Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Society

The Man From Rule X: The House Intelligence Chair Invokes Long-Overdue Power To Override Agencies On A Public Release

download-2Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the move by the House Intelligence Committee to release the four-page memo on alleged FBI abuse.  The FBI has objected that “omissions” have made the memo “inaccurate.”  However, that does not sound like a classification defense. Indeed, a long-standing objection is that the intelligence agencies classify material that is embarrassing or damaging to the agency politically.  Since the memo reportedly deals with the use of the dossier for a FISA warrant, it would seem possible to draft a memo that did not compromise methods and sources.  We will soon likely know, according to reports that President Donald Trump has reviewed the document and decided to release it.  He is ultimately the final word on classification status in the Executive Branch.

Here is the column:

 

“Your heart will pound…your pulse will throb…at the dreadful presence of the weirdest visitor the world ever had.” Yes, for those of us who are vintage movie buffs, that was the famous lead into the 1951 cult classic, “Man From Planet X.”

The same promo could be used for a new production aptly named “Man From Rule X.” The man is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and he has invoked a never before used rule to force the disclosure of his classified four-page memo on alleged abuses by the FBI.

The appearance of the “Man from Rule X” has produced the same images of terror in the eyes of Democrats who object that the forced release, over objections from the FBI, would destroy national security and effectively end life as we know it. Conversely, the GOP appears blissfully eager to strip away classification markings to deliver a blow against Trump critics.

What is interesting is that most people have no idea what is in the document, but everyone is on the edges of their seats with its impending release. Many seem frozen like the character John Lawrence in the 1951 film, in which he said, “If I only were not so helpless before the voiceless threat of the unknown.”

The unknown, in today’s production, is Rule X and, specifically, Subsection 11(g), dealing with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is a rule that has, until now, only been discussed in the abstract by fringe elements in politics and the law. What if one of the intelligence committees actually engaged in oversight and refused to bury embarrassing information classified by the agencies?

Welcome to the weird world of Rule X. Subsection 11(g) of Rule X was created to give the intelligence committee credibility, or at least the appearance of credibility. Agencies have long been notorious for over-classification of information and the use of classification authority to shield officials from public exposure or criticism. Since this committee has oversight over intelligence agencies, the rule technically allows the members to vote to release classified information when the majority determines “that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”

With such a vote, the president is notified of the action and is given five days to determine if the material should be released to the public. If a president objects, the committee can vote to refer the matter to the entire House of Representatives for a closed session and vote on the release of the information. However, past threats of actually using the rule have been treated as laughable by members of Congress and agencies alike. As the character Professor Elliot said in the movie, the very “statement has the tinge of fantasy.”

Indeed, the rule has come to mean the very opposite of its language. Subsection 11(g) has never been used in countless conflicts with intelligence agencies which simply refused to declassify information. That lack of use of has reaffirmed the widely held view of congressional committees being “captured” by the agencies they are supposed to oversee. The intelligence committees have a steady revolving door of staff between Congress and the agencies. Moreover, members often use closed sessions to remove embarrassing conflicts or scandals from the public view.

This is why the vote on Jan. 18 to activate Subsection 11(g) was accompanied by a virtual “Wilhelm scream” heard from Capitol Hill to Langley to Quantico. The “Man From Rule X” may be a somewhat flawed character, as to his motivations in taking this step. However, regardless of the content of the memo, the act of defiance under this rule has been too long in coming.

Moreover, the subject is precisely the area where civil libertarians have long asked for action: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Its “secret court” was structured to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard for searches and seizures (it was replaced by probable cause to believe someone might be a “foreign agent,” which is broadly defined). The ease of getting FISA orders has resulted in a record of tens of thousands of applications with only a couple denials in the history of the act.

Not surprisingly, while FISA was supposed to be a narrow exception to conventional warrants, the Justice Department has used it as an easy alternative to conventional court. Not only is the standard almost impossible not to satisfy but, unlike standard warrants, the surveillance — even abusive or groundless searches — can be kept secret forever.

