It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

hey, I am just claiming that it's a possibility that maybe we should consider, since ya know, we might be talking about classified information that has been gathered by our intelligence agencies... possibly naming sources, or just leading others to conclude it could only come from this one person, who's lives just may be in danger if the source was made known to the world???
the intelligence agencies aren't asking any more from congress than they demand from anyone else who has been allowed access to classified material. if they write a book, publish an article, hold an interview, they have to let the agencies review what will be included before it goes public! it's a standing rule that has been enforced for quite awhile. I hear the most griping about it when it comes from those in gov't who wish to talk about UFOs and other topics like it. which, I really wouldn't put as high up on the scale when it comes to national security as I would this...




posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

because we all know just how well blackwater worked in Iraq....
so, according to the video I linked to, they can shuffle money around to pay for whatever these mercenaries need... with no accountability.
is there any protections in place to prevent the president from using his own private army inside the US against those "enemies of the state" which seem to have grown to include around half of the population???



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Memos, leaks, dossiers, texts, emails, etc. all provided to us by the media. No wonder it's a never-ending merry-go-round of finger pointing, that's how they want it!

Now watch, months down the road when nothing comes from all these media provided scandals maybe you'll finally realize that you were wasting your time and mental energy while more important things were put on the backburner.


can you link us to your threads on the "important things" please?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
So the trump cultist have been shown how wrong they are again, so they double down on stupid, this is getting better by the day.

Why you so scared son, those are my favorite.


edit on 25-1-2018 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Some democrats and key players desperately want to see the memo, particularly Obama era holdovers in the agencies, especially the FBI. Before any of it goes public.

That alone speaks volumes here.


TRUST NO ONE!


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



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It's a done deal already if I'm not mistaken, at least the (partly) privatized war in Afghanistan.



is there any protections in place to prevent the president from using his own private army inside the US against those "enemies of the state" which seem to have grown to include around half of the population???


The justice system, uniformed humans and decent paper-pushers. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking. They'd still need a military Q-coup for that, which is why the human terrain needs to be thoroughly profiled in order to sort out the critical...

*shots fired*




posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: vor78

then maybe they should just keep it among themselves, just in case they are wrong???
especially since we might have a bunch of russian bots out there practically demanding that they be released??




But what if they aren't wrong?

Regardless, if there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that withholding it would be the worst outcome of all, because there are many who will believe that there was a massive conspiracy within the government against an elected president and that the evidence was covered up. It would completely shatter what's left of public trust in their leaders.

This memo absolutely should be released, along with as much supporting documentation as possible. Let the public see for itself and decide whether it's accurate of not.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
So wait...... The FBI and DOJ (that seem to be implicated in said memo circumventing the law) say that it is "reckless" to make the memo public without them first seeing it, and basically "approving" it?

RRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttt.........................



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

The FBI in particular requested to receive a copy of the memo in order to "evaluate the information and take appropriate steps"




posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

if yous can't trust the intelligence agency to evaluate the memo to ensure that intelligence operations won't be compromised by it's release...
then, I dare venture...
the public trust is shattered beyond redemption.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I don't necessarily disagree with that, yet I think that's where we're at.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'm contrasting how Trey Gowdy is talking about the memo vs the peanut gallery of congressional wingnuts. Not that I'm saying Gowdy is above partisan theatrics, after all he was one of the first to characterize the "secret society" text for the media, something that was clearly a joke.

However, if you'll notice, he's FAR FAR more measured when it comes to the contents of the memo than some of the more vocal of his Republican cohorts who haven't seen any of the classified source material.

You've got a clown like Gaetz hitting all the media outlets saying people are going to be arrested, blah blah blah, and then you have Gowdy saying things like this:


"I have concerns about the process, about representations that may be made in court pleadings," he said. "I have concerns about the duty of government to provide complete, full, accurate information. FBI agents and prosecutors are not advocates at this stage. We are representatives to the courts. So there is an obligation to present accurate, full, complete information. And that's true in every criminal case or every counterintelligence case. They don't get the scrutiny that this one does.


and this:


"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."


That doesn't sound remotely like anything from Gaetz, DeSantis, Meaddows, etc who are swinging for the fences at every opportunity. I strongly suspect that Gaetz et al are dramatically over-hyping the Nunes memo.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well of course they're over-hyping it, there's a % of affect (as we can notice even here on ATS) that splashback and stick with the populace regardless of the facts. There are many that have run with the accusations like they're gospel and will now no longer be convinced otherwise, no matter what comes of it.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


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?


