Friday, February 02, 2018

'Most Important Paragraph in the Memo'

David French, senior writer at the conservative National Review, tweets: "Here's potentially the most important paragraph in the memo. It appears to confirm the NYT's scoop -- which was that the counterintelligence investigation began BEFORE the FISA applications against Page. Papadopoulos was already under investigation. Wow:"

More

Comments

I was talking to my son this morning about the Nunes memo and we both figured due the Trump teams rather clumsy handling of this whole investigation that more than likely there would be something in the memo itself which would make the rest of the memo sort of senseless and this may just be it.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-02 05:01 PM

If this is the best they have got Trump will be indicted before June.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-02 05:08 PM

The hilarious part is how stupid repubs are. If they had any brains they'd impeach him already and install president pence, who would have all the same policies trump has.

But they're so obsessed with fighting dems they're now protecting a traitor, and making themselves into traitors in the process.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-02 05:35 PM

Obviously another transparent Trump/Nunes attempt to obstruct justice.

I really hope Mueller invites Nunes in for a "little chat." Nunes looks like the type who would fold like wet noodle to save his own sorry posterior.

It's somewhat puzzling why Nunes is playing such a high risk game with his political future riding on the coattails of a president who is about to be indicted or impeached or, at the very least, marginalized by the mid-terms.

#4 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-02 05:47 PM

Do Republicans not realize that when Trump is convinced of Treason that they all will face charges of aiding a traitor?

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-02 05:50 PM

TOR

There's been no mention of "treason" being on the table.

However, I've been asking the same question about Obstruction of Justice. a charge where Nunes has been an active player. As I said above, it's a very high risk game they're playing.

If Mueller ever calls Nunes in for an interview, Nunes will probably soil his underwear.

That "I was just following orders" defense went out the window at Nuremberg.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-02 06:10 PM

...Oops...

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-02-02 06:11 PM

JeffJ just cancelled his National Review subscription...

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-02 06:12 PM

James Comey responds to Nunes memo: "That's it?"


@Comey
That's it? Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.
1:47 PM - Feb 2, 2018

www.cbsnews.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-02 06:23 PM

#8

Why would you say that? I had just finished reading this piece before popping onto the DR to find that a thread had been created based on it.

I agree with David French's analysis.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 06:26 PM

#10

While spending most of your days here arguing for Trumpublican policies... with the occasional "Trump's a chump" dump thrown in to keep some semblance of self-respect. Which is still better than most of our rwingers, I'll give you that.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-02 06:31 PM

#11. On the policy side of the ledger I've been quite pleased with Trump's first year. That doesn't change my view of him personally, which is extremely negative.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 06:42 PM

#12

You mean like climate science denial, giving yuge permanent tax cuts to himself and big corps while giving you a wink and a nod, pushing millions of people out of their health care, bashing immigrants, and trashing Justice and the FBI to subvert their roles in investigating people like him?

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-02 06:50 PM

#11. On the policy side of the ledger I've been quite pleased with Trump's first year. That doesn't change my view of him personally, which is extremely negative.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

You must not care about clean air or cities turning into dustbowls. Maybe go visit capetown south africa and try life on 80 liters of water per day.

You must also live in a fantasy where you can charge tax cuts for the rich on the national credit card and never have it catch up with you.

You're basically saying "I like a guy who is spending out of control for things we don't need and I don't care about tomorrow." Are you really that short sighted?

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-02 06:51 PM

The hilarious part is how stupid repubs are. If they had any brains they'd impeach him already and install president pence, who would have all the same policies trump has.

I realized that this has been my overall frustration with Trump supporters up until this point.

They either

a. like his policies/agenda, which means they merely support the GOP and don't have to soil themselves by slinging mud for Trump as they'd get the same policies/agenda as Trump with any other GOP POTUS

or

b. are just childish, nasty jerkoffs who like his "toughness" and school yard antics regardless of policies/agenda.

Group A puzzles me as it almost seems reflexive to defend him despite selling their own values and souls to do so.

Group B is just ignorant trash who shouldn't be listened to or regarded anyway.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-02 07:10 PM

#11. On the policy side of the ledger I've been quite pleased with Trump's first year. That doesn't change my view of him personally, which is extremely negative.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

Even though 95% of it has been enacted via EOs? Something you railed against Obama for using...remember?

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-02 07:12 PM

#16

I have nothing against EO's as long as they don't exceed the President's enumerated powers.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:13 PM

I do like that liberals are trotting out David French and Trey Gowdy as credible and authoritative voices on issues of this nature.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:25 PM

JEFF

"I have nothing against EO's as long as they don't exceed the President's enumerated powers."

You should stop digging, Jeff. Now you just sound ridiculous.

