• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jerrold Nadler Leaked response about Nunes Memo

apdst said:
1. What did Nunes' memo compromise? Be specific.

2. If Nadler didn't get declassification, he broke the law.
Click to expand...
Not if there is nothing containing national defense information in the memo. Information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national security objectives.

The memo was classified because it contains details of an ongoing national security investigation.
 
MTAtech said:
[bpNot if there is nothing containing national defense information in the memo.[/b] Information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national security objectives.

The memo was classified because it contains details of an ongoing national security investigation.
Click to expand...

That has no bearing on classified material.

Any information that can be considered damaging to The United States can be classified.


Nobody in Congress possesses declassification authority.

The FBI lied when they said that there was national security information in the memo.

If the information was classified to protect the FBI, or the DOJ, then that is a violation of EO 13526.

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html#three
 
Mr Person said:
Has anyone complaining about the FISA warrant for Carter Page ever posted here about problems with the FISA warrant process before Trump ran for office?
Click to expand...

Has Nunes ever complained about it until he came up with this "memo?" He had no problem when he supported the renewal on Jan 11.
 
apdst said:
1. What did Nunes' memo compromise? Be specific.

2. If Nadler didn't get declassification, he broke the law.
Click to expand...

He can comment on anything he likes as long as he doesn't reveal classified information. There were congressmen of both parties all over the news the past few days making comments about the "dossier" and the Nunes memo. I saw em on my TV (actually on my computer cause I don't watch TV news...). They didn't get "declassification" for their comments. Why does this Congressman need "declassification for his when the only difference is his are written not spoken.

If you can identify classified material he disclosed, quote that part of his response. If not, you've not demonstrated any problem with them related to "declassification" or not.

As to your first question, among other things, now everyone who talked with Carter page from the day the warrant was requested (and the exact date is now known) until roughly 360 days later knows that conversation is likely on tape and in the presence of FBI. Email, texts, etc. same thing. They can also have a better guess that conversations etc. before that date are NOT recorded. Might be helpful if you've divulged illegal or compromising stuff in communications with Page - whether the FBI had an active warrant and therefore has it on tape, as they say.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
He can comment on anything he likes as long as he doesn't reveal classified information. There were congressmen of both parties all over the news the past few days making comments about the "dossier" and the Nunes memo. I saw em on my TV (actually on my computer cause I don't watch TV news...). They didn't get "declassification" for their comments. Why does this Congressman need "declassification for his when the only difference is his are written not spoken.

If you can identify classified material he disclosed, quote that part of his response. If not, you've not demonstrated any problem with them related to "declassification" or not.
Click to expand...

How about you quote me where I said he did?
 
apdst said:
How about you quote me where I said he did?
Click to expand...

You said "2. If Nadler didn't get declassification, he broke the law." That's false, unless he talked about something classified. But if you're off on one of your rathole runs, I'm not playing.

Also, too, in response to this question: "1. What did Nunes' memo compromise? Be specific."

I added this: As to your first question, among other things, now everyone who talked with Carter page from the day the warrant was requested (and the exact date is now known) until roughly 360 days later knows that conversation is likely on tape and in the presence of FBI. Email, texts, etc. same thing. They can also have a better guess that conversations etc. before that date are NOT recorded. Might be helpful if you've divulged illegal or compromising stuff in communications with Page - whether the FBI had an active warrant and therefore has it on tape, as they say.
 
vesper said:
Andrew McCarthy was spot on.
Click to expand...

It was interesting, but I was a little disappointed. He spends a great amount of time talking about the fact that the credibility of the actual sources (the people who talked with Steele) are key, which makes sense. But then he repeatedly assumes that the sources cited by Steele remained anonymous in the warrant application. That's not in the record, wasn't cited in the Nunes memo, and seems.... highly, highly unlikely that FBI actually included "Source A said_______" instead of getting actual names from Steele. We know they were working with Steele before the warrant request.

Anyway, when the entire article essentially focuses on the fact that the key element is the credibility of the actual sources, his unsourced assumption that Steele didn't supply those names, and those names weren't included in the warrant application, seems like a pretty big fail given the overwhelming thrust of his analysis.
 
