Columns, Congress, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

The Voice From The “Grave”: How The FBI and Democrats Over-Played The Classification Card On The Nunes Memo
downloadBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the controversy over the four-page memo continues to simmer in Washington.  The memo will not change the course of the Mueller investigation.  It may lead however to new investigations. Indeed, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has referred the matter to internal investigators while members have called for a new special counsel.  There remains considerable questions over representations on both sides in the dispute. For example, various Democrats have publicly stated that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not say that, absent the dossier, the FBI would probably not have received approval of its FISA application.  What is clear is that someone is lying to the American people.  Indeed, as the column below discusses, the public was already misled on the classified content of the memo.
Here is the column:

The release of the four-page memo by the House Intelligence Committee has triggered preset responses from both sides. The memo is, in fact, enlightening in a number of respects. However, the most alarming elements may be what it does not contain.

First, it is important to start with what we previously knew. At the heart of this controversy is the dossier that was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, and Fusion GPS with funding from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Previously, Clinton’s top campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, and former campaign chairman, John Podesta, denied any connection to the dossier. After news stores confirmed the funding, Elias and Clinton herself admitted that they did fund this effort.

Second, we knew that Steele shopped the information in the dossier to various reporters to try to get them published during the election. Third, the contents of this dossier were so unverified that virtually all of the reporters declined to run the story during the campaign.

The memo confirms that top FBI officials, including former director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, used the dossier to secure secret surveillance targeting a U.S. citizen. That citizen was Carter Page, an aide to the presidential candidate of the party opposing the Obama administration. Comey signed off on multiple Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications targeting Page.

The memo states that the applications never mentioned that the dossier was funded in significant part by the Clinton campaign, even though high-ranking officials knew about that funding. That would obviously be highly material to judging the value of the information. To make matters worse, Steele admitted to FBI agent Bruce Orr, who was later demoted, that he hated Trump and was “desperate that Donald Trump not be elected and was passionate about his not being president.”

The memo alleges that McCabe admitted in testimony that, absent the Democratic-funded dossier, there would not have been a FISA surveillance order. In fairness to the Democrats, it should be noted that this brief memo does not reveal the full record given to the FISA court. Page has a rather suspicious history in dealings with the Russians that is entirely separate from this dossier.

Moreover, this is largely a summary of testimony, and we should read that testimony once truly classified information has been redacted. Finally, there is reference to a prior investigation of George Papadopoulos, who later advised Trump on foreign affairs, which preceded the dossier and may have been an added basis for the original application.

However, my greatest concern is what is not in the dossier: classified information “jeopardizing national security.” Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.

 

The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security ground.

However, even before the release, the FBI seemed to be objecting to the framing of the facts rather than the disclosure of “sources and methods.” The FBI said publicly that it had “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.” That is not an objection to classified material but the fairness of the portrayal. For years, many of us have objected that the intelligence agencies classified material for improper purposes to frame public debate or conceal embarrassing information. Unless there was a material change in this memo, it proved to be an empty “grave” after weeks of overheated hyperbole.

The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security. In the end, there are legitimate questions of political bias raised in the conduct of some FBI officials. This does not mean that there are not legitimate answers for these questions but the effort to keep this memo classified should be itself a matter of grave national concern.

There are indeed two narratives competing in this controversy, one involving improper political influences in the FBI, and another of improper political pressure from the White House. Both could well be true but it is bizarre to suggest that only one of those allegations should be investigated. The FBI and the intelligence agencies have a long and documented history of such abuse. This includes the targeting of political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. As I discussed earlier, Subsection 11(g) of Rule X was created to allow members of Congress to vote to release classified information when the majority determines “that the public interest would be served by such disclosure.”

This serves the public interest, as would a response from the Democrats and the FBI. Regardless of what comes out of the merits of the Russian investigation, Congress should investigate the misuse of classified proceedings in both the securing of the FISA applications and the later effort to prevent the release of this memo.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has been lead counsel in national security cases for more than two decades and has testified before the intelligence committees. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

342 thoughts on “The Voice From The “Grave”: How The FBI and Democrats Over-Played The Classification Card On The Nunes Memo”

      1. Yup. I saw the subheading. But then I actually read the article. The FBI has to make those decisions when they are dealing with the worst crooks in the country. They had to let the sub-boss plead in order to get the boss. It’s unfortunate but that’s the underworld. I also read the NYT article on the sexual abuse scandal.

