Trump to publish memo over "grave concerns" of FBI: weapon of mass distraction
TRUMP said he will.release the memo without having even read it. It is possible, however, that he wrote it.
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What if it's misleading - gives away critical sources and methods - and puts many lives in danger in the process - is that worth it? For the sole purpose of discrediting Mueller? Would you want it released without the full picture rebuttal from the democrats?
Trump's FBI director, the man he appointed, says the memo is misleading.
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
So much for all that right-wing chest thumping to "respect those in law enforcement".
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
I have a memo describing nefarious and illegal activities happening at a well-known B & B located in an upscale neighborhood in Essex County NJ. With your logic I should go ahead and release it to the law enforcement community, the press, and anyone who cares to read it. I mean if it’s a lie it will come out in the wash, right? No harm no foul?
Red_Barchetta said:
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
I have a memo describing nefarious and illegal activities happening at a well-known B & B located in an upscale neighborhood in Essex County NJ. With your logic I should go ahead and release it to the law enforcement community, the press, and anyone who cares to read it. I mean if it’s a lie it will come out in the wash, right? No harm no foul?
But then Art will want to meet you in the Ricalton parking lot, at high noon, for a punch out. Except he never shows...squawk!
Red_Barchetta said:
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
I have a memo describing nefarious and illegal activities happening at a well-known B & B located in an upscale neighborhood in Essex County NJ. With your logic I should go ahead and release it to the law enforcement community, the press, and anyone who cares to read it. I mean if it’s a lie it will come out in the wash, right? No harm no foul?
I mean...have you ever stayed there?
Supposedly, we are going to see this notorious memo tomorrow. Should be interesting to see whether there are serious omissions.
Nunes/Trump are going to have to work fast. The NYT is reporting that Mueller is zeroing in on the Trump Tower meeting. Hope Hicks may be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.
"The latest witness to be called for an interview about the episode was Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team before resigning in July. Mr. Corallo received an interview request last week from the special counsel and has agreed to the interview, according to three people with knowledge of the request."
.....
"Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said."
....
"Accusations began flying that the botched response made an already bad situation worse. Ms. Hicks called Mr. Corallo from Air Force One, according to three people who relayed his version of events to The Times. She accused him of trafficking in conspiracy theories and drawing more attention to the story.
The conference call with the president, Mr. Corallo and Ms. Hicks took place the next morning, and what transpired on the call is a matter of dispute.
"In Mr. Corallo’s account — which he provided contemporaneously to three colleagues who later gave it to The Times — he told both Mr. Trump and Ms. Hicks that the statement drafted aboard Air Force One would backfire because documents would eventually surface showing that the meeting had been set up for the Trump campaign to get political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians."
'
nohero said:
ajc said:
peaceinourtime said:
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
So much for all that right-wing chest thumping to "respect those in law enforcement".
The FBI is entitled to express its opinion. But as we are not a Police State, the elected President and Congress have no obligation to accept its opinion or to follow its wishes.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:The FBI is entitled to express its opinion. But as we are not a Police State, the elected President and Congress have no obligation to accept its opinion or to follow its wishes.
ajc said:So much for all that right-wing chest thumping to "respect those in law enforcement".
peaceinourtime said:What else would you expect? It's only natural to try to protect your own... IMHO, let the memo stand on its own. If its a lie, it will all come out in the wash. If it's not, then it's time to clean house and make sure nothing like this ever happens again...
The FBI relates that the memo is basically dishonest.
Your comment has nothing to do with Mr. AJC's insinuation and my response.
peaceinourtime said:
Supposedly, we are going to see this notorious memo tomorrow. Should be interesting to see whether there are serious omissions.
How can I tell what is omitted?
According to Trump Republicans like Gen. KELLY, we will see versions of the classified material it's based on, eventually.
LOST said:
peaceinourtime said:
Supposedly, we are going to see this notorious memo tomorrow. Should be interesting to see whether there are serious omissions.
How can I tell what is omitted?
LOST said:
peaceinourtime said:
Supposedly, we are going to see this notorious memo tomorrow. Should be interesting to see whether there are serious omissions.
How can I tell what is omitted?
The paragraph quoted below is evidence that there are serious omissions in the Nunes memo. Byron York's source was probably Tom Rooney, whom York quotes further up in the article.
"The member noted that that Democratic memo contains far more classified information — names and sources — than the GOP paper. "It is much more revealing [of classified information]," he said. "It's going to have to be heavily redacted before it can be released. We wrote our memo with the hope that it would be released to the American people. Their memo will have to be heavily redacted."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/memo-war-gop-to-release-memo-aimed-at-justice-department-while-dems-push-memo-aimed-at-gop/article/2647479
From The Onion:
FBI Warns Republican Memo Could Undermine Faith In Massive, Unaccountable Government Secret Agencies
WASHINGTON—Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the “Nunes Memo” could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. “Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale,” said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. “If we take away the people’s faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that’s left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons.” At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating constitutional rights.
Ppaulsurovell said:
So much for all that right-wing chest thumping to "respect those in law enforcement".
The FBI is entitled to express its opinion. But as we are not a Police State, the elected President and Congress have no obligation to accept its opinion or to follow its wishes.
