#MemoDay — Open Discussion

#MemoDay — Open Discussion

If you haven’t read it yet, which is unlikely, here is a link. If all you heard was media spin, read it. It’s only a couple of pages, none of it technical. If you have not read it, do not comment on it.

Update A clear, convincing, and damning timeline.

Update. Nunes speaks here. Mandatory listening.

Early spin, incidentally, because I write this right after the memo was released, says the memo is “misleading”. How? Hey. Don’t bother me with details. All some people need to hear is that it is “misleading” to dismiss its contents.

The poor John McCain says the memo does Putin’s work for Trump. Dude. The memo shows the whole Russia thing was a fabrication. But McCain pretends not to remember this, or maybe with his brain surgery he really doesn’t. Or maybe he hopes his listeners forget.

Another. Some guy at CBS said that (the fired) Steele was desperate Trump not become president because Steele might have believed in his dossier. Good one! That almost sounds true—upon a first quick hearing.

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s self-described conservative blogger, tweeted, “HUH? Nunes doesnt say the dossier was false, or that Steele knew who was paying for it or really anything else. Is Nunes nuts? R’s look like clowns. Again.”

Jenny, the dossier is false. Happy now?

The rest have fixated on the term “nothing burger”, or are out to hang Nunes.

You know the details. What next?

What we need is to remove power from the central state. At a start, disband the unaccountable FISA courts. The FBI has too much power. Remove it. We don’t need extra government surveillance, we need less.

We need to continue to point out to the “normies” the cancerous role the mainstream media plays. Remember how they scoffed (to say the least) when Trump claimed he was being wired tapped? Remember how the assured us that releasing the memo would be a massive “security risk”?


  1. Sander van der Wal

    AFAICS, the problem is that all of the applications for the court orders were misleading, because information about the source was not given to the court (i.e that the Clinton Campaign had payed for the memo), or that extra probable cause was fabricated by the author of the memo (him leaking the memo to the press).

    If this is in fact illegal under American Law, the actions of both Nunes and Schiff are reasonable. Nunes because as overseer of the FBI sees something illegal happening, and he is reporting it to the proper authorities.

    Schiff because it is his Democratic party initiating the illegal stuff, and Schiff is doing damage control by predicting the sky will fall down in the hope that the memo won’t be released.

    Weirdly, the nothingburger folks clearly think Schiff is an idiot, as a nothingburger is not quite the same as the sky falling down. But that behaviour is still consistent with doing damage control.

    So, assuming all parties involved are rational actors, the reasonable assumption is that the memo describes true events that can be corroberated by showing more evidence.

    If Schiff had said the memo was a nothingburger, and that the president should declassify it ASAP, there would have been a story that was completely consistent with the nothingburger theory. But the sky was falling down, and now it is not.

  2. DAV

    The democrats are claiming the memo is incomplete or misleading. They are now writing their own, which is a proper response. But, why wait instead of doing this earlier? Clearly they wanted to at least delay its release with the claim “You haven’t heard OUR side!”

    Now there will be two conflicting summaries that can only be resolved by releasing the original documents. But the purpose of a summary is to protect the secrets in the original documents. The Democrats are hoping that the secrets in the original documents will prevent their release giving their spin stronger legs.


    When neither [complete declassification or redaction] is practical, the preferred disclosure method is to prepare a declassified summary that answers the relevant questions without risking exposure of critical intelligence secrets and sources. (See CIPA section 4 — Title 18, U.S. Code, Appendix.)

  3. Alan D McIntire

    As an aside on Senator McCain- I consider “McCain-Feingold” to be a fascist attack on the first amendment to our constitution.

  4. DAV

    Durn internet snatched my post a waived it around before I was ready.

    Should the originals be released?
    They undoubtedly contain “secrets” that are really dirty laundry instead of national secrets. But there might be legitimate content which should be withheld. The fact that the committee chose to create the memo implies this and further implies they thought release of them impractical. I say “yes” if practical but they likely won’t which will lessen the impact of the memo.

  5. Marian Tanenbaum

    KGB Comey’s tweet on #MemoDay was meant to raise him above the fray. Instead, it dropped him right in the middle of the FBI FISA abuses & in 140 characters or less.

    The Memo reveals—via McCabe—that the FBI wouldn’t have been able to get any of the FISA warrants but for the “dossier.”

