EVERY Democrat votes against letting full House see facts about Trump campaign

[hog88]

Hey OP (and others), riddle me this:

Why did the GOP all vote not to allow anyone to see the underlying documents that support the Nunes talking points memo, including the very people touting its release?

That's like the Dems issuing a list of Trump's affairs and saying it proves them all to be true, but no, you can't see the basis for them. At all. Any of it. Trust us, its all true.

Got a link for this?

 

[Grand Vol]

Got a link for this?

Does LG ever post links?

 

[1972 Grad]

Why do I no longer see LG and GV's avatar? All I see for them is a black box with an "x."
Edit: I can't see Golfballs' either now. Unfortunately, I still see Luther's.

 

[lawgator1]

Got a link for this?

You should read this article. Seriously. It gets into the nitty gritty, including the source of the "secret society" crap thrown around so loosely by irresponsible members of Congress, trying to turn it into something real.


F.B.I. Texts and Dueling Memos Escalate Fight Over Russia Inquiry - The New York Times

 

[Vol0725]

Hey OP (and others), riddle me this:

Why did the GOP all vote not to allow anyone to see the underlying documents that support the Nunes talking points memo, including the very people touting its release?

That's like the Dems issuing a list of Trump's affairs and saying it proves them all to be true, but no, you can't see the basis for them. At all. Any of it. Trust us, its all true.

Enough of the tic-for-tac B.S...

It’s time to put up or shut up. The president has the power. He can consult with his own appointees, redact information that actually puts lives at risk, and release into the public domain information that can intelligently inform a host of public debates. Republican and Democratic politicians alike no longer have the standing to ask us to just trust their assessments and rely on their characterizations. Let’s see the memo. Let’s see the evidence. In the interests of national unity and public accountability, it’s time to be transparent.

Read more at: Release the Memo & Release All Evidence | National Review

 

[hog88]

Hey OP (and others), riddle me this:

Why did the GOP all vote not to allow anyone to see the underlying documents that support the Nunes talking points memo, including the very people touting its release?

That's like the Dems issuing a list of Trump's affairs and saying it proves them all to be true, but no, you can't see the basis for them. At all. Any of it. Trust us, its all true.

You should read this article. Seriously. It gets into the nitty gritty, including the source of the "secret society" crap thrown around so loosely by irresponsible members of Congress, trying to turn it into something real.


F.B.I. Texts and Dueling Memos Escalate Fight Over Russia Inquiry - The New York Times

Where in your link does it say anything like the bold?

 

[Grand Vol]

Where in your link does it say anything like the bold?

Interestingly enough, I found this at the link:

The rebuke came as Democrats announced that they had drafted their own classified memo based on the same underlying materials to rebut Mr. Nunes. Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, called the Republicans’ document extraordinarily misleading.

LG gonna LG

 

[Carl Pickens]

Does LG ever post links?

If they have cute little kitty cat gifs

 

[luthervol]

Why do I no longer see LG and GV's avatar? All I see for them is a black box with an "x."
Edit: I can't see Golfballs' either now. Unfortunately, I still see Luther's.

Can you see me now?

 

[1972 Grad]

Can you see me now?

Yep. You're starting to look like Don Knotts.

 

[hog88]

Interestingly enough, I found this at the link:



LG gonna LG

Was it Mick or Luther complaining just the other day that the Dems weren't allowed to see that info?

 

[Grand Vol]

Was it Mick or Luther complaining just the other day that the Dems weren't allowed to see that info?

Luther. Though he didn't address my rebuttal.

 

[Vol0725]

Great article from Andrew C. McCarthy III, a former assistant U.S. attorney:

Release the Memo: Let's See What's in It | National Review

"Conforming to House rules, Chairman Nunes has taken pains to make his memo available to all members of Congress before proceeding with the steps necessary to seek its disclosure."

"If the principal basis for the allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia were shown to be the shoddy, unverified Steele dossier, this allegation would be discredited."

"Republicans have made extravagant corruption claims in recent days; if the memo does not bear them out, many a face will be covered in egg."

