|
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 14:21 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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.
And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about?
|
On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about?
in fairness (not that he deserves it much as he probably will do as you describe), he could just be asleep, it is overnight for many americans. it'll take several more hours for him to have mysteriously disappeared rather than just gone to sleep.
|
On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about?
Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic?
One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue)
|
Happy Saturday [Night Massacre], from your "President".
"Their" was no collusion. There we have it.
|
On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue)
I am talking about this post:
On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear.
Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better.
|
On February 04 2018 00:25 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue) I am talking about this post: Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear. Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better.
The FBI did not inform the judge of the funding of the dossier.
The FBI used Steele-sourced news articles to corroborate Steele’s dossier.
The FBI suspended+terminated Steele from their sources for lying to them and concealing from them media contacts, but did not report to FISA court.
DOJ’s Bruce Ohr heard Steele’s desperation that Trump not be elected, and recorded it in FBI files. It was not brought up to the judge.
The FBI had done only minimal corroboration of the dossier at the time of the FISA application.
The response has been that Nunes omitted things, and the release of the memo would be damaging to national security (ironically, a Democratic reaction ChristianS did not mention—that it would do catastrophic and irreparable harm). His HPSCI opponents could have alleged he made up the big claims, but did not. Now, maybe you can admit that their reluctance to call the big memo items fabrications fairly means they’re choosing not to contest them (or maybe you can’t admit that, I really don’t know). “You left some things out” or “the release jeopardizes national security” is weak compared to “you lied about what was in the dossier, no such misrepresentations occurred.”
|
I just... I can't.
-"Their" and "there" both used as "there" in the same sentence.
-Collusion with a capital C
-Obstruction with a capital O
-I sincerely doubt they're finding nothing
-"Trump"?
What was the thing where Trump spoke at a 4th grade level, the lowest since the president who spoke at a 6th grade level? The writing is showing a clear regression. This is something a 1st grader puts out.
|
I'm confused, what's ironic here? Was I listing Democratic reactions yesterday and forgot or something?
Edit: Since we're here...
On February 04 2018 00:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 00:25 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue) I am talking about this post: On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear. Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better. The FBI did not inform the judge of the funding of the dossier.
Without knowing how they did introduce Steele in the warrant application, it's hard to know how much to make of this. Imagine if they introduced him as "a private investigator hired to look into Trump" or "an opposition researcher." It would still technically be true that they "did not inform the judge of the funding," but it wouldn't seem very problematic, either. In other words, the memo would be too vague to technically be false, but omissions of classified facts would lead you to a deceptive conclusion.
The FBI used Steele-sourced news articles to corroborate Steele’s dossier.
I mean, this one is so specific I think there's a decent chance it happened. But is the claim that the FBI knew the news article was sourced from Steele, and just wanted to pull the wool over the judge's eyes? Because otherwise it seems like we're just talking about the FBI screwing up a little in a 400 page warrant application, which hardly seems like the deep state-demolishing news this was made out to be.
The FBI suspended+terminated Steele from their sources for lying to them and concealing from them media contacts, but did not report to FISA court.
This one just confuses me. Steele wasn't on their payroll in the first place, so "suspended and terminated" would presumably just mean they stopped calling him for information. If they did that because he had media contacts, I don't understand why that would even be relevant to the FISA court; presumably that would be them ceasing to call him because they didn't want anything they said leaked to the press. If they did that because he lied to them, we'd have to know what he was lying about to know what impact it would have on the FISA warrant. Since the memo doesn't tell us, there's very little we can do to know the significance of this point.
I don't know when the FBI "suspended and terminated Steele" according to the memo, but presumably it would have been after the initial warrant application, meaning this point would only be relevant to the warrant renewals. They would have had to show they'd obtained new, significant evidence in those renewals anyway, meaning that the reliability of the dossier would have been a lot less important to their application by then anyway; whatever new evidence they'd turned up since the first warrant would be the primary concern by then.
DOJ’s Bruce Ohr heard Steele’s desperation that Trump not be elected, and recorded it in FBI files. It was not brought up to the judge.