Now, some members of Congress believe that the FBI abused FISA to launch a national security investigation with little real evidence. That is exactly what civil libertarians have argued for decades with no response from Congress. The target this time was a close associate of then-candidate Donald Trump.

Some media reports indicate that the memo shows the FBI knowingly used a dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to secure the FISA order. The allegation is that the FBI did not reveal to the court the questionable source of the dossier or the lack of verification of its information. Ironically, it is not clear if this would have really mattered, since Congress set the standard for FISA so low. Yet, civil libertarians are not complaining.

The “Man From Rule X” is finally challenging the intelligence agencies and asserting the right of Congress to release information in the public interest over agency objections. Ideally, with this vote, the use of the rule will no longer be viewed as sheer fantasy and Congress will engage in serious oversight of these agencies, including the greater disclosure of information in the public interest.

So the importance of this conflict may prove far greater than the partisan maneuverings in Congress over the Russian investigation. The use of Rule X to actually disclose information could be a gamechanger in the relationship to federal agencies in this area, or as the character Dr. Mears said in the old cult film, “a man who controls this formula controls the industry of the world.”

Well, perhaps not control of the world, but some real oversight of intelligence agencies would be worth watching.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

128 thoughts on “The Man From Rule X: The House Intelligence Chair Invokes Long-Overdue Power To Override Agencies On A Public Release”

    1. What is happening to the U.S., where the GOP has abandoned their republic in favor of oligarchy and, a hostile foreign nation, is limited to enjoyment by the Russians, Koch’s, Rove, Mercers, Norquist,…..

  3. The deep state. Where a rogue entity like wikileaks (a Russian asset) hacks the DNC emails to embarrass Clinton and damage her candidacy. Republican candidate Trump makes a televised plea to Russia to release the hacked DNC emails…joking right? Russian money floods right wing donors and the entire republican party benefits. Trump wins the presidency in an upset for the ages. Russia helped Trump win by flooding US websites with pro trump propaganda. But it’s democratic scandal.

    A republican FBI director is fired by a republican DOJ attorney, who appointed a republican special counsel to investigate a republican presidential administration. 19 Trump administration leaders lied about their Russia connections, including the nation’s top lawyer and the president himself. That clinches it…it is a democratic scandal and Obama and Hillary must go to prison.

    1. For himself and his self only. Orders ICE, Justice and FBI to violate ordinary citizens rights on a daily basis.

  5. “So the importance of this conflict may prove far greater than the partisan maneuverings in Congress over the Russian investigation. The use of Rule X to actually disclose information could be a gamechanger in the relationship to federal agencies in this area, or as the character Dr. Mears said in the old cult film, “a man who controls this formula controls the industry of the world.”

    Well, perhaps not control of the world, but some real oversight of intelligence agencies would be worth watching.”

    Professor Turley, you are out of your mind? Maybe you forgot? Maybe you don’t care? Maybe you can’t see past your own special well paid expertise? I don’t know. But to suggest that airing classified information re counter-terrorism in public to attack a criminal investigation is probably not a very good idea in the post 9/11 world.

    The FBI is charged with counter-terrorism. Do you know what that means Turley? Do you understand that function is tied to FISA and FISC’s operation? I don’t think you do. There’s a reason that only .03% of warrants where denied. The job the FBI is doing is critical to national safety. You aver that it might be corruption. Maybe but you’d have to make a better case than what you have done…which is nothing but make baseless charges of corruption.

    I agree with you about oversight. Do it behind closed doors where the people we elected can do their oversight jobs out of the public eye…and eyes of terrorists for that matter. That is a perfectly sane response in the spirit of our democratic republic. Your way, and the way of republicans, will damage national security. And if that occurs, then I hope it’s you and your family caught in the next terror attack on American soil and not mine. You can point directly to this right wing move of ‘accountability.’

    It is the oldest con in the book of confidence games. The con is to attack whatever is exposing the conjob to muddy the waters by making it a ‘he said, she said’ situation where no one has ‘clean hands’ and the entire enterprise of accountability is a political victim. Nixon did it. Trump and his cohorts are doing it.