JasperL said:
It was interesting, but I was a little disappointed. He spends a great amount of time talking about the fact that the credibility of the actual sources (the people who talked with Steele) are key, which makes sense. But then he repeatedly assumes that the sources cited by Steele remained anonymous in the warrant application. That's not in the record, wasn't cited in the Nunes memo, and seems.... highly, highly unlikely that FBI actually included "Source A said_______" instead of getting actual names from Steele. We know they were working with Steele before the warrant request.

Anyway, when the entire article essentially focuses on the fact that the key element is the credibility of the actual sources, his unsourced assumption that Steele didn't supply those names, and those names weren't included in the warrant application, seems like a pretty big fail given the overwhelming thrust of his analysis.
Click to expand...

Well here you go Jasper, something else to ponder on.....


Dossier author Steele wrote another anti-Trump memo; was fed info by Clinton-connected contact, Obama State Department
 
jmotivator said:
The funniest part is that after screaming that the Nunes memo would cause grave harm to national security, the Democrats went and leaked a response without going through channels. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not nearly as funny as when Hannity and other Conjob artists told us it was going to be a bigger deal than Watergate, the greatest American political scandal EVER, they said, only to find out the Nunes memo was about as ho-hum (actually anti-climatic) as Geraldo Rivera's opening of Al Capone's vault.

With regard to "classified materials", it showed us just how low a bar "classified" actually is. And all of these people got the panties in bunch because Clinton may have exposed garbage like this to the wilds of the Internet. I think the Trump minions owe her an apology.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
No, the information squared with articles presented from Yahoo News and Mother Jones... but they only squared because Yahoo News and Mother Jones used Steele as their source.



The dossier is unsubstantiated. Comey and Steele have both admitted as such. This alone is enough to void the warrant.
Click to expand...

"According to the Post, part of the FBI’s warrant application relied on Page’s reported contacts with a Russian intelligence official in 2013, contact Page himself recently acknowledged to BuzzFeed News. It’s not clear if Page knew he was speaking to an intelligence official at the time."

Carter Page was a person of interest long before the dossier was compiled.
 
danarhea said:
"According to the Post, part of the FBI’s warrant application relied on Page’s reported contacts with a Russian intelligence official in 2013, contact Page himself recently acknowledged to BuzzFeed News. It’s not clear if Page knew he was speaking to an intelligence official at the time."

Carter Page was a person of interest long before the dossier was compiled.
Click to expand...

Just putting Carter Page's name on a FISA application would have been sufficient. They would have granted the warrant stickly on Page's reputation for dancing with the ruskies.... anything the FBI choose to add to the application was over-the-top window dressing.

The idea that the dossier was an essential part of the FISA application is a bit of a stretch. The idea that because the dossier was funded by Democrats it means something is a bit of a stretch. The idea that the Trump investigation is in anyway tainted because the FBI got a warrant on Page (a perennial spy suspect) is absurd.

In fact, if the FBI didn't become interest in the Trump campaign after the Trump campaign became interested in Page, the FBI would not be doing its job. Even if Trump is innocent of collusion, he is guilty of poor choice in associations (Manafort, Flynn, Page, Papadopolus). His mere stupidity is cause enough for investigation.
 
Last edited:
holbritter said:
No, but neither does anyone know it to be true. As a matter of fact, no one even knows what the information is.
Click to expand...

And that may be the crux of this.

Because they have to prove they found new stuff out and will find out more if they get an extension.

There has been zero mention of any of the evidence provided in order to get the extensions.

Zero.

But its in there. Right in the application. Has to be.

That is what we need to know. And is probably classified.

But I think that's the key to the whole mess
 
What if...? said:
And that may be the crux of this.

Because they have to prove they found new stuff out and will find out more if they get an extension.

There has been zero mention of any of the evidence provided in order to get the extensions.

Zero.

But its in there. Right in the application. Has to be.

That is what we need to know. And is probably classified.

But I think that's the key to the whole mess
Click to expand...

In fact, Nunes admit he did nto read that document. Trey Gowdy did.. not Nunes.
 
