Report: Wray Opposes Release of Nunes Memo

440px-Chris_Wray_official_photoAccording to Bloomberg, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes the release of controversial four-page memo from the House Intelligence Committee.  What is notable about the report is that the objection is allegedly due to what Wray views as a false and inaccurate narrative. However, that should not be a reason alone to classify and withhold a document under Rule X.


When Wray read the memo, House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes asked him to identify anything false or inaccurate.

The report adds to the controversy created by a comment by President Donald Trump on his way out of the State of the Union last night.  While the White House indicated that the President had not reviewed the document, he was captured on tape telling Representative Jeff Duncan, a South Carolina Republican, that it was  “100 percent” that he would release the memo.

As I discussed in my column today in the Hill, the use of Rule X to declassify a document is a long-overdue use of the Committee authority given complaints that the agencies routinely use classified status to bury embarrassing or incriminating material.  It would be highly problematic if Wray wanted to keep the memo classified simply because he did not agree with the conclusion or viewed them as inaccurate.

What is curious is that the fact of the FISA order is now public knowledge as is the target.  It is not clear why such information would be deemed so classified as to bar declassification or release.


208 thoughts on “Report: Wray Opposes Release of Nunes Memo”

  1. Hey, there’s a guy from Infowars peddling the notion that the train accident was related to release the memo and is part of the deep state conspiracy. He forgot to mention that George Soros paid Hillary Clinton to rent the dump truck.

    Jesus, these people are idiots.

    1. Zero Hedge and Infowars craft destabilizing themes and promote them so that there’s a gain, either for Russia or, a gain for the ultra conservatives like Mercer, the Koch’s, John Birch Society,….

        1. McCarthy tarred people as communists similar to the tarring of people today as Stalinists by voices aligned with the Koch’s. Neither allegations were/are true.
          What Carolla is testifying to is true, what the Steele document exposes is true, what the Deutchse records confirm is true, Recode’s reporting on the Russian bots is fact.
          McCarthy targeted individuals. The case made by the FBI, from its investigations and CIA intelligence, is squarely against a foreign nation.

          1. Problem is McCarthy was correct, later proven by the Venona Project kept secret for years. Many blame him for stating a large number on his list of communists, but his number was rather small and he was just asking for investigation not the firing of those people. The organization’s list that had a much larger number (often attributed to McCarthy) was non-other than the FBI.

            McCarthy released only one name and that was the name of the person who was a member of the law firm whose former partner then a Senator had been hurling out all sorts of accusations pushing McCarthy to release the names. That Senator wanted that potential communist in a position that I think had to be approved by the Senate (not sure).

                1. Paul,..
                  Subsequent discoveries, especially after the breakup of the Soviet Union, showed that some of McCarthy’s accusations were accurate.
                  The problem was that he wasn’t careful who he accused, and he casted a wide net of accusations against people who were innocent.
                  Had he used some judgement and restraint, and targeted actual Communists instead of makinf bkanket accusations, his reputation would not have been shattered.
                  Eisenhower finally had enough, and gave the green light to take him down.

                  1. My understanding, Tom, is that McCarthy only released one name (as mentioned above) from his list. He was right. There were communists in the government and some were in sensitive positions. You seem to indicate he accused others. Do you mean that in a generalized fashion or do you think he actually released more names from his list? If the latter can you state the name and the circumstances under which the name was released?

                    1. Allan,
                      This reply box is barely usable, but to keep my reply in sequence I’ll use it.
                      It had been a long time since I’d researched McCarthy’s accusation, the scope of his accusations, so I did some quick checking to refresh my memory.
                      I can’t post the link, but you can google “Enemies Within, History Matters”.
                      The George Mason University site should be at or near the top of the google searc…on short, McCarthy accused at least 57 State Dept. officials of being Communists….at one point, the accusations balooned to 200, but I don’t know if that made it into the Congressional Record, or in his letters to Truman, Ike, or Acheson.
                      If I try to go into more detail in this reply box, I’ll probably make a lot more typos.
                      As an aside, you might enjoy reading Pat Buchanan’s article on screenwriter Dalton Trumbull, and Trumball’s phonh martyrdom.

                    2. “Although McCarthy displayed this list of names both in Wheeling and then later on the Senate floor, he never made the list public.”

                      I think this quote from what I believe to be your source agrees with what I say above. Other than the one name I mentioned (with good reason) did he name any other names from his list? I don’t think so.

                      I am not saying he was a nice man. I commented in a very narrow fashion. Linda does not know history at all and repeats soundbites including soundbites that promotes books she never read and could never understand.

                  2. Tom Nash – Eisenhower had him taken down because he was attacking the Army. Eisenhower loved the Army. The State Dept got rid of a couple of hundred Communists very quietly while the whole thing was going on. At the same time they were culling the Communists out of the NAACP.

                    1. Paul,..McCarthy did indeed target the army as well.
                      As far as axing 200 Communists from the State Dept., do you have a source/ cite for that?
                      I know that some of the accusations had merit….some of the charges were confirmed decades later….but I never saw that State weeded out 200 Communists.

                    2. Tom Nash – I cannot remember where I read about the State Dept however they very quietly got rid of 200 Communists and fellow travelers. They had been infiltrated during the FDR administration.

              1. Linda, you just don’t know your history. You were taught what to believe, but you are not well-read noted by your distortions of history and your inability to respond to questions surrounding your deeply seated ideology.

                1. Allan,
                  McCarthyism was at its height for maybe 5 years…..phony claims of “McCarthyism” have had a 60+ year run.
                  The McCarthyism in reverse” has had a lot longer run, and some continue milking it.

                  1. McCarthy’s name has become synonymous with a specific period of our history. Many or most blame him for events that occurred before he ever became a Senator. This is an example of how history has been changed to promote leftist ideology.

        1. Paul and Allan,
          Paul, your comment on the 200 people removed from the State Dept. motivated me to do some quick research.
          I know most, maybe all, of the Secretaries of State and the administrations they served from Dean Acheson c. 1950 to the present.
          I didn’t know that there had been such a rapid turnover of Secretaries of State in the mid- to -late 1940s.
          Trying to get up to speed as far as learning about that era, it looks like there were as many as 200 dismissals of State employees under Sec. James Byrnes….I don”t know the details of those firings, but they occured very early on in McCarthy’s stint as a Senator. ( c. 1946-1948 for the weeding out of maybe 200 at State).
          McCarthy kicked off his campaign of accusations against the “Communists in the State Dept. In 1950….. Which was AFTER Byrne had already weeded out as many as 200, probably for being suspected of being Communists, of supportive of Communism.
          It looks like McCarthy was either distorting the numbers based by counting those who’d already been dismissed in his estimates, or just wildly guessing at how many suspected Communists might still be at State.
          Even though McCarthy started on the Senate in c. 1947, there had been action against suspected Communists at State before “McCarthyism” started in 1950.
          I was pretty familiar with events of the actual “McCarthy era”, c. 1950- 1954.
          But not at all familiar with the activities of Sec. of State Byrnes predating the McCarthy era.
          This newly acquired knowledge, and a buck, will get me a cup of coffee at McDonald’s.😊

          1. “It looks like McCarthy was either distorting the numbers based by counting those who’d already been dismissed in his estimates, or just wildly guessing at how many suspected Communists might still be at State.”

