Advice on how to read with understanding, the Nunes Memo:

 In the  following post  (scroll down),  you have the memo and its 5 points.  The WSJ gives some advice on what to look for,  in the following bullet points. I would add one point:  Treat each of the 5 points independently.  And ask yourself,  "Do I believe that the actions described in point 1 or 2 or whichever,  to be honest and above board?  Do I see rank bias?  And why should I believe in an agency or its actions (against the President,  in this case),  when it plays so loosely with the rules?

• Rationale. Did the FBI have cause to open a full-blown counterintelligence probe into an active presidential campaign? That’s a breathtakingly consequential and unprecedented action and surely could not be justified without much more than an overheard drunken conversation or an unsourced dossier. What hard evidence did the FBI have?

• Tools and evidence. Government possesses few counterintelligence tools more powerful or frightening than the ability to spy on American citizens

 If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in itself is a monumental scandal. It means the FBI used a document commissioned by one presidential campaign as a justification to spy on another. Ignore any arguments that the dossier was not a “basis” for the warrant or only used “in part.”

If the FBI had to use it in its application, it means it didn’t have enough other evidence to justify surveillance.
Look to see what else the FBI presented to the court as a justification for monitoring, and whether it was manufactured. Mr. Steele and his client, Fusion GPS, ginned up breathless news stories about the dossier’s unverified accusations in September 2016 in order to influence the election. The FBI sometimes presents news articles to the court, but primarily for corroboration of other facts. If the FBI used the conspiracy stories Mr. Steele was spinning as actual justification—evidence—to the court, that’s out of bounds.