US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9820

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

On February 02 2018 01:45 Mohdoo wrote:


"Clarifying" can mean six trillion different things in a hyper partisan environment like ours.

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.

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.

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.