# release the documents
There is a lengthy process to release the memo that the Republicans are fully in charge of and they have the votes to do it. Claiming that Democrats are somehow stopping the process is foolish Paul.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
is there anything more McCarthyite than running around with a piece of paper saying it details law-breaking, while refusing to release it?
Are you criticizing the Democrats here?
The Republicans appear to be following a procedure that will result in the release of the document to the public. The Democrats voted in committee to oppose the document's release to members of Congress and are opposed to its release to the public.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:Are you criticizing the Democrats here?
is there anything more McCarthyite than running around with a piece of paper saying it details law-breaking, while refusing to release it?
The Republicans appear to be following a procedure that will result in the release of the document to the public. The Democrats voted in committee to oppose the document's release to members of Congress and are opposed to its release to the public.
Except the GOP is pushing this "release the memo" campaign while they are the ones who control it. Who is honestly fooled by that?
A good article on the whole dance -
The details of the memo remain sketchy, but to hear some members of Congress, such as Reps. Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows, its contents are so explosive that they could lead to criminal prosecution of government officials. Search #FISAMemo and #ReleasetheMemo on Twitter to find outraged Americans clamoring for the document to be released.
It’s impossible to comment definitively on the memo while it remains classified. At the moment, following a party-line vote by the House intelligence committee, the classified document is available to all members of Congress—though lawmakers reportedly must sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to view it. But as Trump supporters and Trump-aligned House Republicans beat the #ReleasetheMemo drumbeat, here is a modest prediction: If and when the memo is ever made public, it is likely to be just one more string of spaghetti tossed onto the wall by the now-familiar alliance of Trump-supporting congressional Republicans and sympathetic conservative media desperate to discredit and distract from the investigations into Russian election interference.
Committee Democrats have already cast doubt on the report, noting that Nunes put together the document without consulting his colleagues across the aisle. The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, dismissed it as “rife with factual inaccuracies and referencing highly classified materials that most of Republican Intelligence Committee members were forced to acknowledge they had never read.” The document, according to Schiff, “is meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI.”
At this point, any work product from Devin Nunes concerning matters related to the Russia investigation should be taken with a healthy helping of salt. Although Nunes still chairs the House intelligence committee, he was forced to remove himself from its Russia probe after a bewildering March press conference in which he announced concern over possible incidental collection of Trump transition-team information. (Reports later showed that the White House had leaked Nunes the allegedly alarming material on “unmasking.”) After months, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake—originally sympathetic to Nunes’s concerns—reported that national security adviser H.R. McMaster had found no evidence to support Nunes’s allegations of wrongdoing.
Moreover, Nunes’s actions don’t quite look like those of a House intelligence committee chairman earnestly horrified by his discovery of serious surveillance abuses. He didn’t share any of the information he allegedly unearthed with his Democratic colleagues before drafting the memo. There’s no evidence that he sought to call witnesses to investigate his concerns. He just wrote a document, declared it shocking and made it available to people likely to be shocked.
So what is this shocking document? Fox News describes Nunes’s new memo as addressing “abuses of FISA,” including Nunes’s unmasking concerns. According to the New York Times, the memo’s main focus is the FBI’s alleged use of the Steele dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. So the document seems likely to be a reiteration of Nunes’s concerns over unmasking, presented alongside some other bugbears of the Trump defense. To put it another way: We’ve been here before.
At this point, the feedback loop of disinformation between Trump-friendly congressional Republicans, the White House and pro-Trump media has become familiar. The cycle runs like this: Congressional Republicans voice concerns about an alleged abuse of government authority under President Obama or an instance of anti-Trump bias; one of a small group of relatively marginal media outlets writes about their theories and investigations, drawing yawns from more traditional reporters; then Fox News—usually including Sean Hannity—devotes breathless attention to the story; President Trump tweets about it; Fox and Congress respond to the president’s tweets; and around and around we go.
maybe they refused because it's a cocked up POS. Maybe. Produced without their input. Why would they approve the release of a document produced behind their backs?
You don't find it odd that you're on the side of David Nunes?
That would give me serious pause.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
is there anything more McCarthyite than running around with a piece of paper saying it details law-breaking, while refusing to release it?
Are you criticizing the Democrats here?
The Republicans appear to be following a procedure that will result in the release of the document to the public. The Democrats voted in committee to oppose the document's release to members of Congress and are opposed to its release to the public.
drummerboy said:
maybe they refused because it's a cocked up POS. Maybe. Produced without their input. Why would they approve the release of a document produced behind their backs?