    And so are you Turley.

    1. Darren, you are absolutely right on all points.
      It’s dangerous for Turley to select intelligence oversight, as a greater conflict than Russian and Koch interference in American democracy. Destabilization fomented by Russia has its domestic parallel in the Koch’s network (1) the U.S., as the most incarcerated population in the world, a circumstance caused by ALEC’s longer sentencing guidelines (2) the share of national income going to labor at the lowest point in recorded U.S. history, the result of the Koch anti-union campaign (3) the dark money-funded attacks against public schools; American public schools act as unifiers, … .
      When the Koch’s assaults are coupled with the plutocratic-funded “conservative” media’s rants against institutions like Social Security, the FBI, Democratic-appointed and elected judges, etc. and, when the media extolls the virtues of gerrymandering, racism, sexism and normalizing Putin’s Russia, the threat to America is imminent and without equal.

      The fact that Pence is the Koch’s man and, they have cozied up to Trump warns us that this is a watershed moment.

    2. Do it behind closed doors where the people we elected can do their oversight jobs out of the public eye…and eyes of terrorists for that matter.

      In case you’ve been in a coma, the people we elected have been meeting behind closed doors doing their oversight and a memo has been produced to report out their findings. If they are trusted enough with national security issues to do the oversight, then they should be trusted enough to compile a report suitable for public disclosure.

      The con is to attack whatever is exposing the conjob to muddy the waters by making it a ‘he said, she said’ situation where no one has ‘clean hands’ and the entire enterprise of accountability is a political victim.

      And your con is not working this time. Thank you for pointing that out.

      1. The memo is not oversight. It is authored from raw intelligence which neither Nunes nor his staff are qualified to interpret.

        If you want to be a sucker, go ahead. But don’t do it with our national security.

        You don’t have the talent to come after me. That’s why you steal my work with your last sentence.

        1. The memo is not oversight. It is authored from raw intelligence which neither Nunes nor his staff are qualified to interpret.

          First of all, you and I have no idea what is in the memo…yet. Secondly, what elected entity that you agree should do oversight is qualified to do the behind closed doors oversight, if not the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence?

          Lastly, it doesn’t really require talent to expose your lack of critical-thinking skills when all one needs to do is point it out using your own words.

          1. Olly,..
            I’ve pointed out 2-3 times to Darrin that Nunes is one of 8 House members cleared to view the raw intelligence ths memo is derived from.
            And he comes back again and again with HIS judgement that Nunes isn’t qualified.
            When I repeatedly run into the same problem with someone whose “beliefs” are supposedly a substitute for facts, I’m not going to waste a lot of time going around in that pointless circle.
            His credibilty is shot, and I don’t think that even phases him.

            1. Tom Nash’s “credibility was shot” and his allegiance exposed when he wrote that Clinton’s on-line campaign was the same as the Russian’s troll and bot farm. The Recode site published a chart showing Russia’s U.S. activity on-line, spiking at election time.

              1. Linda,..
                – You know my ” allegiance”…
                I know that you dodge direct questions, but I’ll ask this anyway;
                What IS my allegiance?
                If you van provide a quote from my comments where I “wrote that Clinton’s online campaign was the same as the Russian’s troll and bot farm”, then produce it.
                Given your stated preferences of news sources, I do regard you as a robotic David Brock disciple.
                The reason that questions have come up about whether you’re an actual person, or a programmed slogan robot, is because you use the same phrases, mentioning the same names, promoting the same mindless drivel in your posts.
                It might take soevialized software to check your posts here for the words “oligarchy”, or Kochs”, or “Mercers”, or “Waltons”, or “Bill Gates”, or “the .1%. etc.
                My guess would ne hundreds of times in the past few months, but that may be a conservative estimate.
                Whether the exact number of your identical, or nearr- identical, slogans is determined or not, you might want to look up the meaning of the word “hackneyed”.
                I noticed that you criticized something in an earlier post using the word “hackneyed”.
                When a repetive drone like you uses that word in criticizing
                someone else, it’s hilarious.
                If you were going for the humor or irony in using the word “hackneyed” to describe other posts, you succeeded.