JasperL said:
He likely knows, but can he lay that evidence out or even state it exists in an unclassified response? Presumably Schiff does that in his response that's being voted on today, I think.
Click to expand...

If he is "likely" to know then he would speak in posibilities.


You're making up that he asked for "salacious dirt" instead of "information." There's been a lot of speculation that the Russians played Steele, and fed him through his contacts bad info, but the memo doesn't actually allege that happened.
Click to expand...

The memo alleges that he spoke to Russian officials for his I formation. Is speaking to Russians OK when it's against Trump? Moreover, shouldn't it be independently verified when it comes from Russian soufces?


It's only a straw man if you're ignoring the news, and comments by prominent Trump supporters and Trump himself. It's not exactly "news" that Trump wants Rosenstein gone, and when asked about it after the memo came out, firing him and whether he had confidence in Rosenstein, Trump said, "You figure that one out."


So, not a straw man, but a comment addressing sentiments being openly expressed all over the Trump lemming universe, and how the memo is being used by many Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

Again, the Nunez memo makes absolutely no such claim. If he wants to address those who actually said that then he should do that, but the memo didn't do that. So it IS a straw man as it is casting the memo as making an argument it didn't make.



I think I'll go with the views of a person like Gowdy, who has seen the intelligence and EMPHATICALLY states, and has repeated on multiple outlets in multiple interviews after the memo came out that the memo has no bearing at all on the broader investigation.
Click to expand...

How is that even a country argument? Criticizing the FBI and DOJ for what is detailed in the memo is fair, and God has done so. YOU are the one trying to turn criticism of the conduct in the FISA memo to a general attack of the FBI in general or the Mueller investigation.



It could be, or not. We don't know because we aren't being told about what other information was used in the warrant request. Seems relevant to me that someone in prior years had been targeted by Russian intelligence. That fact alone obviously isn't enough for a warrant, but it indicates the FBI wasn't targeting some random dude.
Click to expand...

We know the warrant included unverified propaganda from Russian sources... that should be enough.:roll:
 
JasperL said:
You'll have to show me where Carter Page has pled guilty to anything, and what the Carter Page warrant has to do with Flynn's guilty plea, which he entered into with the advice of lawyers. The warrant on Page was obtained after the Trump campaign said Page left the campaign, so why would an invalid (for the sake of argument) warrant on Page impact Flynn?

I also find it interesting that the Nunes memo doesn't allege or assert the FBI used unverified information in the warrant or that this unverified information was essential. We're asked to conclude it but the memo doesn't allege it. It also does not allege anyone's civil rights were violated or that the warrant application taken as a whole did not satisfy the burden necessary to legitimately get a warrant. The three renewals suggest that Carter Page's warrant was producing valuable intelligence, or else no renewals, so it's unlikely he was/is an innocent flower.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not Carter, Papadopolous. And yes, Papadopolous, and Flynn were both targets in the same investigation that included this FISA warrant.

What we are seeing here is McCarthyism 2.0. The FBI is signaling grave potent in anyone speaking to Russians ever, filtered through complicit media outlets, and then indict people who are scared of revealing benign contact with Russians.
 
Mr Person said:
that if a defendant shows a false statement was knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included in an affidavit AND if it was necessary to finding probable cause, then the defendant gets a hearing to explore the question. That is a damn high bar and it is much higher than "using known questionable evidence."

Nevermind that legal argument doesn't work by finding a quote you like the sound of, then simply announcing your opinion that such-and-such fits that quote.

Also, there may be a question of whether the "special needs" exception to the 4th Amd. is in play.
Click to expand...

Inserting evidence from a dossier that was not corroborated and sourced from. The very people you are attempting to prove collude with US citizens is reckless disregard for the truth.
 
Mr Person said:
Has anyone complaining about the FISA warrant for Carter Page ever posted here about problems with the FISA warrant process before Trump ran for office?
Click to expand...

Yes. Haven't you?
 
danarhea said:
"According to the Post, part of the FBI’s warrant application relied on Page’s reported contacts with a Russian intelligence official in 2013, contact Page himself recently acknowledged to BuzzFeed News. It’s not clear if Page knew he was speaking to an intelligence official at the time."

