House Intelligence Committee releases Dem rebuttal to GOP FISA memo

Grim17 said:

You posted nothing that in any way discredits the republican memo... NOTHING..

Click to expand...

114 pages and you're still not getting it?

The House Intelligence Committee was supposed to be investigating in a bi-partisan fashion, and because Nunes was part of Trump's campaign/transition, he recused himself.
Later, he denied this, and had apparently been conducting his own, partisan investigation in secret.

Nunes himself was part of the approval of the FISA surveillance process, just recently re-approved by him.

Nunes conducted this "memo investigation" by having Gowdy look at the classified information, and decide himself, with no bi-partisan oversight, or any oversight whatsoever, what information to bring to Nunes.

Nunes then translated Gowdy's findings into a "memo", the purpose of which was to release directly to the public. Not to bi-partisan back and forth in committee. Not to prosecutors because it's not a crime. Intended apparently, to cast doubt on the FBI/special counsel investigation...of Trump, the guy he worked for.

The FBI said the memo should not be released and that it had factual omissions and accuracy problems.
The U.S. intelligence community said it should not be released.

The hashtag was played up on social media, including ironically with the help of Russian-linked Bots on twitter.

Democrats on the committee being justifiably outraged, attempted to release their own counter-memo to dispute it, but they were prohibited by Republicans until weeks later in a redacted version.

There is no claim of any crime from the Memo.

To my knowledge it was not intended, or has been used to, begin any formal inquiry into what occurred with the FISA warrants, or any peep from the Republican FISA judges that approved it, repeatedly.


While the content of the memo is irrelevant, the intent and the process by which Nunes conducted himself, is clearly improper and unethical.

Even Gowdy, the guy who viewed the classified information directly, said this after the memo:

Gowdy went on to say he was "100 percent" behind Mueller: "Look, Russia tried to interfere with our election in 2016 with or without a dossier."[SUP][68][/SUP]

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

On January 24, 2018, Trump expressed support for releasing the Nunes memo. He reportedly told close advisers that he believed the memo would reveal the FBI's bias against him, and provide grounds for him to fire Rod Rosenstein.[SUP][74][/SUP]

Click to expand...

It's irrelevant and improper in every way imaginable. Since it was not intended to be a fix of FISA or legal action, one has to conclude it was meant to harm the Mueller investigation and/or provide Trump with political support to obstruct justice.

Vern said:

OC, once again I’m confronted by a conservative who doesn’t understand simple concepts or is being dishonest. It’s not a “straw man” to point out your conservative masters have lied to you non-stop when you obediently believe and post their version of anything. Its not really a hard concept. and you cant even deny the non stop lying.

Click to expand...

The only hard concept for you is to keep the conversation about the topic and not making retarded personal remarks at other posters.

Once again, I am confronted by a conservative who is ignorant of the simple facts or is being dishonest. Bush abused it so bad that your conservative masters shielded you from the knowledge. They know how delicate conservatives are.

Click to expand...

Once again, doesn't address the topic. Note the buzzwords: dishonest, abused, masters. Vern, please refrain from making disparaging comments towards me and make a point.

"The Bush administration built an unprecedented surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still too secret to reveal.

The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks

Report: Bush program extended beyond wiretapping - USATODAY.com

Here’s the inspector generals report on it Bush’s massive illegal spying on Americans.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/psp.pdf

the 4th amendment is just like deficits, conservatives only care when their masters tell them to care.

Click to expand...

So much deflection, but at least you manage to address the topic, despite the asinine masters remark.

I am against renewal of the Patriot Act. I did not like what the NSA did in regards to setting up a network that spied on every American.

How do you feel about the recommendations from the FISA court in regards to abuse of 4th Amendment protections by the Obama administration since 2011?

OpportunityCost said:

The only hard concept for you is to keep the conversation about the topic and not making retarded personal remarks at other posters.

Once again, doesn't address the topic. Note the buzzwords: dishonest, abused, masters. Vern, please refrain from making disparaging comments towards me and make a point.

Click to expand...

Oh OC, I responded directly to your posts. For you to post "wah wah you didn't address the topic" makes you at best a flaming hypocrite. I've posted no strawman and I disproved your false statement that "republicans didn't abuse the Patriot Act". Its questionable if you can call collecting phone records abuse but its beyond the abilities of even someone like you to not call Bush's massive illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans abuse. I suspect that's why you went with the "wah wah you didn't address the topic" dodge.

I am against renewal of the Patriot Act. I did not like what the NSA did in regards to setting up a network that spied on every American.

How do you feel about the recommendations from the FISA court in regards to abuse of 4th Amendment protections by the Obama administration since 2011?

Click to expand...

oh con, you make me laugh. First I get your "wah wah" deflections (yea, deflections, plural) but now you want to pretend "hey lets have a normal discussion". Hilarious. A normal discussion would start with you admitting "gee, I didn't know about Bush's massive illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans abuse of the Patriot Act. thank you for bringing that to my attention." And that's if you really didn't know. But all I got was whining and deflecting.

Grim17 said:

You posted nothing that in any way discredits the republican memo... NOTHING.

Click to expand...

Grim, I've posted enough for you to stop posting it as fact. Obedience makes you want to believe it but common sense should tell you "holy crap, these guys have done nothing but lie to me and make me look like a fool". Seriously grim, how many lies will it take for you to stop believing documented liars?

Vern said:

Oh OC, I responded directly to your posts. For you to post "wah wah you didn't address the topic" makes you at best a flaming hypocrite. I've posted no strawman and I disproved your false statement that "republicans didn't abuse the Patriot Act". Its questionable if you can call collecting phone records abuse but its beyond the abilities of even someone like you to not call Bush's massive illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans abuse. I suspect that's why you went with the "wah wah you didn't address the topic" dodge.