      1. SWM:

        FISA’s not the problem. It’s the garbage in-garbage out issue caused by some of those FBI types who are more sanitation lackeys than G-men.

  7. This could all be settled this morning, if the president simply declassified those parts of the memo that are classified and release it! The only people keeping the memo from being released are the people bitching the most about releasing it… No different than those that are constantly complaining about immigration, yet they do nothing substantive to fix it!!

  8. Forgive me if I’m wrong… From what I’ve read/seen the warrants for much of this were gotten through wiretaps/surveillance of Russian individuals. In those wiretaps Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos and Page were doing/talking about things they shouldn’t have been doing/talking about. It wasn’t that they just had it out for #45 or his minions. They were actively involved in things they shouldn’t have been. Then lied about it… I haven’t seen the MEMO. I haven’t seen the info that Nunes hasn’t seen, that the MEMO (written by his staff who didn’t see the info either) is based on. So I’m all for releasing the MEMO “and” the information that it’s based on. No redactions. For all to see. Its release can’t harm the country anymore than the current $h*tshow that’s been going on!

  9. Agencies, particularly intelligence agencies, often resist release of information because, they claim, release would compromise “sources and methods”. We need to look at both “sources” and “methods”.

    In this case, the sources have already been utilized to get the FISA warrant. So, the disclosure of their identities would not result in the harmful restriction of information. Moreover, This investigation is unique. It is not like a drug investigation where a source is providing a continuing stream of information about various drug gangs and dealers. Agencies frequently promise anonymity to the sources and, therefore, they are morally bound to resist identification of the sources, but the public is not a party to any promises made by the agency. The agencies make promises at their own peril. A promise made by agency personnel is no reason to limit public disclosure of otherwise releasable material.

    As for methods, I suppose there could be some methods that might be compromised by release of the subject memo, although again I fail to see what methods were used in this investigation the disclosure of which would compromise future dissimilar investigations.

  10. Turley said, “The allegation is that the FBI did not reveal to the court the questionable source of the dossier or the lack of verification of its information.”

    Once again Turley is eliding the issue. The classified information that corroborates the portion of the dossier that refers to Carter Page has been omitted from Ninny-Na-Na Nunes’ memo. Thus, the only way the FBI can defend itself against Ninny-Na-Na Nunes’ allegation is to declassify the classified information that corroborates the portion of the dossier that refers to Carter Page. The FBI cannot do that. And even if the FBI could do that, the FBI would not do that. And neither will Trump. Even though The POTUS could declassify anything at any time for any reason. Why would Trump declassify any information that corroborates anything in the dossier? Trump needs the American people to believe that the dossier is uncorroborated–and especially so, if that’s not true.

    Keep in mind that the FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page in 2014. It’s highly likely that the classified information gathered on Carter Page under that 2014 FISA warrant corroborated the portion of the dossier that refers to Carter Page. It’s also probable that the declassification and disclosure of that corroborating information would do identifiable and describable damage to the national security of The United States. Therefore, we will be stuck with Ninny-Na-Na Nunes’ false accusation of a partisan, political, witch-hunt and slow-as-molasses, deep-state, soft coup d’état against Trump until Robert Swan Mueller III completes the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation.

    P. S. Carter Page has not been indicted nor pled guilty. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates have been indicted, while George Papadopoulous and Michael Flynn have pled guilty.

    1. Thank you for da clarifications. I skip most of da stuff here but read yours and a couple of others. Not use reading da bots.

      1. Turley is probably representing a client, again; though he hasn’t disclosed that lately. But why else would Turley be so keen on accusing Comey of having supposedly leaked classified information in his memos, while turning a blind eye to the fact that the FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page in 2014 that probably yielded intelligence that probably corroborated the relevant portion of the dossier and thereby most likely falsifies Ninny-Na-Na Nunes’ fabricated memo?

