The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: TheDrake on January 23, 2018, 09:11:46 AM

Title: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on January 23, 2018, 09:11:46 AM
If it should be released, I have two predictions.

Republicans will feel that massive corruption has been exposed and that we should finally lock her up.

Democrats will feel totally vindicated and that a massive witch hunt has been exposed.

It really doesn't matter what is in it, does it? If Democrats can't take the above position, then it will surely be that items in the memo are unproven accusations.

My take? Republicans are only now realizing that the FISA system they helped to create is a sloppy rubber stamp, and that National Security Letters are even more ripe for dozens of kinds of abuse? Not to mention renewing the FISA program, which still allows the FBI to query the database of collected information to look for Americans swept up in foreign surveillance. Only a handful of libertarian leaning Republican senators joined about half of the Democrat senators in opposition.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on January 23, 2018, 04:57:50 PM
FISA is and remains a direct violation of the 4th amendment.  People should go to prison over it.

This memo cracks me up.  I'd like to see it, though I'm guessing I'll suffer from massive confirmation bias in doing so.  However, i find the press "leak" that it "should be disclosed" because it contains 'major revelations' fascinating.  Particularly against a backdrop that anything that helps the left pretty much is on an auto-leak cycle. 
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 27, 2018, 02:00:10 PM
This memo cracks me up.  I'd like to see it, though I'm guessing I'll suffer from massive confirmation bias in doing so.  However, i find the press "leak" that it "should be disclosed" because it contains 'major revelations' fascinating. 

Nunes has almost no credibility on this subject since the white house lawn press conference. He is a "company" man on this issue through and through. Based on the press about the memo I'm about 100% certain it contains nothing illegal. If he had uncovered any laws being broke the only moral and legal thing to do would be to take that information to Sessions (the AG) and/or Wray (the FBI director). Since he is refusing to allow people from the justice department to read the memo it is almost certain he has put together a list of things that look bad out of context but are perfectly legal (or at least in accordance with FISA, if not the constitution). Nunes gets everything he wants out of a "classified" memo, he can make as wild of claims as he wants and no one can directly refute him. So I wouldn't expect to see this memo any time soon.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Wayward Son on January 27, 2018, 03:29:02 PM
Stonekettle Station has an interesting essay on this memo. (http://www.stonekettle.com/2018/01/dirty-tricks.html)  The implications are much, much more frightening for our nation than they appear.

Let's hope he is somehow wrong. :(
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 27, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
Stonekettle Station has an interesting essay on this memo. (http://www.stonekettle.com/2018/01/dirty-tricks.html)  The implications are much, much more frightening for our nation than they appear.

Let's hope he is somehow wrong. :(

He's wrong about quite a bit actually, Nunes got all this information from the FBI and Justice using the subpoena power of his committee. There is no secret investigation of the FBI. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/ryan-rosenstein-wray-fbi-justice-322618 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/ryan-rosenstein-wray-fbi-justice-322618)


What is potentially as scary as anything stonekettle said is Nunes saw all the information on the Trump investigation and:

1) Sees that Trump is likely guilty of something.
2) Uses the secret documents to pull things out of context to try to discredit the FBI.
3) Share parts of the highly classified information with every Republican blowhard in the house to try to derail the investigation even if it would harm national security.

I fear we are getting to the point where Trump could be shown to have committed a crime and the Republicans in the house would fail to start an impeachment proceeding against him.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Wayward Son on January 29, 2018, 01:20:42 PM
Quote
He's wrong about quite a bit actually, Nunes got all this information from the FBI and Justice using the subpoena power of his committee. There is no secret investigation of the FBI. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/ryan-rosenstein-wray-fbi-justice-322618

Well, assuming Nunes is not lying, who wrote the memo?  Who investigated the FBI?  Why is does it contain "intelligence information" that keeps it from being released?  And why did he refuse to release it to the FBI, especially if all the "intelligence information" comes from the FBI? ???

It doesn't all fit together.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 29, 2018, 02:57:44 PM
Quote
He's wrong about quite a bit actually, Nunes got all this information from the FBI and Justice using the subpoena power of his committee. There is no secret investigation of the FBI. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/ryan-rosenstein-wray-fbi-justice-322618

Well, assuming Nunes is not lying, who wrote the memo?

Nunes wrote the memo.

Quote
  Who investigated the FBI?

Nobody investigated the FBI.

Quote
Why is does it contain "intelligence information" that keeps it from being released?

Nunes cherry picked information from the Russia investigation that out of context will look bad. The information he had access to is from the ongoing Russia investigation, which will contain foreign intelligence intercepts (Chinese/Russian ambassador communications) which makes it highly classified.

Quote
And why did he refuse to release it to the FBI, especially if all the "intelligence information" comes from the FBI? ???

He refuses to show it to the FBI or anyone who could honestly evaluate it so that no one can call him out on his BS.

Quote
It doesn't all fit together.

It fits together just fine if you realize Nunes is full of s*** and doing everything he can to blow up the investigation and protect Trump.

Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Wayward Son on January 29, 2018, 03:03:25 PM
Well, I did stipulate that Nunes was not lying... ;)
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 29, 2018, 03:15:30 PM
Well, I did stipulate that Nunes was not lying... ;)

No one disputes Nunes wrote the memo, he claims it is the summary of the abuses he has uncovered by reviewing the materials.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 29, 2018, 03:29:49 PM
They showed the Memo to Wray yesterday.  This Morning McCabe resigned.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Wayward Son on January 29, 2018, 06:17:52 PM
Odd timing, since it is a BS memo.  :D
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 29, 2018, 08:26:44 PM
Odd timing, since it is a BS memo.  :D

There is an article from the New York Times on December 23 saying that McCabe would use his accrued leave and then retire in March. Without more information I’m chalking this up to coincidence.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on January 30, 2018, 01:59:57 PM
Quote
  Who investigated the FBI?

