3984 Deep State "Release The Memo" Damage Control | True News
After country-wide calls to "Release The Memo" the Deep State and political establishment are in full panic mode. Stefan Molyneux breaks down the manipulative framing and sophistic tricks the mainstream media is using to dismiss "the memo" prior to it's release.Article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-memo/fbi-expresses-grave-concerns-over-republican-memos-accuracy-idUSKBN1FK25PYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hey everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux. Hope you're doing well.
Let's do a deep dive into the foggy, misdirecting heart of propaganda and have a look at how the mainstream media is framing the imminent release, it seems to be tomorrow, of this memo regarding...
What seemed to be FBI abuses of the FISA court program in order to be able to spy upon Donald Trump's campaign during the election year.
Serious, serious stuff.
This is illegal stuff.
It is 10 years in prison kind of stuff, some of this.
So, the question for the mainstream media, overwhelmingly leftist, of course, is how are we going to frame this so that people can reject the contents of the memo, if it is what people think?
How can we frame it so that people will reject it?
So, let's have a look at a Reuters article so that you can get used to detailing and unpacking this kind of propaganda.
It's really fascinating, fascinating stuff.
So, the Reuters article, I'll put a link to it below.
It just came out shortly this morning.
It goes like this.
FBI expresses grave concerns over Republican memos' accuracy.
Now that is a beautiful article just to get you pumped and primed to reject it.
So let's just unpack it.
So, FBI expresses grave concerns.
Grave concerns is a serious, measured, wise phrase.
FBI expresses grave concerns over Republican memos' accuracy.
So, you want to frame the memo as being the product of the Republicans rather than any kind of factual document whatsoever.
And, of course, you want to refer to it as a memo.
If made-up stuff, which is paid for by an ex-British spy from shady Russian operatives who are selling fantasy for money, that Russiagate, that's a dossier.
See, dossier sounds really, really serious and spy-like and important and verified, whereas a memo, well, you know, it's just something that people wrote down.
So FBI, first of all, You put FBI at the front because people on the left have been using, of course, the FBI as a way of validating the claims against Donald Trump that are made, the Russia collusion stuff and all of that.
A lot of this information, of course, came from the FBI. And so the FBI on the left has been elevated as part of the general wrecking ball being used against the Trump presidency.
So the FBI has massive, sudden, astonishing levels of credibility with the left and So you start with FBI, expresses, which means they're just saying, you know, the people who say, I'm just saying, grave concerns over Republican memos' accuracy, right?
So that's a fascinating way because you want to sow the doubt, you want to elevate the FBI, you want to use the wise phrase grave concerns, and you want to make sure that the memo is firmly implanted.
In the Republican side of things so that people can dismiss it in a partisan way.
So, Washington Reuters.
The FBI said on Wednesday it had grave concerns about the accuracy of a top-secret House Intelligence Committee memo.
Hmm. Hmm.
Okay, so we do the grave concerns thing.
A top-secret House Intelligence Committee memo.
See, you want to say that it's top-secret.
Because that way, you're framing it so that if it's released, then you can say, well, it was top secret, so releasing it violates classified information.
Remember how upset? They'll say, remember how upset the Republicans were about Hillary doing her thing with Hillary?
The classified information on her own server is top secret, which means it shouldn't be released, right?
See, if it is released, you can say, well, it violates secrecy laws or secrecy protocols.
If it's not released, you can say, well, it was top secret.
So again, you want to say top secret here just to frame it all.
House Intelligence Committee memo alleging anti-Trump bias within the Justice Department.
Hmm. Alleging anti-Trump bias within the Justice Department.
Now, that's a fascinating way to put it.
If the contents of this memo are what is expected, what has been talked about, then enormously serious crimes have been committed by people in the FBI and potentially, of course, people in the Justice Department.
And we're talking like 10 years in prison stuff.
