It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So Wait, Nunes Hasn't Seen the Classified Material Purportedly Cited in the Memo?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:48 AM
a reply to: dragonridr

Democrats are crafting a Memo to contradict the Nunes Memo that they haven't seen.

How is it possible that nobody has seen nothing? LOL.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:49 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Why are you so scared of the memo that you feel the need to debunk it before it is even released?

If it is nonsense, that will easily be debunked once it is made public.

No need to put the horse before the cart.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:50 AM
Really? Nunes hasn't seen any of it?

200 repubs and about 10 dems have seen it.

Tucker Carlson talked about this issue as part of the ongoing effort to have the House Intelligence Committee release the 4-page memo to the public:

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:53 AM

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: theantediluvian

Can you please point out where it states in your source material that Nunes has not read the memo?? All I can find is what you quoted Gowdy saying...that Boyd hasn't seen it. Maybe you forgot to post a link that has that information?

Thanks in advance.

It's in the letter I linked. In the OP, I excerpted one portion (transcribed to be more accurate) and pointed posters also to the notes one page 1. Here's the part from the letter that I included in the OP:

Seeking Committee approval of public release would require HPSCI committee members to vote on a staff-drafted memorandum that purports to be based on classified source materials that neither you nor most of them have seen.

The letter is addressed to Nunes and it's written by Asst AG Boyd who knows exactly who has reviewed the material in question.

It shouldn't require additional substantiation beyond that I'd think, but to that end, I also referenced Schiff's comments (which don't specifically name Nunes).

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:00 AM
So it simply boils down to take this politicians word that another politicians word is unbelievable while ignoring the basic fact that any politicians word should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Trying to influence the public's opinion before they have a chance to form their own opinion doesn't do anyone any good what so ever.
edit on R012018-01-25T03:01:01-06:00k011Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R032018-01-25T03:03:26-06:00k031Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

+2 more 
posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:00 AM

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: theantediluvian

Someone is so nervous they even took to time to make cute memes about it...

Cheer up buttercup, your chickens are coming home
to roost.


My chickens are coming home to roost? Should I get a lawyer? I've never even held office nor have I worked for the government. I don't know any of the people involved. In fact, I don't know anyone who knows anyone involved.

How in the world, under any imaginable circumstance, could my chickens be coming home to roost? There aren't any chickens.

See, I think what you're doing there is projecting your own emotional attachment to Donald Trump and assuming that since you might feel that personally tied to Trump's fate, I would feel similarly about somebody you think is going down.

I don't.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:05 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok, let me ask you this : Why not release it?
You're using Gowdy to show Nunes in a bad light, but trying to ignore the part where Gowdy, the man who has seen the evidence, says it's damning.
The FBI knows what reports it sent and what is in them, but doesn't know the specifics of the complaints. If they have nothing to hide and can prove it, what do they have to fear?
The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep it quiet, even going so far as to write their own memo refuting the Republican version, so why not put all the cards on the table and let's see who's telling the truth?

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:07 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Why do you think the AG sent a letter telling Nunez not to release the memo if it isn't have classified information? You really don't think things through do you? So let me help you the AG wouldn't care if it didn't contain classifiedinformation he wouldn't fight its release would he?

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:14 AM

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: RickinVa

Another Ante thread.

Didn't have to wait long.

Thank goodness.

I am sure this is the one that will convince the masses to his way of logic and thinking!

Carry on.

Should be what...a day or two for a new ante thread?

Does his logic disturb you so much that you need to attack it ?

No rebuttal just attack and dismiss, I think it's safe to say you don't have the Witt to counter his so you criticize and condemn.

Not at all.... so mush disinformation is being spewed these days...both left and right.

No one knows exactly what is going on, but yet many are more than happy to jump on the partisan bandwagon to spout their point of view.

No need to do it every other day, no matter which side you are on.

I'm not so sure the op is blinded by partisanship.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:23 AM
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Look at his recent posting history and see if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Same as the others who constantly post pro-trump threads.

There is definitely a pattern.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:28 AM
a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean that he persevered a House Ethics Committee investigation? Who runs that committee? Hint: it's not "deep state goons." Why that investigation took so long is beyond me. Perhaps ask the GOP. They cleared him based on a determination that the information he shared wasn't classified.

I think they probably should have investigated his coordinating with the administration — who flat lied about it.

Well it appears Mr. Nunes was found to not be undermining the investigation by his peers.

That's not what they actually investigated nor what he was cleared of.

The Alt-Left already attempted to smear Mr. Nunes and we’re slapped in the face.

What's the Alt-Left? And why were you slapped in the face?

He is back in charge now but you already knew that.

According to him, he was never not in charge. I mean, there was that bull# he said about stepping away but then a few months later it was "Ah hah! I never said the magical words!" He's such a cut up.

Just like you knew Mr. Nunes has already been found above board by the ethics committee before you attempted to smear him again.

Clearly between the two of us, I did in fact know more about it which is why I knew it wasn't relevant.

Typical Alt-Left tactic of rise and repeat until it sticks.... reminds me of hmmm I don’t know Russian collisions???

Typical Alt-Left tactic? How can a made up thing have typical anything, much less tactics? I've never said that Trump colluded with Russia so don't try hanging that on me. However, I have to wonder what you know about other goings on. Did you know for instance that Manafort had reached out to Oleg Deripaska through his (Manafort's) lieutenant in Ukraine, trying to see what he could leverage from his position in the campaign?

Perhaps you missed that.

Did Manafort Use Trump to Curry Favor With a Putin Ally?

“I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?” Manafort wrote.

“Absolutely,” Kilimnik responded a few hours later from Kiev. “Every article.”

