We have the memo!

[Machismo]

So when is Trump getting impeached?

Who knows? I'm sure you'll still consider it fake news.

[Felya]

@Shalcker are we done? Can you now see why using Carter Page as a defense is silly? If not, I can repeat Russian Spy, many more times.

- - - Updated - - -

So when is Trump getting impeached?

Already has been. Do you honestly think Hillary would be free, if Derp State hasn’t gotten to him first?

[Kujako]

Ya know... I kinda hope the democrat rebuttal memo doesn't get released. Not because it would show clearly Trumps attempts at interfering, but because there's frankly nothing to rebut. And then we'd have to have a republican memo, rebutting the democrat memo that rebuts the republican one and so on.

[Felya]

Ya know... I kinda hope the democrat rebuttal memo doesn't get released. Not because it would show clearly Trumps attempts at interfering, but because there's frankly nothing to rebut. And then we'd have to have a republican memo, rebutting the democrat memo that rebuts the republican one and so on.

Yep, and do we really need a precedent of these stupid memos? That’s not how government functions...

[NYC17]

Ya know... I kinda hope the democrat rebuttal memo doesn't get released. Not because it would show clearly Trumps attempts at interfering, but because there's frankly nothing to rebut. And then we'd have to have a republican memo, rebutting the democrat memo that rebuts the republican one and so on.

Nope. Nunes has moved on to the State Department in order to attempt to undermine the Shearer Memorandum and how it independently corroborates Steele's dossier.

[Shalcker]

Yes, yet, Nunes still discredits the findings and Gawdy still claimed there would be a Russian investigat without it. It’s okey... dacien fell into the same trap... can’t trust the Nuenes... use it as a learning experience.

FISA abuse, while related, is separate from Russian investigation. So stop bringing them together.

Here you go:
[B][Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small/B]
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...too-small.html

So, i went to actual Fox and Friends, and it is far cry from "FBI didn't lie" - he responded (At 40 seconds) with "they (Democrats) are leaking bits and pieces to create their narratives - that are always false"
"A footnote saying something might 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 American citizen, to spy on another campaign. And it is very bad precedent being set"
He didn't ever say "FBI didn't lie", nor ever complained about font being too small.

He also seems to say that they are going through other abuses (possibly some State Department stuff), but will probably go through different process with that (once they get enough evidence).

No, this is literally what happened. Trump hired a guy what was doing the bidding of a Russian spy. I kid you not... Russian Spy...

He provided him with information he would provide to anyone else expressing interest. It was his business venture, after all.

No one is saying he should be disqualified, the issue is an investigation into wrong doing. As in, how did a guy with no experience, while being caught giving documents to a Russian spy, end up on Trump’s team?

Investigation already concluded in 2013, showing no signs that Page was recruited. There was no new information that would create suspicion that Page status changed (or it would be included in FISA application).

There was no reason to suspect him this time, much less continue his surveillance through several renewals.

Yeah, the difference is that I am calling you a liar.... instead of handing over all documents you ask for.

There is no difference. By your logic you're clearly Russian agent engaging with providing information to them about US political system (no different to Page providing information about energy markets).

[Felya]

FISA abuse, while related, is separate from Russian investigation. So stop bringing them together.

What FISA abuse?

So, i went to actual Fox and Friends, and it is far cry from "FBI didn't lie" - he responded (At 40 seconds) with "they (Democrats) are leaking bits and pieces to create their narratives - that are always false"
"A footnote saying something might 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 American citizen, to spy on another campaign. And it is very bad precedent being set"

That’s literally the quote I linked you...

He didn't ever say "FBI didn't lie", nor ever complained about font being too small.

Yeah, he never said FBI lied. While complaining that it’s a footnote, is literally complaining about font size. You do know what a footnote is?

He also seems to say that they are going through other abuses (possibly some State Department stuff), but will probably go through different process with that (once they get enough evidence).

Which have what to do with what investigation? You know what the state department is?

He provided him with information he would provide to anyone else expressing interest. It was his business venture, after all.