        BTW, did you read either of them?

  3. “First, it is important to start with what we previously knew. At the heart of this controversy is the dossier that was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, and Fusion GPS with funding from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.”

    It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele and paid him. Yes, by this time the money came from the DNC, but it’s not clear that the DNC knew who was being hired by Fusion GPS. In fact, from the testimony provided by the head of Fusion GPS, it’s unlikely that the hiring was discussed with the DNC.
    ——————–

    “The memo confirms that top FBI officials, including former director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, used the dossier to secure secret surveillance targeting a U.S. citizen. That citizen was Carter Page, an aide to the presidential candidate of the party opposing the Obama administration. Comey signed off on multiple Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications targeting Page.”

    So now the Russians have “official” confirmation that Steele’s work was taken seriously. They also know that Carter Page, who had been feeding them information, was under surveillance. They also know exactly when. It seems to me that this information should have remained confidential. By knowing when and by what surveillance they can know exactly what they said and did has been compromised.
    ——————————

    “The memo states that the applications never mentioned that the dossier was funded in significant part by the Clinton campaign, even though high-ranking officials knew about that funding. That would obviously be highly material to judging the value of the information. ”

    A potential serious omission of the paper. It’s highly likely that the application said it was funded by a political organization but does it matter which one when the target has long been a FISA target and who is no longer a part of any political campaign?
    —————————–

    “To make matters worse, Steele admitted to FBI agent Bruce Orr, who was later demoted, that he hated Trump and was “desperate that Donald Trump not be elected and was passionate about his not being president.”

    There is no evidence that Steele started his investigation with judgement one way or the other, but developed a strong bias once he found out what Trump had been up to. According to Fusion GPS testimony, Steele became seriously alarmed by what he had uncovered and wanted to give the results of his investigation to the FBI, which he did.
    —————————-

    “Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.”

    I disagree. US citizens are normally not outed when they are subject to surveillance by the FBI based on their interactions with foreign nations. That Page was under surveillance has been confirmed, when he was under surveillance is known. The Russians presumably know who was interacting with Page during that time frame and what was discussed. From this they may be able to deduce methods of surveillance.
    ——————————

    “The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security ground.”

    300 pages that has been through several layers of review including several judges is a lower standard? Sorry, I missed the testimonial evidence in the memo..
    ———————————-

    “The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security.”

    Again, confirmation that Page was under surveillance and when this surveillance took place.
    ——————————

    “There are indeed two narratives competing in this controversy, one involving improper political influences in the FBI, and another of improper political pressure from the White House. Both could well be true but it is bizarre to suggest that only one of those allegations should be investigated. The FBI and the intelligence agencies have a long and documented history of such abuse. This includes the targeting of political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. ”

    I agree and would add members and leaders of the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement.
    —————————————-

    “This serves the public interest, as would a response from the Democrats and the FBI. Regardless of what comes out of the merits of the Russian investigation, Congress should investigate the misuse of classified proceedings in both the securing of the FISA applications and the later effort to prevent the release of this memo.”

    I would add an investigation into Nunes. He was supposed to be recused from any of the Russian investigation and here he is smack dab in the middle of it. However cute he may be in not answering questions about the involvement of himself or his staff. If his staff did work with the White House, they did it at his direction so he is responsible. He undertook this investigation on his own without notifying the rest of the committee, or at least not the minority members.

  4. `
    I wonder if the voice from the grave speaks with a Grave Accent….or at least writes with one.

  5. @ggreenwald

    Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Justin Amash

    Hypocrisy is so pervasive in DC that it’s boring to point out. Still, watching the same Republicans who spent a year screaming about Deep State abuses, & the same Dems who scream that Trump is a lawless tyrant, unite to *increase* domestic spying & block reforms is a new level:

    @justinamash

    Just three weeks ago, @SpeakerRyan @NancyPelosi @DevinNunes & @AdamSchiffCA teamed up to push a reauthorization of #FISA702 over my and others’ objections. The speaker gave a dramatic floor speech about the importance of giving the FBI power to violate everyone’s civil liberties.

  6. Why does this blog function like a political version of the WWF? Who’s the real bad guy in all of this? How could we possibly know? This is a legal blog, so might we set the rules based on the law and not on the politics? Of course not. That wouldn’t be much fun. Also, that would require a degree of objectivity that seems to be in short supply. Instead we have a group arguing in defense of a weaponized administrative state and another group arguing in defense of the targets of state. Sadly, this shouldn’t even be a close match. But here we are, with one side willingly ceding the long-term security of their rights for short-term political gains.

    The Russians and/or other foreign actors are not our most pressing national security threat. No, our greatest long-term threat is coming from within by the ignorant class of American citizens that believe empowering the government against their ideological foes won’t ever turn around to bite them.

    1. Olly re: “No, our greatest long-term threat is coming from within by the ignorant class of American citizens that believe empowering the government against their ideological foes won’t ever turn around to bite them.”

      Spot on! This applies to any partisan fools who are being played.

        1. Definition of tyrant: Someone unwilling to share power as it is distributed under our Constitution…someone who violates the Bill of Rights in an obvious, provocative manner (not a subtle, arguable manner). Someone who uses police/military/national intelligence power to move against perceived domestic opponents.

          J. Edgar Hoover fits this definition. The cabal working for Richard Nixon under G. Gordon Liddy were the footmen of a gathering tyrant. There is no evidence the current President wants to operate as a tyrant — only lame oppo-branding from Dems and media types to that effect — speculative grievances, cry wolf.

        1. Have you updated your risk assessment since the early months of this Presidency?? Does appointing Gen. Kelly as Chief-of-Staff give you any more comfort? Does the President’s response to Federal Court Orders (contesting at a higher level, not defying) give you any good feelings? Did the bipartisan goals set in the SOTU leave you feeling as if they were the musings of a dictator?

    3. “No, our greatest long-term threat is coming from within by the ignorant class of American citizens”

      True, but behind that exists those entities that inform the public. 1) The major news media that is mostly owned by 5 corporations. These corporations have personal biases and a desire for ratings. Neither of those things promotes an educated public and since the major news media is close to monopolistic there isn’t satisfactory competition. 2) Of course, we now have the Internet, but much of what is seen on the Internet is a redux of what the major news media has already written or the bias of major donors to the tax-free media on the net. There is now overload from many repetitive organizations. 3) We also rely on our education system which is failing our children and is politically biased to the left and all too frequently displays anti-American attitudes. 4) There is such a thing as self-teaching through books and discussions like occur on this blog. Unfortunately all too many are totally ignorant of history especially American history and economics along with an understanding of our political economy and the Constitution. Thus the arguments provided have little to do with principle and more to do with rooting for a ball team. That makes the blog a lot less interesting than it could be.

  8. I saw that the professor was to speak on Fox. So with hand shaking, I was still able to tune that in (digestive revulsion at all very good statist propaganda outlets). I heard JT explain his position–then shortly afterwards the California congressman gave a video illustration of exactly what the behavior the professor had laid out–complete with the Porky Pig stuttering and stammering while scrambling for a defense. Wow. Must be a terrible feeling to be stretch out on a fleshing beam while you are still alive and watch it being done to yourself in slow motion. As I have stated, Trump has a long game here and the Democrats don’t have to defense for it. Indy’s need to be vigilant for truth and rationality. Don’t give anyone a pass. Hopefully we’ll find out what Carter Page was up to, and if it was so bad, why did they need this “dossier” to begin with to spy on this dude? If he was surely SO bad, it should have been irrelevant, especially seeing how easy it is to get a FISA court order (what, like a dozen refused out of 35-odd thousand?)

    1. slohrs – re: “Indy’s need to be vigilant for truth and rationality. Don’t give anyone a pass.” Exactly – as long as people remain blind as Rs or Ds they are unable to think clearly. Rs and Ds are just the same if they are neo cons and neo libs. Judge pols on issues.

      Both Tulsi Gabbard AND Rand Paul have tried to get Congress to stop arming terrorists but it has gotten nowhere because the majority of those parasites receive money from the MIC. Disgusting.

    2. slohrss29 – if you are following the YouTube independent media, this is really fun. They certainly give more info than the MSM.

      1. Hey Paul. Yep. Been following the guys Autumn turned me onto a while back. Just by listening and using a little common sense, you can see how the puzzle comes together. After the executive order on or around New Year’s, I figured this was coming. I think this is just actually pulling the sheets back enough to allow people to come to grips with the scope of all this. LOTS more to come, I think.

  9. First the Clinton mini series now tghe Waco Mini Series and that one features Jackboot Janet Von Flamethrower Reno burning babies.

    But back to business Mr. Gowdy stated this revelation of the left’s complicity and duplicity which went far beyond the legal term collusion and entered the realm of criminal conspiracy was in no way discredited. Not sure what he meant by that BUT

    He did not say it was still valid and useful. Trey Gowdy is very careful with word choices so let it go at that he has served us well and still has until January 3rd 2019 workiong with the House Intelligence Committee on Phase II and beyond. The difference. The connections have been made….At least four of the investigations are on the right track. As for Meuller? Hey Bob… didn’t you know Collusion is not a crime?

    So in a week or so the Demo version will come out and will see how well dialectics serves their conspiracy..there call it what it is.

  10. Good god, please look for better sources than a mini series for accuracy. No wonder our country is screwed.

      1. Bless your heart. Just replying to someone’s comment, that’s all. And I can do more than one thing at a time.

    2. rachael – some docuseries are very accurate. Since much of Waco was televised live, I blame the ATF for starting and Janet Reno and the FBI for the deaths of all those children.

      1. Paul – what did you think of Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States”?

        1. Autumn – Oliver Stone is historically challenged and the original author of the book was historically challenged. So, you have a liar directing another liar. I did not watch it. However, I have read the book. I will save you the time, it is trash. It would still be useful if outhouses were more popular.

          1. Ha! Paul, I already knew your take – but couldn’t resist posting that =)

            I’ve watched some of it – and I must say otherwise I wouldn’t have known about the battle of Stalingrad. I jumped from Stone to research it myself. I take most documentaries with a grain of salt, but generally learn something of value.

  11. “For example, various Democrats have publicly stated that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not say that, absent the dossier, the FBI would probably not have received approval of its FISA application. What is clear is that someone is lying to the American people.”

    So release the transcript of that part of his testimony. Transparency.

    “Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”” This was a demonstrable falsehood. Over and over again, they have lied to the American people with no consequences, and Pelosi is one of the most egregious examples. This reminds me of, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep your insurance… If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…This will save American middle class families on average $2500 a year.” And everyone is…OK with that.

    We cannot complain about the lack of integrity and honesty in politics when we fail to hold them accountable.

    1. Clearly, the FBI has run amuck. Their vigorous objection to the release of this memo is another example of the abuse of their authority. They need significant oversight.

      How long will the rank and file FBI be good, honest, hard-working, non-partisan men and women on the job with this kind of leadership? Eventually, the rot will filter down through hiring and firing practices, and SOPs.

      Politicize the head, and you politicize the sword.

      1. From Kare S: “Clearly, the FBI has run amuck….How long will the rank and file FBI be good, honest, hard-working, non-partisan men and women on the job with this kind of leadership?”

        Karen S needs to brush up on her history.

  12. I don’t see how anyone on either side can make an informed comment when the memo was entirely a one-sided partisan effort. Release the democrat’s memo and then you’ll have both sides of the story.

    But I doubt the Rs will let that happen because they don’t want both sides of the story out.

    Still not sure why Trump is pissed at the FBI. Comey helped get him elected.

      1. That’s in progress you don’t like the amount of time it’s taking speaking to the comrades. Happily there is a clean version of their first one to compare to the whatever spin they have added since.

      2. The FISA warrant would be the ultimate arbiter of truth. But we won’t see it. Nor should we.

    2. I don’t see why you don’t see and so far it raises the question aren’t you out of your league in this blog?

      The entire memo or report is still classified. The left chose to vote for a cover up and lost. and the memo is trudging throught the same path this one took coming in late because it WAS late. so your silly fears are moot and had you bothered to stay abreast of the news you would know that.

      As for the four letter word ending. well…… it is the level of discourse we have come to expect.

    3. Rachael re ” Comey helped get him elected.” That is a myth along with all the others Establishment Dems tell themselves about why they lost. Should have not let HRC and her cronies rig the primaries. No one sane could bring themselves to vote for her memo or no memo.

