Release the Memo - page 4

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

  1. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    If an individual not authorized to release classified information were to do so, then that is "leaking", when the Intelligence Committee votes to release it's own memo and there is no executive branch hold on the release, then that is releasing, not leaking.

    I have until now found you to be an intriguing participant in discussions, separate from the far, far right trolls that occasionally grace us with an enthusiastic flurry of name calling and little if any substance. I have even gotten snippy with the mods about them shutting down your previous threads and defended your discussions. When you refrain from effectively calling people stupid you do actually make some good points, but that's all lost when you just resort to name calling instead.
    Yes, I know the difference between leaking and releasing. You asked what was preventing them from releasing it. It's a classified document that needs a vote, as we have discussed. So your question was confusing.

    As far as name calling, you have completely misunderstood my post, and I apologize for that, as I should have provided a link; but, you exemplified my point! I asked if you thought you had the ability to understand the memo because California Rep. Schiff says the memo shouldn't be released because the American people wouldn't understand it. I disagree with him, and as you have shown, disagree as well.

    Schiff Says Americans Can't Have The Memo Because They Won't Understand It - YouTube

    I don't name call usually, and even when I do, it's rather a questioning attitude towards their intellectual abilities to critically think through something specific. I am surprised in the light you have seen my posts as I have thought no one was really listening. So thank you for that. This entire time, I really have thought it may be impossible to reason with some people when they didn't reason themselves into a certain position.
  2. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from elkpark
    The "memo" is nothing but a new "shiny object" designed to distract people from actual news and facts and smear the FBI and Mueller investigation, written by a well-known Trump apologist and henchman.

    The congressional GOP members are doing everything they can to lay the groundwork to discredit the Mueller investigation so they can try to deny and ignore the results when they are finally released. Gee, they must be really worried about what he is finding!
    What actual news and facts are coming from the investigation right now?

    I don't really see how the GOP is trying to discredit the investigation. Half of the Republican's don't like Trump in the first place. Why, all of a sudden, are they supporters because of a memo that may or may not prove corruption within the FBI, before Mueller was even appointed?
  3. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    It's still not clear why Nunes is involved in this at all since he was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation even by fellow Republicans for working in coordination with the White House to discredit the investigation last March.

    All we know about what's in the memo comes from Congressional members who have seen it, and it doesn't appear to include any new information. The memo supposedly contends that the "Steele Dossier" served as the basis for some aspects of the investigation including FISA warrants which has already been assumed to be a possibility prior to the memo. This would potentially raise eyebrows if the Dossier was known to be a fabricated or otherwise unreliable source, but much of the Dossier has already been shown to be correct, so it was reasonable for the FBI to investigate the information it contained. An actual controversy would have been if the FBI for some reason ignored potential evidence of crimes based on political influences, which is apparently what some Trump supporters are contending should have happened.
    I believe Nunes is involved because of the recusal. He tried to discredit the investigation because of what he possibly had experienced, as in what may be in the memo. Since that time, its speculated that he has spent time gathering sources for the memo, in order to show his reasonings. If he has proof, why shouldn't he continue to prove his point?

    I have no qualms about your last paragraph. I don't care if they investigate real threats, I want them to. But to intentionally create a lie to try and stop something from happening, that's ridiculous and infuriating. Although some things have come to light of the investigation, what has, none of it has anything to do with Trump, as in he did anything.

    PS: I replied to your comment about name calling, but included a youtube video, so it's being reviewed. I want you to read it, but since posts without a link are being posted before it, I don't want it to get lost without you seeing it.
  4. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    I'm still not clear on how either Clinton or her campaign might have colluded with Russia?
    On hiring Fusion GPS, to create the Russia collusion narrative. Initially, it's said GOP members initiated it, but abandoned it shortly thereafter. Then the Clinton campaign picked it up. If you remember, Donald Trump Jr. was accused of have foreign relations with a certain Russian, after he was lead to a meeting he thought was entirely about something else, who told him, she "has information about the Clintons". DT Jr. left that meeting promptly.

    He name was smeared, but later those articles are accusations were retracted because he was lead to believe one thing, while it was something else. The whole thing, the meeting, was set up by Fusion GPS, in order to provide, "evidence" DT Jr. colluded.

    In the Fusion GPS voluntary interview, a 300 page document, the CEO of Fusion GPS was questioned on whether his company intends to come to a certain conclusion when hired. It's all very... convenient.
  5. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from heron
    I just heard Rep. Adam Schiff speak on this subject. Apparently only two members of his committee were allowed to actually read the materials on which this memo was based.

    Interesting, isn't it? The memo is based on data no one is allowed to see.
    The Justice Department retains the documents supporting the memo, as they are classified. They have to get permission to view them, just as Nunes did. Nunes has no authority to declassify any of those documents. So what he did was summarize the contents from notes he took when viewing them (as he was allowed), and made the memo. Now they are voting on declassifying the memo as a whole.

