Topic: I guess the Republican memo was released to the public.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 8 years ago #71,432
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQwFWO2XsLc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zbdBYNff4
I guess this is the end of those Russian investigations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zbdBYNff4
I guess this is the end of those Russian investigations?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #858,872
You didn't guess anything. You read it on a website.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #858,873
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 25 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #858,874
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #858,875
You forgot to put your name in the thread title sir.
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #858,878
Meta joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,889
I honestly thought Trump would pull out at the last minute. He surprised even me for once!
That being said, I'm not really sure what, if anything, this memo proves because I haven't read it yet.
That being said, I'm not really sure what, if anything, this memo proves because I haven't read it yet.
El Fartador !oyQ5q08L6E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,891
@previous (Meta)
Surely thousands of pages of classified intelligence documents, redacted into a four-page summary written by politicians, is trustworthy and true!
Surely thousands of pages of classified intelligence documents, redacted into a four-page summary written by politicians, is trustworthy and true!
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,892
@previous (El Fartador !oyQ5q08L6E)
More trustworthy and legal than 30,000 emails acid-washed off of a private server?
More trustworthy and legal than 30,000 emails acid-washed off of a private server?
El Fartador !oyQ5q08L6E replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,893
@previous (Meta)
Let’s deal with one issue at a time. First, I am not a Hillary supporter. I think she is a power-hungry harpie. Now, back to this memo. Please reply to my original statement.
Let’s deal with one issue at a time. First, I am not a Hillary supporter. I think she is a power-hungry harpie. Now, back to this memo. Please reply to my original statement.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,894
@858,889 (Meta)
> That being said, I'm not really sure what, if anything, this memo proves
That partisan politics is borrowing strategies from supermarket tabloids and clickbait ads? Maybe we can troll Trump with some Facebook advertising about one weird trick liberals hate.
> That being said, I'm not really sure what, if anything, this memo proves
That partisan politics is borrowing strategies from supermarket tabloids and clickbait ads? Maybe we can troll Trump with some Facebook advertising about one weird trick liberals hate.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,896
@858,893 (El Fartador !oyQ5q08L6E)
You voted for her, you support her.
@previous (F)
> That partisan politics is borrowing strategies from supermarket tabloids and clickbait ads?
I'd suggest the term "votebait". What is clickbait? The thing that gets the most clicks. What is democracy? The thing that gets the most votes. They fit hand in glove.
> Maybe we can troll Trump with some Facebook advertising about one weird trick liberals hate.
#7 will SHOCK you! Donald Trump released a memo. You won't believe what happened next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You voted for her, you support her.
@previous (F)
> That partisan politics is borrowing strategies from supermarket tabloids and clickbait ads?
I'd suggest the term "votebait". What is clickbait? The thing that gets the most clicks. What is democracy? The thing that gets the most votes. They fit hand in glove.
> Maybe we can troll Trump with some Facebook advertising about one weird trick liberals hate.
#7 will SHOCK you! Donald Trump released a memo. You won't believe what happened next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous F replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,900
@previous (Meta)
> I'd suggest the term "votebait".
That's a good term. It seems to be the Trump team's MO. Stir up some reasonable doubt and spread it around. It doesn't matter if the claims don't have any merit as long as enough people hear about it and remember some controversy existed. Emails, pizza parlors, uranium deals, whatever. Gotta spread some doubt and fear about the FBI now.
> I'd suggest the term "votebait".
That's a good term. It seems to be the Trump team's MO. Stir up some reasonable doubt and spread it around. It doesn't matter if the claims don't have any merit as long as enough people hear about it and remember some controversy existed. Emails, pizza parlors, uranium deals, whatever. Gotta spread some doubt and fear about the FBI now.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #858,908
@previous (F)
> That's a good term. It seems to be the Trump team's MO.
I'd agree. Take the border wall. If I remember correctly it was supposed to be a "big, beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for". I doubt a physical brick wall is possible along the US-Mexico border. Even if it was, what's to stop Mexican engineers from developing (wall height+1) foot high ladders? We build a 20 foot wall across 3,000-odd miles, they build a 20'1" aluminum ladder. Which is cheaper?
Or the Muslim ban. I remember this was a "total and complete shutdown on Muslim immigration" which ended up being basically the Obama-era immigration restrictions on immigration from Middle East countries, once all was said and done.
These are easy to grasp. You can fit "Ban Muslims" and "Build the wall" on the same bumper sticker, even. This is part of where I feel Hillary messed up. You need catchy slogans. Not wonkish policy proposals only Fake Anon can understand.
> Stir up some reasonable doubt and spread it around. It doesn't matter if the claims don't have any merit as long as enough people hear about it and remember some controversy existed. Emails, pizza parlors, uranium deals, whatever. Gotta spread some doubt and fear about the FBI now.
