Hasn't the NYT effectively declassified an awful lot of secret info over the years? https://t.co/9XHMZuhrrz pic.twitter.com/DoLvJ3AxcI— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) January 30, 2018
ADDED: This makes me wonder why the memo had not already leaked to the press. Considering all the leaks we've seen, don't you think this should have leaked? Another why to look at this question is: What was true about all the things that have leaked that was not true about this memo?
Posts
147 comments:
Of course they have.
Next question.
Love Taranto. Wish he still wrote Best of the Web Today for the WSJ.
When I was in elementary school, I learned about journalism, including the difference between fact and opinion and between reporting and editorializing. Evidently that isn't a thing anymore.
""Hasn't the NYT effectively declassified an awful lot of secret info over the years?""
Yes. It is one of the main reasons I canceled my subscription, after many years. The entirely gratuitous Swift revelations, of a legal and useful anti-terror program, told me that they were a bunch of shameless, anti-American bastards.
The use of "brazen" there assumes a lot. What was brazen was the feckless manner in which the DNC and their candidate managed cyber-security.
After 2 years the Brazzen Russian Meddling in the 2016 election has escaped being found, but the Brazzen Treason of the Hillary and Obama's FBI and DOJ Apparatchiks to overturn an election on orders from Obama has been proven over and over to a certainty.
I guess that is what makes secrecy and sealed records for 50+ years desperately needed by the Criminals no matter what the Congress and the Un-impeached President have to say on that.
The NYT is suffering declassification envy. Especially since the movie The Post came out.
And this only makes it worse.
But the NYT did all of this declassification in the National Interest, doncha know.
...I learned about journalism, including the difference between fact and opinion and between reporting and editorializing. Evidently that isn't a thing anymore.
It's still a thing except they've given themselves permission to switch the journalism on and off because Trump is such a special circumstance. You're not supposed to notice when they've switched off the journalism.
It's still a thing except they've given themselves permission to switch the journalism on and off because Trump is such a special circumstance
Not really. This started before Trump. MSM was all in on the paramilitary raids against Republicans and their families in Wisconsin, readily exposing themselves as fascists. Trump is just the newest excuse.
...disregarding Justice Department warnings that their actions would be "extraordinarily reckless"...
On a scale from extreme carelessness to gross negligence, where exactly does extraordinary recklessness fall?
This is the sort of distinction that Reasonable Prosecutors will need to know when deciding whether to bring charges.
The leftwing press circling the wagons again.
Hey, you can't publish that sensitive Memo! Only we can publish sensitive Memos.
Spielberg disagrees and says it was the Washington Post, not the New York Times
I have to get to work shortly, but perhaps someone with five minutes to spare can grab up some examples of the Times bemoaning the gross overclassification of information. Easy examples will include when they were attempting to minimize the seriousness of whatshername sending classified info via private email address through a home brew server.
As the indispensable David Burge has noted, "Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving." The NYT was hoping to cover this story in just that way.
What was true of previously leaked memos that is not true of this memo?
Democrats wanted the previous memos to be leaked.
"ADDED: This makes me wonder why the memo had not already leaked to the press. Considering all the leaks we've seen, don't you think this should have leaked?"
Because the GOP isn't interested in the NYT's spin.
I wonder if a leak was offered, and the reporters who were contacted declined. Because Republicans and the current mission of the press is to decide what people shouldn't know because it reflects badly on Democrats.
Pettifogger said...
What was true of previously leaked memos that is not true of this memo?
Also, Republicans are following the law.
Mmm, yes. Almost all the R reps have viewed the memo and at least a dozen D's. Interested agencies no doubt have been briefed from day one as to what is in it.
And of course, spy agencies using more direct methods most likely had copies of the draft versions before the final memo was even agreed upon and posted.
One of these things is not like the others.
One of these things just doesn't belong.
The difference is that this leak might hurt Democrats and the media doesn't control the narrative. And the hate of the press has made them mad.
Was it the Times or was it the Post or was it both who published that we were tracking Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan during the early days of the War on Terror because we could trace his satellite phone? I guess they didn’t want him captured or killed while Bush was still president, because shortly afterwards bin Laden gave his phone to an underling and sent him off in a different direction from the route he was actually traveling and started using couriers to send messages.
Thank you 21st century journalists.
Feh! There were journalists WAITING when our troops landed at their secret debarkation site during Iraq 1.
What was true about all the things that have leaked that was not true about this memo?
1. They were leaked or released “accidentally while congested” by Democrats and Mueller’s team.
2. They were used to support, modify, shore up, obscure or redirect the Russia Russia Russia narrative to help Democrat talking points.
Everything favorable to Trump has been dragged out of the swamp through painful effort, often supporting what Trump had previously tweeted to much derision. The Democrats are institutionally unable to sustain this coverup without a Clinton or Jarret calling the shots. And in their bumbleheaded drive to find a Russian under every desk they’ve turned Trump into a veritable Nostradamus.
Taranto is a national treasure for his wit and wisdom.
Why wasn't it leaked? Because the people that are harmed by its contents (D) don't want it out, and the folks that wrote it and control its classification (R) respect the rules.
-sw
"don't you think this should have leaked?" No. It didn't serve O flunky, Deep State, or Dem interests. Releasing it "the right way" enhances pro-GOP anti-swamp impact. Dem whining raises hopes about content.
Speaking of leaks. From Ace, Sara Carter is reporting that McCabe is accused of asking agents to change their testimony about interviews.
Also ironic that the Dems whining wanted their memo released.
And the GOP started the process...unlike Dems who tried to stop the GOP memo.
The real NYT would have cheered the Republicans as national heroes, who should be entitled to sex-change operations at taxpayer expense.
