# release the documents

She's way more succinct than I am. 

"The reason the Binney (note not all VIPS buy what you wrongly call the VIPS theory) is utterly wrong is he doesn't account for the multiple servers being hacked. So again, you're believing something unsustainable w/fact of multiple server hacks."

cramer said:

"Finally. The missing QA guy has returned." 

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/968298143409430528

Jamie, can you give Marcy Wheeler a MOL login?  She seems better at cutting through Mr. Surovell's nonsense, and is a little more direct about it.

Good article today on the dishonesty of the Nunes/GOP memo, as well as a strong slap at any argument that the FBI was lying to the FISA court.

"The central irony of the memo prepared by House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes, we now know, is that it tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court. The key question going forward is whether the memo’s authors and sponsors will face any consequences for their dishonesty. If not, we can expect to see more of the same, with potentially dire results."

To read the whole thing:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo

this is so obviously true that it's frightening that some people (ahem, paul) have taken the opposite view.

nohero said:

Good article today on the dishonesty of the Nunes/GOP memo, as well as a strong slap at any argument that the FBI was lying to the FISA court.

"The central irony of the memo prepared by House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes, we now know, is that it tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court. The key question going forward is whether the memo’s authors and sponsors will face any consequences for their dishonesty. If not, we can expect to see more of the same, with potentially dire results."

To read the whole thing:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo

Watched Jane Mayer interviewed by Rachel Maddow this evening, about her new article on Steele. 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier/amp

One thing she said was that the facts, about Steele's interest in Russian interference, and about what he knew about who he was ultimately working for, and what DNC knew about what he was doing, are all the opposite of the story pushed by the GOP and the Nunes memo. 

South_Mountaineer said:
Watched Jane Mayer interviewed by Rachel Maddow this evening, about her new article on Steele. 
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier/amp
One thing she said was that the facts, about Steele's interest in Russian interference, and about what he knew about who he was ultimately working for, and what DNC knew about what he was doing, are all the opposite of the story pushed by the GOP and the Nunes memo. 

 Just bringing this up to the top, because Jane Mayer's article is relevant to all the discussion about the FISA application that was released.  It puts the lie to the B.S. about Steele's work being affected by who he was working for, since he didn't know (and vice versa, since the DNC didn't know what he was doing).

South_Mountaineer said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Watched Jane Mayer interviewed by Rachel Maddow this evening, about her new article on Steele. 
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier/amp
One thing she said was that the facts, about Steele's interest in Russian interference, and about what he knew about who he was ultimately working for, and what DNC knew about what he was doing, are all the opposite of the story pushed by the GOP and the Nunes memo. 

 Just bringing this up to the top, because Jane Mayer's article is relevant to all the discussion about the FISA application that was released.  It puts the lie to the B.S. about Steele's work being affected by who he was working for, since he didn't know (and vice versa, since the DNC didn't know what he was doing).

 Irrelevant. The only factual parts of the dossier were in the public record before it was written. The rest is fiction.

How does one know whether an assertion in the dossier is untrue?

Why does anyone give a hoot anyway. The only problem with the dossier being "fiction" is if those fictions were then used to do something substantial.

They weren't. Except in the minds of Nunes and his fellow travelers. (and please spare me the Communist connection to that phrase.)

Putin must have something on el Trumpo to have him gibbering like a moron in front of cameras about would and wouldn't.   Totally in his pocket.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 Just bringing this up to the top, because Jane Mayer's article is relevant to all the discussion about the FISA application that was released.  It puts the lie to the B.S. about Steele's work being affected by who he was working for, since he didn't know (and vice versa, since the DNC didn't know what he was doing).

 Irrelevant. The only factual parts of the dossier were in the public record before it was written. The rest is fiction.

It wasn’t irrelevant when the debate du jour was the FISA application.

To paraphrase Aaron Maté: In short, the investigation’s critics are as good as anyone at echoing the latest talking points.

drummerboy said:

How does one know whether an assertion in the dossier is untrue?

Why does anyone give a hoot anyway. The only problem with the dossier being "fiction" is if those fictions were then used to do something substantial.

They weren't. Except in the minds of Nunes and his fellow travelers. (and please spare me the Communist connection to that phrase.)

Why does anyone give a hoot anyway? Maybe because "Impeachment Matters"

The only problem with the dossier being "fiction" is if those fictions were then used to do something substantial. They weren't. Actually they were Drummerboy, And as it turns out the dossier was "fiction", all fiction!