The House Intelligence Committee Memo

[Old_Trapper70]

Or are you asking for a link on the actual story (the historical facts) related to "the pentagon papers?"

Pentagon Papers - Vietnam War - HISTORY.com
www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/pentagon-papers
The Pentagon Papers was the name given to a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. As the Vietnam War dragged on, with more than 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg—who had worked on the study—came to

Didn't matter. I am not into movies so forgot about that one. I actually thought the movie was about Nixon, and Watergate.

 

[Openmind]

Didn't matter. I am not into movies so forgot about that one. I actually thought the movie was about Nixon, and Watergate.

No, it actually ENDS with the Watergate burglary. It was about the power of the press to release the REAL documents related to the Vietnam war, and the fact that several Presidents had hidden the truth from Americans: We were losing the war, and in spite of that knowledge, the "power that be" decided to send another ½ million young American to Vietnam. . .to "avoid humiliation of admitting we were losing the war!"

It is about the President trying to keep those papers from coming out, and the very painful, difficult decision made by the female owner of the Washington Post to publish the papers, although it might have met the end of the Post.

 

[BigRob]

I'm not really following the absurdities of this case as its beyond the realms of fantasy, however, just to have a peek down the rabbit hole historically it seems that the first point in the decline of a country is when politicians attempt to politicise inter alia their intelligence services for their own grubby little ends.

I don't disagree with your statement...but the question would be in a discussion between Trump and Clinton, who politicized the intelligence services? If the memo is accurate the answer is seemingly Clinton - or at least her supporters. Let's assume that Clinton had won the election....it is likely we never would have heard a word about any of this. That alone is quite telling in my view.

This whole process seems to indicate a complete failure in the ability of the US politicial system to differentiate between their reliance of the legal system to hinder clarity of purpose to the institutions that [are supposed to] protect the integrity of the citizenry. How is it that irrespective of political leaning institutions that in their essence should be apolitical are in fact play things of the monied political eilite. Its just a fucking Disneyland and the lot of you should demand better - a root and branch change to how lawyers interact with and obfuscate the political processes that have brought about this fiasco.

This bring up another major issue here. We know that the Steele Dossier was a political document filled with false opposition research claims and funded by the Democrats. It has also been testified, by the former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, to that without this dossier there never would have been a FISA warrant issued regarding Carter Page.

This raises some serious questions. Are the FISA judges doing their job on signing off on extensions as required to maintain this on a US citizen. How do we get to the point where Andrew McCabe knows the dossier to be what it is, openly admit later in testimony that without it there never would have been a warrant, and yet he signs off on the FISA renewal application - which a judge then approves? If these are just being rubber stamped that is something that immediately needs to be changed.

 

[Openmind]

I don't disagree with your statement...but the question would be in a discussion between Trump and Clinton, who politicized the intelligence services? If the memo is accurate the answer is seemingly Clinton - or at least her supporters. Let's assume that Clinton had won the election....it is likely we never would have heard a word about any of this. That alone is quite telling in my view.



This bring up another major issue here. We know that the Steele Dossier was a political document filled with false opposition research claims and funded by the Democrats. It has also been testified, by the former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, to that without this dossier there never would have been a FISA warrant issued regarding Carter Page.

This raises some serious questions. Are the FISA judges doing their job on signing off on extensions as required to maintain this on a US citizen. How do we get to the point where Andrew McCabe knows the dossier to be what it is, openly admit later in testimony that without it there never would have been a warrant, and yet he signs off on the FISA renewal application - which a judge then approves? If these are just being rubber stamped that is something that immediately needs to be changed.

What happened to your free thinking? You are just regurgitating the Right wing propaganda!
It is obvious that the McAbe FISA warrant would have been issued and that the Steele Dossier was only ONE element in the decision.
By the way, the opposition research was ORIGINALLY FUNDED by REPUBLICANS against Trump. . .and THEN taken over by the Clinton's campaign.

And still. . .the FISA was renewed 3X. . .

Why don't we wait for the release of the much more detailed Dem memo? Although I already can guess your answer to it: LIES!

So funny!

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I don't disagree with your statement...but the question would be in a discussion between Trump and Clinton, who politicized the intelligence services? If the memo is accurate the answer is seemingly Clinton - or at least her supporters. Let's assume that Clinton had won the election....it is likely we never would have heard a word about any of this. That alone is quite telling in my view.

