Nunes Memo is Being Vetted by DOJ, FBI, NSA and DNI

a reply to: Xcathdra

In my opinion politicians are sleaze bags and I want to see the evidence.

Same as with "collusion"..

Call me David Hume but I don't have much faith in the men and woman in power at the moment.

a reply to: luthier

My impression is that the objections thus far from agencies involved is probably more that they don't want to undermine their agency publicly, nor compromise ongoing investigations (also makes an automatic appeal for lots of people who had their case go through McCabe's desk -- it really is going to be FUBAR. Bigly. They probably are also afraid of losing their backdoor warrants) I doubt sources and methods will need to be released, but I'm sure the agencies involved will be happy to tell you if they think things are being presented out of context.
Hopefully the stink everyone raises will make them release both the memos and the underlying source material in as much as possible!
We'll see how it shakes out.

What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

a reply to: RadioRobert

The problem is we have no information yet both sides have dug in that it's a done deal.

That alone makes me believe it's largely a problem stunt.


The media went nuts on something they haven't read.

Reps went nuts on something they have no reference for...

Just seems nuts.

Call me skeptical being an independent and despising partisan politics.

This wreaks of it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

what fact??

Oh you mean the "sources close to the matter" facts.


Besides who would want a memo listing the ways their department messed up going public?? I don't know of any employee of any company who likes their performance review made public.

a reply to: GuidedKill

This entire story is sources close to the matter.

I call bs until proven.

Just by the mere scale of obsurd it's become.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Besides who would want a memo listing the ways their department messed up going public?? I don't know of any employee of any company who likes their performance review made public.

Uh, Wray wasn't a part of the agency when these alleged transgression took place (and is supposedly a direct pick from Trump), so I'm not sure your argument that he's now an FBI stooge holds any water.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Well, when it comes out, perhaps Wray will have a chance to set the story straight for us regarding this anonymous source. As I've said, I'm sure the Bureau and DOJ don't want it released for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily that it is inaccurate or misleading. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases where bad guys went to jail might be affected because someone had agents rewriting their interview reports, for example. They might feel the pressure and lose their backdoor warrantless collection (I hope they do). An outside chance that sources and methods are compromised (seems unlikely). The optics are bad, perhaps very, very bad, and that alone is a reason to resist release.
No doubt we'll learn more as it trickles out.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Well, when it comes out, perhaps Wray will have a chance to set the story straight for us regarding this anonymous source. As I've said, I'm sure the Bureau and DOJ don't want it released for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily that it is inaccurate or misleading. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases where bad guys went to jail might be affected because someone had agents rewriting their interview reports, for example. They might feel the pressure and lose their backdoor warrantless collection (I hope they do). An outside chance that sources and methods are compromised (seems unlikely). The optics are bad, perhaps very, very bad, and that alone is a reason to resist release.
No doubt we'll learn more as it trickles out.

And it's not odd to you nunes and gowdy voted to expand the fisa program and sit on this information during the vote?

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Well, when it comes out, perhaps Wray will have a chance to set the story straight for us regarding this anonymous source. As I've said, I'm sure the Bureau and DOJ don't want it released for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily that it is inaccurate or misleading. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases where bad guys went to jail might be affected because someone had agents rewriting their interview reports, for example. They might feel the pressure and lose their backdoor warrantless collection (I hope they do). An outside chance that sources and methods are compromised (seems unlikely). The optics are bad, perhaps very, very bad, and that alone is a reason to resist release.
No doubt we'll learn more as it trickles out.

A very salient post, and one that I mostly agree with. My one sticking point however is that from my vantage it would seem the prerogative of Trump has been to paint Mueller's investigation as tainted because of issues with other investigations. Whether that's true or not still strikes me as suspiciously trying to thwart Mueller's investigation indirectly (like his endgame is to get Mueller removed and to place a loyal patsy in his place that will willfully acquiesce to Trumps directive to find 'nothing').

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Well, when it comes out, perhaps Wray will have a chance to set the story straight for us regarding this anonymous source. As I've said, I'm sure the Bureau and DOJ don't want it released for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily that it is inaccurate or misleading. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases where bad guys went to jail might be affected because someone had agents rewriting their interview reports, for example. They might feel the pressure and lose their backdoor warrantless collection (I hope they do). An outside chance that sources and methods are compromised (seems unlikely). The optics are bad, perhaps very, very bad, and that alone is a reason to resist release.
No doubt we'll learn more as it trickles out.

And it's not odd to you nunes and gowdy voted to expand the fisa program and sit on this information during the vote?

No, it's not odd to me. Most of Congress seems to think the FISA setup is critical to national security. They refer to it again and again when talking to the FBI, saying they need disclosure and assurances it isn't being abused because they think it is critical. That implies to me they have actually used the program to thwart severe threats domestically that have not been publicly disclosed for fine reasons. I personally don't approve of the program as is, even if that is the case. Several congressmen are on record saying that they would like to at least close the back doors and make a warrant necessary to use the information collected. I don't know if Gowdy and Nunes are in that group, and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but there obviously aren't enough votes to make that happen right now, so perhaps they saw the status quo as necessary evil. Again, I don't agree with that, but it seems at least a plausible answer leading to a reasonably held position on their part.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Well, when it comes out, perhaps Wray will have a chance to set the story straight for us regarding this anonymous source. As I've said, I'm sure the Bureau and DOJ don't want it released for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily that it is inaccurate or misleading. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases where bad guys went to jail might be affected because someone had agents rewriting their interview reports, for example. They might feel the pressure and lose their backdoor warrantless collection (I hope they do). An outside chance that sources and methods are compromised (seems unlikely). The optics are bad, perhaps very, very bad, and that alone is a reason to resist release.
No doubt we'll learn more as it trickles out.

