re: Do you support the release of the Dem memo?

Yes, release all unclassified documents. While I believe in transparency; there are some items that may need to be classified. The info released today does not meet my definition of classified.

Having said that; can someone explain to me why so many people said this memo was going to hurt our ability to spy or why the memo undermined our intelligence community and allies? I didn't read anything that called out specifics other than an ex spy who was paid by several sources for information that was/is "unverified".

The memo didn't call out investigative techniques are name undercover agents; so what was so bad about it?

As long as it doesn't threaten the very fabric of democracy and national security!

And as long as nobody dies!

quote:

---

Follow up: Have you ever heard the phrase “Woods procedures”?

If you have, please paraphrase for us all. Thanks.

---

Well typically it involves a professional golfer, and then a female, usually along the lines of a hooter waitress or a pornstar. From there it can vary, but like dossier, peeing on another person may or may not have happened, but it was mentioned.

yes and yes. release it all, this needs to get resolved and whoever needs to go down should go down.
no mercy

quote:

---

Does that acknowledge the possibility that there is real, actual, classified info in the warrant that should not be made public?

---

Yes. I don't honestly know what or if unnecessary harm could befall our country, so I pause. I suspect if the underlying documents were released they would be heavily redacted. --which is the purpose of having memo's in the first place.

It's a shame the IC can't just get together and release a factual memo fee of political bias.

quote:

---

Why would that change the fact that the FBI did not disclose that the Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign?

---

Apparently they disclosed it was paid for by a political party, but don't typically name individuals. So if the judge couldn't put those two things together, then we probably have a bigger concern about the low IQ of at least one judges on the court.

quote:

---

They're saying this first memo is just the beginning. This memo is only 10% of what they will bring out.

---

Yeah. Because we hyped up a memo to "literally shaking levels," but despite overhyping it and not including very many details, please believe the hype of our sequels.

quote:

---

Well he sent in Gowdy for his legal expertise, but since there must have been little to note there since it would have been included, then he's getting political information. And if you don't think combining second hand knowledge, unavoidable confirmation bias, and a dishonest politician would lead to cherry picked information, then the prog filth aren't the only ones who live in another reality.

---

Well hold on for a sec and shut the run on down.

Wasn’t Nunez by law ordered to have someone verify the memo? I could be wrong for sure, but Gowdy would be the guy I would trust. shite, he is straight up leaving the swamp.

Where is your link on the rest of your nonsense?

quote:

---

The memo released today clearly states that it wasn't disclosed. None of us have seen the application. So, let's speak in hypotheticals.

---

Sure, but I just watched a Dem congressman on the Committee and with clearance state it was disclosed. It should be disclosed so the judge knows of any possible bias, but we’re both spitting into the wind stating it was/was not disclosed.

To your hypo that it wasn’t disclosed, THAT’s WHY WE REQUIRE WOODS PRCEDURES.

If you can show me Woods was not followed or was not sufficient then you’ve got something, but that again leads us back to the circular logic of release the god damned FISA app.

Now the real question is going to be what you patriots do when the GOP/Trump stonewall the Dem memo or hem and haw about classified info when we call for the FISA app itself. Can’t wait to see you guys rationalize and squirm.