    So if you have issues with members of the intelligence committee not viewing the documents, it's with those members and the Justice Department.
  6. by   itsybitsy
    It's said it will be released after the State of the Union. So Wednesday perhaps. Then we can all chat about it.
  7. by   heron
    Quote from itsybitsy
    The Justice Department retains the documents supporting the memo, as they are classified. They have to get permission to view them, just as Nunes did. Nunes has no authority to declassify any of those documents. So what he did was summarize the contents from notes he took when viewing them (as he was allowed), and made the memo. Now they are voting on declassifying the memo as a whole.

    So if you have issues with members of the intelligence committee not viewing the documents, it's with those members and the Justice Department.
    Unfortunately, even releasing the memo won't clarify anything unless the underlying documentation is also released. It's impossible to assess anything in the memo since it's discussing something the public is not allowed to see and judge for itself whether the memo is on point or a giant boondoggle based on alternative facts. As a debate, this whole issue is a wash.
  8. by   margin261
    Quote from itsybitsy
    On hiring Fusion GPS, to create the Russia collusion narrative. Initially, it's said GOP members initiated it, but abandoned it shortly thereafter. Then the Clinton campaign picked it up. If you remember, Donald Trump Jr. was accused of have foreign relations with a certain Russian, after he was lead to a meeting he thought was entirely about something else, who told him, she "has information about the Clintons". DT Jr. left that meeting promptly.

    He name was smeared, but later those articles are accusations were retracted because he was lead to believe one thing, while it was something else. The whole thing, the meeting, was set up by Fusion GPS, in order to provide, "evidence" DT Jr. colluded.

    In the Fusion GPS voluntary interview, a 300 page document, the CEO of Fusion GPS was questioned on whether his company intends to come to a certain conclusion when hired. It's all very... convenient.
    I'm not sure where you got your information about the meeting between trump jr & the Russians- but your description is one I've never seen before.
    As for the Steele dossier, it started out as opposition research that all politicians do on each other. It was initiated by a republican opponent, then they were paid by the 'Free Beacon' (I believe that's the name, a conservative publication. After they stopped financing, I think money came from DNC. At any rate- it did not begin as a search for Russian collusion. They found connections between trump & Russian mafia here in US & followed the trail back to Russia. Steele was hired for the contacts he had developed in Russia as a MI6 agent who's area was Russia. When they contacted the FBI, they'd already started an investigation into trump's campaign d/t someone on the inside having reported issues already. That person hasn't been named. And it possibly could be Papadopolous who bragged to Australian intelligence officer-unknowingly-who reported to FBI. As you'll recall Papadopolous has already been indicted for lying to FBI, as has Flynn and those are campaign related.
    I read the Fusion transcripts. Interesting & enlightening. I'll try to find a link if you want to read.
    And I've not heard anywhere that Fusion had anything to do with trump jr's meeting with Russian lawyer. Jr released his emails that show very clearly that Rob Goldstone set that meeting up at the request of the lawyer
  9. by   macawake
    Quote from heron
    Unfortunately, even releasing the memo won't clarify anything unless the underlying documentation is also released. It's impossible to assess anything in the memo since it's discussing something the public is not allowed to see and judge for itself whether the memo is on point or a giant boondoggle based on alternative facts.
    And again, you're correct. Fact-checking Nunes' opinions is of course neither possible nor meaningful. Until the underlying documentation can be reviewed everything in that memo will have to be considered unsubstantiated claims made by someone who if I put it kindly, seems to have an agenda.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    The Justice Department retains the documents supporting the memo, as they are classified. They have to get permission to view them, just as Nunes did. Nunes has no authority to declassify any of those documents. So what he did was summarize the contents from notes he took when viewing them (as he was allowed), and made the memo. Now they are voting on declassifying the memo as a whole.
    Does this make sense in your mind? A person gets permission to view classified information. The information remains classified but the person who viewed it can later on with the help of his political buddies declassify a version of the classified information; ie the notes he took and his recollection of what he read? I'm assuming Nunes wasn't allowed to take his smartphone or a camera with him when he viewed the classified information, but let's pretend for a minute that he has excellent memory and possesses the ability to repeat the information in the classified documents verbatim... He would then theoretically have found a way to usurp the power the Justice Department and intelligence/counterintelligence organizations have to classify (meaning protect) sensitive information including humint assets. I would expect that a member of Congress on the House Intelligence Committe would handle classified information with more care than that, but we do live in novel times, don't we?

