Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Congress Should Censure Nunes

Max Boot, Washington Post: Let us stipulate that Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not exactly the second coming of "Tail Gunner Joe ": that dubious honor more properly belongs to the conspirator in chief, President Trump. But for his deceptive, demoralizing and dangerous assault on the FBI -- an institution that, like the Army, is dedicated to defending America -- Nunes, too, deserves to be censured by his colleagues and stripped of his chairmanship.

More

Like Trump, Nunes would be more dangerous if he were more competent. But just as Trump must be held accountable for his attempts to obstruct justice even if they don't succeed, so, too, Nunes must be held accountable for his misuse of a congressional committee to pursue a partisan vendetta against the nation's premier law-enforcement agency.

It is up to House leaders -- that means you, Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) -- to stop Nunes before he smears again. (Nunes already has the State Department in his sights.) History does not look kindly on the lawmakers who were too cowardly to confront McCarthy. It will be even harsher on those who refuse to confront McCarthy's latter-day mini-me, who is not nearly so fearsome.

Comments

That would involve Paul Ryan having a spine.

Not gonna happen.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-06 11:54 AM

The equivalence between McCarthy and Nunes is absurd.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-06 12:04 PM

Wait, McCarthy accused people of being Soviet (Russia) sympathizers. Using the McCarthy parallel, it is Schiff who should be Censured.

#3 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-06 02:37 PM

Is this an Onion article? Hilarious!

#4 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2018-02-07 01:28 PM

Is there a penalty for recusing one's self from an active investigation, then acting aggressively contrary to recusal protocols in that investigation?

#5 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-02-07 05:29 PM

The equivalence between McCarthy and Nunes is absurd.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ

Both are doing great damage to america's faith in government for partisan gain. Both their parties are allowing them to do it. That's not an absurd equivalence.

The equivilance you always spout that dems are repubs are equally bad however IS absurd.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 05:29 PM

*allowed

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 05:29 PM

Nunes is just sucking up the rich guy, hoping he'll get paid down the line.

Look at all the repubs who are quitting congress after getting tax cuts passed for their donors. Time collect their bribe money and fake jobs at ridiculous salaries.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 05:34 PM

#6

Releasing a memo to the public that highlights potential FBI surveillance abuses is not even in the same ballpark as McCarthy and the HUAC.

Let's get some perspective. Please.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 05:59 PM

"Let's get some perspective. Please."

Yes. In one case, lies were told, repeatedly and purposefully, and scurrilous accusations flew, harming the reputations of innocent participants.

The other was McCarthyism.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-07 06:03 PM

"Releasing a memo to the public that highlights potential FBI surveillance abuses is not even in the same ballpark as McCarthy and the HUAC.
Let's get some perspective. Please.
#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

He released no such thing. He released a memo that was a lie on its face. It concluded that the FBI did not inform the FISA court of the origins of the Steele dossier (which Republicans keep saying is fake, but have yet to prove any of it is fake). When it was pointed out that the FISA application actually did inform the court about the origins of the dossier, Nunes could only complain about the font size.

You need a new battle to fight, Jeff. This one is stupid.

#11 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2018-02-07 06:25 PM

Releasing a memo to the public that highlights potential FBI surveillance abuses is not even in the same ballpark as McCarthy and the HUAC.

Let's get some perspective. Please.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

Not if that memo is false, fake, or intentionally incomplete to portray abuse where there was none. That's intentionally harming law enforcement to protect your party's head.

Without acknowledging what he was trying to do, you shouldn't lecture anyone else about perspective.

In fact, you've been so wrong about every step of the russia investigation so far, you should really just avoid the topic altogether.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 06:38 PM

Not if that memo is false, fake, or intentionally incomplete to portray abuse where there was none.

Heck, the FBI's only claim is that it's misleading by omission, but without providing anything (with redactions) to fill in the blanks.

Without acknowledging what he was trying to do, you shouldn't lecture anyone else about perspective.