 

[theFallGuy]

He's a politician. Lying is what they do. All. Day. Long.

kinda like Dick Durbin saying things happened in a meeting that didn't

 

[lawgator1]

Great article from Andrew C. McCarthy III, a former assistant U.S. attorney:

Release the Memo: Let's See What's in It | National Review

"Conforming to House rules, Chairman Nunes has taken pains to make his memo available to all members of Congress before proceeding with the steps necessary to seek its disclosure."

"If the principal basis for the allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia were shown to be the shoddy, unverified Steele dossier, this allegation would be discredited."

"Republicans have made extravagant corruption claims in recent days; if the memo does not bear them out, many a face will be covered in egg."

Read the NYT article I posted above. It explains that the dossier was not, by itself, sufficient to get the FISA warrant. What is constantly omitted by the GOPers who say the FISA court "relied" on the dossier is that there were other intelligence sources used to generate the warrant.

The Nunes memo does two things. One, it perpetuates the myth that the dossier was the only basis for the warrant. Two, it summarizes -- falsely -- other intelligence on the subject to give the false impression that there was a conspiracy to "get" Trump.

The secondary problem becomes that, to prove that the Nunes memo is false and misleading, it is necessary to disclose the other intelligence, and that creates a lot of national security problems. That is, to rebut the false assertion that the dossier was the sole source of the FISA warrant request, it is necessary to explain what else there was, which is a threat to national security.

Nunes is playing a dangerous game. If he goes in this direction, and it is proven that this is the political stunt it appears to be, such that either intelligence is disclosed or false impressions given about national security, he should be charged, convicted, and submitted to the fullest sentence possible under the law for treason.

 

[luthervol]

Luther. Though he didn't address my rebuttal.

And what was the rebuttal?

 

[luthervol]

So...

They (the DNC members of Congress) have access to the report from Nunes, which also means they can ask the FBI or NSA for the same data they provided to Nunes and create a rebuttal report.

So, they are either:

Lazy
Incompetent
Don't really want to know because it's true
All of the above

Choose wisely.

Luther. Though he didn't address my rebuttal.

I guess that is the rebuttal to which you refer.

I wisely choose E. None of the above. Which was conveniently left off of your rebuttal.

So your rebuttal was either:

Lazy
Incompetent
Intentionally biased
All of the above.

Choose wisely.

 

[Vol0725]

Read the NYT article I posted above. It explains that the dossier was not, by itself, sufficient to get the FISA warrant. What is constantly omitted by the GOPers who say the FISA court "relied" on the dossier is that there were other intelligence sources used to generate the warrant.

The Nunes memo does two things. One, it perpetuates the myth that the dossier was the only basis for the warrant. Two, it summarizes -- falsely -- other intelligence on the subject to give the false impression that there was a conspiracy to "get" Trump.

The secondary problem becomes that, to prove that the Nunes memo is false and misleading, it is necessary to disclose the other intelligence, and that creates a lot of national security problems. That is, to rebut the false assertion that the dossier was the sole source of the FISA warrant request, it is necessary to explain what else there was, which is a threat to national security.

Nunes is playing a dangerous game. If he goes in this direction, and it is proven that this is the political stunt it appears to be, such that either intelligence is disclosed or false impressions given about national security, he should be charged, convicted, and submitted to the fullest sentence possible under the law for treason.

We agree, they used the dossier. Additionally, it was inferred that they were turned down for FISA's, then brought in dossier info, and it was granted.

The most common complaint is that the memo represents the Republican slant on a dispute that should be above politics. (Yeah, yeah, I know . . . but stop snickering.) Now, maybe the memo will read like sheer propaganda, but this seems highly doubtful. There are extremely good reasons for Nunes and his staff to create a summary, and very easy ways for Democrats to remedy anything that is arguably misleading, so the “one-sidedness” objection appears overblown.

First, the main questions that we need answered are:

Were associates of President Trump, members of his campaign, or even Trump himself, subjected to foreign-intelligence surveillance (i.e., do the FISA applications name them as either targets or persons whose communications and activities would likely be monitored)?