Because they have used unverified information and possibly falsified FISA court applications in order to be able to wiretap A presidential campaign during an election year.
That is astonishing stuff.
Breaking the vestige of the Republic, Third World, Banana Republic-style corruption.
But you see, it's just anti-Trump bias, right?
Anti-Trump bias within the Justice Department.
That is not, of course, anywhere close to the content of what seems to be the case in the document.
So, again, totally downplaying it.
And of course, none of this makes any sense.
So, if it's just anti-Trump bias, well, you're allowed to have anti-Trump bias in the Justice Department, of course.
Of course, that's freedom of speech, that's freedom of conscience, you're allowed to support whatever political party that you want.
So, anti-Trump bias is perfectly legal in the Justice Department.
And so, if the memo Is only alleging anti-Trump bias within the Justice Department, then how on earth can it be top secret?
And how on earth can the FBI have grave concerns over alleged anti-Trump bias within the Justice Department?
It makes no sense whatsoever, but it's just designed to plant particular perimeter mines around any encroachment of the explosive information that, doubtless, is going to be contained in this memo when it's released tomorrow.
And so they challenged President Donald Trump's pledge to release it.
Now that is astonishing.
Again, we're just in the first, like, 30 or 40 words of the article, and none of it makes any kind of sense.
But it will make sense.
I'll sort of say why in a few minutes.
And then they say, but a few hours after the rare public rebuke by the top U.S. law enforcement agency, a Trump administration official said the memo was likely to be released on Thursday.
Now this is amazing.
So they have grave concerns.
It's top secret.
It's only about anti-Trump bias.
It's nothing serious.
They're challenging President Donald Trump's pledge to release it.
And then they say, but a few hours after the rare public rebuke, rare public rebuke by the top U.S. law enforcement agency, Ooh, they're really, really pumping up the credentials here.
It's rare for them to say anything.
They must be really upset.
It must be really bad what Donald Trump is planning on doing.
But the top U.S. law enforcement agency, boom!
Boom! A Trump administration official said the memo was likely to be released on Thursday.
So even though the FBI is saying, eh, don't release it, it's problematic, it's inaccurate, it's top secret, we have grave concerns, but the crazy people in the Trumpet, they're not listening.
They're just going to release it anyway.
This is terrible.
And again, what have we seen here in the article so far?
We have seen only, we have only seen The FBI's view.
The FBI's view is all that is seen.
Now, just in case you have any doubt about that, what's the next thing in the article?
It's an FBI statement.
So the FBI said this.
The FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it.
As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of facts that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy.
Interesting. So they're only providing the FBI's view after pumping it up as the top US law enforcement agency producing a rare, public, rare public rebuke.
It's very rare. And material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy.
So they're not saying the memo is wrong, right?
Every memo is going to have omissions of fact.
Of course. I mean, when you're dealing with two entire agencies, both of which, of course, report to the president, there's, of course, going to be omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy.
I don't know what that means, to fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy.
It's a kind of meaningless thing.
They're not saying it's wrong. They're not saying it's false.
They're not saying the information is inaccurate.
They're just saying there's emissions of fact that fundamentally impact the minimum accuracy.
It's a lot of weasel words there.
I don't really know what any of that means.
And of course, that's the point, right?
So then they go on to say, the article goes on to say, the FBI declined to say if Director Christopher Wray, who viewed the memo during the weekend, approved the statement.
Trump named Wray to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation after firing Director James Comey last May.
Now, I think this is just a way of bringing back in that Trump fired James Comey, which of course, well, you know, this is the big story is that James Comey was going to investigate or was investigating and Trump fired him because he was getting close or was going to get close or something like that.
So it says here, the memo has become a lightning rod in a partisan fight over investigations into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US election and possible collusion by Trump's campaign, which both Russia and Trump, sorry, which Russia and Trump have both denied.
A lightning rod in a partisan fight.
Ah, you see?
No facts. It's just a partisan fight.