“How do we use to get whole,” Manafort asks. “Has OVD operation seen?”

“I am carefully optimistic on the issue of our biggest interest,” Kilimnik went on. “Our friend V said there is lately significantly more attention to the campaign in his boss’s mind, and he will be most likely looking for ways to reach out to you pretty soon, understanding all the time sensitivity. I am more than sure that it will be resolved and we will get back to the original relationship with V.’s boss.” The source close to Manafort confirmed that “V” is a reference to Victor, the Deripaska aide.

There's more. Look into it. At the very least, it should dawn on you that Manafort had an agenda and that agenda included using his position within the Trump campaign to curry favor with his Putin pals. You'll recall that Deripaska is the one who was paying him $10 mil a year to push a pro-Putin agenda with Western officials. Right?

It's at the very least influence peddling and it's something that Manafort, ironically enough, has in the past admitted to doing — and in front of Congress no less.

See Oleg had gone from being a Manafort patron to suing him for a whole lot of money. And Manafort wanted to be back on good terms with him.

What do you think Manafort had to offer them?

I could probably also bring up that email Michael Cohen sent to Putin's office, trying to get help with the Moscow Trump Tower project that shady Felix Sater was involved in. And all those emails from Sater to Cohen saying how he was going to get Putin on board to get Trump elected?

I've never said that I believed Trump personally colluded. I do however think he has surrounded himself with a bunch of pro-Kremlin stooges who have certainly influenced him and I certainly wouldn't put it past a person like Manafort to collude with the Russians. It's kinda what he does for a living.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:31 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

The highly classified documents had to be viewed at a SCIF so it's not like they were sent to Nunes. I'm guessing that Gowdy briefed him to the extent that he could.

Which kinda begs the question. Why isn't Gowdy front and center on this? For that matter, why is Nunes playing it low key and letting the 2nd string shill force do all the hysterical alarmist ranting?

Well, that didn't take long Ante, your admittance to knowing nothing more than anybody else about this. You are just guessing and it seems you are more than a little worried.

So this thread then, what exactly is it about again?

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 03:37 AM
a reply to: RickinVa

I think he's a little adhd, he does focus heavily on a subject. Still I don't get the same vibe that I do from others that simply only have one dog in the race.
I've been wrong before so I may have it wrong, it's just how I see it .
edit on 25-1-2018 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 05:56 AM
a reply to: DAVID64

ya, FBI knows what information was available to Schiff and Gowdy.. what they don't know is just what information was passed on to Nunes and included in the memo. Excuse the intelligence community for wanting to make sure that none of that highly classified material made it into the memo that those russian bots are going nuts to get released!! Maybe they don't want any of their assets compromised and endangered?

gee, the hand the memo they want released over to the FBI for review and maybe it will come back to them with a few changes to be made...
or, they release the memo as is, and it outs one of the intelligence gatherers....
you tell me, which one does the most harm here!!!

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:22 AM
I am going to point out again how these saviors of transparency gowdy, nuns ,Grassley not only voted to expand the fisa surveillance program they also voted down proposals to restrict or tighten the process for obtaining the warrants. In fact they even voted down debating it. Amash tried in the house and Paul in the Senate.

So yeah the Democrats and Republicans are playing fast and loose for the election cycle.

They can both release their fake memos. And each sides true believers and worshipers will full believe them and write threads about how it's all over.

edit on 25-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:46 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

I am not sure we are reading that the same. Gowdy is saying the memo does show wrong doing, and he disagrees with boyd that it shouldnt be released.

He is also saying we should be careful releasing the underlying intelligence, something that I would like to see released.

Here is the part I am mentioning.

""I mean, I would say this again. I like Stephen. I work well with him," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, replied. "It's really difficult to say a memo is reckless when you haven't read it. To the extent he says that they've seen no evidence of any impropriety or untowardness or inappropriate conduct during the process we just respectfully disagree."

And Gowdy has been on shows discussing the importance of the memo and that it is disturbing.

I think the part you are quoting is him saying he has concerns about the process, as in he has concerns about the way the FBI handled the trump investigation, not the process of releasing the memo.

Notice he is talking about court proceedings, something releasing the memo wouldnt include.

He is saying the memo and other info gives him concerne the FBI did not act properly.

More in next post.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:48 AM

People falling hard for this letter !!

Some obvious bait:

"extraordinarily reckless" (ballbuster for Comey)

references to Schiff(ty) (another ballbuster)

referring to "media reports"

etc etc

The "Letter" is a great lollipop for Democrats.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:51 AM
The infamous dossier is nothing but a collection of 17 memos.

FEAR the Nunes!


posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:52 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Niw as far as did nunes see the underlying material.

First, there clearly has been intel shared with nunes about this. Seeing as how Boyd hasnt read the memo to know what is in it, as he admits in his letter, how does he know that its not based on the intel that Nunes has read?

Secondly, this speaks to what Grassley was saying yesterday on the floor, that the FBI and doj is stonewalling oversight committees and refusing to release a lot of the material about this case. So if Boyd is setting on a bunch of evidence that he feels shows that the FBI acted properly, why has the FBI and DOJ not released that evidence to the oversight committee, as they are supposed to?

Thirdly, seeing as how the justice department and fbi have done their best to stonewall congress on receiving info, it seems clear to me that they would have an incentive to also not want the public to see much evidence, which would provide Boyd a motive to try and discourage any public release.

And as my last post shows, Gowdy which yopu admit has seen the evidence, does think the memo is correct in showing wrong doing by the fbi.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: Grambler

So Wray, Sessions, Rodstein all trump picks for cabinet positions are bad picks? So trump has terrible judgement?

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in