And here is the beauty of the memo. On the one hand, you can say that it's clear that X was shared with Nunes because there are these allegations right? But on the other hand, it's also improper for Boyd to draw the exact same conclusions as you just did because he hasn't seen the memo.

My guess is that Trey Gowdy conveyed information to Nunes about what he saw. That is after all what Gowdy and Schiff were there to do.

That's why I find it interesting that Gowdy isn't running around like his head's on spewing all the hyperbolic talking points that others who haven't seen the source material are.


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?


Google the terms "Grassley" and "stonewalling" and you'll find that it's common tactic for Grassley to accuse everyone of stonewalling. I don't take anything he says at face value (nor any politician if we're being honest). There's a lot of gamesmanship in all of this and Grassley and others are experienced players.

Keep in mind that as you did yesterday, Grassley also promoted a mischaracterization of Comey's take on the dossier.


“[FBI] Director [James] Comey testified in 2017 that it was ‘salacious and unverified’,” said Grassley. “So, it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration — or any administration — to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents? That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe.”


Except no, as I pointed out, that is not what Comey said. So you'll have to forgive my skepticism about how much of what is happening is stonewalling vs typical process and due diligence. The DOJ and FBI spokespeople have repeatedly denied that there is any stonewalling.


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 there it is again. We've heard ad nauseam that there's "stonewalling" and that becomes the basis for speculation about motivations for the alleged "stonewalling" which leads to further speculation and so on and so forth.


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.


Gowdy's statements could refer to a spectrum of impropriety. All wrong doing is not the same. He also phrases it that he has seen "evidence" that gives him "concerns" which is a far cry from saying there's a smoking gun on the Crime of the Century — which is what has been built up in the media by Republicans.

You ascribe untoward motives to Boyd but the fact is, Trey Gowdy has said that the source material shouldn't be declassified and released. They're in agreement in that regard. So why is Boyd's motivation suspect but not Gowdy's?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: vor78

if yous can't trust the intelligence agency to evaluate the memo to ensure that intelligence operations won't be compromised by it's release...
then, I dare venture...
the public trust is shattered beyond redemption.




it's NOT the intelligence agency nor even the committee....this "memo" was written by munoz and his staff.....that's it, no others......and gowdy is an 8 (8 hearings on Benghazi) time loser on Benghazi, no matter how serious he sounded, and how much he tried to project gravitas......it ended being BULL...just like pizzagate, and birthers, and all the other BS that right-wing members posted here on hundreds of threads....and you wonder why democrats treat the right on ATS as a bunch of loony-tunes...............look in the mirror, jesus, even go back and read all the threads that were written about "HOW SURE" the right was on these subjects.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: vor78

if yous can't trust the intelligence agency to evaluate the memo to ensure that intelligence operations won't be compromised by it's release...
then, I dare venture...
the public trust is shattered beyond redemption.




pizzagate, and birthers, etc.


These things are all mostly believed as gospel by a lot of the folks here on ATS even still.....



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

okay, let's assume that the right's claim is just another pizzagate bs story...
the republicans have always been the ones proclaiming to be strong on defense, the ones to preach the dangers of terrorism...
it makes me ask...
just what in god's name are they afraid that the mueller investigation will uncover to the point where they will attack such an important part of that defense?? I can't believe it's just their desire to protect trump... it seems that it would be more like a self preservation move.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Members are NEVER the subject of a thread.






Nor are they moderators .



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
Call Devin what you want, but he persevered against deeply entrenched deep state goons. Has them all panicky and being drug into the light. You seem panicky too.

Gowdy needs to man up for once and actually carry the ball over the goal line instead of stopping short like he usually does.

Until then he's not even fit to carry Nunes big-balled jock strap. Devin, like Trump, is Winning.
Exactly...Gowdy's good at the game but at the end, he always stops short and picks a spot on the side of the swamp...

Nunes and the Republicans wouldn't be pushing this memo if they didn't have the goods...They have too much to lose if they are wrong...



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64


Gowdy has said that all the information the memo is based on, came from the FBI, yet they are crying about not seeing the memo. Why the theatrics?


They call that cherry picking data to intentionally create a false narrative. In other words, lying by omission.

That's the point. And the problem.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join