Are these the basics of the "Memo" story?

[Arizona_Mike]

@Ravenman

Huh. I thought it tended to be things like, “a credible source with secondhand access…”

But apparently you know how many Russian intelligence officers have been turned by the CIA, so who am I to question your expertise?

Some have, as we know from reading history. That’s pretty much the job of the CIA station in Moscow, don’t you think? Otherwise, why are they there?

But not every recruitment is a high-level target. While it would be great to recruit a high-ranking FSB officer, it can be just, or more, valuable, to recruit his mistress or the NCO whose job is to shred the documents in a government communications site. That kind of source reporting can also provide access to the kind of information on a high-level operation, and again we would expect to see that kind of corroboration from multiple sources, if Steele wasn’t being led around by the nose by the FSB.

Comments on the linked articles?

[Johnny_Ace]

@Arizona_Mike

But not every recruitment is a high-level target. While it would be great to recruit a high-ranking FSB officer, it can be just, or more, valuable, to recruit his mistress or the NCO whose job is to shred the documents in a government communications site. That kind of source reporting can also provide access to the kind of information on a high-level operation, and again we would expect to see that kind of corroboration from multiple sources, if Steele wasn’t being led around by the nose by the FSB.

Again I have to ask if you’ve actually read the dossier. The majority of his points are corroborated within each memo, and some have already been corroborated by the FBI. You have literally nothing to corroborate your assertion.

Funny how it’s gone from “Steele and Simpson are unreliable witnesses” (without any proof) to “Steele was hoodwinked by the FSB.” Any old port in a storm, huh?

Hmm…which analysis should I trust? Steele’s or yours? Yeah, I’ll go with Steele’s and the FBI’s.

[septimus]

One of the better news shows in our fast banana-izing Republic makes a key point about this “high-value memo.”

Key piece of evidence the Republicans uncovered? No! They wrote it!
… It’s not an intelligence document; it’s a Facebook post that you’d briefly skim before clicking Unfriend.

[Shodan]

@SenorBeef

It, uh, does make a difference, because the democratic party isn’t co-operating with a hostile foreign government.

I understand what you are saying, but it is the opposite of true. The unsubstantiated dirt in this case was dug up by Democrats. \

I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say here - are you saying “both sides are the same so I’m sure the democrats are coordinating with the Russians/would coordinate with the Russians too?” - is that your inflexible response to literally any accusation?

Both sides are not the same in this instance - Democrats are the ones coordinating with the Russians.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

That would be a cite for sour eyes.

[elucidator]

House Intel Republicans Reject Trump’s Claim That Nunes Memo ‘Vindicates’ Him

House Intel Republicans Reject Trump’s Claim That Nunes Memo ‘Vindicates’ Him

TL:DR Trey Gowdy bails.

[ElvisL1ves]

@elucidator

That would be a cite for sour eyes.

A cite just for “unsubstantiated” would be helpful.

[septimus]

MSNBC (Ari Melber) provides an excellent summary of the Nunes hypocrisies.

[SenorBeef]

Edit: You know what, let me make this a pit thread instead. Link incoming.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Shodan

I understand what you are saying, but it is the opposite of true. The unsubstantiated dirt in this case was dug up by Democrats.
Both sides are not the same in this instance - Democrats are the ones coordinating with the Russians.

Regards,
Shodan

I’d’ve thought even you would know better than to quote Faux News conspiracy theories. Guess not.

Disregards,
Ace

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

Both sides are not the same in this instance - Democrats are the ones coordinating with the Russians.

I must give you credit, this is phrased in a more sophisticated way than Trump’s retort of “No, YOU are the puppet!” but it is equally unpersuasive.

[SenorBeef]

Alright, I created a pit thread for Shodan and any other conservatives who think the Russian connections are fake news. Come on down.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Johnny_Ace

I’d’ve thought even you would know better than to quote Faux News conspiracy theories. Guess not.

Disregards,
Ace

That’s enough of that, right there. Any further personal cracks or keep cling will earn warnings.

[Buck_Godot]

So what’s the betting odds regarding Trump allowing the Democratic response to see the light of day?

Based on his tweets it sounds like he’s going to suppress it for the good of the American people, who might be led astray by “Little Adam Schiff … one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington”

I think this is a stupid political move.

If the memo is released the whole thing will boil down to a he said, she said, argument, which will mean that the MSM in an attempt to be “unbiased” will give both memos equal weight regardless of content. Thus those on the far right will go on believing FBI investigation is a partisan witch hunt, those on the left will go on believing that the Republican memo was an unprecedented act of politicization of intelligence for partisan gain, while the middle of the road uninformed voter will throw up his hands and say who knows? maybe the FBI is corrupt maybe it isn’t, which is a net win for Republicans.

If on the other hand Trump suppresses the memo then the news is all about the suppression, and the uninformed voter is left with the impression that the memo must have had some real damaging evidence or else why would Trump hide it.

[Evil_Economist]

@Buck_Godot

So what’s the betting odds regarding Trump allowing the Democratic response to see the light of day?

I thought Trump fucked up by releasing the GOP memo. Now that people have seen it they know what a piece of garbage it was. If he’d kept it classified he could have made any claims about it that he wanted. (“Important to national security that memo remain classified, but I’ve seen it and it proves Russia investigation is huge witch hunt…” etc.). The same holds true for the Democratic memo–if Trump doesn’t release it they can make any claims about it they like. So they should make huge claims.