The Nunes memo has already been proven to be false, and Nunes never read the articles to which his memo refers. Total right wing lies as usual.

This bring up another major issue here. We know that the Steele Dossier was a political document filled with false opposition research claims and funded by the Democrats. It has also been testified, by the former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, to that without this dossier there never would have been a FISA warrant issued regarding Carter Page.

Like most of your ********* this one too ignores reality. Page was being investigated as far back as 2013, and the Steele dossier had nothing to do with it. The FISA courts, all 4 of them, didn't rely on the words of Steele, and were told of the possible bias.

And then there is the lie about McCabe you feel proud to repeat. Of course, that is why the right wing, and Trump, will not release the Democrat memo.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sourc...d-steele-dossier-for-carter-page-fisa-warrant

 

[BigRob]

What happened to your free thinking? You are just regurgitating the Right wing propaganda!

It is obvious that the McAbe FISA warrant would have been issued and that the Steele Dossier was only ONE element in the decision.

What is that based on? We don't know that. What we have is the incomplete picture of the Nunes memo - which stated: "McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [FISA court] without the Steele dossier information."

As I said - we need more information - but if that is accurate that is a very damning statement.

By the way, the opposition research was ORIGINALLY FUNDED by REPUBLICANS against Trump. . .and THEN taken over by the Clinton's campaign.

Let's get the timeline correct through:
A Republican donor was funding opposition research through Fusion GPS into Trump in the Fall of 2015. However by April 2016 that was abandoned and the Democrats took it over. It was not until June that Steele was brought on to work on the project. All of the Steele actions etc are well after the Democrats have taken over the project. And more importantly, we have confirmation from both sides of the aisle that its mostly rubbish to begin with.

And still. . .the FISA was renewed 3X. . .

Exactly - and if this memo is true - and the description of the McCabe testimony accurate - this could be an outrageous problem. I want to err on the side of it being almost comically difficult to target American citizens at the FISC. That is why I said (and I hope it does get released) we really need to see the initial FISA application.

Why don't we wait for the release of the much more detailed Dem memo?

I am hopeful that is released. The White House has thus far indicated they do not have an issue with that either.

Although I already can guess your answer to it: LIES!

I'm not sure you can provide a single example of anything I have ever posted on here that disregarded evidenced based statements. There are times I might disagree with the context and have a different viewpoint but I would ask you to point to any example where I have simply put my head in the sand and said "LIES!" regarding frankly anything with any evidence provided.

 

[BigRob]

The Nunes memo has already been proven to be false, and Nunes never read the articles to which his memo refers. Total right wing lies as usual.

Like most of your ********* this one too ignores reality. Page was being investigated as far back as 2013, and the Steele dossier had nothing to do with it.

According to the Washington Post the Carter Page FISA warrant was issued on October 19, 2016. Your timeline leaves a huge gap. I also have no idea how you are making definitive claims about what was used on the FISA application when that remains classified and has not been released.

The FISA courts, all 4 of them, didn't rely on the words of Steele, and were told of the possible bias.

What in the world is this statement based on?!? The FISA application has not been released.

And then there is the lie about McCabe you feel proud to repeat. Of course, that is why the right wing, and Trump, will not release the Democrat memo.

That is what the Nunes memo has stated - its an incomplete picture (as I noted), but that is still what has been stated.

 

[Openmind]

What is that based on? We don't know that. What we have is the incomplete picture of the Nunes memo - which stated: "McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [FISA court] without the Steele dossier information."

As I said - we need more information - but if that is accurate that is a very damning statement.



Let's get the timeline correct through:
A Republican donor was funding opposition research through Fusion GPS into Trump in the Fall of 2015. However by April 2016 that was abandoned and the Democrats took it over. It was not until June that Steele was brought on to work on the project. All of the Steele actions etc are well after the Democrats have taken over the project. And more importantly, we have confirmation from both sides of the aisle that its mostly rubbish to begin with.



Exactly - and if this memo is true - and the description of the McCabe testimony accurate - this could be an outrageous problem. I want to err on the side of it being almost comically difficult to target American citizens at the FISC. That is why I said (and I hope it does get released) we really need to see the initial FISA application.



