|
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 13:29 cLutZ wrote:
I feel like these people are dense. It is a political memo. The point is to combat leaks that are partisan in the opposite fashion (Schiff is basically CNN's only source for any news) and to get the FBI to stop slow walking things.
I don’t think we are the dense ones here. It’s a political memo to attack the FBI and undermine the Justice department. They are shilling for Trump, who doesn’t like this investigation.
|
Its not partisans who are being dense, it is the allegedly nonpartisan "national security experts" and a few ex-Republican never Trumpers who are. They are like, "Man I don't see what is in this memo! Its totally boring." But that is because they have sources and pay lots of attention. The entire Nunes memo is, essentially, a narrative reconstruction of a lot of speculation that has been happening (and been called right wing fever dreams) since at least March 2017. The Schiff memo rebuttal will inevitably be a re-assertion of the standard narrative that has existed since November 2016 that has been fully embraced as "not fever dreams" even though it has all been constructed, essentially, from various leaks.
This whole endeavor simply exists as a narrative reset that will eventually give credibility to both narratives because they are not actually in substantive disagreement. Manafort and Page were always sketchy figures. Trump had to throw in with them because establishment Republican people that weren't terrible would not sign on with his operation until after the Republican Convention ended their dreams of a super cool Kasich upset by delegates. Trump's people are, in general, noncompliant because Trump himself is a defiant personality, and eventually there will be process crimes found out (ala Flynn) and some people's shady finances will get exposed because of high scrutiny. This is what always was going to happen. Its why for months people have been talking more about obstruction than collusion.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Speaking of Kasich, does anyone have that “and the nomination goes to... John Kasich!” ad? I wanted to find it to re-live the cringe but I never managed to do so.
|
On February 03 2018 14:09 cLutZ wrote:
Its not partisans who are being dense, it is the allegedly nonpartisan "national security experts" and a few ex-Republican never Trumpers who are. They are like, "Man I don't see what is in this memo! Its totally boring." But that is because they have sources and pay lots of attention. The entire Nunes memo is, essentially, a narrative reconstruction of a lot of speculation that has been happening (and been called right wing fever dreams) since at least March 2017. The Schiff memo rebuttal will inevitably be a re-assertion of the standard narrative that has existed since November 2016 that has been fully embraced as "not fever dreams" even though it has all been constructed, essentially, from various leaks.
This whole endeavor simply exists as a narrative reset that will eventually give credibility to both narratives because they are not actually in substantive disagreement. Manafort and Page were always sketchy figures. Trump had to throw in with them because establishment Republican people that weren't terrible would not sign on with his operation until after the Republican Convention ended their dreams of a super cool Kasich upset by delegates. Trump's people are, in general, noncompliant because Trump himself is a defiant personality, and eventually there will be process crimes found out (ala Flynn) and some people's shady finances will get exposed because of high scrutiny. This is what always was going to happen. Its why for months people have been talking more about obstruction than collusion.
And apparently the memo gives people, including you, an excuse to draw an equivalence between the facts known about Trump and his campaign and Russia ("I love it you've got dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government's support for Trump", "let's lift sanctions right away"), and the facts known about Carter Page's FISA surveillance. And this equivalence is probably what Nunes and the other weasels want to achieve, even though it's false.
|
My guy, this isn’t 5d chess with narratives with narratives. You have a bunch of bush league hyper conservatives like Nunes who believe in the deep state. They want to attack the FBI, who they see as part of that and a threat to Trump. Trump made bad decisions on staff because he bad at hiring real talent and burns bridges. The Republican establishment was just on the same page as New York banks when it came to Trump, not worth investing in.
|
On February 03 2018 13:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:
This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims. That's quite a claim.
It's like a god said not to dispute the claim but to whittle around the edges. Why not counteract the principle assertions? Well, we're still waiting. They go on saying they omit things, the impact is small, there's malignant forces drawing too much from it, but none approaching a refutation. It's actually comical.
|
On February 03 2018 14:09 cLutZ wrote:
Its not partisans who are being dense, it is the allegedly nonpartisan "national security experts" and a few ex-Republican never Trumpers who are. They are like, "Man I don't see what is in this memo! Its totally boring." But that is because they have sources and pay lots of attention. The entire Nunes memo is, essentially, a narrative reconstruction of a lot of speculation that has been happening (and been called right wing fever dreams) since at least March 2017. The Schiff memo rebuttal will inevitably be a re-assertion of the standard narrative that has existed since November 2016 that has been fully embraced as "not fever dreams" even though it has all been constructed, essentially, from various leaks.
