Posted on 01/26/2018 7:34:15 PM PST by John Semmens
A confidential memo written by Republicans from the House Intelligence Committee has sparked different reactions from Democrats and Republicans. Republicans who have read the memo describe its contents as "shocking."
"The facts contained in this memo are jaw-dropping and demand full transparency," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla). "The widespread illegal surveillance of America citizens by the nation's intelligence community for what appear to be purely political motives is not the kind of behavior one expects in a free society. We need to release the memo so the American people have information they need to decide how they want their government to be run."
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va) acknowledged that he has not read the memo, but described it as "sloppy, careless and has no grounding in fact. How do I know this? Well, for one, it was written by Republicans. For two, it alleges that members of the FBI would misuse their authority in a biased way to favor one Party over another."
Unfortunately for Democrats, contents of some of the 50,000 text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page discuss a plan to "go easy" on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because, as Page pointed out "she might be our next president. If we get on her bad side it could wreck our careers."
Strzok replied that he "agreed" and said he contacted his FBI superior Bill Priestap, "who also agrees with our perception." Strzok later revised then FBI Director James Comey's draft letter on the Clinton "matter" to change the description of her handling of classified emails from the legally culpable "gross negligence" to the vaguer, but safer "extremely careless." All of this took place months before 17 witnesses and Clinton herself were even interviewed.
Warner professed himself "unmoved by these text exchanges. Considering that everyone was sure that Hillary would be the next president, it's understandable that they wouldn't want to rub her the wrong way. Putting their 'thumbs on the scale,' so to speak, would be a natural survival reflex in those circumstances."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) disagreed with his senate colleague's "casual attitude toward this serious breach of ethics by those high up in this country's foremost law enforcement agency. Justice requires the unbiased consideration of evidence. The decision to grant leniency to someone on the premise that the person is powerful is corrupt and conducive to tyranny. It cannot be allowed if we are to remain a free country."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, adamantly opposes letting the general public see the memo because "they don't have the necessary knowledge or experience to adequately understand the seemingly inappropriate steps the intelligence community must take to defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is naive to think that a federal agent should remain unbiased when the very fate of the nation may require that 'dirty deeds' be done to save it."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), ranking member on the House Committee on the Judiciary, demanded that "the FBI be allowed to review the memo and correct any inaccuracies or take whatever other action it deems necessary to protect itself before it is released. Let's not forget that the FBI has been protecting this country since the Dillinger days. We shouldn't allow the squeamishness of a few Republicans about the FBI's methods to undermine public confidence in this great law enforcement agency."
In related news, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court ruling found that 85% of the National Security Administration's (NSA) searches of individual American citizens during the Obama Administration violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches. In response, the NSA has deleted "honesty" and "openness" from its "core values" statement on its web page.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/233676-2018-01-26-semi-news-semi-satire-january-28-2018-edition.htm
ping
Which parts are fictitious? Or is the satire here an emergent phenomenon from the actual evenrs?
Events
LEAK!..LEAK!..LEAK!..Now!
The memo says “Drink more Ovaltine!” if you believe peelosi, etc.
Somewhere in Fort Meade, an NSA spook-administrator is saying "Hey, not a bad idea..."
No, unless it was fake news, I read that they actually DID do that.
Yup, they actually did!
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/01/25/nsa-quietly-removes-honesty-from-its-stated-core-values
“The report noted that in the updated descriptions of each value, the agency scrubbed all references to “trust,” “honor,” and “openness.””
So, they admit it.
Pretty high ‘truth’ vs. ‘satire’ ratio in this one. Good job.
I thought that had to be part of the satire, not part of the news.
Wrong.
Thanks.
Liberals are panicked.
There hasn’t been this much grasping at straw since the flying monkeys tore the scarecrow apart.
If you need to release the memo, release the memo. Don't talk.
(Famous movie reference)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.