**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[StrangeSox]

Senator Urges Fellow Republicans to Heed Warnings on Releasing G.O.P. Memo

 

Nicholas Fandos @npfandos

No. 3 Senate Republican urges House Rs to slow their push to release a secret staff-written memo. Says Burr/Senate Intel should see it first, Dem memo should come out simultaneously & FBI's warning should be duly considered

[StrangeSox]

Has StrangeSox? Have you? Republicans say it's bad for Democrats. Democrats are saying it's inaccurate.

 

 

How it is it disingenuous? The day the story broke no one around here mentioned it (can't imagine why) and I brought it up. I didn't make any personal claims. I didn't say anything partisan. StrangeSox is shooting down every aspect of the memo when it hasn't even been released yet. I don't know what the gossip column at Salon is pumping into his head but I am going to wait until it's released to make any judgement. It would seem like you would need the actual document to judge it but sometimes the partisan stuff gets in the way for people.

 

you could bother to actually check out where the links I'm posting are to before making more lame personal attacks

[caulfield12]

"The House Intelligence Committee, the group that had their Twitter suspended yesterday, is said to be possessing the memo that would expose corruption that would lead to the end of careers for lifer politicians."

 

Corruption, sure! Just throw that word out there, like “there was no collusion!” and it will stick if you say it 100 times.

Lifer politicians=Rod Rosenstein, a Republican appointee, lol

 

FBI texted Peter Strzok has been found guilty of...hold for it...going after Hillary Clinton, initiating the Comeygate Memo on emails/Weiner.

 

 

Okay Rabbit, why do Mueller, Comey, McCabe (another Republican primary voter), Rosenstein, Strzok....want to get rid of Trump through this supposed Deep State conspiracy?

 

So that the military industrial complex under Pence/Ryan can pump out defense contracts? Another war?

 

How could they be so sure Pence wouldn’t also go down in flames in the Mueller investigation, and even Ryan now that he’s complicit with Nunes?

 

Why won’t the GOP allow the Inspector General’s (1+ year) own investigation see the light of day?

 

Why block the Democratic memo if publishing just one will come across as hyper partisan?

 

Why poop on Joe Manchin after he actually went after his colleagues for not standing to honor American heroes during the SOTU?

 

Idiots one and all. Gowdy knows it, that’s why he is quitting this charade.

[Soxbadger]

If the claims are true and the memo exposes corruption by the IC (more of the same from them), should the current administration just ignore that? If the claim are true, do you really find it "catastrophically moronic" for the government to reign in the unwieldy power of the corrupt intelligence agencies?

 

I can't even believe I am reading this stuff. When did the left become the lap dogs of IC that blindly follows and defends everything they do? People are more interested in partisan team play than what is good for the country.

 

 

That is the whole reason why this memo is even being discussed. If this was what was good about the country, then the DOJ would open a criminal investigation. Last I checked, Republicans control the DOJ, named the current FBI director and have the house and senate. Why are they bringing this to the "court of public opinion" instead of into real courtrooms?

 

If people committed crimes, charge them and try to convict them. Otherwise this is just a partisan spectacle created as a distraction. It would be different if it was the minority party doing it, and saying the majority isnt enforcing the law, etc. But ironically, the rules make it so a minority party cant do what Nunes wants to do, because the majority would get to veto the release.

 

I have no reason to trust any of the people involved (DOJ, IC, Congress, President), and I would love if the govt was actually trying to be more transparent. But I am extremely skeptical of any information that is released without context and that is not considered valuable enough to even warrant a criminal investigation.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

you could bother to actually check out where the links I'm posting are to before making more lame personal attacks

 

Clearly Hannity, Matt Drudge and Breitbart have the true facts on this one...at any rate, after Ted Cruz and Chaffetz, Devin Nunes just looks like the kind of guy you’d punch in the face at a college frat party.

 

A week ago, a certain someone didn’t even know his name.

Edited February 1, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Has StrangeSox? Have you? Republicans say it's bad for Democrats. Democrats are saying it's inaccurate.

