On the Democratic Party's Response (Memo) to the Nunes Memo

Here's the Democratic Party's Response (Memo) to the Nunes Memo.

Here's my commentary:

The Steele Dossier was used as a false propaganda tool to dupe the American people into not only going along with, but advocating for, a Special Investigator/Prosecutor.

The Democratic Memo shows no true probable cause for the FBI seeking a warrant against Page.

The Memo alleges that the FISA Court was informed that the dossier was politically motivated. If true, why did the judge approve the warrant? Did the judge ask probing questions about who paid whom, etc.? The Memo says that the Court was informed Steele was hired by people who were politically motivated, but was the Court told the whole story that Clinton people paid and that Steele paid Russians, including some who may have been in the Russian government? You see, I'm not simply interested in whether or not anyone has any proof to substantiate the allegations against Donald Trump that he colluded with Vladimir Putin. I don't think there is any such proof. I'm interested in whether this is proof in this entire mess that the whole "intelligence community" system is rife with flaws for abuse and corruption and that the FISA system is also. I believe the system is unconstitutional.

The whole investigation business began publicly with claims that Donald Trump conspired, colluded with, Vladimir Putin to deny Hillary Clinton the Presidency. It did not begin with allegations of Russian government hacks against US entities or even the Steele Dossier. The allegation of hacking and the Dossier were used to support the initial claim of collusion.

The question remains as to whether the FISA Court would have granted the warrant in the absence of the Dossier. The question also remains concerning the degree to which the Court demanded real probable cause concerning the allegations of Russian-government hacking.

The question further remains whether the American people would have clamored in such numbers for the impeachment and removal from office of President Trump if not for the Dossier and the unsubstantiated hacking claims, which morphed into proof positive in the neocon media (which is the mainstream, US, corporate media).

The Memo makes the clear statement that the FBI was investigating before it had the Dossier and that the FBI would have continued investigating even if it hadn't received the Dossier. That, however, does not mean that the Court would have granted the warrant against Page.

A central part of the anti-Russiagate narrative is that only 3 (not the falsely stated 17) intelligence agencies had issued a statement based upon the highly unusual use of handpicked analysts and precluding any dissenting analysts' opinions. The FBI apparently relied upon the CIA and NSA concerning the matter, and the NSA only had "moderate confidence" that the Russian government had conducted the alleged hacking. Was the Court informed of such matters? Was the entire Russiagate narrative even remotely justifiable in the face of those facts? If you'll notice, endnote 14 in the Democrat's Memo expressly misstates and distorts the truth concerning the "assessment" document. It does so by the language "broader Intelligence Community's high confidence," both of which aspects are patently false. It was definitely not the "broader Intelligence Community" and was not "high" but mixed. It is my position that the intelligence community was clearly and illegally politicized in this whole matter. Anyone who has ever studied domestic political science for any time knows full well that the intelligence agencies are obligated to remain completely nonpartisan and to be loyal to the Constitution.

"DOJ 's warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause to believe Page was knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities in the U.S." We don't know that. In fact, the basis given in the Memo is a litany of "guilt by association" with entities who were not and still are not enemies of the US and concerning which entities there was no reason to believe there was any "meddling" or collusion other than the circular reasoning that, well, it's the Russian and that's enough cause.

"... Russian agents previewed their hack and dissemination of stolen emails." I've never seen any evidence supporting that claim.

I will say that even if some or all of the Democrat's points are correct concerning Ohr, Strzok, and Page, they miss (deliberately?) the point that the truth about them more than clouds any perception of nonpartisanship concerning the investigation(s). The Republicans raising such is perfectly valid.

I found the Republican Memo vastly better written. The Democratic Memo comes across as rather frantic and lacking in that it didn't literally quote the Republican Memo where quoting would have greatly facilitated clarity and ease of reading.

This is not democracy. I see no reason whatsoever that any of the members of the Committee should be privy to anything I shouldn't see or know. I do not like the current system at all. It's built upon a fatally flawed foundation.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.