Can someone break down this whole Nunes Memo thing?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RTFirefly

Could you remind me of when Steele told the FBI he hadn’t tried to disseminate his dossier via the media, and what he specifically said?

I don’t understand what this question means.

I don’t know “when” Steele said anything in particular, or what he “specifically said”. What’s your point with this?

[RTFirefly]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t understand what this question means.

I don’t know “when” Steele said anything in particular, or what he “specifically said”. What’s your point with this?

You said:

The main gist of things seems to be (in line with previous reporting) that Steele lied to the FBI when he said he had not attempted to disseminate his dossier via the media

Let’s boil it down:

You: Apparently Steele lied when he said X.
Me: OK, when did he say X? And was X in fact what he said?

Does that make the question more understandable?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Well perhaps, but then you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

I didn’t claim that Steele lied when he said X. I said that such was the gist of Grassley and Graham’s letter to the FBI and DOJ.

It’s possible that there are more specifics in the parts of that letter which were blacked out. But in any event it’s their claim not mine, so that question would have to be directed to them, not me. I myself don’t know.

[Czarcasm]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Well perhaps, but then you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

I didn’t claim that Steele lied when he said X. I said that such was the gist of Grassley and Graham’s letter to the FBI and DOJ.

It’s possible that there are more specifics in the parts of that letter which were blacked out. But in any event it’s their claim not mine, so that question would have to be directed to them, not me. I myself don’t know.

You speak of “gists” and “feelings” in your posts, yet you want quotes and cites from others.
I think I get the “gist” of what you are doing here, and I have a “feeling” others do, too.

[RTFirefly]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Well perhaps, but then you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

I didn’t claim that Steele lied when he said X. I said that such was the gist of Grassley and Graham’s letter to the FBI and DOJ.

It’s possible that there are more specifics in the parts of that letter which were blacked out. But in any event it’s their claim not mine, so that question would have to be directed to them, not me. I myself don’t know.

You said this was “in line with previous reporting.” What’s that about?

[elucidator]

Well, it “seems” to be “in line with other reporting”. So, there’s that.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RTFirefly

You said this was “in line with previous reporting.” What’s that about?

While the actual G & G letter was only released today, there has been previous reporting about it. That previous reporting also suggested that the gist of that letter would be about Steele dissembling about his media contacts. Having now seen the letter, ISTM that the actual letter is in line with previous reporting about it.

[elucidator]

And “in line with” means “solidly confirms” or “does not directly contradict”.?

[Czarcasm]

@elucidator

And “in line with” means “solidly confirms” or “does not directly contradict”.?

Good luck with that Jell-O.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@elucidator

And “in line with” means “solidly confirms” or “does not directly contradict”.?

Neither. It was a parenthetical aside, acknowledging that my summary was not a great revelation but rather in line with what prior reporting had already said.

I can’t imagine why you guys are so obsessed with this. Don’t you have any toys that you can play with?

[RTFirefly]

Let’s just say the way you phrased it made it sound like there was a lot more substantiation to this than there has turned out to be. What we have is the letter, which was “in line with other reporting” about the letter. Which means that all we have is the letter. And our source for both the alleged statement and the alleged proof of its falseness are in the letter. We have no independent evidence that either one exists.

So what’s this letter? Something that a couple of Republican Senators wrote. How trustworthy is it? Well, we just saw how trustworthy a memo written by a Republican Congressman was. Should we give this an ounce more credibility? You don’t explain why.

So we have nothing. A worthless, meaningless letter. Garbage.

I can’t imagine why you guys are so obsessed with this. Don’t you have any toys that you can play with?

MPSIMS is thataway, if this inquiry is too much for you.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RTFirefly

Let’s just say the way you phrased it made it sound like there was a lot more substantiation to this than there has turned out to be. What we have is the letter, which was “in line with other reporting” about the letter. Which means that all we have is the letter. And our source for both the alleged statement and the alleged proof of its falseness are in the letter. We have no independent evidence that either one exists.

So what’s this letter? Something that a couple of Republican Senators wrote. How trustworthy is it? Well, we just saw how trustworthy a memo written by a Republican Congressman was. Should we give this an ounce more credibility? You don’t explain why.

So we have nothing. A worthless, meaningless letter. Garbage.
MPSIMS is thataway, if this inquiry is too much for you.

In sum, you read all sorts of meaning into what I said which was clearly not there, in order to give yourself something to denounce.

Again, I would suggest you find other things to do, but it’s your choice of course.

[Fubaya]

Grassley and Graham’s referral is still smoke and mirrors. To bring charges under 18 U.S.8. § 1001 requires the false statement be told in the FBI’s jurisdiction and also be material to the case. If Steele lied about contacts to the press while talking to the FBI in London, it’s neither in the FBI’s jurisdiction nor material to the case. Grassley and Graham know this but sent the referral anyway.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

In sum, you read all sorts of meaning into what I said which was clearly not there, in order to give yourself something to denounce.

Again, I would suggest you find other things to do, but it’s your choice of course.

And I would suggest you not impute bad motives to your debate opponents. Please rein that in.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

House votes unanimously to release Dems memo.

The House intelligence committee voted unanimously Monday night to release a Democratic rebuttal to the GOP’s memo on the Russia investigation that President Donald Trump declassified last week.

The document now goes to Trump, who has five days to decide whether to declassify it.

[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.”

Crossposted in another thread. Otherwise submitted without comment.

[Aspenglow]

@Snowboarder_Bo

House votes unanimously to release Dems memo.

Oh, he’ll release it, on the fifth day, with much fanfare about how much classified information “Little Adam Schiff” was going to disclose if he, Trump, hadn’t stepped in to protect the American people from the Democrat(sic) party.

It will read like this:

XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXX when XXXX XXXXXXXX, thereby XXXXXX Trump XXX innocent.

And so on.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@wonky

Crossposted in another thread. Otherwise submitted without comment.

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.

[Ravenman]

@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.

It was even more foolish that Nunes didn’t personally read the FISA application, according to reports that it was Trey Gowdy who did.

[wonky]

@Ravenman

It was even more foolish that Nunes didn’t personally read the FISA application, according to reports that it was Trey Gowdy who did.

Lying and ignoring people with expertise. Gee, where have we seen that before?