    Now, if Nunes et al. are preparing to demonstrate that they put party over country and share classified information that might jeopardize possibly still ongoing counterintelligence operations, I would actually have preferred that he did take a photo. That way we would at least know that we're viewing an accurate and untainted version of the documents. You see, he has with his previous track record proven that he will go to great lengths to protect his man; Trump. Nunes was on Trump's transition team. Seeing as he was on the team, I don't know if there is or isn't an element of self-interest in his tenacious machinations to deflect from the Russia investigation, but his presence on the transition team at the very least suggests a closeness to the President. We've already covered the baseless demasking hullabaloo, where the only logical conclusion is that Nunes was trying to provide cover for the administration by trying to make us not pay attention to the Russia investigation.

    The problem with releasing only the memo is that it's 100% a Nunes et al. product. Are we just supposed to trust that he is intelligent enough to understand everything he read and has the integrity and ethical backbone to report on it in an apolitical and unbiased fashion? Oh, and for someone who is supposedly recused, he sure seems to be poking his nose in it. What's his angle?

    I understand the need for the intelligence services to protect classified information as it affects operational security and in the end national security and would normally not be in favor of releasing even Nunes' INTERPRETATION of what he read, but I can't help but feel that if someone appears to be doing their darndest to prove that they are unpatriotic, partisan hacks; do give them enough rope to hang themselves. Let them show to the world what they are all about. History will judge them.

    In the end, it deosn't really matter. About 35% of your population will believe anything that furthers the Trump agenda no matter how unlikely and "tinfoil hatty", and the remaining 65% along with probably 90% (a guesstimate) of the citizens in most of the world's democracies will require a whole lot more than just the word of Devin Nunes.
  10. by   Lil Nel
    I don't expect anyone who actually believes Devin Nunes is credible to read this editorial, but for the rest of us, it is worth a read.


    Opinion | The Republicans’ Real Fake Scandal - The New York Times
  11. by   toomuchbaloney
    Similarly, I will add this colorful viewpoint on the nature of this memo debate.

    What exactly are Devin Nunes' qualifications for interpreting and summarizing top secret intelligence?

    Stonekettle Station: Dirty Tricks
  12. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Correct, they vote to have it release and then Trump has 5 days from the vote (if they vote to release it) to approve it. I read somewhere last week that the process would take 21 days, if the full 5 days are used. I have also read that although Trump would like to approve it once voted for safe release, that he might not, as he wants to stay out of it, and would want the House to decide, instead of himself.
    The House can decide instead of Trump, all Trump would need to do is decline to intervene in the release of the memo, which is already what he's signaled he would do.
    From reports of those who have read the memo, it refers to the standard process by which FISA warrants are granted and tries to frame that as being nefarious. This works a lot better in terms of stoking anti-FBI hysteria when people can't actually see that they are just talking about normal FISA procedures.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    As for Manafort, the charges are from way before Trump even began campaigning, even the conspiracy against the U.S. They just came to light because of the Russia investigation. If the FBI only now found out about this, through their investigation, how was anyone else, including Trump, suppose to know the history of Manafort?
    Manafort's history as a campaign manager and political strategist for Russian-backed politicians was common knowledge prior to him joining the campaign. He had worked for some US campaigns in the more distant past, but what he had become known for when Trump hired him was working for a Ukrainian politician who was backed by Russia. This politician was eventually forced out of power as it turned out he was massively corrupt and is now living in Russia protected by the Kremlin.

    To discover this, all Trump would have had to do was google his name, he would have found articles such as this: Mystery man: Ukraine's U.S. fixer - POLITICO

    Although it seems unlikely that Trump hired Manafort for his political experience but had no idea what that political experience was.

    The fact that Manafort has been paid at least indirectly by Russia was known at the time Trump hired him, what's come up since then is that he has also been receiving secret payments from Russia affiliated entities and that these payments came from corruption, embezzlement, etc which is why Manafort is currently awaiting trial under house arrest and why there is still an open case against him in Ukraine.
  13. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Yes, I know the difference between leaking and releasing. You asked what was preventing them from releasing it. It's a classified document that needs a vote, as we have discussed. So your question was confusing.

    As far as name calling, you have completely misunderstood my post, and I apologize for that, as I should have provided a link; but, you exemplified my point! I asked if you thought you had the ability to understand the memo because California Rep. Schiff says the memo shouldn't be released because the American people wouldn't understand it. I disagree with him, and as you have shown, disagree as well.

    Schiff Says Americans Can't Have The Memo Because They Won't Understand It - YouTube

    I don't name call usually, and even when I do, it's rather a questioning attitude towards their intellectual abilities to critically think through something specific. I am surprised in the light you have seen my posts as I have thought no one was really listening. So thank you for that. This entire time, I really have thought it may be impossible to reason with some people when they didn't reason themselves into a certain position.
    I appreciate the clarification, sorry I took it the wrong way.

close