Was information from the Steele dossier used in FISA applications?

If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it so central that FISA warrants would not have been granted without it?

If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it corroborated by independent FBI investigation?

If the dossier’s information was so used, was the source accurately conveyed to the court so that credibility and potential bias could be weighed (i.e., was the court told that the information came from an opposition-research project sponsored by the Clinton presidential campaign)?

The FBI has said that significant efforts were made to corroborate Steele’s sensational claims, yet former director James Comey has acknowledged (in June 2017 Senate testimony) that the dossier was “unverified.” If the dossier was used in FISA applications in 2016, has the Justice Department — consistent with its continuing duty of candor in dealings with the tribunal — alerted the court that it did not succeed in verifying Steele’s hearsay reporting based on anonymous sources?

These are not questions that call for nuanced explanation. These things either happened or didn’t. To provide simple answers to these straightforward questions would not be a one-sided partisan exercise, even if the person providing the answers happened to be a partisan.

 

[1972 Grad]

Read the NYT article I posted above. It explains that the dossier was not, by itself, sufficient to get the FISA warrant. What is constantly omitted by the GOPers who say the FISA court "relied" on the dossier is that there were other intelligence sources used to generate the warrant.

The Nunes memo does two things. One, it perpetuates the myth that the dossier was the only basis for the warrant. Two, it summarizes -- falsely -- other intelligence on the subject to give the false impression that there was a conspiracy to "get" Trump.

The secondary problem becomes that, to prove that the Nunes memo is false and misleading, it is necessary to disclose the other intelligence, and that creates a lot of national security problems. That is, to rebut the false assertion that the dossier was the sole source of the FISA warrant request, it is necessary to explain what else there was, which is a threat to national security.

Nunes is playing a dangerous game. If he goes in this direction, and it is proven that this is the political stunt it appears to be, such that either intelligence is disclosed or false impressions given about national security, he should be charged, convicted, and submitted to the fullest sentence possible under the law for treason.

So, you've read the memo?

 

[Vol8188]

Isnt it within the powers of the POTUS to declassify anything? If everyone wants this memo so bad, shouldn't we blame him instead of the democrats?

 

[lawgator1]

Addressing some of your points in turn:

We agree, they used the dossier. Additionally, it was inferred that they were turned down for FISA's, then brought in dossier info, and it was granted.

Inferred or implied?

Inferred is something you do based on something you see or hear. "I inferred she wasn't home when I called and no one answered." Implied is suggested by the person conveying the information, "It was implied that the cost would be higher when he said it would be more expensive."

And "inferred" by whom? Nunes? The GOP ? The FISA court? If the court, how do you know that? You do not. You could not possibly know that. What you COULD know is that Nunes or folks like him are implying that the dossier was the deciding factor in getting the warrant.

He cannot know that. Neither can you.

The most common complaint is that the memo represents the Republican slant on a dispute that should be above politics. (Yeah, yeah, I know . . . but stop snickering.) Now, maybe the memo will read like sheer propaganda, but this seems highly doubtful.

That's utter crap. Given Nunes' past theatrics at the behest of the WH with the fake "Go up to the WH and pretend I am giving them stuff they just gave me to make it look like I'm disclosing critical info to them" stunt, there is EVERY reason to suspect that this is another political stunt by him.

There are extremely good reasons for Nunes and his staff to create a summary, and very easy ways for Democrats to remedy anything that is arguably misleading, so the “one-sidedness” objection appears overblown.

I agree that the committee needs a timeline to work from. I agree that the Dems can create their own.

What I do not agree to is drafting a memo with slanted distortions of the facts when, to know the true facts and the basis for them, one must breach national security. That seems to be the paramount concern right now for the DOJ, which to date has not been allowed to see the memo.

Their characterization of the release of it prior to vetting by the DOJ as "reckless" is indeed an understatement.

