Nunes memo for Dummies

Can someone explain this to me in simple, objective terms without my head exploding, thanks.



mem said:

Can someone explain this to me in simple, objective terms without my head exploding, thanks.

OK, to be serious, here is a good summary:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/03/what-is-the-nunes-memo-and-why-important


Republican squabbling. Just please don't stop the russian investigation. Get that conman out of our white house.


This is an explanation of the memo and the position of the Republicans.  To keep it simple I have left out why this is pure spin and factually incomplete if not incorrect.  


The FBI petitioned the FISA court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page who was a Trump campaign official.  The Republicans believe that the important part of the FBI's application to the court are the allegations contained within what is referred to as 'the Steele dossier'.  This dossier was partially funded by the Clinton campaign, and thus is not trustworthy.  The Republican position is that since the surveilance of Page was tainted, and that the intelligence resulting from the sureveillance led to the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller, the investigation should be terminated.  




I caught Hannity who summed it up pretty simply - Hillary paid for Russian propaganda that got a Trump associate wired.


Ergo Trump is innocent.....

Red_Barchetta said:
This is an explanation of the memo and the position of the Republicans.  To keep it simple I have left out why this is pure spin and factually incomplete if not incorrect.  



The FBI petitioned the FISA court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page who was a Trump campaign official.  The Republicans believe that the important part of the FBI's application to the court are the allegations contained within what is referred to as 'the Steele dossier'.  This dossier was partially funded by the Clinton campaign, and thus is not trustworthy.  The Republican position is that since the surveilance of Page was tainted, and that the intelligence resulting from the sureveillance led to the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller, the investigation should be terminated.  



Get real, folks. Nunes knows the real colluder. "No colluder. No colluder. You're the colluder!"



GL2 said:

Get real, folks. Nunes knows the real colluder. "No colluder. No colluder. You're the colluder!"


If you doubt that Hillary for America paid for oppo research from Russian government officials, just look at the sources cited in the oppo research.


This guy is just begging for someone to point out the dictionary definition of "collusion".

paulsurovell said:
 
GL2 said:

Get real, folks. Nunes knows the real colluder. "No colluder. No colluder. You're the colluder!"


If you doubt that Hillary for America paid for oppo research from Russian government officials, just look at the sources cited in the oppo research.

Nobody argues that Hillary's campaign didn't pay the DNC didn't pay the law firm didn't pay Fusion didn't pay Steele for the dossier.  That doesn't equal "Hillary colluded with Russia".


So you admit that Trump was accepting information from the Russians, since that's what is stated on the first page of the document in your link.

paulsurovell said:



GL2 said:

Get real, folks. Nunes knows the real colluder. "No colluder. No colluder. You're the colluder!"



If you doubt that Hillary for America paid for oppo research from Russian government officials, just look at the sources cited in the oppo research.




nohero said:

This guy is just begging for someone to point out the dictionary definition of "collusion".

paulsurovell said:
 
GL2 said:

Get real, folks. Nunes knows the real colluder. "No colluder. No colluder. You're the colluder!"


If you doubt that Hillary for America paid for oppo research from Russian government officials, just look at the sources cited in the oppo research.

Nobody argues that Hillary's campaign didn't pay the DNC didn't pay the law firm didn't pay Fusion didn't pay Steele for the dossier.  That doesn't equal "Hillary colluded with Russia".

It's very simple. The Hillary campaign, thru its law firm, paid a contractor to work with Russian government officials to influence the election. More actual collusion with Russia than has been alleged about Trump.


Seriously, stipulate for a moment that the Trump campaign was in fact in collusion with the Russian government to affect the election. 

How would you go about investigating and proving this without, at some point, having contact with Russian officials who were willing to talk? 

Because if you can't make that contact, then actual collusion with foreign governments is an unprovable "gimme" for any future presidential campaign, as best I can figure. 


Mr. Surovell has been "Hannitized", see example below.

paulsurovell said:

It's very simple. The Hillary campaign, thru its law firm, paid a contractor to work with Russian government officials to influence the election. More actual collusion with Russia than has been alleged about Trump.



Last time I looked Hillary wasn’t president. Why do these repugs behave as if she is? Oh that’s right, she did get the majority of votes. Sheesh.



nohero said:

Mr. Surovell has been "Hannitized", see example below.

paulsurovell said:

It's very simple. The Hillary campaign, thru its law firm, paid a contractor to work with Russian government officials to influence the election. More actual collusion with Russia than has been alleged about Trump.

Nohero equates stating facts with being "Hannitized."  He's also aware that I've been making the same point for the last 8 months since I created the thread:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=



paulsurovell said:
 
nohero said:

Mr. Surovell has been "Hannitized", see example below.

paulsurovell said:

It's very simple. The Hillary campaign, thru its law firm, paid a contractor to work with Russian government officials to influence the election. More actual collusion with Russia than has been alleged about Trump.
Nohero equates stating facts with being "Hannitized."  He's also aware that I've been making the same point for the last 8 months since I created the thread:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=

Your statement about "collusion" is an allegation, not "stating a fact".  Looking back at the first post in your "Who colluded more: Hillary or Trump" thread, you have Hillary paying for the dossier (naturally), and something about "colluding" with the Ukrainian government.  Whatever validity you think that "same point" has (and haven't heard about the "Ukrainian collusion" for a while, now), it's another rant that was on Hannity, back when he was defending Donald Trump Jr.

And by the way, since everyone is talking about collusion, well, why did the media and Democrats freak out, why did they freak out over a story in January that had real evidence -- and by the way, you won't get this in any other mainstream media outlet, none of them will talk about this! Take a look at the headline from Politico. Quote, "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire."

And according to Politico's report, Ukrainian government officials tried to assist, aid, help Hillary Clinton in several ways by questioning then candidate Donald Trump's fitness for office, by assisting Clinton allies in their op research by putting out documents insinuating that the Ukrainian government was investigating a top Trump aide. And the report adds that a DNC operative even met with Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian embassy in D.C. to discuss ways to expose former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and ties to the country.

Oh, they went to the Ukrainians, an outside entity, another country! Well, where's the outrage over this? How many of you even heard about this before? Because there's actual evidence of collusion. The meetings actually took place. The research actually happened. That's collusion! And by the way, where was Congress calling for investigations?

Sean Hannity, evening of July 10, 2017.  "Who Colluded More" starts the morning of July 11, 2017.

Using Hannity/Surovell logic:  "The timeline is awfully suspicious, it's just too convenient.  It's clear that material evidence was omitted from the initial submission of the "Who Colluded More" thread to MOL, concealing the source of the talking point."


The DNC and Clinton Campaign should ask for their money back from Fusion GPS.


nohero said:

Your statement about "collusion" is an allegation, not "stating a fact".  Looking back at the first post in your "Who colluded more: Hillary or Trump" thread, you have Hillary paying for the dossier (naturally), and something about "colluding" with the Ukrainian government.  Whatever validity you think that "same point" has (and haven't heard about the "Ukrainian collusion" for a while, now), it's another rant that was on Hannity, back when he was defending Donald Trump Jr.

Hillary for America and the DNC paid for the dossier. Are you disputing that?

The OP of the "Collusion" thread cites a detailed Politico report on how a Hillary for America consultant obtained dirt on Trump from the Ukrainian government. HfA colluded with a foreign government to influence the election. No one has denied this.

nohero said:

Sean Hannity, evening of July 10, 2017.  "Who Colluded More" starts the morning of July 11, 2017.

Using Hannity/Surovell logic:  "The timeline is awfully suspicious, it's just too convenient.  It's clear that material evidence was omitted from the initial submission of the "Who Colluded More" thread to MOL, concealing the source of the talking point."

The OP cites two instances of actual collusion by Hillary for America to get dirt on Trump: from (a) the Ukraine government and (b) Russian government officials.

I first posted the Ukrainian collusion story 6 months prior to the July 11 OP (see below). At the time, the direct relationship between Hillary for America and the Russian dossier was not known, but a financial relationship had been alleged for at least 5 months prior, as per the WaPo article I linked in the OP.

The trigger for the OP of course, was the "bombshell" report in the NY Times of the Trump Tower meeting a day earlier (July 10, 2017) which I cited.

Did Hannity make these same connections? Good for him. But it's unlikely he reads MOL, so I wouldn't presume that he learned about the Ukrainian collusion from me.


What did HFA promise the Ukrainian government in return?


paulsurovell said:


nohero said:

Your statement about "collusion" is an allegation, not "stating a fact".  Looking back at the first post in your "Who colluded more: Hillary or Trump" thread, you have Hillary paying for the dossier (naturally), and something about "colluding" with the Ukrainian government.  Whatever validity you think that "same point" has (and haven't heard about the "Ukrainian collusion" for a while, now), it's another rant that was on Hannity, back when he was defending Donald Trump Jr.

