5 Questions Nunes Memo Must Answer

[iliveonramen]

Like I said "It just takes the right people in the right places at the jump."
And the judge doesn't have to be one of them.

So you are going to believe a conspiracy exists pretty much no matter what. For the people that are just looking at reasons as to why Trump isn't guilty this article probably wasn't written with you in mind.

 

[iliveonramen]

Interesting article, but when you get right down to it just plain wrong.



None of those five questions need to be answered by the memo. In fact, the memo CAN'T answer those questions. The memo is nothing more than a summary of evidence that is in possession of or been seen by Nunes and the House Intel Committee.

But please remember that there are three other investigations into DOJ/FBI actions that haven't released any findings. My opinion is that this Nunes information, combined with the other investigation's information will be used to convince Congress...both the House and the Senate...to vote for a Special Investigator to look at all of it and tie it all together. THEN, we might get answers to those five questions.

So for anyone not believing in an Anti-Trump Conspiracy...what will this memo accomplish? If it's basically memo of things that aren't supported and doesn't have the details needed to check it I'm not sure exactly what the point is. As I mentioned earlier...that's what Fox news is for.

 

[iliveonramen]

Two FBI officials have reveiwed the memo and found no " factual inaccuracies "

FBI officials review surveillance memo, could not cite 'any factual inaccuracies': source | Fox News

The FBI offered no comment to Fox News regarding bureau officials’ review of the document. Senior DOJ officials told Fox News after this story first posted, however, that they “dispute the characterization” that no inaccuracies could be cited.

If the memo confirms that unverified Democrat funded oppo-research was used in any way to obtain a FISA warrant, then thats a huge problem

Really? So lets say opp-research mentions a meeting with Russians. The FBI investigates and finds facts that support a meeting did take place and they based on other evidence the conversation seems to revolve around collusion with the Russian government. Are you saying that the opp-research as the basis for investigating the incident means that none of the evidence can be used to obtain a FISA warrant? I don't agree with that at all.

As for which FISA judge approved the warrant ?

Im going to guess it was Obama appointee, Judge Rudolph Contreras. He was the Judge over Flynns case until he recused himself without offering up a explanation

Turns out, he's one of 11 FISA judges and was on the court back when the Carter Page warrant was granted

As for Carter Page, he had a ton of connections with Russia. In what reality is a Carter Page warrant completely out of bounds? His energy deals with Russia wouldn't/shouldn't be enough to believe he was acting for a foreign government..but to completely act like that warrant is completely baseless....where are you getting that information?

 

[iliveonramen]

Very very compelling, but there isn't enough safeguards against determined politicians who run these organizations. If that were true, we'd never have a crooked politician succeed at committing corrupt acts. Her explanation is what should happen in a perfect world, and probably works a very high percentage of the time, but we're not just talking about possible corruption over Carter Page; but also Hillary Clinton, who was infinitely more important and had clout only inferior to President Obama's. So don't tell me things can't be fixed. There was all kinds of scandal during the Clinton Presidency; are you telling me they had no airtight govt rules then, and only now have rules so squeaky tight they can't fail. I call bull****!

The "fix" would require a host of people that includes a lot of lifelong members of the FBI. I'm not sure how that is more believable than the possibility that based on the multiple people with lots of connections to Russia the FBI was able to legitimately believe there was something happening.

I'm curious...how many people need to be indicted and/or shown to have connections with Russian agents before you're like "well...even if there's no collusion I can still see why they would be deeply suspicious". From the way people on this board act, you'd think the investigation and people looking into the matter have found absolutely nothing. That this was a witch hunt and completely fabricated. That's not true at all. There is so much **** found not even including what we don't know yet that the FBI would be grossly negligent to ignore it.

 

[faithful_servant]

A former FBI talks about the Nunes memo and what needs to be in it for it to implicate anything.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in FISA warrants and most likely most people only know they exist and what they are used for. The author goes a bit deeper and gives context. Well worth the read.

https://www.justsecurity.org/51630/five-questions-nunes-memo-answer/

..and another peremptory attack on the memo. This memo must have a lot of people scared, because we're seeing quite a bit of effort being put forth to discredit it from people who have never read it.

 

[Mycroft]

So for anyone not believing in an Anti-Trump Conspiracy...what will this memo accomplish? If it's basically memo of things that aren't supported and doesn't have the details needed to check it I'm not sure exactly what the point is. As I mentioned earlier...that's what Fox news is for.

What makes you think it's "basically memo of things that aren't supported"? What makes you think it "doesn't have the details needed to check it"?

Oh...wait...because security laws and rules won't allow YOU to see the details, you think the memo is...what?...a lie?

LOL!! Now you sound like Schiff...except HE'S seen the details.

 

[Manc Skipper]

So Trey Gowdy is now a Nunes minion?

You may believe that. I'm a foreigner, remember?

 

[iliveonramen]

..and another peremptory attack on the memo. This memo must have a lot of people scared, because we're seeing quite a bit of effort being put forth to discredit it from people who have never read it.

