If you agree with the release of the memo IN THE WAY IT’S BEEN DONE, mind answering a few questions?
How can you be upset about “classified information” in Clinton emails, but not be upset about possible classified information in the Nunes memo?
Are you ok with all the cloak and dagger surrounding its release? Can you say with a straight face that you’d be ok if this were going on and Democrats were doing it?
Why won’t Nunes release the information to the Senate intelligence committee?
Why not let the intelligence community brief the committee and answer questions in a closed session before voting to release? (sounds like the chairman doesn’t want Pubs to have all the facts)
If this is about transparency, why not let Dems release their own statement? Again, if Dems were suppressing Pubs the same you would be ok with it?
Don’t you find it a bit ironic that a little more than a year ago Nunes didn’t support a provision that would outlaw the federal government’s routine collection of American citizens’ electronic information: emails, text messages, photos, etc? Now he’s all up in arms about it.
Having said that…
The Nunes memo is an interpretation of classified intelligence that was used to get authorization to snoop on Page. But it’s not the intelligence itself. So if we’re willing to acknowledge that part of the motivation to release the memo is to protect Trump, we have to acknowledge that this memo is probably not going to tell the whole story.
Do not take this as a demand to keep the memo secret. We should see the memo. We should see the Democrats’ memo. And at some point, we should be able to see the underlying intelligence.
Note that Trump, as the president of the United States, has wide authority to arrange for the declassification and release of this intelligence information that supposedly has been misapplied in order to snoop on him and undermine his presidency. That little detail doesn’t seem to capture as much attention. The Nunes’ memo is one step removed from being able to see what the FBI actually presented.
Again, this is not a demand for less transparency, but for more. We shouldn’t settle for the perspective of people who have an obvious interest in shielding the president.