Nope, he provided information to a Russian Spy. You are not omniscient to know what happens in alternative reality. He handed over info to a Russian Spy. A Russian Spy got in contact with him and he gave the Russian Spy the info asked. That happened... your anyone else nonsense did not... although, he being careless is not really an excuse, it’s an explanation. Remember... like you said... he just wanted to help his business.

Investigation already concluded in 2013, showing no signs that Page was recruited. There was no new information that would create suspicion that changed (or it would be included in FISA application).

Nope, it did not. He was busted in 2013... try again... the added suspicion that changed, is that this person without any experience, became a Trump advisor. That this guy who handed over documents to a Russian spy, because it helps his business... is suddenly and advisor to a would be president. Russian Spy... you are defending his contact, with a Russian Spy.

There was no reason to suspect him this time, much less continue his surveillance through several renewals.

What? No reason to suspect someone who was once already compromised by a Russian spy, joining an advisory role in a presidential campaign that he has 0 qualification for? The guy who bitched that his college is anti-Russia, because he failed his doctorate twice? The guy who has been living in Russia for years? That guy has nothing suspicious? lol

There is no difference. By your logic you're clearly Russian agent engaging with providing information to them about US political system (no different to Page providing information about energy markets).

No, that’s your logic. I’ve been calling you a liar for pages. Mr Russian Spy...

[solinari6]

So, i went to actual Fox and Friends, and it is far cry from "FBI didn't lie" - he responded (At 40 seconds) with "they (Democrats) are leaking bits and pieces to create their narratives - that are always false"
"A footnote saying something might 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 American citizen, to spy on another campaign. And it is very bad precedent being set"
He didn't ever say "FBI didn't lie", nor ever complained about font being too small.

So this is stupid, because the footnote isn't MEANT to let the American people know anything. The footnote is for the judge to read. Are they implying that FISA judge's don't read footnotes in warrant applications?

Or is the argument "They didn't dumb the FISA application down enough that a random Walmart mouth-breather can understand it!" ?

[Felya]

Oh and @Shalcker if anyone accuses me of talking with you, as conversing with a spy. I would let the investigation finish, because I know it’s not true. Then, if by some strange reason it goes to court, I know I didn’t do anything, so I would use the fame to write a book or something. Make talk show rounds and shit...

- - - Updated - - -

So this is stupid, because the footnote isn't MEANT to let the American people know anything. The footnote is for the judge to read. Are they implying that FISA judge's don't read footnotes in warrant applications?

Or is the argument "They didn't dumb the FISA application down enough that a random Walmart mouth-breather can understand it!" ?

Footnotes use a smaller font, they are different!

[cubby]

Oh and @Shalcker if anyone accuses me of talking with you, as conversing with a spy. I would let the investigation finish, because I know it’s not true. Then, if by some strange reason it goes to court, I know I didn’t do anything, so I would use the fame to write a book or something. Make talk show rounds and shit...

- - - Updated - - -



Footnotes use a smaller font, they are different!

@Shalcker doesn't even understand how footnotes are used in legal memorandum. They are always reviewed but those reading the documents.

[Shalcker]

What FISA abuse?

Wiretap of American citizens that also "happens" to cover campaign of party opposing one currently in power.

That’s literally the quote I linked you...

"That FBI lied was scaled back" is clearly a lie in your article. Why would you link lies? :/

Nope, he provided information to a Russian Spy. You are not omniscient to know what happens in alternative reality. He handed over info to a Russian Spy. A Russian Spy got in contact with him and he gave the Russian Spy the info asked. That happened... your anyone else nonsense did not... although, he being careless is not really an excuse, it’s an explanation. Remember... like you said... he just wanted to help his business.

It isn't actually a crime to hand anything to Russian spy. Russian spy can go to shop and claim he wants to buy stuff then talk - that wouldn't be "helping Russian spy" in any prosecutable way even if consultant would explain to him merits of one thing over another. Especially if he didn't actually buy anything.

And that's exactly Page role here.

Nope, it did not. He was busted in 2013... try again... the added suspicion that changed, is that this person without any experience, became a Trump advisor. That this guy who handed over documents to a Russian spy, because it helps his business... is suddenly and advisor to a would be president. Russian Spy... you are defending his contact, with a Russian Spy.

