Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Nunes and the Republicans did with that memo was unprecedented. Publicly displaying parts of intelligence process for the world to see and declassifying information that the intelligence community thought should not be declassified is damaging. Maybe you can't see it, maybe I can't see it, but it is a "first" in our history and we have no way to know what sort of negative downstream effect it will have.
But...as they say...the horse is now out of the barn. Damage (if any) has been done. I would argue that, at this point, the Democratic rebuttal memo would do no further harm than what has been done. In fact, it could help.
I did happen to agree that the memo should not have been released. Not because I was "worried" about Democrats. Not at all. If you did something wrong, it should be punished. But they didn't need to go public to do that.
They have a duty to bring it to the public. You do remember "We the People" >?
They have a duty to bring it to the public. You do remember "We the People" >?
No, that bipartisan oversight committee has the duty to internally investigate any evidence of foul play. Once they do that and they are *sure* of what they have found, they need to press charges/fire, etc.
They do not need to be having aides create memos of conjecture and what they think/or heard might have happened with a FISA warrant request and release it (classified/now declassified) information to the public.
If you step back and look at just that part objectively, you would realize that this was not the way to do it. That it was "your team" and you though you were getting over on someone doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Believe what you want to but I just googled it and randomly picked Newsweek. I don't ever read them. They just popped up as the first thing on my search.
The DOJ said there was no tapping. I believe them.
If I posted a link from Fox News saying the same thing would you believe it? Breitbart?
The DOJ was basically lying by semantics.
Trumps tweets all say "my" phones.
DOJ response: “Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets.†the filing states
The DOJ then goes on to basically plead the 5th (sources and methods) on whether anyone besides Trump was wire-tapped in Trump tower.
By the way, a lot of people don't understand how the FISA rules/standards came to exist.
While I'm always cautious with Wikipedia citations, this one is actually pretty spot on in describing the history of Federal surveillance laws - and the reasons for it - going back to 1978.
Anyone who has suddenly discovered themselves to be wildly opposed to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance by the Federal government is a little late to the party. Many liberals have been arguing against it for a long time.
I myself have come to accept that it is necessary. I know it exists but since I'm not flying over to Moscow or Tehran for meetings with high level officials or talking to Russian spies, I'm not too worried about it. And, since 9-11, I have come to terms with the idea that there ARE American citizens who are aiding and abetting foreign governments who want to hurt our Country. While I am not thrilled with the idea of Federal surveillance, I think it serves a purpose. And that purpose is protecting Americans and our system of government.
I also still strongly believe in the American system of government. We have a lot of checks and balances built into our three branch system. I guess I am not ready to throw up my hands and say that the entire entire system is corrupt or out to "get" us. Sure, there are problems and things I would like to change, but I would like to first give the American system a chance to do its job. And the place to determine whether the Carter Page FISA warrant was issued in error is not in Congress, or in the White House, or on social media but rather in the Judicial Branch.
So, let Mueller complete his investigation. Should there be additional indictments (and there may not be) the courts can then wrangle with the question of whether all evidence was legally collected according to the established laws, and decide which evidence is admissible in a court of law.
That is the only way to put all of this behind us once and for all.
After that, if necessary, Congress can write amendments or make changes to existing law. That's their job after all.
Certainly you jest. They tapped Trump's office, set up a fallback plan to thwart his election in case he won and used faked information to do both. You don't see abuse of power there?
What does "thwarting" an election even MEAN?
If Trump is impeached, there is only another Republican president put into place. Would the scandal damage the Republican Party? Sure, probably short-term but certainly no more than Trump as President does with the endless tweets and leaks from his Administration.
I really don't see an authorized surrogate for Trump sitting down with a surrogate for Putin to come up with a plan to elect Trump for some sort of payback. That's not to say that there weren't some stupid, even illegal actions taken along the way.
As for the post-election Democratic response? I guess if you truly see Trump as Trump the Great than it IS natural to perceive certain actions seemingly as an effort to undercut HIM. But if you see him as an hopeless bumbler (which surely is the opinion of Obama et al.) then he really is his own worst enemy and the Democrat's best friend.