[VinylTurnip]

@Evil_Economist

I thought Trump fucked up by releasing the GOP memo. Now that people have seen it they know what a piece of garbage it was.

Ah, but even a nothingburger can be spun to their advantage, by people like this dedicated sycophant.

“See, there was hardly anything in the memo, and yet the FBI tried to block its release. It makes you wonder what they’re *really *trying to hide!”

[wonky]

The memo released Friday by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee excoriated FBI leaders for what it described as a crucial omission in that application: The fact that the dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele — was financed by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

“Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo alleged.

But in an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Nunes was asked about reports over the weekend that the FBI application did refer to a political entity connected to the dossier. It is unclear precisely what language the application might have used.

Nunes conceded that a “footnote” to that effect was included in the application, while faulting the bureau for failing to provide more specifics.

“A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,” Nunes said on “Fox & Friends.”

So, the fact that they gave the information that Nunes claimed they didn’t give is immaterial because the font was too small or something?

[septimus]

@wonky

So, the fact that they gave the information that Nunes claimed they didn’t give is immaterial because the font was too small or something?

Let’s not exaggerate. Nunes and the Gopsters would have accepted the small-font footnote if the Director of the FBI had also gone on Fox & Friends and spent a half-hour denouncing the Witch of Little Rock.

Our Great Founding Fathers did denounce witches when Evil raised its head in Salem, Mass. But, until recently, liberals have been moving America away from its conservative values. #MAGA.

[Sage_Rat]

@Shodan

I understand what you are saying, but it is the opposite of true. The unsubstantiated dirt in this case was dug up by Democrats.

Who then reported it to the FBI, to be substantiated, and kept quiet about it during and after the election. The FBI took up the investigation based on the existence of corroborating information, including at least the following:

1. The person being accused had a business partner that was an FBI informant, as part of a deal to rat on the Russian mafia, which he was part of.
2. The person being accused had a 30 year history of working with and general association with a man under FBI investigation for aiding the invasion of a nation by Russia.
3. The person being accused hired as an aid a man who had been under investigation by the FBI for 3 years as an operative of Russia. Didn’t the campaign of the individual, this suspicious figure had gone to Russia and meet with a wide variety of people, including a person who could control the fate of a multibillion dollar corporate sell-off and where those funds went to.
4. The person being accused had previously had his businesses fined for aiding in money laundering, with known Italian mafia figures making up a regular clientele of the operation.
5. Members of the campaign of the accused had a large number of phone calls with Russian figures, some of those calls being caught by US surveillance, and demonstrating some form of unexplained, seemingly unjustified gift giving.
6. The person being accused had publicly seemed to solicit and encourage attacks on the national security infrastructure of the country by Russia.
7. The person being accused had two known associates in discussions with WikiLeaks, an organization known to be friendly to Russian interests.
8. The person being accused had inexplicably positive business deals with Deutsche Bank that made no logical sense, at the same time that the bank was known to have been working with Russian oligarchs to launder money abroad.
9. Foreign allies were reporting to the FBI that an aid to the accused’s campaign had revealed knowledge of Russian attacks on the US that there would be no way, timing wise, for him to have known at that date unless he had received information from Russian sources.

Based on this and other, unknown further information from American and foreign Intelligence agencies, a variety of non-partisan agents in the FBI and DoJ proceeded to ask a court that is over half composed of Republican appointees for warrants to investigate a number of these individuals. These judges approved this, based on at least the above information and likely further, more exact and corroborating details. These warrants were re-upped regularly over the next 9-12 months on the basis that usable, corroborating materials were discovered via these warrants - a requirement for such monitoring to continue.

Upon election, the accused immediately attempted to eliminate sanctions against Russia, making moves in this regard before any other policy attempts, including a horribly botched travel ban against Muslims.

Based on the accused’s actions within the office and the information revealed through the FISA process to the Gang of Eight and the accused’s personally appointed Department of Justice, at least four separate Republican chaired committees in Congress decided to open investigations into Russian interference in the election and into the President’s associates in the campaign.

During this period, the accused attempted to coerce a number of figures in the DoJ, FBI, and Congress to forego these investigations. On failing this, he proceeded to fire the head of the FBI. This resulted in the appointment, by the accused’s own appointed DoJ, bringing in the world’s greatest (Republican) FBI godling and allow him to staff a superstar team of investigators and FBI agents. It also caused the Republican party to initiate and lead the way on the establishment of a legal requirement for the accused to increase and enforce sanctions on Russia.

If you completely toss out Steele and look purely at non-partisan and Republican figures - particularly those with access to the most basic details of the matter - you would have a hard time to support the idea that the Russian investigation is anything other than justified and necessary.

If you tried to explain the investigation from the vantage of Democratic actors, you’ve really only got the Steele dossier. Everything else is the wheelhouse of those with no ax to grind.

If you distrust Steele and Clinton, I would be perfectly happy to disregard them. If you think that changes the picture at all, than you are well misinformed.

[wonky]

@wonky

So, the fact that they gave the information that Nunes claimed they didn’t give is immaterial because the font was too small or something?

I am truly plugged in:

Notice how “The FBI LIED about the Steele dossier” has been scaled back to, “The FBI did not highlight the truth about the Steele Dossier in the part of the application we bothered to read.” So now the main attack on the FBI is about font size. No doubt all the subsequent memos Nunes is promising to release will have additional bombshells.