        1. Rachael – Nate Silver got it wrong – this was an attempt to salvage his reputation. I voted for Bernie and then Jill. A good thing that came out of the Trump win was that people are finally paying attention and turning off the MSM.

          1. Jill who sat at the table with Putin and Flynn? Yeah, that was an informed vote.

            1. Yup, hoped to get her to 5% – we desperately need more parties in this country. Coke or Pepsi is growing stale and undermining the wishes of the citizens. DINOs/RINOs serve their corporate masters alike.

          2. Autumn,…
            Nate Silver may be right about the impact of the Comey letter.
            Just as the DOJ and FBI’s predetermined decision that they would not press criminal charges against Hillary in July impacted the course of the campaign.
            She benefited from the original handling of the email “matter”, and the reopening of that “matter” reminded people of that.

    4. “Comey helped get him elected.”

      My father had clearance, and would work in a SCIF. He said that there was a sign in red that read something like, “Are you lonely? Want someone to talk to? Then leave your safe open.” There were no electronic devices allowed. Safes for classified information that had a whole process to close and verify.

      The undisputed fact that Hillary Clinton had multiple illegal servers where she held classified information, uploaded to the Cloud, backed up by people with zero security clearance, lied about it, scrubbed it with BleachBit…there is no way anyone who worked in an environment with classified information would not have understood that it was a crime.

      Comey most certainly would have understood that it was a crime, several of them, in fact.

      I don’t want Democrats doing this. I don’t want Republicans doing this. I don’t want anyone doing this or to be above the law.

      Frankly, Theresa May should have given us Hillary’s missing emails as a gesture of good will. She’s quite polite, and there should be some MI6 etiquette for how to return classified information to an ally that was essentially dropped in the street. It would not be impolite of them to collect it, as it was carelessly strewn about.

      1. Karen S – Dick Morris is positing that MI-6 was helping Steele with the dossier.

          1. rachael – he is as reliable as Fusion GPS and does a YouTube live stream. Right now he is in Florida.

              1. Allan – watch one of his YouTube live streams. He is very knowledgeable.

                2. Paul, I read one of his books, saw him on TV and spoke to him personally. I did not get a good impression. His job was to appear all-knowing, but I don’t find him very accurate. It seems to depend on which side he is on and then he spins a good story, but if you listen carefully you will find his record on predictions is poor. That some, IMO, find them accurate is part of the human psyche that has a bias in remembering only certain things and Morris knows how to hedge his bets.

                  1. Allan – if you make a lot of predictions, which he does, a lot a not going to come true. Circumstances change. I have liked him ever since he was in a fist fight with Bill Clinton in the WH.

                    3. Paul, his understanding of the Clintons is all he has. The Clintons hired some of the sleaziest people.

      2. KarenS – British intel are owned by the globalists. Look what The Guardian was forced to do with the Snowden files – literally smash the hard drives in front of the agents.

  13. The country is falling apart -bridges need of repair or replacement;possible disease carrying illegal entry is rampant; our railroads (tracks mostly) need repair,replacement;we are involved in a no win and no gain in Afghanistan,etc.,and China’s aim to be the number one power And this bunch of incompetents are consumed with this insane dossier . It is out of control. The world is laughing at us and will surely take advantage of our present dilemma .
    And what is most important for the majority growers for weed smokers-more fields of the plant.

    1. Well said. Bread and circuses. We are indeed in our decline as a superpower. This is China’s century, not ours, although our government will probably kill millions of people trying to prevent it.

      1. Rachael – I’m not sure I believe there is an “our government” anymore – I see corporations with zero loyalty to nation-states coming together to run the show. There are some attempts to resist – Brexit, Catalonia, and others who would like to free themselves from Brussels diktat.

        But China as super power? I don’t know – there are many problems over there as well.

        I think Sheldon Wolin hit the nail on the head – we have “inverted totalitarianism” – his book ”
        Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism” is an enlightening read.

        “Democracy is struggling in America–by now this statement is almost cliché. But what if the country is no longer a democracy at all? In Democracy Incorporated, Sheldon Wolin considers the unthinkable: has America unwittingly morphed into a new and strange kind of political hybrid, one where economic and state powers are conjoined and virtually unbridled? Can the nation check its descent into what the author terms “inverted totalitarianism”?