Were associates of President Trump, members of his campaign, or even Trump himself, subjected to foreign-intelligence surveillance (i.e., do the FISA applications name them as either targets or persons whose communications and activities would likely be monitored)?

As I understand it, they can't be. The issue that arose before was Trump claiming that Trump Tower was bugged. No. No, no, no, no, no. If a Russian agent is the subject of a warrant, and someone in Trump Tower calls the Russian and that conversation is intercepted, that is not "bugging" Trump Tower.

The constant effort by Trump and the GOP to intentionally confuse and conflate one with the other is quite telling to me that they know they are distorting the difference.

You should be bothered by them doing that. To me, it implies a guilty mind. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why even Trump defenders are not bothered by him and the GOP doing that.

Was information from the Steele dossier used in FISA applications?

If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it so central that FISA warrants would not have been granted without it?

If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it corroborated by independent FBI investigation?

As I understand it, the dossier was one part of the material used to obtain the warrant. But so was other stuff. We don't know what that was and the national security agencies have repeatedly said that for us to know it would disclose sources and methods harmful to national security.

You either accept that or you don't.

For me, if forced to choose between Trump's frequently inexact rantings combined with Nunes' PROVEN complicity in the faux WH press conference last year versus the CIA and the FBI and others, its a pretty easy call on who to defer to on this.

If the dossier’s information was so used, was the source accurately conveyed to the court so that credibility and potential bias could be weighed (i.e., was the court told that the information came from an opposition-research project sponsored by the Clinton presidential campaign)?

Well, heck, I am not allowed to know the reasoning of judges in my piddly little cases. I see no way we can ever know how important the dossier was relative to other things. I guess we could try to infer it, but we'd have to know what the other info is, first. And I tend to believe the national security agencies when they say it is problematic for us to know it.

The FBI has said that significant efforts were made to corroborate Steele’s sensational claims, yet former director James Comey has acknowledged (in June 2017 Senate testimony) that the dossier was “unverified.” If the dossier was used in FISA applications in 2016, has the Justice Department — consistent with its continuing duty of candor in dealings with the tribunal — alerted the court that it did not succeed in verifying Steele’s hearsay reporting based on anonymous sources?

Again, to know that we need to know everything else that was used to get the warrant. At this rate, by your standard, we might as well end the FISA process because any American caught up in it -- yes, including the POTUS -- could always make the argument that they were targeted. And there's no way to know that without disclosing the intelligence used to get it.

These are not questions that call for nuanced explanation. These things either happened or didn’t. To provide simple answers to these straightforward questions would not be a one-sided partisan exercise, even if the person providing the answers happened to
be a partisan.

I am going to change one sentence in that paragraph. "To provide simple answers to these straightforward questions SHOULD NOT BE PARTISAN. AT ALL."

Yet it has been. It is not the Dems phonying up memos as fact, or staging press conference to give to the WH docs that the WH just gave them. It is the same WH lackeys, over and over, particularly in the House, putting together these strung together falsehoods, constantly and intentionally confusi9ng the issues and making these outlandish statements, then forced to back down over and over when people want proof.

There is something very sinister going on with this WH and this panicked and frenetic effort to constantly dodge and weave on the Russian investigation. People have been indicted. Some have pled guilty. We know the Russians tried to interfere in the election. And the latest excuse is he would have won anyway? Really?

It does not bother you that he has repeatedly lowered the bar, and that people keep promoting these garbage excuses and lame phony conspiracies?

Wake up. There is no way they'd go to this effort if there was something to hide things and constantly move the goal posts if there wasn't real concern on their end that this is going to come crashing down on them.

So be careful just believing everything you hear out of their mouths today about the dossier and how it "caused" the FISA warrant, or how some secret fight club group of FBI agents hell-bent on taking over the government manufactured the whole thing. Be careful about believing it for no other reason that that, tomorrow, Trump or the GOP Senator touting some loon conspiracy theory will tomorrow withdraw it and tout another.

 

[luthervol]

We agree, they used the dossier. Additionally, it was inferred that they were turned down for FISA's, then brought in dossier info, and it was granted.

