http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180205/106838/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180205.pdf
I read the above transcript.
I think there are clear differences between the “processes” that took place in the memo’s being declassified.
I think it’s troubling that the committee members were not given the opportunity to read the FISA documents before voting on the Nunes memo. I don’t know how members were supposed to make an informed decision about the legitimacy of the memo’s claims without that opportunity.
I think the members do a pretty clear job of revealing (without revealing) that there was nothing in the Dem memo that states the court was notified that Democratic specific sources funded the dossier. Although, a certain portion of the memo is referenced in relation to the court not being misled, it’s clear Clinton’s name or the DNC were not specifically addressed.
I have concerns about why attempts to determine if Cohen’s trip to Prague took place were blocked by the committee. How can we simply take the testimony of those listed in the dossier as confirmation that the dossier claims are false? I understand that to subpoena bank, credit card, and other personal financial records are a dangerous act by our government when one is not being directly investigated for a crime, but going off the person’s testimony alone?
The main issue that concerns me is the clear partisan bickering in this committee meeting. The back and forth obviously (from both sides) seems to get the record to reflect each side’s political stance on the issue at hand. It’s extremely sad that a committee as vital as this, investigating an issue as serious as this, breaks along party lines and allows their charge to become almost solely political. I hope they conduct themselves differently behind closed doors.
My lone conclusion after reading, we need term limits. We need to stop the constant flow of partisan influence over our representatives actions.
I read the above transcript.
I think there are clear differences between the “processes” that took place in the memo’s being declassified.
I think it’s troubling that the committee members were not given the opportunity to read the FISA documents before voting on the Nunes memo. I don’t know how members were supposed to make an informed decision about the legitimacy of the memo’s claims without that opportunity.
I think the members do a pretty clear job of revealing (without revealing) that there was nothing in the Dem memo that states the court was notified that Democratic specific sources funded the dossier. Although, a certain portion of the memo is referenced in relation to the court not being misled, it’s clear Clinton’s name or the DNC were not specifically addressed.
I have concerns about why attempts to determine if Cohen’s trip to Prague took place were blocked by the committee. How can we simply take the testimony of those listed in the dossier as confirmation that the dossier claims are false? I understand that to subpoena bank, credit card, and other personal financial records are a dangerous act by our government when one is not being directly investigated for a crime, but going off the person’s testimony alone?
The main issue that concerns me is the clear partisan bickering in this committee meeting. The back and forth obviously (from both sides) seems to get the record to reflect each side’s political stance on the issue at hand. It’s extremely sad that a committee as vital as this, investigating an issue as serious as this, breaks along party lines and allows their charge to become almost solely political. I hope they conduct themselves differently behind closed doors.
My lone conclusion after reading, we need term limits. We need to stop the constant flow of partisan influence over our representatives actions.