            Tom, I am not sure about the estimates you are talking about. McCarthy had a relatively short list of names well below 100 (I think somewhere in our citations someone said 57). I am sure he felt there were a lot more communists that weren’t on the list. However, the big question has always been whose names did he list (I think only one) and who he caused harm to. The Hollywood 10 occurred before his time and occurred in the house. The HUAC committee was in the House, not the Senate where he resided.

            1. Allan, ..
              – I think that McCarthy “officially, for the record” did stick closer to 57 State Dept. suspected Communists.
              I’d looked at a few articles last night, but only cited the George Mason U. article.
              So I probably attributed some numbers that weren’t confirmed in the George Mason speech.
              There’s no known recording of that 1950 W, Virginia speech, and he’s quoted as using( saying) the 205 number in his speech.
              The advanced copy of the speech he gave to the press was also given as 205.
              Then he used the “57 number” in his follow up letter to Truman, and apparently in a speech on the Senate that is on the Congressional Record.
              There are still so many conflicting claims about McCarthy’ s allegations that I find it hard to pin down the exact numbers.
              There are probably objective historians who actually matched McCarthy’s accusations against individuals, and the number of times he correctly or incorrectly deemed someone to be a Communist.
              One article I saw last night claimed that MvCarthy “never” correctly identified a Communist, but that article started with a conclusion and hammered the evidence around until it matched that conclusion.

              1. He is often misquoted where the one misquoting the numbers errantly used the FBI numbers, not McCarthy’s.

                “There are probably objective historians who actually matched McCarthy’s accusations against individuals, and the number of times he correctly or incorrectly deemed someone to be a Communist.”

                To deem someone a communist means to me that the name would have been spoken by McCarthy. Did you find any other names he spoke with the exception of the one I mentioned? I don’t think he did.

                “One article I saw last night claimed that McCarthy “never” correctly identified a Communist, but that article started with a conclusion and hammered the evidence around until it matched that conclusion.”

                They could say that if McCarthy never provided a name because if he never produced a name then he never identified a communist. The one he did provide had associations, but he may have terminated them before his suggested appointment. History has been “despoiled” in the intellectual sense by those that looked favorably upon the communists.

                1. Allan,
                  I saw conflicting claims about McCarthy’s specificity in identifying individuals….that’s from skimming a half dozen or so articles.
                  A “rainy day ” project would be to find a book written by a reputable, objective historian….the articles I’ve seen are just too contradictory to get a good fix on the specifics we’re discussing.

                  1. Tom, years ago I actually listened to some of the recorded testimony on the Senate floor having to do with McCarthy which revealed an entirely different story than the story written later. Specifics and context are left out. Later people write on the same subject and quote those earlier publications and eventually myths are created. Watch how Enigma spins events, makes claims, quotes news articles (absent of proof) until he has created an entire story in his head which lacks factual basis.

  2. Release the memo in the interests of transparency. At this point, they have to, or it will look like protecting a lawless FBI.

    There have been disturbing reports of the weaponization of the alphabet soup in Washington. We have seen some of it play out in public. “It was the least untruthful statement I could make.”

    There is something wrong, and it needs to be examined and rooted out.

  3. The simple fact that the committee voted to release the GOP memo but refuses to release the Democrat’s minority memo is all one needs to know. Nunes is as terrified of this investigation as Trump is.

      1. Yeah, I loved that he refused to answer the question about whether he corroborated with the WH. The best crooks know how to lie well. Nunes is a mediocre crook.

        The truth is these are not very bright guys and things got out of hand – All the President’s Men

      2. Think his shenanigans will backfire on him. Never been a fan of da FBI but the crooks in the T rump mob are mobsters at da lowest level. Nunez is either in over his head or an agent. Maybe both.

    1. Rikea, you are wrong, they will release the report in about a week or so… They did not want to muddy up the waters with both released at the same time…

      This must be a Liberal site… Geez people, think out of the box for once and let the American people decide…😊

      Instead of rushing to judgement..😊

      1. Isn’t “fear of muddying up the water” an even more spurious reason to refuse to release a memo than “It contains lies”?

    2. How about they put the minority’s memo through the same process they are putting this memo through and then release it?
      What you are trying to establish is a scenario where all that needs to be done to discredit any Congressional finding, is to put out a partisan counter finding.
      Adam Schiff is quite willing to leak closed door information in real time without any vetting but we are supposed to accept him as an unbiased source?

      Just redact (Google the definition) the memo and publish it. If it is inaccurate correct it. If it is incomplete, augment it.

      The same and stronger arguments were made against the publishing of the Pentagon Papers.

  4. FBI agent Mulder & side kick, FBI agent Scully are on to something. FBI X-Files.
    Give credit to the FBI field agents.

    1. I’m shocked that some here want to go after the FBI that was looking into if Trump’s people, where working for the Russians.

      1. Please, enlighten the audience with the smoking gun confirming your claim! We can’t wait!

        1. Hoover’s tenure at the FBI ended in 1972 when he died. Nineteen f****** seventy two. I can smell your desperation trying to defend the indefensible. But, really, at least try to stay in the 21st century.

          1. Nothing desperate about pointing up the Left’s hypocrisy. They used to luuuuv the Russians, now they’re ready to got war with them. They used to luuuuv free speech at Berkeley. Now they only luuuuv it if it agrees with them. Contemporary enough for ya?

            1. Yes. In the 2012 POTUS debates, Geezis Soetoro bin Bama said to Romney, “The 1980s called. They want their Russian policies returned!”

              Today, per DNC hacks, it’s MOAR RUSSIAN WAR, THE MOAR THE BETTER! Just like Joy Behar: “I’d vote for a felon if he agrees with my ideology.” Just like DC black voters enshrined Marion Barry again as Mayor, after video of him smoking crack, saying, “The bitch set me up.” Great role model for black teenage boys in DC!!!!!!!!!!!

              1. But…But,,, But…. Democrats supported the civil war. But….But….But….unmasking….. But…But…

          2. Rikea,.
            – Yes, Hoover died in 1972.
            So, going forward, abuses involving a powerful law enforcement agency could never happen again.😏

        2. Mespo,…
          -This shouldn’t even be a “right or left” issue.
          And it is interesting to see just how “flexible” those ostensibly concerned about possible misconduct by a govt. agency can drop those concerns when it’s expedient.