 

 

How it is it disingenuous? The day the story broke no one around here mentioned it (can't imagine why) and I brought it up. I didn't make any personal claims. I didn't say anything partisan. StrangeSox is shooting down every aspect of the memo when it hasn't even been released yet. I don't know what the gossip column at Salon is pumping into his head but I am going to wait until it's released to make any judgement. It would seem like you would need the actual document to judge it but sometimes the partisan stuff gets in the way for people.

 

 

If the claims are true and the memo exposes corruption by the IC (more of the same from them), should the current administration just ignore that? If the claim are true, do you really find it "catastrophically moronic" for the government to reign in the unwieldy power of the corrupt intelligence agencies?

 

I can't even believe I am reading this stuff. When did the left become the lap dogs of IC that blindly follows and defends everything they do? People are more interested in partisan team play than what is good for the country.

 

So you're continuing to either misrepresent or misunderstand what's actually been going on here.

 

Some Republicans are saying that it's bad for various members of the IC who happen to be key people in the Russia investigations. Some of the people making these claims have made outlandish claims to provide cover for Trump in the past that turned out to be false. Others have already had to walk back parts of their claims. The allegations aren't against "Democrats," and the main target appears to be the Deputy AG Rosenstein, who is part of the Trump administration. Democrats, along with the IC, are saying that the claims are misleading and that releasing the memo unredacted would cause serious harm.

 

The guy who's staff put together, Nunes, hasn't even read the underlying intelligence information. Pro-Trump media and congressional members are already using the mere existence of a memo compiled by Nunes to call for an end to the Mueller investigation. Trump himself has been bragging about how this may provide an opportunity to remove Rosenstein (and thus Mueller).

 

At the same time, Democrats have prepared their own rebuttal memo detailing the misleading and lies-by-ommissions nature of Nunes' memo, but the Republicans voted against releasing that memo publicly at the same time as theirs. They've also rejected having the DOJ and FBI come in to discuss and review the concerns and accusations prior to a public release, knowing that the concerns goes to sources and methods that are broadly applicable and not limited solely to Carter Page.

 

Portraying this is some sort of non-partisan, earnest investigation or oversight of FBI methods is fundamentally dishonest. It's a political move designed to provide cover for Trump.

Edited February 1, 2018 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

That is the whole reason why this memo is even being discussed. If this was what was good about the country, then the DOJ would open a criminal investigation. Last I checked, Republicans control the DOJ, named the current FBI director and have the house and senate. Why are they bringing this to the "court of public opinion" instead of into real courtrooms?

 

If people committed crimes, charge them and try to convict them. Otherwise this is just a partisan spectacle created as a distraction. It would be different if it was the minority party doing it, and saying the majority isnt enforcing the law, etc. But ironically, the rules make it so a minority party cant do what Nunes wants to do, because the majority would get to veto is release.

 

I have no reason to trust any of the people involved, and I would love if the govt was actually trying to be more transparent. But I am extremely skeptical of any information that is released without context and that is not considered valuable enough to even warrant a criminal investigation.

 

Nunes hasn’t even gone through all the classified information himself.

He refuses to share it with Republicans on the Senate side, starting with Richard Burr.

 

It’s so obvious they’re trying to cook up some semi plausible sounding rationale to get rid of Rosenstein. They gave the FBI less than 12 hours to make any type of response so they would be on the defensive. Why no FBI corruption hearings, if this is so serious?

 

After Rosenstein comes yet another Republican DOJ appointee , Rachel Brand...

 

At the rate they’re going, the FBI won’t have anyone willing to take the Director’s job with Trump still in office.

 

Why isn’t Senator Johnson of WI calling for full “Deep State” hearings after charging the FBI with widespread corruption solely on the basis of flippant/sarcastic text messages from two FBIers who had no love for Clinton or Trump?

Edited February 1, 2018 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Has StrangeSox? Have you? Republicans say it's bad for Democrats. Democrats are saying it's inaccurate.

