The House Intelligence Committee has released the DEM response to the Nunes memo that made a number of allegations regarding the FISA Court and the investigation into Russian influence on US electoral and political processes. The document is heavily redacted, by request of Trump, but still contains a lot of relevant background information about how the FISA warrants were obtained...
This is a link to the Hose Committee's posting of the DEM response:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig...0205-sd002.pdf
The contrast between the Nunes memo and the DEM response should be noted:
1) The original FISA Court filing for the warrant was over 50 pages; the Nunes memo is only four pages and the DEM response is 10 pages in length; somehow, it is difficult to imagine distilling down over 50 pages of a complex document such as a court filing, much less, a FISA Court filing, down to only four pages and retaining any semblance of substance;
2) The Nunes memo is just a blanket statement of allegations with no corroboration or attribution to its statements; The DEM response is annotated with cites for the points and allegations countering Nunes, altogether a more considered and fleshed out document;
3) The Nunes memo was rushed out with the intent to avoid scrutiny and, even more importantly, was issued with out proper vetting and without prior authorization by the DOJ or other relevant agencies as detailed in the DEM response:
Quote:
...
Background
On January 18, 2018, the Committee Majority, during an unrelated business, meeting, forced a surprise vote to release to the full House a profoundly misleading memorandum alleging serious abuses by the FBI and DOJ. Majority staff drafted the document in secret on behalf of Chairman Devin Nunes (and reportedly with guidance and input from Rep. Trey Gowdy), and then rushed a party-line vote without prior notice.
This was by design. The overwhelming majority of Committee members never received DOJ authorization to access the underlying classified information, and therefore could not judge the veracity of Chairman Nunes' claims. Due to the sensitive sources and methods, DOJ provided access only to the Committee's Chair and Ranking Member (or respective designees), and limited staff, to facilitate the Committee's investigation into Russia's covert campaign to influence the 2016 U.S. elections. As DOJ has confirmed publicly, it did not authorize the broader release of this information within Congress or to the public, and Chairman Nunes refused to allow DOJ and the FBI to review his document until he permitted the FBI Director to see it for the first time in HPSCI's secure spaces late on Sunday, January 28 - 10 days after disclosure to the House.
...
|
Nunes' memo reads like a high-schooler's rushed, last-minute-before-class assignment, while the DEM response is more like a researched and defended term paper; with Nunes, you don't really know where he has gotten his facts or if he's just pulling out of some orifice; with the DEM response, they tell you where their info and data is derived and provide cites for the reader to use as verification and to establish context. The haphazard and slapdash Nunes memo and it provenance may be a major reason Nunes is being marginalized by the House GOP leadership and others in his party...
A further item of interest and note; the Nunes memo was issued after a vote along party lines with the DEM Committee members dissenting; the DEM response was issued after a unanimous vote by all Committee members from both parties, a vote that was taken on the original document, before the Trump-requested redactions...
Now, with the ability to see and contrast the two documents, the need for Nunes to engage in the furtive, rushed 'birthing' of his screed is rather apparent...
<O>