See the first point, without knowing how the application did reference Steele, it's hard to know the significance here. If their application clearly treats Steele as a trustworthy, impartial, unimpeachable source, then that's a problem. If they call him an "opposition researcher" or something, I don't think it matters very much that they didn't get specifically into his political views or employers. It's worth noting that even Steele doesn't claim the dossier is absolute truth; it's just a collection of stuff he heard from anonymous Russian sources, and it's in the nature of getting information from anonymous Russian sources that you get fed a lot of lies.
The FBI had done only minimal corroboration of the dossier at the time of the FISA application.
Presumably that's what they wanted the warrant for? I mean, as far as the FBI was concerned, Carter Page was a guy they had kept an eye on previously, who in the words of Devin Nunes was "obviously a Russian sympathizer," and who they now had reports was up to some Russian corruption. So they asked a judge for a warrant to determine if those reports were accurate. If they were expected to corroborate the whole dossier before getting a warrant, they wouldn't really need the warrant any more by that point, would they?
The response has been that Nunes omitted things, and the release of the memo would be damaging to national security (ironically, a Democratic reaction ChristianS did not mention—that it would do catastrophic and irreparable harm). His HPSCI opponents could have alleged he made up the big claims, but did not. Now, maybe you can admit that their reluctance to call the big memo items fabrications fairly means they’re choosing not to contest them (or maybe you can’t admit that, I really don’t know). “You left some things out” or “the release jeopardizes national security” is weak compared to “you lied about what was in the dossier, no such misrepresentations occurred.”
Still hoping you'll clue me in on the irony here, but at any rate, I've addressed all the central claims you put forward about the memo that you think it's so "telling" (to borrow xDaunt's favorite word) Democrats won't outright deny. To my mind, most of them are too vague to be clearly true or false. A few are specific, but their significance heavily depends on context which was not made public. So I think there's a very good chance that with a full knowledge of the events in question, it'd be clear there wasn't even wrongdoing on the part of the FBI.
But again, I think the bigger problem here is that at most, this memo identifies a warrant the FBI obtained with a sloppy FISA application. Let's assume the following:
1. The only basis for the warrant was the Steele dossier (this isn't even explicitly said in the memo, but let's assume it anyway).
2. If the FBI had been clearer about where the dossier came from and how unverified it was, they wouldn't have gotten their warrant approved (again, this is not at all clear, but let's assume this too).
In its wildest dreams, that's all the memo could hope to prove. But what would even be the significance of that? Carter Page's defense attorney could maybe use it to get any evidence obtained through the warrant thrown out, so good news for Carter Page. But the larger Russia investigation predates this FISA application, so it doesn't invalidate any of that. I keep hearing talk about "anti-Trump political bias at the highest levels of the FBI" and such, but one bad FISA application wouldn't prove that anyway. Hell, I keep hearing Comey implicated in this stuff because his signature would have been on the application; but what is it, two weeks after this he goes and sends the Comey letter? If he was as "desperate" as Steele to prevent Trump's election, why would he go and do a thing like that? Why would the other FBI leadership go along with it?
|
On February 03 2018 15:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +
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.
Surely you can see how Russian interests benefit from a protectionist United States, right? We've already seen China step up to the plate and say they're ready to become the new world leader; Russia and China don't get along all of the time, but they get along a lot better than Russia and the US historically have.
Trump is 100% better for Russia than Hilary Clinton. A protectionist, less active USA is a GIGANTIC geopolitical gain for Russia.
|
On February 03 2018 20:11 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 15:38 Doodsmack wrote:
Recall that Mr. Gorka was in Trump's administration (as in, THIS big of a clown was in Trump's administration).
Trying to come up with an anti-Trump equivalent. What about "Trump is 10x worse than Hitler, Mussolini and Franco combined"
Thats a little over the top
|
Gee I wonder what the purpose of the memo was lol.
|
|
|
Not the Onion.