Yup - Donald Trump, the man who has turned ICE into an unaccountable police force that snatches parents away from children at school drop offs, the man who tells police officers "Please don't be too nice" when arresting suspects, the man who demands personal loyalty from the director of the FBI, is standing up against the Police State.
PVW said:
Ppaulsurovell said:Yup - Donald Trump, the man who has turned ICE into an unaccountable police force that snatches parents away from children at school drop offs, the man who tells police officers "Please don't be too nice" when arresting suspects, the man who demands personal loyalty from the director of the FBI, is standing up against the Police State.
So much for all that right-wing chest thumping to "respect those in law enforcement".
The FBI is entitled to express its opinion. But as we are not a Police State, the elected President and Congress have no obligation to accept its opinion or to follow its wishes.
You are correct, Trump is an enemy of civil rights and civil liberties. But there is one exception: when he is the victim of abuse. And in this case, out of self-interest, he is taking a stand against abuses of power by the FBI.
Unfortunately, those who are demonizing the memo are trying -- also out of self-interest -- to cover up FBI abuses of power -- because those abuses were used against Trump.
Out of self-interest, civil libertarians and authoritarians have reversed roles, either because they want to protect Russiagate as a weapon against Trump or because they want to discredit Russiagate to exonerate Trump.
There is a subset of civil libertarians, like myself, who stand on principle and who oppose Trump but who also oppose dishonest narratives and abuses by the FBI or CIA, regardless of the impact on Trump.
Another unfortunate role reversal in this matter -- which has occurred on this board -- is the adoption of McCarthyite tactics by some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
paulsurovell said:
There is a subset of civil libertarians, like myself, who stand on principle and who oppose Trump but who also oppose dishonest narratives and abuses by the FBI or CIA, regardless of the impact on Trump.
Another unfortunate role reversal in this matter -- which has occurred on this board -- is the adoption of McCarthyite tactics by some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
What this sounds like: You oppose dishonest narratives, but principle — one that stands apart from your view of the FBI — demands that you support the release of the memo.
I did not realize that you are The Last Honest Man on this discussion board.
paulsurovell said:
There is a subset of civil libertarians, like myself, who stand on principle and who oppose Trump but who also oppose dishonest narratives and abuses by the FBI or CIA, regardless of the impact on Trump.
Another unfortunate role reversal in this matter -- which has occurred on this board -- is the adoption of McCarthyite tactics by some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
paulsurovell said:
some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
Not supporters. More like dupes.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
There is a subset of civil libertarians, like myself, who stand on principle and who oppose Trump but who also oppose dishonest narratives and abuses by the FBI or CIA, regardless of the impact on Trump.
Another unfortunate role reversal in this matter -- which has occurred on this board -- is the adoption of McCarthyite tactics by some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
What this sounds like: You oppose dishonest narratives, but principle — one that stands apart from your view of the FBI — demands that you support the release of the memo.
No, I think I said that principle requires opposing dishonest narratives and abuses of power by the FBI, regardless of whether Trump is the victim.
I've met many people who say "I don't care if Russiagate is BS or whether the FBI acted unlawfully, as long as it gets rid of Trump." That's casting aside principle out of self-interest.
With regard to the memo, the burden is on those opposing its release, and that burden hasn't been met.
RobB said:
paulsurovell said:Not supporters. More like dupes.
some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
The Russiagate defense in a nutshell.
paulsurovell said:
No, I think I said that principle requires opposing dishonest narratives and abuses of power by the FBI, regardless of whether Trump is the victim.
Those are two principles: oppose dishonest narratives, and oppose abuses of power by the FBI. I see a potential conflict here, which is making me ask myself why I’m choosing one over the other.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
No, I think I said that principle requires opposing dishonest narratives and abuses of power by the FBI, regardless of whether Trump is the victim.
Those are two principles: oppose dishonest narratives, and oppose abuses of power by the FBI. I see a potential conflict here, which is making me ask myself why I’m choosing one over the other.
Where's the conflict?
paulsurovell said:
RobB said:
paulsurovell said:Not supporters. More like dupes.
some civil libertarians who accuse those, like myself, who oppose dishonest narratives and abuses of power of being supporters or agents of Trump or Putin or Russia.
The Russiagate defense in a nutshell.
Ahh, the I know you are but what am I defense.
paulsurovell said:I've met many people who say "I don't care if Russiagate is BS or whether the FBI acted unlawfully, as long as it gets rid of Trump." That's casting aside principle out of self-interest.
Was it actual "self-interest"? If an undocumented immigrant is in actual fear of Trump would it surprise anyone if he wanted Trump gone by any means. Would not his self-interest in his very existence trump principle?
If the only way to stop the President from launching nuclear war was to have him removed from office on a completely false premise would you oppose that on principle?
Or are you just talking about partisan politics?
paulsurovell said:
Where's the conflict?
What this sounds like: You’re convinced the memo is an honest narrative.
For Sale
-
leather couches $300
More info
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Free Items
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
FBI Director Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein go on record saying they have "grave concerns" over serious omissions in the Nunes memo. Its based on a highly classified FISA warrant on Carter Page, suspected agent of the Kremlin. Trump wants to release the memo in defiance, and probably will. Disgusting. Talk about fake news.