Nobody investigated the FBI.

You mean other than the inspector general, who in fact has been investigating the FBI? 

Quote
Nunes cherry picked information from the Russia investigation that out of context will look bad.

Just curious how you can confidently state this as a fact, when we are talking about a memo that you haven't read?  In fact much of what you claim is utter nonsense to claim prior to getting access to the memo, maybe not even until we see (which we never will) the documents its based on.

Quote
The information he had access to is from the ongoing Russia investigation, which will contain foreign intelligence intercepts (Chinese/Russian ambassador communications) which makes it highly classified.

Per the DOJ, the confidentiality issue is based on their view that reveling what's in the summary will reveal their investigative techniques.  The implication is that such revelation would allow bad guys to develop work arounds.  There's truth to that complaint.

The problem is, if the investigative techniques are in fact illegal violations of civil rights and/or the constitution then their complaints are ridiculous and dangerous to uphold.  Effectively, there saying that you can't tell people what we found by violating the Constitution, because they may take steps to protect themselves from having their Constitutional rights violated.

The whole thing literally turns on whether they acted legally or not.   Which TO BE CLEAR none of us know for sure, though we all have our suspicions (or in the case of they other side - :) - have been told what to believe.

Quote
Quote
And why did he refuse to release it to the FBI, especially if all the "intelligence information" comes from the FBI? ???

He refuses to show it to the FBI or anyone who could honestly evaluate it so that no one can call him out on his BS.

Or if you don't impute bad faith, he didn't release it for two reasons:  1.  The FBI already knows it, cause its in their files, and has chosen neither to act on it or disclose it (remember the FBI and DOJ have been refusing to release access to this information for almost a year), or 2. The FBI think they are acting legally, when they are grossly violating our rights and it needs to be released before it can be covered up.  Given my views on FISA - that virtually everything this Star Chamber secretly authorizes is unConstitutional - I'm sure 2 is accurate whether or not we ultimately all agree on that point or hold anyone accountable.  I mean heck the NSA is still collecting data on the unconstitutional general warrant program.

Quote
Quote
It doesn't all fit together.

It fits together just fine if you realize Nunes is full of s*** and doing everything he can to blow up the investigation and protect Trump.

Lol.  It doesn't remotely fit together under that interpretation of Nunes.  If he were that dirty, it'd already have leaked.  I think Nunes is a fake bogeyman, ultimately you have no credible reason to believe what you just said.  Nunes would act the same way if he found evidence of the prior administration illegally spying on Trump during the transition, and in fact he would be correct to do so.  And there is virtually no way to differentiate his actions from the outside.   What would have expected from a Democratic senator that found evidence that Bush spied on Obama?  I guess, literally, you'd have called him a hero no matter what such a person did.

End of day, this is all going to turn on just how corrupt Comey and his little group were.  What we've seen so far is enough circumstantial and even substantive evidence to hang them all, if they'd be anti-Obama or anti-Clinton, but not enough to break the media/partisan gridlock that applies when the parties are reversed.  That's why both sides are in full on propaganda mode in advance of this memo.

I just have to ask, what's it going to take?  Imagine for an instance that your worst fears are confirmed and there's a smoking gun here.  Direct evidence that the prior administration's DOJ and FBI engaged in political based decision making what then?  You understand this literally makes Watergate look like a joke, what's alleged here is a thousand times more invasive than Watergate.  It's literally turning the law enforcement agencies into political spies and operatives.  Are you willing to back Treason charges?
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 30, 2018, 02:40:43 PM
I just have to ask, what's it going to take?  Imagine for an instance that your worst fears are confirmed and there's a smoking gun here.  Direct evidence that the prior administration's DOJ and FBI engaged in political based decision making what then?  You understand this literally makes Watergate look like a joke, what's alleged here is a thousand times more invasive than Watergate.  It's literally turning the law enforcement agencies into political spies and operatives.  Are you willing to back Treason charges?

A smoking gun would be surveillance that was not authorized by a court. If it can be shown that the FBI was targeting people outside the bounds of the law (as passed by congress and interpreted by the courts) then I support those people going to prison. I'm not sure that treason is the appropriate charge but if unauthorized surveillance on Americans was done I support the appropriate criminal charges against those (including Comey, Clinton, and/or Obama) responsible.

Will you back off of the treason business if all the surveillance the memo points to followed the letter of the law (even if you believe the law is unconstitutional)?

The reports now say that the surveillance was on Carter Page after his Russia trip. Page had previously been recruited by Russian agents (in 2012), then decides to take a trip to Moscow in the middle of a presidential campaign that Russia was interfering with. The memo is critical of Rosenstein (Trump appointee) for continuing the surveillance.  Why would he sign off on the continued surveillance if it was just a political witch hunt against Trump?

My prediction is that the memo focuses on the surveillance against Page and includes the flimsiest reasons the court approved the FISA warrant while omitting the strong evidence.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Fenring on January 30, 2018, 02:48:17 PM
A smoking gun would be surveillance that was not authorized by a court.

I doubt anyone would accept that or care anyhow. What about the NSA surveillance program which is know to have been going on even pre-9/11? Or how about the entire sweeping info-dumps going on in the early 2000's of absolutely everyone with no authorization, and which a court eventually ruled to be illegal and ordered the NSA to stop? Do you think they did?