 

 

How it is it disingenuous? The day the story broke no one around here mentioned it (can't imagine why) and I brought it up. I didn't make any personal claims. I didn't say anything partisan. StrangeSox is shooting down every aspect of the memo when it hasn't even been released yet. I don't know what the gossip column at Salon is pumping into his head but I am going to wait until it's released to make any judgement. It would seem like you would need the actual document to judge it but sometimes the partisan stuff gets in the way for people.

Can't imagine why back at you.

[illinilaw08]

Has StrangeSox? Have you? Republicans say it's bad for Democrats. Democrats are saying it's inaccurate.

 

 

How it is it disingenuous? The day the story broke no one around here mentioned it (can't imagine why) and I brought it up. I didn't make any personal claims. I didn't say anything partisan. StrangeSox is shooting down every aspect of the memo when it hasn't even been released yet. I don't know what the gossip column at Salon is pumping into his head but I am going to wait until it's released to make any judgement. It would seem like you would need the actual document to judge it but sometimes the partisan stuff gets in the way for people.

 

It's disingenuous because you made a judgment on the memo with your post on January 19 - namely that it "would expose corruption that would lead to the end of careers for lifer politicians." Your initial post on the subject made a judgment on what was contained in the memo without you having seen the memo. It's disingenuous to then turn around and say that reports on the memo two weeks later can't be given credibility until people have read the memo.

[StrangeSox]

The republicans actually ran this through the proper channels to get released. Now Trump is waiting for the alterations to get cleared out. Seems like they didn't botch the handling this time. The left wouldve just leaked it.

 

Whether the followed procedure in a party line vote to get a misleading memo released says nothing about the legitimacy of the memo itself. I don't know why you thought "they followed procedure!" was at all responsive to that post.

[Soxbadger]

The republicans actually ran this through the proper channels to get released. Now Trump is waiting for the alterations to get cleared out. Seems like they didn't botch the handling this time. The left wouldve just leaked it.

 

Just because something went through the proper channels doesnt mean that it isnt biased or partisan. That is the real issue here. The Republicans can control the flow of information, they can selectively declassify and release what the want. From my understanding they are blocking the Democrats from releasing a similar memo contemporaneously.

 

This goes against every notion of fair play when it comes to criminal/judicial/legal proceedings. In trials etc, each side has the opportunity to present their evidence so that people can make an informed decision. They are required to share their information with the other side. The Republicans are unwilling to do this. Whenever something like that occurs, I believe people should be extremely skeptical, because letters/memos like this are always self serving. Its no different than when a client wants me to write a letter to an opposing party making a demand. The letter is self serving and its not real evidence.

 

If the evidence is so damaging, why not let the Democrats write a rebuttal and let the people decide? Why selectively pick the information?

 

And if you dont want people to find your posts hypocritical/disingenuous you may want to stop throwing in lines like "The left wouldve just leaked it." It has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion and its not even based on any supported fact, nor have you presented any evidence to suggest that the "left" (whoever they may be) leak more than the "right" (whoever they may be).

 

/shrugs

 

If you really want to put America first, you should demand your opponent be given an equal opportunity to present their case. When you support silencing opposition you arent putting America first, your putting party first.

 

(edit)

 

As for the whole article thing. I was going to make the argument for you, that you just "posted the title." But you could have easily posted a different article or title that wasnt conclusory based on hearsay evidence.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

This is hilarious. The memo has not been released yet. You have no idea whether it's misleading or not because you haven't seen it. Your reaction shows youre afraid of it because you're running damage control before there has even been a release of the potentially damaging memo.

 

Just for the record, im absolutely not afraid of the memo and I believe that the memo will hurt their cause more than it will help.

 

What I do find appalling is that one party is trying to silence the other party. And if the Democrats were doing that, I would call them for the same bulls***.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Soxbadger

[maggsmaggs]

This is hilarious. The memo has not been released yet. You have no idea whether it's misleading or not because you haven't seen it. Your reaction shows youre afraid of it because you're running damage control before there has even been a release of the potentially damaging memo.

The FBI, under the leadership of a Trump appointee, recently said the memo is misleading and omits critical facts. What more do you want?

 

That statement would not be signed off on without Wray agreeing.