        1. He was working for da republican majority during da Boehner years. The contract could still be in effect.

          1. Ken, The orange haired, ill-fitting denture wearing, genius had to be told who Boehner was.

        2. This is what I was getting at in part of my last post, L4D.
          When you stack “it’s probables” , or “probablies” on top of each other, I think that you’re overstating your case.

          1. She could have used some if/then’s, probably, probablies, maybe’s in her other post as well. Instead she went straight for the declarative statement that is completely unsupported: The classified information that corroborates the portion of the dossier that refers to Carter Page has been omitted from Ninny-Na-Na Nunes’ memo. Unless of course she’s received the yet-to-be-released memo.

            1. Olly,….
              “It’s probable” that if one stacks enough speculation on top of conjecture on top of guesses, that one of those pyramids will eventually result in a correct evaluation or prediction.
              Maybe it’s even “highly likely”.
              I don’t think it’s the best way to “present a case” for this or that belief, but it’s possible, maybe even highly probable, that we’ll see a lot more of it.

    2. The pigeon hole that fits Carter Page will be significant to Mueller’s case.

      The Russian guy found in his trunk, dead from a “heart attack”, who, some have said, provided info. about Trump for the Steele document … too bad he can’t speak from the grave.
      .

  11. Today is Groundhog Day. When the memo is released we should discuss the relevance. Ground hogs are not dogs and they are not frogs (not from France), and they can give guidance. That groundhog in PN is 130 years old. Or so they say.

  12. The Turley blog does not define for us what a FISA warrant is. Readers: what is it?

    Confusion. Accuse the DNC of confusion. Accuse the RepubliCons of seclusion.

    Confusion and Seclusion sitting in a tree…
    Fu ck ing.
    First came love. Then came marriage.
    Then came Trump in a baby carriage.

    Now we got a baby sitting on the roost.
    The people are dumb schmucks… the tyrants are in truce.

    The midget will send a bomb… over the sea…
    The dorks on the roost will bomb them to pea.

  13. “Conversely, the GOP appears blissfully eager to strip away classification markings to deliver a blow against Trump critics.”

    As a diehard, lifelong Independent that holds both major political parties in equal contempt, I understand the skepticism regarding Chairman Nunes’ motivation.

    Nonetheless, there’s a possibility that Nunes and the republicans on the Committee (or at least a few of them) are actually motivated by disgust regarding the endless chipping away at our liberties and/or the erosion of their own oversight function(s) and the accompanying destruction of the free republic, and are not specifically motivated by a desire to “deliver a blow against Trump critics.”

    I could be wrong about that. Lord knows I shrink at the thought of giving them more credit than they deserve, however under the circumstances (admirably described in this article), it could just be that a few people in our roach-motel Congress are waking up to what America has turned into — slowly, over many years, but rapidly accelerated during the previous administration where the vast foreign surveillance mechanisms of the government were systematically and secretly turned against the citizenry.

    The entire idea of a government that uses “foreign” surveillance to spy on its own citizens (treating them as foreigners in their own country) should — keyword “should” — be enough to wake the dead, and even the deader, by which I mean the “brains” of Congress.

    So I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the X factor is being employed for Trump’s benefit alone (or at all), when ever since the Snowden revelations — including the spying on Americans and license to lie to Congress that Clapper gave himself — it’s been apparent that things have gotten WAY out of control.

    Please stay on this subject, Professor. The current sedition situation is important, but even without the scheme to overthrow Trump, the danger to the republic derives directly from our government having taken itself into the shadows in order to hide what it does from the public.

    During the entirety of the Congressional hearings transpiring since it was first discovered that Hillary had found a way to circumvent FOIA and the National Archives by rerouting her emails to her own basement server, not a single person in Congress mentioned the statute she violated regarding concealing (then destroying) government records. Only Senator Grassley made passing reference to the language of the statute, without specifically identifying the statue, during one of those hearings — and that was in an opening statement of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and neither he nor any other member of the Committee followed that statement up with even a single question directed to the crime of removing, concealing, and/or destroying federal records (my theory being that they won’t mention that law because they ALL violate it):

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally: “*** (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, *** willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

    Those were OUR records that Hillary removed, concealed, and eventually destroyed (while under subpoena), but you’d never know that from listening to Congress, democrat OR republican. Likewise, it’s OUR information that the government is trying to conceal from us under the pretense that “classified” includes information documenting the crimes of our government against the citizenry.