So now that the target of 'spying' is more particularly specified, and it's about a contentious election, do you think it will change anything in how the intelligence community does its business? They were spying on the senate directly, for heaven's sake. We're well past "illegal activity not sanctioned by a court" and have been for a long time. The only rule of law in this sphere at present is whether anyone can (a) provide incontrovertible proof, and (b) whether anyone within the system actually has the desire and/or ability to do anything about it.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Greg Davidson on January 30, 2018, 09:03:55 PM
Quote
It doesn't remotely fit together under that interpretation of Nunes.  If he were that dirty, it'd already have leaked.  I think Nunes is a fake bogeyman, ultimately you have no credible reason to believe what you just said.  Nunes would act the same way if he found evidence of the prior administration illegally spying on Trump during the transition, and in fact he would be correct to do so.  And there is virtually no way to differentiate his actions from the outside.

Love this defense of Nunes. Now, can you explain how the actions of Nunes are consistent with him being recused from involvement in the Russia investigation? Or, did he un-recuse himself at some point without telling anyone?
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 30, 2018, 09:56:10 PM
Quote
Quote
And why did he refuse to release it to the FBI, especially if all the "intelligence information" comes from the FBI? ???

He refuses to show it to the FBI or anyone who could honestly evaluate it so that no one can call him out on his BS.

Or if you don't impute bad faith, he didn't release it for two reasons:  1.  The FBI already knows it, cause its in their files, and has chosen neither to act on it or disclose it (remember the FBI and DOJ have been refusing to release access to this information for almost a year), or 2. The FBI think they are acting legally, when they are grossly violating our rights and it needs to be released before it can be covered up.  Given my views on FISA - that virtually everything this Star Chamber secretly authorizes is unConstitutional - I'm sure 2 is accurate whether or not we ultimately all agree on that point or hold anyone accountable.  I mean heck the NSA is still collecting data on the unconstitutional general warrant program.

Neither 1 nor 2 justify not showing it to the FBI or IG for review. If the FBI already knows it then showing it to them changes nothing. If the FBI doesn't know then either they or the IG are the correct people to report violations of the law to. The only thing keeping the memo secret from them for so long does is to be able to avoid having justice officials report to them on the record that the memo is misleading before releasing it. In their vote to release the memo the committee specifically voted to not allow the DoJ to give the committee a briefing on any potential damage the memo could do to national security or correct any inaccuracies in the memo. From the people who have been freaking for years about a few classified emails on Clinton's private server you don't seem to care that Nunes is intentionally ignoring DoJ officials about potential damage of releasing this classified intelligence*. However the memo written by the democrats that gives the context to Nunes's memo is going to be kept secret. No reason to tell both sides of the story.

*Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd (Trump appointee) has called releasing the memo without review by DoJ "extraordinarily reckless."
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on January 30, 2018, 11:53:53 PM
Love this defense of Nunes. Now, can you explain how the actions of Nunes are consistent with him being recused from involvement in the Russia investigation? Or, did he un-recuse himself at some point without telling anyone?

Greg, you are  aware that he was never recused, right?  Or are you operating under the mistaken impression that he was?
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on January 31, 2018, 12:01:29 AM
Neither 1 nor 2 justify not showing it to the FBI or IG for review. If the FBI already knows it then showing it to them changes nothing.

They did show it to the FBI.  Why do you think they didn't?  They showed them on the same terms as FBI and the DOJ let them review the underlying docs - in person.

You had to have known the FBI saw it, they showed it to Wray over the weekend (which led to the acceleration of McCabe's retirement (which you tried to explain away)).

Quote
The only thing keeping the memo secret from them for so long does is to be able to avoid having justice officials report to them on the record that the memo is misleading before releasing it.

What it really does is limit the ability of people who may be covering up malfeasance from crafting a response.

Quote
In their vote to release the memo the committee specifically voted to not allow the DoJ to give the committee a briefing on any potential damage the memo could do to national security or correct any inaccuracies in the memo.

Keep up.  The DOJ has retracted, based on review, that it would be reckless to release the memo, because it was drafted to avoid disclosing problematic facts.  Your speculations based on a non-review are not holding up.

Quote
From the people who have been freaking for years about a few classified emails on Clinton's private server you don't seem to care that Nunes is intentionally ignoring DoJ officials about potential damage of releasing this classified intelligence*.

I do care about Clinton's felonies.  Sorry you think our laws are silly.  DOJ has already retracted the claim that this is a reckless disclosure.

Quote
However the memo written by the democrats that gives the context to Nunes's memo is going to be kept secret. No reason to tell both sides of the story.

You mean the memo the Democrats wouldn't let the Republicans see before the vote?   What nonsense, just written to give you a talking point.

Quote
*Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd (Trump appointee) has called releasing the memo without review by DoJ "extraordinarily reckless."

Retracted.  Keep up.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 31, 2018, 10:50:17 AM
Neither 1 nor 2 justify not showing it to the FBI or IG for review. If the FBI already knows it then showing it to them changes nothing.

They did show it to the FBI.  Why do you think they didn't?  They showed them on the same terms as FBI and the DOJ let them review the underlying docs - in person.

True they did show it to Wray but are not allowing professional intelligence analysts decide if any of the information should be redacted (or is incorrect) before releasing the memo. They also refused to listen to Wray before voting to release the memo? Can you explain why the committee would refuse to listen to his comments before voting to release it?
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on January 31, 2018, 12:30:32 PM
Again though, yoss, you are factually wrong.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nunes-memo-is-being-vetted-by-doj-fbi-nsa-and-dni/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nunes-memo-is-being-vetted-by-doj-fbi-nsa-and-dni/)

It was clearly reported yesterday (even before this CBS summary) that the FBI had reviewed the memo.

What's your source for "refused to listen to Wrey"?  Honestly, given that you seem to be relying on an inaccurate source I'd like to see where you got that idea. 
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2018, 01:58:06 PM
Quote
(CNN)The FBI issued a rare public warning on Wednesday that a controversial Republican memo omits key information that could impact its veracity.