Carter Page was a person of interest long before the dossier was compiled.
Click to expand...

Carter page was once investigated in 2013. What became of that? If his Contact was actually illegal why was he never arrested? This is pure McCarthyism guilt by association crap.
 
Mr Person said:
It's pretty damn easy to get any sort of warrant. I'd like to think that all this fuss will be the start of a strengthening of the rights of citizens in criminal proceedings, but I doubt it.

The fuss started when Trump said it should start, and it will stop when he says it should stop (or even just stops tweeting about it)
Click to expand...

The rebuttal is making a serious error, the same one you are making. A FISA warrant is not the same as a normal warrant.
 
Mr Person said:
Has anyone complaining about the FISA warrant for Carter Page ever posted here about problems with the FISA warrant process before Trump ran for office?
Click to expand...

Was it brought to the publics attention before?
 
JasperL said:
You said "2. If Nadler didn't get declassification, he broke the law." That's false, unless he talked about something classified. But if you're off on one of your rathole runs, I'm not playing.

Also, too, in response to this question: "1. What did Nunes' memo compromise? Be specific."

I added this: As to your first question, among other things, now everyone who talked with Carter page from the day the warrant was requested (and the exact date is now known) until roughly 360 days later knows that conversation is likely on tape and in the presence of FBI. Email, texts, etc. same thing. They can also have a better guess that conversations etc. before that date are NOT recorded. Might be helpful if you've divulged illegal or compromising stuff in communications with Page - whether the FBI had an active warrant and therefore has it on tape, as they say.
Click to expand...

Ok, if he released classified material, he broke the law. How's that?

That last paragraph is some wild ass speculation, and possibly true. But, since it was already public knowledge before the memo was released, the memo didn't expose anything that wasn't already being assumed.
 
jmotivator said:
Carter page was once investigated in 2013. What became of that? If his Contact was actually illegal why was he never arrested? This is pure McCarthyism guilt by association crap.
Click to expand...

Who was Page guilty of associating with in 2013?

And does one have to be arrested in order to be thought of as committing a crime?
 
jmotivator said:
If he is "likely" to know then he would speak in posibilities.
Click to expand...

The point was saying it definitively is possibly revealing classified information. And you quoted me making that point then ignored it.... :roll:

The memo alleges that he spoke to Russian officials for his I formation. Is speaking to Russians OK when it's against Trump? Moreover, shouldn't it be independently verified when it comes from Russian soufces?
Click to expand...

Two times you've quoted me then ignored what you quoted. Not looking good for honest debate here.

Again, the Nunez memo makes absolutely no such claim. If he wants to address those who actually said that then he should do that, but the memo didn't do that. So it IS a straw man as it is casting the memo as making an argument it didn't make.
Click to expand...

There's no rule his response to Nunes has to confine itself to the four corners of the memo, not when TRUMP and others are using THE MEMO to attack Rosenstein.

How is that even a country argument? Criticizing the FBI and DOJ for what is detailed in the memo is fair, and God has done so. YOU are the one trying to turn criticism of the conduct in the FISA memo to a general attack of the FBI in general or the Mueller investigation.
Click to expand...

You said, "there is every reason to criticize the investigation." The memo provides ammo to criticize the warrant on Carter Page, but zero ammo to criticize "the investigation" as a whole, which Gowdy has repeatedly stressed in his interviews. Maybe you meant some narrow part of it that you don't define and I cannot guess because I don't read minds, but as you know, Mueller had nothing to do with this warrant request, and so this action doesn't taint his far broader investigation that Gowdy insists would have happened with or without this warrant.

We know the warrant included unverified propaganda from Russian sources... that should be enough.:roll:
Click to expand...

We actually don't know that, and you can't quote the memo asserting it. And we don't know what else the FBI included in the warrant and the Nunes memo never alleges or asserts the warrant was improperly granted or identified the legal or operational standard violated by FBI in that warrant. You're making a lot of assumptions because you're listening to too much Fox News. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom