Home | About | Donate

The Nunes Memo Doesn't Reveal an Abuse of Power. It Is One


#1

The Nunes Memo Doesn't Reveal an Abuse of Power. It Is One.

Elizabeth Goitein

After weeks of buildup, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and fervent supporter of President Trump, has released a divisive memoabout the surveillance of a former adviser to the Trump campaign. After Trump declassified it, Nunes made public a four-page document written by his staff, accusing the Department of Justice and the FBI (a part of the Department of Justice) of illegally spying on the aide in 2016.


#2

could trump have known about this earlier and thats why he fired comey


#3

there is something very rotten about a state in which there can be any serious discussion of this question: the memo undoubtedly reveals a contempt, among public officials, for the spirit of the FISA rules.
How can anyone doubt this?
To argue that Trump’s partisans are even worse-which is almost certainly true- does not excuse the blithe insouciance with which the astonishing and repeated citing of the Steele dossier as evidence, and the non disclosure of its origins in a partisan campaign.
The truth is that we are nearing the bottom of a very slippery slope in which democrats and republicans compete for the right to employ the State police institutions for partisan purposes. This is the ante-room to Totalitarianism. Sad to see the name of Justice Brennan associated with precisely the sort of abuse of power that he warned against.


#4

Now taking odds on whether the country implodes or explodes. I’ll spend my fortune on Mars.


#5

Perhaps we need to rebrand as:

The Insouciant States of America


#6

this is a good post and it’s wasted here. Democrats are committed to this narrative come hell or high water. They have become clones of the GOP rank and file they’ve always despised.


#7

He stated why he fired Comey.


#8

Fact: without the Fusion GPS dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant.

McCabe testified as such. Comey testified, under oath, that the dossier was “salacious and unverified”.

This is an abuse on the highest order…misuse of government powers by partisan political actors, to subvert an American Presidential election.

It is treason.


#9

Someone please tell me again, how does that recusal from the Trump-Russian Scandal probe work for Nunes? I thought this mealy-mouthed bastard wasn’t to have anything to do with the investigation, and here–once again–he’s doing his best to tarnish it with impunity. This Trump hack is an embarrassment and disgrace to the office he holds and he out to be convicted for treason and imprisoned, preferably at a real facility. But I won’t hold my breath.


#10

In many ways this ‘scandal’ is a replay of the 2016 election - a mudslinging battle between two contemptible camps.


#12

Why was the FISA warrant renewed three separate times, every 90 days?


#14

There’s a problem with each of Tacitus Publius’s bullet points, namely, there’s precedent for FBI and other agency probes based on all of them. In other words, the dubious nature of intelligence and the sources who supply it has been well established and the FISA court always grants the requested warrants.

Put it in perspective, the FBI relies on 15,000+ informants. Do you think that represents a squeaky clean group?


#15

What I find astonishing, is how you can base your argument assuming that partisan hack memo is being truthful in regard to what context the dossier was presented to that FISA judge.

I get a kick out of the arguments from the alt-left perspective that consistently, in actuality, side with Trump.

Did I just defend even the spirit of the FISA court, especially post 9/11? No.

But if you don’t think the Trump Administration is hiding anything in regard to either business dealings with Russian oligarchs, collusion with Russians to influence the election, or both, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Did I just jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon as it relates to US foreign policy continuing under the Trump Administration? No.

Have I taken part in the anti-Russia hype put forward in general? No.

But I think it is foolish to think that this is all just one big nothingburger against poor Trump, who has to be the most corrupt jerk to ever occupy the White House.


#16

Oh yes yes of course. McGovern, who knowing the very long criminal history of the CIA joins up and has a career helping the CIA do its dirty work. What a guy!

Yes, indeed he opposed Gulf War 2, and I even went to see him speak in the early months of that slaughter, but I just couldn’t get around the fact that this guy willingly served the CIA, the same CIA that installed Saddam Hussein.

And now, what does he do? He rushes forward from the bizarre perspective of the alt-left to defend an obvious political hack memo’s points in defense of Trump. But of course, he’s not defending Trump as the alt-left meme goes.

I tell you, this supposedly weighty article by McGovern is all the rage with “leftists” defending Trump.

How many ties to Russian oligarchs, etc have come out to this point? All of which were at various points completely denied by Trump and his henchmen and henchwomen? Lost count? I have.

Am I defending even the existence of the FISA court, especially how it has been used post 9/11? No.

Have I been on the anti-Russian bandwagon that’s been all the rage by so many “progressives”? No.

Like I just commented to another poster, if you think at this point, that the Trump campaign wasn’t in some way colluding with Russians regarding influencing the election, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

If you don’t think it obvious that Trump is absolutely desperate to hide such connections, or his corrupt business connections with Russian oligarchs, then I’ve got yet another bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Am I a defender of the FBI in all of this? No

Did you pounce on Comey for his statement before Congress days prior to the election regarding Clinton’s emails? Of course you didn’t, nor did I.

Trying to sniff out the truth in a sea of corrupt individuals involved including the FBI and the rest, is indeed daunting.

Trying to sniff out that Trump isn’t just a victim here but is desperately trying to hide some ugly facts about him and his campaign isn’t difficult, it’s pretty fucking obvious.

I mistakenly attributed, in another thread, the following as having been written by the blogger that ex CIA careerist McGovern cited in his defense of Trump from the alt-left perspective article. It was actually written by another blogger.

The title of the essay containing the following excerpt is Thoughts on the Nunes Memo - TTG

I find it makes some very good points, especially how it eviscerates the logic that the FBI was acting in concert with the interests of Hillary Clinton.

Unless Trump uses this Nunes memo in a “go for broke” effort to fire all the top DOJ and FBI folks and replace them with new folks who have pledged their personal loyalty to Trump, I don’t see this memo having a tremendous effect on the Mueller investigation. By the memo’s own admission the FBI investigation began in July 2016 with information surrounding Papadopoulis, probably from Australia.

Prior to this FBI investigation, an interagency working group was established in April 2016 from the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the DNI to begin an inquiry into the movement of Russian money into the US to pay hackers and influence the election. This action was taken based on info received from the Estonian IS concerning Trump associates meeting RIS operatives in Europe and a recording indicating the Russian government was planning to funnel funds aimed at influencing the US election. GCHQ became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russia. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information. Germany, Poland and possibly the French DGSE also passed on SIGINT.

The existence of neither of these investigations was leaked to the press before the 2016 election. I would think the vast Borg conspiracy would have done this as a vital part of their soft coup. It would have been effective. Instead, they publicly announced the reopening of the Clinton email investigation a week before the election. Is that any way to run a secret society?

The Mueller investigation is not a Borg conspiracy or a leftist conspiracy or a witch hunt. It is a federal counterintelligence and criminal investigation.


#17

The headline of this article says it all!!