"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 agency said in a statement. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on January 31, 2018, 02:13:40 PM
Makes me very interested to see it.  I note, the FBI sources previously confirmed that there are no factual inaccuracies, which left very little ground to dispute an apparent conclusion.  Not surprised to see a claim that there is other information that will make it "less bad."  Fine, bring it out.  I'd love more disclosure.  Let's get real facts on the table and let people decide.

I'm incredibly sick of media analysis.  I was watching Don Lemon on CNN as he went full on spin doctor two days ago about what the memo "means."
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: scifibum on January 31, 2018, 07:07:25 PM
Quote
I note, the FBI sources previously confirmed that there are no factual inaccuracies, which left very little ground to dispute an apparent conclusion.

You know better than this.  Selectively chosen facts can seem to support false conclusions. 

And you also know that the fact set is largely classified - and that the FBI can't unilaterally declassify anything to defend itself.   

Even Congressional democrats are relatively powerless to rebut anything misleading, given that the GOP controls the relevant committees.

So if Nunes et al want to distort and mislead, they can.  And the FBI doesn't really have a way to correct the record.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on January 31, 2018, 08:31:03 PM
Again though, yoss, you are factually wrong.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nunes-memo-is-being-vetted-by-doj-fbi-nsa-and-dni/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nunes-memo-is-being-vetted-by-doj-fbi-nsa-and-dni/)

It was clearly reported yesterday (even before this CBS summary) that the FBI had reviewed the memo.

What's your source for "refused to listen to Wrey"?  Honestly, given that you seem to be relying on an inaccurate source I'd like to see where you got that idea.

Often my information is just dated, not false. No one started reviewing the memo until Sunday afternoon and it wasn't given to the other agencies in the cbs story until after the vote to release it on Monday. My apologies for posting without checking the latest headlines.

As for refused to listen to Wrey: here is my source.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf
It's on page 21, unfortunately it is a scanned PDF I can't copy and past from.

Schiff makes a motion to postpone the vote until after they can be briefed by the FBI and it is ultimately voted down.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 01, 2018, 09:32:30 AM
As for refused to listen to Wrey: here is my source.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf
It's on page 21, unfortunately it is a scanned PDF I can't copy and past from.

No need, I read the transcript as soon as it was released.  I'm cynical and I tend to believe that when someone makes an accusation of underhanded behavior out of the blue, it's most likely because they are already engaged in the underhanded behavior and are trying to preempt the attack.  Accordingly, I took the accusation that the Republicans had coordinated their responses for the committee meeting as near proof that the Democrats had.  That explained to me why they were clearly trying to "build a record" and ultimately that was verified when they surprised the committee by demanding transcripts (though that was blunted by the confusion on the other side and their confirmation that the records are always public (at least for this kind of session)).

If your inclined the other way?  Maybe you don't see it as cynically.  But I still think you have a hard time explaining Shiff's stance - stop the memo by any means - on anything other than a political basis.  He really hasn't explained a harm to the country that survives the DOJ's conclusion that the memo doesn't reveal secret techniques.

Quote
Schiff makes a motion to postpone the vote until after they can be briefed by the FBI and it is ultimately voted down.

Well duh.  Schiff did everything he could to delay or blunt the release.  Every request he made was about stalling the release.

Quote
I note, the FBI sources previously confirmed that there are no factual inaccuracies, which left very little ground to dispute an apparent conclusion.

You know better than this.  Selectively chosen facts can seem to support false conclusions.

Of course.  You know what I also know?  The "omitted" facts get leaked pretty quickly.  The committee flat out said that the Democratic response memo would get provided to the members, and ultimately may be released as well, so you're really only talking about a week or two gap before you get this "necessary" additional information.

While I'm on that subject, I don't see a legitimate need for two memos if they are both fact based.  If the Republican memo shows constitutional or legal violations, I'm not sure there's anything that could be provided to be exculpatory.  The more straight forward the memo is the less inclined I am to accept the response as anything but spinning.

I flat out don't trust Shiff.  I watched him say too many things too cleverly from a position of knowing more than everyone else.  Every single thing out of his mouth is political, period.

Quote
And you also know that the fact set is largely classified - and that the FBI can't unilaterally declassify anything to defend itself.

Both the FBI and the DOJ have procedures to declassify things.  They also are free to share that information with the White House where the President can in fact stop the release of the Memo.  That's actually what they are supposed to do as part of the executive branch in this situation. 

Quote
Even Congressional democrats are relatively powerless to rebut anything misleading, given that the GOP controls the relevant committees.

You could read the transcript.  They agreed that they will move the Democrat's memo (provided its not factually inaccurate) forward in the same manner, they just refused to tie it to their own memo on the disclosure timeline or to release it sight unseen.  Shiff flat out said they would not release their memo without allowing the FBI/DOJ to edit it.  Bet you that promise disappears when he wants to speed up the release timeline.

Quote
So if Nunes et al want to distort and mislead, they can.  And the FBI doesn't really have a way to correct the record.

In Nunes et al want to get caught in an obvious lie within weeks of the release, sure they could do what you just said.

Meanwhile if they are telling the truth, you're buying into a concerted effort to discredit evidence of a gross abuse of the federal government's power.

The balance here has to be for disclosure.  If that costs Nunes his reputation that's on him for producing a flawed document.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 01, 2018, 02:10:45 PM
Was reading a comment by Ben Shapiro (conservative columnist) that is deadon.  Either somebody is lying, or everybody is lying.  Without access to real documents all we are doing is buying into one narrative or the other.

Is this really how the republic is supposed to function?
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Fenring on February 01, 2018, 02:19:08 PM
Is this really how the republic is supposed to function?

The Republic, like the economic system, was based on people having the intent to function as good actors in their job. De Toqueville said that you can arrange a government or economy as well as you like, but if the individuals involved don't do their jobs then nothing else matters. Corruption will devastate even the best system.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 01, 2018, 09:44:13 PM
So as of right now, the memo has not yet been released, I don't know for sure what it has in it or whether its significant.  But I have a challenge to issue to our members from the left.

