Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
    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.
    Speaking of lies... Nunes never criticized the size of the font. That appears to be an invention of New York Magazine. What he actually said, according to your source:

    "A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign."

    He makes a good point, and it's consistent with the revelations in the memo. As I've pointed out elsewhere, there is a big, big difference between saying that "the research was being paid for by a political entity" and disclosing that it was, in fact, uncorroborated rumors from a source that was strongly biased against Trump and paid for by Hillary and the Democrats.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
      You can be assured that my refusal had nothing whatsoever to do with the pay, you conscienceless propagandist.
      I get a pound of bacon per clickthru.

      Comment


      • Dude, don't tell people! It's supposed to look "grassroots"!
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Dude, don't tell people! It's supposed to look "grassroots"!
          mum's the word.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Don't worry I took the job.

            Hey guys, did you know that Brietbart says that New Zealander's PM thinks Kiwis are a bunch of lazy drug addicts?
            Points for starting your sentence with "hey" which a recent study found that people are more likely to click a link that starts with that word.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              It's called the Patriot Post.
              I saw it yesterday along with Breitbart in a list of 'fake news' sites produced by an Oxford university study.

              Reading the methodology of the study though, I think it's a bit misleading to call them 'fake news' sites. I would call them 'unreliable/hyper-partisan/super-opinionated' sites. Their list include Alex Jones, Breitbart, Patriot Post, Hannity, Daily Caller, etc.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • If Breitbart says it, or if that lying right-wing scumbag ex-PM said it, it must be true.

                Interesting difference between him and Trump... Trump claimed it was the immigrants who were the bad people (the Mexicans were rapists, carrying drugs etc) and Trump's own population needed saving from them, where John Key claimed it was his own population who were bad people and the immigrants who would save them. Two lying right-wing scumbag leaders, two very different views on immigration.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • From the "Now isn't that ironic" department, it turns out that in 2017, ardent memo critic and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff eagerly participated in a prank call from two Russian comedians posing as Ukrainian leaders ready to dish the dirt on Trump. At the time, he described the phone call as "productive" and was making arrangements to receive photographs and other comprising evidence from the pranksters, but now that the phone call has been made public, he's unconvincingly insisting that he knew it was prank call all along -- because you always tell your staff through internal communications that a prank call was "productive".

                  http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-donald-trump/
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    I saw it yesterday along with Breitbart in a list of 'fake news' sites produced by an Oxford university study.

                    Reading the methodology of the study though, I think it's a bit misleading to call them 'fake news' sites. I would call them 'unreliable/hyper-partisan/super-opinionated' sites. Their list include Alex Jones, Breitbart, Patriot Post, Hannity, Daily Caller, etc.
                    Reading the methodology of the study, I come to the conclusion that their description of such sites is hyper-partisan. There is zero rationale for why any particular site is included in their hit list; they merely describe them collectively in highly disparaging terms. That they lump anyone who identifies as a patriot as "hard conservative" tells me all I need to know about where they're coming from. This study wasn't worth the electrons it disturbed. It validates your POV, however, so I can see why you like it.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      That fact that it keeps you guys tied up in these hysterical little knots is all the motivation I need to continue linking to Breitbart.
                      That pretty well sums up your concern for actual facts. Pathetic!
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        How did you refute what I said? The DNC paid Fusion to hire Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. His source was the Russians who everyone says tampered with the election. He then turns the Russian-sourced documents to the FBI who used Russian-sourced information to get a FISA warrant.
                        Nonsense! It was Papadopoulos, not the dossier which sparked the Russia investigation. In December 2017, intelligence officials revealed that the actual impetus was a series of comments made in May 2016 by Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos during a drunken conversation to a top Australian diplomat in Britain. Papadopoulos revealed that he had inside information by bragging that the Kremlin had "thousands of emails" stolen from Hillary Clinton which could be used to damage her campaign. He had learned this about three weeks earlier. Two months later, when WikiLeaks started releasing DNC emails, Australian officials alerted the Americans about Papadopoulos' remarks. This is what started it all.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Reading the methodology of the study, I come to the conclusion that their description of such sites is hyper-partisan. There is zero rationale for why any particular site is included in their hit list; they merely describe them collectively in highly disparaging terms. That they lump anyone who identifies as a patriot as "hard conservative" tells me all I need to know about where they're coming from. This study wasn't worth the electrons it disturbed. It validates your POV, however, so I can see why you like it.
                          It lists Drudge Report which merely links to news providers including some on the far left like Mother Jones and Daily Kos.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            There is zero rationale for why any particular site is included in their hit list; they merely describe them collectively in highly disparaging terms.
                            They give the rationale that these sites were judged by multiple people independently of each other to fail to meet at least 3 of 5 criteria they set up for measuring reliability. I think they would be better to refer to these sites as "significantly outside the mainstream" or "3rd tier sources". They are talking about websites that are not the mainstream media (what I would call "1st tier"), and not well-established professionally-operated 'alternative news sources' that are outside the mainstream (what I would call "2nd tier"), but ones that are operating in the tabloid rag / opinionated blogs kind of space (what I would call "3rd tier"). I think they don't help themselves by labeling these as "fake news" sources because obviously much of what is posted by these 3rd-tier tabloid / opinion pieces isn't necessarily false, although it is often a creative mix of truths and interpretations. But I will grant you that as far as I can see, their published data doesn't specify exactly why their dozen judges put a particular website in that category.

                            That they lump anyone who identifies as a patriot as "hard conservative" tells me all I need to know about where they're coming from.
                            They didn't.

                            Their computer processed the connections between users on facebook and spat out a connected graph that grouped users together based on connections and what they were liking and sharing. The study authors manually looked at different regions of that graph and gave them a label that they themselves felt described that group of users. They labelled various groups like Libertarians, Occupy, Environmental, Hard Conservatives etc and within each of those groups they gave arbitrary labels to various subgroups (e.g. in the case of Hard Conservatives, their subgroups include "Anti-immigration", "Anti-liberal", "Militia", "Patriots" etc). That is the study authors putting their own arbitrary label on the output of their computer generated graph to help with their own understanding of the connections between different groups of people.

                            It is not them starting with the assumption that "we'll lump anyone who identifies as a patriot as 'hard conservative'". That's just not at all what they did and is completely misunderstanding their process.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • The Nunes' memo has been such a bombshell that the second memo recently released by Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham has mostly flown under our radar, but it not only corroborates the Nunes' memo but contains some bombshells of its own.

                              Source: Grassley-Graham Memo: Dossier Author Christopher Steele Lied to FBI, FBI Didn’t Tell FISA Court

                              A newly-unredacted portion of the memo says that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Graham all saw the FISA warrant application and renewals for a surveillance warrant on Carter Page.

                              According to the memo, the FBI relied “heavily” on the Steele dossier, and also relied on “numerous” other FBI documents related to Steele, in order to get a surveillance warrant on Page in October 2016, and to continue surveilling him through 2017.

                              Then-FBI Director James Comey briefed Feinstein and Grassley in March 2017, and told them that the FBI had relied on the dossier “absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation” because Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the FBI.

                              The House Intelligence Committee memo asserted that the FBI had significantly relied on the dossier to get the warrant, but critics refuted that.

                              The Grassley-Graham memo also supports the House memo’s assertion that the FBI did not tell the FISA court (FISC) that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were behind the dossier.

                              The Grassley-Graham memo spells out exactly why the two senators recommended Steele for a criminal investigation, for lying to the FBI.

                              The FBI included in its initial FISA warrant application in October 2016 a September 2016 Yahoo News article that contained information that seemingly corroborated the dossier.

                              Steele apparently told the FBI that he had not spoken to Yahoo News for the article, and the FBI related that in its application to the FISC. The FBI learned in October he had unauthorized contacts with media, and suspended its relationship with Steele.

                              However, in a January 2017 FISA application renewal on Page, it noted in a footnote that it had suspended its relationship with Steele based on unauthorized contacts with the media in October 2016, but still continued to defend that he had nothing to do with the Yahoo News article. The FBI also did so in subsequent renewals.

                              The FBI did so despite an April 2017 report that said Steele had testified to a British court that he had spoken to news outlets before October 2016, and senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr had also told the FBI about those contacts in November or December 2016. The memo noted that the committee had evidence of those contacts before October 2016 as well.

                              The FBI also noted in its January 2017 application renewal that Steele was “bothered” by the FBI reopening its investigation into Clinton

                              The FBI also unredacted a portion that said Steele’s information “formed a significant portion of the FBI’s warrant application, and the FISA application relied more heavily on Steele’s credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims.”

                              http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ll-fisa-court/

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Wow.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                They give the rationale that these sites were judged by multiple people independently of each other to fail to meet at least 3 of 5 criteria they set up for measuring reliability. I think they would be better to refer to these sites as "significantly outside the mainstream" or "3rd tier sources". They are talking about websites that are not the mainstream media (what I would call "1st tier"), and not well-established professionally-operated 'alternative news sources' that are outside the mainstream (what I would call "2nd tier"), but ones that are operating in the tabloid rag / opinionated blogs kind of space (what I would call "3rd tier"). I think they don't help themselves by labeling these as "fake news" sources because obviously much of what is posted by these 3rd-tier tabloid / opinion pieces isn't necessarily false, although it is often a creative mix of truths and interpretations. But I will grant you that as far as I can see, their published data doesn't specify exactly why their dozen judges put a particular website in that category.
                                Then by your own criteria, at least two of the sites on the list with which I am familiar should be considered 2nd tier - namely, the Patriot Post and CNS News - for they are certainly well-established and professionally-operated.
                                They didn't.

                                Their computer processed the connections between users on facebook and spat out a connected graph that grouped users together based on connections and what they were liking and sharing. The study authors manually looked at different regions of that graph and gave them a label that they themselves felt described that group of users. They labelled various groups like Libertarians, Occupy, Environmental, Hard Conservatives etc and within each of those groups they gave arbitrary labels to various subgroups (e.g. in the case of Hard Conservatives, their subgroups include "Anti-immigration", "Anti-liberal", "Militia", "Patriots" etc). That is the study authors putting their own arbitrary label on the output of their computer generated graph to help with their own understanding of the connections between different groups of people.

                                It is not them starting with the assumption that "we'll lump anyone who identifies as a patriot as 'hard conservative'". That's just not at all what they did and is completely misunderstanding their process.
                                Oh, applying it as an "arbitrary label" is much better. I hope that sounded better in your head.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X