The most common complaint is that the memo represents the Republican slant on a dispute that should be above politics. (Yeah, yeah, I know . . . but stop snickering.) Now, maybe the memo will read like sheer propaganda, but this seems highly doubtful. There are extremely good reasons for Nunes and his staff to create a summary, and very easy ways for Democrats to remedy anything that is arguably misleading, so the “one-sidedness” objection appears overblown.

First, the main questions that we need answered are:

Were associates of President Trump, members of his campaign, or even Trump himself, subjected to foreign-intelligence surveillance (i.e., do the FISA applications name them as either targets or persons whose communications and activities would likely be monitored)?

Was information from the Steele dossier used in FISA applications?

If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it so central that FISA warrants would not have been granted without it?

If Steele-dossier information was so used, was it corroborated by independent FBI investigation?

If the dossier’s information was so used, was the source accurately conveyed to the court so that credibility and potential bias could be weighed (i.e., was the court told that the information came from an opposition-research project sponsored by the Clinton presidential campaign)?

The FBI has said that significant efforts were made to corroborate Steele’s sensational claims, yet former director James Comey has acknowledged (in June 2017 Senate testimony) that the dossier was “unverified.” If the dossier was used in FISA applications in 2016, has the Justice Department — consistent with its continuing duty of candor in dealings with the tribunal — alerted the court that it did not succeed in verifying Steele’s hearsay reporting based on anonymous sources?

These are not questions that call for nuanced explanation. These things either happened or didn’t. To provide simple answers to these straightforward questions would not be a one-sided partisan exercise, even if the person providing the answers happened to be a partisan.

Who would be the person that can provide the definitive and universally accepted answer to this question? (The question highlighted)

 

[Vol0725]

Addressing some of your points in turn:




Inferred or implied?

Inferred is something you do based on something you see or hear. "I inferred she wasn't home when I called and no one answered." Implied is suggested by the person conveying the information, "It was implied that the cost would be higher when he said it would be more expensive."

And "inferred" by whom? Nunes? The GOP ? The FISA court? If the court, how do you know that? You do not. You could not possibly know that. What you COULD know is that Nunes or folks like him are implying that the dossier was the deciding factor in getting the warrant.

He cannot know that. Neither can you.




That's utter crap. Given Nunes' past theatrics at the behest of the WH with the fake "Go up to the WH and pretend I am giving them stuff they just gave me to make it look like I'm disclosing critical info to them" stunt, there is EVERY reason to suspect that this is another political stunt by him.



I agree that the committee needs a timeline to work from. I agree that the Dems can create their own.

What I do not agree to is drafting a memo with slanted distortions of the facts when, to know the true facts and the basis for them, one must breach national security. That seems to be the paramount concern right now for the DOJ, which to date has not been allowed to see the memo.

Their characterization of the release of it prior to vetting by the DOJ as "reckless" is indeed an understatement.






As I understand it, they can't be. The issue that arose before was Trump claiming that Trump Tower was bugged. No. No, no, no, no, no. If a Russian agent is the subject of a warrant, and someone in Trump Tower calls the Russian and that conversation is intercepted, that is not "bugging" Trump Tower.

The constant effort by Trump and the GOP to intentionally confuse and conflate one with the other is quite telling to me that they know they are distorting the difference.

You should be bothered by them doing that. To me, it implies a guilty mind. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why even Trump defenders are not bothered by him and the GOP doing that.




As I understand it, the dossier was one part of the material used to obtain the warrant. But so was other stuff. We don't know what that was and the national security agencies have repeatedly said that for us to know it would disclose sources and methods harmful to national security.

You either accept that or you don't.

For me, if forced to choose between Trump's frequently inexact rantings combined with Nunes' PROVEN complicity in the faux WH press conference last year versus the CIA and the FBI and others, its a pretty easy call on who to defer to on this.




Well, heck, I am not allowed to know the reasoning of judges in my piddly little cases. I see no way we can ever know how important the dossier was relative to other things. I guess we could try to infer it, but we'd have to know what the other info is, first. And I tend to believe the national security agencies when they say it is problematic for us to know it.