Oh, but I will. Even if your allegations were 100% accurate (they're not) this is STILL peanuts compared to McCarthy and the HUAC.

Are you even aware what went on with the HUAC?

Here's what you are doing:

Person A: Driving 5 over the speed limit

Person B: Driving 65 over the speed limit

Conclusion: They were both speeding therefore this is perfect equivalence.

That's ridiculous and you know it.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 06:58 PM

It concluded that the FBI did not inform the FISA court of the origins of the Steele dossier (which Republicans keep saying is fake, but have yet to prove any of it is fake). When it was pointed out that the FISA application actually did inform the court about the origins of the dossier, Nunes could only complain about the font size.

Comey testified said several times under testimony that it was "salacious and unverified". It was leaked to countless media outlets and none of them, except Buzzed would touch it with a 10-foot pole. There is a reason for that. Having said that, it's not unheard of to use a questionable or partisan source as part of the package of evidence presented to the FISC as long as that is revealed to the judge.

The premise of this thread is to equate Nunes with McCarthy. It's an absurd equivalence and it's a stupid battle to try and draw that equivalence.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:03 PM

"The premise of this thread is to equate Nunes with McCarthy." - #14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:03 PM

Agreed, it's an absurd equivalence.

McCarthy actually had liquor as a defense for his actions.

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-07 07:06 PM

Was it good liquor or was it 5 O Clock vodka?

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

Conclusion: They were both speeding therefore this is perfect equivalence.

That's ridiculous and you know it.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

Wow. You're lecturing others about false equivalencies?

Be careful you don't burst into flames of sheer hypocrisy.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 07:18 PM

I was drawing attention to the absurdity of you attempting to equate Nunes with McCarthy.

Do you equate the Oregon baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding with some hater who assaults a gay person just for being gay?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:20 PM

Do you equate the Oregon baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding with some hater who assaults a gay person just for being gay?

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:20 PM | Reply

Bigotry is bigotry.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 07:21 PM

Do you equate the Oregon baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding with some hater who assaults a gay person just for being gay?
Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:20 PM | Reply
Bigotry is bigotry.

#19 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Which act is worse - refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding or brutally assaulting someone simply because they are gay?

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

I was drawing attention to the absurdity of you attempting to equate Nunes with McCarthy.

Do you equate the Oregon baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding with some hater who assaults a gay person just for being gay?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

Right. And you're the guy who absurdly equated republicans and democrats for years on end.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 07:25 PM

Nunes can go F himself in the fargin icehole.

Who cares about Nunes. He is just a sock puppet.

Congress should censure Trump.

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

#21 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You're deflecting. I gave a couple of examples and asked if they were equivalent in terms of degree.

Why are you so devoutly avoiding answering a very straightforward question?

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

#23 welcome to Speak debate. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor even though she has no basis for her argument. In this case it is censur anyone who has evidence of Democratic wrong doing. Gets old

#24 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-07 07:41 PM

In this case it is censur anyone who has evidence of Democratic wrong doing. Gets old

#24 | Posted by fishpoo

What is getting old is you lying all the time Comrade.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 07:48 PM

Why are you so devoutly avoiding answering a very straightforward question?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ

Because a question isn't straightforward when it's coming from someone who's being a giant hypocrite.

I spent all last year listening to you talk about how dems and repubs are all the same and hillary is just as bad as trump. So i'm not going to entertain it when you suddenly start lecturing about false equivalencies.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-07 08:29 PM

"Why are you so devoutly avoiding answering a very straightforward question?"

Here's a straightforward question:

How do you settle this issue when a person says their religion teaches black skin is the Mark of Cain and they are supposed to shun people with that mark?
Should they be forced to work with/for/on a black person?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:33 PM

Comey testified said several times under testimony that it was "salacious and unverified". It was leaked to countless media outlets and none of them, except Buzzed would touch it with a 10-foot pole. There is a reason for that. Having said that, it's not unheard of to use a questionable or partisan source as part of the package of evidence presented to the FISC as long as that is revealed to the judge.