    If we don’t ride them about this, I’ve no doubt that even if/when/after the “memo” is released, they will ALL quickly backslide into the mentality that what they do is none of our business.

      1. Thanks, Olly. I’ve only been griping about Congressional disinterest in that statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2071, since March of 2015 when the public was informed of Hillary’s homebrew FOIA-avoidance mechanism.

    2. One could hold out hope for their possible good motives had the very same people not just reimplemented all the very same policies they object to in this single case and refused to consider any reforms. Their motives in this case, are just as cynical and partisan as imagined.

      1. Well, in Olmstead vs. USA, Justice Brandeis pointed out that “crime is contagious.” Maybe virtue is, too. I know the odds are against it, but maybe this is the small beginning of an awakening. I won’t live long enough to see it happen, but I can cast off this mortal coil clinging to hope. No reason not too.

      2. They voted for a re-authorization. This is strictly about protecting T rump and no one else that comes down da pike.

      3. But. . . in fairness, the law they passed probably does not have a “It is OK to present false and ludicrous evidence to a FISA Court” clause in it, or a clause that contemplates one political party supplying bought and paid for smears against the other candidate in it.

        Just like how the IRS has the inherent authority to review applications for non-profits. Who would have guessed that Lois Lerner and her Democratic cronies would use that authority to sandbag the political opposition?

        That is a potential problem in every single law there is, that it will be misused by someone in power. I mean, a Democratic dog catcher could seize the dog of a Republican opposition candidate, and then accidentally euthanize it.

        That is why releasing the memo is sooo important, as is pursuing what was done in the Hillary Email investigation. Because laws were bent to protect Hillary from the consequences of her actions, for political purposes.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. In fairness Comey should not have withheld from da American people that da Trump Kushner organization was under investigation.

        2. There are a few assumptions in what you say, yes FISA requests could be lies and falsifications, is Carter Page the one you want to hang your hat on as proof? He has such a long history of questionable Russian contacts that it’s hard to imagine anyone had to make anything up. The system in his case seemed to be working just fine. His previous activities had earned him previous surveillance which was discontinued when it could no longer be justified, it wasn’t automatically renewed. Then subsequent activities, all before joining the Trump campaign, put him back in the crosshairs and again under surveillance. The memo will be out in the next few days. Reporters (or investigators) will ultimately discover if the White House helped shape the memo in the first place? Trump is already condemning the top leaders in the FBI This may well be the boldest most public example of Obstruction we’ll ever see. Aided of course by the Republican Congress, (oops, not the entire Congress, just the House who wouldn’t share it with the Senate lest they get shut down by others with the same information).

        3. Good post Squeeky! Reauthorizing our intelligence agencies to do the legitimate (constitutional) things necessary for our national security is a necessary power, that like all other powers granted by the people, must have reasonable oversight. The oversight is not some partisan effort to weaken our national security, it is to prevent an abuse of power that infringes rights. It doesn’t make much sense to authorize agencies to protect our lives, our liberty and our property from foreign agents if we ignorantly allow those agencies to violate those rights domestically.

            1. The question the memo and subsequent investigations may finally answer is who ordered the Code Red? I believe the American people can handle the truth.

          1. 2013 and they found he turned down a bid to work for the Russians, but hey why let the guy’s patriotism deter a spy warrant. I think they’re going after Nathan Hale next for his close British connections!

