Posted on 01/31/2018 9:51:05 AM PST by GIdget2004
In a rare public statement on Wednesday, the FBI said that it has "grave concerns" about a Republican-crafted memo alleging corrosive abuse of U.S. surveillance powers by the Justice Department that is expected to be released in the coming days.
"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the bureau said.
"As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
This thing has been seen, reviewed, discussed by unknown number of professionals, including the Director of the FBI.
Just WHO is making the complaint and
Just WHAT are the problems with it.
This is nonsense created by people who are rightfully scared. We should DEMAND to know what the problems are.
We know Shiff has problems with it. Is he the one complaining?
Take a chill pill dude.
Criminey, it's only been two or three hours. And the false attribution is only an issue when it becomes widespread. If just some dickweed blooger like HuffPo was running this, and nobody else, then there's no issue.
I think it took Rosenstein a day to rebut the fiction pushed by the NYT.
There is also a point of allowing the press an opportunity to hang itself. They can seek confirmation on their own, and as far as i can tell, didn't.
Wasn’t it just yesterday that two ‘senior officials’ at the FBI said there was ‘nothing factually inaccurate’ in the memo?
Watch for more silly semantic games.
The Deep State needs to be eradicated.
Just to clarify—the ‘two lovers’, you meant Strzok and Page, right? Not Comey and Mueller?
I thought the FBI didn’t make public statements about pending investigations (see: Trump Dossier)
This says there were omissions - so all the facts that appear in the memo could be true, but obviously the FBI wants us to believe that there exist “material omissions” that would put the facts in a whole different light.
I doubt it, but at the same time, I now doubt that this memo will ever be released. They made an end run and it worked.
When the memo is released these FBI “sources” will have ample opportunity to refute and correct it as long as they provide evidence to back up their claims.
Personally I believe this is fake news intended to cast doubt on the memo before it is released.
Step back and think about these people:
1. Jeff Sessions (last summer)
2. Rod Rosenstein (last week)
3. Robert Mueller (multiple times)
4. Christopher Wray (today)
What do they all have in common?
They were all the subjects of articles in the New York Times -- many of them based on "unnamed sources" -- where they were presented in some adversarial manner against President Trump.
It's obvious to me what is going on here. The New York Times knows that the whole "Russian collusion" narrative was a fraud, so the only way to damage President Trump is through a manufactured crisis along the lines of the Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre." that would be covered in the media as an obstruction of justice case.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NEVER TAKEN THE BAIT.
‘Grave’ concerns and Nunes in the same sentence? Odd choice of words.
I certainly hope you are correct.
The dirty cops have grave concerns the memo will reveal them to be extraordinarily dirty.
Release the memo NOW!!!!
When someone claiming to be an FBI representative sends a “public statement” to the New York Times and the CIA propaganda outlet Washington Post, you can be sure it is done for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous `officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country - let alone the branch or agency of government - with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations."
Looking back on posts, etc. to see exactly what triggered that, I ran into this:
See too, Schumer saying Rosenstein would have to recuse if Mueller was looking into obstruction by firing of Comey.
Now, that's me talking, but I know I directly viewed a source for Schumer asserting that. Now that "Trump obstruction" is making the rounds, might be a good time to rub schumer's nose in his past position.
"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous `officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country - let alone the branch or agency of government - with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations."
Looking back on posts, etc. to see exactly what triggered that, I ran into this:
See too, Schumer saying Rosenstein would have to recuse if Mueller was looking into obstruction by firing of Comey.
Now, that's me talking, but I know I directly viewed a source for Schumer asserting that. Now that "Trump obstruction" is making the rounds, might be a good time to rub schumer's nose in his past position.
Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Donald Trump for possible obstruction of justice officials say - The Washington Post - June 14
As for Rosenstein having to recuse from investigation into firing of Comey being obstruction, that is pretty obvious in hindsight, given Rosenstein wrote the "Comey ought to be fired" memo. I'm sure Schumer had something to say about that.
See Will Rosenstein recuse in Trump-Russia probe? - POLITICO - 05/31/2017
If Mueller decides to explore whether Comey's firing was part of an effort or scheme to obstruct justice, Rosenstein might be called in as someone with first-hand knowledge material to the probe."If the investigation encompasses Comey's firing, it would seem Rosenstein was involved in that and he'd be a witness," said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a prominent expert on government ethics rules. "If it is the case that the investigation reaches the dismissal of Comey, then I think it would be inappropriate for Rosenstein to have any substantive involvement in the investigation other than as a witness."
Pretty funny. In May, Rosenstein was disqualified from overseeing even Mueller investigation into Trump obstruction via firing Comey, and today the press is all atwitter about making sure Rosenstein is allowed to assume that role.
Monolith or cenotaph?
Didn’t reviewers from the FBI already say it had no inaccuracies? Feel free to add facts in an addendum after it’s release.
So who is lying? The FBI officials who reviewed it say it is accurate, other unknwn FBI sources say it is not accurate. Who wears the white hat?
#ReleaseTheMemo, #IamNotaRussianBot, #MeMoToo, #SchiffOrGetOffThePot, #AntiTrumpersAreFullOfSchiff
The memo will be released. Fear not. President Trump will release it himself if the Intel Committee doesn’t.
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.