We could make this to our advantage. Schiff and Gowdy are not the only ones to have seen the underlying docs.

There should be a DEM and a REP on House Judiciary comm, Senate Intel, and Senate Judiciary. That is another 3 REPs and another 3 DEMs.

Let the Schiff memo come out. Have all 4 REPs (hopefully) take a stand. Force all 4 DEMs to take a stand. Then declass enough of the underlying docs to show where truth lies.

I don't think we will ever resolve this w/o releasing more info. Time for a very bright flashlight.

According an earlier report, the agreement with FBI allowed access to the Chairman, Ranking member or their designees, and I believe, one each staff member.

Chairman Nunes designated Gowdy to read all the materials and Gowdy was the main author, I would think, of the memo. I believe I read that no Democrat bothered to read any of the materials, until the memo came to their attention.

It was claimed that the Dems wanted to release their memo, but had not allowed any Republican to see it, in effect demanding relase of who knows what.

Sara Carter and Devin Nunes to be on Hannity tonight.

I think Trump sees a resemblance here. LOL

I believe the dems threatening to release their own memo is just postering. It would all need to be vetted and approved/declassified which would just dig the hole further.

Pretty wild Hannity tonight. Things are going to blow. REPs look like they have them on the bad FISA warrant.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
I believe the dems threatening to release their own memo is just postering. It would all need to be vetted and approved/declassified which would just dig the hole further.

If they fail to produce a memo now, even CNN won't return their phone calls.

Schiff has a memo. Nunes said it attacks him and Trey Gowdy.

Hannity said his sources said the only real attack on the existing Nunes memo is that the warrant application did have a footnote that the dossier was from a politically funded source (or something similar to that).

There was no mention of opposition research, DNC / Clinton funding.

Nunes seemed very confident that McCabe said (during his House Intel Comm testimony) that w/o the dossier, the warrant would not have been approved. Nunes said McCabe said that multiple times in response to questions.

Nunes whole demeanor is that of a person holding a royal straight flush.

The Grassley memo sounds like a big deal. Indications are it ties 2 or 3 people who are associated w Clinton to Steele. They gave Steele inputs to roll into his Russian material.

The new person thought to be named in Grassley memo as a source for Steele:

Jonathan Winer

Former Special Envoy for Libya, former Depty Asst Sec State for International Law Enforcement, former Counsel to Senator John Kerry

The Libya link is interesting. In the Clinton emails that were made available, there were several hundred from Sid Blumenthal. Many of those dealt w Libya.

The main difference - that I can tell from arm-chair distance - is that pertaining to committees; republicans seem to think those put on the intelligence committee should have some for themselves, whereas democrats seem unburdened by such restraints.

Just watching body language, Schiff is all defense and bluster, and Nunes is all facts and precision.

Were I a betting man, I'd bet the Nunes Memo isn't the iceberg, it's just the tip. But that won't keep the dems from lining up for tickets on the Titanic.

If it comes to a battle of wits between Nunes and Gowdy vs. Schiff and Co. - well, that's kind of like watching somebody pistol whip a blind kid. Little one-sided if you know what I mean.

Every time Hillary or Bill are involved in something transparently improper or even criminal, I wonder how they get away with it. That question came to my mind again in connection with the "second dossier" Hillary was ordering up against Trump.

I never have an answer to the question, and invariably I just push it aside. Until the next crime.

If we made a comprehensive list of all the criminal activities-- that we know about-- involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, starting with Whitewater and going until this new dossier-- it is a long, long list.

How do they get away with it all? Have they made a contract with Satan? It is baffling. Hillary should be in prison, she should have been locked up long ago. --And yet, she is free.... Hell, about a year ago she nearly became POTUS.

Why? How? Right now, the most plausible explanation to me is a contract with Beelzebub.

quote:

How do they get away with it all?

Because the MSM allows them to get away with it. If the media jumped on the Clintons' transgressions with the same zeal that they went after Nixon over a simple break-in, it would have been over long ago. The commies that run the news networks have done everything possible to protect those two bozos.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
I believe the dems threatening to release their own memo is just postering. It would all need to be vetted and approved/declassified which would just dig the hole further.

If they fail to produce a memo now, even CNN won't return their phone calls.

The biggest problem with this entire story is that there isn't a "Republican memo". This is an official Congressional memo. The Dems and their media outlets have caused the conversation to become polluted with this "R" vs. "D" memo garbage.



.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:

quote:

How do they get away with it all?

Because the MSM allows them to get away with it. If the media jumped on the Clintons' transgressions with the same zeal that they went after Nixon over a simple break-in, it would have been over long ago. The commies that run the news networks have done everything possible to protect those two bozos.

Moreover, the lib/progs God Damned Commies cultivate the MSM, especially the Clintons. Remember, Bill was inspired by John Kennedy who charmed the press, catered to them. If you wanted the inside scoops, you needed to play the gane, go along, be ultra cool, fancy parties, be a big shot.

Bill Clinton is uncommonly charming, charismatic, intelligent and ambitious. Unfortunately, he has no morals or shame. It’s a dangerous mix.

They have been working it for 30 years, too. Lots of contacts, lots of separating the clowns from the cowboys, so to speak.

I do believe that you have to go all the way back to her participation and removal from the Watergate Investigating Committee to get a true picture of this crone

Whitewater is not far enough back

I agree with what has been said, above, about the Clinton's ability to skate. I would add one more thing: the hundreds (maybe 500, maybe more) of FBI dossiers that went missing in Bill Clinton's presidency. I think they had-- and still have-- a whole lot of shit on a whole lot of people.

But I'm not ready to completely discount Beelzebub either....

Re: “Bill Clinton is uncommonly charming, charismatic, intelligent and ambitious. Unfortunately, he has no morals or shame. It’s a dangerous mix.”

Yeah, Bill and HRC are scoundrels. Bill is a likable scoundrel (dangerous, as you say). HRC is a detestable scoundrel.

When the dem candidates are narrowed down for 2020, a Republican PAC should sponsor and essay contest. Create fantasy dossiers on the dem candidates with a focus on the outlandish and comedic. It might be a way to get some spotlight on dem shenanigans.

DEMs and Trump haters are attacking the Nunes memo about the FISA warrants against Carter Page

few comments:

1. Claims are made that when McCabe testified to the committee he did not say that the dossier was needed to get the warrant. Nunes seems very assured that the testimony transcripts will show that he did.

Simple solution: release the McCabe transcripts

2. Claims are being made that it is misleading to say that Comey testified the dossier is "salacious and unverified".

From Comey's congressional testimony in June 2017, it sounds like Comey was talking specifically about the "peeing in the bed" part of the dossier when he said "salacious and unverified".

However no one has identified anything in the dossier that is verified except that Carter Page visited Russia.

Saying the dossier is unverified sounds accurate even now, 19 months (approaching 2 years) since it was given to the FBI.

3. Claims have been made that it is inaccurate to say the warrant application did not address the nature of the dossier. Apparently there is a footnote that says there is a political entity connected to the dossier.

The Nunes memo is still accurate in exactly what it says about this, but it doesn't acknowledge the footnote.

Solution: add the existence of the footnote to the description of the warrant application

Now given that here is a bit of speculation.

It is also reported that the Isikoff article of 23 Sep 2016 is emphasized in the application. That article uses info from the dossier, but describes it as "intel" and does not mention the op research dossier.


So perhaps the FBI put in the dossier with the footnote, then also added the Iiskoff article as an "independent" "intel" product to make the "political entity" part more credible.

That would be very deceiving given the Isikoff article is based on the dossier material.

The local afternoon conservative talk guy I listen too played a clip yesterday of all the MSM poo-pooing the memo over the weekend and it's amazing to hear them all use the SAME EXACT wording when doing so. His clip had "dud" and "nothing burger" in it like 56 times in a clip 60 seconds long. They all clearly get instructions to use this wording from somewhere.