation of certain classified information, and the other is a Dem counter. They are both about the same thing. If transparency and openness is what you want, you should be outraged that the GOP only wants to release one of them. If you just want to see GOP talking points bandied about the media all week, then you should probably be pretty happy.
From what I can tell, the DOJ people objecting to this being released aren't objecting based on its veracity.
They may say it lacks context or whatever. But that's a far different thing than saying it's untrue.
My point here is that Democrats would, naturally, have a different spin on the same facts as the Republicans who drafted this. That doesn't mean the one we're going to see isn't based on facts, Sope.
So why can't you just admit it's wrong for the committee to only release one of the memos? I strongly suspect if the Dems were pulling this stunt, you'd be agreeing with me and Twenty on this issue.
Not clearly without qualification, you didn't (until now). Thank you for stating it clearly.
"Yes I do" isn't clear and unqualified?
I don't think we should be limited to just one interpretation of relevant facts. But I'm certainly not going to shill for hiding relevant facts. That's crazy.
If the FBI and/or DOJ screwed up or acted in bad faith, we should know that. That doesn't mean they aren't warranted a defense in the court of public opinion.
Not when it's followed by a qualification, it isn't. Good grief, crazed. You are misrepresenting your own posts now?
I'm glad you have come around and agreed with us on this point. I wish it hadn't required so much effort to get you to do so. The minute the committee voted to not release the Schiff memo, every rational person should have said, "This isn't about transparency; it's about partisan hackery."
BTW, am I mistaken in recalling that you said they should release this thing?
I remember it because I was going to razz you about being a #ReleaseTheMemo bot, but I decided to just let it go.
But, yeah, more rather than less (with the exception of releasing info that could genuinely damage national security or compromise clandestine sources...I'd never be for that, but I don't think that's in play here).
I didn't qualify it. I said they should release it.
I just said that, failing that, they should afford the DOJ and FBI the opportunity to defend their actions. That's not a qualification, it's a lesser alternative.
No, you said they should release it so long as it's grounded in fact.
FTR, no, I did not say the memos should be released. Although I generally like transparency, too, I'm skeptical of political actors wanting to compromise classified information when the DOJ begs them not to. I'm even more skeptical when the DOJ says, "At least let us vet it before you release it," and Congress responds with a middle finger.
But, if they are hell-bent on releasing the Nunes memo, they must release the Schiff memo, as well. To release their version and hold back the minority version can only be partisan hackery.
Oh, I'm definitely looking forward to reading it. That doesn't mean I think it should be public. Just that I plan to enjoy it when it happens.
If this memo has any kind of lasting effect, it won't be because of the content of the memo itself. It will be because Trump uses it as political cover to fire Rosenstein.
...and you hope it's released. Don't forget that -- you said that too.
So you're getting your wish!!
I also hope I randomly run into Sophie Turner some day, and my charms make her fall madly in love with me. That doesn't mean I think that would actually be a good outcome for her!
Heh...nice try. But no sale. You said you hope it was released. No big deal.
Frankly, I think the Dems (or the FBI, etal) can just use what is released to make their own rebuttal. But, clearly, something happened here that shouldn't have happened...which is probably why the DOJ and FBI are trying like hell to keep it from seeing the light of day.
And, yes, I would not be surprised if we find out what turned Wray on McCabe so suddenly. Don't forget that Wray had been defending him up until today.
You do know that unlike Nunes,Schiff actually had access to the classified material both memos are supposedly based on,right?What possible other reason than pure,blatant partisanship could there be for the Pub dominated committee to authorize releasing the Nunes memo and not do the same for Schiff?
The play for Schiff is to go ahead and release his as well,and expose the naked partisanship.The 35% of trumpers will hypocritically cry foul,but really what can they base that on.50% or higher of us are not going to swallow the Nunes line,and it will at least expose the opposite talking points from the Pubs...
I'm all for Schiff releasing his memo without proper clearance.
He'd probably get in trouble for that -- but I wouldn't be among those calling for it.
I don't think that's clear at all. I think it's much more likely that DOJ and FBI don't want it released for the stated reason - which is the stated reason pretty much any time they don't want something released - that it will compromise intelligence sources or methods.
I would. I would be shocked. I would be shocked if this is anything other than nutjob conspiracy theory put in Congressional memo form. I am absolutely certain whatever happened to McCabe has nothing to do with this memo.
There is the little matter of the Aussies coming forward and saying the contact between Pappy and one of their top diplomats led to the opening of the Russia investigation.Odds on this little tidbit being included in the Nunes memo? On the other hand,I'm relatively certain it's included in Schiff's and may even form the centerpiece...
Notice the timeline? Pappy blabs in May and reports to his superiors.The Aussies become alarmed in June/July when the emails start showing.They alert US sources and the FBI launches the probe in July...
"During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/...-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html
I seriously doubt this memo is going to contain anything that could even remotely be said to compromise any sources or methods.
The good news is: we'll find that out soon enough. If I'm right about that, then we'll see their squawks for what they are: a brazen attempt to cover up anything from sloppiness (at best) to malfeasance (at worst) in their surveillance practices.
Last edited:
You're saying this is necessarily an either/or thing?
No, it's not an either/or thing.
I'm saying that THIS info will NOT be included in the Nunes memo,which supposedly deals with the reasons the FBI launched the investigation in the first place.The current Pub talking point is to blame the dossier,but the fact that the Aussies reported this and it's a matter of record provides a pretty solid basis to destroy the Pub dossier point...For that reason (and others) this info will NOT be in the Nunes memo.
Do you disagree?
Why should this be taken seriously? It's a memo that Nunes wrote. He supposedly recused himself. He's already been proven to be a Trump apologist. How do we know thi is even based on facts? I assume there will be quite an interesting response by both sides on the committee. Seems like the stakes just went up a notch today.
