Just as we post this we see on Drudge: “Memo released ” story developing . . .
But here is an article earlier today by “Jason Beale” at The Federalist we found of merit regarding Democrat frenetic attempts to muddy the water:
With Dueling Claims About FISA Abuse, Whom Should You Believe?
Who has the most to lose here? The answer to that question will help you decide who’s closer to the truth in this matter.
(excerpt)
How big a deal it’ll actually be depends upon your perspective. If you’ve already made up your mind, based either on your understanding of issues at play or simply on your instinct to believe and support whatever political side you’re on, you may be inclined to give your side the benefit of the doubt if they’re proven wrong about the memo. Conversely, if you haven’t made up your mind and are still looking for something to tip you to one side or the other, it may help to ask yourself, “Who’s got the most to lose?”
While opinions will certainly vary, I’ll offer mine for consideration. Based on their public statements, their actions with respect to HPSCI proceedings, classification issues, and pushback from the FBI and DoJ, Nunes, the Republicans on the HPSCI, and the Republican Party have the most to lose. They have not only suggested, but guaranteed, that this memo and the underlying documents present legitimate cause and evidence to demonstrate malfeasance and misuse of surveillance authorities to violate civil liberties and unfairly target Trump transition members. The notion that the memo may not reflect this declaration does not allow for recovery. It either backs them up, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t meet that standard, they lose.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have some wiggle room — some of it possibly legitimate, and some of it contrived. In short, they have less to lose. If the memo proves to be, as described above, a damning indictment of the actions of the FBI and DoJ — and Schiff and his colleagues have assured us it is not — they can continue to question the provenance of the memo’s conclusions.
Confident that the underlying documents are not likely to see the light of day, they can simply reiterate their position that the information in the memo was cherry-picked and misleading. They can also continue to claim that the publication of the memo places the intelligence community at risk, violates long-held agreements between congressional committees and the intelligence community regarding disclosure of classified information, and ultimately sets a dangerous precedent.
Taking into account all above, and mindful of the premise that no politician on earth would take this risk without either absolute confidence in his position, or a readily employed defense strategy if less confident, it would follow that the memo will likely represent what the Republicans claim it will.
Schiff and the Democrats have an out. Nunes and the Republicans don’t. If you believe in the unscientific notion that the party that took the biggest risk, had the most to lose, yet stuck to their position is likely the party to be believed in this matter, than your answer to the question, “Who to believe?” is Devin Nunes and the Republicans.
The good news is that we won’t have to wait long to test the theory. The bad news is that the only thing we can be certain of prior to the release of the memo is that someone in our government is lying to us.
Jason Beale (a pseudonym) is a retired U.S. Army interrogator and strategic debriefer . . .
Our well-justified concern is that Republicans won’t play to see that this does not happen again. They will entertain refinements in some reg’s that will be ignored. The only way to protect the legitimate system is to make an example of certain swamp denizens – send them to jail, make them suffer.
A comment posted to the article at The Federalist included this play hard-ball thought: To get hit with a lesser charge, like obstruction, they will have to cooperate to take down Comey. That’s how you get people to flip; hit them with the big charge — espionage — first, not last.
R Mall