Hillary for America and the DNC paid for the dossier. Are you disputing that? 

Yes, Hillary paid the DNC which paid the law firm which paid Fusion GPS which paid Steele.  Everyone knows this.  Most people know that's not "collusion".  I wrote the same thing just above in this thread.  You keep ignoring that detail.  It's the same thing I and others have been saying, which you keep ignoring.  If I may quote myself from October -

"So the campaign hired the law firm, and the law firm hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion GPS hired the guy who wrote the dossier, which may or may not have been finished (apparently, 'After the election, [Fusion's owner], a former Wall Street Journal reporter, reportedly spent his own money to continue the investigation.').  Oh, sure, that's EXACTLY THE SAME as personally meeting with a Russian who promises Russian-government dirt on Hillary - Not."

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=660#discussion-replies-3375565



paulsurovell said:


nohero said:

Your statement about "collusion" is an allegation, not "stating a fact".  Looking back at the first post in your "Who colluded more: Hillary or Trump" thread, you have Hillary paying for the dossier (naturally), and something about "colluding" with the Ukrainian government.  Whatever validity you think that "same point" has (and haven't heard about the "Ukrainian collusion" for a while, now), it's another rant that was on Hannity, back when he was defending Donald Trump Jr.

Hillary for America and the DNC paid for the dossier. Are you disputing that?

The OP of the "Collusion" thread cites a detailed Politico report on how a Hillary for America consultant obtained dirt on Trump from the Ukrainian government. HfA colluded with a foreign government to influence the election. No one has denied this.
nohero said:

Sean Hannity, evening of July 10, 2017.  "Who Colluded More" starts the morning of July 11, 2017.

Using Hannity/Surovell logic:  "The timeline is awfully suspicious, it's just too convenient.  It's clear that material evidence was omitted from the initial submission of the "Who Colluded More" thread to MOL, concealing the source of the talking point."
The OP cites two instances of actual collusion by Hillary for America to get dirt on Trump: from (a) the Ukraine government and (b) Russian government officials.

I first posted the Ukrainian collusion story 6 months prior to the July 11 OP (see below). At the time, the direct relationship between Hillary for America and the Russian dossier was not known, but a financial relationship had been alleged for at least 5 months prior, as per the WaPo article I linked in the OP.

The trigger for the OP of course, was the "bombshell" report in the NY Times of the Trump Tower meeting a day earlier (July 10, 2017) which I cited.

Did Hannity make these same connections? Good for him. But it's unlikely he reads MOL, so I wouldn't presume that he learned about the Ukrainian collusion from me.

Hannity is just an obvious example that the "Hillary colluded with Ukraine" nonsense was the "talking point" for the Trump defenders, and you picked it up and ran with it by starting "Who colluded more".  Whether you earlier posted the "Politico" article (and who could seriously believe you originally got it by reading "Politico" instead of from a citation by a Trump defender?) is irrelevant.



ridski said:

What did HFA promise the Ukrainian government in return?

Quid pro quos are illegal, so political campaigns don't offer them. But like most contributors to political campaigns, the Ukrainian government sought to support the candidate's agenda and to gain access to her future administration.



nohero said:

Hannity is just an obvious example that the "Hillary colluded with Ukraine" nonsense was the "talking point" for the Trump defenders, and you picked it up and ran with it by starting "Who colluded more".  Whether you earlier posted the "Politico" article (and who could seriously believe you originally got it by reading "Politico" instead of from a citation by a Trump defender?) is irrelevant.

You have veered off from Hannity to Insanity.


Paul - can you refresh us on your stance in regards to Russia meddling in our election?  Here's George Bush's take:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-w-bush-russia-definitely-meddled-in-the-2016-election

(Had to post this link - check out the author)   cheese 



jamie said:

Paul - can you refresh us on your stance in regards to Russia meddling in our election?  Here's George Bush's take:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-w-bush-russia-definitely-meddled-in-the-2016-election


(Had to post this link - check out the author)   cheese 

Cheney has also endorsed the meddling narrative -- Bush-Cheney. I rest my case.

Maybe the author needs to put a disclaimer under his/her byline. Unless . . . .


who in the current government has NOT endorsed the meddling narrative?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.