For that matter, the real NYT would have leaked the underlying documents, not just some congressman's opinion about the underlying documents.
It's still a thing except they've given themselves permission to switch the journalism on and off because Trump is such a special circumstance. You're not supposed to notice when they've switched off the journalism.
Nah, I think they don't themselves grasp the difference anymore. You know, 'reality has a liberal bent,' etc. They have no intellectual standards and are guilty of that infuriating mix of dullardry and smugness. They have no idea how dumb they really are but think they are the smart ones in the room.
Every Google search I do for "Nunes memo" to see what's up with this, among the top results I always see the latest tweet from somebody called Ted Lieu.
From this I learned the Democrats have their own counter-memo memo.
Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) on Twitter:
I read the Democratic House Intel memo. It OBLITERATES the #NunesMemo. How can you tell? Because the Republicans won't release the Democratic memo. #ReleaseTheMemo
Sure it does. Why don't they just leak it to the NYT? Ha -- all the fellow Trump- and R-haters replying to his Tweet are asking the same thing.
Obviously the leakers and their media confederates only wanted to leak things that made their political enemies (Republicans in general, Trump in particular) look bad. The Nunes memo didn't leak because the Democrat/media complex was hoping against hope that it would never be released to the public. Conversely, the chances of the Schiff counter-memo being leaked approach 100%.
I'm not placing any expectations on the Nunes memo, by the way. It's frustrating having to wait with the sneaking suspicion that it will not amount to anything more than red meat for the base.
The time is long past when I believed political hacks would ever pay a price for corrupting our federal institutions.
NYT" "Only WE get to determine what classified information shall be declassified."
Like Sebastian, we canceled our NYT subscription after they put the SWIFT program on the front page. We decided they were hostile to America.
So I wonder what the IG is going to say about Comey, who tweeted for McCabe yesterday.
It's the Dems who leak.
"This makes me wonder why the memo had not already leaked to the press."
The Dems would have leak it or just released it.
Yes, I think it would’ve already been leaked if there were anything of substance in it. How is it that Nunes hasn’t even read the underlying documents himself?
“Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa, now the director of admissions and a senior lecturer at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale, lambasted Nunes for not doing his due diligence.
"Scooby Doo Nunes has not read the underlying classified information that forms the basis of the memo under his name that his committee has voted to make public," she tweeted. "Yep, you can read that again!"”
http://www.newsweek.com/devin-nunes-adam-schiff-secret-memo-release-memo-794957
Treacher's Law* states: "Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats."
*That's Jim Treacher, not Arthur.
I hope Don Surber is right.
"But electing Trump did not bring closure. It brought the opposite. The political class fought tooth and nail against the transfer of power. This is not Americanism. This is corruption.
However, Obama and his henchmen are incompetent and they have failed to fell The Donald. They now must pay for their failed coup d'etat. Extracting that price is problematic, which leads to the crisis we find ourselves in today.
The memo gives me hope. Good men of clear conscience are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to right these wrongs.
This crisis will not go away soon.
But when it does end, there will be justice in America again. Nobody will be too big to jail again."
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/01/our-constitutional-crisis.html?spref=tw
Inga, how the hell would this Asha Rangappa know what Nunes has or hasn't read? Your gullibility for the narrative appears to be infinite.
"Considering all the leaks we've seen, don't you think this should have leaked?"
-- Because it is not beneficial to the people who routinely leak.
And, yes. Voting and doing it legally is way better than the slow leak.
“In a Monday night interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Representative Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) hasn't read all the details behind the controversial secret memo.
"[T]he chairman never bothered to go read these underlying materials," Schiff said. "After months and months of making this argument that the FBI and DOJ are involved in some sort of conspiracy he didn't even bother to read the materials himself."”
http://www.newsweek.com/devin-nunes-adam-schiff-secret-memo-release-memo-794957
"Hasn't the NYT effectively declassified an awful lot of secret info over the years?"
Isn't that the job of a proper and effective press?
What's really a shame is the degree to which the Times agreed NOT to disclose secret information it had (e.g., G.W.Bush's illegal wiretapping of Americans) or its' promulgation of Washington-friendly propaganda, (such as its lack of skepticism about the nakedly bogus "case for war" against Iraq).
"Of course they have."
Not nearly enough.
Anyone who questions the publishing of the memo should be asked: 1) how about the Pentagon Papers, was that OK? and 2) If the Democrat version were leaked, would it be OK to publish?
It's different when the Times does it, because that's when it helps Democrats.
"Sara Carter is reporting that McCabe is accused of asking agents to change their testimony about interviews."
-- If true, that's actual obstruction of justice.
Is Ted Lieu ignorant that the Dem memo is being treated identically to the Nunes one...except the GOP supports its release?
“In a Monday night interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Representative Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) hasn't read all the details behind the controversial secret memo. “
Did obama read all the details behind Obamacare?
Inga, remember when Schiff said he had MORE than circumstantial evidence of Trump colluding with Russia? He's had TEN MONTHS to present it.
Remember how he claimed Releasethememo was driven by Russia?
Notice how he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about a lot?
"Feh! There were journalists WAITING when our troops landed at their secret debarkation site during Iraq 1."
Sure...they were probably invited there by the Bush Administration to witness and report on our launch of Desert Storm. Bush 1 needed to prove he was a "real man/real president" by kicking some third-rate Middle-Eastern ass.
Publish the Republican Memo and the Democratic Response Memo.
Why did Republicans vote to not publish the Democratic response?
‘Intel Committee Votes To Release Secret GOP Memo, Withhold Democrats' Rebuttal’
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/29/581718405/intel-committee-votes-to-release-secret-gop-memo-withhold-democrats-rebuttal
“Why did Republicans vote to not publish the Democratic response?”
Dnc response will follow the same procedure as the GOP memo.
First it’s shown to the House fir one week, and later if there us nothing wrong with it, it is shown to the American people.
Democrats are not special....
And to think back at how outraged the liberal media, the Dems and even some Republicans were when Trump didn't immediately say that that he would accept the election results. The coup d'etat attempt continues.
“DNC response will follow the same procedure as the GOP memo.
First it’s shown to the House fir one week, and later if there us nothing wrong with it, it is shown to the American people.”
Republicans want their Memo out before the Democratic response in order to whip up their base sufficiently, before the Democratic Memo shoots down all the baloney. Both Memos should be released simultaneously.
Representative Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) hasn't read all the details behind the controversial secret memo.
"Listen, between the FBI and the NSA, we have a pretty good idea of what a certain kind of Republican is doing 24/7, ok? So we know who he has and hasn't read and who he has and hasn't talked to, and I'm telling you he hasn't read all the details!"
"In a Monday night interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Representative Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) hasn't read all the details behind the controversial secret memo."
-- Schiff has lied about multiple things during this; there is no reason to believe him on this.
Another why
"way" cool!
If the Republican Memo has incorrect facts; that should be self-evident rather quickly. After all, it wasn't difficult to learn the Dossier was a bunch of nonsense; the same with the "Fire and Fury" book.
"Why did Republicans vote to not publish the Democratic response?"
-- Because Schiff hadn't done his homework like Nunes did, and did not follow the process.
I think it already has been leaked.
Inga said...
Both Memos should be released simultaneously.
The release needs to be staggered. The Republican memo needs time to put on its shoes before the Democrat's memo gets halfway around the world.
”This makes me wonder why the memo had not already leaked to the press."
I don’t believe that you are really wondering.
Okay, you are funny this morning. Coffee must have been high test!
Since the NYT has already decided that the memo is fake news, it would not worth seeking a a source to leak it, and should they be offered a copy, they would recoil with disdain. Instead, vigilant editors are out in the stores buying up pillows with which they hope to smother the darned thing.
Layers and layers of Dem fact-checking are at work.
“Republicans want their Memo out before the Democratic response in order to whip up their base sufficiently, before the Democratic Memo shoots down all the baloney. Both Memos should be released simultaneously.”
Republicans are treating both memos equally....
Why do liberals always want preferential treatment?
“Republicans are treating both memos equally....
Why do liberals always want preferential treatment?”
Not preferential at all. Republicans want their memo out without the rebuttal for an amount of time. No one knows when the Democratic Memo will be given the vote to release it. What are Republicans trying to hide?
Hey Ingarage, how about informing yourself about what is actually happening?
I know that is wishful thinking.
Democrats have told members to vote to release the 'counter-memo', but won't let the rank and file read it.
The Republicans are putting the dims hastily assembled counter-memo through the same process that the Nunes memo went through.
But all this is easily discover-able by anyone who puts in the slightest bit of effort.
Our resident harpy is neither industrious or intelligent enough to do that.
The Democrats wouldn't let Republicans read their memo before voting on its release. Why would Republicans go along with that? Democrats had the opportunity to read the Nunes memo.
Scott McGlasson commenting above makes the excellent point: use of the word "brazen" assumes a lot. A real news report would have said something like "threw fuel onto an already fiery partisan conflict over the investigations into the question of whether or not Russia had meddled in the 2016 election." (rather the actual wording "conflict over investigations into the brazen meddling" But if everyone knows meddling occurred, why are there (still) investigations? If those investigations have already concluded that brazen meddling occurred, why hasn't the NYT reported on those investigatory conclusions?
“Not preferential at all. Republicans want their memo out without the rebuttal for an amount of time. No one knows when the Democratic Memo will be given the vote to release it. What are Republicans trying to hide?”
The GOP memo was first released to the House, over the objections of the democrats. A week later, there was a vote to release it to the public.
Now that the DNC made its memo available to the republucan members of the committee, they voted to open it to all members of the house.
The DNC memo is treated same way as the GOP memo.
Re: Inga:
Not preferential at all. Republicans want their memo out without the rebuttal for an amount of time. No one knows when the Democratic Memo will be given the vote to release it. What are Republicans trying to hide?
I see your spin, but something is odd:
"The House hasn't had a chance to look at the minority report, nor have we," said Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican leading the committee's Russia investigation. (emphasis added)
Just to be clear, Conaway sits on the intelligence committee. The Schiff memo hasn't been shared with Republicans on the committee (as of yesterday), and they're supposed to vote to release it sight unseen? That's ludicrous.
The NYT will publish the Dem memo, no questions asked, Inga. Schiff is leakier than a colander, so why bother voting? It's not like Democrats care about classified information--ask Hillary. You don't care about releasing classified info either.
Besides: Why should Republicans vote to release the Schiff memo? He never gave it to them to read. Are they just supposed to trust him? Please. How stupid can you leftists possibly be?
--Vance
“Hey Ingarage, how about informing yourself about what is actually happening?”
Hey BruceRP, how’s the “stalking” coming? Do you know the laws for cyber stalking in California?
The memo has basically been "unleaked" because there is no way for the media to spin the contents is my guess. Also, note that very few Democratic congresspeople have actually gone to see it. In short, I am 100% sure that the NYTimes and WaPo, and other publications, already have all the details of the memo in their possession- it is only 4 pages, and I could memorize it in less than hour. They haven't published it because the only defense is th one you see on the front pages today- it is "reckless" to publish it. This is a defense, however, that won't work. When it is released, I predict the NYTimes and WaPo won't discuss any of it in the paper, but the days when they could bury a story are long, long gone.
"No one knows when the Democratic Memo will be given the vote to release it. What are Republicans trying to hide?"
-- In about a week, as per the rules and process, provided the review doesn't find anything wrong with it.
Schiff could've done his homework and been ready to go like Nunes. But, instead, he was hoping to get a pass on doing the work. He didn't get his pass.
How about you shake the dust out of your cunt and move on.
And I see you just fine...
How are things in Appleton?
Russia's brazen meddling
If it was so brazen, then what is the evidence?
* RT television broadcasts about fracking?
* Facebook advertisements about Black Lives Matter?
What is really brazen is the dossier that Hillary Clinton paid for.
“The House hasn't had a chance to look at the minority report, nor have we," said Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican leading the committee's Russia investigation. (emphasis added).”
After they have read the Democratic Memo they should hold onto theirs until (IF) the Democratic memo is released. It would not be fair to release the Republican Memo first, while the rebuttal isn’t available.
“In response, Democrats on the panel have put together their own memo. On Monday, the committee voted to make the Democratic memo available to all House members – but not the public. Conaway said he was open to making it public after House members have a chance to review it.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/0130/Defying-Justice-Department-House-Republicans-vote-to-release-classified-memo
"After they have read the Democratic Memo they should hold onto theirs until (IF) the Democratic memo is released."
-- No. Then Democrats could slow roll the release of both memos. They should have done their damn homework.
Sadly, I predict the memo won't have a great large impact. Why? Because people like Inga simply don't care. If the memo reveals the creation of an American Gestapo that was used by the Democrat party to attack, lie, and otherwise illegally target Republicans and throw elections, the Inga's of the world will say: "So what? Isn't that a good thing?" They don't care that laws are broken and illegal and illicit means are used to advance her politics. It's a feature, not a bug.
Think of all the revelations: the John Doe abuses in Wisconsin; the open admission of vote fraud, the open lying (Hey, it worked, right Harry Reid?). Inga is a-ok with Hodkinson's attempt to murder Republicans; why would she care about a Gestapo targeting Americans she disagrees with? Same with Sitter, TTR, and the rest. Using violent and illegal methods to abuse power is a feature, something they praise about the left. Notice how she never condemns the antifa violence, except as a pro forma general "I don't like violence!" Same with the rest of them. They think that it's actually a brilliant idea to lie to the judge and create a false witch hunt, as long as the right witches are targeted.
Meanwhile, it's illegal to ever, ever hold a Democrat to account for anything. They never do anything wrong, up to and including rape and murder--it's all ok, baby!
Thus, revelations about wickedness on the part of Democrats is something they love to hear as it makes them more proud of their party. That's why this memo release, as damning as I expect it to be, will be probably secretly hailed as "Look at how great our side is at keeping those Republicans out of the way!" And there is nothing that Inga and her fellow Democrats would not support and celebrate in order to gain and keep power.
--Vance
Inga at 9:52 AM
Both Memos should be released simultaneously.
Adam Shiff will leak it within a few days from now. He leaks information selectively all the time.
Representative Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) hasn't read all the details behind the controversial secret memo."
This statement is probably, in point of strict fact, true. If Rep. Schiff found just one classified document referenced in the memo that Rep. Nunes had not yet read, his statement is true.
Now, has Rep Nunes read enough of the classified documents referenced in the memo to think that it's important that the American people know what happened? Clearly, Nunes & the other House Republicans on the committee think so.
Am I playing semantic word games here? Yes, I am. Do I think Rep. Schiff is also playing semantic word games? Yes, I do. Do I think that Rep. Schiff is "lying by omission" by playing these sorts of semantics? Again, yes.
The memo will either be based on facts in possession of the committee, or it isn't. If it is based on facts in possession of the committee, then the facts themselves will have to be declassified and made public which is apparently what Nunes and the committee's Republican members intend to do, though that will take longer since the committee doesn't own the material- the executive branch does, still, but Trump appears willing to let Nunes release the material based on the House's rules for doing so.
The thing to watch once the memo itself is released is this- do the Democrats attack the facts at that point, or do they attack the release itself? The Democrats on the committee also have access to the material the DoJ turned over- if the memo isn't supported by the facts, you should see major leaks about the classified information itself, and the Republicans should then refuse to try to make it open to the public. I don't expect that to happen now.
Leaking and publishing are separate steps. What makes us think that the Nunes' memo hasn't been leaked to the NYT, and the Times isn't publishing it because the memo isn't "helpful?"
“Adam Shiff will leak it within a few days from now.”
It would serve Republicans right if someone did leak it, for trying to promote conspiracy theories in order to protect their President from the Russia Investigation.
"It would serve Republicans right if someone did leak it, for trying to promote conspiracy theories in order to protect their President from the Russia Investigation."
-- What conspiracy theories? You haven't even seen the memo.
The only conspiracy theories the Republicans promoted have been:
* Agents within the FBI were anti-Trump and may have influenced the investigation. Which... is true.
* The DNC and Clinton paid Fusion GPS for opposition research while disguising it and illegally hiding it. Which... is true.
“What conspiracy theories? You haven't even seen the memo.”
True, but I know rightists’ penchant for conspiracy theories.
I will make prediction right here and now- once the Nunes memo is released, Schiff quietly withdraws his petition to release his. A new tactic will be needed.
Corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ is only half the story. The mud slinging was a product of Samantha Power unmasking the identity of hundreds of incidental contacts.
Here is where the plot really thickens. She unmasked so many times that she had to plead that other people used her name to comply with unmasking rules. Is this how rules to protect privacy work?
Wire taps are such an invasion of privacy that there are very strict rules to protect these incidental contacts. This was violated by the Obama political team with full participation of the DOJ.
The goal was to tarnish the Trump transition team and to politically weaken the Trump Administration mainly through smoke and mirrors.
I also wonder why the FISA judge hasn't initiated contempt proceedings.
Re: Inga:
“In response, Democrats on the panel have put together their own memo. On Monday, the committee voted to make the Democratic memo available to all House members – but not the public. Conaway said he was open to making it public after House members have a chance to review it.”
I can understand releasing it to the House sight unseen (the Nunes memo was released to the House under secure conditions), but there's no way they can release to the public. I understand why, for shallow partisan reasons, you want Schiff's rebuttal memo to be released simultaneously with the Nunes memo, but the information will be out there eventually anyway. At the start of the year, Trump sat for like three months while his political opponents and the media claimed he was under investigation, while he knew -- because Comey told him so -- that this was untrue. Not "missing context" -- false. And he put up with it (well, until he fired Comey and forced him to tell Congress).
If the President -- this President of all Presidents! -- can put up with lies going unrebutted in public for three months, you can put up with a Republic memo going unrebutted for a week or so.
Inga, direct question to you.....
Is the DNC memo treated by the republicans in the same manner as the GOP memo?
It would serve Republicans right if someone did leak it, for trying to promote their conspiracy theories in order to distract people from our conspiracy theories.
“True, but I know rightists’ penchant for conspiracy theories.”
You mean, the conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Putin, a theory that after 1.5 year investigation produced no evidence?
All that said, other than Pelosi (who called the memo "fake," I think), has anyone said there are outright falsehoods in the Nunes memo? It sounds like critics are just drawing different conclusions from the (classified) facts, or making the classic plea that there's a very good, very complicated explanation for why these things aren't as bad as they look (i.e. there's missing context).
The real reason that the memo hasn't been leaked is that Nunes used a SCIF in the Eisenhower building. Think of a SCIF as a 'cone of silence' that works.
To see the memo, a Congressman must go to the SCIF, be registered, and then the document will be presented for that individual to read...all while being monitored.
If a computer is used to display the memo, that computer will have no network access.
If a hard-copy is used, there will be only one and it will be secured before the reader leaves the room.
Based on what was reported on the House floor yesterday, 190 Republicans and 19 Democrats have reviewed the memo.
I guess you can't claim plausible deniability if you've read the memo.
@Livermoron,
The real reason that the memo hasn't been leaked is that Nunes used a SCIF in the Eisenhower building. Think of a SCIF as a 'cone of silence' that works.
That the documents are in a SCIF makes sense of why the document hasn't been leaked, but yet sympathetic journalists are publishing stories of "here's what I'm being told" variety. The "leakers" to the journalists are repeating what they read from memory because that's the only source they've got.
When I practiced law, we used to say "If you are explaining, you are losing. The facts have to speak for themselves." It will be interesting to see who is explaining over the next couple of weeks.
What I find most interesting today is that yesterday the #2 guy in the FBI essentially was fired and the MSM seems singularly uninterested in finding out the reason why. Instead they want to attack Trump and Trump isn't even the guy that fired him.
Blogger Amadeus 48 said...
When I practiced law, we used to say "If you are explaining, you are losing.
And when you base your explanations on reports from Newsweek, you REALLY losing!
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
I will make prediction right here and now- once the Nunes memo is released, Schiff quietly withdraws his petition to release his. A new tactic will be needed.
Oh it'll be released. He has to now to give Libs some kind of counter-narrative to promote. I will predict however that there will very little actual intelligence in it. --- of either kind.
Inga said...
“Adam Shiff will leak it within a few days from now.”
“It would serve Republicans right if someone did leak it, for trying to promote conspiracy theories in order to protect their President from the Russia Investigation“
Inga supports Stalinism. Period.
She supports the Obama administration illegally spying on political opponents.
She supports democrats illegally leaking whatever they want.
She believes the law exists as a tool for her tribe to use to overturn elections they lost.
Make no mistake people. The left is going to show it’s true colors from here on out. Even Inga knows how brutal the double standards she is using are. They are going to justify what Obama did and they are going to resort to violence.
They will have to be defeated. They have refused to accept every election they have lost for decades. They do not believe in democracy. Sometimes they use it as a tool. But they get off when they reach the last stop. This is clearly worse than watergate. Don’t expect them to respect the rule of law like the right did.
Today the Liberty Unyielding website published an article titled "What matters about Rod Rosenstein extending surveillance of Carter Page in 2017", written by J.E. Dyer, a former Navy Intelligence officer who has written a great series of articles about the RussiaGate hoax. The article explains why the FBI renewed its FISA warrant against Clarence Page in late April 2017.
[quote]
... if the request was approved, it enabled the FBI to continue a backward-looking hunt through Page’s communications (as preserved in the vast NSA database), including his communications with members of the Trump campaign organization in 2016.
In other words, it kept open the door to linking Page’s communications with the activities of Trump’s campaign. As long as the FBI had a warrant to hunt through Page’s communications history, the Bureau’s analysts could keep trying to find something that would implicate the Trump campaign in whatever Carter Page was doing.
It’s doubtful that Page was in meaningful contact with the Trump White House in 2017, or with anyone connected to Trump that the FBI would find interesting. And it’s equally doubtful that Page’s communications in 2017 – communications unrelated to Trump or the White House – were really what the FBI was after.
To continue a forensic probe of the other entities that were in communication with Page in 2016, it was necessary in 2017 to get the FISA warrant on Page extended. The FBI would have to jump through additional hoops to identify those other entities – if they were thought to be U.S. persons – since they didn’t have a warrant for anyone but Page. But if the door closed on the Page communications probe, it wouldn’t reopen on any of those others he was communicating with in 2016 who were U.S persons. ...
If I were a member of the House Intelligence Committee, what I’d want to see is exactly what searches FBI analysts were running on Carter Page after Trump took office – in fact, after he won the election – and especially after 26 April 2017. I’d want to see the results of those searches, and see affirmative proof that they were about Page potentially being a Russian agent, and about Page having dangerous connections to Russians in 2017, and that the FBI focused on those points, and drew conclusions about those points specifically.
My guess is that an examination of the FBI’s work product on Carter Page under the extended FISA warrant in 2017 would not show that. ....
Extending the Carter Page warrant allowed the FBI to continue hunting through the Page-related comms of whoever Page was in contact with in 2016, even though it was 2017, those searches had already been done, and the administration in the Oval Office had changed since then.
[end quote]
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/01/30/matters-rod-rosenstein-extending-surveillance-carter-page-2017/
Today the Liberty Unyielding website published an article titled "Andrew McCabe’s strange meeting with Reince Priebus, and the leak that followed it", written by J.E. Dyer, a former Navy Intelligence officer who has written many insightful articles about the RussiaGate hoax.
[quote]
.... in February 2017, McCabe asked for a meeting with Reince Priebus, then Trump’s chief of staff. The purpose of the meeting, it turned out, was to discuss a “bombshell,” anonymously-sourced New York Times article with the headline “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.”
And what McCabe went to the White House to tell Priebus was that the FBI considered the whole article “bullsh*t.”
So far, so good. The NYT piece was being blasted all over the TV news, however, and reportedly, Priebus asked McCabe if the FBI could come out and tell the media what McCabe had just told him.
McCabe said he’d check with headquarters. He called back later ... to say that the FBI couldn’t do that. James Comey then called to reiterate that the FBI couldn’t comment. ...
It [the FBI's refusal] may have been because of the continuing interest in Carter Page ... That surveillance had been ongoing since before the 2016 election.
But in February 2017, we have no reason to think Reince Priebus knew that. In other words, there is no reason to believe he thought he was talking to McCabe about anything relating to an ongoing investigation. As far as he knew, the subject was a baseless set of allegations made in leaks to NYT, which reflected nothing that the FBI was actually looking into. ...
Priebus had reason to assume – if McCabe was even talking to him about the subject – that the FBI had no ongoing investigation related to what was in the NYT article. ...
[end quote]
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/01/30/andrew-mccabes-strange-meeting-reince-priebus-leak-followed/
PackerBronco,
I think Schiff would have leaked his memo by now if he really wanted to make it public as a counter to the Nunes memo. Its purpose wasn't serve as a competing narrative, but to attack the legitimacy of the Nunes memo's public revelation, and you can see by the arguments being made by people like Inga above.
I believe this because I don't think Nunes is an idiot- like I wrote, the memo is either based on facts available to the committee, or it isn't. If it isn't, then you will see an avalanche of leaks about the DoJ material itself from the Democrats on the committee because such leaks will directly contradict the Nunes memo. Nunes will have dug a trap for himself and shoveled in the dirt on top. I don't think he will have done this. If Nunes is playing with the DoJ informtion correctly and truthfull, the Schiff memo can't really damage it, and as such Schiff won't want to make it public for the exact same reason I don't Nunes would have gone out on a limb like this.
I was actually thinking of posting something nice today about Inga, along the lines of "I disagree with her about everything, but I admire her moxie". But then I read her posts on this subject above and changed my mind. Her doubling and tripling down on arguments that are just dumb is tiresome.
On another note, if 15 Democrats have read the Nunez report, including Shiff, you can bet it's contents have already been leaked to the NYT and WAPO.
I suspect a few FBI and DoJ people are going to go to prison (and possibly some intelligence agency people as well) and the net outcome will be exposure of the Clinton's and Obama. Inga hit hardest.
“I suspect a few FBI and DoJ people are going to go to prison (and possibly some intelligence agency people as well) and the net outcome will be exposure of the Clinton's and Obama. Inga hit hardest.”
I suspect wishful thinking.
I picture the Nunes Memo as being a list of violations and crimes with footnoted references to the supporting documentation.
Memorizing much of that would be impossible.
Also, who would actually desire to leak that info? I mean, if a Republican did it, he and or she would not have a future in the party. There would be legal ramifications too, of course.
If a dem leaks it, what are they actually going to leak? It would have to be whatever that individual saw and memorized in the Memo. So, by practical necessity it would just be a reiteration of the charges in the memo...and that would help the dems how? The news would just keep repeating the leaked charges. Even if the dems and their media flacks couch the leaked info in such a manner to derogate it, the Republicans would benefit because the charges would be aired over-and-over. It would also lengthen the period of time that the memo's charges are hanging out there in the public consciousness. Not helpful to the dems
I think the dims painted themselves into a corner
.
If this stuff goes up the line to Comey, what does that do to Mueller? I think the ground shifts under his feet.
Remember, Mueller was appointed after Comey leaked memos about his meetings with Trump, which Comey testified were disturbing because he felt inappropriate comments and requests were made, specifically that Comey publicly confirm what Comey had told Trump privately (that Trump wasn't under investigation), and that Trump hoped Comey would go easy on Flynn. Comey confirmed that there was no follow-up by Trump.
Does Mueller really want to take a bullet for Comey, who at best should be sweating his management of McCabe, Strzok, Page, and the Hillary investigation? What if the IG drops the dime on Comey? The OIG was tasked with reviewing Comey's behavior leading up to the 2016 election.
And what about Rosenstein? If he played ball with McCabe, Strzok and others, can he stay in the chain of command?
How angry and chagrined is Wray?
The next couple of weeks should be really interesting.
Inga
"True, but I know rightists’ penchant for conspiracy theories."
Russia Russia Russia. Pissgate. Irony any?
here is a 5 minute video from the House floor yesterday. It is Representative Zedlin asking PDT to release the Nunes Memo. He also talks about the game that the dims are playing irt their counter-memo.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/29/representative-lee-zeldin-shreds-adam-schiffs-disingenuous-press-conference-special-session-of-the-house/
Pizza pizza pizza. Pizzagate. Irony? Yes.
Seth Rich.
I suspect wishful thinking.
I suspect that a week ago, if someone predicted that McCabe was going to be essentially fired by Wray, it would have been called "wishful thinking".
But Libs seem very uninterested in discussing why Wray decided to get rid of McCabe. It's like "oh, the #2 guy at the FBI just lost his job? No big deal. Look! Squirrel!!!"
Oh and how many people did Hillary have murdered now? I lost count.
Catherine Herridge: Memo has been reviewed by two senior officials of the FBI counterintelligence and legal divisions and they “could not point to any factual inaccuracies” in the memo.
Blogger PackerBronco said...”But Libs seem very uninterested in discussing why Wray decided to get rid of McCabe. It's like "oh, the #2 guy at the FBI just lost his job? No big deal. Look! Squirrel!!!"”
Not only McCabe.
Mollie Hemingway:
“You had Bruce Ohr, who was demoted twice.
You had Peter Strzok, who had to be taken off the case.
You had Baker, who is gone, and Rybicki, also.
This is quite a collection of people, obviously, there is something huge going on. And I think a lot of people in the media are missing this very large story. Perhaps this memo will help us learn a little bit more about what it is that is causing these changes.”
Yancey Ward said...
I think Schiff would have leaked his memo by now if he really wanted to make it public as a counter to the Nunes memo.
It hasn't leaked, so that likely means it is not an effective counter.
If I were the Democrats, and I had no effective counter, I would write a counter-memo containing lots of highly classified information. Stuff that legitimately couldn't be released for national security reasons. Then the Republicans would have to either vote against releasing it, or only allow a highly redacted version to be released. Then I would act like the redacted stuff was actually convincing evidence. All while not leaking the full memo
So if the Republicans vote against release, or only release a highly redacted version, and the full memo doesn't leak, you can bet that what was redacted was bullshit.
A second Trump Russia dossier? I don’t know a thing about the credibility of this guy, but it’s interesting that the FBI is taking one aspect of it seriously. Of course you all think the FBI is part of the “deep state”, right? Another conspiracy theory.
“Trump and his supporters have been seeking to cast doubt on the credibility of Mueller’s investigation.
The FBI inquiry into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election has been given a second memo that independently set out some of the same allegations made in a dossier by Christopher Steele, the British former spy.
The second memo was written by Cody Shearer, a controversial political activist and former journalist who was close to the Clinton White House in the 1990s.
Unlike Steele, Shearer does not have a background in espionage, and his memo was initially viewed with scepticism, not least because he had shared it with select media organisations before the election.
However, the Guardian has been told the FBI investigation is still assessing details in the ‘Shearer memo’ and is pursuing intriguing leads.
One source with knowledge of the inquiry said the fact the FBI was still working on it suggested investigators had taken an aspect of it seriously.
It raises the possibility that parts of the Steele dossier, which has been derided by Trump’s supporters, may have been corroborated by Shearer’s research, or could still be.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/trump-russia-collusion-fbi-cody-shearer-memo
”...and his memo was initially viewed with scepticism, not least because he had shared it with select media organisations before the election.
That’s a red flag right there, but fine. Let’s see it.
Oh and how many people did Hillary have murdered now? I lost count.
Take off your shoes. It'll help with the higher numbers.
It would serve Republicans right if someone did leak it, for trying to promote their conspiracy theories in order to distract people from our conspiracy theories.
LOL, Paul wins the thread.
Leaks normally go to the leftmediaswine who have determined to censor this memo because it doesn't serve the interests of the Democrats.
Don't trust content from Shifty Schiff.
Much ado about nothing:
There is no Democrat memo. It is all a lie.
NYT says "There is no Dem Memo"
Ah Inga. One thing you fail to realize is that Adam Schiff is usually full of Schiff; the dude is a legend in his own mind. And in the prevarication and innuendo Olympics he's a world class athlete.
He's co-writing a "Democrat" version of this memo--his co writer is Baron Von Munchausen. He's whining that the GOP hasn't voted to release his memo; which is not surprising since he hasn't shown the memo to them. Or maybe he will ultimately say the dog ate the memo and it will never surface.
LOL
Inga thinks that having multiple dem oppo research firms generate the same unverified rumors and then having those unvetted and unverified rumors given to hillary partisans in the FBI and DOJ actually constitutes corroboration!
Literally, Sidney Blumenthals hatchet boy creates smears and Inga thinks thats good enough to throw out the 4th amendment!
Hey Inga, Rosie O Donnell says Trump is a traitor, so now you have a 3rd corroborator!
Wait! Rob Reiner says Trump is a traitor, so now you have 4 corroborators!
Hilarious!
Btw, dont you just love that the dems refused to show their "memo" to the republicans but demanded the republicans vote to release it?
LOL
There is no Democratic memo. It's all bullshit to try to muddy the waters. Only a fucking dullard wouldn't understand that.
"If I were the Democrats, and I had no effective counter, I would write a counter-memo containing lots of highly classified information. Stuff that legitimately couldn't be released for national security reasons. Then the Republicans would have to either vote against releasing it, or only allow a highly redacted version to be released. Then I would act like the redacted stuff was actually convincing evidence. All while not leaking the full memo"
A simple counter action to that would be for the Republicans to wait a few days and then vote on the full, unredacted release of the dem's memo and, as an extra, let the democrats vote on it first.
If the democrats vote 'no' then it would be them who try to stop the release of their own memo.
If they voted 'yes' then the Republicans could vote 'yes' too and let the Democrats take the fall. It would be their memo after all.
Not only has the NYT effectively declassified an awful lot of secret info over the years, but Adam Schiff has effectively publicly released an awful lot of secret info that he now argues is wrong to do.
Besides being dense and kind of stupid, Inga is behind the times. When I was younger it was true that the so-called "right" (i.e., pro-freedom) went in big for conspiracy theories--some of which probably have validity--somewhere along the line that shifted and the so-called "left" (State-shtuppers like you-know-who) became enamored of conspiracy theories. One of my college-day ideological mentors, Samuel L. Konkin III ("Anarchy Sam") used to point out how in each side's pet conspiracy theories, the villains were often the same. (For example, the Trilateralists.) My attitude toward conspiracy theories is pretty much "show me the evidence." But I think it was Murray Rothbard who once said something to the effect that if you dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, you're in effect denying that people of similar financial and political interests will tend to work together to advance those interests.
A second Trump Russia dossier? I don’t know a thing about the credibility of this guy, but it’s interesting that the FBI is taking one aspect of it seriously. Of course you all think the FBI is part of the “deep state”, right? Another conspiracy theory.
HaHa! The one "aspect the FBI is taking seriously" is the prostitutes pissing on the bed.
Can't make this stuff up !
Does this make FBI look serious, or stupid?
I saw 'Prostitutes Pissing on the Bed' open for 'Meadhouse' at the 'Monsters of Metal' show in Manitowoc in'09.
Here's what I don't get: as soon as Fusion GPS et al. leaked the prostitute leakage story, Russia lost whatever leverage that "secret" gave them to pressure Trump into cutting them slack. Any planned "collusion" based on it immediately became irrelevant.
Of course, no evidence of any such plan has emerged, which means the narrative rests merely on info from Russian operatives used to infer that Trump was subject to blackmail and hence might do Russia's bidding. But the Dem/Deep-State machinations immunized Trump and the polity, turning the Narrative into a whimpering whine--but one just strong enough to launch an attempted slow-motion coup.
RE: Mike Sylwester @ 11:15 am
And despite all that spying they could not come up with any dirt on Trump with which to destroy his campaign. They ended up needing that "insurance policy" after all. Unfortunately for the Trump-haters in the FBI, a year later they still can't leak any dirt on him related to "Russian collusion", just lies, innuendos and shifting goalposts-- now the story is he's guilty of trying to obstruct their witchhunt. And yet it's right-wingers that get dismissed as "conspiracy theorists".
I wonder how much of the general public is aware that the FISA court wrote an opinion last April that describes how the Obama Admin broke the rules and spied on Americans. I won't use words like "illegally" or "broke the law", because I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar, so what do I know, and lately it seems that even lawyers and legal scholars can't agree about when a law has been broken. (Which makes people like me, who are not well-versed in the law, feel really uncomfortable, because it supports the idea that the law is whatever those in power say it us, depending on who is charged and what connections to powerful people they have.)
I found out about this opinion about a week ago from a link in a blog comment section-- I get a lot of interesting stuff not covered by the media from blog comment sections. I missed it because the MSM mostly ignored this story, so chances are not a lot of people are aware of it. I haven't read the whole doc, it's 99 pages long and heavily redacted.
What I've read online is that the Nunes memo will be based on this FISA opinion, and that it will expose the redacted names of those who were involved in the spying. If that turns out to be true, I don't see how any one will be able to claim the memo is not factual. It will be interesting to see the crooked media try to attack and spin the FISA court findings.
Another thought: if Nunes -- deliberately or not-- distorts some facts in his memo, then in order to set the record straight to the public, the Dems will have to make public the supporting classified documents, which may be just as damaging, or more so, to some Dems than what Nunes wrote.
Those who thought they were above the law in their attempts to take down Trumphitler are probably royally screwed. And rightly so.
I don’t know a thing about the credibility of this guy, but it’s interesting that the FBI is taking one aspect of it seriously. Of course you all think the FBI is part of the “deep state”, right? Another conspiracy theory.
Of course. The political attack dog molded by J. Edgar Hoover for 48 years, which has a extensively-documented history of using lies and leaks to try to discredit people (see the Church Committee report on COINTELPRO), whose former Associate Director had a leading role in driving a President from office (under the pseudonym Deep Throat), couldn't possibly nowadays have any agents who would consider trying to stop an unfit joke like Trump from becoming President, or to remove him from office! It's totally out-of-character for the institution!
Fun fact: The sky is mauve on Inga's planet, but sunsets are blue-green.
This just in: The FBI produced a THIRD DOSSIER written by some investigator named Michael Wolff. Available in hardcover in the discount bin of your nearest Barnes & Nobel.
"I also wonder why the FISA judge hasn't initiated contempt proceedings."
The judge overseeing the Flynn proceedings was Rudolph Contreras. During the sentencing phase he either recused himself or was recused by a higher authority (supposedly CJOTUS), depending upon the story you read. Know what else Rudolph Contreras was? A FISC judge, during the time that all of the shenanigans were occurring. There is reason to at least suspect Rudolph Contreras signed off on the warrant to "tap" the Trump campaign (or rather, certain individuals in the Trump campaign), and that is based in part on suspicions that Contreras was the judge who turned down the June 2016 FISA warrant (supposedly, if a warrant is turned down and then resubmitted, the resubmission goes to the same judge).
So I don't think the FISC judge who would normally be the one to initiate contempt proceedings will be permitted to come anywhere near any of this ever again. If true, he should never have taken the Flynn case. My guess is he wasn't concerned about the appearance of impropriety because he couldn't foresee how all of this would unfold (I seriously doubt he was a party to the corrupt activities, especially if he turned down the first warrant). He'd have been better off safe rather than sorry.
See: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/28/did-justice-department-fisa-fraud-create-u-s-district-court-judge-recusal/
Post a Comment