Again, to know that we need to know everything else that was used to get the warrant. At this rate, by your standard, we might as well end the FISA process because any American caught up in it -- yes, including the POTUS -- could always make the argument that they were targeted. And there's no way to know that without disclosing the intelligence used to get it.





I am going to change one sentence in that paragraph. "To provide simple answers to these straightforward questions SHOULD NOT BE PARTISAN. AT ALL."

Yet it has been. It is not the Dems phonying up memos as fact, or staging press conference to give to the WH docs that the WH just gave them. It is the same WH lackeys, over and over, particularly in the House, putting together these strung together falsehoods, constantly and intentionally confusi9ng the issues and making these outlandish statements, then forced to back down over and over when people want proof.

There is something very sinister going on with this WH and this panicked and frenetic effort to constantly dodge and weave on the Russian investigation. People have been indicted. Some have pled guilty. We know the Russians tried to interfere in the election. And the latest excuse is he would have won anyway? Really?

It does not bother you that he has repeatedly lowered the bar, and that people keep promoting these garbage excuses and lame phony conspiracies?

Wake up. There is no way they'd go to this effort if there was something to hide things and constantly move the goal posts if there wasn't real concern on their end that this is going to come crashing down on them.

So be careful just believing everything you hear out of their mouths today about the dossier and how it "caused" the FISA warrant, or how some secret fight club group of FBI agents hell-bent on taking over the government manufactured the whole thing. Be careful about believing it for no other reason that that, tomorrow, Trump or the GOP Senator touting some loon conspiracy theory will tomorrow withdraw it and tout another.

We'll see if it's a smoke screen soon...hopefully that's something we can all agree on.

But here's the DEM's stupid ass stance, WHO's NOT READ the damn thing..."I think it is sloppy, careless, and again, I think has no grounding in fact."

Top Senate Dem: House Intel Memo Is Baseless. Also, I've Not Read It

Then, what should concern all of us is...what happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing — also control the alleged evidence against them?

As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists | TheHill

What most people don’t know is that the FBI and Department of Justice already know exactly what Congressional investigators have flagged in the documents they’ve reviewed, because three weeks ago the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its own summary memo to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The committee also referred to the Department of Justice a recommendation for possible charges against the author of the political opposition research file, the so-called “Trump dossier”: Christopher Steele.

 

[lawgator1]

We'll see if it's a smoke screen soon...hopefully that's something we can all agree on.

But here's the DEM's stupid ass stance, WHO's NOT READ the damn thing..."I think it is sloppy, careless, and again, I think has no grounding in fact."

Top Senate Dem: House Intel Memo Is Baseless. Also, I've Not Read It

Then, what should concern all of us is...what happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing — also control the alleged evidence against them?

As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists | TheHill

What most people don’t know is that the FBI and Department of Justice already know exactly what Congressional investigators have flagged in the documents they’ve reviewed, because three weeks ago the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its own summary memo to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The committee also referred to the Department of Justice a recommendation for possible charges against the author of the political opposition research file, the so-called “Trump dossier”: Christopher Steele.

The House and the Senate are different bodies. You do understand that, don't you?

I haven't read it but take very seriously the DOJ letter to Nunes advising him in advance that it would be reckless to release this without them having a chance to review it to make sure it does not disclose national security info.

I would hope you too take great pause before that happens. Nunes and his minions had better sober up and think about the implications of this if they are wrong.

 

[AirVol]

The House and the Senate are different bodies. You do understand that, don't you?

I haven't read it but take very seriously the DOJ letter to Nunes advising him in advance that it would be reckless to release this without them having a chance to review it to make sure it does not disclose national security info.

I would hope you too take great pause before that happens. Nunes and his minions had better sober up and think about the implications of this if they are wrong.

The public has a right to know anything that doesn’t hinder nat’l security. Wouldn’t you like to know LG, or are you afraid of who it may hurt?