House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[carpedm9587]

Does anyone else find it ironic that while the democrats and FBI are investigating Trump for colluding with the Russians, the only thing that is clear is that the Democrats were the ones colluding with the Russians to create the dossier that they are using to investigate Trump?

No, I don't find it ironic. First of all, the document in question originated as a GOP document. Second, it is not clear to me that opposition research constitutes "colluding." Finally, the investigations have already surfaced multiple places where individuals in the Trump camp lied about their links to Russian contacts, and multiple places where meetings/discussions have been shown to have occurred. It is not clear that "collusion" has been shown as yet, or even that it is illegal. That is why there is an investigation underway.

I will note that every investigation I know of that is currently underway is being conducted by Republicans or individuals appointed by Republicans, given that Republicans control all of Congress as well as the FBI and the DOJ. So it's not clear to me why "Democrats" are responsible for all of this investigation?

[carpedm9587]

No. I have not read the article, so I have no position on the article. I never have. This is my way of asking you to defend your claim that I "objected to" the Brietbart article.

Suddenly....crickets....

I rest my case.

[Mountain Man]

No. I have not read the article, so I have no position on the article. I never have. This is my way of asking you to defend your claim that I "objected to" the Brietbart article.

You objected to my citing a Breitbart article, which implies that you have a problem with the contents of the article itself. But now you admit that you didn't even read the article in question and simply punted for the genetic fallacy out of ignorance.

Dude, that's just pathetic.

[carpedm9587]

You objected to my citing a Breitbart article, which implies that you have a problem with the contents of the article itself. But now you admit that you didn't even read the article in question and simply punted for the genetic fallacy out of ignorance.

Dude, that's just pathetic.

Umm.. no. You posted yet another article sourced from Breitbart, and my question to you was whether you ever read anything other than Breitbart. I said nothing about the article, either against it or for it, nor did I say anything about Breitbart (in that post). My question was about your reading habits, not about the article or the source.

Since the genetic fallacy is rejecting a conclusion on the basis of the source, and I did not offer a conclusion or reject one - I merely asked a question about your reading habits, the accusation of my engaging in the genetic fallacy is... well... unsubstantiated.

[Mountain Man]

Umm.. no. You posted yet another article sourced from Breitbart, and my question to you was whether you ever read anything other than Breitbart. I said nothing about the article, either against it or for it, nor did I say anything about Breitbart (in that post). My question was about your reading habits, not about the article or the source.

Since the genetic fallacy is rejecting a conclusion on the basis of the source, and I did not offer a conclusion or reject one - I merely asked a question about your reading habits, the accusation of my engaging in the genetic fallacy is... well... unsubstantiated.

If you don't have anything better to say than "But- but Breitbart! " then perhaps you should keep it to yourself.

[carpedm9587]

If you don't have anything better to say than "But- but Breitbart! " then perhaps you should keep it to yourself.

OK, you have pretty much confirmed that you are almost completely incapable of acknowledging error. Nothing about my post had anything to do with what you have asserted, and that is evident from the single question I asked you. A reasonable response would have been, "I read other things too" or "I only read Breitbart." What you actually posted is a series of nonsequitors that have nothing to do with my question.

As you said earlier, this is largely a waste of my time. I will leave you to it. Last comment is yours, frankly, even if you ask a question. I don't see the point in continuing.

[Tassman]

Does anyone else find it ironic that while the democrats and FBI are investigating Trump for colluding with the Russians,

Where do you get “democrats’ investigating Trump” from?

The FBI is headed by a Republican director personally appointed by Trump. The same applies to the asst. attorney general who appointed life-long republican Mueller as the special counsel, who is investigating possible collusion and/or obstruction of justice re the Russians.

the only thing that is clear is that the Democrats were the ones colluding with the Russians to create the dossier that they are using to investigate Trump?

Nonsense! The memo has no impact on the Russia probe. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier..."The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice." - Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/04/p...emo/index.html

[Tassman]

Nah, I see you babies crying about my sources without ever successfully refuting any of the information presented. One of the reasons I keep using Breitbart is because of your histrionics.

No, the reason you keep using Breitbart is because "it tells you what you want to hear, and that's good enough for you" - Mountain Man.

[Starlight]

No, the reason you keep using Breitbart is because "it tells you what you want to hear, and that's good enough for you" - Mountain Man.

Hmm, I think a financial association of some kind between Breitbart and MM is implied. There are a wide range of other crazy right-wing sources (Alex Jones, Limbaugh, Daily Caller, the one with the latin motto in OBP's sig etc). MM's choice to try to force Breitbart specifically down everyone's throats in every thread suggests he's getting something out of it beyond him thinking it's one of many good news sources.

Compare to say me, who gets an aggregated feed of newspaper headlines that I usually select from to share here, as well as a half dozen youtube commentators to further inform my opinions (ranging from ex-MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on TYT and now ex-CBS host Dan Rather on TYT, MSNBC contributor Sam Seder on the Majority Report, and pol-sci grad Kyle Kulinski on Secular Talk, to name the 3 I most commonly watch of the half-dozen I'm subscribed to), as well as occasionally watching some of The Daily Show, or Colbert on the Late Show. Links I share in this forum tend to be a scattergun shot of whatever has intrigued me from the news lately, and aren't particularly likely to favor any one source. Where's MM, it's nearly always Breitbart, with only very occasional deviations from that.