    2. I don’t think there is much in that memo that hasn’t already been touched upon at one time or another. It will provide more data and background and perhaps attach names to it. The only reason to withhold the memo is the embarrassment. This information should have been in the hands of the Congressional committee a year earlier so there is no reason to delay it any further. Congress created the FBI, funds the FBI and has a duty to oversee the FBI. The FBI has seen it and apparently doesn’t find any security issues involved with the release of the memos so there is no reason not to release it.

  5. Oh, and another thing. Maybe for Wray, this is an organizational thing. Organizations and Movements and Institutions and Groups in general, tend to be self-protective. They often lose sight of their mission trying to protect their own existence and reputation. Why do you think the Catholic Church covered up the Gay Pedophile Priests thing for so long? Why did “Hollywood” cover up for the Weinstein Types, and continue to cover up for them? Why does the Civil Rights organizations and the Democratic Left sooo studiously avoid talking about that 77% Black illegitimate birth rate? Why do Gay Marriage advocates clam up about how gay “marriages” avoid with pre-nups that whole “forsaking all others til death do us part” thingie???
    Nobody likes to have their dirty laundry aired.

    My guess is that Wray, if this story is even true, is thinking more about the FBI as an organization, than he is the mission of the FBI.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. I’d bet you are familiar with one of my new heroes, Jordan Peterson. In a YT video interview, Jordan mentions that a certain group of homosexuals/bisexuals/cross-dressers (not Jordan’s pronouns agree with Jordan’s boycott against Canadian law criminalizing the non-use of an ever growing # of special homosexual pronouns (NYC is over 30 now with no send in sight).

      LGBTQ self-proclaimed “spokespersons” are unelected self-proclaimed authors of homosexual narrative. Of course, these self-proclaimed authors publicly scorn LGBTG who agree with Jordan. A pro-Canadian law debater told Jordan he has no more right to speak on the subject than the LGBTQ spokespersons. But of course Jordan says he speaks only for himself, he craves fair debate, and does not attack persons who fairly disagree.

  6. RE: ALLEGED INACCURACIES IN THE MEMO I posted a link to this yesterday, but here it is again.

    Two senior FBI officials have now reviewed a controversial Republican staff memo alleging abuses of government surveillance programs during the 2016 presidential campaign, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News – adding that the officials “could not point to any factual inaccuracies.”

    The two officials – one from the bureau’s counterintelligence division and the other from the legal division – followed up after an initial review of the memo during a rare Sunday trip to Capitol Hill by FBI Director Christopher Wray.

    There is a good video at the link, with Catherine Herridge.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. How is the “document” any more than a politicalized summary of classified material by Nunes? Some of which he was not authorized to release to others. I would rather see it released at this point because there will be no convincing some people that there isn’t some grand conspiracy involving the entire FBI and Justice Department. If the material doesn’t prove what Nunes and others have said (that never read the underlying documentation and in fact voted to deny themselves that privilege). Hopefully, people won ‘t be so locked into their theories that they’ll be able to admit it.

    I am amazed at the ability of the alleged “law and order party” to completely tear down the FBI to protect this President. If they truly believed there was nothing there, why go to such lengths? I’ve seen multiple interviews with Carter Page and have no doubt his rights didn’t have to be violated to justify surveillance.

    The person who seems to have lost total control is Paul Ryan who has let Devin Nunes and other keep him from allowing this hyperpartisan madness to reach this point. It will be interesting to see what history makes of this era when the House of Representatives was more in line with Russian interests than American?

    1. I appreciate you trying to be a voice of reason. And why should anyone believe Nunes, who’s proven himself to be a partisan toady, over leadership of the FBI/DOJ? This “memo” is just his notes.

        1. A rhetorical question, of course, sadly. Trump will listen to whoever helps or flatters Trump, right or wrong. At least Wray seems to have some integrity.

      1. I think Enigma is married with children, sooo flattering him as a “voice of reason” isn’t going to work. Plus, that contention is laughable! Poor Old Enigma doesn’t even live in 2018! He is stuck in a Errant Time Wormhole, and he keeps popping out in the past,l where Negroes were forced to pick cotton, and couldn’t drink out of the same water fountains as Whites.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      2. Please enlighten readers here with a list of non-partisan members of Congress.

        If you and Natacha are right, then the memo is of no value against the DNC, and why waste time posting here?

        Please, too…tell the audience, if the DNC is so in to transparency, exactly why Congressman Adam Schiff sued to prevent Congress from finding out HRC and the DNC purchased the Russia Dossier? Why do that if such info is as meaningless and harmless as you and the rest of you DNC hacks say?

        And before you mention that the first people who started the Russia Dossier were RNC members looking for an angle to attack Trump prior to him winning the nomination: At that time, no foreign agents were involved in writing the Russia Dossier.

        Fusion GPS sold and organized the Russian Dossier. Fusion did not purchase the services of retired British Spy Richard Steele (who worked the Russia Desk of MI5), who purchased the services of Russian agents in Russia, till HRC and the DNC spent money. Steele is the man who authored the lie that Trump hired Russian whores to pee on him, BTW. What you and your DNC hacks call “opposition research.” Nixon can not hold a candle to modern DNC duplicity.

        DNC Progressives mentioning the RNC first purchased the Russia Dossier is a red herring. But please, do list that useless drivel again, anyway.

    2. Why do you presume they are “tearing down the FBI” to protect Trump??? They are trying to protect the Republic. Are you telling me that Good Old Enigma, who gets the vapors over the mere whiff of injustices done to blacks by the police (or even by white folks 200 years ago!) doesn’t “get it” about what the FBI/DOJ did for Hillary, and against Trump???

      Think Michael Brown here, and Darren Wilson, except for the fact that the FBI (Darren Wilson) used their powers to sabotage Trump (Michael Brown) when Trump, unlike the Real Michael Brown, really “dindu nuffin.”

      There did that work??? Did comparing to what you foolishly think was a police injustice make it clearer for you???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. I am under no illusion as to what the FBI is capable of to achieve their goals. There’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Devil In The Grove where it makes clear the FBI sat on evidence which showed a white Sheriff in Groveland, FL murdered an innocent black prisoner and shot another, he stayed in power for another 21 years because the FBI said nothing. The FBI has infiltrated student organizations and worked to destroy the civil rights movement among others, I know who they are.
        The hard part for me to fathom is how anyone can believe they have suddenly become anything but the right-centered, pro-Republican, organization they have been the last several decades? If they were pro-Hillary> She needs a better class of friends. With all that the FBI leaked about her, they managed to say nothing about investigations of Trump at the same time,
        They aren’t perfect, they are what we have and there are enough rules in place to offer some hope of protection from excesses, rules that the Republican House now want to wipe away for partisan purposes.
        It is my opinion that even those of you who truly think he didn’t conspire with Russians, don’t think him innocent of a litany of financial crimes but would rather no one look under that rock lest he be removed. What was true of Watergate that isn’t true now was the number of open televised hearings that let the people judge for themselves the evidence. Hopefully we one day get to see?

        1. You said, “The hard part for me to fathom is how anyone can believe they have suddenly become anything but the right-centered, pro-Republican, organization they have been the last several decades? ”

          That is only hard for you because you don’t really live in the year 2018. You are still stuck back there in the past, In the Devil in the Grove times. If you can ever escape the Errant Time Wormhole, then you can figure out that Barack Obama was President for 8 years, and a lot of Democrats got hired in a lot of departments.

          Which is not hard to figure out. Plus, if you can escape, and Follow The Drinking Gourd to your nearest internet connection, you can read all about the texts and things, and how White Girl Hillary was protected by the Establishment, the Deep State, The Powers That Be, The Swamp, whatever you want to call them.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. While you might have seen temporary change at the top like a Holder and Lynch, everything and everyone else pretty much stayed in place and the people being thrown overboard now, pretty much are what they have always been. The FBI and Department I would submit have far less political appointees than almost any other Departments. With Holder and Lynch gone, things were as that have mostly always been; ignore the excesses of local police departments, throw out the consent decrees they could and barely enforce the rest. Reinstate mass incarceration. Not exactly the deep state you purport.

            1. And yet. . . there’s the whole Memo thing.

              And there’s the rigged Hillary email cover up. Tell me, Enigma, do you think it suspicious at all that the exoneration was written before the investigation was concluded? If Darren Wilson had been exonerated before witnesess were interviewed would you have found that suspicious? What if there were two cops in the car when Poor Old Michael Brown hit the ground. What if Darren Wilson had a partner, named say, Fred White, Would you have found it suspicious if Fred White acted as Darren Wilson’s lawyer, and was there every time the police questioned any witness? Would you have found that troubling?

              No, Enigma, if you are not suspicious now, in this whole affair, it is not because you lack the ability to be suspicious, only the desire to be suspicious.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. If my suspicions must start with the presumption that the Fox News, Breitbart, Devin Nunes, version of events is absolute truth. Yes I’m going to have a problem. I’m willing to wait for actual facts

                1. Enigma, there is seldom an “absolute” truth, at least one that any of us can discover. And I don’t think any of us conservative types have “absolute faith” in FOXNews or Breitbart. That is simply a strawman invented by the Left. Did you read the J H Kunstler editorial I posted here a few days ago? He is a Democrat, and a Liberal, and he gave a pretty honest assessment of the problem. Here, once again, is an excerpt, and a link:

                  Stormy Weather

                  For those of us who are not admirers of President Trump, it’s even more painful to see the Democratic opposition descend into the stupendous dishonesty of the Russian Collusion story. When the intelligentsia of the nation loses its ability to think — when it becomes a dis-intelligentsia — then there are no stewards of reality left. Trump is crazy enough, but the “resistance” is dragging the country into dangerous madness.

                  It’s hard not to be impressed by the evidence in the public record that the FBI misbehaved pretty badly around the various election year events of 2016. And who, besides Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and Dean Baquet of The New York Times, can pretend to be impressed by the so far complete lack of evidence of Russian “meddling” to defeat Hillary Clinton? I must repeat: so far. This story has been playing for a year and a half now, and as the days go by, it seems more and more unlikely that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is sitting on any conclusive evidence. During this time, everything and anything has already leaked out of the FBI and its parent agency the Department of Justice, including embarrassing hard evidence of the FBI’s own procedural debauchery, and it’s hard to believe that Mr. Mueller’s office is anymore air-tight than the rest of the joint.

                  If an attorney from Mars came to Earth and followed the evidence already made public, he would probably suspect that the FBI and DOJ colluded with the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic Party to derail the Trump campaign train, and then engineer an “insurance policy” train wreck of his position in office. Also, in the process, to nullify any potential legal action against Clinton, including the matter of her email server, her actions with the DNC to subvert the Sanders primary campaign, the Steele dossier being used to activate a FISA warrant for surveillance of the Trump campaign, the arrant, long-running grift machine of the Clinton Foundation (in particular, the $150 million from Russian sources following the 2013 Uranium One deal, when she was Secretary of State), and the shady activities of Barack Obama’s inner circle around the post-election transition. There is obviously more there there than in the Resistance’s Russia folder.


                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

            2. A fair and independent investigation of Eric Holder reveals he is likely the most corrupt individual to ever hold US office. If you want to see with your eyes and hear with your ears exactly and positively how and why Eric Holder insured that no banking individual suffered criminal sentence for the biggest felony banking heist in US history (100x worse than the S&L disaster in which Bill Clinton imprisoned 1000 persons), look no further than AG Eric Holder, his then-Lt. Lanny Breuer, and Breuer’s then-Lt. a woman who’s name escapes me:

              1. Bankers have mostly not been going to jail for financial crimes for a long time before Holder and since. Congress protects bankers, so do Presidents. The current one and his family possibly having a great familiarity with money laundering and tax evasion. We may soon see?

                In the same position, Alberto Gonzales had “no specif recollection” of as much dirt as Jeff Sessions “can’t remember.”

                1. No, you are wrong. Reagan’s people put a bunch of them in the hoosegow! For your edification, a blurb from a discussion, and the rest is at the link:

                  William Black: Sure. The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud. In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as “major” by the Department of Justice. But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100 — the 100 worst fraud schemes. They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted. We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.

                  In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac — which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans — made zero criminal referrals. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals. The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination. And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either].

                  And what people don’t understand about the criminal justice system is there are roughly a million people employed in it — and of course, millions incarcerated in it. But of the million employees, 2,300 do elite white-collar investigations. And of those 2,300, you have to contrast that to the number of industries in the United States, which is over 1,300. Notice I didn’t say ‘corporations,’ I said ‘industries.’

                  So a couple of things should be obvious. First, the FBI agents will not have expertise in the industry. And second, they can’t patrol the beat. They have to wait until a criminal referral comes in, and won’t come from the bank itself. Banks don’t make criminal referrals against their CEOs.

                  It could episodically come from whistleblowers, but against an epidemic of fraud that can never work. It has to come overwhelmingly from the regulators. So when the regulators ceased making criminal referrals — which had nothing to do with an end of crime, obviously; it just had to do with a refusal to be involved in the prosecutorial effort anymore — they doomed us to a disaster where we would not succeed.

                  Back in the savings and loan crisis, people like me — and I did this personally a great deal of my time — trained not only our regulators, but also the FBI agents and assistant U.S. attorneys on how to identify fraud schemes, how to respond to them and how to document them. We also detailed our top examiners on the most complex frauds, so that they worked for the FBI as their internal experts, and then people like me testified as expert witnesses. And, again, we had prioritized so we were going against the absolute worst of the worst and most senior of the people. None of those things have happened now.

                  Because of changes in executive compensation, it’s very uncommon for people to blow the whistle in the modern era. What people often don’t understand is that executive compensation bonuses go down very low in the food chain. And so if I’m a boss and I see a crime being committed, it isn’t just that I risk losing my bonus, it’s that Fred and Mary who report to me — Fred with three kids about to go to college and Mary with a kid that has severe problems — they’ll lose their bonuses as well. And so it’s not even my greed — it’s my altruism that gets in the way.

