Thread by @EdMorrissey

Be sure to read @allahpundit's excellent ongoing analysis of The Memo. I'm off today nursing a sore jaw, but here are a few of my thoughts about the memo (thread):

hotair.com/archives/2018/…

(A) Most of what's in this memo has been either leaked prior to this or assumed, including the revelation that the FISA warrant relied in part on the Steele dossier. However, the memo makes clear that the Russia-collusion probe started well before that, with Papadopoulos.

(B) Despite all of the hysterics about the release of this memo, there seems to be little or no revelation about sources and methods in it. One has to wonder why these four pages were considered "Top Secret" in the first place. If it's Steele, that cat was out of the bag already.

(C) That being said, the FBI's withholding of their own relationship to Steele, and his relationship to the DNC and the Clinton campaign, looks like deliberate malfeasance, assuming that Nunes' conclusions are correct here.

(D) It raises one of the big concerns about FISA warrants, which is the lack of oversight and scrutiny they get. It seems the hysteria over this memo's classification was a good example of where that lack of scrutiny can take us.

(E) This also points out something that @AndrewCMcCarthy has stressed all along -- this was a counterintel operation, not a criminal probe. So far, we've not seen any evidence that it produced evidence of criminal activity.

(F) None of this really relates to the Mueller probe, which is springboarding off of that counterintel operation, except to the extent it relies on the Steele dossier ... which one assumes will not play much of a role, especially now.

(G) Before this, I was saying that we need to see the Dem response and the underlying intelligence to properly assess the Nunes memo. I think that's still the case, especially where Nunes asserts his own analysis re Page, Papadopoulos, and their connections or lack thereof.

(H) In the end, the memo is still a partisan political document that may or may not present all of the facts, put them in their full context, or present conclusions supported by the full weight of evidence.

That doesn't make it wrong, or right either. We need more data.

(I) IOW, we don't really have enough to reach conclusions, but we have more reasons to demand answers. IF Nunes is accurate - and that's still a big IF - then we have to ask whether it's appropriate for the FBI to initiate surveillance on political figures based on oppo research.

That's it for now, but again, be sure to read @allahpundit's ongoing analysis at Hot Air, and I'll get back to icing my jaw. ;-)

hotair.com/archives/2018/…