Thoughts on the Nunes memo?

I will reserve judgment until the material omissions of fact are also disclosed. I agree with Senator John McCain, that release of the memo is meant to deflect attention from the FBI’s discovery of the extent of Russian interference in the US political process.

Having read it my thoughts are that, despite how the GOP has hyped it, it has all the impact of wet toilet paper.

I think the Nunes memo is an act of desperation from a party attempting to spin a narrative around revelations certain to villify the Republican brand.

If it were remotely defensible, why didn’t he let the democrats release their minority analysis?

Why was this released over the objections of the FBI and other security agencies?

Why was this released without any democratic support?

This is/was a political hack job. End of subject.

My thoughts are that Trump is the worst president to serve the United States since the ink first dried on the Constitution. Trump is concerned for himself and his own survival rather than the United States and its institutions. That is the only explanation for the declassification of this memorandum that I can see.

It’s probably important to pursue at least one aspect of the Steele dossier. The pee-pee tape article This was mentioned on the Hannity show as being included in the dossier with relation to Donald Trump’s actions while at a hotel in Moscow.

If nothing else, it’s a new aspect of Fox News right-wing political reporting.

If Nunes actually thought these bullet points had any merit he would have followed the proscribed methods that exist to clear up just this kind of contention instead of trying to make it into a sideshow clown show.

Not meaning to be rude but is this really a necessary question? Past posts would lead me to believe that your conclusions are in direct contradiction to mine and vice versa.

@rojo I asked the question, but have not commented on it. Strictly looking to see how others think.

I was underwhelmed.

An okay fictional tale from the GOP AGAIN ! ! ! !

@seawulf575

So what are your thoughts on it?

I think it has a lot of very damning things in it. However, it is only one side of the tale. It seems unlikely that they (the GOP) would put it out if it weren’t at least mostly true. With the media on the liberal side of things, it would be way too easy to expose as a bunch of bunk if it truly were. The FBI came out and cautioned it omitted key information that could impact its veracity. However when asked by reporters, they couldn’t identify anything that was actually lacking. On the other side, Nunes admits he didn’t actually look at the FISA warrants so it casts doubt. What I believe the memo points out as a fact is that it was/would/could be very easy to game the FISA courts. It points to the idea that secret courts can be just as tainted as public courts. It shows us all that everything to do with the Patriot Act is bad for Americans.

One thing I have been curious about is that there seems to be contradictory actions by the Dems on this. They totally opposed releasing the memo…fought it hard. But then turn around and say its nothing and not true. So if it’s not true, why fight so hard? Let your opponents put out something that is total garbage and then beat them over the head with it. Those actions also make me think that most of the memo is true. Because the Dem actions then make more sense. Fight it hard and then try downplaying it as damage control.

One thing is rather clear. The memo has been seriously overhyped. There’s not a chance in hell of it blunting the Mueller investigations. If this is the straw the Republicans choose to grasp in the attempt smear the FBI they are in for a truly embarrassing disappointment. It is absolutely astonishing that the GOP would focus public attention on poor hapless Carter Page. In fact, when you get right down to it, the great and consistent theme to all of the players thus far caught up in this thing is just how unbelievably stupidly they have behaved. If you are unfamiliar with Page and his involvement in this, look him up. You won’t believe it!

I tried to read it, but I couldn’t get a mobile friendly version yet. So I’ll withhold my main response to it, until I know what I’m talking about.

@seawulf575 . My understanding is that the FBI didn’t want it released in it’s current format. Many report that the memo was only a fraction of it’s entirety. As someone who likes to point to fact, why would you even give your attention to such an incomplete piece. If a puzzle is supposed to have 50–60 pieces, how could you know what the picture would be of, just seeing 4?..

The fact that the dems’ counter document was stiff armed discredits the memo without me having read the other.

You know our differences regarding Trump. Let’s say that both you, and I wrote a book on him. Only, my book was the only one allowed to be published. It’s illegal for you to put yours into circulation. Knowing that only one side of the story is told wouldn’t that affect your opinion on the validity of my book?..

@stanleybmanly I will agree that they overhyped it…I was getting tired of the “We ought to let the public see this!” foolishness. But I think you are missing a huge piece. If the information in the memo is true, it will indeed derail Mueller’s investigation. All the information he gathered…the entire investigation…was predicated on information in the Steele dossier. And it is apparent that all FISA warrants were based on this memo, but were obtained without giving full information to the FISA courts, basically invalidating all the information gathered. So yes, it is that big.