                  And then the administration has never — both the Bush and the Obama administrations — made a call for the good people to come forward, the ones who fought against the frauds and were disciplined because they did so. And the Frontline special that investigated this found that as soon as word got out, they were deluged with people giving them information, and the common characteristic Frontline found was that the FBI had never even talked to them.

                  And of course, the Obama administration has been having an unholy war against whistleblowers.


                  Now, don’t ever say that I don’t try to help you be smarter!

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. Back in the S&L mess a number of people indeed went to jail. That trend never should have stopped. I love you bringing up history to clarify the present. I can only endeavor to acquire that talent. 🙂

                    1. That was a nice try at repartee! Sooo, congrats there! But. . . notice the wee little disconnects.

                      First, I did not blame the fact that Obama and Holder did not prosecute any bankers in 2008 on the actions of 1986-1995 S&L debacle. In fact, there was a negative connection in that Obama failed to do what had previously been done, and the 2008 collapse was exponentially worse.

                      Second, reaching back to 1986 to 1995 is not like reaching back to the civil war or the 1950s. The end of the S&L crisis was 1995, only 13 years removed from the 2008 problems.

                      I have repeated said that the problems caused by civil rights injustices might be a proper basis for bad black behavior for a few years. Affirmative action programs might even be justifiable for a few years. The Great Society programs of 1965 were perhaps even arguably justifiable for a few years. Just like problems in Europe and Japan were not going to solve immediately after World War II.

                      But, as I have also said before, those societies, and the Jews in Israel, had rebuilt within 20 years or less, so that by 1965, 20 years after the end of the war, they had functioning societies again. Frankly, they had them by the mid 1950s.

                      So, that is why I constantly carp at you. Because you are stretching the “excuse” time frame for Blacks in 2018, back to 1850, and the 1940s, and the 1920s. Which, even if you measure from the Civil Rights Bill, in 1965, you are still at least 53 years down the road.

                      Do you see the difference? Not to mention the causality factor, that the bad things that were done to blacks did not result in the illegitimacy problem. I will give you the chart again below. No, blacks were overwhelmingly getting married, and having kids in wedlock, even in the 1880s, 15 years after slavery. If there is anything that is causal to the 77% black illegitimate birth rate, it is the Great Society Welfare programs of the 1960s, to wit:


                      Sooo, quit blaming the Civil War, slavery, Jim Crow, Institutionalized Racism, White Privilege, and White People in general for the gross dysfunction in the Black Community.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. If you want to cite me correctly, there is no gap in bad behavior which is my point. Slave Codes to Black Codes to Jim Crow to redlining, voter suppression, and mass incarceration have no gap. The latter being a factor in the illegitimacy rate you cite every other post. Some of the Sessions era policies are very close to those of Jim Crow except the penalty isn’t usually lynching although still a possibility in 2018.

                      I am hoping my good friend Allan is paying attention to this conversation where the topic has nothing to do with race but you and Joseph Jones seem to bring it up at every turn. Why is that? I am quite capable of discussing any number of subjects not involving race. Am I not human as well? If you prick me do I not bleed?
                      Enjoy your day.

                    3. Enigma,

                      I think it would depend on where someone pricked you. . . If it was your head, then I am not at all sure that you would bleed. In fact, I suspect the pricking instrument would probably bend, and maybe break.

                      As far as mass incarceration, I am sure unsure how having less than 5% of one’s race’s males in lockup equates to a 77% illegitimate birth rate. Even more unsure how that works in Minneapolis, where the black out of wedlock rate is 88%.


                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    4. Enigma writes: “I am hoping my good friend Allan is paying attention to this conversation where the topic has nothing to do with race but you and Joseph Jones seem to bring it up at every turn. Why is that?”

                      It appears that you do live in the past as Squeeky says, perhaps even prior to your birth, and your grievances are as if you are living them all over again. These things should not be forgotten, but they should also not create the type of reaction you have which is destructive to those most needy.

                      You managed to bring up race in your first reply where it wasn’t necessary. Once again you focus on race instead of another topic.

                      I quote from your first comment in reply: “the FBI sat on evidence which showed a white Sheriff in Groveland, FL murdered an innocent black prisoner and shot another, he stayed in power for another 21 years because the FBI said nothing. The FBI has infiltrated student organizations and worked to destroy the civil rights movement among others, I know who they are.”

                    5. I was agreeing with Squeeky’s message to me where she talked about the relationship of the FBI and black people. Responding is not nearly the same as bringing it up.

                    6. In that comment, she mentioned nothing about the FBI and race. You made the linkage. I think it is a bad habit.

                    7. My friend, you live in the past and create exactly what you wish to end. You don’t like Donald Trump and that is your business. You may not like some of his policies and that is your business as well. But, what was your argument against him? You said he was a racist based upon garbage evidence. That seems to be how you look at the world.

                      Enigma, time to put the race card away and learn to admit when you are wrong. The year is 2018. Time to change, move the clock forward, and deal in the present in an honest way.

                2. Interesting the way you ignored and contradicted my statement that Bill Clinton imprisoned 1000 bankers in the S&L disaster.

                  You also ignore the bank theft that caused the 2008 Depression from which many still suffer (some communities have still not recovered their RE values) is the biggest in US history, 1000x bigger than the last last S&L disaster.

                  Lastly, comparing any prior felony crimes to the ones Holder and Breuer committed is pure baloney. This is so far beyond “ignoring” the law it’s silly. Holder and Breuer invented lies (easily confirmed with video evidence), which lies the banks used to get away.

                  1. Fortunately we now have Wilbur Ross (Bank of Cyprus) and Steve Mnuchin to punish bankers. I feel better.
                    Also, when you provide long lists of things you feel I’m supposed to respond to, I’m probably going to ignore most of them. It’s like triage.

                    1. Thanks for confirming by your lack of response that you agree that Holder is a black American felon.

              2. J.Jones,…
                I haven’t found a source that breaks down the # of S&L convictions by year, but I think most of them occured during the Bush 41 administration.
                I know that Charles Keating was convicted in 1991……there were probably some cases that were ongoing during the Clinton administration, but as I recall most of the cases were tried before Jan. 1993.
                Please let me know if you run across a history.,by year, of these convictions.

            3. If you and your “race” want to lower the rate of black poverty, lower the rate of black males in prison, and lower the rate of everything in the world which is bad for the black race, try lowering the rate of black children born out of wedlock to some number lower than the current rate exceeding 70%.

              And stop glorifying through the DNC the pre-birth murder rate of 45% of black children.

        2. Simple questions for DNC supporters including and especially Enigma: One of the DNC heroes is apparently FBI 2nd in charge Andrew McCabe. McCabe received knowledge that HRC’s SOS confidential emails appeared on Weiner’s personal laptop, and did nothing for 3 weeks, till (IIRC) early October.

