This is worse than Watergate really when you take into account the intent behind the abuse.
Only in Trumpland could a legally obtained warrant to conduct surveillance on a person suspected of being a foreign agent (in other words, exactly the sort of thing that our law enforcement should be doing) be considered worse than illegally wiretapping a political opponent. It's laughable, really.
First, before the release, it was played up by the Democrats and their media flunkies as a national security risk. Now that everyone has read it and it's more than clear that it isn't remotely one, they have turned the tables and are trying to pass it off as a nothingburger.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It could be a national security risk because of the information it contained and still have that information reveal no improper action. It should be pointed out that it was not just the Democrats that said it was a national security risk, but also the Director of the FBI and the Assistant Attorney General. At the very least, this has exposed that Carter Page was being surveilled. One might say that he should have known this anyway, but it remains true that alerting the subject of surveillance to that surveillance is considered a bad thing to do when one is trying to run an investigation.
They said it contained sources and methods that couldn't be released. They were lying.
One does not have to specifically name sources or methods to reveal sources or methods. Sometimes simply stating that you know something is enough for a foreign power to figure out where that information was obtained. While the memo does not on its face seem to reveal anything important, we don't know whether sources or other investigations were compromised as a result (other than Page's surveillance, of course).
They said it was materially altered. It was not.
In order for you to say this, you would have to be privy to the original memo to know what alterations were made. You aren't privy to that information, so this statement is completely and utterly unsubstantiated.
Hillary Clinton colluded with the DNC to rig the primaries in her favor.
This did not happen.
I have zero difficulty believing that she would also try to rig the general election in her favor with illicit practices and influence peddling.
If she were trying to use the FBI to rig the election, why would the FBI publicly reveal that they were reopening the investigation into her emails in late October? That makes absolutely zero sense. And it wasn't some rogue agent in the FBI who put that information out, it was Comey, the same Comey who the Cult of Orange claim was crooked. That claim is absolutely laughable.
The FBI is well-known to be professional, but also to have a conservative bias. There is no way that a scheme to fix an election for a Democrat could be kept secret. Yet we have no evidence of it. It's time to let that argument go. It it meritless.
6 senior officials at the DOJ and FBI were fired (including deputy director McCabe) or reassigned based on the facts from the memo.
Name them. Comey doesn't count, because we know Trump fired him because he wouldn't let the Russia investigation go (Trump said so himself). And you can't count McCabe, because you don't know why he was forced out.
Over the past year, zero evidence has come up that would support or even prove a Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Publicly, yes. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and is being kept close to the vest by Mueller and his team.
Meanwhile, in the same timeframe, tons of evidence on Clinton-DOJ/FBI collusion has come out, especially over the past month with the Strzok scandal.
There is no Strzok scandal. His text messages reveal little more than a guy who is into politics who wasn't particularly thrilled with either Trump or Clinton (or Sanders, for that matter). That puts him in the company of most of the country. Strzok also supported the reopening of the investigation into Clinton's emails, so if was was trying to help her he was going about it in a very weird way.
The FISA warrant against the Trump campaign was obtained by presenting raw, uncorroborated intelligence to the court.
Not true. It had been at least partially corroborated. This is according to the memo.
McCabe did in fact testify under oath that there would not have been a FISA warrant if not for the dossier. It was recorded. The democrats on the HPSCI, lead by leaker-in-chief Rep. Schiff, deny this
That would be a material alteration, would it not?
This means that the FBI under McCabe/Comey presented information that they knew was false to a federal court. Not only is that a disgrace, it's also a crime.
There is nothing in the memo to substantiate that. In the very best case for Nunes, the memo accuses the DOJ and FBI of presenting information to the FISA court that, despite being partially corroborated, nevertheless came from a supposedly biased source because they failed to disclose that the DNC was paying for it. As mentioned earlier, that would not be enough to stop the warrant from being issued (and multiple people are claiming the court was told), but let's dig a little deeper into those claims anyway. The memo never in fact states that the DOJ and FBI knew the DNC was paying for the memo. All the memo says is that the FBI knew the "political origins" of the Steele dossier. That's a marvelously non-specific term that could just as easily mean "a political research and consultancy firm" (which Fusion GPS is) as it could "the DNC". Later on it claims that the DOJ knew that "political actors were involved", but this too is remarkably non-specific, and could even refer to John McCain, who passed the dossier to the FBI. In a memo trying to tie the DNC to the Steele dossier, one would think that if there was evidence the FBI and DOJ knew the DNC was behind it, the memo would say so. But it doesn't. The memo also suggests that Steele should not have been used as a source because he lied to the FBI, but immediately afterward admits that Steele concealed his contacts from the FBI, so the FBI would have no reason not to use him as a source based on what they knew at the time. There is absolutely nothing incriminating there.
I get that you want to tear down the law enforcement system of the country to protect Donald Trump, but that's how authoritarian regimes do things, not free and democratic governments. Even Representative Gowdy thinks that there would be a Russia investigation without the dossier, and he's certainly no fan of Clinton. It's time to come back to reality and admit that if this memo is the best offense that the Republicans can mount against law enforcement, their argument is very weak indeed.