|
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 10:00 m4ini wrote:
So that was the explosion that our zealots here could barely contain themselves for?
Quite sad, really. It's like having a huge boomstick and it fizzles a little. Nothing in regards to this memo can be taken at facevalue (not that there's much explosive in there in the first place). It's a bad faith precursor to justify/pretext something yet to come.
Had a good chuckle when our zealots went trippy over Steeles alleged bias, but are totally fine with Nunes' bias, because obviously that doesn't take anything away from the memo. Or were arguing about "a conflict of interest", because that suddenly matters now in the US. Or how it's telling that one dude doesn't call the other out by name, but somehow not that the entire memo released while actively suppressing the other sides view. That's not telling, that's.. well what's that? I find that very telling if something tries to force a narrative down my throat without giving me at least the option to see both sides.
I think it's quite fair to call the nunes memo a giant nothingburger.
|
On February 03 2018 10:03 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:00 m4ini wrote:
So that was the explosion that our zealots here could barely contain themselves for?
Quite sad, really. It's like having a huge boomstick and it fizzles a little. Nothing in regards to this memo can be taken at facevalue (not that there's much explosive in there in the first place). It's a bad faith precursor to justify/pretext something yet to come.
Had a good chuckle when our zealots went trippy over Steeles alleged bias, but are totally fine with Nunes' bias, because obviously that doesn't take anything away from the memo. Or were arguing about "a conflict of interest", because that suddenly matters now in the US. Or how it's telling that one dude doesn't call the other out by name, but somehow not that the entire memo released while actively suppressing the other sides view. That's not telling, that's.. well what's that? I find that very telling if something tries to force a narrative down my throat without giving me at least the option to see both sides. I think it's quite fair to call the nunes memo a giant nothingburger.
Are you suggesting that it's smaller than Watergate?
|
On February 03 2018 09:52 Plansix wrote:
Yes, that is the goal. Undermine the FBI/Justice Department leadership and give Trump cause to remove them. Then the new deputy AG can control special counsels investigation.
Rachel Brand is the next in line to be deputy AG after Rosenstein. From the bits I read about her, she comes off as pretty intelligent and worthy of her position. I really wasn't left with the impression that she would be a partisan hack for Trump, but she still is rather unknown.
|
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger.
|
On February 03 2018 10:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:03 hunts wrote:On February 03 2018 10:00 m4ini wrote:
So that was the explosion that our zealots here could barely contain themselves for?
Quite sad, really. It's like having a huge boomstick and it fizzles a little. Nothing in regards to this memo can be taken at facevalue (not that there's much explosive in there in the first place). It's a bad faith precursor to justify/pretext something yet to come.
Had a good chuckle when our zealots went trippy over Steeles alleged bias, but are totally fine with Nunes' bias, because obviously that doesn't take anything away from the memo. Or were arguing about "a conflict of interest", because that suddenly matters now in the US. Or how it's telling that one dude doesn't call the other out by name, but somehow not that the entire memo released while actively suppressing the other sides view. That's not telling, that's.. well what's that? I find that very telling if something tries to force a narrative down my throat without giving me at least the option to see both sides. I think it's quite fair to call the nunes memo a giant nothingburger. Are you suggesting that it's smaller than Watergate?
The memo is smaller than trumps hands even.
|
On February 03 2018 10:03 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:00 m4ini wrote:
So that was the explosion that our zealots here could barely contain themselves for?
Quite sad, really. It's like having a huge boomstick and it fizzles a little. Nothing in regards to this memo can be taken at facevalue (not that there's much explosive in there in the first place). It's a bad faith precursor to justify/pretext something yet to come.
Had a good chuckle when our zealots went trippy over Steeles alleged bias, but are totally fine with Nunes' bias, because obviously that doesn't take anything away from the memo. Or were arguing about "a conflict of interest", because that suddenly matters now in the US. Or how it's telling that one dude doesn't call the other out by name, but somehow not that the entire memo released while actively suppressing the other sides view. That's not telling, that's.. well what's that? I find that very telling if something tries to force a narrative down my throat without giving me at least the option to see both sides. I think it's quite fair to call the nunes memo a giant nothingburger.
I wouldn't say it's nothing but i wouldn't call it surprising knowing america's post 9/11 judicial process
|
On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger.
Describe with two sentences what this memo brings to the table. Factually, not in Lala Land. Objectively. We both know that you won't answer this properly, but worth a shot.
Where's the explosion, just for people like me who missed it entirely.
|
On February 03 2018 10:05 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 09:52 Plansix wrote:
Yes, that is the goal. Undermine the FBI/Justice Department leadership and give Trump cause to remove them. Then the new deputy AG can control special counsels investigation. Rachel Brand is the next in line to be deputy AG after Rosenstein. From the bits I read about her, she comes off as pretty intelligent and worthy of her position. I really wasn't left with the impression that she would be a partisan hack for Trump, but she still is rather unknown.
This may surprise you but Trump hasn't really hired a lot of cronies, at least at the DOJ and such. His team recommended very good people with good records. Chris Wray, the Comey replacement, sped through the Senate as I recall.
|
On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger.
Going "yeah, that sounds like something Trump would do, and there's a decent chance it's true, but we'll see." is not incongruous with "the timing, circumstances, and release of this information all seem fishy, and I don't have much reason to believe it would be true, but we'll see."
There's the idea of gauging how believable it is, and going from there, willing to accept if you're wrong later. This isn't gambling or sports. This memo has been a bunch of hot air so far.
|
On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger.
Lefties: The Nunes memo is phony and/or inconsequential and/or too incomplete.
Lefties: Did you see the last anonymous leaks out of the Mueller investigation and FBI?
Lefties: Also, the Republicans are so partisan for even considering a signed and released memo from a partisan congressional committee, when we source all of ours to the selective pleasure of anonymous civil servants that tell us Trump is a criminal.
They'd have been much better off saying they need to see what the memo is based on to ascertain its importance. Instead, they put on full display their own confirmation bias and inability to judge left and right by a common set of ground rules.
|
On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger.
You still think the steele dossier isn't trustworthy despite large sections of it being proven true, and the FBI having suspected a lot of it before even seeing it. Secondly, "nothingburger" is what your people called the entire investigation into trumps treason.
As to the post above, we can play this game.
Righties: The FBI can do no wrong, they are investigating Killery.
Righties: Well now that trump is being investigated, wecan't trust the FBI.
Righties: We can't trust leaks and unsourced information.
Righties: The nunes memo with no sources is totally legit.
|
On February 03 2018 10:13 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger. Describe with two sentences what this memo brings to the table. Factually, not in Lala Land. Objectively. We both know that you won't answer this properly, but worth a shot. Where's the explosion, just for people like me who missed it entirely.
I think every factual allegation in the memo is likely accurate. The only question is what the memo omits. No congressman is going to perjure himself in writing like that. That this isn't obvious to everyone here is telling.
|
On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger.
Not many people have even suggested that the memo is false.
As has been said repeatedly, the memo does not attempt to invalidate any of the probable cause provided by the application. We don't know what the evidence is, but by omission Nunes does not contest the validity of any of those details.
His entire issue is that the bias of a private investigator paid to investigate someone was not disclosed.
The memo is a "nothingburger" because none of the accusations actually invalidate the FISA application or approval.
|
On February 03 2018 10:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger. Lefties: The Nunes memo is phony and/or inconsequential and/or too incomplete. Lefties: Did you see the last anonymous leaks out of the Mueller investigation and FBI? Lefties: Also, the Republicans are so partisan for even considering a signed and released memo from a partisan congressional committee, when we source all of ours to the selective pleasure of anonymous civil servants that tell us Trump is a criminal.
Zealots: the Nunes memo da bomb, look, there's proof of.. something.
Zealots: nothing wrong with our bias, it's yours that's problematic, why can't you see that!
Zealots: nothing wrong with releasing only our part of the story, how else would we prove "facts".
Also zealots: look at you lefties doing the fucking same things as me but because the moron in chief is a republican i feel empowered to tell you that your liberal bias is preventing you from accepting MY point of view which is the only correct one!