          What did AC do for those 3 weeks, play golf a lot? Why did he do nothing? How and why are you positive McCabe’s 3-week dead time is unrelated to the fact that McCabe’s wife received $700k from HRC’s closest lifetime confidant then-Virginia Governor Terry McCaulife?

          Earlier, McCabe’s boss Rosenstein appointed McCable in charge of the HRC email investigation, at which time, McCabe kept secret the above described $700k. Why is that OK in your book?

          If it is OK, then of course you’d be OK if Trump’s lifetime closest confidant gave $700k today to Mueller’s wife, right? And kept it secret, right?

          CRICKETS ALL DAY AND NIGHT LONG………………………………..

            1. If that’s right, please explain why he was fired Monday? Are you familiar with the fact that the IG now investigates claims that AM ordered the felony altering of other agent’s 302 forms?

              Using your common sense, not FBI bureaucratic rules, explain how it’s OK for him to keep the $700k secret?

              Exactly what did FBI agents Stroczk and his adulteress lover Page mean when they referred to “Andy’s insurance policy,” if not the personal and political destruction of Trump?

              Waiting for your replies to the other questions. Thanks.

              1. As I said, if you personally are OK with McCabe’s $700k secret (maybe that’s just “chump change” to you and your DNC friends like Pelosi), then you must state on the record now that you are OK with Trump’s lifetime closest confident giving $700k today to Meuller’s wife, and Mueller keeping it a secret.

                If not, my hypocrisy meter just broke.

              2. I really don’t have the time to debunk every one of your conspiracy theories. You could Google them all yourself. His wife had already lost the election before McCabe had any role. Her finances were public records and he contacted the ethics department for guidance.
                I am unaware of exactly what the IG report has found, when it’s public and I’ve read it. I may have an opinion.

            2. The article in your link has some sleights of hand I can clear up:

              “FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe — who has been the target of President Trump and Republicans’ ire in recent weeks on charges of political bias — had no conflict of interest during the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according to his agency.”

              If true, explain why the IG now investigates AM.

              “Internal FBI documents published on the bureau’s website Friday show that McCabe’s oversight role in the Clinton probe began only in February 2016 when he assumed his role as deputy director — three months after his wife Jill McCabe lost her bid for a Virginia state Senate seat as a Democrat.”


              “Trump and other Republicans have said McCabe had a conflict of interest because of his wife’s election bid.”

              Lie. Because Clinton’s lifetime closest confidant McAuliffe gave AM’s wife $700k for her election bid, and AM KEPT THIS FACT SECRET WHEN HE WAS PROMOTED TO #2.

              “Last month, the president reminded the world on Twitter that Jill McCabe took almost $470,000 from a political action committee associated with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a noted ally of Hillary and Bill Clinton.”

              Apparently, rounded to the nearest $100k, it’s $700k.

              “According to the documents, McCabe had asked before his wife announced her bid in March 2015 if the possible campaign would cause a conflict of interest. At that time, McCabe was an assistant director in the FBI’s Washington Field Office.”

              It’s not her DNC campaign. It’s that McAuliffe gave her $700k and AM kept this secret through Feb. 2016 when he got the #2 job.

              “From the first contemplation that his wife would run for office in Virginia, [McCabe] sought out and consulted with ethics officers, which included briefings on the Hatch Act,” the documents show, adding that once she decided to seek office “there was a system of recusal put in place to prevent any real or potential conflicts of interest.”

              Fine. It’s almost beyond belief how obviously the rules would require him to recuse himself from the HRC investigation, which he failed to do. This article is ludicrous if it claims otherwise.

              The documents claim that McCabe blindly provided personnel resources to FBI headquarters because of his position as an assistant director in the FBI’s Washington Field Office, but was “not told what the investigation was about.”

              Oh, and because “he was not told” are we supposed to think he did not know? Pathetic!

              “Only when McCabe became deputy director in February did he begin overseeing the Clinton investigation, the documents say.”

              Oh, and that makes everything OK?

              “The FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s emails began in July 2015. It was reported early Thursday that the Justice Department has reopened its investigation into Clinton’s private email server, and a separate report revealed that the FBI has opened a new inquiry into the Clinton Foundation.
              McCabe, who briefly served as acting FBI director after Trump fired James Comey, will reportedly retire from the FBI later this year.”

              If AM did nothing wrong, why did Wray read the Nunes memo Sunday then fire AM that same night? Why is the IG investigating AM for altering 302 forms? Hello……is anyone home?

              1. Your version of events ant the truth are not necessarily the same thing, including what’s in the IG report. I’m willing to wait for facts, you create them, with no documentation by the way.

                1. Enigma my dear dear friend, you draw conclusions without facts all the way back to 1927 where 21-year-old Fred Trump may have been arrested (there is no certainty of who was arrested under that name). An article in the NYTimes which copied an article from the date of the event supposedly proved the case of racism against Fred Trump. The exact article said nothing about racism and said Fred Trump was released. Unless proven otherwise that means he was an innocent bystander. Yet, because Donald Trump was his son you used that as your primary argument to convict Donald Trump of racism.

                  Now you tell us you are “willing to wait for facts” when with no evidence you called Donald Trump a racist. Then you accuse Jones of no documentation when a lot of what he has said has been clearly documented.

                  This demonstrates that you are two faced and to reach your objective you will discard the truth and grab onto a lie.

              2. McCabe was a key player in the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force for the FBI, an operation run jointly with the New York Police Department. “Eurasian” is FBI-speak for the Russian-Ukrainian-Jewish mob. Some of the mobsters lived in Trump Towers.

                Can’t help but wonder if this has more to do with Trump’s attacks on McCabe.

      2. Enigma’s ancestors were likely members of whatever was the equivalent of the DNC in Africa 300 years ago: rounding up her dumber and slower ancestors for good profits, selling them at auction to non-African buyers.

        To say that modern blacks like Enigma (about as enigmatic as flies around a camel) are not the recipients of former black slavery is pure unadulterated horse manure.

    3. How is the “document” any more than a politicized summary of classified material by Nunes?


      Well, we’re seeing if the indictments or those to come are politicized summar(ies) (unlawfully obtained) of classified material by Mueller.

      1. You’re not really seeing if any material was unlawfully obtained. I’m seeing people claim the Steele documents was the sole basis for a FISA warrant for Page but there is a lot of reporting of several sources on information previously obtained from intelligence sources that would be likely sufficient. The next to the last person who’s word I’d take for their version of events is Devin Nunes. The last person who’s word I’d accept is Donald Trump.

        1. Well, if you rule out — prior to inspection — any information that is contrary to your firmly held beliefs, what does that make you? Hint: Begins with “I” and ends with “logue.”

          1. I’m good with transparency, I said at this point release the memo (and the minority point by point clarification). There is definitely a risk of exposing our sources and methods and weakening national security which despite my misgivings about the FBI, I believe is still important.