I agree but it just seems weird to see Democrats embracing the FBI as the guardian and protector of democracy? Isn't this the agency that harassed leftists for decades? Is an "under new management" sign on the door at FBI headquarters really enough to restore trust?
> That's a good term. It seems to be the Trump team's MO.
I'd agree. Take the border wall. If I remember correctly it was supposed to be a "big, beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for". I doubt a physical brick wall is possible along the US-Mexico border. Even if it was, what's to stop Mexican engineers from developing (wall height+1) foot high ladders? We build a 20 foot wall across 3,000-odd miles, they build a 20'1" aluminum ladder. Which is cheaper?
Or the Muslim ban. I remember this was a "total and complete shutdown on Muslim immigration" which ended up being basically the Obama-era immigration restrictions on immigration from Middle East countries, once all was said and done.
These are easy to grasp. You can fit "Ban Muslims" and "Build the wall" on the same bumper sticker, even. This is part of where I feel Hillary messed up. You need catchy slogans. Not wonkish policy proposals only Fake Anon can understand.
> Stir up some reasonable doubt and spread it around. It doesn't matter if the claims don't have any merit as long as enough people hear about it and remember some controversy existed. Emails, pizza parlors, uranium deals, whatever. Gotta spread some doubt and fear about the FBI now.
I agree but it just seems weird to see Democrats embracing the FBI as the guardian and protector of democracy? Isn't this the agency that harassed leftists for decades? Is an "under new management" sign on the door at FBI headquarters really enough to restore trust?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,914
@previous (Meta)> I agree but it just seems weird to see Democrats embracing the FBI as the guardian and protector of democracy?
I don't know about that, but the check on executive powers that should be coming from the legislature isn't happening as our GOP-led congress seems happy to sit on their thumbs and cheer on the media circus. I think the dems see the DOJ as a check to what is happening now. Something tells me the people in the FBI weren't super thrilled about Hillary either, but Trump's people were busy clapping their hands in glee about investigations undermining her campaign.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 43 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,920
@previous (F)
What's the check on the FBI? If the American people don't like the way President Trump is running the FBI they can vote for whoever the Democrats run for President in 2020.
> our GOP-led congress
Would this be the same one that a majority of voters elected on a state and district level?
I'm no Fake Anon (he watches C-SPAN five days a week and I haven't watched it five hours in my life) but the memo is, like nothing. Just like Wikileaks. I think the most damning thing was that they gave SEIU a free bus or something? I know a lot of people want to hurt Julian Assange but I want to be first in line for Wikileaks wasting hours of my time on this shit.
> I think the dems see the DOJ as a check to what is happening now.
> Trump's people were busy clapping their hands in glee about investigations undermining her campaign.
Again, it all comes down to narrative. Conservatives will support the FBI when it suits their interests, and Democrats will when it supports theirs. Neither side is really "pro-FBI" (or pro-anything else) but only to the extent it fits the narrative. Just like Democrats were right* to be skeptical about Republican evidence for Iraqi WMD.
*This fits my own isolationist libertarian narrative.
What's the check on the FBI? If the American people don't like the way President Trump is running the FBI they can vote for whoever the Democrats run for President in 2020.
> our GOP-led congress
Would this be the same one that a majority of voters elected on a state and district level?
I'm no Fake Anon (he watches C-SPAN five days a week and I haven't watched it five hours in my life) but the memo is, like nothing. Just like Wikileaks. I think the most damning thing was that they gave SEIU a free bus or something? I know a lot of people want to hurt Julian Assange but I want to be first in line for Wikileaks wasting hours of my time on this shit.
> I think the dems see the DOJ as a check to what is happening now.
> Trump's people were busy clapping their hands in glee about investigations undermining her campaign.
Again, it all comes down to narrative. Conservatives will support the FBI when it suits their interests, and Democrats will when it supports theirs. Neither side is really "pro-FBI" (or pro-anything else) but only to the extent it fits the narrative. Just like Democrats were right* to be skeptical about Republican evidence for Iraqi WMD.
*This fits my own isolationist libertarian narrative.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,924
@858,892 (Meta)
> More trustworthy and legal than 30,000 emails acid-washed off of a private server?
weak sauce
> More trustworthy and legal than 30,000 emails acid-washed off of a private server?
weak sauce
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,926
@858,908 (Meta)
> > That's a good term. It seems to be the Trump team's MO.
> I'd agree. Take the border wall. If I remember correctly it was supposed to be a "big, beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for". I doubt a physical brick wall is possible along the US-Mexico border. Even if it was, what's to stop Mexican engineers from developing (wall height+1) foot high ladders? We build a 20 foot wall across 3,000-odd miles, they build a 20'1" aluminum ladder. Which is cheaper?