[Starlight]

Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small:

The central, and most damaging, accusation in the memo published Friday by House Republicans is that the FBI failed to disclose the bias of one of its sources when it applied to wiretap Carter Page. “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding [British agent Christopher] Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” charged the memo...

It’s not true...It was mentioned in a footnote on the FISA application. Nunes was asked about this on Fox & Friends. He did not deny the point. Instead he insisted that it wasn’t good enough because the disclosure was merely a footnote.

~slow clap~

The Republican party at this point seem to be going all out on comedy.

Devin Nunes just told Fox & Friends that Trump never met George Papadopoulos. Here's a picture of them together.:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) appeared on Fox & Friends on Monday to talk about the FBI's investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Specifically, he made some questionable claims downplaying the importance of President Trump's former foreign policy adviser, George Papadopolous...

Papadopolous triggered the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign and Russia, thanks to a drunken conversation with an Australian diplomat in which he touted Russia's hacking efforts against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. He has also been indicted for lying to the FBI — but Nunes claimed that none of that really matters, because Papadopolous played such a minor role in the Trump campaign.

That claim is untrue. Papadopoulos not only provoked the FBI probe, but he also edited foreign policy speeches for Trump and arranged meetings on the then-candidate's behalf with foreign leaders. Oh, and he is clearly visible in this campaign photo with Trump...

Nunes doesn't seem to be even making it hard for the media. He seems to be competing with Trump for the title of most lies told by a political figure in the shortest period of time.

[Tassman]

Hmm, I think a financial association of some kind between Breitbart and MM is implied. There are a wide range of other crazy right-wing sources (Alex Jones, Limbaugh, Daily Caller, the one with the latin motto in OBP's sig etc). MM's choice to try to force Breitbart specifically down everyone's throats in every thread suggests he's getting something out of it beyond him thinking it's one of many good news sources.

Compare to say me, who gets an aggregated feed of newspaper headlines that I usually select from to share here, as well as a half dozen youtube commentators to further inform my opinions (ranging from ex-MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on TYT and now ex-CBS host Dan Rather on TYT, MSNBC contributor Sam Seder on the Majority Report, and pol-sci grad Kyle Kulinski on Secular Talk, to name the 3 I most commonly watch of the half-dozen I'm subscribed to), as well as occasionally watching some of The Daily Show, or Colbert on the Late Show. Links I share in this forum tend to be a scattergun shot of whatever has intrigued me from the news lately, and aren't particularly likely to favor any one source. Where's MM, it's nearly always Breitbart, with only very occasional deviations from that.

Ah yes, but you’re comparing a reasonable person, who examines a variety of sources in order to arrive at an informed conclusion, with a Trump fanatic who will only bother with material that reinforces his prejudices...Breitbart mostly. They say that pet dogs come to resemble their owners; well the same seems to be true of Trump supporters coming to resemble Trump.

[Sparko]

Where do you get “democrats’ investigating Trump” from?

The FBI is headed by a Republican director personally appointed by Trump. The same applies to the asst. attorney general who appointed life-long republican Mueller as the special counsel, who is investigating possible collusion and/or obstruction of justice re the Russians.



Nonsense! The memo has no impact on the Russia probe. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier..."The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice." - Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/04/p...emo/index.html

Steele got a lot of the information he put in the dossier from Russian sources, remember? So basically the democrats are the ones who colluded with the Russians to create the dossier that the FBI used to start an investigation into Trump colluding with the Russians.

[Starlight]

Steele got a lot of the information he put in the dossier from Russian sources, remember? So basically the democrats are the ones who colluded with the Russians to create the dossier that the FBI used to start an investigation into Trump colluding with the Russians.

The FBI didn't start the Russia investigation due to the dossier. They started it due to Papadopoulos getting drunk and telling an Australian diplomat about the Trump-Russia connections. Even Republican Congressman Gowdy who wrote the memo has been quite clear about this in subsequent TV interviews.

[Mountain Man]

Steele got a lot of the information he put in the dossier from Russian sources, remember? So basically the democrats are the ones who colluded with the Russians to create the dossier that the FBI used to start an investigation into Trump colluding with the Russians.

Steele also got a lot of his information from Hillary and her buddies.

Source: Clinton Associates Fed Information to Dossier Author Steele, Grassley-Graham Memo Says

According to Grassley and Graham’s memo, which is heavily redacted at the request of the FBI, a foreign source gave information to friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who then gave it to an Obama State Department official, who then gave it to Steele.

Grassley and Graham’s memo stated:

One memorandum by Mr. Steele that was not published by Buzzfeed is dated October 19, 2016. The report alleges [redacted], as well as [redacted]. Mr. Steele’s memorandum states that his company ‘received his report from [redacted] US State Department,’ that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with [redacted], a contact of [redacted], a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to [redacted].

“It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility,” Grassley and Graham wrote.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ham-memo-says/

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

The FBI didn't start the Russia investigation due to the dossier. They started it due to Papadopoulos getting drunk and telling an Australian diplomat about the Trump-Russia connections. Even Republican Congressman Gowdy who wrote the memo has been quite clear about this in subsequent TV interviews.

That might be what kicked it off, but McCabe admitted on the record that without the phony dossier bought and paid for by Hillary and Democrats, they would have never gotten a warrant to continue the investigation.