But they didn’t tell the judge Killary funded it with money from conflict diamonds and pizzagate!!!! The FBI is run by lizard people.
|
On February 04 2018 00:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 00:25 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue) I am talking about this post: On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear. Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better. The FBI did not inform the judge of the funding of the dossier. The FBI used Steele-sourced news articles to corroborate Steele’s dossier. The FBI suspended+terminated Steele from their sources for lying to them and concealing from them media contacts, but did not report to FISA court. DOJ’s Bruce Ohr heard Steele’s desperation that Trump not be elected, and recorded it in FBI files. It was not brought up to the judge. The FBI had done only minimal corroboration of the dossier at the time of the FISA application. The response has been that Nunes omitted things, and the release of the memo would be damaging to national security (ironically, a Democratic reaction ChristianS did not mention—that it would do catastrophic and irreparable harm). His HPSCI opponents could have alleged he made up the big claims, but did not. Now, maybe you can admit that their reluctance to call the big memo items fabrications fairly means they’re choosing not to contest them (or maybe you can’t admit that, I really don’t know). “You left some things out” or “the release jeopardizes national security” is weak compared to “you lied about what was in the dossier, no such misrepresentations occurred.”
And the response to that is the same that has been given in this thread before: You can not judge easily whether something is true or not when the people who would disagree with it are not allowed to talk about it or present their own evidence due to stuff being classified. I do not think that this is a good way of acquiring information, and especially not a good way to have a fair public discourse.
Thus, there are two possibilities, which are not distinguishable for us on the outside: The memo is literally true, and thus no one claims that it is full of outright lies, or it is not true, but the people who could contest it are not allowed to do so. We only excluded the possibility of it being true and the people who could and would contest it being allowed to do so.
But even if we believe it is literally true, that does not mean that it is "the truth". There are a lot of lies one can tell while still technically stating the truth. All of the above could be true if the FISA application mentioned the Steele dossier half-heartedly on page 278 of 500 as a minor item (and all of the things mentioned in the memo were not talked about because it wasn't a pivotal part of the whole evidence situation), while also providing incredibly solid evidence on the remainder of the application. We do not know whether that is the case or not, because we only know one incredibly biased selection of parts of that application in the form of a political propaganda piece.
The memo paints the picture of the dossier basically being the sole evidence in the application. That is probably not true. This is the main problem with the whole situation. We only get to hear what one side of the story wants to tell us, and that side is Trumps side.
|
On February 04 2018 00:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 00:25 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue) I am talking about this post: On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear. Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better. The FBI did not inform the judge of the funding of the dossier. The FBI used Steele-sourced news articles to corroborate Steele’s dossier. The FBI suspended+terminated Steele from their sources for lying to them and concealing from them media contacts, but did not report to FISA court. DOJ’s Bruce Ohr heard Steele’s desperation that Trump not be elected, and recorded it in FBI files. It was not brought up to the judge. The FBI had done only minimal corroboration of the dossier at the time of the FISA application. The response has been that Nunes omitted things, and the release of the memo would be damaging to national security (ironically, a Democratic reaction ChristianS did not mention—that it would do catastrophic and irreparable harm). His HPSCI opponents could have alleged he made up the big claims, but did not. Now, maybe you can admit that their reluctance to call the big memo items fabrications fairly means they’re choosing not to contest them (or maybe you can’t admit that, I really don’t know). “You left some things out” or “the release jeopardizes national security” is weak compared to “you lied about what was in the dossier, no such misrepresentations occurred.”
There are already multiple sources saying point 1 is incorrect and considering we both know Nunes has a history of lying about this investigation he does mot carry much credibility.
Even if you give benefit of doubt to a man who had to step aside from investigation for that stunt where he pretended to deliver to the White House information they gave himand outright lied about the source we already can prove part of the memo untrue. Comey's testimony was public. We can go backand look at it yet he still pretended Comey said something he didn't which we can go back and view and see it's wrong. So if I can prove he lied about the stuff I can confirm and he has a history of lying to American people about this very topic, why does he get the benefit of the doubt?
|
As I said. You can construct amazing narratives without lying by just omitting select information.
