Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI

[Dashinka 24,778]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

While I understand the concern with "closed doors" solutions (lack of accountability), I also think the case for keeping it confidential also has merits. I'm not a National Security expert by any stretch but I could imagine that, corruption or not, details about how we conduct investigations being made public may be dangerous to our national security. Key word is may there, since we don't really know what's in the memo, and most of us probably don't have that accurate of an idea of what is damaging to our national security. It's a phrase that is thrown out there a lot without a real clear definition.

 

It's hard without knowing exactly what's in the memo, and of course once we know what's in the memo then it'll be too late to retroactively reclassify it. I can see why people want it all public, but I can also imagine (again without actually having details of the memo, like all of us plebs) that the argument for keeping it in private has at least SOME valid points.

 

I have heard that the White House is cutting some things out, likely appropriately so. I'd also imagine the FBI would prefer to cut things that may not be damaging to our national security, but may be damaging to their reputation (though you could argue damaging the FBI's reputation is detrimental to our national security).

 

In general it's a sticky situation for all sides. I'm glad I'm not involved

Isn't this how Michigan State and USA gymnastics tried to handle the Larry Nasser issue?  It didn't turn out too well for them at this point, and although it is not a perfect analogy, it appears that when large organizations try to "fix" things quietly in house, the issues tend to blow up in their faces.  Certainly we do not know what is in the memo, but I think it is safe to say it is not damaging to Trump since the Dems are all for keeping it under wraps.  My understanding is the Nunes already met with Wray this past weekend, so I think the FBI has already weighed in.  I am still of the opinion that these behemoth bureaucratic organizations need to be accountable to the people that are paying them.  Generally, this is done via our elected representatives and specifically the House.  If those reps feel there is a need to hear what is going on, it should be so.  Like I said earlier, there appears to be two memos, the one we are discussing and one written by the Democrat staffers.  They should release both of them.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't this how Michigan State and USA gymnastics tried to handle the Larry Nasser issue?  It didn't turn out too well for them at this point, and although it is not a perfect analogy, it appears that when large organizations try to "fix" things quietly in house, the issues tend to blow up in their faces.  Certainly we do not know what is in the memo, but I think it is safe to say it is not damaging to Trump since the Dems are all for keeping it under wraps.  My understanding is the Nunes already met with Wray this past weekend, so I think the FBI has already weighed in.  I am still of the opinion that these behemoth bureaucratic organizations need to be accountable to the people that are paying them.  Generally, this is done via our elected representatives and specifically the House.  If those reps feel there is a need to hear what is going on, it should be so.  Like I said earlier, there appears to be two memos, the one we are discussing and one written by the Democrat staffers.  They should release both of them.

I don't know anything really about the gymnastics story, but at face value I'd say there is a valid distinction between a sports organization and one of our Federal Intelligence Organizations.

 

Nothing about gymnastics could be harmful to national security. I'm not saying the memo is harmful, but it's at least possible that it could be (we don't know, since we don't know what's in it and even if we did none of us really have the expertise to say what is harmful or not).

 

I agree about the two memos as well btw. It was clearly a vote along party lines for party reasons to keep one under wraps but release the other.

Edited February 1, 2018 by bcking

[JimandChristy 1,689]

John O. Brennan@JohnBrennan Former CIA Director
I had many fights with Congressional Dems over the years on national security matters. But I never witnessed the type of reckless partisan behavior I am now seeing from Nunes and House Republicans. Absence of moral and ethical leadership in WH is fueling this government crisis.

 

Nunes is nothing more than a Trump puppet.

[TBoneTX 46,075]

10 hours ago, bcking said:

I haven't seen that Houston Chronicle article though so I don't know where it falls. From your description though it sounds like they were just reporting opinions of politicians. 

This.

[TBoneTX 46,075]

7 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

Nunes is nothing more than a Trump puppet.

2002 = Nunes first elected

2016 = Trump first elected

That would be a rather long delay before becoming anyone's puppet.

[eieio 1,594]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

2002 = Nunes first elected

2016 = Trump first elected

That would be a rather long delay before becoming anyone's puppet.

 

Sometimes facts are so inconvenient.

[Dashinka 24,778]

13 hours ago, bcking said:

I don't know anything really about the gymnastics story, but at face value I'd say there is a valid distinction between a sports organization and one of our Federal Intelligence Organizations.

 

Nothing about gymnastics could be harmful to national security. I'm not saying the memo is harmful, but it's at least possible that it could be (we don't know, since we don't know what's in it and even if we did none of us really have the expertise to say what is harmful or not).

 

I agree about the two memos as well btw. It was clearly a vote along party lines for party reasons to keep one under wraps but release the other.

Surprised there hasn't been talk about Dr. Nasser around the water cooler.  Pretty horrific.

 

As to the bolded part, I think Paul Ryan is calling for both to be released, but from what I have heard, the Democrat memo includes references to methods and that is why they voted to not release that one yet.  Maybe the Democrat staffers should go back and re-write it?

[bcking 3,157]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

2002 = Nunes first elected

2016 = Trump first elected

That would be a rather long delay before becoming anyone's puppet.

By that logic no one can be a puppet of Trump because he is pretty much the "youngest" politician there.

 

Trump is a "young politician" but also the most powerful, as President. That means that even people who have been around for awhile may start to bend over backwards to appeal to him. You don't have to chronologically be "younger" to be a puppet. The power hierarchy is more important, in my opinion.

 

Nunes lost a lot of "independent" credibility during that "sneaking to the White House and then showing Trump information that the White House provided him" situation last year. 

 

He has proven he can act like a pawn. That doesn't mean he is doing so now, but unfortunately it does impact perspective on the current situation.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Surprised there hasn't been talk about Dr. Nasser around the water cooler.  Pretty horrific.

 

As to the bolded part, I think Paul Ryan is calling for both to be released, but from what I have heard, the Democrat memo includes references to methods and that is why they voted to not release that one yet.  Maybe the Democrat staffers should go back and re-write it?

Oh that case. Yes I've heard of it. I didn't put two and two together there, sorry. Ya that is horrific. Yes that shouldn't have been "taken care of quietly". Again though, going public didn't have the potential to put our country at risk so it's different. There is a reason many things are classified.

 

I don't really understand how there can even be two memos. They are on the same committee, don't they all have the same information? Shouldn't it just be one memo? The fact that two even exists makes it pretty transparent that both documents are crafted pandering to either side.

[Dashinka 24,778]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Oh that case. Yes I've heard of it. I didn't put two and two together there, sorry. Ya that is horrific. Yes that shouldn't have been "taken care of quietly". Again though, going public didn't have the potential to put our country at risk so it's different. There is a reason many things are classified.

 

I don't really understand how there can even be two memos. They are on the same committee, don't they all have the same information? Shouldn't it just be one memo? The fact that two even exists makes it pretty transparent that both documents are crafted pandering to either side.

I think it is called partisan politics.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I think it is called partisan politics.

I guess there might as well be two House Intelligence Committees then...one Republican and one Democrat.

 

A Committee like that should be NON-partisan. It's the whole reason those committees exist.

[Dashinka 24,778]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I guess there might as well be two House Intelligence Committees then...one Republican and one Democrat.

 

A Committee like that should be NON-partisan. It's the whole reason those committees exist.

I am not sure that is how things work.  In this case the majority has the power since they were put there by the people (particularly in the House), if the Dems don't like that, then go win the majority.

 

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am not sure that is how things work.  In this case the majority has the power since they were put there by the people (particularly in the House), if the Dems don't like that, then go win the majority.

 

The purpose of that committee is to act as a "check and balance" on parts of the executive branch and other institutions (including the FBI).

 

That purpose shouldn't be partisan. It should be independent of the political parties of its members.

[Dashinka 24,778]

39 minutes ago, bcking said:

The purpose of that committee is to act as a "check and balance" on parts of the executive branch and other institutions (including the FBI).

 

That purpose shouldn't be partisan. It should be independent of the political parties of its members.

I agree, it shouldn't be partisan.  Why is it that supposedly logical free thinking people that are elected to the House seem to have such partisan views?  Based on recent votes, it really seems to be the Dems that are playing partisan politics, but that is just my view.

[bcking 3,157]

38 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, it shouldn't be partisan.  Why is it that supposedly logical free thinking people that are elected to the House seem to have such partisan views?  Based on recent votes, it really seems to be the Dems that are playing partisan politics, but that is just my view.

I think it is difficult to act in a non-partisan way because each individual member's power and reelection is so dependent on their party. If you go "against" your party, you may lose support, you may lose opportunities. As much as many of these people may have gone into politics to do a service "for the people", many of their actions end up being "for themselves".

 

The partisanship in this committee is a fault on both sides. It seems pretty clear to me that this "memo" is created for the purposes of undermining the FBI SPECIFICALLY with regards to the Russian investigation and any investigation into Trump or his team. Is there truth to the document? Probably some (We haven't seen it, so hard to really say). But I have no doubt in my mind that it is going to be heavily skewed to fit its purpose. It will not be objective. If I were to go through and rate it for "risk of bias" like I do scientific papers, without even reading the document there are MASSIVE read flags over the risk of "reporting bias" (Reporting only some information, and intentionally leaving other information out that doesn't fit your purpose).

At the same time I think since likely there was some bad behavior in the FBI, the democratic members should be concerned about that as well. Just like I've always said here that the Russian involvement in our electoral process should be a concern for EVERYONE and not just democrats, the same should be true here. The FBI is expected to be, and should be, non-partisan as well. 

 

That's why I think that in the end there should only be one memo. Both groups should be able to find common ground and if they really feel strongly about letting "the people" know, they should be able to come to an agreement on that. The memo should not skimp details and leave things out (The Democratic argument against it), but the abuses should also be shared and fixed (The Republican argument for it).

 

--------------------

 

Earlier in the thread we were talking about newspapers "trashing" the document, and I commented that most of what I've seen has been just reporting on people's opinions of it (though potentially with a slant that leans in the direction that the paper leans).

 

This is an example of a newspaper going full out to trash it. It's by their editorial board -

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/opinion/nunes-memo-fbi-trump.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

 

I'm not saying I agree with them or not, but they are clearly coming down on one side of this issue. That's not surprising from the NYT. I haven't yet seen that with CNN. I think generally CNN is better about giving the caveat that things are opinions of specific people and not the opinion of their entire board.