re: Catherine Herridge is tearing this Dem memo apart. ETA: diGenova speaks out: "silly memo"

quote:

---

But the disclosure principals for a warrant for DUI and a FISA warrant must be the same, for how else could a 1st year law student know them.

---

Well, the vast vast majority of DUIs don't require a warrant as the offense occurs in the presence of an officer. Do you think a warrant is required to arrest an obvious drunk driver? I mean I guess if they refuse a blood sample you get a warrant.

However, a warrant for a surveillance and a warrant for arrests are vastly different things. Which is something every 1st year law student knows.

quote:

---

i've already corrected you on this so i don't understand why you're repeating it

1. multiple people have seen the evidence. nunes' "memo" is merely a summary of what multiple already know. it isn't a "nunes" memo or a "republican" memo despite the fact that the left wants you to believe that
2. no one, NO ONE, is denying the content of the nunes "memo"

---

You are dead wrong.

Schiff said that the Nunes memo was wrong above the McCabe testimony as soon as it came out.

That's why Baier specifically asked Nunes about the McCabe testimony when Nunes went on his Fox show the day after the Memo came out.

That's when Nunes fessed up about it not being a direct quote of McCabe's testimony -- which is ridiculous since Nunes had access to the transcript.

quote:

---

And they also didn't tell FISA that Page had said that the Russians had tried to recruit him as an agent in 2013. Should they have told FISA that too?

Actually, they did.

---

Actually, it doesn't say directly that the Page 2013 information was in the warrant application itself, but rather that it was further justification for the warrant (although it could have been included in the application itself).

quote:

---

However, a warrant for a surveillance and a warrant for arrests are vastly different things. Which is something every 1st year law student knows.

---

I didn't say anything about a warrant for arrests, just warrants in general. You just slipped that in there to make your point look stronger.

One of your typical ploys.

quote:

---

Do you think from that disclosure the FISA Judge got the drift that Steele's info was campaign opposition research to be used to discredit an opponent's campaign

---

Impossible to know. What we do know is the FBI attempted to decieve the court.

quote:

---

Do you think from that disclosure the FISA Judge got the drift that Steele's info was campaign opposition research to be used to discredit an opponent's campaign

Impossible to know. What we do know is the FBI attempted to decieve the court.

---

That's your opinion.

But, that really isn't the issue, is it? The issue is whether the warrant was properly issued.

Nobody cares anything about these slanted, politicized memos

quote:

---

quote:
Nope - Schiff is the one that needs to get the transcript declassified if he wants to 'prove' that Nunes was lying.

---

=====

quote:

---

It is Nunes' Memo that is making the allegations and purports to be the result of the committee's investigation. The Memo should provide the source material for every accusation. Which, of course, it did not.

---

The Nunes memo did not attempt to release any classified information, knowing it would not be approved and.or severely redacted.

He related his conclusion of what McCabe said without providing exact 'quotes.' The DEMs said that 'those were not McCabe's words' and 'that is not what McCabe meant' in the immediate aftermath of the Nunes memo release.

It is worth noting that in the DEMs rebuttal memo that Schiff didn't even address the point or repeat the declaration that Nunes was incorrect.

Now, I have no idea about what McCabe said. But if I have to believe the words of Nunes/Gowdy, or Schiff/Swalwell there is no doubt who I am going to go with. Schill and Swallwell are lying pieces of shite from way back.

So - here is my rationale;

I see no way that Nunes would put out a memo with a demonstrably false allegation. Either the transcript from the classified meeting will eventually be released or some official determination will be made. If Nunes obviously lied, then his entire career and all that he and his associates are working for would be destroyed.

On the other hand, Schiff and Swallwell can go on TV and make false allegations at will and that is just politics - happens all the time (on both sides). They (both sides) are more careful about what they put in writing for public release. The fact that Schiff did not see fit to make a written assertion that "McCabe testified that ------" to directly rebut the Nunes allegation gives weight to the Nunes statement. Yes, the DEMs still go on TV and bleat their talking points, but they don't write it down and sign their names to it. They let friendly TV outlets with their "our sources say - - -" do their dirty work for them.

Now, I am positive there is some way of 'interpreting' what McCabe said in a way that one could claim (with tongue in cheek) that 'he didnt mean that' but I am concluding that it would be so tortuous an 'interpretation' that nobody would put their signatures to it.

quote:

---

Your statement that it's up to Schiff to prove that Nunes is lying is ludicrous. If Nunes had referenced the page or pages that demonstrate that McCabe testified to what Nunes' Memo says he did, then Schiff could go to the transcript and either disprove it or admit that it's true.

---

Schiff put out a rebuttal memo and presented his best argument. He did not directly rufute the Nunes assertion. This was his opportunity to take his rebuttal out of the talking points on TV and the 'sources say -- " from complaint media. he punted. Didnt address it. And wasn't Schiff in the room with McCabe making his testimony? He could give his impression of what McCabe 'really said' - and he has not done that - all he has done in spout on TV that 'those were not McCabe's words" He relies on people who were not there to declare = "100% wrong" Pretty weak and unconvincing.

quote:

---

But without the source information that is not possible, assuming Schiff had to disprove the allegation, which he does not.

---

yep - we are back to requiring the actual transcript to see for ourselves, or believing one or the other of the opposing parties. We both choose different sides to trust.

BUT - there is one other thing. McCabe himself could at any moment say - "Nunes is wrong - I did not say that." But all I recall is that he has only said 'That is not my quote." (or words to that effect. I do not recall his ever asserting that Nunes characterization of 'what he said' is wrong.

Do you know if McCabe has denied the 'truth' of the statement? not just the exact transcript of the words?

Seriously - I am open to any real information - but I don't think Schiff's words are worth a bucket of warm spit.

thank you for a reasonable response -

Not really. I knew the hopes and dreams that people like you had about a memo were hilarious from jump street.