"The FBI did not tell the judge it was funded by the DNC"
"The FBI told the judge it was politically funded"
|
For there to be a scandal here, the four FISA judges that reviewed the warrant applications on Page must have been idiots. Even the most cursory glance at the Steele Dossier would reveal it was opposition research. It would have been impossible to slip that by a FISA judge. "Say, where did you get this giant hit piece on Trump? Could it have been written by someone paid to do Oppo on Trump?" FBI: "no, this is all totally neutral truth from a magical truth fairy who works for free".
|
There are numerous Republicans saying the memo is a pile of shit and throwing shade at Nunes. There is a bipartisan agreement that the memo just plan bad.
|
On February 04 2018 02:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 00:49 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 00:25 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue) I am talking about this post: On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear. Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better. The FBI did not inform the judge of the funding of the dossier. The FBI used Steele-sourced news articles to corroborate Steele’s dossier. The FBI suspended+terminated Steele from their sources for lying to them and concealing from them media contacts, but did not report to FISA court. DOJ’s Bruce Ohr heard Steele’s desperation that Trump not be elected, and recorded it in FBI files. It was not brought up to the judge. The FBI had done only minimal corroboration of the dossier at the time of the FISA application. The response has been that Nunes omitted things, and the release of the memo would be damaging to national security (ironically, a Democratic reaction ChristianS did not mention—that it would do catastrophic and irreparable harm). His HPSCI opponents could have alleged he made up the big claims, but did not. Now, maybe you can admit that their reluctance to call the big memo items fabrications fairly means they’re choosing not to contest them (or maybe you can’t admit that, I really don’t know). “You left some things out” or “the release jeopardizes national security” is weak compared to “you lied about what was in the dossier, no such misrepresentations occurred.” And the response to that is the same that has been given in this thread before: You can not judge easily whether something is true or not when the people who would disagree with it are not allowed to talk about it or present their own evidence due to stuff being classified. I do not think that this is a good way of acquiring information, and especially not a good way to have a fair public discourse. Thus, there are two possibilities, which are not distinguishable for us on the outside: The memo is literally true, and thus no one claims that it is full of outright lies, or it is not true, but the people who could contest it are not allowed to do so. We only excluded the possibility of it being true and the people who could and would contest it being allowed to do so. But even if we believe it is literally true, that does not mean that it is "the truth". There are a lot of lies one can tell while still technically stating the truth. All of the above could be true if the FISA application mentioned the Steele dossier half-heartedly on page 278 of 500 as a minor item (and all of the things mentioned in the memo were not talked about because it wasn't a pivotal part of the whole evidence situation), while also providing incredibly solid evidence on the remainder of the application. We do not know whether that is the case or not, because we only know one incredibly biased selection of parts of that application in the form of a political propaganda piece. The memo paints the picture of the dossier basically being the sole evidence in the application. That is probably not true. This is the main problem with the whole situation. We only get to hear what one side of the story wants to tell us, and that side is Trumps side.
It takes no classified disclosure to say that Nunes/Republicans on the committee are lying about their central contention of fact. Why are you pleading otherwise? Sure, they can’t bring to their aid tons of classified support, but they should at least allege he’s making these up. Specific assertions of fact. That’s why I said they were uncontested. This investigation has been going on for about a year. Democrats on the committee had plenty of time to say Nunes is fabricating this stuff, but instead it’s all omission of this and national security that.
I don’t see much reason to move on to how omissions might affect the broader impact if you can’t admit how uncontested the facts are. Maybe Europe equates “the facts are uncontested” with “the facts don’t show what you think they show.” Or, next time you ask what facts are uncontested, don’t pretend actually contesting them requires classified disclosure, and then launch into why it might not matter. Just admit the truth in a show of nonpartisanship and move on.
|
On February 04 2018 03:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 02:53 Simberto wrote:On February 04 2018 00:49 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 00:25 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 23:42 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 20:41 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2018 14:21 m4ini wrote:On February 03 2018 14:18 Danglars wrote: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. And of course, Danglars mysteriously disappears. How long until he once again mentions the vague "principle, veracious assertions" without clarifying what he is talking about? Dude, xDaunt (primarily) and I brought up what Schiff and the Democrats are not saying about where the memo errs. Nobody here had a insightful response about why he’s off with that take. Now you follow along with Doodsmack and quote out a sentence of the post and act confused about the topic? One last chance. Quote a post, respond to the post in what you need additional clarification, because my response to Doodsmack’s one-line snip was because maybe he remembered the larger post (but people later get no clue) I am talking about this post: On February 03 2018 12:05 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 11:45 Taelshin wrote:
If this memo is a "nothing burger" to quote some people here, why did the dems fight so hard to not let it get released? ill admit its not an everything silver bullet kryptonite burger, just wondering what the scare was.
