| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:18 Danglars wrote: Is there a bet that when it's verified, Democrats say they always suspected the FBI acted improperly and needs reforms? Sure, we can do both! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:13 Danglars wrote: I like how Plansix keeps repeating things that don't impact my claims. I don't care if they got seven FISA warrants on members of the Trump campaign. I care if Democrat research was improperly used for one. It exposes (or is rumored to expose) surveillance abuses in the system. And nothing some Hillary shill says changes that fact. Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
What should we place on odds? Is it a ban bet? Paypal someone something? Who gets to be the ref? (It 100% should be GH) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote: Evidence is evidence. It doesn’t have a political party. If it was gathered through improper means or violates the civil liberties of the Defendant, that defense can be raised by their attorney. The FBI behaved improperly, the Judge can assess that and tell congress if the Judge thinks it is worthy of their time. If your goal is to get political bias out of the FBI and Justice Department, this memo isn’t how you do it. This is how you inject more political bias into the FBI and Justice department, because they can’t defend themselves or even correct the record. You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote: You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. I'm not sure if they're actually allowed to "correct the record" to Nunes if they believe Nunes is in any way compromised or connected to their investigation of the Trump campaign/transition team. Which he kind of is as a member of the Trump transition team. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
1. FBI has been wiretapping Trump 2. Turns out the FBI had been actively monitoring people for a long time with connections to Trump 3. Turns out the FBI wiretapped Trump tower because the people who were already being monitored suddenly started chilling at Trump tower 4. "See? Told you the FBI has been wiretapping Trump". It's politicized No, the issue is that Trump began associating with known shitbags. Many people walked away from the Trump tower thing with confirmation the FBI is partisan. That's super wrong. | ||
|
brian
United States9644 Posts
interesting line of attack on that one. pelosi memo is not unexpected but not hopeful. Regardless of Nunes’ lack of credibility, let him be voted out. you don’t get down in the mud. the capitol building is just a reality tv show at this point. it used to be dignified. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
And finally on the changes: | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
As is the change requested by the FBI which is obviously a meaningful change. On February 02 2018 01:36 brian wrote: breaking news: fbi doesn’t release classified information. interesting line of attack on that one. pelosi memo is not unexpected but not hopeful. Regardless of Nunes’ lack of credibility, let him be voted out. you don’t get down in the mud. the capitol building is just a reality tv show at this point. it used to be dignified. I mean, she's not asking him to resign, she's asking Ryan to make him not chair of the committee anymore. It's not like anyone besides Paul Ryan decided he would be. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm not sure if they're actually allowed to "correct the record" to Nunes if they believe Nunes is in any way compromised or connected to their investigation of the Trump campaign/transition team. Which he kind of is as a member of the Trump transition team. Nunes is one man on an intelligence committee. It is within the FBI's/DOJ's power to write a letter to the committee members in response to the multiple subpoenas and document requests noting their concerns with member/members of the committee under investigation for being compromised by Russians. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:41 Danglars wrote: Nunes is one man on an intelligence committee. It is within the FBI's/DOJ's power to write a letter to the committee members in response to the multiple subpoenas and document requests noting their concerns with member/members of the committee under investigation for being compromised by Russians. ...Which Nunes would never be allowed to read, and so he would view the committee as stonewalling. Hence why his memo is pointless and misleading if there's even the slightest chance anything is being withheld from him in the investigation. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:39 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/958920596276105216 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/958921390459097089 And finally on the changes: https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/958922506685083653 "Clarifying" can mean six trillion different things in a hyper partisan environment like ours. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:44 TheTenthDoc wrote: ...Which Nunes would never be allowed to read, and so he would view the committee as stonewalling. Hence why his memo is pointless and misleading if there's even the slightest chance anything is being withheld from him in the investigation. He hasn't accused the committee of stonewalling (the minority presence of Democrats have repeatedly voted against actions taken by the majority). You're off assuming that the FBI could tell the committee some of its members are under investigation for compromise by Russians, and nobody would vote different or refer the matter to a second select committee. When really, that's exactly how the FBI/DOJ could do it if their concerns were as you stated. There's absolutely no reason to think that the memo is pointless and misleading for those concerns. The FBI would be great idiots to not point that out to committee members. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:45 Mohdoo wrote: "Clarifying" can mean six trillion different things in a hyper partisan environment like ours. Which is why I included the last tweet: They can just take another vote Monday. Or simply release it after seeing the changes don't really need a vote. | ||
|
brian
United States9644 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:41 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think having an unknown number of "grammatical and clarifying" fixes is a pretty big red flag, but that's just because I would never submit a paper to a journal after a coauthor did that without my review. As is the change requested by the FBI which is obviously a meaningful change. I mean, she's not asking him to resign, she's asking Ryan to make him not chair of the committee anymore. It's not like anyone besides Paul Ryan decided he would be. i get that. there’s a dignified way to do that, and you made it like ok so easy. Why couldn’t Nancy Pelosi? It’s no better than half the posts in this thread, except it’s on official congress letterhead. everyone’s aware of the going’s on. a quick two paragraph ‘devins been behaving poorly and making this institution look bad and we request his removal from chair effective immediately’ serves. i guess maybe i’m reading too much into it but i feel like pretending there’s some dignity to the offices of our government would be a pleasant reminder of what life pre-trump was like. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote: You're missing the part where Congress has oversight of Federal agencies. I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but having the justice department be the sole investigator ("the Judge") of a division of the justice department makes zero sense. They had the chance to correct the record when they could've been forthcoming with subpoena'd information from the start. They chose months and months of refusals, outright ignoring requests, and delays. Sorry. It's just rich hearing that an agency that is rebelling against oversight is suddenly concerned that the oversight is publishing something with omissions. They've shown zero interest in correcting the record for almost a year, relying instead on trying to make the record never see the light of day. Only an ignorant fool sees this as anything other than a last minute about-face. Congress has oversight, not Nunes all on his own. If they have a problem with the way the FBI is operating, all of congress, house or senate, can agree to hold hearings and discuss the matter. That is not happening. Just because groups/people are empowered to do things does not make their actions justified automatically. Power can be abused. Business owners are empowered to fire employees. That does not mean that a business owner is justified in firing an employee for refusing sexual advances. Nunes’s actions are not self justifying simply because he exists in congress. And the FBI is NOT ALLOWED TO CORRECT THE RECORD PUBLICLY. Just like Judges cannot respond publicly to attacks on them. Nunes can claim he didn’t receive all the information he wanted and the FBI cannot say anything beyond “We complied with the request.” | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 02 2018 01:53 Danglars wrote: Which is why I included the last tweet: They can just take another vote Monday. Or simply release it after seeing the changes don't really need a vote. That is still subject to partisan judgment. The idea of "Is this change significant? naaaa, just clarrrifyyyyinnngg" seems super straight forward and easy. This is still going through judgment of wording and what that change means. Who decides what is significant or not? | ||
| ||
|
|
GSL
Epic.LAN
Big Brain Bouts
OSC
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Epic.LAN
IPSL
eOnzErG vs McRibbed
LancerX vs StRyKeR
AI Arena Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
