# Can someone break down this whole Nunes Memo thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2018, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308 "2018-01-23T16:50:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/261 "2018-02-02T20:10:42Z")
This memo was classified Top Secret. I doubt that suspects knowing when they were being monitored causes “Exceptionally Grave Damage” to National Security. I too am curious on how they derived the TS classification. ---
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/262 "2018-02-02T20:10:51Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > Here’s the quote re McCabe from the memo: > > Indeed, it does not quote or link to the testimony in question. It could be false. If so, and that fact emerges, it would pretty much destroy the credibility of all who pushed for release of this. > > You have to believe that if this is false, that fact will quickly emerge. There are (I believe) 9 Dem members of the Committee, who have a strong interest in disclosing such an error. There’s McCabe himself, who would have no reason not to immediately set the record straight. That very well could be one of the things discussed in the House Intelligence Committee Democrats’ memo. Unfortunately, release of that was blocked. Their word alone, however, without some kind of transcript of the actual testimony, would be just as inconclusive as Nunes’ assertion to the contrary. If McCabe’s testimony is considered confidential, he could very well be under orders or oath not to discuss his testimony to anyone outside of the hearing. And since the application for the FISA warrant itself is apparently classified, it might be especially risky for McCabe himself to just start talking of his own accord. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/263 "2018-02-02T20:11:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think most people have concluded it was at least mostly bullshit, but you don’t seem to share that view. Am I misunderstanding your position here? I think most conservatives have concluded that it was mostly bullshit, but I don’t think that opinion is supported by evidence or shared outside of the bubble. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/264 "2018-02-02T20:18:21Z")
It isn’t a conclusion, it’s just a hope. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/265 "2018-02-02T20:19:03Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > He doesn’t expect the Dems to do anything about it. The purpose of releasing it is to poison the well so the water that the base is drinking will taste the way they want it to taste. It’s vague, it’s unspecific and it’s _just_ twisted enough to make the whole enterprise by the FBI look crooked and biased. Perfect Republican “evidence”. ^ Aye; he gets it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/266 "2018-02-02T20:19:45Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m curious what your impression is of the underlying content contained in the Steele dossier. Do you think the Steele dossier was: > > A) completely true > B) mostly true > C) half true > D) mostly false > E) completely false > > ? > > I think most people have concluded it was at least mostly bullshit, but you don’t seem to share that view. Am I misunderstanding your position here? It does not matter what I think and the dossier has neither been proven nor disproven (publicly at least) so how you feel about its veracity is purely based on what you want to be true and not what is actually true. Again, the dossier is smoke and mirrors as regards the Nunes memo. In the world of the FBI it is a data point. Nothing more. It is certainly not the _basis_ for an investigation. > [@](#): > > Foley said James Comey and news reporting showed the basis of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant for Carter Page was “all based on a dossier.” > > This is not accurate. CNN and the New York Times never reported that the dossier was the basis for Carter’s probe. CNN reported that it “part of the justification” and the New York Times didn’t even mention the dossier. > > We couldn’t find any evidence that proved Comey suggested that Page’s warrant was “all based on a dossier.” According to CNN’s unnamed sources, Comey has cited the dossier, but has not confirmed publically how much of it has been verified. > > We rate this claim Mostly False. > > SOURCE: [PolitiFact | Taking a closer look at the 'Steele dossier' and Carter Page's warrant](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/jan/05/elizabeth-foley/taking-closer-look-steele-dossier-and-carter-pages/) ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/267 "2018-02-02T20:24:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But that isn’t even what the memo alleges. And this, my friends, is how they are going to use the memo. Most of the country isn’t going to read the actual memo, so all they need to do is to start the noise machine up and have every talking head repeat over and over that the memo proves that the investigation of Trump is entirely political and has no basis in fact. If anyone argues, just cite the memo. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/268 "2018-02-02T20:41:35Z")
If a high ranking Republican held up a piece of paper that read in its entirety “Evidence that Democrats broke the law!!”, an unsettling number of Republicans would point at it and say “OHMYGOD!! That is evidence that Democrats broke the law!!” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/269 "2018-02-02T20:42:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … Shouldn’t you reconsider your position? No. When I ask someone for evidence and their response starts with “It should be obvious” and contains no evidence, I don’t feel any compelling need to reconsider my previously-held position. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/270 "2018-02-02T20:45:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > How did you reach this conclusion? > > The Nunes memo says: > > > [@](#): > > > > Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information. What McCabe said could be true but that doesn’t mean that the memo was the only evidence that they had, or even the primary evidence. It could easily be the case that the Steele dossier only acted to independently confirm some suspicions they already had based on other stronger independent sources. So that without the dossier they wouldn’t have sought the FISC since they didn’t have confirmation, but that the FISC wasn’t based primarily on the dossier. This would also fit in with the complaints of the FBI that there were omissions that would lead one reading the memo to the wrong conclusion, and from the FBI that fully disclosing those omissions might be a security risk (if they revealed the information that the dossier confirmed). ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/271 "2018-02-02T20:45:19Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This memo was classified Top Secret. I doubt that suspects knowing when they were being monitored causes “Exceptionally Grave Damage” to National Security. > > I too am curious on how they derived the TS classification. You don’t think that a suspect knowing what information an investigator has could be damaging to the investigation? ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/272 "2018-02-02T20:49:17Z")