    The Memo also reveals that every application for those warrants failed to disclose that the dossier was unverified, that it was HC oppo, that it was commissioned by HC, that it was fabricated by a virulent anti-Trumpist, that supporting material was fraudulently circular, i.e., was planted by dossier’s creator.

    IOW, Comey, on 3 separate occasions, lied to FISC, & abused his power, to spy on a US citizen. Each instance of abuse alone carries a 10-yr prison term.

    But it gets worse. Carter Page wasn’t Comey’s—or Clinton’s—target. Trump was. This particular FISA abuse is called “reverse targeting.” It became SOP under Obama.

    Revealing the FBI’s true target delegitimizes EVERYTHING—especially the Mueller operation, (which has done a great job delegitimizing itself, BTW).

    The Obama-Clinton Left & never-Trump Right would like us to believe this scandal is only about politics. That would make them—at worst—benign political hacks. But this scandal is about politics only insofar as their criminal intent & motive are concerned.

    This scandal is about existential threats & crimes against the state & equal justice for all; it is about prosecutions & forfeiture of ill-gotten gains, & very long jail terms.

  6. Ray

    The FBI claimed that Carter Page was a Russian agent which is false. They committed perjury to obtain a FISA warrant.

  7. Fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine states that every piece of evidence, every legal process that derived from an illegal act of illegally or fraudulently obtained piece of evidence is null and void, and may not be further used in any court proceeding.

    Prosecutorial misconduct is a felony. Fabricating evidence is a felony. Withholding evidence from the defense is a felony. Perjury is a felony. Abuse of power under color of law is a felony. Sedition and subversion are felonies.

  8. Jim Fedako

    Nothing here that we don’t already know. And nothing will result because the masses do not care (Super Bowl Weekend, don’t forget). Snowden and Manning are still called traitors for exposing truths about the US government.

    In the end, every American who shed a tear during the pro-US rally staged by congress during the State of the Union address cares nothing for our lost freedoms … they are happy as long as WE continue to give it to THEM, good and hard.

    Note: FISA was recently reauthorized and no one cares about so-called Patriot and Homeland Security acts. No outrage will result from this either.

  9. Sylvain


    How do you know that this is false?

    Carter Page admitted to having significant contact with Russian during his trip to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. After he had first denied it.


    Why does the Trump campaign member always forget meeting important Russian government official, until proof are shown that they did.

    Session, Kusner, Manafort, Donald Trump Jr, etc forgot to declare at least 18 meeting with russians.


    Which piece of evidence was fraudulently acquired?

  10. Sylvain

    Marian Tanenbaum,

    ”But it gets worse. Carter Page wasn’t Comey’s—or Clinton’s—target. Trump was. This particular FISA abuse is called “reverse targeting.” It became SOP under Obama.”

    1) I would very sad if we were related. It would means that the IQ of my family would be lower than monkeys

    2) To believe that Obama spied on the Trump campaign requires that he was able to have Comey’s FBI a registered republican spy on Trump. The same Comey’s who according to 538, Nate Silver’s blog, offered the coup de grace to Clinton when he wrote a letter to congress announcing the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation 1 week before election night and while early voting was underway.

    The same Comey who never made public the investigation against the Trump campaign during the election.

    What was the goal of all this? Why nothing of that came out during the election. Russian hacking of emails was mentioned but never in tandem with Trump. At least not till after the election.

    Not only Obama order an investigation on Trump to Comey, but he had 5 different judges at the FISA court accept to emit warrant base on false pretense, at the same time that the court is pact by judges named by republican president and appointed by Chief Justice Roberts. Obama was so smart that he had the loyalty of all these people, including Rosenstein, Boente and Wray who were all appointed by Trump. He was able to require loyalty from all those people without a single one coming out and claiming how inappropriate his action were.

    Meanwhile Trump is asking loyalty of everyone, ask openly for the DOJ to investigate his opponent, and you don’t find anything politic in that.

  11. Sander van der Wal

    The question is whether the FBI stepped out of line, which is forbidden under American Law.

    Governments that break the law while governing a country are tyrannies. Citizens that break the law are criminals. The fact that criminals exist does not mean that the government is allowed to break the law so they can catch the criminals.

    So, the actions of the Trump affiliates are of no importance at all to the question whether the FBI broke the law.