        5. Squeeky:

          “But. . . in fairness, the law they passed probably does not have a “It is OK to present false and ludicrous evidence to a FISA Court” clause in it”

          ******************************
          But it does have the “I’ll believe any damn fool thing you brings us” clause in it — apparently. I suppose the application looks like this”

          “Oooo (like Tootie from Car 54), look Judge, this Carter Page guy gave a speech in Russia about US foreign policy, worked there and once turned down a bid to work for the Russian spies. He’s obviously a secret Russian agent. They’re cagey in using guys who tuned them down flat before. Never mind he works for the campaign of the President-elect. Nothing political here, of course, we’re Obama’s … er the Nation’s … FBI! You know we work for the guy held in contempt of Congress for the “fast and loose” program and then for sweet Loretta who talked to Bill Clinton on a tarmac for 45 minutes about soccer and grandkids right about when were deciding whether to charge his shrew .. er …wife for stuff we charge everybody else with unless they’re running for President.

          Here, look we even have the wee-wee dossier we got from MI-5 … er 000 Michael Steele …. er 007 James Bond.”

          https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rYlYo2yumjk/hqdefault.jpg

      1. David Benson – we could apply Rule X of WordPress to have it released to the public. 😉

    2. Too bad! Alexa heard what you said, and 3. . .2. . .1. . . now the NSA has it. In a few moments my source will give it to me. . .3….2…..1….Aha!

      That was funny! You said, “Premature releases can cause Nunes to have performance anxiety!”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  15. Pingback: Man From Rule X: The House Intelligence Chair Invokes Long-Overdue Power To Override Agencies On A Public Release | Top 100 Blog Review

  16. Aside that only one side is trying to stop the release i don’t know why since they are already publicly culpable for over a 100 years and that includes RINOs to DINOs. but that aside

    Because the citizens find it difficult to give parts of The Government Party any credit much less hold any faith. When government as a whole has sunk so low it’s best to remember they are only employees and we are the employers …

    The ultimate source of power the independent thinking self governing voting citizens and the day of judgement is coming up in a few months and again in November. RINOs to DINOs.

  17. Earlier this evening I watched a PBS Newshour interview with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and another guy who was a lawyer? for the CIA.
    They both had good insights into what’s going on with the FISA/ memo/ committee, and the “Rule X” activated by the House.
    Mukasey commented on some of the things that brought us to this point, and he mentioned the stalling and stonewalling of Congressional committees’ legitimate requests for information….stonewalling by “executive agencies” like the FBI and the DOJ.
    Sen. Grassley and others have long complained about requests for information that are either ignored, or are finally met only after months and months of unnecessary delays.
    I think this was a big factor in bringing on the “Rule X” scenario.
    That, combined with some concerns about how the FISA Courts are being used, and the FBI’s involvement on the 2016 election.
    That and the toxic partisanship as a catalyst.
    Mukasey noted that NOT releasing the memos, once the “Rule X” stage was reached, would cause more damage than releasing them.
    The interview can be accessed from the PBS website archives if anyone wants to see it…sometimes it takes a day or two for the current day’s program to show up in the archives.

      1. W. Bayer,…
        I think it’s hard to replace someone of Jim Lehrer’s caliber, but I still watch the PBS Newshour….I think it’s still a good news program, just not as good as when Lehrer anchored it.
        I like a lot of the PBS documentaries, too.

        1. PBS is not an honest broker, but it does have some good elements to lend them credibility when they spin the news.

  19. It’s about darn time somebody put the Intelligence Apparatus under the microscope. I am sooo sick of hearing about sacrosanct these people, when in reality, they are just schmucks like the rest of us. Really, is there anything more banal than the love missives between Peter and Lisa??? Just as banal as two co-workers at an insurance company or shoe store, who start a clandestine romance.

    Sooo, throw open the window and shine some light on the “Emperor”, because he is probably naked.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  20. If anyone has been paying attention the last few decades, our intelligence agencies go way overboard in claiming so much of their work is ‘confidential. The movie story of Argo was a classic example. Why it took over 20 years for the story to be declassified was stunning. No way faking a movie crew to help US citizens to escape would ever be repeated. just last year, JFK assassination information was fought tooth and nail to stop its release.

    Hopefully this is just the first wave of sanity being restored. Congress must oversee the FBI, DOJ and that alphabet soup of intelligence agencies we have.

    Release the memo. Release the Dem version. Release all the supporting documentation. If American citizens were being spied on, how could that possible compromise national security?

