# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/301 "2018-02-02T21:58:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So is the fourth bucket of “true”. …that would be the first bucket “verified.” > [@](#): > > I guess we could play this game where we continue to make up imaginary buckets that are empty, but I hope my response above illustrates just how silly that is. Your response does nothing of the sort. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/302 "2018-02-02T21:58:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > James Comey called parts of it “salacious and unverified”. Newsweek pointed out several portions that were “Not proven”. According to **nate** “The author doesn’t even believe it’s 100% accurate”. Just because it’s “salacious” and “unverified” does not make it untrue. Or do you have some other interpretation of those words? ---
**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, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/303 "2018-02-02T22:04:06Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > It just means you lack understanding. There are only 3 buckets, and there can’t be any more than 3 buckets. > > True > Unverified > Untrue > > To date, everything falls into the first two buckets only. My understanding based on comments made by various officials is that about a third of the dossier has been proved true to date. > > What other bucket would you add? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, not at all. > > There are three things that theice piece of info can be. > > They can be verified. They can be unverified. They can be disproven. > > That is three buckets. > > There are many things in the first bucket, the “verified”, or if you prefer, “true”, bucket. > > There are some things in the second bucket, the unverified. These are allegations that have not been disproven, but not proven. > > Then there is the third bucket. That is the piece of info that have been proven to be false. That bucket is empty. > > Your response above does not in any way shape or form show that anything that I have said is silly, and I am playing no games. I answered your question as directly and completely as possible. You specifically asked about the fact that the piece only talked about the two buckets, wondering where the third was. I responded factually and usefully that that third bucket was not brought up because there is nothing in it. > > I did not make up any buckets. You did. I am not playing a game. First off, I didn’t make up the buckets, **SingleMalt** did. Secondly, is “verified” synonymous with “true” in your mind? It appears to be, based off of your post, but I don’t think that’s a very sound conclusion. For example, if I told you the moon was made of cheese, and then independently three other people confirmed this story, would you call that piece of information “verified”? Would you call it “true”? ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/304 "2018-02-02T22:05:23Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Just because it’s “salacious” and “unverified” does not make it untrue. On this we agree. Do we also agree that just because it’s “verified” doesn’t make it true? ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/305 "2018-02-02T22:08:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > On this we agree. Do we also agree that just because it’s “verified” doesn’t make it true? Whaa…??? Of course not. Verified MEANS true. Look up the definition of ‘verify’ in a dictionary. No wonder you’re so confused. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/306 "2018-02-02T22:11:42Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > … My understanding based on comments made by various officials is that about a third of the dossier has been proved true to date. … A link to a quote or two by 'various officials" would certainly enhance the credibility of this claim. Do you have any to offer? ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/307 "2018-02-02T22:12:59Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Whaa…??? Of course not. Verified MEANS true. Look up the definition of ‘verify’ in a dictionary. > > No wonder you’re so confused. In the whole history of human events, do you think anyone has ever said “we verified that” and “that” turned out to be not true? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/308 "2018-02-02T22:14:16Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > James Comey called parts of it “salacious and unverified”. Newsweek pointed out several portions that were “Not proven”. According to **nate** “The author doesn’t even believe it’s 100% accurate”. …the author not believing everything is accurate is a point in the memo’s favor, not against it. The dossier was “raw intelligence.” Steele was a seasoned agent: he knows better than anyone that human intelligence has failings. How exactly do you think this intelligence gathering process works exactly? Spies have been playing this game for decades. They know that some of the stuff that they gather will not be 100% accurate because sometimes their sources might be compromised, or could be mistaken, or could be getting fed false information. So they use multiple sources. They gather information in many different ways. The information is put through a verification process. It was handed over to the FBI who used their resources to attempt to verify elements of the dossier. This isn’t a Reality Show. There isn’t a hidden camera that will one day miraculously reveal that the dossier was either “all true” or “all false.” This isn’t how it works. Of course there are parts of the dossier that are “unproven.” We knew this a year ago when some of the people defending the dossier in this very thread were arguing that Buzzfeed shouldn’t have released the dossier on that very same basis. So we haven’t learnt anything new. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/309 "2018-02-02T22:25:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > On this we agree. Do we also agree that just because it’s “verified” doesn’t make it true? …this isn’t “science.” “True” is a meaningless metric in intelligence. How do you determine intelligence is “true” when the original primary source of the intelligence has been murdered? You can verify intelligence. Find out the same thing from different independent sources. Maybe steal/photograph/leak primary documents. But determining “truth” is extremely difficult when the vast bulk of intelligence comes from subjective sources. The job of the analyst is to verify, to coo-berate, to find patterns. So there isn’t a “true bucket.” And there shouldn’t be one. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/310 "2018-02-02T22:33:35Z")
Of all the awful semantic arguments I’ve heard, this “verified != true” idiocy is pretty far up there. ---
**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, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/311 "2018-02-02T22:38:52Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > So there isn’t a “true bucket.” And there shouldn’t be one. Some things could be deemed to be “true” if you have things like video of the event. Most of the “true” things are really more accurately labeled “most likely true with a high degree of confidence that “X” happened”. Remember the FBI is trying to build a case that has to stand up in court so the bar is set at least there. Given that they may be after some high powered people (and perhaps the president of the United States) I am willing to bet they move the bar to “iron clad” as court cases go given how many slither out with faulty memories or confusion over what the definition of “is” is. Beyond that you get into metaphysical discussions on what is really “true”. Let’s not go there. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/312 "2018-02-02T22:39:00Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …So there isn’t a “true bucket.” And there shouldn’t be one. Thank you. I agree completely. Outside of the dictionary, “verified” is probably best understood to mean “corroborated”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/313 "2018-02-02T22:41:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In the whole history of human events, do you think anyone has ever said “we verified that” and “that” turned out to be not true? In the whole history of human events, do you think anyone has ever said, “That’s true,” and “that” turned out to be not true? Does that mean, therefore, that “true” does not mean “true?” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/314 "2018-02-02T22:44:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > First off, I didn’t make up the buckets, **SingleMalt** did. Secondly, is “verified” synonymous with “true” in your mind? It appears to be, based off of your post, but I don’t think that’s a very sound conclusion. First off, singlemalt didn’t make up the buckets either. Those buckets have been around for this dossier since the dossier has been around, and for intelligence gathering as long as intelligence gathering has been around. As far as intelligence is concerned, verified is as close to “true” as you get. It means that, through the use of the intelligence apparatus, claims have been corroborated with reliable assets. > [@](#): > > For example, if I told you the moon was made of cheese, and then independently three other people confirmed this story, would you call that piece of information “verified”? Would you call it “true”? Is that really what you think is happening? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/315 "2018-02-02T22:46:24Z")
A second factual error: > **[Analysis | The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/02/the-memos-description-of-a-supposedly-key-news-report-is-wrong/?utm_term=.b3b505a8e443)** > > The Yahoo article was not “derived” from the author of a salacious, anti-Trump dossier. > [@](#): > > “The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow,” the memo says. “This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.” > > \ > > The argument is that the FBI used circular logic to make its case for a warrant. According to the memo, the agency presented the dossier as evidence against Page, then presented the Yahoo article as additional evidence — even though the dossier and the article were based on the same source, Steele. The accusation is that the FBI used Steele to corroborate Steele. > > In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page’s activities in Russia. Isikoff cited a “congressional source familiar with the briefings” to report that “some of those briefed were ‘taken aback’ when they learned about Page’s contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy.” > > Isikoff quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. law enforcement official,” who confirmed that Page’s Russian contacts were “on our radar screen” and “being looked at.” > > Isikoff also quoted a “U.S. official who served in Russia at the time” when Page, a few years earlier, first attracted attention for being “a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did.” > > Steele does not match the descriptions of these sources. He does match the description of a “well-placed Western intelligence source” cited in the last two paragraphs of the article, whose claims about meetings involving Page also appeared in the dossier. > > It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently. That’s (at least) two factually false assertions in the memo, verifiable from publicly available information, so far, if anyone’s keeping track. EDIT: Here’s the other one I linked to: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > At least one inaccuracy: > > [A Significant Inaccuracy in #TheMemo Calls Its Credibility Into Question – RedState](https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/02/02/significant-inaccuracy-thememo-calls-credibility-question/) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/316 "2018-02-02T22:49:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Thank you. I agree completely. Outside of the dictionary, “verified” is probably best understood to mean “corroborated”. False, unless by “best” you mean “best for trying to prop up the increasingly absurd claim that the Steele dossier is a complete work of fiction fabricated by Democrat stooges in an attempt to slander the perfectly innocent and incredibly virile Donald Trump”. ---
**Author:** ![BeenJammin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beenjammin/32/448_2.png) [@BeenJammin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeenJammin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/317 "2018-02-02T22:52:42Z")
At least we’re calling them stooges now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/318 "2018-02-02T23:51:55Z")
A third factual error: > A minor one, to be sure, but also an incredibly easy one to avoid with just very basic quality control. Three factual errors so far. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2018, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/319 "2018-02-03T00:11:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. Water is wet, too. :rolleyes: But you do you. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/320 "2018-02-03T00:30:01Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Working with judges for 20+ years gave me pretty good insight into how they view and execute their work. An appeal to your personal “insight” is a fallacious argument. > [@](#): > > If you have evidence that any FISA Court judge doesn’t understand his duties and obligations under the rule of law, by all means present it. No. You made the claim about what FISA judges “care about.” Since you made the claim, YOU need to present the evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308.md?page=17)