• 2

Here's the Memo

The memo is more than a dud, but less than explosive. It shows we need the underlying information.

Turns out that it is not a dud. I think it is safe to say we should get to look at the underlying documents including the FISA warrant. It certainly looks like there was an anti-Trump bias by some who wanted the warrant and it appears that the Steele dossier did play a role in the investigation.

Having read the memo now, I do wonder why the Democrats were hysterical over its release. It is neither as massively a bombshell as some Republicans have said it would be nor is it as much a dud as some Democrats said it would be. It is much more reasonable than I suspected, to be sure, but it does raise some reasonable concerns about a few individuals involved in the investigative process.

Here's the thing though -- I suspect the Inspector General report is going to be a bigger deal than this memo.

Figure one strategy in politics is to under-promise and over-deliver while getting the other side to over-promise and under-deliver. By crying over how terrible and damaging the memo was going to be, the Democrats soften its blow when it turns out not to be the bombshell revelation it was supposed to be. Why the GOP decided to support that Democratic narrative when it could only harm them is a mystery to me.

I imagine a lot of them were hoping that the memo would be blocked. As long as the memo isn't public people can say anything is inside it.

While the 4 page memo is smaller than the Democrat angst or Republican glee would have been justified for, this is but the first in an array of dominoes. This is going to wind up becoming death of a thousand cuts.

I agree this was skirmish. The main attack is yet to come, but it did accomplish one thing it shows a bias at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ which will make launching and investigation much easier. As the Dems have been saying all along about the Trump-Russia collusion scandal where there's smoke there's fire.

It has been shown the democrats were willing to subvert the 4th amendment to spy on a an American citizen to interfere in a presidential election. I have to wonder what you think what would be "explosive"?

Explosive would be if Trump lost. He did not. So nothing they did hurt his campaign or kept him from winning.

napleslover Not true. It is the act that is unprecedented. It is the corruption, the will to try to subvert a free election that rots the fish from the head down. It is the abuse of the FBI's massive power by those who would alter timelines and change history. These partisans dropped the bomb without regard for the devastation it would cause and with no pause to consider the casualties named liberty and republic. We are just now getting our first glimpse of their intended mushroom cloud.

If there was any "bombshell" substance in the underlying detail, Nunes wouldn't have cherry-picked it into this "memo", he'd have dumped it all into public view a long time ago. Trump and his followers don't play the long game; they go straight for the jugular if they can. Nunes didn't have the ammunition to do so. Hence, the delayed-release "memo" and his hinting of "more to come". It's all bogus kabuki theater.

A memo is a summary. A summary is a normal part of an investigation or evaluation of events. It provides a time line and an overview of the most important details.
It's especially important when some sources are classified, to avoid having to make all the more sensitive material public. It's a normal process. If people have access to material that is not included that they think is important, they can take steps to add it. Any summary or abridgment is going to have to leave some material out. That is pretty much the definition of summarizing or abridging. It's the first step in a process. The next is to rebut anything that can be definitively proved to be wrong to get it excised from the report. The next is to add what has been omitted if it can be shown to be material to the matter at hand. It's silly to attribute malignant motives to the selection of material that is included, without more information, which JASmius does not have. It is silly assert that if there is a "there" there it would have been revealed at some vague unspecified arbitrary earlier date. It's far worse than silly to claim "no harm no foul" because illegal acts didn't change the outcome of the election, and would be even if the illegal acts had not led to the investigations into the acts of people who had been illegally put under surveillance. Abuse of power must be identified and dealt with. Those who object to this concept because they happen to like the abusers or hate the targets of the abusers constitute as big a danger to the republic as those in power who committed the abuses.