@MrGrimm888 I can think of a lot of very valid reasons why it isn’t a full story. Classification is probably a huge part of it. Yes, you could have given much more information, but it would all be redacted. This is probably the information that was low enough on the classification list to be able to be presented. Having read it, I didn’t see anything that would be listed as top secret or that gave information about an ongoing investigation, other than the fact that the FBI withheld information when obtaining warrants. Or the information could have been cherry picked out of more information. But I don’t hear anyone saying the information is false….just incomplete. If the FBI withheld information from the FISA court, that is illegal. Forget extenuating circumstances. This is a very black and white issue. It has to be for the FISA courts to maintain any credibility at all.
I have not seen the Dem memo so I cannot attest to its veracity. I don’t know if it contained classified materials, or if it wasn’t accurate, or if it was political rebuttal designed to muddy the waters and distract from criminal activity. Or if it was bulldozed strictly on partisan reasons. I’m guess some combination of all of these reasons. But again, I haven’t seen it so I am only guessing.
And you are right, this memo is only one side of the story. I have already stated that. But here’s the part that bothers me: many of you don’t seem worried that the FBI may have been lying for political reasons. That should scare every American. And as much as I have heard the smoke/fire statement about Trump, let’s look at what we have so far that would point to this being true. Comey making excuses for Hillary breaking the law. Strzok helping with the deception of the Hillary statement. Strzok showing total bias in emails and indicating that he wants to manipulate things in our election. Mueller staffing his investigation team fully with Hillary supporters, including Strzok and his lover. And now a memo that states the FBI used deception to obtain warrants for spying on Trump. That’s an awful lot of smoke to be denying that there might be a fire somewhere in there.
And one other thought hits me: We have paid millions to investigate a potential interference in our national election. Yet what we see with all these examples is just that…a potential interference in our national election. So why is there not more outrage?

@MrGrimm888 And now that Trump has come out and said he would support the release of the Democrat memo, does that change anything?

Much as he wishes the investigations would end, the memo did no.t “vindicate”Trump.

The Nunes memo’s claim that the FBI and Department of Justice misled a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when seeking to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page may have been quashed.

Officials familiar with the matter told The Washington Post and The New York Times that the DOJ made it clear to the court that information contained in a dossier they submitted as part of a FISA application to surveil Page was politically motivated.

The revelation undercuts the most important claim in Nunes’ memo as he seeks to characterize the FBI and the DOJ as corrupt and biased against President Donald Trump.

No, it actually makes it worse because if it isn’t the FBI, then the FISC allows itself to be part of political games and violates the rights of American citizens to that end.

Here is an article that more fully explains both what is in the Steele Dossier and what has and has not been subsequently corroborated. I recommend anyone that is actually interested, no matter which side of the line you fall on, take the time to read it. It is from Slate and is dated Sept 11, 2017 so it is a little behind and subsequent events over the past few months have lent even more credence to the document.
It also explains about the information provided being “raw reporting” and both what that actually is and what is done with such information, things like being used as a basis to expand investigations further. Which could certainly include requesting FISA warrants to collaborate and flesh out the initial report. Please take the time to read.

@seawulf575 ” it actually makes it worse because if it isn’t the FBI, then the FISC allows itself to be part of political games and violates the rights of American citizens ” Not sure how you can jump to such a conclusion unless you are looking for a justification to believe.

A more logical conclusion would be that you, me and the rest of America has been lied to by Nunes and his boss Trump. Remember that we are not just talking about a single FISA judge here but four different ones.

To be clear, I don’t like FISA and I don’t like most of the Patriot act but they do serve a purpose. If there needs to be a discussion on how to make improvements then that is what needs to be done but recall that it was only a few weeks ago that the House voted to renew section 702 of FISA. An interesting item that came up during the hearings: “The White House on Wednesday had issued a statement opposing an amendment seeking to blunt some of the program’s powers and shield communications of Americans who may get caught up in efforts to pick up foreign electronic communications. ” The vote was 256–164 to extend the program, Talk about bad timing.

Though I agree that the Republicans greatly over-hyped the potential for “damage” done by this memo, it certainly didn’t help the Democrats and the FBI to oppose the release of the memo, further adding fuel to the conspiracy theory. The disturbing takeaway from the memo is not an implication of conspiracy against Trump but how easy it is to justify spying on American citizens. The memo does not undermine the purpose of the Mueller investigation, but it does increase transparency about government actions, and for this reason, I would like to see the Democrats’ memo too.

@Demosthenes Yes, I heard Hannity make the same point yesterday: If the Democrats and the FBI knew it was no big deal why did they make such a big deal about opposing releasing it? And my thoughts then were that they both opposed release on the grounds that it was an incomplete, cherry picked memo whose express purpose was to present a simplified, one-sided view of a situation. Don’t blame them for responding to something that was, supposedly, bigger than Watergate!
Their objections were to releasing a memo that lied by omission and to my mind that is justifiable.

@Rojo, my reasoning on claiming the FISC was a worse option is this: If the FBI didn’t withhold the information that the Steele dossier was compiled as an opposition research project, then the FISC heard that and accepted it anyway. So in effect, any smear campaign at all that may or may not have facts or complete transparency can now be used as justification for obtaining FISA warrants, provided the judges like the political agenda they represent. That to me shows that the FISA courts have been weaponized to support whatever political party they like. Courts are supposed to be independent of the political system, ruling on law, not ideology. And secret courts SHOULD be even more impartial.

Hundreds of FISA applications are approved every year and few are rejected. The political views of the parties concerned isn’t usually provided because it isn’t relevant in deciding whether to grant a warrant or not and nor should it be. What is relevant about the Steele report isn’t who commissioned it but whether it is true or not.

Beating up the FBI over this issue seems to me very unfair. These guys are doing their honest best to keep the US secure (supposedly a Trump priority) and then Trump tells them they should be ashamed of themselves for doing it. And now, demoralized, they are back at their desks doing the job we expect them to do while Trump is in Florida playing a round of golf.

@seawulf575 I really feel you are putting the cart before the horse. The FBI starts with raw data, the sources are always scrutinized, the information is always verified. Obtaining a FISA warrant is part of the process.
You seem to want proof before searching for evidence.

@rojo, despite being a secret court, those seeking a warrant, especially to spy on Americans, have to show proof that this potential violation of their rights is needed. That means if they are using something like the Steele dossier, things like “an unnamed Russian source” won’t fly. And if they presented it to the FISC as something that was bought and paid for by political adversaries as part of “opposition research”, then an honest court would have told them to go away until they had some proof. They don’t have to show an end result, but they have to show probable cause to start an invasion of an American’s privacy. That is why I draw the conclusion that either the FBI was deceptive in their efforts or the FISA court is entirely corrupt because that is the only way something as tainted as the Steele dossier could have been used as a basis for a warrant.

@flutherother So what you are saying is that all it takes to get a FISA warrant is to go in and tell them that someone said something about someone else? That is what it sounds like. Political affiliations may not always come into play, but do when you are talking about a political figure and the evidence you are going to use for a warrant came form that person’s opponent.

@seawulf575 There are rules that have to be followed. There must be evidence that a foreign power or agent of a foreign power is involved. Also, there has to be evidence that the facility—an email address or phone number, for instance—is being used by the foreign power or agent. In addition, the government must show that the information to be collected is “relevant” to any investigation of foreign espionage or terrorism.

Carter Page isn’t a political figure and at the time the FISA warrant was obtained he was no longer involved in the Trump campaign. He is a pretty dubious individual and the FISA warrant wasn’t applied for or granted on a whim.

FISA warrants aren’t handed out on a whim. There’s a fairly substantial evidentiary threshold for them.

@seawulf575 . Does Trump’s recent support for releasing the dems’ version change anything?

I’m not sure. I don’t know what is in their version, or how it differs from the GOP’s, or which version is factually accurate. Since the FBI has not denied what is in the report, I assume that they feel that the complete story will validate their actions. I’m not an expert on FBI wiretapping, or FISA courts. And I have no intention of trying to be. I have no intention of learning the inner workings of my cell phone either. I just need it to work. If this whole thing exposes a POTUS, for colluding with a foreign government, for what could only be nefarious reasons, then the system works. It seems like Trump supporters don’t even care he may have done this. Nobody likes to find out that their team did something wrong. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t hold them accountable. Holding people accountable reduces the chances of bad things happening again…

Are you even open to the possibility that Trump did this? If so, how can you oppose an investigation? If there’s a 10% chance that Trump is guilty, should that not be explored? NONE of his rhetoric, or actions are that of an innocent man. War on free press, war on the intelligence community, discrediting/firing people investigating him, and the fact that he is clearly getting worried and desperate says that the investigation is ABSOLUTELY warranted. Trump is panicking. That’s what this report is. I’m sure you are aware of this…

@MrGrimm888 If a FISA court exposes a POTUS colluding with a foreign government for nefarious reasons, then yes, the system works. But if people in our government game this system for nefarious reasons…that is of no consequence? Or worse yet, if the FISA court goes along with the game? Your statement has two sides to it. You are choosing to only look at one. And if there is even a 10% chance that the Nunes memo is true, isn’t it worth looking into?

As for Trump colluding with Russia to win the election I will say I am extremely skeptical. If things had played out differently and we came to this consideration, I would have been more receptive. But when you start at the beginning of when the Russians supposedly started interfering with our election, there are way too many questions and inconsistencies for the whole thing to hold together. Let’s go through it. In June/July of 2016, the Russians supposedly hacked the DNC servers, getting almost 20,000 emails. These are released through Wikileaks later on. The hacker Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for the hack and in fact told media outlets to visit a website, DCHacks, for information from these emails. Wikileaks also got some of the emails. Is Guccifer 2.0 a disguise for Russian government hackers? Seems unlikely, but possible. That is one unlikely…I’ll try to keep a running score. Wikileaks never cited a source for their information claiming anonymity of sources is key to their business. There was a hint at one point that came from Wikileaks that it was not Russians, but Seth Rich. It was a hint, but was never followed up on by our government. Why is that? Even if you knew that was false, you either have to come out with your evidence that you knew who did the hack or you investigate to close that out as a possibility. Really neither of those things happened. That seems unlikely as well. That’s 2. The target of the hack was the DNC servers for emails. If you are truly trying to interfere in the election, this seems to be an unlikely target, especially in July when the elections are only 3 months away. A lot of extraneous material to be dumped anonymously for publication with the hope that the American people care enough to go read these emails and that they might sway enough votes to change the outcome of the election. That seems unlikely. 3. You and I both know that the last presidential election was a polarized event. People either liked Hillary or hated her. There was no in-between. Dumping a bunch of emails isn’t going to change much, if anything. So the target and the timing seem suspect to me. Add to that the timeline doesn’t support a collusion idea. The Russians were supposedly hacking the DNC back in March of 2016 which is long before Trump associates were supposed to be meeting with them. The Russians supposedly hacked Podestas email on March 19th. Papodopoulos first met with a Russian on the 24th to try establishing some contacts. He reportedly recommended a meeting with the Russians which the Trump campaign turned down. So the Russians were already hard at work, supposedly, before the Trump campaign reached out in even the meagerest of ways. Also at this point, I’m pretty sure that Trump’s campaign was doing opposition research on Hillary already. If not, they are fools and fools don’t run the kind of campaign Trump did to get elected. So the idea that Trump gave them the idea of hacking the DNC or Hillary is one I find highly unlikely. That’s 4. The NSA has the capability of capturing all electronic data transfers, yet has never been able to show that the idea of the hack was even legitimate. I find that unlikely. That’s 5. Obama himself, in October of 2016, called Trump a whiner for saying the election was rigged. I found that particularly funny since it Hillary started floating the idea that the Russians had interfered in September. So here you have a sitting president who is fully engaged with all the issues of Russian interference publicly announcing that the election would be fair and the results valid. Would that be done if there were questions of Russian interference? I find that unlikely. That’s 6. And Hillary making the claim in September…I find it more likely that she was seeing that her campaign was tanking while Trump’s was growing and she was trying to lay the groundwork for blaming others. And that opens another line of thought…if Hillary really thought the Russians were out to get her, why would she use them for opposition research? It seems HIGHLY unlikely. 7. Most of the Steele dossier was created using Russians. Obama himself claimed that nothing happens in Russia that Putin doesn’t know about. So why, if you think they are out to get you, would you use them as a source for digging up dirt on your opponent? So to me, the entire thing is sketchy from the start. We are already up to 7 unlikelies and it could go on. The whole Trump/Russia collusion narrative started after Trump won, not before. If it was truly an issue, I find it highly unlikely that it wouldn’t have been brought up before the election, not after. That’s 8. The investigation and 5 others like it have been digging into this supposed collusion for more than a year now and haven’t found any true evidence. One could say they are holding it all for the final report, which I find unlikely (9). They have already touted out 4 indictments of crimes found involving people in the case. Ostensibly the justification is that they are afraid evidence could be destroyed so they moved on this. But wouldn’t evidence of wrong doing by a POTUS be more likely to be destroyed? That logic falls apart. If there were anything, it would be found already. Add to that a media that is pro-liberal and anti-Trump looking for anything to smoke him with and coming up empty makes me believe the idea that there is something hidden out there extremely unlikely. 10. So no…I find the entire possibility that Trump did this to be extremely unlikely. For citations, since I know you will be begging for them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/13/all-of-the-known-times-the-trump-campaign-met-with-russians/?utm_term=.4791cfbc7660

https://www.snopes.com/former-british-ambassador-says-he-not-russia-is-the-dnc-leaker/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/18/trump-rigged-election-obama-warning-america-divided