Well based on the superlatives used to talk about it and the amount of time Republicans in the House have taken to release this thing, of course there will be some articles. I don't see how it's an attack. Listing some things that need to be answered in order to show any sort of conspiracy is pretty logical.

 

[iliveonramen]

What makes you think it's "basically memo of things that aren't supported"? What makes you think it "doesn't have the details needed to check it"?

Oh...wait...because security laws and rules won't allow YOU to see the details, you think the memo is...what?...a lie?

LOL!! Now you sound like Schiff...except HE'S seen the details.

I don't trust the partisan House Republicans. I can't speak for anyone else but this memo will mean nothing to me unless it can be corroborated. I think it's a hard sell to tell Americans there's some conspiracy in the FBI and DOJ based solely on what some House members tell you. Americans trust the FBI and DOJ much more than they do Congress.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't trust the partisan House Republicans. I can't speak for anyone else but this memo will mean nothing to me unless it can be corroborated. I think it's a hard sell to tell Americans there's some conspiracy in the FBI and DOJ based solely on what some House members tell you. Americans trust the FBI and DOJ much more than they do Congress.

Well, we are lucky that YOU aren't the person who's "belief" matters, aren't we? Since you have no possibility of examining the classified information that this memo is based upon, you'll likely continue to blame "partisan House Republicans" when various people get fired or go to jail.

 

[bubbabgone]

So you are going to believe a conspiracy exists pretty much no matter what. For the people that are just looking at reasons as to why Trump isn't guilty this article probably wasn't written with you in mind.

So you're suggesting that the article was written to show Trump's guilt?

You're not looking at the whole thing honestly.
If you can't see that there were unexplained peculiar goings-on then that's on you.

 

[holbritter]

What are the some things it should include to be valid in your opinion? I know that as someone that is not a Republican voter Nunes pushing out a memo with baseless claims won't do anything for me. If this is something that is supposed to be just to his base that will trust anything written..well...Fox News already serves that purpose.

Names and dates. Other than that, I'd have to know what it's supposed to be saying. Is it JUST about ONE FISA warrant? Or does it claim other misdeeds? It's hard to know anything unless we get to actually see it.

 

[holbritter]

So in other words, no link. You just repeat fake news. Got it. Thanks!

Why is it fake news?

 

[rjay]

So it's a vague paper written by a Republican Congressman? Nothing that can be fact checked. Nothing that is validated by anyone. Sounds legit.

Not just any Republican Congressman.

We are talking about a Congressman with a stellar reputation for integrity and independence. A complete nonpartisan.

 

[iliveonramen]

Well, we are lucky that YOU aren't the person who's "belief" matters, aren't we? Since you have no possibility of examining the classified information that this memo is based upon, you'll likely continue to blame "partisan House Republicans" when various people get fired or go to jail.

If there's an investigation started or going on...why exactly would they need to release a memo? You don't see Mueller releasing information unless someone is actually charged.

The memo is to push public opinion one way or another. It's pitting House Republicans against the FBI/DOJ and we'll see how much of a stir this memo makes.

 

[Mycroft]

If there's an investigation started or going on...why exactly would they need to release a memo? You don't see Mueller releasing information unless someone is actually charged.

The memo is to push public opinion one way or another. It's pitting House Republicans against the FBI/DOJ and we'll see how much of a stir this memo makes.

I don't know what's in the mind of Nunes. I only know what he has said...which is, in effect, this information should be shared with the public. They have a right to know this stuff.

It appears, though, that YOU have a direct line to his thinking, so why are you asking me?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

If there's an investigation started or going on...why exactly would they need to release a memo? You don't see Mueller releasing information unless someone is actually charged.

The memo is to push public opinion one way or another. It's pitting House Republicans against the FBI/DOJ and we'll see how much of a stir this memo makes.

And nunes is not answering the question of whether he coordinated this memo with the White House.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-wont-say-if-he-worked-with-white-house-on-anti-fbi-memo

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee refused to answer when a colleague asked him if he had coordinated his incendiary surveillance memo with the White House, The Daily Beast has learned.

During Monday’s contentious closed-door committee meeting, Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democrat, asked Nunes point-blank if his staffers had been talking with the White House as they compiled a four-page memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses over surveillance of President Trump’s allies in the Russia probe.

According to sources familiar with the exchange, Nunes made a few comments that didn’t answer the question before finally responding, “I’m not answering.”

 

[iliveonramen]

So you're suggesting that the article was written to show Trump's guilt?

No, I'm suggesting that unless there's an ulterior motive the idea of a multi-agency conspiracy is silly.

You're not looking at the whole thing honestly.
If you can't see that there were unexplained peculiar goings-on then that's on you.

I don't agree that there were peculiar goings-on....two people had an affair and disliked Trump. Not overly peculiar. In fact, I bet there were Republicans that disliked Obama that worked for the FBI! Even some that worked high up. Most likely Comey a life long Republican voted for Romney or McCain.