>
> Or the Muslim ban. I remember this was a "total and complete shutdown on Muslim immigration" which ended up being basically the Obama-era immigration restrictions on immigration from Middle East countries, once all was said and done.
>
> These are easy to grasp. You can fit "Ban Muslims" and "Build the wall" on the same bumper sticker, even. This is part of where I feel Hillary messed up. You need catchy slogans. Not wonkish policy proposals only Fake Anon can understand.
>
> > Stir up some reasonable doubt and spread it around. It doesn't matter if the claims don't have any merit as long as enough people hear about it and remember some controversy existed. Emails, pizza parlors, uranium deals, whatever. Gotta spread some doubt and fear about the FBI now.
> I agree but it just seems weird to see Democrats embracing the FBI as the guardian and protector of democracy? Isn't this the agency that harassed leftists for decades? Is an "under new management" sign on the door at FBI headquarters really enough to restore trust?
"leftists" where are you picking up this kind of language
you are giving me guatamala flashbacks you fuck
> > That's a good term. It seems to be the Trump team's MO.
> I'd agree. Take the border wall. If I remember correctly it was supposed to be a "big, beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for". I doubt a physical brick wall is possible along the US-Mexico border. Even if it was, what's to stop Mexican engineers from developing (wall height+1) foot high ladders? We build a 20 foot wall across 3,000-odd miles, they build a 20'1" aluminum ladder. Which is cheaper?
>
> Or the Muslim ban. I remember this was a "total and complete shutdown on Muslim immigration" which ended up being basically the Obama-era immigration restrictions on immigration from Middle East countries, once all was said and done.
>
> These are easy to grasp. You can fit "Ban Muslims" and "Build the wall" on the same bumper sticker, even. This is part of where I feel Hillary messed up. You need catchy slogans. Not wonkish policy proposals only Fake Anon can understand.
>
> > Stir up some reasonable doubt and spread it around. It doesn't matter if the claims don't have any merit as long as enough people hear about it and remember some controversy existed. Emails, pizza parlors, uranium deals, whatever. Gotta spread some doubt and fear about the FBI now.
> I agree but it just seems weird to see Democrats embracing the FBI as the guardian and protector of democracy? Isn't this the agency that harassed leftists for decades? Is an "under new management" sign on the door at FBI headquarters really enough to restore trust?
"leftists" where are you picking up this kind of language
you are giving me guatamala flashbacks you fuck
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 54 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,927
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,928
news flash: the memo was written by Republicans themselves on the committee
Anonymous F replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #858,929
@858,920 (Meta)
> What's the check on the FBI?
Well that's a scary question. I don't anyone wants another Hoover running around.
> If the American people don't like the way President Trump is running the FBI they can vote for whoever the Democrats run for President in 2020.
Sure, that why I say that I think the dems see the FBI as a check against what is going on now.
> Would this be the same one that a majority of voters elected on a state and district level?
Yep. That's the one.
> Again, it all comes down to narrative.
It sure seems to.
> What's the check on the FBI?
Well that's a scary question. I don't anyone wants another Hoover running around.
> If the American people don't like the way President Trump is running the FBI they can vote for whoever the Democrats run for President in 2020.
Sure, that why I say that I think the dems see the FBI as a check against what is going on now.
> Would this be the same one that a majority of voters elected on a state and district level?
Yep. That's the one.
> Again, it all comes down to narrative.
It sure seems to.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 17 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,047
The memo is short and basically contained what I thought it would, though it was weirdly narrow in scope and undercut the narrative it was used to support.
Let me try to just briefly summarize Nunes' position as I understood it. FBI leadership did not want Donald Trump to become president. This either aligned with or was orchestrated by Obama/Clinton pushing their agenda. In an illegal/unconstitutional attempt to defeat Trump, the Clintons (using Clintons as shorthand for Obama/Clinton/FBI leadership/whoever) paid Fusion GPS money to cook up a phony dossier that the FBI would use as basis to get FISA warrants to wiretap/spy on everyone in the Trump campaign. When Trump was elected anyway, they shifted to plan B, which was have Robert Mueller investigate Trump using the same fake dossier and undermine the Trump presidency.
Nunes says this memo definitively proves this theory true, and means the Mueller investigation must be terminated immediately and Clinton et al. should be criminally investigated for treason.
