Dems, Liberal Media Flip-Flop—No Longer Believe in “Transparency in Government”
2018 February 2
The House Intelligence Committee and White House released a classified Memo on Feb. 2, highlighting alleged abuses by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI relating to their pre- and after-election investigation of potential collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia. (1)
In particular, DOJ and FBI officials improperly—and perhaps illegally—utilized unverified (and now largely debunked) information collated on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign to get Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign both before and after the election. (2)
The Memo strongly suggests that the Obama Administration politicized the DOJ and the FBI as a weapon to use against political opponents. (3)
Some DOJ/FBI officials involved with the FISA Memo also have deep connections with other potential scandals relating to Hillary Clinton and her bid to become President. (4)
Congressional Democrats, former Obama Administration officials, DOJ/FBI officials and liberal-leaning media outlets vigorously opposed releasing the Memo, calling such a release a threat to national security through its exposure of “Classified” DOJ/FBI operations and personnel. They simultaneously engaged in a massive campaign to discredit the Memo and anyone supporting its release. With the Memo’s release, this campaign continues without relent, and with abject failure to even consider the possible veracity of the Memo’s claims.
The Liberal mainstream media’s aggressive role in opposing the Memo’s release, and ongoing smear campaign against its contents, are particularly striking, as such a position is antithetical to their purported support for “transparency in government.”
It is also worth noting that the Memo contained no information that neither warranted a “Classified” designation nor threaten national security if exposed.
On Feb. 5, in support of “transparency,” all Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee voted with their Democratic colleagues to release a competing Democrat Memo that reportedly rebuts some of the claims made in the Republican released Memo.
2016 Indeterminate Date: Hillary Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee spend a reported $9 million via an intermediary law firm to hire fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump and his campaign. (5)
2016 Indeterminate Date: Fusion GPS retains ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiles a 35-page dossier on Donald Trump alleging sexual misconduct and shady financial dealings while previously in Russia. (5)
2016 July: Steele first meets with FBI to discuss his findings about Trump and his campaign. (6)
2016 July: FBI begins counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling into election, including any connections between Trump Campaign and Russian agents. (6)
2016 September: Steele begins leaking information about the dossier and the FBI’s investigation to the press. (6)
2016 October: DOJ first utilizes the Steele Dossier to help it get federal judiciary approval for FISA warrants to spy on at least one member of Trump’s campaign. (6)
2016 November 8: Donald Trump elected President of the United States.
2017 January 25: House Intelligence Committee announces its plans to investigate Russian election meddling and any connections to campaigns. (6)
2017 Indeterminate Dates: DOJ utilizes the still-unverified, and largely debunked, Steele Dossier to help extend the timeframe (s) of the original FISA warrant(s). (6)
2017 March 4: Pres. Trump claims that former Pres. Barack Obama had wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower ahead of the 2016 election. The allegation is widely ridiculed by the Liberal MSM. (7)
2017 March 20: House Intelligence Committee learns of FBI investigation into Trump campaign. (6)
2017 March 22: House Intelligence Committee Nunes accuses the Obama Administration of using FISA to spy on Trump transition team members, without revealing where he received this information. (6)
2017 April 6: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes recuses himself from the committee’s Russia investigation in light of a House Ethics Committee probe into whether the chair had made unauthorized disclosures of classified information. (6)
2017 September 18: CNN reports that U.S. Government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman, and begrudgingly concedes that the spying may have ensnared the candidate and other members of the campaign. (8)
2017 December 7: House Ethics Committee clears Nunes of any wrongdoing. (6)
2018 January 4: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes obliquely informs DOJ/FBI that the committee’s investigation into Russian meddling has been expanded to include DOJ’s handling of its own investigation. (6)
2018 Mid-January: House Intelligence Committee staff compiles a four-page Memo summarizing how the FBI abused its power in its investigation into the Trump Campaign. (6)
2018 January 18: House Intelligence Committee votes along party lines to make the “FISA Memo” available to all House members. Democrats start arguing that information in the Memo is “cherry-picked” and reliant on classified information which should not be made public, even if declassified. “Cherry-picked” becomes a key word in press reporting on the Memo. (9)
2018 January 18-29: Republicans push for public release of the Memo, arguing that the public’s need to know about potential abuses of power by the nation’s top law enforcement agency should override any concerns of national security.
2018 January 28: FBI Director Christopher Wray reviews the Memo, followed the next day by officials from the FBI’s counterintelligence and legal divisions. While it was widely reported that the two division officials “could not point to any factual inaccuracies” in the document, DOJ officials disputed that characterization. (10)
2018 January 29: House Intelligence Committee votes along party lines to release the Memo, giving Pres. Trump five days to determine whether it should be declassified.
2018 January 31: FBI releases statement denouncing the Memo, and expressing “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the Memo’s accuracy.” (11)
2018 January 31: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of House Intelligence Committee, sends letter of protest to the Committee, claiming that the original Memo as released for viewing by the House had been “secretly altered” with “material changes,” and thus should be withdrawn from White House consideration for public release. (12)
2018 January 31: House Intelligence Committee staff reject Schiff’s claims as spurious, noting that such changes were a matter of syntax and grammar, and made at the request of the FBI reviewers. (13)
2018 January 31: House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sends letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) demanding the removal of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) for altering the contents of a “reckless, partisan memo released to the White House” after it had already been voted on by the Committee and reviewed by House members. She also refers to the Memo as “bogus,” and part of a GOP “cover-up campaign.” (14)
2018 January 29-Febraury 1: Liberal MSM led by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post release dozens of news articles and opinion pieces objecting to the release of the Memo, generally accusing Republicans of undermining the nation’s law enforcement in a nefarious quest to end the DOJ/FBI investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. (15)
2018 February 2: White House Declassifies the Memo and it is released to the public.
2018 February 5: Republicans on House Intelligence Committee vote with their Democratic colleagues to release a competing Committee Memo that reportedly rebuts some of the findings in the Republican-released Memo.
I am going to try and remain FISA-Memo-release-specific here, even though I believe the controversy over this Memo, as well as its contents, are intertwined with the much larger tangled web of scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president (for more information on this tangled web, refer to DT article: https://www.discernibletruth.com/Home/uncategorized/uranium-one-investigation-picks-up-steam-liberal-msm-continues-to-ignore-or-refute-story/
Of particular interest are the efforts by Democrats, their stooges in the media, and specific Obama Administration-connected FBI/DOJ officials, who have engaged in an all-out offensive against the Memo—prevent its release, discredit it, mischaracterize it, and cast aspersions (ad hominin attacks) on the Memo’s backers, etc. Their actions over the past 10 days have been so relentless that it should make anyone paying attention wonder what in the heck they’re trying to hide.
With the actual release of the Memo, an astute observer of this whole situation might quickly notice that “national security” implications within the Memo are pretty much for naught—what exactly was all that bellyaching about with regard to national security implications, is what everyone should be asking. Simply put, there’s nothing in that Memo that warrants “Top Secret” classification.
Sure, it exposed a few names, but they were well-known names that the press had easily determined might be involved in securing the FISA warrants to begin with. Unfortunately, for those interested in protecting the good names of Pres. Obama and his presumptive heir, Hillary, those names also happen to play a large role in most every other investigation relating to Hillary.
And, yeah, it also makes the DOJ/FBI look bad—potentially really bad. But that certainly isn’t grounds for “Top Secret” classification, as there was absolutely nothing within the Memo that threatens national security. Bottom line is that it appears that Democrats, the liberal mainstream press, former Obama administration officials, and current DOJ/FBI officials linked with various Hillary Clinton investigations outright lied about the Memo prior to its release, and every American should wonder exactly what they wanted to keep secret.