The most straightforward answer as to why this investigation is occurring is that there are multiple people that worked for him with Russian ties that the FBI has already been investigating and something from those investigations was troublesome.

In fact, that's pretty much what has been laid out as the reasoning. I'll go with the pretty straightforward reason than the vast multiple agency conspiracy any day

 

[Tanngrisnir]

And nunes is not answering the question of whether he coordinated this memo with the White House.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-wont-say-if-he-worked-with-white-house-on-anti-fbi-memo

He's simply another dishonest Trump Fellatio Technician. His motives and actions are utterly transparent.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nunes-memo-inconceivable

"For Republicans claims of an abuse to be true, one would have to assume that the dossier was the sole basis of the warrant application, that it was a “fabrication” and that the DOJ knew that it was a fabrication when it applied for the FISA warrant, Vladeck said."

 

[iliveonramen]

I don't know what's in the mind of Nunes. I only know what he has said...which is, in effect, this information should be shared with the public. They have a right to know this stuff.

It appears, though, that YOU have a direct line to his thinking, so why are you asking me?

Do investigators typically share the information they have in the middle of investigation? Supposedly this memo is a "bombshell" so you'd think Republicans would investigate, that is their job, to provide oversight of the DOJ. Yet, instead of a report or indictments we get a memo penned by one Congressman. I don't need to a direct line into his thinking.

 

[iliveonramen]

And nunes is not answering the question of whether he coordinated this memo with the White House.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-wont-say-if-he-worked-with-white-house-on-anti-fbi-memo

Of course he's not, because he's working with the White House to provide cover for the White House.

The only thing that really stinks is how Republicans in Congress have completely forgotten that they are a complete separate branch of government who is suppose to provide a ****ING CHECK to the administrative branch, not act as it's propaganda arm.

 

[Mycroft]

Do investigators typically share the information they have in the middle of investigation? Supposedly this memo is a "bombshell" so you'd think Republicans would investigate, that is their job, to provide oversight of the DOJ. Yet, instead of a report or indictments we get a memo penned by one Congressman. I don't need to a direct line into his thinking.

Grassley has sent letters to various people, Nunes sent letters to various people...and guess what...they made the letters public.

So yes...I don't find it unusual for investigators to share information. In fact, I commend this. It shows a commitment to transparency and I consider that a good thing. Don't you?

btw, Congress cannot indict anyone. You know that, right?

 

[iliveonramen]

Grassley has sent letters to various people, Nunes sent letters to various people...and guess what...they made the letters public.

So yes...I don't find it unusual for investigators to share information. In fact, I commend this. It shows a commitment to transparency and I consider that a good thing. Don't you?

No, I don't think leaking information from investigations is a good thing. Usually I think leaks will take place to damn someone in the eyes of the public before a trial takes place. I would also think that for an investigator it could complicate their job. They probably want people to be investigated/interviewed to tell their own story. People tend to incorporate things that are public information into their story. Where it was dark and they could barely see the person, well not the person was wearing a blue shirt and had a limp like the person being investigated and details that were leaked.

btw, Congress cannot indict anyone. You know that, right?

I do. I was pointing out when during an investigation you see information regarding the investigation.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, I'm suggesting that unless there's an ulterior motive the idea of a multi-agency conspiracy is silly.


I don't agree that there were peculiar goings-on....two people had an affair and disliked Trump. Not overly peculiar. In fact, I bet there were Republicans that disliked Obama that worked for the FBI! Even some that worked high up. Most likely Comey a life long Republican voted for Romney or McCain.

The most straightforward answer as to why this investigation is occurring is that there are multiple people that worked for him with Russian ties that the FBI has already been investigating and something from those investigations was troublesome.

In fact, that's pretty much what has been laid out as the reasoning. I'll go with the pretty straightforward reason than the vast multiple agency conspiracy any day

What you're going with is anything you think could be seen as suggesting Trump's guilt ... but you have to ignore everything else in order to conclude that guilt.
One of those things that you're ignoring is that only secret ties to Russia were not his but rather his opponent's.
So far there's nothing comparable from Trump but if anything turns up, I'll be with you.

 

[Mycroft]

No, I don't think leaking information from investigations is a good thing. Usually I think leaks will take place to damn someone in the eyes of the public before a trial takes place. I would also think that for an investigator it could complicate their job. They probably want people to be investigated/interviewed to tell their own story. People tend to incorporate things that are public information into their story. Where it was dark and they could barely see the person, well not the person was wearing a blue shirt and had a limp like the person being investigated and details that were leaked.


I do. I was pointing out when during an investigation you see information regarding the investigation.

Leaks? Nunes isn't leaking anything. He is publicly presenting information that he thinks the public has a need and a right to know.

Leaks...LOL!! That's what people reveal when they DON'T want anyone to know they did it.

You really shouldn't try to spin **** with me. I'll make you eat it.

Just because YOU don't want information to be openly made public, doesn't mean it is wrong to do so. In fact, trying to hide information about an investigation is a bad thing, in my opinion.