If it's released, and as I suspect, immediately declared nothing, no issues, not important, by the media and or the politicians on the left.

Then I want you to explain to me what all the panic and hyperbole from the left trying to stop it from being released was about.  It can't both be a "constitutional crisis" as Panetta said this evening and no big deal. It's just a prediction, but I suspect, once again the position of the left will directly contradict itself and no one will hold them accountable.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on February 01, 2018, 11:10:15 PM
My prediction is that the memo makes the claim the entire justification for the carter page surveillance is the steel dossier. However the fbi has made clear they feel the memo is lying by omission. So if we are to believe the fbi and the courts there was sufficient justification. My guess is all the information about page being previously recruited by Russian agents and his meetings with Russian officials during his Moscow trip. Nunes is going to have left a justification that references the Steele dossier.

The damage to the country is purposely misleading the American public to damage the fbi and undermine an ongoing investigation into the president and his administration.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on February 01, 2018, 11:17:42 PM
Seriati, what do you make of Nunes refusal to answer questions about collaboration with the White House in writing the memo? I think that is a fair question based on Nunes history of secretly collaborating with the White House on aspects of the investigation.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 02, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
Seriati, what do you make of Nunes refusal to answer questions about collaboration with the White House in writing the memo?

He answered that question, it's in the transcript.  He said not to his knowledge.

Quote
I think that is a fair question based on Nunes history of secretly collaborating with the White House on aspects of the investigation.

Lol, what history?  Are you pretending that his public trip to the Whitehouse and resulting open statements to the press about why are a "history of secret collaboration"?  By that standard you should be full on convinced that the DOJ and the FBI were dirty, since we have actual evidence that goes way beyond what Nunes did.

Seriously, I get the politics here, but there is no reasonable non-political interpretation of Nunes that matches that description.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 02, 2018, 10:25:51 AM
Nunes, wasn't that the guy who reported to the white house on information he got at the white house, making it sound like he got it somewhere else?

And as far as timeline goes, the press conference preceded the report to trump.

refresher course (https://www.wired.com/2017/04/devin-nunes-white-house-trump-surveillance/)


Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: yossarian22c on February 02, 2018, 10:30:31 AM
Seriously, I get the politics here, but there is no reasonable non-political interpretation of Nunes that matches that description.

He got the documents from the white house (doesn't tell anyone this). Runs over to the white house in the middle of the day to "share" what he has found with them, then holds a press conference on the white house lawn. It didn't come out until much later that he actually got the intelligence from the white house. With that knowledge in what way can his actions be interpreted as not being coordinated with the white house?

Put another way Nunes served on the Trump transition team. The Trump campaign and transition team is under investigation for secret meetings with foreign officials and now for obstruction of justice for trying to end the investigation. Nunes isn't impartial here.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 02, 2018, 10:38:24 AM
I see, by "Whitehouse" you mean a tippee that happened to be in the Whitehouse.  Not the Whitehouse as in the administration coordinated or directed by Trump.  And then in the second instance you mean Trump.

It's no secret why someone would tip Nunes on something like this.  His clearance to review classified files is literally the highest in Congress.  There were only a handful of people who would have had the authority to review what he reviewed.

Is your question why didn't the tippee take it to the President?  I think the answer is that the President and his staff didn't have direct authority to review the files, but you're welcome to do research into that if you like.  The argument by suggestive soundbite though is a bit much.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 02, 2018, 12:10:07 PM
I don't normally like to cite Fox News, but this write up just seemed so on point on Media hypocrisy over transparency that it had to be referenced.  http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/02/02/media-s-longtime-crusade-for-transparency-ends-with-nunes-memo-as-post-remains-in-theaters.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/02/02/media-s-longtime-crusade-for-transparency-ends-with-nunes-memo-as-post-remains-in-theaters.html)

Keep in mind, this is literally less than a year from the NYTimes running a story revealing a conversation between the President and the Russians on security, where the NYT actually revealed more than the President had.  Publishing that story was claimed to have hurt, predictably, our relationship with Israel and to endangered a source of Intel, which makes the NYT's stance here even less defensible.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: LetterRip on February 02, 2018, 01:40:57 PM
So it has been released - Steele didn't like Trump, the DNC partially funded the memo research, and the FBI used the Steele memo as part of their support for the FISA application.

I don't see anything even vaguely concerning - if the Steele memo were the sole source, then it might be a little concerning.  The FBI recieved the Steele memo AFTER the Australian Diplomat had reported what a drunk Papadopalus had told him - that the Russians were going to give Trump dirt on Clinton.  It also confirmed what the Dutch intelligence agencies had told them about the Russians hacking the DNC.  So the Steele memo only confirmed and was supporting evidence for, not the sole source.

Quote
The FBI reportedly launched its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election after George Papadopoulos, then a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump, told an Australian diplomat that Moscow had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

According to a report published by the New York Times on Saturday, Papadopoulos made the revelation to Alexander Downer, the Australian high commissioner to the UK, “during a night of heavy drinking” at the Kensington Wine Rooms in London in May 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/30/donald-trump-russia-inquiry-george-papadopoulos-australian-diplomat

Quote
The Dutch domestic intelligence service AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacking group Cozy Bear for at least a year starting in mid-2014, local media outlets reported Thursday. According to the reports, the Dutch government alerted the United States to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election after Netherlands-based officials watched the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other operations by the Russians, including a 2014 State Department hack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26/dutch-media-reveal-country-to-be-secret-u-s-ally-in-war-against-russian-hackers/

So it was merely a confirming source, not a primary source.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Fenring on February 02, 2018, 03:53:06 PM
So it was merely a confirming source, not a primary source.

I'm not quite sure about that. Not about Steele, personally, being the only source, but about the information being brought forward as being from a true variety of unrelated sources. We've seen quite a lot of evidence in the last few years that it's quite easy to send the same information through various clearinghouses and make it appear to be corroborating evidence, when in fact the source of all of them is one and the same.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 05, 2018, 01:12:08 PM
So as of right now, the memo has not yet been released, I don't know for sure what it has in it or whether its significant.  But I have a challenge to issue to our members from the left.

If it's released, and as I suspect, immediately declared nothing, no issues, not important, by the media and or the politicians on the left.

Then I want you to explain to me what all the panic and hyperbole from the left trying to stop it from being released was about.  It can't both be a "constitutional crisis" as Panetta said this evening and no big deal. It's just a prediction, but I suspect, once again the position of the left will directly contradict itself and no one will hold them accountable.

Any takers on this?

Anyone see anything national security threats as the FBI and the MSM flat out stated?
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: rightleft22 on February 05, 2018, 04:31:20 PM
I think the concern is how the memo might be used as a reason for the administration to take certain actions. It could open a can a worms unless all the the relevant material was declassified. That is unlikely to happen.

Does this set precedence? Should any President be allowed to selectively declassify documents because it suits their political narrative.
I suspect if Obama had done something like this the right would never let it go. 

Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDeamon on February 05, 2018, 07:03:48 PM
I think the concern is how the memo might be used as a reason for the administration to take certain actions. It could open a can a worms unless all the the relevant material was declassified. That is unlikely to happen.

Does this set precedence? Should any President be allowed to selectively declassify documents because it suits their political narrative.
I suspect if Obama had done something like this the right would never let it go.

I think typically this would be called a FOIA Request. I'm generally a big fan of information that doesn't need to be classified not being classified in the first place when it comes to Government Information.

I think it also is a safe bet that practically every administration in history has "selectively declassified documents" for political purposes. Admittedly, doing so for such baldly political reasons is rare, but not unprecedented. Or did Colin Powell not give some rather (im)famous briefings about 15 years ago? (as one such example)
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: rightleft22 on February 06, 2018, 11:06:25 AM
In general aren't all warrants biased.
Could a defendant claim that a warrant is biased because the detective or informant expressed dislike for them? 
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 06, 2018, 11:34:26 AM
In general aren't all warrants biased.

No.  In general they are not biased.

Quote
Could a defendant claim that a warrant is biased because the detective or informant expressed dislike for them?

Actually yes, defendants do rarely defend themselves, sometimes successfully, by showing bias in the officer that arrested them.  You might be more familiar with claims based on race, where an officer is accused of arresting black people for crimes they left white people get off with only a warning.  It also happens in situations where there is a specific animus to a person - take a look at the cases of retaliation against ex-wives of police officers.

It also happens on a petty level.  One police officer is a dispute with a town council member, went to the member's district and ticketed every car in the district for parallel parking violations, such as not having their wheels turned to the curb or being outside the "inch" range from the edge of the curb.  Several hundred tickets were voided even though they were issued for violations that were technically true.

Equal protection of the law is a Constitutional guaranty. 
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 06, 2018, 01:21:47 PM
On the other hand, the investigators might have been biased against trump's people because they thought they were criminals, and that trump shouldn't be president if he thought they were good people.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: rightleft22 on February 06, 2018, 02:51:52 PM
I assume all warrants are necessarily biased from the perspective of whom the warrant is against as all the information within it is against the person.

If a detective had a known distrust of gingers  - asks for a warrant to search the home of the ginger person of interests whom much of the 'smoke' points towards should - as judge would you denie the warrant?

Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 06, 2018, 02:59:21 PM
rightleft22, bias:

Quote
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Warrants are not generally biased, there is nothing unfair or prejudiced about using facts in a criminal investigation.  It is not bias to base a warrant on a suspect's fingerprint found at a crime scene.

If a detective "had a known distrust of gingers" then they should have been sent for psychological evaluation.  Officers of all sorts go through training to make them aware of bias and how it could influence their thinking and an investigation.

A judge would grant a warrant if the evidence provided establishes probable cause.  Being a "ginger" does not factor into the question.

Now such a ginger bias may cause an officer to omit information that could be exculpatory, or to characterize neutral information in a misleading manner, which could cause a warrant to be issued that shouldn't be.  That would be an example of bias.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: rightleft22 on February 06, 2018, 05:53:26 PM
So it is up to the judge to validate the facts of the warrant to the best of their ability
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 06, 2018, 06:13:50 PM
Which brings us to the real problem with many warrants, even more so with FISA. The court can also be biased or negligent. Usually, the court is biased towards being on the side of prosecutors and investigators.

Given that courts give warrants based on jailhouse informants and rival gang member testimony, I can't see any level of bias of source of information that would complicate the application, especially for FISA who rarely rejects any application.

Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2018, 10:50:22 AM
So it is up to the judge to validate the facts of the warrant to the best of their ability

No.  It's a charge that is put on the agents requesting the warrant.  The judge is expressly permitted to rely on what's in the warrant.

That's why this charge is so serious.  Failing to disclose known material facts to the court is perpetrating a fraud on the court.  There is no defense counsel here, no investigation by the judge just a binding legal requirement that the prosecutor present the evidence fairly.

Which brings us to the real problem with many warrants, even more so with FISA. The court can also be biased or negligent. Usually, the court is biased towards being on the side of prosecutors and investigators.

I think generally it just appears that way, because in the normal context what you're seeing is a warrant request that is being brought solely because the investigators believe they have found probable cause of a crime.  That's why bias claims are so damaging, they trade on the good faith work of the entire justice apparatus in bringing an investigation on bad faith and illegal grounds.

It's ridiculously hard to catch a dirty cop.