It is obvious that they don’t like the idea of the American public even considering that DOJ/FBI officials may have been working on behalf of Clinton’s ascension to the White House. And little doubt that they will continue their all-out attacks on the Memo and its supporters in a concerted effort to encourage continued disbelief by the American public. And we’re undoubtedly facing days, weeks and perhaps even months of dealing with a “he said/she said”-type situation going forward, as the American public tries to figure out what all of this exactly means.
In the proverbial nutshell, did the DOJ/FBI engage in a “corrosive abuse of surveillance powers” through its use of FISA, in order to spy on the Democrats’ political rivals during and after the 2016 presidential election? Or, is this just a Republican scheme designed to halt the investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion? He said—She said!
Given the complexity of FISA, federal law in general, and the tangled dynamics of this situation, most Americans will likely be hard pressed to make a cogent determination on their own volition, and will likely make it based on partisan leanings. If you’re a Democrat, you’re going to surmise that those diabolical Republicans set this up as a means of ending the Trump-Russia investigation. But if you’re a Republican, you’re convinced that those lousy-rotten Democrats pulled all kinds of dirty tricks designed to ensure Hillary was anointed “queen.”
We say try to keep your partisan thoughts separate from the actual action. And, yes, easier said than done, but follow the White Rabbit…wherever he might lead you.
Think about it: campaign opposition research paid for by Hillary and the DNC ends up as what appears to be the primary basis for the nation’s premier law enforcement agency to start spying on candidate, and then President, Trump? Isn’t that kind of akin to a drug dealer who calls the cops to anonymously report the drug dealing being conducted by his rival, as a means of getting rid of the competition?
Keep asking questions like that and you might catch that White Rabbit.
But also consider the media, not to mention the Democratic Party’s, role in all of this. Both have long held “transparency in government” as a high standard worth following. And yet both have pulled out all of the stops to prevent the release of a Memo that shines a light on potential government malfeasance.
Follow that White Rabbit because objective reporting by the MSM is dead. Consider that The Washington Post’s new motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” and yet, in this case, they, and the rest of the liberal MSM, are working so hard to turn out the lights.
Helping educate our members understand the bigger picture.
Senior counterintelligence investigator removed due to disparaging text messages that indicated he wasn’t inspired by Trump. He refers to the then presidential candidate as an “idiot” and “awful”.
Engaged in text dialogues with Page, with whom he reportedly had an affair.
One of the officials who interviewed Hillary Clinton in the investigation into her private email server, which led to no charges being filed.
Has called the Russia investigation a hoax and witch hunt.
Decides whether the release of the document will proceed. He is inclined, which could lead to a stir with the Justice Department.
Chose to go on leave and set retirement for March 18.
Stepped down from Deputy Director following heavy criticism from the President.
Declined comment for CNN saying he doesn’t discuss committee business.
Allowed Wray to review the memo before the committee voted to release it.
Story inspired by:
This month it was revealed that the FBI failed to preserve about five months’ worth of communications between FBI related officials, Strzok and Page. The Daily Caller reported, “The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC)…” Although it is not clear that Nunes’ threats were what ultimately inspired the release of the texts to Congress and media, experts are agreeing the order was unconventional.
Committee Democrats say the Nunes memo is purposely skewed. They charge that the act of publicizing is an effort to undercut Mueller’s investigation. After a vote for the release of the surveillance memo, Schiff asserted the committee essentially took a vote to “politicize the declassification process and potentially compromise sources and methods.” Illinois Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley says, “All that is a delaying tactic – they want first shot for an independent period of time where the only thing anyone can see is their book report. What is added by the whole House reviewing it? None of them have seen the underlying materials, and none of them have had the year plus evaluation of reading all the documents elsewhere, interviewing everyone.” A competing Democrat memo exists.
Media advocates who say the law spurs authoritarianism, tech experts believe it would be impossible to enforce and is sure to have a backfire effect. Author and technology historian Edward Tenner asserts that “the only long-term solution for the fake news problem is a more sophisticated public.”