10 Actual Very Smart People Who Might Even Be Very Stable Geniuses Explaining Why the Nunes Memo Is a Joke
‘This Is a Complete Sham’
The highly controversial Nunes memo that was supposed to discredit the FBI and, in the words of Fox News host Sean Hannity, reveal a scandal that “will make Watergate look like a parking ticket,” is looking like not even a parking ticket.
It’s a dud.
Before its release GOP Congressman Steve King of Iowa ludicrously insisted the memo is “worse than Watergate” and suggested it would take down former President Barack Obama:
.@SteveKingIA on FISA memo: “It’s earth-shaking, it’s worse than Watergate and the only thing that we don’t know yet is whether does this lead all the way to a president of the United States.” #Tucker pic.twitter.com/CT03eVnPjn
— Fox News (@FoxNews) February 2, 2018
You can read the four-page memo here, but since most people are not attorneys, much less experts in intelligence gathering or prosecutions, it’s probably a good idea to see what actual experts who are, in fact, “like, really smart,” and possibly even “very stable geniuses,” to see what they think.
Fortunately, there are such people who have already weighed in on the Nunes memo. Here’s what some of them have to say.
President, Council on Foreign Relations:
The memo is largely devoted to discrediting the decision to monitor Carter Page because some percentage of the intelligence came from a source deemed to be prejudiced. The memo fails to discredit the substance of the case or deal with other justifications for monitoring Page.
— Richard N. Haass (@RichardHaass) February 2, 2018
Washington Post’s Fact Checker columnist:
So, according to memo, the FISA application confirmed to be late October, well after Carter Page left the Trump campaign. So presumably people will stop saying the FBI spied on the campaign?
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) February 2, 2018
Sr. Fellow at Brookings:
My reaction to #NunesMemo: THAT’S IT? Vast majority of this was already publicly known, memo itself omits that Fusion GPS started its work for Republicans, and NOTHING IN HERE MERITS CRITICISM OF ROSENSTEIN who is mentioned only once and in passing. This is a complete sham.
— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) February 2, 2018
Washington Post intelligence & national security correspondent:
Upon first read of the memo, crux of the critique is that the FISC wasn’t told Chris Steele was anti-Trump and that his work was paid for by DNC. For a thorough explanation of why that might not matter (legaly) when getting a warrant, see @OrinKerr here: https://t.co/dabxTjEMiX
— Shane Harris (@shaneharris) February 2, 2018
Democratic Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:
Unlike almost every House member who voted in favor of this memo’s release, I have actually read the underlying documents on which the #NunesMemo was based. They simply do not support its conclusions.
— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) February 2, 2018
Senior Writer at the (very right wing) National Review:
Here’s potentially the most important paragraph in the memo. It appears to confirm the NYT’s scoop — which was that the counterintelligence investigation began BEFORE the FISA applications against Page. Papadopoulos was already under investigation. Wow: pic.twitter.com/VadOFVYAUH
— David French (@DavidAFrench) February 2, 2018
New York Times reporter:
One implied argument of the memo is that information is less important than its provenance—and that only sources with no axe to grind can be relied on.
Which is just not how it works.— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 2, 2018
Staff Writer at The Atlantic:
Some things the Nunes Memo does not explain away:
1) The hack of DNC servers by 2 Russian intelligence agencies
2) George Papadopoulos’s contacts with the Russians
3) Michael Flynn’s negotiations with the Russian ambassador
4) the Trump Tower meeting
5) Firing Comey— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 2, 2018
Director of the Aspen Institute’s Cybersecurity & Technology Program:
It’s so bizarre to me that Trump so squandered the week of his State of the Union on this memo controversy. He can’t get out of his own way.
— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) February 2, 2018
Remember the Mueller probe is at least 5 different investigations: Obstruction, money laundering, info ops, DNC hacking, and staff collusion. This memo only touches, at most, that final thread—and it even wiffs at that thread.
— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) February 2, 2018
And this thread from a former federal prosecutor running to be Attorney General of Illinois:
2/ One piece of context that you need to have as you read the memo is that FISA warrants are approved by judges who read a whole lot of information that is presented to them with an application. They’re lengthy and contain a lot of evidence.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 2, 2018
4/ By way of background, FISA applications permit the government to listen to conversations of foreign agents. They’re reviewed by federal judges who are appointed to a special court that reviews those applications.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 2, 2018
6/ The argument being made in the memo is an argument that is often made by people who are wiretapped and want to challenge the warrant. They’re saying that the government omitted details that would have caused the judge not to sign the warrant.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 2, 2018
8/ Courts often deny challenges to warrants where the government presented information from a cooperator but didn’t mention important details like prior convictions that would impact their truthfulness. It’s really hard to imagine this detail impacting a court’s view of Steele.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 2, 2018
10/ Until we get more context, it’s impossible to evaluate just how legally irrelevant the arguments in the Nunes memo are. Perhaps the minority memo will provide some of that context. But I’d be surprised if the memo was more than a short-lived publicity stunt.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 2, 2018
12/ If true, it could be used by Mueller as evidence of Trump’s “corrupt” intent for purposes of his obstruction investigation. Trump is making a mistake by personally involving himself in the attack on Mueller and Rosenstein and sharing his strong feelings with others. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) February 2, 2018
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â

Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
![]() |