Quote
Given that courts give warrants based on jailhouse informants and rival gang member testimony, I can't see any level of bias of source of information that would complicate the application, especially for FISA who rarely rejects any application.

They do weigh credibility in those circumstances, and unlike here, those sources would be disclosed to the court so they could weigh the credibility.  Plus, they often have no extraneous purpose.  It's not like, prosecutors investigate someone for murder to get access to their tax records.

Here, we are literally talking about the investigation of a presidential campaign, by an administration of the other party, based on paid opposition research funding by the candidate from the President's party.  There is every reason to view that as something that should have had the highest level of scrutiny and doubt applied.  When you couple that with the unmasking controversy, the President's last second change in classification practice, and the unparalleled level  of unverified deep state leakers (up to and specifically including the former head of the FBI), the appearance here is of a gross abuse of government resources to spy on the other party.  Seriously, this makes Watergate look like amateur hour, and people seem not to be concerned because of political loyalty.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 07, 2018, 12:25:35 PM
Right now, we don't know exactly what the FBI did or didn't say. Accepting the memo as truthful but potentially misleading, I'm skeptical when I read:

"took important investigative steps largely based on:

What does largely mean?

"the FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier"

Vague enough and limited enough that the court didn't understand what they meant and would have denied the warrant if it had been made more explicit? This language didn't even exist in the first copy of the memo. Talk about omitting crucial facts.

"attempts to explain away"

Or does explain legitimately?

Then there are the issues of the renewals where you'd get the impression from the memo that the Steele dossier was still primary, when we know that renewals are largely based on showing that there was significant useful information gathered from the original warrant.

Sadly, we will never really get to judge for ourselves because the Democrat's rebuttal - even if it isn't blocked - won't be any more credible.

And this is why the memo doesn't mean much to me. The Republicans and Democrats have gone so far off the rails, I have no trust whatever in their characterization of anything. For publicly verifiable information, there are a bushel of warped characterizations, over the top declarations, and quotes wildly out of context. Why am I going to trust Nunes more than the 30+ agents involved in the application for a warrant? Because one or two of them texted that they hate Trump? Lots of reasonable people hate Trump, it doesn't prove that those people faked evidence to stick it to him.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 07, 2018, 12:39:27 PM
I recommend reading the declassified Senate criminal referral.  It covers most of the same ground, with a lot more detail on the role of the memo and Steele's involvement.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 07, 2018, 01:02:46 PM
That's where I got it from. But the memo clearly was misleading. The fact that the criminal referral is less misleading doesn't infuse me with confidence.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2018, 10:32:48 AM
So we may get to see the Democratic response memo today.  Even though its been generally acknowledged as not as clean as the original memo, I note that there has been no outcry over sensitive and confidential information it discloses.

So why no takers on defending the lies about the risks inherent in the original memo?  Looks to me, like Shiff, among others, flat out lied about the security risk.  I doubt, you're going to stay silent after you have the Democratic memo in hand.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 09, 2018, 01:19:16 PM
Acknowledged that to me there's no security risk. But its pretty much standard procedure for any leo or other information gathering agency to not release anything. Could somebody glean something from this? Doubtful, and outweighed by the public interest.


Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: LetterRip on February 09, 2018, 02:48:35 PM
So we may get to see the Democratic response memo today.  Even though its been generally acknowledged as not as clean as the original memo, I note that there has been no outcry over sensitive and confidential information it discloses.

So why no takers on defending the lies about the risks inherent in the original memo?  Looks to me, like Shiff, among others, flat out lied about the security risk.  I doubt, you're going to stay silent after you have the Democratic memo in hand.

Could you clarify what specific 'lies' you are talking about?  A quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything said by Schiff that could be characterized as such.

The security risks weren't the content of the memo itself - rather that by showing a willingness to reveal FBI informant names for political purposes it will have a chilling effect that will dissuade people from reporting to the FBI because people now they are no longer assured of their reports being confidential.  So people will err on not reporting in ambigous situation - since a false positive could result in an angry neighbor, or accusations of being a bigot, etc. due to no longer being assured that your report is anonymous.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/04/rep_adam_schiff_suggests_fisa_memo_release_will_dissuade_sources_from_reporting_domestic_terrorists.html

Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 09, 2018, 04:00:09 PM
You could start with his opening statement from the House Intelligence Committee transcript:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf (http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180129.pdf)

Or you could look at his comments from before the release, where he repeatedly characterized the memo has revealing classified information.  Heck, you could look at the FBI and DOJ statements, which also falsely characterized it as releasing things it shouldn't have.

I'm fascinated too, that the left seems to have little problem with leaks of classified information, or say a Senator releasing a non-public transcript "because she was sick" but a lot of problems with declassifying this information.

Shiff also used misleading misrepresentations every time he talked, "Nunes chose not to review the underlying information."  Well duh, the DOJ restricted it to review by one member and if it had been Nunes everyone on the left would have instantly discounted it.  Nunes didn't write the memo, so it's not even clear why Shiff made this point - other than for purely political reasons because Nunes is a Bogey man.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: LetterRip on February 09, 2018, 04:07:09 PM
I skimmed the transcript - could you clarify where you are referring to by page number, I don't see anything supporting your contention.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on February 09, 2018, 05:10:56 PM
Well, number one, it was classified at the time he made the remarks. So how can it be inaccurate to say it has classified information in it?

In the transcript, he uses these phrases. I've tried to be thorough, but I could easily miss something.

"highly sensitive"
"could potentially reveal sources and methods"
"want to make sure that nothing [would] ... impair the FBI's investigation"

Later on, he continues to drive the point that it should be reviewed by FBI, DOJ, etc. To determine if any of those concerns were valid. He never makes the assertion "It does contain information that would impair the FBI" or "It will reveal sources and methods"

So calling an expression of uncertainty "a lie" seems a bit of a stretch.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on February 26, 2018, 10:50:51 AM
So the Democratic rebuttal has been released.  A couple points.  First, there's literally no way to reconcile Democratic claims of the dangers of releasing the Republican memo because it risked exposing investigative techniques that could harm the national interest, with the far far more specific memo the Democrats produced.  It does seem, at this point, that such a claim was little more than a lie.

Second, Shiff and his cronies have been claiming that the political nature of the Steele report was part of the application.  With the implication that the court knew who it was funded by.

This consisted of a statement that, "(t)he FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit (Trump's) campaign."  (emphasis and changes in paren's mine).

That doesn't sound remotely like telling the court - that the FBI knew that the information was paid for by the DNC and the other campaign that could have literally been anyone in the country and half or more of the organizations involved in the election.  And that's significant because, revealing it was the DNC would have been an admission that the DNC and the campaign paid a foreign spy in violation of the campaign finance laws interesting omission
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: LetterRip on February 26, 2018, 04:18:36 PM
Quote
DNC and the campaign paid a foreign spy in violation of the campaign finance laws interesting omission

The DNC didn't pay a foreign spy.  The DNC paid a lawfirm.  The lawfirm paid a US based research agency Fusion GPS.  Fusion GPS hired a foreign born individual (an ex-spy) who did the research.

Also the Trump campaign hiring Cambridge Analytica, a British analytics firm.

Neither of those is illegal.

The DNC however, may have done a campaign violation in that their payment to the lawfirm was described as 'legal services', where more accurately it should have been described as 'legal and research services'.

They probably broke the spirit of the law - but it is far from clear that they broke the letter of the law.

I'm all for a change in law that would require much stricter and more transparent disclosures on this type of passthrough payment.

Quote
So the Democratic rebuttal has been released.  A couple points.  First, there's literally no way to reconcile Democratic claims of the dangers of releasing the Republican memo because it risked exposing investigative techniques that could harm the national interest, with the far far more specific memo the Democrats produced.  It does seem, at this point, that such a claim was little more than a lie.

You keep misrepresenting what the Democrats said.  They feared the chilling effect on individuals submitting leads and on FBI doing investigations.

As to them releasing detailed information - the harm to the nation of letting the false and misleading memo by Nunes stand is a pretty serious harm to the nation.  Since Nunes already did the damage regarding people willing to submit information to the FBI there is very little in the way of additional harm by countering Nunes memo with fact that also does such disclosures.


Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on April 01, 2020, 06:53:52 PM
Out of curiosity, anyone want to rethink their reactions on these memos?  We now know based on the IG's report that Nunes Memo was accurate and I just reread it, and if anything it gave the FBI and the DOJ the benefit of the doubt on things we now know were  false.  https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-released-full-text-read-pdf-declassified (https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-released-full-text-read-pdf-declassified)

I also reread Shiff's response and it's literally misleading statement and false claim after misleading statement and false claim.  https://www.vox.com/2018/2/24/17048764/schiff-memo-nunes-read-full-text-pdf (https://www.vox.com/2018/2/24/17048764/schiff-memo-nunes-read-full-text-pdf).

Schiff is really good at saying something other than what he actually said.  His statement that the FBI met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary burden to pursue a FISA warrant on Page is clearly false, but is it a lie or just a statement he thought was true?  Certainly not something he had seen evidence to support since the IG established it wasn't there.

Shiff's memo is chock full of statements that contradict reality as set out extensively in the IG report, many of which he had to know were false.  It's a document written to spin a story and when you recompare the two it should be really obvious.

In any event, this thread came to mind while I was reading a news report this week that the IG provided a new report on FISA abuse.  His office conducted a spot check of 25 FISA applications granted to authorize warrants against US persons in the last five years.  The IG's office found material problems in 100% of the applications reviewed, yes all 25.  It's hard to imagine why we should let this process continue.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2020, 07:00:25 PM
On FISA, I've long been a critic of its existence and operation even when all the rules are followed. You'll have no complaints from me on proposals to demolish, dismantle, or overhaul that process.

I think it also demonstrates that it isn't necessarily a targeting of Page in any way - it is standard operating procedure to abuse the system.

I'm not going to delve into any of the Schiff statements one way or the other.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: wmLambert on April 01, 2020, 08:09:17 PM
...It's hard to imagine why we should let this process continue.

There are three ways to see this: either we get rid of the whole thing because it is proved not to work. We prosecute anyone who lied and signed a legal document that claimed they verified everything on the forms. We look at the judges who allowed this transgression of justice to go on without doing anything about it.

Personally, I think number three is the way to go, with number two a half-step behind. We can't fix what's broken if we allow the perpetrators to get away with malfeasance, crimes, or incompetence. Dues must be paid.
Title: Re: Release the memo
Post by: Seriati on April 02, 2020, 10:33:42 AM
On FISA, I've long been a critic of its existence and operation even when all the rules are followed. You'll have no complaints from me on proposals to demolish, dismantle, or overhaul that process.

Or cut it completely back to non-US persons only.  There should be no end around to spying on US citizens.

Quote
I think it also demonstrates that it isn't necessarily a targeting of Page in any way - it is standard operating procedure to abuse the system.

I think it demonstrates that it is standard process to abuse the system.  The FBI sees this is a formality and completely ignores the fundamental violation of rights if it can get them a result.

It doesn't remotely show that Page wasn't targeted.  There's no question Page was targeted.  I think too, the falsification of information that occurred in respect of Page was unique.

Quote
I'm not going to delve into any of the Schiff statements one way or the other.

I think fairness requires it.  Schiff has been front and center of every step of this process.  He's used his position on the Intelligence Committee to prop up multiple anti-Trump lies.  Without review, there's no accountability.