        Wolin portrays a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive–and where elites are eager to keep them that way. At best the nation has become a “managed democracy” where the public is shepherded, not sovereign. At worst it is a place where corporate power no longer answers to state controls. Wolin makes clear that today’s America is in no way morally or politically comparable to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, yet he warns that unchecked economic power risks verging on total power and has its own unnerving pathologies. Wolin examines the myths and mythmaking that justify today’s politics, the quest for an ever-expanding economy, and the perverse attractions of an endless war on terror. He argues passionately that democracy’s best hope lies in citizens themselves learning anew to exercise power at the local level.”

        https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/02/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted-totalitarianism

        1. I know. I read part, but not all, of it. The century has a long, long way to go. None of us will be alive when the history of China in the entire 21st C is written.

          Trump is an authoritarian, too, and the only thing that prevents us from becoming a dictatorship under him is if our institutions hold. Will they? I’m not sure.

          1. Rachael, whose rhetoric sounds familiar under another name, as President exactly how has Trump acted as an authoritarian or at least more of an authoritarian than his predecessor?

            1. You’re asking the right question. I’m looking for any oath-violating reason that would support all the anger towards him. I haven’t seen it. But then again I’m not looking for my President to be a role model for my son or daughter.

              1. People on the left have always expressed a lot of anger and sometimes degenerate to nearly the opposite pole acting as anarchists.

  14. Equal justice under the law. When is someone going to go to jail. Back in the day every damn one of these traitors would be hanging for the crimes they have committed.

    1. Albania – IF anyone goes to jail it will be a low level person. Establishment protects their own. Remember the Holder doctrine? Too big to fail, too big to jail?

  15. I would like the answer to how comey`s f.b.i.agents along with loretta lynch`s d.o.j. lawyers can go to Hillary Clintons home and question her about her illegal e mail server WITHOUT any audio or video or stenogragher. she must be a very special person with very high ties to the Obama administration. because I know for a fact a citizen of this country would NEVER be given the same treatment.

  16. When you cut through all the horsesh!t this was a Democrat prez using all the powers of the Federal govt. to spy on a political opponent. Nixon has an erection in his grave.

        1. Thanks Funk & Wagger for the dog’s mistake and your lack of self to recognize the joke.

    2. What worries me most is that there is a Democratic infrastructure in place in the FBI, NSA, IRS, and DOJ that is still fully functional, even without a Democratic President. It has been set in motion and will be difficult to weed out. Any attempt to do so will be branded by the mainstream media as replacing good people with Republican cronies. The bit about pulling out Democratic biased cronies will be omitted as not fit for public consumption.

      I just want equal justice, and for governmental agencies to be non biased.

      1. I don’t mean to be picky – and your comments are one of the few I bother to read on this blog – I scroll past a growing list of uniformed rabid bomb throwers – BUT – it is not a “Democratic” infrastructure – it is a “Democrat” infrastructure. One is a system, a process – whereas the other is a political party.

        Sorry, Karen, I couldn’t help myself. Interchanging those two words is a distinction that matters.

        1. INlegaleagle – you got me. That is a major difference. Thanks for catching that.

          These agencies should be loyal to the Constitution and rule of law, not to any one political party or President. Otherwise the checks and balances are in name only.

    3. http://time.com/5132126/carter-page-russia-2013-letter/

      Page acknowledged being an informal adviser to the Kremlin years before the campaign [as well as the other things he has acknowledge in TV interviews]. I imagine the FBI had a bead on him for a long time. And a few years later when Trump himself mentioned Page as one of his foreign policy advisors, I’m glad that it raised some legitimate suspicions in the IC.

      If you found out that Obama or Clinton had a foreign policy adviser who was also an informal Kremlin adviser, you’d be frothing at the mouth to impeach them. But because Trump is your guy, you don’t give a s***. Double-standard much??

      You seem convinced that a one-sided, partisan memo released only for a PR advantage gives you all the evidence you need to draw a conclusion. A good education would disabuse a person of such silliness by high school, if not earlier.

      1. Russia is not an enemy of the United States, that’s where your lot keep getting this wrong. People from the US have worked in and of many governments around the world for a long time (ask the Clintons, probably none more than them). I’ve posted many times here of this. If you do not have a larger understanding of the diplomatic situation currently, you need to log out, go back to 1989, do some reading, then come back and comment. You do not need to comment to this post as I will not read it anyway. Stop being a pawn for legacy media and think for yourself, from your own research. I am not interested in references from Pravda, WaPO, The NY Times, et al. Nor should you.