edit: I do think it looks pretty bad, and calls in to question the entire trump Russia nightmare. Kind of, but not really. The entirety of the Trump Russia is mixed with his own stupid actions and lies afterwards. This memo, and the uncontested veracity of its principal claims, shows the FBI needs more accountability at the top, and the FISA authorization needs amending to bring more accountability to bear. Which is in part at the top of that quotechain in the post i quoted earlier. I require clarification with regards to what you think those principal claims in the memo of which the veracity is uncontested are, specifically. The more detailed and on point you can formulate them the better. The FBI did not inform the judge of the funding of the dossier. The FBI used Steele-sourced news articles to corroborate Steele’s dossier. The FBI suspended+terminated Steele from their sources for lying to them and concealing from them media contacts, but did not report to FISA court. DOJ’s Bruce Ohr heard Steele’s desperation that Trump not be elected, and recorded it in FBI files. It was not brought up to the judge. The FBI had done only minimal corroboration of the dossier at the time of the FISA application. The response has been that Nunes omitted things, and the release of the memo would be damaging to national security (ironically, a Democratic reaction ChristianS did not mention—that it would do catastrophic and irreparable harm). His HPSCI opponents could have alleged he made up the big claims, but did not. Now, maybe you can admit that their reluctance to call the big memo items fabrications fairly means they’re choosing not to contest them (or maybe you can’t admit that, I really don’t know). “You left some things out” or “the release jeopardizes national security” is weak compared to “you lied about what was in the dossier, no such misrepresentations occurred.” And the response to that is the same that has been given in this thread before: You can not judge easily whether something is true or not when the people who would disagree with it are not allowed to talk about it or present their own evidence due to stuff being classified. I do not think that this is a good way of acquiring information, and especially not a good way to have a fair public discourse. Thus, there are two possibilities, which are not distinguishable for us on the outside: The memo is literally true, and thus no one claims that it is full of outright lies, or it is not true, but the people who could contest it are not allowed to do so. We only excluded the possibility of it being true and the people who could and would contest it being allowed to do so. But even if we believe it is literally true, that does not mean that it is "the truth". There are a lot of lies one can tell while still technically stating the truth. All of the above could be true if the FISA application mentioned the Steele dossier half-heartedly on page 278 of 500 as a minor item (and all of the things mentioned in the memo were not talked about because it wasn't a pivotal part of the whole evidence situation), while also providing incredibly solid evidence on the remainder of the application. We do not know whether that is the case or not, because we only know one incredibly biased selection of parts of that application in the form of a political propaganda piece. The memo paints the picture of the dossier basically being the sole evidence in the application. That is probably not true. This is the main problem with the whole situation. We only get to hear what one side of the story wants to tell us, and that side is Trumps side. It takes no classified disclosure to say that Nunes/Republicans on the committee are lying about their central contention of fact. Why are you pleading otherwise? Sure, they can’t bring to their aid tons of classified support, but they should at least allege he’s making these up. Specific assertions of fact. That’s why I said they were uncontested. This investigation has been going on for about a year. Democrats on the committee had plenty of time to say Nunes is fabricating this stuff, but instead it’s all omission of this and national security that. I don’t see much reason to move on to how omissions might affect the broader impact if you can’t admit how uncontested the facts are. Maybe Europe equates “the facts are uncontested” with “the facts don’t show what you think they show.” Or, next time you ask what facts are uncontested, don’t pretend actually contesting them requires classified disclosure, and then launch into why it might not matter. Just admit the truth in a show of nonpartisanship and move on.
You are only quibbling with the words used to refute the memo. I guess they could be doing it with more force. But they are most definitely refuting its central claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