Then you read the four page memo (which is more like 3 and 1/4 pages) and literally none of that is supported. The memo is first of all, solely about the FISA warrants on Carter Page, one member of the Trump campaign who everyone already kinda suspected was under FISA surveillance because he's shady as fuck. Like, comically unprepared to explain what he did. https://youtu.be/BWpFtY2Z72c
If Nunes had revealed that, for example, Trump Jr. or Trump himself was under FISA surveillance, that would have supported his narrative way more. Secondly, when explaining why Carter Page was surveiled, the memo references independent intelligence gathered from George Papadopoulos, "...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."
Whether or not there's evidence of Page and Papadopoulos colluding together is:
1. Not knowable by people reading this memo without seeing what the underlying court documents and intelligence are, and
2. Not supportive of the idea that the memo and only the memo were used to spy on Trump's campaign. At best it makes up MOST of the justification for the FISA memos because there is also this second stream of evidence.
This is all building up to the most important piece of evidence, the reason is why I was so confused when I read this memo. Why did Nunes focus on Carter Page as the example when it has been publicly reported since fucking AUGUST 2017 that Carter Page has been under FISA surveillance since 2014, well before Trump's campaign or this allegedly fraudulent dossier existed. I have no fucking clue why Nunes thought this obviously fatally flawed document would be the smoking gun but then again I'm obviously only understanding 3 or 4 of the twelve billion dimensions of Yahtzee he's playing.
Let me try to just briefly summarize Nunes' position as I understood it. FBI leadership did not want Donald Trump to become president. This either aligned with or was orchestrated by Obama/Clinton pushing their agenda. In an illegal/unconstitutional attempt to defeat Trump, the Clintons (using Clintons as shorthand for Obama/Clinton/FBI leadership/whoever) paid Fusion GPS money to cook up a phony dossier that the FBI would use as basis to get FISA warrants to wiretap/spy on everyone in the Trump campaign. When Trump was elected anyway, they shifted to plan B, which was have Robert Mueller investigate Trump using the same fake dossier and undermine the Trump presidency.
Nunes says this memo definitively proves this theory true, and means the Mueller investigation must be terminated immediately and Clinton et al. should be criminally investigated for treason.
Then you read the four page memo (which is more like 3 and 1/4 pages) and literally none of that is supported. The memo is first of all, solely about the FISA warrants on Carter Page, one member of the Trump campaign who everyone already kinda suspected was under FISA surveillance because he's shady as fuck. Like, comically unprepared to explain what he did. https://youtu.be/BWpFtY2Z72c
If Nunes had revealed that, for example, Trump Jr. or Trump himself was under FISA surveillance, that would have supported his narrative way more. Secondly, when explaining why Carter Page was surveiled, the memo references independent intelligence gathered from George Papadopoulos, "...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."
Whether or not there's evidence of Page and Papadopoulos colluding together is:
1. Not knowable by people reading this memo without seeing what the underlying court documents and intelligence are, and
2. Not supportive of the idea that the memo and only the memo were used to spy on Trump's campaign. At best it makes up MOST of the justification for the FISA memos because there is also this second stream of evidence.
This is all building up to the most important piece of evidence, the reason is why I was so confused when I read this memo. Why did Nunes focus on Carter Page as the example when it has been publicly reported since fucking AUGUST 2017 that Carter Page has been under FISA surveillance since 2014, well before Trump's campaign or this allegedly fraudulent dossier existed. I have no fucking clue why Nunes thought this obviously fatally flawed document would be the smoking gun but then again I'm obviously only understanding 3 or 4 of the twelve billion dimensions of Yahtzee he's playing.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,050
the basic utility of the memo is for the party operatives in the media to point and say "look there's a memo"
it's not like most people would read it
it's not like most people would read it
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,052
Now you may be thinking, hey I don't understand what's going on here. Why is Devin Nunes in charge enough to be allowed to release this memo? I can explain that for you as well.
Obviously, every fair minded person would agree that a person with no arms should be allowed to be the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. It follows logically, therefore, that a person with no intelligence should similarly be allowed to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Obviously, every fair minded person would agree that a person with no arms should be allowed to be the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. It follows logically, therefore, that a person with no intelligence should similarly be allowed to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,066
Walls of text everywhere.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 49 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,080
Trigger Warning: Hillary's emails
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,082
@859,066 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
> Walls of text everywhere.
Shitty arse and own cock in mouth everywhere.
> Walls of text everywhere.
Shitty arse and own cock in mouth everywhere.
Anonymous K replied with this 8 years ago, 39 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #859,092
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #859,103
@previous (K)
Why, are you afraid I'll chase off Green and he will no longer post pictures of him sucking his own cock just after he stuck his finger up his shitty arse? Because don't worry, I can post the pictures any time you want, just ask.
Why, are you afraid I'll chase off Green and he will no longer post pictures of him sucking his own cock just after he stuck his finger up his shitty arse? Because don't worry, I can post the pictures any time you want, just ask.