Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the "incriminating memo" that has circulated the Government in regards to FISA abuse, theoretically speaking, if it absolutely lead to proof of criminal wrong doing by HRC campaign or even the previous POTUS would you abandon the party line to support the pursuance of justice? I always felt if someone showed real proof that I would be up in DC helping protest President Trump still being in office. Would those of you that skew so far left that you rarely try to step out of your echo chamber, accept the result? This is strictly for thought purposes, and obviously none of us know whats really in the memo, nor should we claim to.

 redleger wrote:
With the "incriminating memo" that has circulated the Government in regards to FISA abuse, theoretically speaking, if it absolutely lead to proof of criminal wrong doing by HRC campaign or even the previous POTUS would you abandon the party line to support the pursuance of justice? I always felt if someone showed real proof that I would be up in DC helping protest President Trump still being in office. Would those of you that skew so far left that you rarely try to step out of your echo chamber, accept the result? This is strictly for thought purposes, and obviously none of us know whats really in the memo, nor should we claim to.

It would take proof of it actually being illegal not just a pundit screaming it as such.

Hardly anyone will admit they were wrong, but lots of people change their opinions all the same. People just change their opinion and pretend it was always their opinion. In the year before he was impeached Nixon's criminality was hotly contested, then a few years after he left office belief he was a criminal was near universal, but you'd never find more than a couple of people who said they thought he was innocent and changed their mind.

But that effect generally only happens in the long term, not while the fight is underway. In the thick of it people stick tightly to their team, and tightly control the information they receive to protect the view they've committed to.

I mean, consider what's happening right now. You have a special investigation being undertaken by Robert Mueller. This guy is a lifelong Republican who was nominated as head of the FBI by a Republican president, and unanimously approved by congress. Against this you have a memo written by political staffers working for Devin Nunes. Nunes is an intensely strong Trump partisan, who's only claim to fame is making a false claim about improper unmasking, and concealing he got the claim from the Whitehouse itself. The memo has been disseminated among the House, where Democrats who've read have said the memo is based almost entirely on false summations of classified intel that most in the House haven't been able to read.

Lots of people are seeing those two things weighed against each other, not knowing what either side has because the info is private, and they're deciding that Nunes is the guy with the accurate, reliable info. It's a conclusion that boggles the mind.

If House Democrats are saying that the memos are bs... then... they shouldn't have any issues in releasing said memos.

Great way to bish slap Nunes and his cohorts...

As far as potential evidence that incriminates the previous administration? I seriously doubt anyone's minds would change... but, it's a foolhardy endeavor to try to prosecute actions from previous administration. Just imagine the precedent it would set...

 whembly wrote:
If House Democrats are saying that the memos are bs... then... they shouldn't have any issues in releasing said memos.

Great way to bish slap Nunes and his cohorts...

As far as potential evidence that incriminates the previous administration? I seriously doubt anyone's minds would change... but, it's a foolhardy endeavor to try to prosecute actions from previous administration. Just imagine the precedent it would set...

Surely you mean that Devin Nunes shouldn't have any issues with releasing said memo, right?
He is the one that wrote it, and the one who currently controls who gets to see it, right?

Anyway, everybody should of course be willing to change their mind in the light of new evidence.
Of course, we all know that the more one has invested in a given assumption, the harder it is to let go off.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If House Democrats are saying that the memos are bs... then... they shouldn't have any issues in releasing said memos.

Great way to bish slap Nunes and his cohorts...

As far as potential evidence that incriminates the previous administration? I seriously doubt anyone's minds would change... but, it's a foolhardy endeavor to try to prosecute actions from previous administration. Just imagine the precedent it would set...

Surely you mean that Devin Nunes shouldn't have any issues with releasing said memo, right?
He is the one that wrote it, and the one who currently controls who gets to see it, right?

Nope... meant what I said.

It's a process... Nunes can't *wave* his hand to declassify it.

First, the House Intelligence Committee (that Nunes chairs) has to approve declassifying it...and right now, only House members can see it. As it's a deliberative document created and possessed only by the US House. Co-equal branch and all...

Secondly, the Speaker has to approve, along with House counsels (da laywers) to ensure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed...not clear how long that takes.

Thirdly, once approved to declassify, the POTUS has 5 days to approve/reject it's release. If POTUS rejects, the House can override him by simple majority.

I hope that if it were truly released, the underlining source materials is also released, otherwise one side will claim it's a partisan document, and the other side will hang their hats on it to prove corruption.

Will it be a bombshell? Or a dud?

 whembly wrote:
If House Democrats are saying that the memos are bs... then... they shouldn't have any issues in releasing said memos.

That would only be true if release of the memo also happened alongside release of the classified info the memo is summarising. Without the actual supporting classified intel, the memo is just a list of accusations made by a particularly partisan member of the House.

Which is enough for lots of people, of course.

US Politics is still a no-go here.