|
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. |
On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic.
The faithful knew the conclusion earlier in the week, and don't care that the evidence to reach it doesn't exist.
+ Show Spoiler +
I managed to predict the counter spin!
|
On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all.
Oversight should happen after investigations are completed. Not in the middle of one and in a completely partisan manner.
|
On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all.
Let's be real here, what you want is for your dear leader not to be investigated anymore, or impeached.
|
On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all.
I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity).
The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway.
|
On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all.
I believe the howls were loudest on the reupublican side on this one. I mean we’re talking “worst in the history of the country” rhetoric.
|
I do love Comey’s “weasels and liars” insult though. Nunes is a partisan shill.
|
On February 03 2018 05:25 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to love here and to talk about that makes some things stink, thanks blabbermouths.
|
|
|
On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway.
So we now believe Nunes about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value.
The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them.
|
On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt)
They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not.
|
On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not.
Remind me, Danglars. Does "he's biased" invalidate evidence that is presented before a court?
Edit: Also, would like to point out that you said "smear". Which is odd, because Nunes specifically does not contest any actual evidence provided in the FISA application. He only attacks the source of some of the evidence.
|
On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not.
called it. Danglars goes into the weekend calling for source materials and claiming he doesn’t have to rely on Nunes’s credibility.
source materials are nowhere to be found, and you bite down anyway on Nunes’s credibility.
|
On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them.
The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows.
The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency.
|
On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not.
We do not know if it is material fact. The Judge may not have asked about who paid for the opposition research or simply didn’t feel it was necessary to make the discussion. The memo omits what information about Steele was provided to the Judge. It is doubtful the application was completely silent on the subject.
|
On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency.
Given the number of Republicans retiring has now surpassed the number of Democrats who retired in 1995, November is going to be exciting.
|
On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunes about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them.
I'm so confused, we all knew Nunes edited the memo that was sent to Trump. That was never contested. The question was whether to believe Nunes about which parts were edited, how relevant they were, and whether it was appropriate to do so after having the committee approve a specific version for release.
Personally I would say if it was edited to remove natsec concerns and clarify things it was materially different as Schiff said, but what do I know.
|
Alerting Americans to potential 4th Amendment abuses in the FISA courts doesn't serve American interests? Christ, McCain won't be gone fast enough.
|
On February 03 2018 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. We do not know if it is material fact. The Judge may not have asked about who paid for the opposition research or simply didn’t feel it was necessary to make the discussion. The memo omits what information about Steele was provided to the Judge. It is doubtful the application was completely silent on the subject.
EDIT: reading fail. Yes, the FBI probably doesn't want to dump all the documents it submitted to get its third FISA warrant on Carter Page, but we can be confident that the FBI submitted more than just the Steele Dossier (if they submitted it at all).
|
On February 03 2018 05:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. Remind me, Danglars. Does "he's biased" invalidate evidence that is presented before a court? Edit: Also, would like to point out that you said "smear". Which is odd, because Nunes specifically does not contest any actual evidence provided in the FISA application. He only attacks the source of some of the evidence.
No. But the court must evaluate what level of trust to give evidence presented to justify domestic surveillance. Probable cause must not rely on deceiving the court to conflicts of interest, reliability, and false corroborating evidence. And in my example, withholding the funding source is withholding the possible motivations of Steele. And he absolutely contests the evidence of the Yahoo news article (Steele corroborating Steele is not the “actual evidence” it was made out to be in the application.
|
McCain is and always has been little more than a pitbull. Why anyone sees him as anything else or tries to pretend he is a hero of some sort is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