Click to expand...

I went with that because you cant do anything without making nasty comments rather than addressing the topic. You missed the remark I made regarding the Patriot Act---I don't support it. I don't need to join in your Bush Derangement syndrome, as I don't support the Patriot Act in the first place; too little transparency and too little accountability.

oh con, you make me laugh. First I get your "wah wah" deflections (yea, deflections, plural) but now you want to pretend "hey lets have a normal discussion". Hilarious. A normal discussion would start with you admitting "gee, I didn't know about Bush's massive illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans abuse of the Patriot Act. thank you for bringing that to my attention." And that's if you really didn't know. But all I got was whining and deflecting.

Click to expand...

I addressed it directly. You still haven't answered my question about the FISA court. Maybe you could get past your butthurt over Bush and address my question, that would be super.

OpportunityCost said:

I went with that because you cant do anything without making nasty comments rather than addressing the topic. You missed the remark I made regarding the Patriot Act---I don't support it. I don't need to join in your Bush Derangement syndrome, as I don't support the Patriot Act in the first place; too little transparency and too little accountability.

I addressed it directly. You still haven't answered my question about the FISA court. Maybe you could get past your butthurt over Bush and address my question, that would be super.

Click to expand...

still with the "wah wah you didn't address the topic" whine. At first you were at best a flaming hypocrite. Now its just dishonest because I responded directly to your post again. And OC, see how the dishonesty just gets easier and easier for you. You did not address the fact that you said "republicans did not abuse the Patriot act". Show me were you in any way acknowledge "republicans abused the patriot act" and where you admitted you were wrong when you said otherwise.

oh and OC, I ignore deflecting questions from dishonest posters so you can stop whining about me not answering your deflecting question.

Vern said:

still with the "wah wah you didn't address the topic" whine. At first you were at best a flaming hypocrite. Now its just dishonest because I responded directly to your post again. And OC, see how the dishonesty just gets easier and easier for you. You did not address the fact that you said "republicans did not abuse the Patriot act". Show me were you in any way acknowledge "republicans abused the patriot act" and where you admitted you were wrong when you said otherwise.

oh and OC, I ignore deflecting questions from dishonest posters so you can stop whining about me not answering your deflecting question.

Click to expand...

Flaming hypocrite? I don't think so because I addressed I do not agree with policy from the Patriot Act and our current surveillance policy. I am telling you so yet again. I don't need to acknowledge it, I said I don't agree with it, which is acknowledging it.

How do you feel about FISA court abuses that violate 4th amendment protections by the Obama administration going back to 2011?

Vern said:

still with the "wah wah you didn't address the topic" whine. At first you were at best a flaming hypocrite. Now its just dishonest because I responded directly to your post again. And OC, see how the dishonesty just gets easier and easier for you. You did not address the fact that you said "republicans did not abuse the Patriot act". Show me were you in any way acknowledge "republicans abused the patriot act" and where you admitted you were wrong when you said otherwise.

oh and OC, I ignore deflecting questions from dishonest posters so you can stop whining about me not answering your deflecting question.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Flaming hypocrite? I don't think so because I addressed I do not agree with policy from the Patriot Act and our current surveillance policy. I am telling you so yet again. I don't need to acknowledge it, I said I don't agree with it, which is acknowledging it.

How do you feel about FISA court abuses that violate 4th amendment protections by the Obama administration going back to 2011?

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

The topic is not you two, the Patriot Act or Bush. Knock off the snarking back and forth and stick to the topic: House Intelligence Committee releases Dem rebuttal to GOP FISA memo Move on with discussing that topic which is the news story in the OP.

Mach said:

Nunes conducted this "memo investigation" by having Gowdy look at the classified information, and decide himself, with no bi-partisan oversight, or any oversight whatsoever, what information to bring to Nunes.

Click to expand...

You would need to substantiate this, I believe Devin Nunes is more actively involved in oversight of the intelligence community. I don't know how members of the Intelligence Committee cover their oversight responsibilities, but I do know Nunes is actively engaged, has extensive experience and personal reasons to be interested in this.

Plus Ultra said:

You would need to substantiate this, I believe Devin Nunes is more actively involved in oversight of the intelligence community. I don't know how members of the Intelligence Committee cover their oversight responsibilities, but I do know Nunes is actively engaged, has extensive experience and personal reasons to be interested in this.

Click to expand...

It's common knowledge, and widely publicized, and I'm credible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo
Partisan

The memo was produced by a small group of House Republicans and staff, led by Devin Nunes, as part of an investigation into how the FBI used the Trump–Russia dossier.[40] Democratic committee members were not informed about the investigation into the FBI or the preparation of the memo, a possible violation of committee rules.[41] Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that Nunes had not read all of the relevant source material, although Nunes had argued for months that the FBI and DOJ had taken part in a conspiracy.[42]

Click to expand...

Nunes: I did not read material summarized in the memo | TheHill
Gowdy was the only one that cherry-picked what information to give to Nunes, and Nunes then cherry-picked what he published.

Nunes said he relied on the review of committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). “No, I didn’t,” Nunes told Fox News’s Bret Baier, when asked if he saw the applications.

Click to expand...

This is not partisan, these are facts. If it was not cherry-picked and partisan, he would have included the democrats in a bi-partisan fashion. Further, he has deniability because he can say Gowdy and his communication was imperfect, if it came to that. Can you verify what Gowdy saw? Gowdy has stated explicitly that the public will *never* see the original top secret data.

All this, and he did it before with the wiretapping...this is not new for Nunes, you should also remember that one. Nunes was part of Trump's transition team and supposedly recused himself because of it. Then didn't.

None of this is acceptable.