This game is fun, wanna continue?
|
On February 03 2018 10:32 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger. You still think the steele dossier isn't trustworthy despite large sections of it being proven true, and the FBI having suspected a lot of it before even seeing it. Secondly, "nothingburger" is what your people called the entire investigation into trumps treason.
We can't verify independently what's in the Steele dossier. All we know is that there's a ton of hearsay (sometimes multiple layers of hearsay) cited from anonymous sources -- all of which was compiled by someone who is rabidly anti-Trump and on the Clinton payroll. Not to mention that every interested party (Democrats, FusionGPS, Steele, FBI, etc) have all done everything that they can to interfere with investigation into the veracity of the dossier. If you want to take the dossier as gospel in light of these circumstances, go right on ahead.
As for the house memo, it has been signed off on by congressmen and there has been no meaningful rebuttal of its factual allegations. The most we can get out of anyone on the record is that the memo tells an incomplete story and takes certain facts out of context. No one has said that it is flat out false -- particularly the critical allegations regarding the dossier being the basis for the FISA application. Looking at those circumstances, it's not very hard to believe that the memo is more likely than not accurate factually with the possibility of there being some important omissions.
|
I thought the whole problem with releasing the memo without a large number of redactions is that to actually refute it requires releasing classified information. Isn't it kinda the point? So while on one hand you can say it hasn't been refuted, on the other it still doesn't say anything meaningful.
|
On February 03 2018 10:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:07 xDaunt wrote:
It is quite hilarious that all of you who so readily accepted the veracity of anonymous anti-Trump leaks that were reported in the press are having so much trouble accepting that a memo signed off on by congressmen is likely true.
And y’all are badly fooling yourselves if you think that the memo is a nothingburger. Not many people have even suggested that the memo is false. As has been said repeatedly, the memo does not attempt to invalidate any of the probable cause provided by the application. We don't know what the evidence is, but by omission Nunes does not contest the validity of any of those details. His entire issue is that the bias of a private investigator paid to investigate someone was not disclosed. The memo is a "nothingburger" because none of the accusations actually invalidate the FISA application or approval.
You should read the memo again, because you're clearly missing the point. The memo actually states facts suggesting that the FISA application was defective when it was made, notably 1) that the basis of the FISA application was the dossier, 2) the dossier had been corroborated at the time of the application, and 3) the FBI withheld information showing that dossier was not reliable and potentially misrepresented the dossier to the FISA court.
|
On February 03 2018 10:41 NewSunshine wrote:
I thought the whole problem with releasing the memo without a large number of redactions is that to actually refute it requires releasing classified information. Isn't it kinda the point? So while on one hand you can say it hasn't been refuted, on the other it still doesn't say anything meaningful.
That, and they're trying to interfere with ongoing investigations through PR and not through any legal process.
|
On February 03 2018 10:41 NewSunshine wrote:
I thought the whole problem with releasing the memo without a large number of redactions is that to actually refute it requires releasing classified information. Isn't it kinda the point? So while on one hand you can say it hasn't been refuted, on the other it still doesn't say anything meaningful.
The devil is in the details. Refutation by what means? Showing that the facts alleged in the memo are actually false? Or showing that the memo omits important facts? Every criticism that I have seen by anyone who has gone on the record has said the latter, not the former. This suggests that memo is substantially true factually.
|
On February 03 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 10:41 NewSunshine wrote:
I thought the whole problem with releasing the memo without a large number of redactions is that to actually refute it requires releasing classified information. Isn't it kinda the point? So while on one hand you can say it hasn't been refuted, on the other it still doesn't say anything meaningful. The devil is in the details. Refutation by what means? Showing that the facts alleged in the memo are actually false? Or showing that the memo omits important facts? Every criticism that I have seen by anyone who has gone on the record has said the latter, not the former. This suggests that memo is substantially true factually.
It says nothing. Saying it omits important facts is a statement of fact, because they had to make redactions of information from it before they could push it. You can't say anything one way or the other, and this doesn't magically put the burden of proof on the FBI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
