Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/02/02/media-s-longtime-crusade-for-transparency-ends-with-nunes-memo-as-post-remains-in-theaters.html

 

Media’s longtime crusade for transparency ends with Nunes memo as ‘The Post’ remains in theaters

[bcking 3,157]

I'm all for full transparency. 

 

Many of the concerns about the memo relate to whether it is truly "transparent" enough. It's a false transparency if you only selectively reveal information as it suits your needs. 

 

If we want transparency all information should be made public (within the limits of what is safe to be released of course). If Republicans want transparency, I would have expected them to vote to release the Democratic memo.

 

Transparency shouldn't be partisan...

[Boiler 46,086]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm all for full transparency. 

 

Many of the concerns about the memo relate to whether it is truly "transparent" enough. It's a false transparency if you only selectively reveal information as it suits your needs. 

 

If we want transparency all information should be made public (within the limits of what is safe to be released of course). If Republicans want transparency, I would have expected them to vote to release the Democratic memo.

 

Transparency shouldn't be partisan...

Do not remember if you were here in the Obama days, how the Dems were mega Partisan players, payback time I guess.

[yuna628 9,712]

2 hours 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.

There are two memos because the one memo was written solely by staffers of Nunes and the other memo is a rebuttle to the 'claims' in the first memo.

The first memo will allude vaguely that a FISA warrant was obtained to monitor an individual linked to the WH. It may or may not claim that Trump or some other entity around him was incidentally monitored because of monitoring the first subject. It will allude that this warrant was obtained because of the dossier. If there is redacted info contained therein it will likely discuss other individuals in a foreign allied country that picked up on other materials related to this. It will also use specifically chosen partisan language to imply things that may not be accurate. Because how does one defend oneself against claims, if the only way to do so are classified topics?

 

The second memo will seek to correct the record. The Original FISA was obtained to monitor an individual who was not, at that time, linked to the current WH - years ago. That individual was involved in some disturbing shady dealings, and was known to be in contact with persons who are, at this time, arrested for being foreign counterintelligence agents seeking to harm the US. The individual was providing some interesting details and assistance (all unknowningly) to several governments because of this monitoring. But FISA directives are not unlimited and require strong suspicion and piles of evidence to continue these methods in a process to renew them. The dossier was a lede, one of many many ledes that may or may not have been used as a generalized collection of suspicions (in a normal investigative process) to continue such monitoring - and by that time it was especially pressing, considering the individual was then involved with someone running for office or in the WH itself. It may or may not tell us via redacted information that the foreign government who assisted and was genuinely attempting to help our country is now furious. It likely also will not tell us that several individuals were murdered to either bring us this information or were murdered as a result of leaks regarding this information.

 

There's some interesting statistics I could mention about the past few years FISA collections of data, but I doubt the memos will mention this.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Do not remember if you were here in the Obama days, how the Dems were mega Partisan players, payback time I guess.

I wasn't here on these forums, but I was "here" in the sense of the living in the United States.

 

The concept of "payback" doesn't condone or excuse anything. Politicians shouldn't be like children on a playground. 

 

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

 

Furthermore - My anti-Partisan slant in this thread is SPECIFICALLY about the intelligence committee. Regular House/Senate business has been extremely partisan for a long time now, and will continue to be so. There are certain subcommittees/groups that I believe should be ABOVE that partisanship. When your group's job is to provide "oversight" that shouldn't be partisan.

 

The House Committee on Intelligence is DEFINITELY one of those groups. The House can be partisan about our budget and what we do/don't want to fund but investigating and providing oversight to intelligence organizations should NOT be partisan. If they, as a committee, decide on transparency it should be FULL transparency. You can't vote to release one memo because you want to be "transparent" and then say you don't want to release a different memo just because it is written by the other political party. If you want to be transparent, you release as much as you can (again within the limits of national security, however that is decided).

 

When a vote in a committee like that occurs along party lines that is a failure of the entire committee, in my opinion. They aren't doing their jobs properly. I'm speaking of both the Democrats and the Republicans in the group.

Edited February 2, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

34 minutes ago, bcking said:

You can't vote to release one memo because you want to be "transparent" and then say you don't want to release a different memo just because it is written by the other political party. If you want to be transparent, you release as much as you can (again within the limits of national security, however that is decided).

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

here it is

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

here it is

That link doesn't have the actual text (Unless it's blocked by my network in my office)

 

Is there a link somewhere to the actual text?

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

That link doesn't have the actual text (Unless it's blocked by my network in my office)

 

Is there a link somewhere to the actual text?

did you scroll all the way down? it's there.

 

just checked it and got this:

This website is under heavy load (queue full)

We're sorry, too many people are accessing this website at the same time. We're working on this problem. Please try again later.

 

try this: https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-full-text-read-trump-release

Edited February 2, 2018 by smilesammich

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

did you scroll all the way down? it's there.