This whole endeavor simply exists as a narrative reset that will eventually give credibility to both narratives because they are not actually in substantive disagreement. Manafort and Page were always sketchy figures. Trump had to throw in with them because establishment Republican people that weren't terrible would not sign on with his operation until after the Republican Convention ended their dreams of a super cool Kasich upset by delegates. Trump's people are, in general, noncompliant because Trump himself is a defiant personality, and eventually there will be process crimes found out (ala Flynn) and some people's shady finances will get exposed because of high scrutiny. This is what always was going to happen. Its why for months people have been talking more about obstruction than collusion.
The question is if Comey & McCabe were also sketchy figures with actual power. They'll use it for noble ends, and they'll bend a few rules that might bulldoze civil rights for a period in limited scale, but it's all pursuing a justified end, right?
|
On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 13:32 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:
This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims. That's quite a claim. It's like a god said not to dispute the claim but to whittle around the edges. Why not counteract the principle assertions? Well, we're still waiting. They go on saying they omit things, the impact is small, there's malignant forces drawing too much from it, but none approaching a refutation. It's actually comical.
Lay the principle assertions out then. So far, none of you actually had the balls (despite asking) to actually go from the usual "vague argument that only is one if it turns out to be true otherwise we don't understand it" to pointing out the deliberate, "principle assertions" that no one is trying to dispute.
What is the "principle, veracious assertions" we're talking about here? Stop shitting around and simply answer that question, if they're irrefutable you have nothing to fear.
|
On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 13:32 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:
This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims. That's quite a claim. It's like a god said not to dispute the claim but to whittle around the edges. Why not counteract the principle assertions? Well, we're still waiting. They go on saying they omit things, the impact is small, there's malignant forces drawing too much from it, but none approaching a refutation. It's actually comical.
The rebuttal necessarily involves classified info, and it's possible they can't even say "there was other evidence in the application as well" because that would be too specific. The FBI and DOJ have both said there are material omissions of fact that change the fundamental conclusion, which is actually a full on rebuttal come to think of it.
|
On February 03 2018 14:16 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 14:09 cLutZ wrote:
Its not partisans who are being dense, it is the allegedly nonpartisan "national security experts" and a few ex-Republican never Trumpers who are. They are like, "Man I don't see what is in this memo! Its totally boring." But that is because they have sources and pay lots of attention. The entire Nunes memo is, essentially, a narrative reconstruction of a lot of speculation that has been happening (and been called right wing fever dreams) since at least March 2017. The Schiff memo rebuttal will inevitably be a re-assertion of the standard narrative that has existed since November 2016 that has been fully embraced as "not fever dreams" even though it has all been constructed, essentially, from various leaks.
This whole endeavor simply exists as a narrative reset that will eventually give credibility to both narratives because they are not actually in substantive disagreement. Manafort and Page were always sketchy figures. Trump had to throw in with them because establishment Republican people that weren't terrible would not sign on with his operation until after the Republican Convention ended their dreams of a super cool Kasich upset by delegates. Trump's people are, in general, noncompliant because Trump himself is a defiant personality, and eventually there will be process crimes found out (ala Flynn) and some people's shady finances will get exposed because of high scrutiny. This is what always was going to happen. Its why for months people have been talking more about obstruction than collusion. And apparently the memo gives people, including you, an excuse to draw an equivalence between the facts known about Trump and his campaign and Russia ("I love it you've got dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government's support for Trump", "let's lift sanctions right away"), and the facts known about Carter Page's FISA surveillance. And this equivalence is probably what Nunes and the other weasels want to achieve, even though it's false.
I don't think there is an equivalence. There are real shady people around the Trump campaign, but I have not seen evidence that Trump or Pence are involved with Russian campaign violations. Thus, the best evidence I have is the investigation is a narrative built around a ghost with a few tethers to reality. Which is what the Nunes' memo is, its a narrative built around a couple of ghosts lightly tethered to reality. Are Comey and McCabe political hacks? Yes. Is Nunes? Doubly so. I've known all these things for over a year.
For fucks sake, Comey had to release his infamous letter 10 days before the election because he and McCabe were facing an internal coup from rank and file over the Hillary investigation. At the same time, they had the dossier and had used it in a warrant application but didn't think it was reliable enough to leak to the press (even though everything the FBI and intelligence community has done or touched for a dozen years has been instantly leaked).
Indeed, I still would like the most important question of this whole Russia thing answered, which has never been answered: Why would Putin prefer Trump over Hillary given the track record of Democrats, the Obama administration (particularly during her tenure at State), and her publicly declared policy positions? Personal animus is not sufficient (or even reliably proven).
|
Why do people keep talking about Purim prefering Trump? The Russian tactics and goals when they interfere with elections have been reported on for over a year now. They just want us to fight. That is it. This is the goal. The dysfunction today is the goal.
|
On February 03 2018 14:44 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 14:16 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 14:09 cLutZ wrote:
Its not partisans who are being dense, it is the allegedly nonpartisan "national security experts" and a few ex-Republican never Trumpers who are. They are like, "Man I don't see what is in this memo! Its totally boring." But that is because they have sources and pay lots of attention. The entire Nunes memo is, essentially, a narrative reconstruction of a lot of speculation that has been happening (and been called right wing fever dreams) since at least March 2017. The Schiff memo rebuttal will inevitably be a re-assertion of the standard narrative that has existed since November 2016 that has been fully embraced as "not fever dreams" even though it has all been constructed, essentially, from various leaks.
This whole endeavor simply exists as a narrative reset that will eventually give credibility to both narratives because they are not actually in substantive disagreement. Manafort and Page were always sketchy figures. Trump had to throw in with them because establishment Republican people that weren't terrible would not sign on with his operation until after the Republican Convention ended their dreams of a super cool Kasich upset by delegates. Trump's people are, in general, noncompliant because Trump himself is a defiant personality, and eventually there will be process crimes found out (ala Flynn) and some people's shady finances will get exposed because of high scrutiny. This is what always was going to happen. Its why for months people have been talking more about obstruction than collusion. And apparently the memo gives people, including you, an excuse to draw an equivalence between the facts known about Trump and his campaign and Russia ("I love it you've got dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government's support for Trump", "let's lift sanctions right away"), and the facts known about Carter Page's FISA surveillance. And this equivalence is probably what Nunes and the other weasels want to achieve, even though it's false. I don't think there is an equivalence. There are real shady people around the Trump campaign, but I have not seen evidence that Trump or Pence are involved with Russian campaign violations. Thus, the best evidence I have is the investigation is a narrative built around a ghost with a few tethers to reality. Which is what the Nunes' memo is, its a narrative built around a couple of ghosts lightly tethered to reality. Are Comey and McCabe political hacks? Yes. Is Nunes? Doubly so. I've known all these things for over a year. For fucks sake, Comey had to release his infamous letter 10 days before the election because he and McCabe were facing an internal coup from rank and file over the Hillary investigation. At the same time, they had the dossier and had used it in a warrant application but didn't think it was reliable enough to leak to the press (even though everything the FBI and intelligence community has done or touched for a dozen years has been instantly leaked). Indeed, I still would like the most important question of this whole Russia thing answered, which has never been answered: Why would Putin prefer Trump over Hillary given the track record of Democrats, the Obama administration (particularly during her tenure at State), and her publicly declared policy positions? Personal animus is not sufficient (or even reliably proven).
You're very clearly talking about a vague equivalence between teh two (they're both a couple of ghosts lightly tethered to reality).
Comey can't be a political hack if he both helped and hurt Trump.
Putin would prefer Trump because of the 10 million times Trump has spoken favorably of Putin, Russia, having improved relations with Russia, wanting to lift sanctions, etc.
|
On February 03 2018 14:59 Plansix wrote:
Why do people keep talking about Purim prefering Trump? The Russian tactics and goals when they interfere with elections have been reported on for over a year now. They just want us to fight. That is it. This is the goal. The dysfunction today is the goal.
I would agree. This has been known since 2004 by people involved in politics (at least but I have a fuzzy memory before that) But that is not the narrative that has existed post November. Indeed, all that has happened as a result of the Russia-Trump accusations is what Russia would have wanted.
Putin would prefer Trump because of the 10 million times Trump has spoken favorably of Putin, Russia, having improved relations with Russia, wanting to lift sanctions, etc.
The old, "get flattery instead of geopolitical gains" strategy.
|
Trump was a massive underdog, so Putin helped him to even the score and make it a real fight rather than a walkover. That creates more discord in American politics. That weakens us, which is exactly what Russia wants.
Putin gets the added benefit of a president who is beholden to him and Trump won't sanction Russia like congress has told him to through a sanctions vote. Trump's team also made one change to the Republican party platform and that was related to softening the stance on Russia. Trump was also in the same building when at least one of the inappropriate meetings happened between his son and a Russian lawyer. That same day, he tweeted out something that is believed to have been discussed during that meeting. So to say that it's just nearly everyone around him that's working with Russia, but not him, is a bit odd.
Trump is a Russian stooge and I'm not sure if he's doing it on purpose for material gain (or protection of former gains) or if he's just being played that badly. Either way, Russia is cashing in on Trump and fucking over America at the same time.
|
Recall that Nunes was on Trump's transition.
Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) is slamming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) as a “partisan hack” and accusing him of acting like “the chairman of the president’s reelection campaign” by pushing release a classified intelligence memo.
“The Nunes I knew was a purely partisan animal,” Walsh wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. “When it comes to exercising good judgment and discharging his duties in service of the Constitution, he’s just not up to the task.”
Walsh, a former Tea Party congressman, said he often clashed with Nunes during his time in Congress. He said Nunes labeled Tea Party members as “obstinate obstructionists on many occasions, trying to bend us to leadership’s will on votes that went against our principles.”