            I’m pretty sure that Devin Nunes isn’t concerned much about Carter Page but saving Trump, and perhaps himself? He was part of the transition team and received big NRA money. From Russia?

            1. If you can read minds that precisely, you really ought to consider doing parties. How about we let it all out and then decide. Who argues for opaqueness? Only those for whom opaqueness is a shield.

                1. You can say the same for Schiff as Hillary crony. See how avoiding the evidence and killing the messenger can be fun — but gets us nowhere.

                    1. Or you could say Nunes is protecting the privacy of American citizens like Carter Page. Here’s Schiff sticking up for Lady MacBeth: “If they are investigating Hillary Clinton, it doesn’t take a genius — let alone a ‘stable genius’ — to see why,” Schiff said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” referring to President Donald Trump’s tweet Saturday that he’s a “very stable genius.”
                      “It’s not because some new evidence has come to light,” Schiff added. “It’s because they’re being badgered by the White House to do it.” CNN (1/7/2018)

              1. LOL! Do parties…. LOL!

                Oh, could you imagine Enigma playing Charades, for example??? North by Northwest is the movie, and Enigma is over there “airplane…run… oh I got it “Chasing Negroes Thru Cotton Fields!” no… rocks . . . climbing rocks. . .breaking rocks…oh I got it “Mass Incarceration, the Movie!” no. hmmm. …you … in…stab…stab you in … oh I got it! “Stab You In Your A$$ Because You’re Black!” no??? Hmmm. Oh what could it be??? “Birth of a Nation???”

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

        2. Re. your use of the word “sole:” Tell readers, of all evidence the FBI submits to wire tap the political opponent for POTUS, tell readers exactly what ratio of that evidence is OK to be based on lies purchased by the opposite political party, and keeping that info secret from the FISA Judge?

          1%, 20%, 29%, 50%…………………??????????


          1. Christopher Steele was a known entity who had worked with the FBI before. He was credible. The dossier despite the claims of others has some information not proven but little if anything disproven. I don’t, nor do you, know what role if any it may have played, the FISA Judges are supposed to apply a strict standard. There is no evidence they didn’t. I’m good!

            1. Enigma,….
              I haven’t read all of the comments, and just had time to skim JT’s column.
              So maybe this has been covered already, but:
              There are statistics about the number or warrants approved by the FISA Court.
              Fod example, from 2009-2015, there were 10,700 warrants approved by the FISA Court.
              Of the, 1 or 2 warrent requests were turned down.
              So denials of requests for warrants almost never happen.
              Those 10,700 warrants don’t just affect 10,700 individuals….e.g., if “incidental surveillance” picks up communications with dozens of other people, then they are caught up in the monitoring of the person(s) officially named in the warrant.
              I’ve heard about the safeguards and high standards that defenders of the FISA Court say are in place…..and I suppose that any court in the U.S. would claim that their proceedings are conducted according to the highest standards.
              Given the nature of secrecy of the FISA Court, it seems difficult if not impossible to evaluate the justification for these warrants, and the ultimate outcome.
              That is, how many turned up nothing criminal because there was no crime to begin with, and maybe not even a solid basis for suspecting the target(s) of the warrant.
              VS. The number of indictments, convictions, valuable intel, etc. gathered as a result of the warrants.
              So I think that there’s some healthy, justifable skepticism about the FISA Court.

            2. OK. Please name the Russian whores who peed on Trump, per your “credible” guy Steele?


              Enigma translated: “Steele won’t lie about Trump for HRC and DNC money!!!!!!!!!!!!!”


              Hey, Enigma: Did the FISA judge know the political enemy of the warrant subject Trump purchase the evidence which solely or partially caused the Judge to “legally” permit a sitting political party to wire tap their political opponent.

              AT LEAST NIXON HAD THE BALLS TO HIRE CRIMINALS TO RISK ILLEGAL ACTIVITY TO BREAK IN TO DNC HQ! This current DNC case is the equivalent of Nixon getting a judge to secretly give a wire tap warrant on DNC HQ, based on “evidence” that the DNC was committing espionage, which evidence Nixon purchased and did not vet, and kept that purchase secret from the judge.

    4. According to Enigma, apparently, NPR is a bastion of ultra right wing RNC politics:

      The FBI has been a political animal since day one. In this case of the Russian Dossier and corruption Re. the FBI FISA warrant to wire tap Carter Page, and fixing the case so that HRC would not be charged, the FBI was in bed with the DNC. In times past, it was the RNC.

      Enigma, one simple question: We know the FBI requested and received a FISA warrant to wire tap the Trump campaign based on a claim that Carter Page was and is a Russian Spy. Is Carter Page a Russian Spy? If yes, please explain to the audience exactly how and why he has appeared on CNN for interviews about a 100x? Why is he not in Leavenworth?

      Please provide readers the smoking gun proving Carter Page’s spy status.

      Barring that, someone at the FBI lied to a Federal Judge, and/or based their claim on a lie. That you support such actions confirms without a shred of doubt, you are DNC hack. You hate liberty, and that is un-American.

      1. ” We know the FBI requested and received a FISA warrant to wire tap the Trump campaign based on a claim that Carter Page was and is a Russian Spy. Is Carter Page a Russian Spy? If yes, please explain to the audience exactly how and why he has appeared on CNN for interviews about a 100x? Why is he not in Leavenworth?”

        We know none of the things you claim. I’m fairly sure there was enough suspicion of Carter Page’s activities to investigate and surveil. The investigation will tell us whether or not he was an actual spy, a dupe, or merely an idiot.

            1. You praise the word “bolster” which means the Russian Dossier was not the sole FBI evidence used as “Probable Cause” for a sitting Party to wire tap that sitting Party’s political opponent for POTUS. Please answer this simple Q:

              All the FISA warrant FBI evidence comprises 100%. Of this 100%, tell readers exactly what ratio (in percent) do you approve, which evidence comprises a narrative purchased by the subject’s political enemy, which evidence is not confirmed, and which purchase the FBI hides from the Judge, comprising narrative such as Russian whores peeing on Trump?

              Maybe a dozen times (I swear I’ll quote them if you press me) you state (such as the post immediately above) some ratio less than 100% MAKES IT ALL OK.

              If you don’t state the appropriate threshold ratio, your statement is misleading and just a ruse, a red herring, which means nothing. A proper paraphrase is this: “The sitting black POTUS, his FBI, and the DOJ can commit crimes against political enemy Trump, as long as the crimes are not too big.” I want to press you how small or big is your metric?

              Whatever is your ratio that you approve it, then every single warrant for all time, you give permission for the police to follow the practice you say is OK here.

              You know, this whole narrative that Geeziz Soetoro bin Bama and HRC are smarter than Trump just turns to dust with each passing day. If Geeziz is so smart, why did he chuckle when asked if Trump could win? Why did he not force HRC to visit those purple states she lost by close margin? Why did HRC tell Bill to screw off when he suggested the same to her? Why does HRC still face prison time for her email felonies (the DOJ has reopened the case because of the all the perceived corruption, whether real or not).