Edited February 1, 2018 by maggsmaggs

[Dick Allen]

1.) I never said releasing through proper channels makes it non partisan. You should understand that just because something paints one side poorly doesn't necessarily mean it's partisan.

 

2.) The memo has not been released yet you know it's useless. Amazing foresight.

 

3.) If the evidence isn't damning, why are the democrats in a full court press to attack it's credibility.

 

4.) I don't have opponents. I check the state. If the FBI would like to respond after the released I wouldn't be in favor of stopping them. I'd read their retort. They're probably full of s***, given their track record, but I'll consider all the facts available.

Do you care if Trump colluded with the Russians?

 

If he did and this memo made it all go away, you wouldn't care?

[StrangeSox]

This is hilarious. The memo has not been released yet. You have no idea whether it's misleading or not because you haven't seen it. Your reaction shows youre afraid of it because you're running damage control before there has even been a release of the potentially damaging memo.

 

There's been lots of reporting on what the memo contains from sources who have read it. There's been public statements by the FBI. There have been public transcripts of House hearings around the concerns about this memo and the Republican efforts to block the Democrats' response. There has been plenty of reporting surrounding the transparent politics around this. Given Nunes' own history and how many in the GOP are already trying to play this as a defense of Trump/attack on Mueller, it seems pretty clear what's going own. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Nunes, who it should be noted has not read the underlying classified material himself, has discovered a scandal "bigger than Watergate." Given that his previous claims have turned out to be fabrications, it seems fair to expect more of the same. You never did respond to earlier questions about why you'd place any trust in Nunes given his track record, or what you thought about Greenwald's take on this.

 

I'm scared that the GOP will continue to subvert and undermine our system of government and any notion of a non-partisan justice department, and that they'll use propaganda to undermine Mueller's investigation. I'm scared that they've already trampled on so many norms and standards that our system of government relies upon to function that some of the damage is permanent. I'm scared that so many Americans are willingly going along with the propaganda and willing to turn a blind eye to the unprecedented levels of corruption.

 

Meanwhile, here's a good piece from a fellow at CATO:

 

Nunes's memo is a stunt. But surveillance does need more scrutiny.

 

Of the many strange inversions the Trump era has produced, few are as jarring as the flip in Republican orthodoxy about the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities. “Law and order” conservatives who, a few years ago, treated skepticism about the Patriot Act as a blasphemous insult to the integrity of American intelligence professionals now routinely traffic in talk of “deep state” conspiracies to abuse surveillance powers.

 

That was thrown into relief Wednesday, when the FBI traded brickbats with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee. In an unusually public rebuke, the FBI condemned the imminent release of a memo produced by committee staffers alleging misconduct by bureau officials. Nunes quickly returned fire, accusing the FBI — headed by President’s Trump appointee, Christopher A. Wray — of having “stonewalled Congress’ demands for information.” The memo may reportedly be released soon.

 

Democrats, stepping into the role Republicans had shed, have sided with the intelligence community, invoking the need to protect classified sources and methods. And it’s not hard to see why: Nearly everything about Nunes’s reinvention as a champion of privacy and civil liberties reeks of disingenuousness.

 

There are legitimate concerns about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the myriad means — not all requiring warrants — by which law enforcement gets access to private conversations involving U.S. citizens. But the fervor around the memo means that these serious policy debates will follow so many others into the maw of Trump-driven partisanship and that the broader questions of how our national security state operates — questions more about legal and institutional design than the motives of individual FBI agents — will go unexamined.

 

Nunes, along with many of the allies who joined him in whipping up a public outcry to #ReleaseTheMemo, voted last month to reauthorize a controversial warrantless spying authority known as Section 702. Bipartisan efforts to add privacy safeguards for Americans’ communications were swatted down with confident assertions that there had been no recorded abuses of such surveillance — an assessment it seems odd to make at the same time as one is alleging a systematic effort by senior intelligence officials to deceive overseers and conceal egregious misconduct.