I am hopeful that is released. The White House has thus far indicated they do not have an issue with that either.



I'm not sure you can provide a single example of anything I have ever posted on here that disregarded evidenced based statements. There are times I might disagree with the context and have a different viewpoint but I would ask you to point to any example where I have simply put my head in the sand and said "LIES!" regarding frankly anything with any evidence provided.

You are taking for true everything that is in the Nunes Memo. . .and making it to fit your need, without knowing the details.

More so, you have witnessed MANY of Trump's lies, without EVER commenting on them. The lies are just passed over and you seem to follow the "fake news" story propagated by Trump. Which means, You do NOT call him on his lies, you accept (or at least you do not stand) when he calls verifiable facts "fake news!"

This is a very powerful indication of your integrity. . .or lack thereof!


So. . .as I said before, let's wait for the release of more information. . .IF Trump allows it!

 

[The Scotsman]

but the question would be in a discussion between Trump and Clinton, who politicized the intelligence services?

Framing a discussion on that basis misses the point. It shouldnt be a part of the equation. As far as I'm concerned Clinton Trump can disappear up their own arseholes my point was that you... an American... you should not be regulated and controlled by lawyers. Your government has been co-opted by special interest groups under the proxy of lawyers.

 

[BigRob]

Framing a discussion on that basis misses the point. It shouldnt be a part of the equation. As far as I'm concerned Clinton Trump can disappear up their own arseholes my point was that you... an American... you should not be regulated and controlled by lawyers. Your government has been co-opted by special interest groups under the proxy of lawyers.

I'm somewhat confused how you can have a society based on laws in which lawyers are not going to be play a big role? Lawyers do not write the law - Congress does that. I am all for Congress reasserting itself and limiting the power of the President and rouge courts however.

 

[BigRob]

You are taking for true everything that is in the Nunes Memo. . .and making it to fit your need, without knowing the details.

I have stated (in this very thread):
"Without seeing the actual FISA warrant application (which I'm sure will never be released) I'm not sure you can definitively draw many conclusions from this memo. There are certainly a lot of things that raise an eyebrow - but that doesn't necessarily mean there is a "smoking gun" that anyone did anything illegal here either."

"If the memo is accurate...."

"What we have is the incomplete picture of the Nunes memo - which stated:..."

"As I said - we need more information..."

"Exactly - and if this memo is true - and the description of the McCabe testimony accurate...."

"I am hopeful that is released." (regarding the release of a Democrat memo)

And you assert I am taking for true everything in the Nunes memo...and "making it fit my needs." I think my statements above make clear that additional information is needed here...hell, my very first comment was literally "I'm not sure you can definitively draw many conclusions from this memo" and yet you are going to sit here and pretend I'm cherry picking things and blindly believing every word. It would be funny if it wasn't so idiotic.

More so, you have witnessed MANY of Trump's lies, without EVER commenting on them. The lies are just passed over and you seem to follow the "fake news" story propagated by Trump. Which means, You do NOT call him on his lies, you accept (or at least you do not stand) when he calls verifiable facts "fake news!"

Well no...clearly I am not going to sit by my computer and check the box of "this is fake news" every time he takes to twitter or says something stupid. I do not fundamentally care how many people attended his inauguration, or what the latest thing he has done "bigly" is...I care about legislative proposals, what they actually include, and the chances that they go on to become law. If you want to have a debate over whether his tweets are stupid - you win - I just do not fundamentally care because to me they are meaningless.

That said - I've been critical of Trump on this very Forum. I made no secret of the fact that I voted for Marco Rubio in the Republican Primary.

Here are a few snippets of my past comments:
"Obama has been horrible - but if Trump is the Republican nominee I am, in all seriousness, going to have a hard time relating to the Party at all. This is the guy that has called for a wealth tax to pay down the national debt, 20% taxes on imported goods, a 35% import tax with Mexico, on one hand says we should let people invest their own retirement and on the other says social security cannot be changed. I'll grant there are some things we agree on - but he has no vision for the country. Standing on stage lobbing bombs makes for entertaining TV time - it also makes for some horrible government." Source

"Reagan could actually articulate something. Trump talks a lot but never says much of anything." Source

"I did not vote for Trump...." Source

I have stood up for Trump when he was being unfairly attacked - as noted below:
"At the end of the day Trump should be the nominee. In the manner that the system is currently set up - he won. Love him or hate him - he won. The idea that delegates believe that they know better and should be allowed to circumvent this and ignore all the votes that were cast is absurd to me. I did not support or vote for Trump, but it will be a sad day for the Republican Party is this moves forward and Trump is not the nominee." Source

However, you might recall I also stood up for Clinton when she was unfairly attacked...
"Look - I am by no means a Clinton supporter, but this clearly needs to be said. You are not guilty in this country until you are tried and convicted. Being investigated doesn't mean a damn thing. Being indicted doesn't mean a damn thing. Until you are tried and convicted, you are presumed innocent. The question of "what was the point of the investigation if it just let Clinton off the hook" is completely absurd. It essentially demands that the FBI conduct their investigation in a bias manner and come to a predetermined conclusion. That sentiment is outrageous." Source

This is a very powerful indication of your integrity. . .or lack thereof!

I have neither the time or inclination to worry about my standing in the opinion of strangers on the internet. My comments can be judged for themselves.

So. . .as I said before, let's wait for the release of more information. . .IF Trump allows it!

I'm glad to see you agree with my premise from this very thread....you should watch out though, your integrity might soon be called into question!

 

[Old_Trapper70]

According to the Washington Post the Carter Page FISA warrant was issued on October 19, 2016. Your timeline leaves a huge gap. I also have no idea how you are making definitive claims about what was used on the FISA application when that remains classified and has not been released.

The FISA warrant was about Page, and Page was being watched by the FBI since 2013 as a possible Russian spy. Not a "huge gap" since he was also looked at in 2015. As to the application, I was referring to the Nunes memo which was allegedly based on the FUSA application, and we know it was a lie since Nunes never read the application, or any of the information relating to it.

What in the world is this statement based on?!? The FISA application has not been released.

Congress has a copy of it, or did you not know that.

Being misinformed is nothing new for though.

That is what the Nunes memo has stated - its an incomplete picture (as I noted), but that is still what has been stated.

And it has been shown to be a lie, so why are you repeating it?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

That said - I've been critical of Trump on this very Forum. I made no secret of the fact that I voted for Marco Rubio in the Republican Primary.

That was the primary. Who did you vote for in the election?

I have stood up for Trump when he was being unfairly attacked - as noted below:
" I did not support or vote for Trump, but it will be a sad day for the Republican Party is this moves forward and Trump is not the nominee."

He was never unfairly attacked, however, he did attack others like Cruz, Bush, Rubio, and still you thought he should be the nominee. One has to wonder why one should believe you did not vote for him.

I have neither the time or inclination to worry about my standing in the opinion of strangers on the internet. My comments can be judged for themselves.

And so they are.

I'm glad to see you agree with my premise from this very thread....you should watch out though, your integrity might soon be called into question!

No, she is not you. She tells the truth, and does not falter from that. In other words, she has integrity.

 

[BigRob]

The FISA warrant was about Page, and Page was being watched by the FBI since 2013 as a possible Russian spy. Not a "huge gap" since he was also looked at in 2015. As to the application, I was referring to the Nunes memo which was allegedly based on the FUSA application, and we know it was a lie since Nunes never read the application, or any of the information relating to it.

We need to see the actual FISA application...

Congress has a copy of it, or did you not know that.

The agreement made was that one member of each party on the Intelligence Committee would be allowed to read the memo. To say "Congress has it" is quite misleading - as no members (with small exceptions) have reportedly been allowed to even read it.

Being misinformed is nothing new for though.

See above.

And it has been shown to be a lie, so why are you repeating it?

It has been "disputed"....so let's see all the evidence.

 

[The Scotsman]

I'm somewhat confused how you can have a society based on laws in which lawyers are not going to be play a big role?

I'm talking about the instituions and organs of state being used as political proxies in order to serve the political aspirations of those with the money and influence to manoeuvre outcomes and then use law to smokescreen themselves from the public glare.

Lawyers do not write the law - Congress does that.

Perhaps I'm being cynical but I think Congress doesn't make laws - it is allowed to make laws deemed permissible by various external influence and/or lobby groups. Nothing is done without reference to the money trail.