 

just checked it and got this:

This website is under heavy load (queue full)

We're sorry, too many people are accessing this website at the same time. We're working on this problem. Please try again later.

Oh I get the "This website is blocked" at the bottom of the page. That must be our network blocking the source for some reason. I should take that as a sign to get back to writing my paper.

Edited February 2, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, bcking said:

Oh I get the "This website is blocked" at the bottom of the page. That must be our network blocking the source for some reason. I should take that as a sign to get back to writing my paper.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-full-text-read-trump-release

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

 

http://www.foxnews.com//politics/2018/02/02/house-memo-states-disputed-dossier-was-key-to-fbi-s-fisa-warrant-to-surveil-members-team-trump.html

t also claims the FBI and DOJ used media reporting to lend credibility to the dossier, while the firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS, briefed major American news outlets to include New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, New Yorker, Yahoo and Mother Jones.

 

House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump

Edited February 2, 2018 by Nature Boy Flair

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

http://www.foxnews.com//politics/2018/02/02/house-memo-states-disputed-dossier-was-key-to-fbi-s-fisa-warrant-to-surveil-members-team-trump.html

House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump

(I made it a bit smaller) - I was able to follow a link from that to download it. Thank you! Just read through it. 

 

While the source of data/information is always important, and it can impact the risk of "bias" that may be present in the information you are provided, that doesn't mean that the source completely negates the information. 

 

So yes it seems like the FBI may have intentionally not included the source of their information (or their source's personal biases) when applying for warrant renewals.

 

However, it is presumptuous to assume that had they included that information their warrant wouldn't have been renewed. A source may be partially questionable, but still warrants further investigation. You'd have to go to the Judge (or whoever else ultimately renewed the warrant) to see if that information would have swayed their judgement. It may not have.

[Dashinka 24,786]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

There are two memos because the one memo was written solely by staffers of Nunes and the other memo is a rebuttle to the 'claims' in the first memo.

The first memo will allude vaguely that a FISA warrant was obtained to monitor an individual linked to the WH. It may or may not claim that Trump or some other entity around him was incidentally monitored because of monitoring the first subject. It will allude that this warrant was obtained because of the dossier. If there is redacted info contained therein it will likely discuss other individuals in a foreign allied country that picked up on other materials related to this. It will also use specifically chosen partisan language to imply things that may not be accurate. Because how does one defend oneself against claims, if the only way to do so are classified topics?

 

The second memo will seek to correct the record. The Original FISA was obtained to monitor an individual who was not, at that time, linked to the current WH - years ago. That individual was involved in some disturbing shady dealings, and was known to be in contact with persons who are, at this time, arrested for being foreign counterintelligence agents seeking to harm the US. The individual was providing some interesting details and assistance (all unknowningly) to several governments because of this monitoring. But FISA directives are not unlimited and require strong suspicion and piles of evidence to continue these methods in a process to renew them. The dossier was a lede, one of many many ledes that may or may not have been used as a generalized collection of suspicions (in a normal investigative process) to continue such monitoring - and by that time it was especially pressing, considering the individual was then involved with someone running for office or in the WH itself. It may or may not tell us via redacted information that the foreign government who assisted and was genuinely attempting to help our country is now furious. It likely also will not tell us that several individuals were murdered to either bring us this information or were murdered as a result of leaks regarding this information.

 

There's some interesting statistics I could mention about the past few years FISA collections of data, but I doubt the memos will mention this.

How do you know the second memo is the correct memo?  My understanding is that it was written solely by staffers of minority sitting on the committee.  Btw, it is interesting to see that it was confirmed that one campaign was actually colluding with a foreign agent.  I guess Mueller is investigating the wrong candidate.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know the second memo is the correct memo?  My understanding is that it was written solely by staffers of minority sitting on the committee.  Btw, it is interesting to see that it was confirmed that one campaign was actually colluding with a foreign agent.  I guess Mueller is investigating the wrong candidate.

there's a reason trump is trying to pin solely link the dossier to the warrant. same reason he is touting transparency - but only for what he wants people to see. selective ignorance got him to potus, he's hoping it will be enough to keep him there.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know the second memo is the correct memo?  Btw, it is interesting to see that it was confirmed that one campaign was actually colluding with a foreign agent.  I guess Mueller is investigating the wrong candidate.

Ya I think the better description would be that the second memo would seek to add additional information that may help clarify facts. Something like that.

 

I have to admit I did get a little laugh about the collusion bit. It glosses over some details (Did Clinton or the DNC even know they were paying for a foreign spy's information, or did they just pay Fusion GPS and knew nothing about what they did?) but it's still funny. It is likely that no one in politics is truly innocent. 

 

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

 

That being said, and this is entirely my opinion and it includes many of my biases, but - 

 

I'd take a candidate colluding with a single foreign individual from a very friendly closely allied country over a candidate colluding with agents of a foreign government that, while not openly hostile, is frequently against our national interests.

 

If I had to pick one of those to investigate...I know which would I'd pick.