#19 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-02 07:27 PM

Don't play that standard card. It's as useless as the hypocrisy card.

The significance of citing someone from the other side when they're echoing your sentiments is that you're so right even people on the other side who you usually disagree with agrees with you.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-02 07:29 PM

"I do like that liberals are trotting out David French and Trey Gowdy as credible and authoritative voices on issues of this nature."

I just saw Rep Hines on TV, and he was asked about the memo. He said something like, "Instead of telling you what I think and having people say, 'Oh, he's just a Democrat', listen to what Mike Rogers, former GOP head of the intel committee, said." Dems are damned if they do quote Republicans and damned if they don't, I guess.

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-02 07:29 PM

#20

I wasn't playing a hypocrisy card. I was serious. I think French is a good and careful writer and has the resume to weigh in on certain issues in an authoritative manner. I feel the same about Gowdy. I am genuinely glad that some liberals can identify some conservatives whom they can rely on to shoot straight.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:35 PM

You should stop digging, Jeff. Now you just sound ridiculous.

#19 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

He didn't before? He will literally believe anything the GOP tells him and then he comes to post it here.

#23 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-02-02 07:36 PM

I wasn't playing a hypocrisy card. I was serious. I think French is a good and careful writer and has the resume to weigh in on certain issues in an authoritative manner. I feel the same about Gowdy. I am genuinely glad that some liberals can identify some conservatives whom they can rely on to shoot straight.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:35 PM | Reply

Gowdy didn't shoot straight regarding Benghazi hearings. He used that for political purposes. NOT For fact finding in any way shape or form.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-02 07:39 PM

Laura,

That is 100% true of Issa's investigation of Benghazi, not Gowdy's.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:51 PM

You should stop digging, Jeff. Now you just sound ridiculous.

#19 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

He didn't before? He will literally believe anything the GOP tells him and then he comes to post it here.

#23 | Posted by Sycophant

How he can sit on a fence that long without hurting his nuts is beyond me.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-02 07:53 PM

Laura,

That is 100% true of Issa's investigation of Benghazi, not Gowdy's.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:51 PM | Reply

www.mediamatters.org

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will be headlining a fundraising event for the Virginia Republican Party apparently centered on the topic of the Benghazi, which would contradict his repeated pledges not to raise money off of the 2012 attacks. Will the media outlets he deceived take note of his reversal?

The conservative National Review reports that Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, is scheduled to headline an event called "Beyond Benghazi" or the Republican Party of Virginia. According to the report, the event will feature "a screening and an interview of Gowdy, moderated by Rep. Morgan Griffith." The party is charging $75 for the event, and is also soliciting donations from $1,250 to $5000 in exchange for "special recognition" and other perks.

The appearance "could raise questions about the optics of fundraising off the attacks" given Gowdy's past statements, as Politico noted.

In appearances last May on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, Gowdy - who had just been named chairman of the select committee at a time when Republicans were being criticized for using Benghazi investigations to raise money - said he would not be involved with fundraising rooted in the attacks.

thinkprogress.org

But that hasn't always been the case. Last September, Gowdy attended a "barbecue fundraiser" for Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) in Indian Land, SC and according to local newspaper the Lancaster News, Gowdy talked Benghazi with attendees:

Two weeks later, Gowdy spoke at a campaign event for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) where he, according to the Greenville News, praised Graham on Benghazi (accessed via LexisNexis):

Friday morning at Furman, Gowdy shared the credit on the Benghazi issue with Graham, telling students, "There is no one in Congress who has done more on the issue of Benghazi than your senior senator."

Gowdy also said [Rep. Jason] Chaffetz [R-UT] has done more than anyone else in the House to hold Obama accountable on Benghazi. Gowdy and Chaffetz attended a private fundraiser for Chaffetz at a Greenville home Thursday night.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-02 07:57 PM

You people need to learn the difference between fence-sitting and waiting for an investigation to play out. I will wait and see what comes of the Mueller investigation.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 07:57 PM

I will wait and see what comes of the Mueller investigation.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ

You are either blind or you got nuts of steel brother.

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-02 08:05 PM

You people need to learn the difference between fence-sitting and waiting for an investigation to play out. I will wait and see what comes of the Mueller investigation.

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's funny. Because a little while ago you attempted to characterize the Trump Tower meeting as "opposition research."

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-02-02 08:09 PM

Donner,

What the eff are you even talking about?

Should I be calling for everyone involved in the Trump administration to be drawn and quartered based on an ongoing investigation that has alleged very little so far?

Let's just resurrect McCarthy and the Inquisition together?

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 08:09 PM

#30

No. I said it could be characterized as such.

Mueller apperars to have a current focus on that meeting. I'm going to wait and see what his investigation produces before drawing conclusions.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 08:12 PM

JEFF

"I will wait and see what comes of the Mueller investigation."

That's all well and good, JEFF, but in the meantime Trump is tearing down all the nuts and bolts of every department and agency that holds this country together. That's clear as as a bell. The Mueller investigation is about indictable charges. The rest of it is about all the other damage he's doing, both domestically and in foreign policy.

Are you sitting on the fence over that, too?

#33 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-02 08:16 PM

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

A$$cream, Jeff.

And loooooooots of it.

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-02 08:26 PM

I wasn't playing a hypocrisy card.

I know. I was saying the "oh now you agree with them" card is just as useless in a debate as the hypocrisy card.

In the end they both mean the content of the statement is ignored and, in the agreement scenario, the departure of one who is a typical ally from one side of the debate.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-02 08:28 PM

its nothing bot russian bots...

bot they do it too

PRISM knows...hence ((they)) know as well - all along, get along now

what and who controls this besides the NSA, FBI, DOJ< DDNC, GOP, KKK , 123

#36 | Posted by mutant at 2018-02-02 08:45 PM

#36 | Posted by mutant

I guess we now know what time mutant starts drinking on a friday.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-02 09:03 PM

I know. I was saying the "oh now you agree with them" card is just as useless in a debate as the hypocrisy card.

I wasn't playing that card either. Jesus effing Christ. I'll spell it out as simply as I possibly can: I am glad that liberals are finding at least one conservative writer (David French) whom they can at least sort of trust to shoot straight.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 09:57 PM

"one conservative writer (David French) whom they can at least sort of trust to shoot straight."

Isn't a bigger concern that literally only one or two can shoot straight though?

I find it concerning. It seems like lying and deliberate dishonesty is just par for the course.

"Hey, don't knock it if it works," is that how you rationalize it?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-02 10:04 PM

#38

That's only when it fits their narrative, of course...otherwise, they would scream for the thread to be deleted.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-02 10:05 PM

I wasn't playing that card either. Jesus effing Christ. I'll spell it out as simply as I possibly can: I am glad that liberals are finding at least one conservative writer (David French) whom they can at least sort of trust to shoot straight.

#38 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Fair enough.

Usually when someone refers to someone "trotting" something out I take it to be a sarcastic or tongue in cheek statement.

That's only when it fits their narrative, of course...otherwise, they would scream for the thread to be deleted.

#40 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Other than a climate change thread, can you provide an actual example of this?

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-03 12:14 AM

Nunes is FoS and the memo was probably drafted at the White House. In both parties, in every election, candidates seek dirt on each other. There is no law against collusion. Campaign contributions from foreigners are illegal, except Corporations with foreign stock ownership do it all the time. Money laundering is illegal and we're already seeing the hammer come done on that. How far that goes into the Trump organization is anybodies guess so far, but Mueller knows more than any of us. There are laws against hacking and Guccifer is in jail for stealing 2016 campaign documents. However, its impossible to indict or imprison State sanctioned hacking by any State There are laws against obstruction of justice and it looks pretty bad for Trump.

But, Mueller cannot indict the President. All he can do is write a report for Congress to read. It will take a Democratic 2018 sweep in the House and Senate to impeach Trump. That can only happen if Democrats get over their loss, quit whining about Trump and put together a program which lifts the standard of living of Americans. Only two candidates have seriously addressed this issue, Sanders and Trump. Trump's real weakness is he is lying his @$$ off while he addresses that issue. Someone has to have the courage to cross those big donors or the abysmal hole Democrats have dug themselves into will remain. Republicans won the last Presidential election because the popular vote doesn't matter and Republicans control 2/3rds of all gerrymandered precincts. Computer modeling and the electoral college has given people like Karl Rove the keys to the kingdom. That's the real problem, a hundred times larger than the Russians. Even Comey had a larger favorable influence on Trump votes than the Russians. Their interference must not be tolerated or exaggerated.

#42 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-03 06:54 AM

I think the whole point of this memo has just been a distraction and diversion all along. In which case it's working perfectly.

#43 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-02-03 08:36 AM

I agree with David French's analysis.
#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jeff with all due respect, French's "analysis" is already known, and reported by everyone including foxnews back in NovDec timeframe.....
www.nytimes.com

But by obfuscation (shiny object), or by omission he leaves out the most egregious part of the paragraph.

"but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulus"

This maybe the most important paragraph. This paragraph is pointing to the fact that the FISA application had nothing with the Russian investigation. I could understand the JUMPING for joy if there was evidence on cooperation, or conspiracy, then the FISA application might be warranted without the "dossier" ....

Its obvious why left leaning, flipflopping Russian fearing people want to make a big deal about it, but its already known. The real reason the paragraph exists is to UNTIE the idea that the FISA application to bug TrumpTower, a presidential candidate, president elect, had anything to do with Russian investigation already going on.

#44 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-03 11:22 AM

"the FISA application to bug TrumpTower, a presidential candidate..."

There was no FISA application to bug Trump Tower.

It's pretty simple.

If you don't want to be under surveillance by the FBI don't associate with Russian Spies who are under surveillance by the FBI.

#45 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-03 11:33 AM

"#40 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER
Other than a climate change thread, can you provide an actual example of this?"

He's not into providing factual examples.
He just knows it in his heart.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-03 01:30 PM

Papadopoulos got drunk and talked out his a$$ to an Australian dude. Totally justifies monitoring him. Shut up. Transparency is an illusion.

#47 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-02-04 05:24 AM

#47

Yes it does totally justify if, given what he was talking out of his ass about.

Some people are too stupid to live.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-04 08:27 AM

#11. On the policy side of the ledger I've been quite pleased with Trump's first year. That doesn't change my view of him personally, which is extremely negative.
#12 | Posted by JeffJ

you are the Nik Wallenda of the DR, Jefe, never change

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-04 10:00 AM

To 48. Somebody just saying that he believes the Russians have info on Hillary is enough to justify intercepting his phone transmissions? What kind of police state do you want to live in? They actually need evidence to justify a court warrant, not bar stories and phony dossiers. Let's widen the scope of Mueller's probe to include any coordination by any party or person with enemy nations.

#50 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-02-04 11:09 AM

"Somebody just saying that he believes the Russians have info on Hillary is enough to justify intercepting his phone transmissions?"

We don't know what other evidence there may be against PapaD. For example, we don't know if he was picked up talking to Russian spies by the CIA or foreign intel while in Europe.

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-04 11:14 AM

"Let's widen the scope of Mueller's probe to include any coordination by any party or person with enemy nations."

"That's probably a good idea, but you're only saying that to downplay this investigation about one party's coordination with one nation.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 11:14 AM

"Let's widen the scope of Mueller's probe to include any coordination by any party or person with enemy nations."

Agreed. A good place to start is with Javanka and the Chinese.

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-04 11:16 AM

The Kushners, The Clintons, all of ‘em. A year later and this is still the best you got. Dems have overplayed their hand and the electorate is not as dumb as Democrats

would have you believe.

#54 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-02-04 01:06 PM

Dems have overplayed their hand

#54 | POSTED BY NUKE_GENTLY AT

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Isn't it special counselor Robert Mueller doing the investigation?

#55 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-02-04 04:03 PM

"On the policy side of the ledger I've been quite pleased with Trump's first year." - #12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-02 06:42 PM

Today's "Mussolini made the trains run on time" rationalization.

A few days after the Democratic electoral sweep this past November in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere, The Washington Post asked a random Virginia man to explain his vote. The man, a marketing executive named Toren Beasley, replied that his calculus was simply to refuse to calculate. "It could have been Dr. Seuss or the Berenstain Bears on the ballot and I would have voted for them if they were a Democrat," he said. "I might do more analyses in other years. But in this case, no. No one else gets any consideration because what's going on with the Republicans -- I'm talking about Trump and his cast of characters -- is stupid, stupid, stupid. I can't say stupid enough times."

[snip] The Republican Party, as an institution, has become a danger to the rule of law and the integrity of our democracy. The problem is not just Donald Trump; it's the larger political apparatus that made a conscious decision to enable him. In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates. We're thus driven to believe that the best hope of defending the country from Trump's Republican enablers, and of saving the Republican Party from itself, is to do as Toren Beasley did: vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former).

[snip] Nor is our oppositional partisanship motivated by the belief that Republican policies are wrongheaded. Republicans are a variegated bunch, and we agree with many traditional GOP positions.

source if you dare

#56 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-05 11:20 AM

"Dems have overplayed their hand"

No, the truth is that the Dems haven't played their hand. They've let Republicans swindle their way into power.

#57 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-05 11:51 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Florida Governor: Those Under Age 21 Should Not Own Guns (281 comments)

3 More Deputies On Scene Did Not Enter School (90 comments)

Texas School Will Punish Any Student Who Protests (86 comments)

The AR-15 Inflicts Devastatingly Different Wounds (79 comments)

House Intel Committee Releases Democratic Memo (74 comments)

Parkland School Cop Didn't Enter Building (69 comments)

Gates Expected to Plead Guilty, Help Mueller (43 comments)

Teacher Bonuses for Guns But Not Education (38 comments)

Rice 'Justifiably Concerned' Sharing Intel with Trump Administration (31 comments)