 

The manner in which Nunes’s hermetically sealed concerns about misuse of spying powers have been pursued is unprecedented. The House Intelligence Committee, which has historically been discomfitingly cozy with the agencies it oversees, made no effort to share what it purports to have uncovered with the FBI’s Republican leadership — or, for that matter, with the Trump appointees at the Justice Department who signed off on extending the wiretap on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page last year — until Sunday. A day later, the House voted along party lines to authorize the memo’s declassification and release it, over the objections of the FBI and Justice Department, marking the first time Congress has availed itself of that authority. Few lawmakers were in any position to know whether the four-page memo is accurate. Among House Republicans, only one, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), had consulted the underlying classified documents upon which it was based.

 

The overarching narrative that the Nunes memo apparently seeks to build — a story of rabid partisans within the Obama administration cooking up a bogus Russia investigation to use as a weapon against Trump — is almost certainly nonsense. Among many, many other glaring defects, it requires the inexplicable complicity of far too many people, many of them Republicans appointed by Trump, within the FBI and the national security division of the Justice Department, as well as the credulous acquiescence of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, whose bench is wholly populated by judges placed there by the George W. Bush-appointed chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.

 

On the narrower question of whether the wiretap order targeting Page had a solid basis, the memo is unlikely to provide the public with much clarity, either. The memo’s core contentions are reportedly that FBI officials relied too heavily on a now-infamous dossier compiled by British former intelligence officer Christopher Steele without adequately corroborating its claims and failed to disclose to the FISA court that Steele’s research had been underwritten by Democrats in the market for political opposition research. Even if all that were true, however, it’s impossible to know how badly it would undermine the case presented to the court.

 

Typically, FISA applications are fairly substantial documents, with supporting affidavits running dozens of pages, minutely fact-checked by government lawyers after making it through a labyrinth of internal approvals within the FBI. It matters, then, whether Steele’s dossier constituted the heart of the case presented to the FISA court or was more like supplementary material. But the underlying application remains classified, and the other supporting evidence probably cannot be made public: The FBI cannot defend itself by pointing to the Kremlin mole or the electronic intercept or the hacked laptop that bolstered the application, without providing Russian intelligence with a map to its own vulnerabilities — or, at worst, a hit list.

 

Yet for all that, the memo could still have stumbled into something of merit.

 

If FBI agents were less than fully candid with the FISA court, that’s worth criticizing even if candor would not have changed the outcome. If they failed to do due diligence on claims in Steele’s dossier, that’s a problem even if the dossier was a relatively minor piece of the puzzle. Those are problems not because they reveal a grand conspiracy but because finding slipshod work in this application — targeting a prominent, politically connected American in an investigation certain to receive extraordinary scrutiny — should make us wonder what would turn up if the thousands of more-mundane FISA warrants issued each year were subject to a similarly painstaking external review. Which, of course, they never are: No FISA application has ever been made public, and vanishingly few targets of FISA surveillance ever even learn of the spying.

 

Moreover, whether it has anything to do with the headline-grabbing Russia investigation, something odd is clearly afoot with the FISA court. From its inception in 1979 through 2002, the court never turned down a single wiretap application — a sign, intelligence agencies assured us, of the rigorous approval process before reaching the court, rather than the willingness of its judges to act as rubber stamps. The steep spike in FISA applications after 9/11 did finally result in a few the court saw fit to reject or modify.

 

Until 2015, the highest number of rejections in a single year was five. In 2016, there were 34 — or twice as many as the court had turned down in its entire history before then. The court also saw fit to “modify” a striking 310 applications before approving surveillance. The previous record, set in 2015, was 94. Nor is this unusual burst of resistance a side effect of an unusual number of applications: The number submitted in 2016 — 1,457 — is a bit below the average for the period following 2001.

 

For some reason, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of applications judges have found deficient in some way. This should be concerning, because however diligent they may be, FISA court judges are ultimately dependent on the facts and analysis they’re presented by the government being reliable: The court has no ability to gather its own intelligence.