Why risk plotting? Why in the world would someone in Obama's position undertake that sort of personal risk? For Obama, Hillary now has to be toast.
Now what the Democrats DID do was move to thwart Trump's efforts at a possible coverup. Any real chance of blackmail that could undermine national security? Maybe not - and here what matters is the Mueller investigation. And no argument that any party will use weapons that are placed into their hands - sometimes mercilessly and even unwisely.
Other than the WSJ, those are all leftist news sources.
All of those are center, slightly left and slightly right. I listen to a range of news, not news that fits preconceived ideas. Primarily I listen to NPR and BBC, as they discuss facts and information.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
What Nunes and the Republicans did with that memo was unprecedented. Publicly displaying parts of intelligence process for the world to see and declassifying information that the intelligence community thought should not be declassified is damaging. Maybe you can't see it, maybe I can't see it, but it is a "first" in our history and we have no way to know what sort of negative downstream effect it will have.
But...as they say...the horse is now out of the barn. Damage (if any) has been done. I would argue that, at this point, the Democratic rebuttal memo would do no further harm than what has been done. In fact, it could help.
I did happen to agree that the memo should not have been released. Not because I was "worried" about Democrats. Not at all. If you did something wrong, it should be punished. But they didn't need to go public to do that.
What it seems to me that was shown was the FISA process, a process that has not been and is not any kind of mystery.
I don't think the general public trusts our government much anymore and that has nothing to do with our current president, this mistrust started well before him. There's just been too much done in the name of "National Security", too much spying on our own citizens, too much underhanded backroom dealing etc.
If Snowden hadn't revealed all that he did I think things might be a bit different as most people would still be ignorant as to the length that our government has gone to spy,snatch people up (rendition) and other nefarious things all behind our backs but in our name.
The patriot act is another issue that got people thinking about all the secret crap that's being done and could be done and how easy it then became for those in government to do about anything and proclaim "National Security" to hide it from view.
Wikileaks is another release of information that got people wound up about government officials lying,cheating,spying and underhanded financial dealings.
The point is all of these things as well as others have caused many people from both sides of the isle distrusting those in charge. One of the best ways to combat that is full transparency.
All of these Congresscritters who loudly and widely proclaim this or that on the Senate floor or in front of the nearest TV camera need to be compelled to PROVE what they claim or face consequences.
If you or I accuse someone of something and can't prove it we're open to legal action but magically those in power are not.
This causes distrust and encourages lying.
This does not make political sense. What does "thwarting" an election even MEAN?
If Trump is impeached, there is only another Republican president put into place. Would the scandal damage the Republican Party? Sure, probably short-term but certainly no more than Trump as President does with the endless tweets and leaks from his Administration.
I really don't see an authorized surrogate for Trump sitting down with a surrogate for Putin to come up with a plan to elect Trump for some sort of payback. That's not to say that there weren't some stupid, even illegal actions taken along the way.
As for the post-election Democratic response? I guess if you truly see Trump as Trump the Great than it IS natural to perceive certain actions seemingly as an effort to undercut HIM. But if you see him as an hopeless bumbler (which surely is the opinion of Obama et al.) then he really is his own worst enemy and the Democrat's best friend.
Why risk plotting? Why in the world would someone in Obama's position undertake that sort of personal risk? For Obama, Hillary now has to be toast.
Now what the Democrats DID do was move to thwart Trump's efforts at a possible coverup. Any real chance of blackmail that could undermine national security? Maybe not - and here what matters is the Mueller investigation. And no argument that any party will use weapons that are placed into their hands - sometimes mercilessly and even unwisely.
But where you see apples, I guess I see oranges.
I am still trying to understand the logic behind the narrative that the Democrats, McCain, Steele and the FBI all engaged in this elaborate conspiracy to dig up dirt to undermine Trump but then kept it to themselves until after the election took place.
I am still trying to understand the logic behind the narrative that the Democrats, McCain, Steele and the FBI all engaged in this elaborate conspiracy to dig up dirt to undermine Trump but then kept it to themselves until after the election took place.
On top of that the FBI disclosed it was reviewing more Hillary Clinton emails 11 days before the presidential election. Sounds like a left wing conspiracy to me. This whole thing is just freaking retarded!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