Even whacko Trey Gowdy says there is no there there in the memo. > **[Trey Gowdy on the Memo: Contents Do Not Discredit Mueller’s Investigation](https://www.mediaite.com/online/trey-gowdy-on-the-memo-its-contents-do-not-discredit-muellers-investigation/)** > > Outgoing congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has issued a post-FISA memo statement, and he says there's no way it discredits Robert Mueller's ongoing investigations into Russia and the Trump Administration. And the Trumpistas aren’t having it. > **[Trump fans go ballistic on Trey Gowdy after he says the Nunes memo doesn't...](https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/trump-fans-go-ballistic-trey-gowdy-says-nunes-memo-doesnt-discredit-mueller-probe/)** > > Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on Friday said that the memo written by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) raised some concerns about the process by which FISA warrants are granted -- but he also made sure to emphasize that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation... ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/273 "2018-02-02T20:51:35Z")
It seems that Schiff is denying outright that the nature of the dossier was not disclosed in the application. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Even whacko Trey Gowdy says there is no there there in the memo. > [Trey Gowdy on the Memo: Contents Do Not Discredit Mueller’s Investigation](https://www.mediaite.com/online/trey-gowdy-on-the-memo-its-contents-do-not-discredit-muellers-investigation/) You’re conflating the Mueller investigation and the memo about the FBI/DOJ. Gowdy is making this distinction. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/274 "2018-02-02T20:52:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It does not matter what I think and the dossier has neither been proven nor disproven (publicly at least) so how you feel about its veracity is purely based on what you want to be true and not what is actually true. I know it doesn’t matter to anyone but me and maybe you, but I’d appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question nonetheless. What’s your best guess about the veracity of the dossier? If your too embarrassed / ashamed to answer publicly you could even PM me your answer. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is certainly not the _basis_ for an investigation. This appears to be the same mistake **BobLibDem** made earlier. How do you know it was “certainly not the basis”? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/275 "2018-02-02T20:52:50Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > You don’t think that a suspect knowing what information an investigator has could be damaging to the investigation? Sure. But damaging to an investigation is very different than causing exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/276 "2018-02-02T20:55:28Z")
After reading the Nunes memo, my main thought is this: The Steele dossier is to the defense of Trump in this scandal as the March 21, 1973 meeting was to the defense of Nixon in Watergate. In the latter, Jaworski subpoenaed a number of tapes including the June 23, 1972 tape which showed that Nixon had been obstructing justice from the get-go, and it didn’t matter how one argued March 21, 1973, and Nixon was history. The big difference then was that for a long time, it had looked to both sides like there was no evidence that Nixon was in on the cover-up before March 21, and you could argue both ways on what he meant then. But right now, we already know that the Steele Dossier just isn’t anywhere near as central as Trump’s defenders make it out to be, but rather it’s just one more piece of a larger puzzle. Making that argument may play well on Fox News, which is a conservative ‘safe space’ where its audience is shielded from a more robust view of reality, but it’s not gonna do so well in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/277 "2018-02-02T20:57:42Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > What McCabe said could be true but that doesn’t mean that the memo was the only evidence that they had, or even the primary evidence. It could easily be the case that the Steele dossier only acted to independently confirm some suspicions they already had based on other stronger independent sources. So that without the dossier they wouldn’t have sought the FISC since they didn’t have confirmation, but that the FISC wasn’t based primarily on the dossier. > > This would also fit in with the complaints of the FBI that there were omissions that would lead one reading the memo to the wrong conclusion, and from the FBI that fully disclosing those omissions might be a security risk (if they revealed the information that the dossier confirmed). Thank you for presenting this possible explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/278 "2018-02-02T21:01:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This appears to be the same mistake **BobLibDem** made earlier. How do you know it was “certainly not the basis”? There is no evidence it is the basis per all FBI accounts given so far. If you’ve got some evidence to the contrary feel free to share. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/279 "2018-02-02T21:03:26Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I know it doesn’t matter to anyone but me and maybe you, but I’d appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question nonetheless. What’s your best guess about the veracity of the dossier? If your too embarrassed / ashamed to answer publicly you could even PM me your answer. I don’t really think that anyone is in a position to assess the veracity of the dossier, because I can’t imagine that anyone here has the slightest means of independently confirming what has been asserted. However, in terms of credibility – not concluding “this is true” but “should we take this seriously” – the source does seem credible. As I mentioned just a few posts ago, the FBI used him in the FIFA scandal, and the former director of the British Secret Intelligence Service called Steele "a good person of high integrity” with a sophisticated knowledge of Russia. [Cite.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-approves-release-of-gop-memo-criticizing-fbi-surveillance/2018/02/02/699eb988-06cf-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_congressmemo-1155am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cf5aafc7331a) So I think it is perfectly fair to judge the dossier as credible; that everything should be subject to verification; and that the more extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence to confirm them. ETA: So what’s your opinion on the veracity or credibility of the dossier? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/280 "2018-02-02T21:03:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I know it doesn’t matter to anyone but me and maybe you, but I’d appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question nonetheless. What’s your best guess about the veracity of the dossier? If your too embarrassed / ashamed to answer publicly you could even PM me your answer. So the only reasons your hoop isn’t being jumped through is because of shame and/or embarrassment? Straightforward well poisoning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308.md?page=15)