Nunes memo twists James Comey's words on Steele dossier

What we found in the public record suggests a more limited assertion under oath by Comey -- that he'd said portions of the memo were "salacious and unverified," not the whole thing. (We owe a debt in this fact-check to writings by two conservative blogs, RedState and HotAir.)

www.politifact.com

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-07 08:46 PM

Because a question isn't straightforward when it's coming from someone who's being a giant hypocrite.

I spent all last year listening to you talk about how dems and repubs are all the same and hillary is just as bad as trump. So i'm not going to entertain it when you suddenly start lecturing about false equivalencies.

#26 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's a cop-out and you know it.

Whatever.

Your tack significantly changes how I deal with your posts going forward.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 09:48 PM

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! He is a co-conspirator to treason.

#30 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-02-08 01:01 PM

Wait, McCarthy accused people of being Soviet (Russia) sympathizers. Using the McCarthy parallel, it is Schiff who should be Censured.

#3 | Posted by sawdust

If Trump had tried to pull his crap in those days they probably would have impeached him and executed his whole corrupt and traitorous gang.

Can you imagine Americans finding out the National Security Director had ties to Putin, was on the Kremlin payroll AND he lied to the FBI about those ties back then (When, I presume, America Was Great)?

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 07:06 PM

The problem the anti-Trumpers have is the content of the memo. They wail about it's release, but do not address the contents. Basicly the memo states that the Hillery campaign paid for the Steel dossier through intermediaries and the same dossier was used to get a warrant from a FICA court to put certain members of the Trump campaign under surveillance. This is something that LBJ or Nixon would pull. Seems that the conspiracy is centered in the senior leadership of the FBI, not the field office in Washington. The field office of the FBI in Washington has 1200 agents and they do investigations. The fifth floor of FBI headquarters is purely administration, they do not do criminal investigations. The first question one should ask is what in the wide world of sports was this little group of bean counters around the directors office even involved with a FISA warrant. Truth is the daughter of time.
#31 | Posted by donnerboy McCarthy started with the transcripts gleaned from Soviet diplomatic cables indicating assets in the US State Department and Soviet influence in American Labor Unions. He started with something real, and he devolved it into a crap pie. On HUAC,he had a couple of companions on that committee of note, Both JFK and Nixon were on that committee. He drank himself to death in '57.

#32 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-02-09 01:56 PM

"The first question one should ask is what in the wide world of sports was this little group of bean counters around the directors office even involved with a FISA warrant."

Because that's the way the process works:

It Ain't Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know

The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target's trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you're exhausted already, hang on: There's more.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as "Woods procedures" after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 02:04 PM

"the same dossier was used to get a warrant from a FICA court to put certain members of the Trump campaign under surveillance."

Page dropped out of the Trump campaign at the end of September. The FISA warrant on him was issued the third week in October. IOW, Page wasn't working for the campaign when the warrant was issued.

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-09 02:21 PM

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday Difficult to get a FISA warrant? As far as what has been reviled, less than 50 warrants have not been approved out of 12,000 submitted. Looks like a rubber stamp to me. So do enplane why these political animals around the director's office were involved in an investigation? None of these guys had the ability to arrest anyone- not one was a "special agent". None of these people were involved in investigations, criminal or otherwise. They were pure admin. This stinks, but I believe the FBI will survive and even be better with a little house cleaning. Cops should not play politics, it does not end well.

#35 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-02-09 02:21 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Why Always the AR-15, Homicidal Nutjobs? (99 comments)

Nazi Bot Network Took Down Franken (93 comments)

Billy Graham Dies (92 comments)

Trump Wants to Arm Teachers (88 comments)

Trump Needed 'Cheat Sheet' When He Met Survivors (65 comments)

Far-Right Kooks Smear Parkland Survivors (60 comments)

How Low Are You Willing to See America Go? (49 comments)

Parkland Survivors Confront Legislators in Tallahassee (43 comments)

How 'Thoughts and Prayers' Became a Joke (38 comments)