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41313110

As for Trump’s rhetoric I will say we see things extremely differently. War on Free Press: I see it as a war on irresponsible and biased press. War on the intelligence community: I see it as a war on corruption. And based on the recent things that have come out it is a valid concern. Discrediting/firing people investigating him: He didn’t discredit them, they discredited themselves and warranted firing. Look at Comey. His “investigation” and subsequent creation of an intent clause in the law to let Hillary off of charges brings dishonor on himself and questions the integrity of the entire DoJ. He deserved to be fired on this alone. I don’t see Trump getting worried or panicking. In fact, just the opposite. He is getting more and more smug as the investigation goes on because it, too, is discrediting itself. We have had this discussion before. Establishing an investigation to see if you can dig up dirt is upside down from what it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be that a crime has been committed and you are seeing who is involved. None of that happened before the investigation was created. Add to that the open-ended charter for the investigation, that the investigative team is entirely populated with Hillary supporters, that one of the primary investigators damned himself with emails and texts about how to keep Trump from winning the election and yes…it has been discredited.
That, in a rather lengthy nutshell, sums up my thinking on this whole idiotic thing.

I fail to see how Trump can say that the Nunes memo vindicates him completely. I fail to see how it even vindicates him partially. I fail to see how the memo proves there was no collusion. I fail to see how it proves there was no interference. I fail to see how it does anything at all frankly, other than give a base of supporters for whom no evidence will ever be enough more ammunition to attack the rest of the world who do view things with open eyes.

”... I fail to see how it does anything at all frankly, other than give a base of supporters for whom no evidence will ever be enough more ammunition to attack the rest of the world who do view things with open eyes.”

In a nutshell. That’s all it was meant to do. Frankly, the way conservatives built it up in the weeks leading to it’s release it wouldn’t have mattered what it actually said. Most of their base won’t bother reading it anyway. They’ll just go merrily on believing that it’s some kind of ironclad, rock solid, undisputable proof that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc should all be executed and they’ll go on blaming the “deep state” for not doing so.

@rojo, I don’t believe it does vindicate Trump or prove there was no collusion. What it would do if it is true, in my opinion, is to show that most of what the collusion is based on is political hooey. And it opens a really ugly door for the investigation. It asks the question: if this, then what else? If the FBI was so underhanded and biased to scam the FISA courts in an effort to get dirt on the Trump campaign, what else have they done? Everything for the past 8 years will be up for inspection. And some of that could be information used in the Mueller investigation. If information used in the investigation was based on warrants that were illegally obtained, then it would be inadmissible in court. So everything Mueller has done to date would, in the interest of fairness and transparency, would have to be redone. And it could not, in good faith, be done by Mueller or his team. They are too close to it and have too much doubt. None of that says Trump is innocent or that there was no collusion. But it opens a really ugly door that we as a nation need to walk through if we want honesty in our government.

@seawulf575 . If not for the timing, deliberate altercation for his benefit, and Trump’s behavior (in regards to collusion ) I would honestly give the memo consideration. The memo is clearly meant/designed to stop the investigation. It has no other purpose.

I couldn’t disagree with your interpretation of Trump’s relationship with free press more. Obama was constantly assaulted, and smeared by the media. Trump himself fanned the flames of the idiotic “birther” conspiracy. There was no war on the press then. Obama just shook it off. Why? Because he’s not trying to make this country into a dictatorship. Trump is…

For the 8 “facts,” you provide, you would need dozens, or hundreds of facts to make the ridiculous conspiracy theory against Trump work. Republicans, dems, independents,the entire intelligence community, the FISA system, the press (hundreds of outlets,) and much much more would have to all be working together to create this lunatic theory. And the only evidence of these many thousands of people (who don’t even communicate) working against him is a possibility of a warrant potentially being imperfectly aquired? That’s utterly ridiculous, and you know it…