Release the Memo - page 27

Republicans call for release of memo on alleged surveillance abuses - CBS News... Read More

  1. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Who confirms it? It's classified.
    The FBI does actually have access to classified information, they're actually the original source for a large amount of classified information.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    It seems many are not viewing it in a unbiased light, seeing as they can't understand that the memo mentions that Comey testified that the Steele information was unverified.
    This is just a flat-out lie. Comey never stated that the entire dossier was unverified, and actually stated the opposite in the testimony the Nunes memo refers to. He specifically refers to "unverified parts" of the dossier, and generally when specifying that only part of something fits into one category, that generally means the other parts don't fit into that category.
    The Comey testimony the Nunes memo refers to is here:
    Full text: James Comey testimony transcript on Trump and Russia - POLITICO
  2. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    It would be a miracle if it was reported that way, but it's not and never has been. And to rephrase your sentence for you, "there is a suspiciously large amount of MSM reporting on only the questionable contacts between Trump staff and Russia". FTFY.

    Again, Schiff... I guess he really wants those nudes of Trump...
    I think you're incorrectly summarizing the status of what we know about ties between Russians and Trump staff as being only conjecture by the media at this point, much of this has been admitted to by those involved and as a result is more than just conjecture.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    It doesn't counter it, it emboldens it. Just because you got information outside the warrant doesn't negate the need for a warrant, for which you would normally get other/more information from. That is ludicrous. But sure, continue debating the DOJ's given instructions.
    I think you're confusing the Judiciary branch as falling under the DOJ, the DOJ is part o the executive branch and it's guidance for it's staff regarding warrant applications does not apply to the judiciary. The Judiciary branch is a separate, co-equal branch of government and therefore it establishes it's own rules that it follows, called precedent.



    Quote from itsybitsy
    It does... The memo says,




    The Yahoo News article DID NOT corroborate the Steele information, because it WAS Steele who told them that, but on the FISA application, it implied that the Yahoo article DID corroborate the Steele information. And the Steele information was, from Comey himself, was unverified.

    The memo pretty clearly makes THAT claim, that the information was knowingly uncorroborated and unverified - but they ran with the information anyways. Have you even read it?!
    I don't know what part of that excerpt you think states it was the only source, it says it was a source, which for some reason you're confusing for stating it was the only source, and again, Comey never stated the entire dossier was unverified, only that parts of it were unverified.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Give me a break. You're looking for excuses. They don't avoid it, they CAN'T say, due to it being classified. The memo is what got declassified, not the entire knowledge of Nunes and Gowdy. The memo says the FISA application doesn't include mention of the DNC, Clinton, or Fusion GPS, with Glenn Simpson. The footnote that is swirling around that you're probably referring to, probably says that information from Steele was funded by a political figure - or something of the sort. But again, they can't talk about it, since it's classified.
    They actually can answer whether the footnote is specific or not, although the specifics of a clarification that a source might have bias aren't really relevant. These are FISA court judges, all information they make rulings on is reflexively considered to be purely based on bias, their decisions are based on what can reliably shown to be true, the specifics of that bias aren't really relevant.

    The basis of the complaint seems to be that the FISA court made their approval based on bad information regarding Page, the problem with that is we know the Steele dossier's claims regarding Page have at least in part been confirmed; the dossier claims he went to Moscow while part of the Trump campaign to essentially moonlight in his other job which is to lobby for pro-Russian interests, Page has admitted to this, and that Page met with Russian government officials, Page has also admitted to this, and that he met with executives of Rosneft, which again, Page has admitted to. So how does a supposedly completely unreliable source get so much right?
  3. by   toomuchbaloney
    Does it seem to anyone else that the same debunked talking points ate bring offered up in slightly different ways, over and over again?

    It's almost as if the truth about the silly Nunes memo and the surveillance of Carter Page just can't be accepted by those so committed to promoting the notion that the investigation into these matters is unwarranted.

    Seriously, the same points, explained and re explained every day. Geezus.
  4. by   heron
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Does it seem to anyone else that the same debunked talking points ate bring offered up in slightly different ways, over and over again?

    It's almost as if the truth about the silly Nunes memo and the surveillance of Carter Page just can't be accepted by those so committed to promoting the notion that the investigation into these matters is unwarranted.

    Seriously, the same points, explained and re explained every day. Geezus.
    I don't believe that, in this case, the incessant repetition of the same debunked claims has anything to do with belief. It has to do with attempting to brainwash anyone who might be reading this thread. It is deliberate. Page one, paragraph one of the Fox playbook.
  5. by   MunoRN
    The bigger issue and the one that doesn't seem like there should be much controversy over, is whether or not we should be interested in whether or not basis of our freedom has been corrupted.

    What we know with reasonable certainty, based on the admissions of a primary participant, is that an official staff member of a presidential candidate was simultaneously working on behalf of Russia, and that he met with Russian government officials as well as representatives of an oligarch while also representing candidate Trump. These admissions support at least the initial portion of a set of accusations, the yet to be determined accusations include that Page and Trump were to be paid by Russia through an oligarch for suspending sanctions against Russia. As it so happens, Trump has reversed sanctions despite them being supported by an almost unheard of 98-2 senate vote and he has yet to give a coherent answer for why he reversed sanctions against Russia.

    Knowing all that, I don't understand how any American with any sort of concern for what America represents would not want anyone to find the answer to whether or not the remaining accusations might be true or not.

close