It's bickering. It's he said, she said.
It's the Bickertons on steroids.
It's a lightning rod in a partisan fight.
Is it true? Is it false?
What are the actual alleged contents of the memo?
You could be detailing those.
But you don't. You're just saying, well, you know, people are just grabbing at it in a partisan fight, which again, it's saying that it is a weapon for Republicans to use to get out of being investigated about possible Trump-Russia collusions.
You're just making it subjective.
You're making it emotional.
No facts here.
They're going to say, Justice Department officials have also said releasing the memo could jeopardize classified information.
Yes, yes, I remember how upset the Justice Department was about jeopardizing classified information when dozens of classified documents were found on Uma Aberdeen's computer.
I remember them being very upset when Hillary Clinton had many, many highest level sometimes security violation documents on her homebrewed email server.
I remember them really being upset about that and, well, letting her off completely fundamentally, which seems to have been a foregone conclusion after the FBI said she wasn't going to be prosecuted, which is not really their job anyway.
So, and also, Justice Department officials.
This is sort of on the hazy edge of what I know, so I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.
I don't know that Justice Department officials have a lot of really high security clearance.
So how would they know whether or not classified information could be jeopardized if they don't have a huge amount of security clearance?
I mean, it's the Justice Department.
I don't know why they would need a huge amount of security clearance.
Maybe they do. It just seems kind of odd to me.
So Representative Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee's Republican, he's got to say Republican, Republican chairman, who commissioned the document, dismissed the FBI and Justice Department objections to its release as spurious in a statement on Wednesday.
So he just, he dismissed.
Now, dismissed is one of these words that you have legitimate complaints, but you're just being dismissed.
And it's a way of positioning, of course, FBI and Justice Department as superior and Nunes as inferior, and he's just dismissing it.
That dismissed is a very, very important word when it comes to setting up a hierarchy.
And then goes on to say, although White House Press Secretary Sarah Sandra said on Wednesday that Trump had not yet read the document, the president told lawmakers after his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night that there was a 100% chance the memo would be released.
Right. And so? And so, what does it mean?
But what they're saying, of course, is that Trump hasn't even read it, but he's going to release it.
And so, he's committed to, unlike Obama, who committed to transparency and then didn't really pursue that very much, he's going to release it.
So, again, it just makes Trump look, you know, reckless.
Well, he hasn't even read it, but he's going to release it and so on.
And Again, not...
It's just trying to frame it and trying to make sure that people are primed to reject it.
Goes on to say, a White House official said the four-page document was delivered to the White House on Monday after the Republican-dominated committee voted to release it.
Ooh, you see? You've got to say Republican-dominated committee voted to release it so that you're priming people to be negative towards it because it's Republican, you see.
Administration lawyers were working against the Friday deadline to determine if any of it should be redacted to protect national security, the official said.
Late on Wednesday, Representative Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, said he had discovered Nunes had sent a version of the Republican memo to the White House that was materially altered and thus was not what was approved for release by the committee's vote.
Well, all right. I mean, what that means, I don't know.
A spokesman for Nunes called it an increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication and described the changes as minor, including two edits requested by the FBI and committee Democrats.
That's very interesting, right?
Materially altered. And was not what was approved for release.
So, see, it's really, really important that the FBI and the DOJ have feedback on this memo.
It's really important to listen to them.
But there are two edits requested by the FBI and committee Democrats.
But that makes it less valid.
Again, it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
Republicans who blocked an effort to release a counterpoint memo by the panel's Democrats...
Say their document exposes anti-Trump bias by the FBI and the Justice Department in seeking a warrant to conduct an eavesdropping operation.
Ah! Now you see, I guess they have to include it, otherwise it's too obvious, but they've got to drop it way down.
And again, they're talking about anti-Trump bias by the FBI and the Justice Department in seeking a warrant to conduct an eavesdropping operation.
Now, again, anti-Trump bias has nothing to do with seeking a warrant to conduct an eavesdropping operation.
You can obey the law, you can go through the proper channels to get your FISA warrant, and you can have all the anti-Trump bias that you want.
But if the anti-Trump bias...
Does not lead you to break the law, to materially alter the FISA requirement, and to perhaps talk about the contents of the Russian dossier as being more valid than you've been able to establish if you falsify, if you lie, right?
This is all very, very big stuff if this is what's going on.
But again, anti-Trump bias in seeking a warrant, again, the bias has nothing to do with it.
Nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The question is, Were there abuses of the FISA court system in order to get eavesdropping operation on the Trump campaign or one or more of its members during an election cycle?
Anti-Trump bias has nothing to do with it.
But by repeating anti-Trump bias, they're attempting to hook into the brain chemistry of the people who already have anti-Trump bias and saying, well, what's wrong with having anti-Trump bias?
It goes on to say, Democrats say the memo selectively uses highly classified materials in a misleading effort to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Justice Department's Russia probe and Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, who hired him. Okay, so this is very important as well.
Democrats say, have you talked to any Republicans?
Have you reported on what the Republicans have said is in, or hinted at, is in the Now, you're going to FBI, DOJ, Democrats, and all that.
And every time the Republicans dismiss, the Republicans block, right?
They sound obstructionist. They sound superior.
Democrats say, this article says, the memo selectively uses highly classified materials in a misleading effort to discredit.
Ooh, Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Very, very compressed here.
So, selectively uses...
That's like selectively edits, you know, like the charge of Project Veritas, right?
It's nonsense. Selectively uses highly classified materials in a misleading effort to discredit.
Special counsel Robert Mueller.
Ah, excellent.
Selectively uses highly classified materials.
Sounds really bad. It's cherry-picking highly classified in a misleading effort to discredit.
Now, this, of course, I believe, is our opinion of...
The writer of the article. Now, if you have a strong anti-Trump bias and a pro-Democrat bias, you will only quote what the Democrats say about this.
You will not quote what the Republicans say about it at all, right?
So this is a way of just showing the bias of the way that this sort of stuff is written.
It's a misleading effort to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Justice Department Russia probe, right?
Again, any facts, any contents?
No, it's just what people are saying about it, and it's all emotions.
In an opinion piece, the article says, published on Wednesday in the Washington Post, Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee's senior Democrat, said the Republican memo was intended to set the stage for Trump to fire Mueller or Rosenstein.
Four sources familiar with the memo told Reuters it accused the FBI and Justice Department of misleading a foreign intelligence surveillance court judge in seeking an extension in March 2017 of a warrant for a secret eavesdropping operation against Carter Page and an advisor to Trump's 2016 campaign.
Right, so here again, you've got to get the facts in, but you want to wrap it all in a whole bunch of emotional bias.
The Republican memo was intended to set the stage for Trump to fire Mueller or Rosenstein.
Again, you want to prime people for this.
Because the story on the left is that, you know, Mueller and or Rosenstein, they're getting close to revealing the Trump-Russia collusion, so Trump has to fire him in a desperate attempt to stave off justice, and, right, this is the way that it works.
So, again, no facts.
It's an opinion piece, and again, all you're doing is quoting the Democrats.
You're not quoting any of the Republicans or any of the other information that's been put forward.
So, here we go.
Four sources familiar with the memo told Reuters it accused the FBI and Justice Department of misleading a foreign intelligence surveillance court judge in seeking an extension in March 2017 of a warrant for a secret eavesdropping operation against Carter Page, an advisor to Trump's 2016 campaign.
So, it accused the FBI and Justice Department of misleading a judge.
Misleading. Huh.
Now, if they lied to a judge, if they misrepresented stuff, that's not just a case of misleading.
As far as I understand it, again, I'm no lawyer.
It's just what I've read. As far as I understand it, that's an unbelievably serious violation of the law.
I've heard 10 years in prison kind of stuff.
But you see, they're just misleading.
Just misleading it in seeking an extension of a warrant for a secret eavesdropping operation.
Eavesdropping is interesting, too.
Wiretapping sounds bad.
Eavesdropping just sounds like you're listening in.
Again, it's one of these words kind of minimized.
And using the word misleading, as opposed to materially misrepresenting, manipulating the judge in order to pursue a political agenda, misusing the awesome power of communications interceptions that the government has as a result of the war on terror.
And again, so they've got some of the facts in here.
But very, very much minimizing the language.
Testifying in November before the House of Representatives and Intelligence Committee, Page said he met with Russian government officials during a July 2016 trip he took to Moscow while he was a foreign policy advisor to Trump's campaign.
He said he made the benign visit as a private citizen according to the interview transcript.
The memo contends that the FBI and Justice failed to tell the judge that the request was based on a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a research firm partially financed by the Democratic National Committee and Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, the sources said.
Just failed to tell the judge.
Materially withheld information that might interfere with the extension of the wiretapping warrant.
Failed to tell the judge the request was based...
So, I mean, you know all about this stuff.
They paid for a bunch of OPPO research that was unverified.
And that's important.
Right? So failing to tell the judge that this is unverified OPPO research...
It means that you want to get the wiretapping for political advantage.
It's a corruption of just about every idea behind information and intelligence gathering, and certainly corruption.
But, you know, after Lois Lerner and the 2012 presidential election, which, in my mind, was just utterly stolen for Obama by the IRS refusing to grant charity status and demanding, sometimes, lists of people from Republican-leading organizations, It was completely swung the election.
I mean, the fact that the Democrats might do something like this.
Shock me again, Mr. Monkey.
So this goes on to say, the sources said the memo was misleading because all the dossier excerpts used in the application had been confirmed by U.S. or allied intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, said the sources, the application was based largely on material collected and verified by U.S. intelligence.
you understand, this is how it's going to be spun.
And again, until the memo comes out, we don't know if it's spin or fact or whatever.
But, so what they're saying is, well, they didn't tell the judge that the request was based on this dossier, but all the dossier excerpts were confirmed by U.S. or Allied Intelligence.
So, We'll find out what happens.
So, I think we can see how this is going to go, and it's fascinating stuff.
It's fascinating stuff. If you're on the Democrat side of things, then all of this seems entirely reasonable.
The FBI and the Justice Department are honorable, and they may not have told the judge where some of this information came from, but the information had been independently verified.
Now, my knowledge of the matter is that the dossier has not been verified.
And if everything was independently verified, I'd like to see the data on that because that's not my understanding.
So I hope that this helps you sort of understand just how the language works.
It's important to read this stuff because when you're talking to people, when you're trying to convince people about what's going on with the memo, it is important to know how they've been primed to view it.
So they've been primed to view it as this was a legitimate wiretapping operation based upon verified information.
And the only thing they did was, although the information had been verified, they didn't talk about the fact that it came from this Russian dossier.
So it's going to seem like a technicality.
It's going to seem like an oob submission.
And this is how it's going to be spun.
And then, of course, they say, well, if there's a big blow-up, About this memo that comes out.
It's all a kabuki theater.
It's all an act. It's all nonsense.
And it's just designed to give Trump the excuse to fire.
Mueller and or Rosenstein or anything like that.
And just as a way of avoiding them closing the net in on this Russia collusion stuff.
So this is where a lot of people are coming from.
And this is the kind of stuff that's going out in the mainstream media.
I think it's really, really important.
To know if you want to talk to people, you know, outside the echo chamber, which I hope you do, about this stuff.
It's important to know where it's coming from and what's going on.
So I hope this helps. Please don't forget to help out the show.
If you find this information valuable and useful, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Have yourself a great day. I guess I'll be talking to you tomorrow.