 

If Republicans were not so set on scripting a conspiracy thriller to stir the blood of cable news audiences, they might broaden the scope of their concern and ask whether whatever issues they’ve uncovered are not evidence of a secret vendetta against Trump and his employees but symptoms of some more general degradation of the FISA review process — and perhaps other less strictly regulated authorities. And while Democrats have every reason to treat the memo’s larger narrative as suspect, they should not dismiss its specific findings out of hand, at least not wholesale. That the conspiracy against Trump is a fantasy does not mean that the investigation of his campaign proceeded without missteps. And if Page should turn out not to have been acting as an “agent of a foreign power,” then his public branding as one is a genuine wrong that would deserve to be remedied, even if it were the product of error rather than malice.

 

It seems unlikely that the conflict over the Nunes memo will, in the end, amount to much more than a proxy war over the legitimacy of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of the Trump campaign. But in a better world, it would be an opportunity to exercise better oversight.

[Dick Allen]

The existence of this memo came out weeks ago. Schiff and others were trying to stifle it's release. You don't see the irony here?

 

 

The memo hasn't been released. Trump is waiting on the veracity to be confirmed. If this was so partisan and ridiculous, they would have released it with a bunch of anonymous sources that can't be verified. Trump is allowing the FBI insight on redactions and his team is making sure it's factually accurate. I rarely support him but seems like he's doing the right thing here. Nothing rash.

 

Wray not wanting it to be released does not matter one bit. He's in the FBI. If anything, him not wanting it to be released would confirm that it would create a black eye on the FBI. The FBI has stakes here. It's not shocker their head would be for protecting their interests.

That is funny. That's what he's about. It's a reality show. He's releasing it because he thinks it will help him, not me, not you, not America, but Trump. Veracity isn't in his playbook.

[StrangeSox]

The existence of this memo came out weeks ago. Schiff and others were trying to stifle it's release. You don't see the irony here?

 

 

The memo hasn't been released. Trump is waiting on the veracity to be confirmed. If this was so partisan and ridiculous, they would have released it with a bunch of anonymous sources that can't be verified. Trump is allowing the FBI insight on redactions and his team is making sure it's factually accurate. I rarely support him but seems like he's doing the right thing here. Nothing rash.

 

Wray not wanting it to be released does not matter one bit. He's in the FBI. If anything, him not wanting it to be released would confirm that it would create a black eye on the FBI. The FBI has stakes here. It's not shocker their head would be for protecting their interests.

 

 

1) Trump has publicly said he's going to release it, Kelly's said so, and they confirmed again today.

2) Trump has said he wants it released because it'll damage the Russia probes.

3) Trump isn't waiting for "veracity." The WH is 'reviewing' the memo over national security concerns. There's zero concern for accuracy here, and it's hilarious that anyone would believe otherwise from the Trump WH.

[Soxbadger]

1.) I never said releasing through proper channels makes it non partisan. You should understand that just because something paints one side poorly doesn't necessarily mean it's partisan.

 

2.) The memo has not been released yet you know it's useless. Amazing foresight.

 

3.) If the evidence isn't damning, why are the democrats in a full court press to attack it's credibility.

 

4.) I don't have opponents. I check the state. If the FBI would like to respond after the released I wouldn't be in favor of stopping them. I'd read their retort. They're probably full of s***, given their track record, but I'll consider all the facts available.

 

1) The partisan aspect is that the Republican's are refusing to allow the Democrats to release their argument contemporaneously. This is by definition partisan. Non partisan would mean that both sides get a chance to argue equally, and then we get a chance to judge the facts.

 

2) You misread the bolded. That was in reference to when a client asks me to write a similar memorandum/letter. In over a decade of litigating, Ive never been asked by a single client, nor seen another lawyer, write a letter that was unfavorable to their client. IE I write my argument based on law/evidence that supports my argument. The opposing party writes their argument based on the law/evidence that supports their argument. The judge then looks at both positions. In contrast, the Republicans are trying to prevent the opposition from releasing evidence that is contradictory to the Republican conclusion.

 

3) I dont think that is what is being done at all. From what I have read, the FBI/Democrats are saying that the memorandum is factually inaccurate and is based on selective information. That by using selective information it creates a false narrative. Therefore they are asking that 1) The Republican's provide more information that would provide a better understanding of the conclusions or 2) be given an opportunity to release information that is contradictory to the Republican's conclusion. If the evidence was so favorable to the Republicans, why not let the FBI/Democrats/DOJ release their own memorandums? That is the only real problem with this whole thing. That the Republicans are trying to silence dissenters.

 

4) If you want to check the state, than you should be adamantly arguing that the Democrats/DOJ/FBI be allowed to write a response. Right now they are not able to because the Republican's arent allowing it. Its surprising that you are not more angry about the Republican's silencing opposition. Because how can you consider "the facts" when 1 side is controlling the facts and not letting certain facts be released.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Collusion is not a crime. This whole investigation is a witch hunt. If the memo gives us clarity one way or the on the Russia investigation I want it released.

 

Collusion can be a crime. And why dont you want all the information released? I think that is the part I cant seem to understand with your argument. Why are you fighting to stop information from being released?

 

(edit)

 

And its arguments like these why people think you are a Republican team player. For as long as I can remember youve argued for things like Wikeleaks, govt transparency etc. Now when the Democrats are asking to be able to release information, you support shutting it down. Its picking your party over your views.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

The FBI and DOJ aren't just concerned about the propaganda aspect of this memo. They're also concerned that the memo itself exposes classified information, means and methods. Once sensitive information is out there, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. They have instead asked that they discuss this in classified settings with the House as would be the normal procedure, but that wouldn't help the GOP political narrative.

 

There's also going to be a limit in exactly how far anyone can go to respond given that the claims in the memo rely on information that will still be classified (and which, again, Nunes hasn't even read!). Democrats and FBI/DOJ won't be able to publicly lay out a logical counter-claim to Nunes' claims without exposing classified information.

[Soxbadger]

The FBI and DOJ aren't just concerned about the propaganda aspect of this memo. They're also concerned that the memo itself exposes classified information, means and methods. Once sensitive information is out there, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. They have instead asked that they discuss this in classified settings with the House as would be the normal procedure, but that wouldn't help the GOP political narrative.

 

There's also going to be a limit in exactly how far anyone can go to respond given that the claims in the memo rely on information that will still be classified (and which, again, Nunes hasn't even read!). Democrats and FBI/DOJ won't be able to publicly lay out a logical counter-claim to Nunes' claims without exposing classified information.

 

Then lets expose it all. If Republicans want to go down the rabbit hole, lets really go down. Because this isnt going to end like they think it will.

[StrangeSox]

An Israeli investigative reporter says Trump shared more information with Russian diplomat/suspected spy Kislyak than has been publicly disclosed so far

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Dam8610]

Collusion is not a crime. This whole investigation is a witch hunt. If the memo gives us clarity one way or the on the Russia investigation I want it released.

 

Is treason a crime? Because Trump is actively giving aid or comfort to Russia by not imposing the punitive sanctions he is required to impose by a law which he signed into law, and Russia can be said to be our enemy by the fact that said law exists. I don't think the application of 18 USC 2381 could be much clearer.

[Quin]

Is treason a crime? Because Trump is actively giving aid or comfort to Russia by not imposing the punitive sanctions he is required to impose by a law which he signed into law, and Russia can be said to be our enemy by the fact that said law exists. I don't think the application of 18 USC 2381 could be much clearer.

 

Wouldn't be treason, but dereliction of duty.

 

Also soliciting foreign aid in an election is illegal. So the collusion isn't technically illegal, it'd be the foreign aid received.

[Dam8610]

Wouldn't be treason, but dereliction of duty.

 

Also soliciting foreign aid in an election is illegal. So the collusion isn't technically illegal, it'd be the foreign aid received.

 

How would it not be both? The law requires Russia to be punished. Trump refuses to implement the punishment. To me, an entity that requires punishment constitutes an enemy, and refusing to implement the punishment constitutes aid or comfort given. Am I reading the USC section on treason incorrectly?

 

ETA: Everyone knows Trump solicited foreign aid in the election. How many times did CNN air the "Russia, if you're listening" clip. If that's all that's needed for him to have done something illegal, why is he still in office?

Edited February 1, 2018 by Dam8610