      2. ” Page acknowledged being an informal advisor to the Kremlin years before the campaign”.
        Page said this in 2013, years before the election, as correctly noted.
        Maybe Page thought he’d “have more flexibilty after the (2012) election”.
        It may be that others thought that too, possibly even said it.
        I don’t think that Page’s comments in a letter, written in 2013, that he “was pleased to announce that he was acting as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for the upcoming G-Summit” are an indication that that he was acting improperly.
        There may ultimately be formal charges brought against Page, or he may be cleared, or he may be left twisting in the wind under a cloud of suspicion without being formally charged OR cleared.
        But IMO Page’s 2013 “advisor” comment isn’t significant.

  17. As I read these comments (from both the left and the right), I am struck that this is the way an informed electorate works – we get the information, we debate, we learn, we decide.

    The efforts of the FBI, Mr. Schiff, and the left were an effort to deny us that knowledge (don’t get me wrong, there are many cases where the right is equally guilty of trying to obfuscate).

    Bottom line, the insiders think that we are little people who can’t be trusted with the truth. Shame on the Washington establishment.

    1. You got one side of the information only that confirms what you want it to confirm. Very Fox News of you.

      1. Why not try reading what he wrote instead of doing the dialectic wall bounce?

        1. I am struck that this is the way an informed electorate works – we get the information, we debate, we learn, we decide.

          That’s what he wrote. He believes that a one side partisan memo is all the “information” we need to debate, learn, and decide.

          He’s wrong.

    2. I agree Steve, While this is all beginning to read like an espionage novel – a ‘who dunnit” – imagine all of this in a lesser country. We are a robust country and have survived enormous challenges since our founding – personally I am thrilled to be here to witness this one.

  18. Without question, the nature of the rhetoric provided by the Democrats and FBI was overplayed. The Democrats did so for political reasons and FBI did so based upon the personal beliefs of a few and subsequent embarrassment.

    The vital issues are security and transparency. The lack of transparency led to a few officials violating their mission, nonpartisan security, that endangers our political system and the rights of the individual. Too much transparency can endanger the job of the FBI.

    I blame both parties, but in this specific case, it is quite apparent that the FBI intentionally or unintentionally performed its duties favoring one party over another. Both parties spin the news in the direction most favorable to their needs. The only way to resolve all questions is with a complete release of all documents involving the election excepting true national security interests and things that might injure entities or persons not involved in the present scandal.

    1. The world has gone upside down. Liberals hate the Russians, love the FBI, love spying on Americans, and love the FISA Court. Well, who couldn’t love a court w/ a .997 batting average!

      1. Does Nick Spinelli hold a sole-proprietary franchise on hatred of Russians,love of the FBI, love of spying on Americans and love of the FISA court?

        Spinelli’s supposed to be beating Liberals over their heads with the opposites of each of those things; isn’t he? What’s going on? What’s going on? When will Trump turn Spinelli’s world right-side up again?

        When he who will not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third, is good and ready to right the world.

      5. The vote was noticed for its unusual split, described as “one of the most unusual votes taken in the House in a long time.”[10] It garnered both bi-partisan support and bi-partisan opposition: 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voted for the amendment. It was opposed by 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats.[11] House leaders from both parties opposed the amendment.[6] The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Intelligence Committee released a joint statement opposing the amendment, arguing it would have “eliminated a crucial counterterrorism tool”.[6][12][13]

        An analysis indicated that those who voted against the amendment received 122% more in campaign contributions from defense contractors than those who voted in favor.[14 More liberals than conservatives voted for the Amash amendment although the leadership of both parties voted against it and that includes the hypocrite Nunes.

    2. swarthmoremom

      Those four separate judges are only as good (and maybe not even then given their predispositions to approve warrants) as the information provided by the FBI – in this case seriously flawed by omission.

    3. And all four judges were misled. End of story. Except are those who presented the partial information going to get punished for lying to a federal Judge?

  20. Probably not good news for the FBI and Dems that a high profile mini-series (that is said to be striving for accuracy) on the Waco Siege is now beginning its premiere run.

Comments are closed.