A very salient post, and one that I mostly agree with. My one sticking point however is that from my vantage it would seem the prerogative of Trump has been to paint Mueller's investigation as tainted because of issues with other investigations. Whether that's true or not still strikes me as suspiciously trying to thwart Mueller's investigation indirectly (like his endgame is to get Mueller removed and to place a loyal patsy in his place that will willfully acquiesce to Trumps directive to find 'nothing').

Again, I will have an informed opinion on that bit when we see what is disclosed. I can't before that. It is possible that there is information that fills in the blank on the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office. Maybe that is why Wray went from threatening to quit to telling him to pack his bags overnight after reading the memo. If there is clear evidence that they schemed to abuse FISA and set up a special prosecutor with malice aforethought, I think that's a pretty valid reason to crush it and finally move on (notice Mueller apparently was still involved, though retired, at the Bureau as evidenced by the Strozk text that Mueller had leaned on McCabe in the Hillary investigation. I don't know what that's about, but I think there's enough to want to know the answers, don't you?).
Or maybe there is little in there about Russia and it's all about the FISA court, and that while scandalous is not reason to shut down Mueller. I do think Mueller should have to report to Justice and justify his existence at some point though. Everything negative has seemingly leaked immediately, and we're no closer to knowing what is going on. I don't expect a personal update, and the absence of evidence publicly doesn't mean there is nothing there, but I think as we approach the year mark, maybe he should update someone at Justice on where the investigation is going/has gone. As I said, seemingly, negative information on Trump leaks immediately (one of Mueller's team is actually under investigation for leaks). So I'm not sure what to make of the silence, but I haven't seen any evidence of collusion, nor have any congress critters on either side of the aisle after more than a year (including the months-long FBI Strozk investigation which apparently came up empty in his own words).

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Wayfarer
What of the fact that Director Wray (you know, the man Trump personally appointed to head the FBI agency) has come out against releasing the memo because its inaccurate and propaganda?

Bloomberg article

Well, when it comes out, perhaps Wray will have a chance to set the story straight for us regarding this anonymous source. As I've said, I'm sure the Bureau and DOJ don't want it released for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily that it is inaccurate or misleading. Hundreds, or even thousands, of cases where bad guys went to jail might be affected because someone had agents rewriting their interview reports, for example. They might feel the pressure and lose their backdoor warrantless collection (I hope they do). An outside chance that sources and methods are compromised (seems unlikely). The optics are bad, perhaps very, very bad, and that alone is a reason to resist release.
No doubt we'll learn more as it trickles out.

And it's not odd to you nunes and gowdy voted to expand the fisa program and sit on this information during the vote?

No, it's not odd to me. Most of Congress seems to think the FISA setup is critical to national security. They refer to it again and again when talking to the FBI, saying they need disclosure and assurances it isn't being abused because they think it is critical. That implies to me they have actually used the program to thwart severe threats domestically that have not been publicly disclosed for fine reasons. I personally don't approve of the program as is, even if that is the case. Several congressmen are on record saying that they would like to at least close the back doors and make a warrant necessary to use the information collected. I don't know if Gowdy and Nunes are in that group, and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but there obviously aren't enough votes to make that happen right now, so perhaps they saw the status quo as necessary evil. Again, I don't agree with that, but it seems at least a plausible answer leading to a reasonably held position on their part.

It's completely irresponsible to tout a memo on fisa abuse and not debate the bill to a greater extent. They pretty much shut Amash down from even talking about it.


If the fisa program is necessary then debate controls.
Slamming the FBI and DOJ and Intel community and then voting them access wreaks of bs. IMO.

Though I really rarely trust anything they say.

a reply to: luthier

The FISA law has safeguards built into it. The problem was not a lack of safeguards but people intentionally violating those safeguards.

Hence the investigations by Congress and the OIG.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Right...

Yet they didn't work.

So the safeguards aren't enough.

This is my point. What stops the next guy?

Why no debate?

Fbi official statement.

"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the bureau said.

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."

a reply to: luthier

I hope they decide to add the omitted facts to give us accuracy then.

originally posted by: luthier
Fbi official statement.

"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the bureau said.

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."

So the FBI doesn't agree with a memo that shows the FBI in a negative manner.

Well I am so shocked.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: luthier
Fbi official statement.

"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the bureau said.

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."

So the FBI doesn't agree with a memo that shows the FBI in a negative manner.

Well I am so shocked.

I think (as is shown just in the couple of posts above yours) is that they take issue with certain omission of facts in the memo that paint the picture in a distorted fashion.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: luthier
Fbi official statement.

"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the bureau said.

"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."

So the FBI doesn't agree with a memo that shows the FBI in a negative manner.

Well I am so shocked.

I think (as is shown just in the couple of posts above yours) is that they take issue with certain omission of facts in the memo that paint the picture in a distorted fashion.

Then release the memo, and let the FBI issue another statement explaining what those omissions were. Because right now it just looks like they don't want anyone checking up on them.