        1. The FBI hid from the FISA judge that HRC and the DNC purchased the Russian Dossier from Fusion GPS, which Russian Dossier the FBI used as probable cause evidence to the FISA judge, to wire tap the Trump campaign, to confirm that Carter Page is a Russian Spy. Further, Fusion GPS paid a foreigner, retired British spy Richard Steele, who also paid Russian government operative in lies comprising the Russia Dossier, such as Trump’s time with Russian whores who peed on him.

          Obama, HRC, and the DNC were and are Trump’s political opponents.

          Anyone who is down with the above FBI actions, by definition, is a DNC Progressive surrogate, who hates democracy, and wants to destroy democracy.

          If Carter Page is a spy, why has Mueller and the FBI not confirmed same after 1.5 years, and many millions of dollars, and why is Carter Page running rampant on CNN interviews, free to spy on the USA?

          MOAR CRICKETS……………………………………………

  8. TOO BAD!! That’s part of the problem here… all the secrecy. AMERICAN’S NEED TO SEE WHAT’S IN THE MEMO. Maybe nothing but WE need to decide.

    1. Surely with that “we need to decide” attitude, you’re all for the Democrat’s response to the memo also being released? Can’t hurt to have both sides’ views, right? Unfortunately, the Republicans on the committee voted against it.

      1. That isn’t true. The Repubs voted to let the Dems version to be viewed by all members of the House. Then afterwards its likely that memo will also be forwarded for review by the FBI/DOJ and Pres. Trump.

        1. Thanks for the correction. I had heard otherwise a few days ago or so. I’m still skeptical that it’ll be pushed for broader release.

          My point was that anyone pushing for the release of the Republican version ought to be eager to see other facts and opinions, too. More data is always good. Unless you’re like Squeeky and consider this a team sport, so only things that help your team should be released.

          1. It was actually Nunes who made the Motion to have THEIR memo released to the committee! Schiff never made that motion last week when he said they had their own memo. Schiff was basically asking this past Monday for their memo to be released when NONE HAD EVEN READ IT YET. Their memo, just like the republican memo, has to follow the same rules.

          2. Actually, I would be delighted if the Republicans were simply playing dirty on this! It would show that they are learning to hit the Democrats below the belt the way that Democrats have been doing for decades now.

            The problem is that I don’t place much stock in anything Democrats say, because Democrats will say whatever helps them win, without regard to truth, logic, accuracy, reason, etc. I say this as a former Democrat who actually supported Hillary in 2008. Democrats are about The Narrative, and will crawl upon their bellies like a reptile for it.

            And while one could “tit for tat” that, and say the same thing about Republicans, that they also say anything to get elected – – – sorry, but i just don’t see that. Not currently. I don’t see that anymore than I see Conservatives chasing Liberal speakers away from college campuses. No, that little arrow flies in just one direction, from the neo-fascist Left.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

        2. They will delay releasing the Ds memo to the public for as long as they can. They want to spread their poison far and wide before they approve the release of its antidote. IT’s nothing more than a corrupt PR move on the part of the republicans.

        3. It’s possible they’ll release the Democratic version which they’ve had almost as long as the Nunes version. Had they wanted they could have reviewed and released them both simultaneously.

      2. Why??? This isn’t a playground, and there is no need to be fair, and “let Little Bobby play catch, too!, even though Little Bobby is very spastic and can’t even successfully clap his hands. His hands just miss each other, and there is only the sound of swooooshing air”.

        The Democrats are just trying to distract with their memo, to take attention away from the “real thing.” Like that baboon, Maxine Waters, trying to make a SOTU rebuttal speech! Which, did she even make the speech??? If so, where can I watch???

        Plus, do you really think for one friggin’ minute the Democratic Party Bullsh*t Memo isn’t going to come out??? Are you kidding??? It will be on CNN about 4 seconds after the Nunes Memo hits the papers. That’s my GUESS.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    1. Excerpted from John R. Schindler’s Observer article to which Adam W kindly linked above:

      “Before the morning’s Veselnitskaya bombshell could be fully processed, the news cycle refocused on the fact that yesterday was the final deadline for implementation of Congressionally-mandated sanctions on Russia. Since his inauguration a year ago, Donald Trump has dragged his feet on sanctions, which clearly displease the Kremlin, and last July Congress put its foot down, passing new sanctions by staggering margins (419-3 in the House, 98-2 in the Senate). This is not a partisan issue on Capitol Hill.

      President Trump reluctantly signed the bill into law last August, describing it as “seriously flawed,” then did nothing. He had until midnight to act, and it went down to the wire, while the president ultimately punted. The White House at the last minute decided that no new sanctions are required by the law, a choice that’s sure to induce fury in Congress, instead choosing a new public list of 114 Kremlin higher-ups plus 96 Russian oligarchs—which the White House pointedly noted was “not a sanctions list.” The bottom line is that President Donald Trump cares more about placating Vladimir Putin than following U.S. law or the will of Congress.

      This so-called “Putin’s list” issued by the Treasury Department just 12 minutes before the deadline seems to be for show. ”

      Nice catch, Adam W..

  9. I pray this is the beginning of that u-turn back to the “rule of law”. It’s so glaringly obvious to all but the willfully ignorant that we have been duped by the FBi and DOJ upper echelons. Time for a well-deserved, over due purge of political hacks in those agencies, once the servants of liberty, justice. Am tired of being insulted.

  10. It’s gone long past the usual rules. Moore got judged by ultimate jury of local citizens (allegedly) even though the complainant flunked but Moore passed the lie detector tests and he result was far from the 5/6ths required in Alabama for conviction.

    The same now applies to those listed in the memo and the followups. In effect the Congressional Committee found probable cause and referred an indictment to the ultimate source of power…the citizens.

    Who will sit in judgement based on evidence presented and then vote accordingly in the primaries… same treatment Moore received.

    Still not one law enforcement officer, not one District Attorney, not one judge at any level gave the charges against Moore any credibility. It was more his past actions as a Judge than anything else which went to the voting booth and only required a fifty percent plust one. The bimbo brigade and hollywierd invasion if anything worked in his favor.

  11. The “swamp” does not want to be drained.

    We understand that.

    Run along now little denizen.

    Get out of the People’s way.

  12. The interesting story to unfold might be the damage control exercised by the DNC after the release.

  13. Not sure but isn’t Wray the guy who said he’d resign if McCabe was fired? I understand he sent McCabe packing the day after he read the report. He hasn’t done a thing about the shenanigans that are going on with Strozk, Page and Or other then to give them other jobs.

    1. Whomever they choose to replace the multiple firings and prosecutions should NOT come from the Washington Field Office nor FBI HQ.

  14. The rats are scurrying harder and faster.

    Love the Pinko responses as they try to rationalize the mendacity of their “champions”.

Comments are closed.