“With Nunes, I found it was all about politics, almost never about policy,” Walsh wrote. “He wants to please whomever he sees as the person or people running the show. Back then, it was House GOP leadership. Now it’s President Trump.”
thehill.com
|
Recall that Mr. Gorka was in Trump's administration (as in, THIS big of a clown was in Trump's administration).
|
ts final paragraph, however, says this:
The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, the counterintelligence investigation opened when the Times said it opened based on the person the Times identified. While the memo then does a nice job detailing Strzok’s misconduct, it also indulges one of those “material omissions” the FBI warned about earlier this week: the evidence supporting the opening of the Papadopoulos investigation. Strzok may have his biases, but if the evidence upon which the investigation was opened is sound, then the investigation is appropriate. www.nationalreview.com
Amid all the excitement over the Devin Nunes #TheMemo, it is important to remember that it is a partisan summary of FISA warrant applications that we the People have not been allowed to see. And in determining whether you trust Nunes’s summary, it might be relevant that it inaccurately summarizes something that is public record: James Comey’s testimony in 2017 regarding whether the allegations in the memo had been verified. Here is the claim in Nunes’s memo:
Got that? Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. That’s what Nunes says in the memo excerpt above.
And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony. www.redstate.com
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there were articles on conservative news outlets taking a skeptical eye to the memo and pointing out problems with it.
|
So I've tried to read up on this memo as much as I could. It seems like it's suffering from poorly managed expectations, more than anything. From the hype, this thing should have been proof of a secret shadowy cabal of Democratic partisans in the FBI responsible for the Russia probe, exonerating Hillary wrt the email server, widespread leaks in the US government, etc. Instead, we get... well, let me try to interpret its findings as charitably as possible, and assume its assertions are basically correct, and that no other information was excluded which would dramatically change the picture. Here goes:
In the summer of 2016, one Christopher Steele, a strongly anti-Trump ex-MI6 spy, was hired by DNC operatives to put together a dossier of information about Trump he gathered from anonymous Russian sources. Much of that information was unverified, and considering how unreliable anonymous Russian sources might be, much of it was likely false. Nonetheless he gave that information to the FBI. Based primarily on this information, the FBI decided in October 2016 to seek a FISA warrant to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. In seeking this warrant, they used the Steele dossier as evidence, and tried to corroborate it with a newspaper article, but the source for that newspaper article was also Steele. They did not inform the judge that Steele was strongly anti-Trump, nor that he was being paid by the DNC to produce this dossier, meaning the warrant might not have been granted if the judge had been aware of the source of this report.
I'm not saying all of that is true. My point is, at the very most, the whole thing boils down to improper procedure being followed in pursuing a FISA warrant. If the cops didn't follow proper procedure in getting a warrant to search my place, I can certainly see what that'd be bad, and why my defense attorney would be salivating over it. But it wouldn't indicate widespread corruption in my police force. We have Republican congressmen calling this "treason" and saying Comey is complicit because he signed off on the warrants; that's absurd. At the very most, this is an improperly obtained warrant that Page's lawyer could probably use to get some evidence thrown out.
If Republicans had billed this as congressional oversight attempting to curb FISA violations of 4th amendment rights, they might have had something here. Instead they billed it as exposing the secret Democrat conspiracy. It's like the No Man's Sky of political bombshells.
|
On February 03 2018 15:59 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +ts final paragraph, however, says this:
The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, the counterintelligence investigation opened when the Times said it opened based on the person the Times identified. While the memo then does a nice job detailing Strzok’s misconduct, it also indulges one of those “material omissions” the FBI warned about earlier this week: the evidence supporting the opening of the Papadopoulos investigation. Strzok may have his biases, but if the evidence upon which the investigation was opened is sound, then the investigation is appropriate. www.nationalreview.comShow nested quote +Amid all the excitement over the Devin Nunes #TheMemo, it is important to remember that it is a partisan summary of FISA warrant applications that we the People have not been allowed to see. And in determining whether you trust Nunes’s summary, it might be relevant that it inaccurately summarizes something that is public record: James Comey’s testimony in 2017 regarding whether the allegations in the memo had been verified. Here is the claim in Nunes’s memo:
Got that? Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. That’s what Nunes says in the memo excerpt above.
And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony. www.redstate.comI was pleasantly surprised to find out that there were articles on conservative news outlets taking a skeptical eye to the memo and pointing out problems with it.
You shouldn't, most of them hated Trump on the whole generally care more about their ideas than Trump. most of them also acknowledge going a little too easy on Bush (from a conservative angle) and aren't keen to make the same mistake again.
|
Trying to come up with an anti-Trump equivalent. What about "Trump is 10x worse than Hitler, Mussolini and Franco combined"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