    1. So, let me get this straight; because you’re not aware of the ways that releasing classified and confidential information could harm national security, that means it wouldn’t harm national security? Perhaps there are persons in the world whose expertise on national security threats exceeds yours?

      This is to “oh, I’d never heard of the Dunning – Kruger Effect” mikey

      1. Give me a scenario that spying on an American citizen would compromise national security? I’m not referring to all situations, just this one.

      2. Marky Mark Mark – you are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Why do you think they only let you do Chpt 7s?

          1. Squeeky – the important thing is that one of us said it and that it is true. 🙂

      3. Perhaps this quote is new to you: “Elections have consequences.”

        Unfortunately for the felons masquerading as FBI and DOJ agents, they believed der Fuhrer (Geeziz Soetoro bin Bama) who guaranteed HRC would be POTUS, and laughed at the opposite prospect. Every known DNC personality and their Hollywood sycophants echoed their ultra smart leader.

        How’s your genius doing now, Progs? What a kick reading TDS victims posting here daily how stupid is Trump. Look in the mirror. Projection, much?

        Tonight NPR analyst Mara Liason was on the panel on Special Report w/Bret Baier. Scroll to 38-39 minutes for Mara’s comments Re. Progressive Wet Dream of “Flipping the House of Representatives:” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSN_8–igH0

      4. Marky,

        Unfortunately for you, you have stumbled onto a “legal” blog, where there are a lot of actual lawyers, and people who work for lawyers. Sooo, those sort of people know all the huge gulf between the “making” or “crafting” of an argument, or narrative and a real-live actual “good argument or narrative.”

        You, have indeed crafted an argument, but it sucks. You remind me of a drug client who refused to take a plea for manufacturing meth. He was caught red-handed. The cops had a valid search warrant, and there were precursors and actual product in his house, not to mention various pots and bottles, and little pieces of aluminum foil with dried meth ash on it. Not to mention, that “Orville” was tweaking like crazy.

        Anyway, “Orville’s” defense was that the cops had all the times wrong. That even though all the police’s paperwork indicated that the raid took place at about 2:00PM in the afternoon, it was really 2 hours earlier when the raid took place, at around noon. He was darn sure of it! And, since the police reports had the wrong time on them, they were therefore invalid. Even though the reports were not really admissible in Court. I mean heck, even the Fire Department records indicated that they dispatched a truck at 1:45 PM, to be on hand in case the Meth Lab blew up or something.

        Sooo, Penelope made that argument in front of a jury, and even said, “If the time don’t fit, you must acquit!” But guess what? The argument sucked. I mean, who would believe it? She tried to get the idiot to take the plea, and do some of his time in ReHab, but he absolutely refused. Sooo, that is the difference between “crafting” an argument and actually “having” a good argument.

        Sooo, quit making a fool out of yourself. Your argument sucks, and nobody really believes that you believe it. Not even the Liberal Democrats here. They will parrot your dumb argument, but they don’t believe you, or the argument either. Don’t you guys get that??? Don’t you get tired of lying and trying to deceive people??? Doesn’t that take a toll out of your soul???

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Report

        1. Squeek – “a toll out of your soul” – I like that. In defense of the Hilbots I have to say they can’t help it – no matter what facts they are presented with they are in denial – fully indoctrinated. Dems – good, Repubs – bad. Incapable of even entertaining a different POV. It would take cult deprogramming to free their minds. And I must add there are some Repubs who are similar (though few on this blog).

          Party uber alles does not a good citizen make.

      5. Perhaps there are persons in the world whose expertise on national security threats exceeds yours?

        Oh Marky Mark, clearly you wouldn’t be included in that subset of humanity. However, if it makes you feel better, Jonathan Gruber likely had you in mind for a completely different subset of American voters when he said: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.

        You and that subset of American voters ARE national security threats because your incompetence is not a disqualifier to vote.

    2. T rump and Nunes just gave em more power in da re-authorization bill. This is about T rump cause Mueller has da goods. He does not care about da ordinary guy or gal to come around da bend.

Comments are closed.