  12. Sylvain


    The democrat memo was written before the Republican memo was voted to be sent to the President. In fact, they voted on both memo, along party line, they voted yes to release the Republican memo, and no the Democrat memo (I guess it was because they were so transparent).

    Trey Gowdy who was part in writing the memo (and the only one who actually saw the FISA application) doesn’t sing the same tune and announced his retirement following the vote on releasing the memo.

    By releasing the memo, the Russian now know that Carter Page was an individual of interest since 2013, and now know what the FBI has know of their dealing.

    “Carter Page met with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich while in Moscow in July 2016”. He admitted that in his house testimony, after denying meeting anyone from Russia. He later admitted to Chris Hays having met with Kislyak in Cleveland during the Republican convention.


  13. Sylvain

    Sander van der Wal,

    “The question is whether the FBI stepped out of line, which is forbidden under American Law.”

    If the proof is so overwhelming then the AG could have brought charges against the people involved. He doesn’t need the FBI if he has the proof. This is why this memo is a nothing burger.

  14. Sylvain Allard

    So where’s the Democratic memo?

  15. Keep whistling past that graveyard there, froggy.

    The dominoes are quietly, but surely dropping into place.

    Monica Crowley, today in The Hill, quoted below. An absolutely devastating analysis, and not even debatable.

    The worm is turning, and smells Obama dung.


    “In all of the discussions about the political weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, alleged corruption at the highest echelons of those agencies and serial abuse of the secret FISA process surrounding the 2016 election, one name has been conspicuously absent: President Barack Obama.

    “High-ranking officials and other major players in those agencies — which Obama oversaw — are increasingly embroiled in the growing scandal: James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissmann, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr.

    “Given the tight control Obama exercised over every part of his administration and agenda, the idea that any of these appointees and loyalists freelanced their activities without at least his tacit approval or that of his White House strains credulity.

    “These kinds of abuses of power were nothing new, given the Obama team’s long history of this type of misconduct on everything from the Benghazi terror attack to the political misuse of the IRS. They weaponized the most fearsome government agencies to target, monitor and presumably illegally unmask political opponents, including members of Congress, journalists reporting unfavorable stories, Trump allies and average Americans.

    “These dark institutional offenses didn’t just materialize out of thin air. One of the criticisms of President Nixon was that even though he wasn’t aware of the Watergate break-in, he had created an environment in which such an action was acceptable.

    “Decades later, Obama created a climate in which the potentially criminal misuse of the DOJ and the FBI, as currently being unraveled, was not just acceptable but perhaps encouraged, thereby giving rise to what could be the most dangerous scandal in American history.

    “It’s increasingly apparent that these recently exposed abuses of power served two ostensible purposes: to secure Hillary Clinton’s candidacy by shielding her from prosecution stemming from the use of her unauthorized private server, and to derail the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump.

    “But something else, something more profound, drove their efforts: their urgency to preserve what Obama once called “the fundamental transformation of the nation” — a grand project much bigger than Obama himself or any other single figure. He largely fulfilled the long-held progressive ambition of changing the nation’s course, only to see Trump threaten to change it once again: not to return it to where it was pre-Obama, but to smash the corrupt existing order that had made their progressive advances possible.

    “Obama and the leftist movement over which he has presided could not tolerate a reversal of their gains (by Trump, no less!), so they got to work.

    “On the offensive side, these Obama officials — who obviously loathe Trump, as demonstrated by the glaring antipathy in the Strzok–Page texts and others’ communications — set out to damage him. Trump, they thought, gave them much material with which to work, plus they enjoyed a compliant media that stood ready to amplify spoon-fed narratives, regardless of their veracity. The acquisition of multiple FISA warrants — now known to be largely based on an unverified dossier prepared by a foreign spy, using anonymous Russian and close Clinton associates and paid for by her campaign and the Democratic National Committee — to subvert and impair Trump and his associates, succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

    “On the defensive side, Herculean efforts were made by the Obama DOJ and FBI to stonewall the Clinton investigation, not out of any real love for Hillary but because they needed to ensure a Democratic win and the continuance of their “transformative” agenda. Further, with Clinton at the helm, evidence of all of their previous abuses would never see the light of day.

    “Thus, the forward march to safeguard her.

    “In October 2015, Obama told “60 Minutes” that, while Clinton made a “mistake” using a private server, “this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” The signal to his law enforcement lieutenants to back off could not have been clearer.” “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *