# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/441 "2018-02-06T15:17:27Z")
So, don’t tell your parents that your little brother did it when you are an only child? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/442 "2018-02-06T16:00:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My comment on that is that he may or may not have a point depending on the language of the footnote, but it was foolish for him to omit that from his memo, thus leaving it for his political opponents to point out that his own memo was misleading. Especially since it was obvious that they would do that. He omitted any mention of the footnote from his memo (a) because he apparently didn’t read the source material himself (as **Ravenman** points out), and (b) even if he had, it would have undercut the point of the memo: that the FBI didn’t tell the FISA court who was paying for the Steele dossier. It was foolish of him to **have** a memo, to undertake this bullshit exercise. The potential publication of the memo as a propaganda tool with the goal of undermining the credibility of the Mueller investigation required the omission of the footnote, which opened Nunes up to having that pointed out, and exposing him as the fraud he is. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/443 "2018-02-06T16:07:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > He omitted any mention of the footnote from his memo (a) because he apparently didn’t read the source material himself (as **Ravenman** points out), and (b) even if he had, it would have undercut the point of the memo: that the FBI didn’t tell the FISA court who was paying for the Steele dossier. > > It was foolish of him to **have** a memo, to undertake this bullshit exercise. The potential publication of the memo as a propaganda tool with the goal of undermining the credibility of the Mueller investigation required the omission of the footnote, which opened Nunes up to having that pointed out, and exposing him as the fraud he is. I refuse to consider the claim “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” as “foolish.” I didn’t floss this morning. That was foolish. Claiming something you know or should have known was false is not “foolish.” It’s either a lie or willful ignorance. ---
**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 6, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/444 "2018-02-06T16:12:22Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > I refuse to consider the claim “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” as “foolish.” I didn’t floss this morning. That was foolish. Claiming something you know or should have known was false is not “foolish.” It’s either a lie or willful ignorance. The mindset isn’t that such an action is foolish-it is that _getting caught_ doing it is foolish. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/445 "2018-02-06T16:26:18Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > I refuse to consider the claim “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” as “foolish.” I didn’t floss this morning. That was foolish. Claiming something you know or should have known was false is not “foolish.” It’s either a lie or willful ignorance. Correction noted and accepted. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/446 "2018-02-06T16:28:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Correction noted and accepted. 🙂 Sorry, my grumpiness was more scattershot than intended. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/447 "2018-02-06T16:35:12Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > Sorry, my grumpiness was more scattershot than intended. Hey, sometimes we’re all a little intense when we post about things that matter. Besides, you were right. 🙂 ---
**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 6, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/448 "2018-02-06T16:36:20Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > I refuse to consider the claim “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” as “foolish.” I didn’t floss this morning. That was foolish. Claiming something you know or should have known was false is not “foolish.” It’s either a lie or willful ignorance. This is apparently incorrect. (I wouldn’t call your claim “a lie or willful ignorance”, though it is something that “you know or should have known was false”.) It would appear based on all reporting that the Nunes claim you quoted is technically accurate, though misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/449 "2018-02-06T16:43:34Z")
I doubt that it’s too relevant on page 9 of this thread, but for the record, here are some more potential/likely outcomes of the Nunes release that may affect National Security: [https://lawfareblog.com/nunes-memo-and-law-unintended-consequences](https://lawfareblog.com/nunes-memo-and-law-unintended-consequences) > [@Carrie Cordero](#): > > The hurried declassification of this information will likely have unintended effects on both civil and criminal matters by setting a precedent for the public release of more information related to FISA. Just this week, in a civil FOIA litigation, D.C. federal court Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the government to explain whether it will continue to argue the so-called “Glomar” response in a FOIA case where the government is trying to protect FISA-related materials from public disclosure. The fact of the declassifications in the Nunes memo will likely be raised in other civil litigations involving the protection of classified information. Meanwhile, the New York Times has filed a motion with the FISC to unseal the Page applications, as well as a related FOIA request. The government will now have to come up with arguments for why it was appropriate for the White House and the House Intelligence Committee majority to release certain information about the Page surveillances publicly, but not the entire documents. This is just the beginning. > > […] > > Moreover, if the current majority memo remains the only public description of what transpired before the Court on the Page FISAs, criminal defense attorneys representing defendants in cases where the government seeks to use FISA information will immediately have a new opportunity to argue that the FISA process is unfair. They will have fresh basis on which to argue that the FISA process is overly secretive and make the case that a judge should allow the relevant FISA application to be turned over to defense counsel for review. This could include terrorism cases, in addition to cases involving violations of the espionage statutes, or other complex criminal cases where FISA information might be introduced as evidence. Some may argue that this progression could be a net positive for transparency: that FISA applications should routinely be turned over to the defense, and that there is far too much secrecy in FISA matters anyway. I’m not here to argue that case today; I write simply to point out that the process abandoned this week may have significant consequences, which I highly doubt the political characters in this episode thought about carefully in advance. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/450 "2018-02-06T17:05:11Z")
[Here’s why they did it.](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-persecuted-fbi-polling_us_5a78e023e4b018ad894f0691?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009) > [@](#): > > Nearly three-quarters of Trump voters ― 74 percent ― say the FBI is biased against the president, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds. > Just under one-third of Trump voters say they have even a “fair amount” of trust in the FBI, while 64 percent say they don’t trust the FBI very much or at all. > The majority of Trump voters, 59 percent, strongly disapprove of the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation, with an additional 20 percent somewhat disapproving of the job the bureau has been doing on the Russia probe. The goal was to re-engergize the True Believers and The Cult Of Donald, and they obviously succeeded. Whether or not there will be any of them on any future jury and thus avoid a conviction remains to be seen. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/451 "2018-02-06T17:08:33Z")
If there is a silver lining to any of this nonsense, it would be if there’s an end to the idea in the minds of some Republican voters that law enforcement can’t be questioned. Of course, I don’t know that the suspicion will extend to, say, black men getting shot and it will likely cause huge problems… but allow me to clutch at straws here! ---
**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 6, 2018, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/452 "2018-02-06T17:12:36Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I doubt that it’s too relevant on page 9 of this thread, but for the record, here are some more potential/likely outcomes of the Nunes release that may affect National Security: > > [https://lawfareblog.com/nunes-memo-and-law-unintended-consequences](https://lawfareblog.com/nunes-memo-and-law-unintended-consequences) That’s an issue I hadn’t thought of. But that said, it’s hard to imagine that declassifying one application would cause such issues for all the others. The government has always had the discretion to declassify things. > [@wonky](#): > > If there is a silver lining to any of this nonsense, it would be if there’s an end to the idea in the minds of some Republican voters that law enforcement can’t be questioned. I’d say about as permanent and meaningful as the sudden reverence Democratic voters have for the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/453 "2018-02-06T17:32:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’d say about as permanent and meaningful as the sudden reverence Democratic voters have for the FBI. Cite? Any evidence in this dramatic reversal of opinion? Perhaps opinion polls that show this large shift among Democratic voters recently? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/454 "2018-02-06T17:34:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’d say about as permanent and meaningful as the sudden reverence Democratic voters have for the FBI. It’s those darned Strawman Liberals again! They get everywhere! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/455 "2018-02-06T17:45:09Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’d say about as permanent and meaningful as the sudden reverence Democratic voters have for the FBI. “Democratic voters”? Don’t you mean “Americans”? ---
**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 6, 2018, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/456 "2018-02-06T17:47:03Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Cite? Any evidence in this dramatic reversal of opinion? Perhaps opinion polls that show this large shift among Democratic voters recently? I’m not aware of any such polls and I doubt if anyone polls about this type of question. But as someone who regularly gets most of his information on such matters from liberal sources, I’m well aware of the traditional suspicion in such circles about the FBI in general and about secret surveillance applications in particular. So the present concern in these very circles that such suspicions are harming national security seems like a stark reversal. Note: it’s not anything special or unique about Democrats. IMO everyone is in the same boat, and people’s principles and positions are much more malleable than they would like to think. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/457 "2018-02-06T17:52:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not aware of any such polls and I doubt if anyone polls about this type of question. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You sure pwned them! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/458 "2018-02-06T17:54:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not aware of any such polls and I doubt if anyone polls about this type of question. How is that answer distinguishable from “I made it up”? :dubious: ---
**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 6, 2018, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/459 "2018-02-06T17:58:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not aware of any such polls and I doubt if anyone polls about this type of question. You doubt because you’ve bothered to look into it…or is this another “feeling”? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2018, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308/460 "2018-02-06T18:17:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > the sudden reverence Democratic voters have for the FBI Fake news! Seriously, you might consider the notion that many of us left-of-center types are capable of maintaining more complex understandings of people and institutions than ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ We’re aware that FBI agents, like law enforcement officers in general, tend to be pretty conservative. We’re also aware that the New York FBI office may have been so virulently anti-Hillary that they may have forced Jim Comey’s hand in reopening the Hillary emails investigation in October 2016. But on the whole, it’s largely composed of men and women trying their best to do a difficult but necessary job. I think that sort of multifaceted understanding of the FBI more than adequately explains why people like me are supporting it now against attacks from the right, despite the problems we’ve had with the FBI in the past, and despite the near-certainty that when all this is past, we’ll have reason to criticize them for the sorts of excesses that law enforcement types tend towards. Meanwhile, conservatives have gone from seeing the FBI as an organization that’s on their side to seeing it as corrupt, in the control of evil Democrats, and in need of a serious purging. Their understanding of the FBI is appallingly simplistic: when the FBI was doing things that helped their cause, the FBI was good. Now that it’s doing things that hurt their cause, the FBI is bad. Whether an institution in general is Good or Bad depends on whether it’s supporting or hindering Dear Leader. This is an authoritarian movement, nothing less. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-break-down-this-whole-nunes-memo-thing/807308.md?page=24)