You don't find it odd that you're on the side of David Nunes?
That would give me serious pause.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:Are you criticizing the Democrats here?
is there anything more McCarthyite than running around with a piece of paper saying it details law-breaking, while refusing to release it?
The Republicans appear to be following a procedure that will result in the release of the document to the public. The Democrats voted in committee to oppose the document's release to members of Congress and are opposed to its release to the public.
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Since this is the same person who is labelling Steele from Fusion as "antisemitic" on the long thread defending Trump (just because Steele is a threat, or whatever reason) this whole post below is ironic.
paulsurovell said:
@South_Mountaineer left out a few details about what was said on the "other thread." Here's what happened:
I posted 2 Tweets by Russian expert Sean Guillory quoting Fusion head Glenn Simpson (not Steele). Simpson said, among other things, that "Putin essentially took over the Russian Jewish community" and Guillory concluded that Simpson was engaging in:
"flat-out antisemitism . . . Putin + Jews = Trump" and I posted, "I agree."
However, South_Mountaineer responded: "Is the comment antisemitic, or was he just explaining the relationship? I think you need more in order to make that charge."
and I answered : "I think this is a reasonable criticism."
- - - - - - -
On the matter of "irony," let's consider South_Mountaineer -- who I think I know -- who attacks me for "defending Trump," but is silent on Trump's signature foreign policy "achievement" -- blowing up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process through his policy on Jerusalem.
On the other hand, maybe South_Mountaineer actually opposes Trump's appointment of Friedman and his policy on Jerusalem, but he just thought it was more important to distort what I said about Simpson.
Wow, that's a long reponse to a one sentence comment. That's a lot to unpack. Working backwards -
I don't agree that I distorted what you said about Simpson (and yes I had typed "Steele". I should make one of those charts with boxes and intersecting lines to keep track). You repeat that you agree with the anti Semitism charge.
I did refer to the "Who Colluded More: Hillary or Trump?" thread, which has over 60 pages and nearly 2000 posts since last July, as "the long thread defending Trump." It's accurate and easier to type with thumbs.
I did not comment here on the Israeli Palestinian peace process and Trump. That's not "ironic". If you bothered to ask, I would reply that I don't agree with what Trump is doing there, and I think you could infer from the sentence you quoted that I don't think that opposing Netanyahu's policies is "antisemitic".
And on that "other thread" (your term and even easier to type), I could have followed up your defense of the "antisemitism" charge with a request like "Why?", since you didn't provide anything more. I didn't leave out any detail that could have detracted from my comment (especially since you're repeating and confirming your "antisemitism" charge from the "other thread).
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
maybe they refused because it's a cocked up POS. Maybe. Produced without their input. Why would they approve the release of a document produced behind their backs?
You don't find it odd that you're on the side of David Nunes?
That would give me serious pause.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:Are you criticizing the Democrats here?
is there anything more McCarthyite than running around with a piece of paper saying it details law-breaking, while refusing to release it?
The Republicans appear to be following a procedure that will result in the release of the document to the public. The Democrats voted in committee to oppose the document's release to members of Congress and are opposed to its release to the public.
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
South_Mountaineer said:
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
paulsurovell said:
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
It’s called judgment. Maybe it’s faulty, but it’s not really all that odd.
Thanks for making that clear. Your choice of that word is a misuse (given the nature of the document and the circumstances, as described in the more comprehensive news reports we've all seen) and deliberately inflammatory.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
I don't see "********" {BS} as one of the criteria.
paulsurovell said:
Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
Including the Republicans who leak its supposed contents yet oppose its release (for the moment, anyway).
No way would Putin censor information, amiright?
South_Mountaineer said:
Wow, that's a long reponse to a one sentence comment. That's a lot to unpack. Working backwards -
Your one sentence included a major distortion and raised several questions. And your latest reply opens the door to some additional issues.
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't agree that I distorted what you said about Simpson (and yes I had typed "Steele". I should make one of those charts with boxes and intersecting lines to keep track). You repeat that you agree with the anti Semitism charge.
As noted, I initially said that I agreed with Guillory, but subsequently said that your comment that more was needed to label Simpson "anti-Semitic" was a reasonable criticism of my agreement with Guillory. That's a retraction.
South_Mountaineer said:
I did refer to the "Who Colluded More: Hillary or Trump?" thread, which has over 60 pages and nearly 2000 posts since last July, as "the long thread defending Trump." It's accurate and easier to type with thumbs.
I did not comment here on the Israeli Palestinian peace process and Trump. That's not "ironic". If you bothered to ask, I would reply that I don't agree with what Trump is doing there, and I think you could infer from the sentence you quoted that I don't think that opposing Netanyahu's policies is "antisemitic".
Good.
Unfortunately "The Resistance" has, by its silence, been complicit with Trump on this issue. One top leader of "The Resistance" has gone further, and has openly supported Trump's policies on Jerusalem. In fact he urged Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem:
The U.S. Senate minority leader criticized President Donald Trump on Tuesday for his "indecisiveness" on relocating American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. After Trump said over the weekend that he would wait to see the results of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks his administration is trying to promote "before I even think about moving the embassy," Chuck Schumer called on Trump to move the embassy "as soon as possible," in line with the president's campaign promise from 2016.
Consistent with your persistent attacks on individuals who you allege "support Trump" do you think these examples of active and passive support for Trump's Jerusalem policies should be labeled "supporting Trump?"
South_Mountaineer said:
And on that "other thread" (your term and even easier to type), I could have followed up your defense of the "antisemitism" charge with a request like "Why?", since you didn't provide anything more. I didn't leave out any detail that could have detracted from my comment (especially since you're repeating and confirming your "antisemitism" charge from the "other thread).
Refuted above.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
It’s called judgment. Maybe it’s faulty, but it’s not really all that odd.
And it's a judgment that could be called hypocritical.
dave23 said:
No way would Putin censor information, amiright?
Putin seems to enter your mind in strange ways.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
No way would Putin censor information, amiright?
Putin seems to enter your mind in strange ways.
Just your fondness for him.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Just your fondness for him.
dave23 said:Putin seems to enter your mind in strange ways.
No way would Putin censor information, amiright?
You sound jealous.
tom said:
paulsurovell said:I don't see "********" {BS} as one of the criteria.
South_Mountaineer said:Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
You think BS should be censored?
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Just your fondness for him.
Putin seems to enter your mind in strange ways.
You sound jealous.
I think we both know that you'd like me a lot more if I were an anti-semitic, murderous kleptocrat.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Just your fondness for him.
Putin seems to enter your mind in strange ways.
You sound jealous.
I think we both know that you'd like me a lot more if I were an anti-semitic, murderous kleptocrat.
You may there already.
Alex Jones says he has the memo, which will lend credence to its contents in some quarters.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
It’s called judgment. Maybe it’s faulty, but it’s not really all that odd.
And it's a judgment that could be called hypocritical.
Do you find the judgment hypocritical?
paulsurovell said:
tom said:
paulsurovell said:I don't see "********" {BS} as one of the criteria.
South_Mountaineer said:Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
You think BS should be censored?
Only yours...it goes on ad nauseum.
paulsurovell said:
Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
"House Republicans have refused to share with the Justice Department a secret memo alleging misconduct by federal officials investigating the 2016 Trump campaign’s Russia ties, even as they build a case that President Donald Trump should authorize the memo's public release. An official at the Justice Department, helmed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein, confirmed to POLITICO on Monday that the department has requested access to the classified document but has not been able to see it. The FBI, too, has been denied access to the document."
paulsurovell said:
You think BS should be censored?
The programming censored it. I typed it in full and was disappointed that it turned into asterisks. I'd call "********" on it but really what's the point?
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Add it's a judgment that could be called hypocritical.
paulsurovell said:It’s called judgment. Maybe it’s faulty, but it’s not really all that odd.
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
Do you find the judgment hypocritical?
The answer to that is confidential.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
tom said:
paulsurovell said:I don't see "********" {BS} as one of the criteria.
South_Mountaineer said:Anyone who opposes the release of the memo in question, or who supports those opposing the release of the memo are advocating censorship:
Could you explain the "censorship" charge, including who is doing it and what is being censored? All the main players seem to be having more than enough chances to make their arguments.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
You think BS should be censored?
Only yours...it goes on ad nauseum.
My fan club returns.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Add it's a judgment that could be called hypocritical.
paulsurovell said:
It’s called judgment. Maybe it’s faulty, but it’s not really all that odd.
Funny how the advocates of disclosure become advocates of censorship.
Do you find the judgment hypocritical?
The answer to that is confidential.
Yeah, I knew you had ****-all to back that up.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Are you criticizing the Democrats here?
The Republicans appear to be following a procedure that will result in the release of the document to the public. The Democrats voted in committee to oppose the document's release to members of Congress and are opposed to its release to the public.