Spy was "busted" and fled; Page wasn't "busted", he was just interviewed for investigation that concluded he was innocent. That's it. Page case closed.

What? No reason to suspect someone who was once already compromised by a Russian spy, joining an advisory role in a presidential campaign that he has 0 qualification for? The guy who bitched that his college is anti-Russia, because he failed his doctorate twice? The guy who has been living in Russia for years? That guy has nothing suspicious? lol

There is no indication that he was ever "compromised".

No, that’s your logic. I’ve been calling you a liar for pages. Mr Russian Spy...

That's your logic, Mr Russian Agent.

- - - Updated - - -

So this is stupid, because the footnote isn't MEANT to let the American people know anything. The footnote is for the judge to read. Are they implying that FISA judge's don't read footnotes in warrant applications?

It could just as well be Gowdy not reading/noticing that particular footnote while making his own notes - Gowdy was the one who actually read those applications, after all, not Nunes.

But then this particular thing being footnote rather then part of main text can be suspicious by itself too.

[Endus]

I am not pissy, I think that's a bit of self reflection on your part. I said there is no evidence of Russia colussion from Trump and I have angered the Democrats!

No, you've annoyed everyone who gives two shits about the truth. Not the same thing.

The simple facts are that there is a lot of evidence of collusion. What you're arguing is that there's no legally conclusive proof of collusion, and that's a useless standard, because we won't know if there's legally conclusive proof until Mueller's investigation finalizes and the last charges have been issued. You either have absolutely no functional understanding of how any kind of rational, evidence-based discussion takes place, or you're being deliberately and maliciously dishonest in the tactic you've chosen to pursue, and there really isn't a third option, here.

Because there is evidence. Plenty. The Steele dossier, plenty of comments and tweets, plenty of records of staff members meeting with Russians, etc. Every single account and record and testimony is evidence. Even if you don't want to believe it. Your preferences don't matter, and don't change the facts. That evidence exists, and isn't going away just because you want to stamp your feet and pretend it doesn't exist if you don't look at it, like a toddler trying not to eat his peas.

[Paranoid Android]

Very good point by Evan McMullin. This should be common sense.

Devin Nunes illustrates just how outrageously inappropriate it is for a Trump transition team member to chair a Congressional committee with jurisdiction relevant to investigations of that team. It causes a breakdown in the separation of powers and jeopardizes national security.

https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/st...04461513363456

[Endus]

It could just as well be Gowdy not reading/noticing that particular footnote while making his own notes - Gowdy was the one who actually read those applications, after all, not Nunes.

That's an argument that Gowdy is wrong and misrepresented the facts, then.

But then this particular thing being footnote rather then part of main text can be suspicious by itself too.

No. Not even a little, not in any respect whatsoever. Your claim here is disinformation, because there is no circumstance where putting source citations and such in footnotes is ever remotely suspicious. It's standard professional and academic practice internationally and across nearly every field of study.

[Felya]

Wiretap of American citizens that also "happens" to cover campaign of party opposing one currently in power.

Oh it’s the opinion of a Russian, that the American Court was abused to spy on a guy who handed over info to a Russian Spy? Because, no one in government is actually making such a case. Where the abuse investigation? No merit? Might have something to do with handing over documents to a Russian spy, then joining a political campaign without any experience.

Saying that Russian Spies need to get close to Trump, so their actions can be called partisan, is not helping you.

That FBI lied was scaled back" is clearly a lie in your article. Why would you link lies? :/

You not knowing what a footnote is, doesn’t mean someone else lied. Go look up what a footnote is and then come back and tell me how that doesn’t count.

It isn't actually a crime to hand anything to Russian spy. Russian spy can go to shop and claim he wants to buy stuff then talk - that wouldn't be "helping Russian spy" in any prosecutable way even if consultant would explain to him merits of one thing over another. Especially if he didn't actually buy anything.

Yeah, that’s why he was investigated, instead of charged. We are discussing an investigation. The only people charged with a crime are Manafort, Flynn, Papdopolous and one other guy. The investigation into page did not result in any charges.

And that's exactly Page role here.

His role is that he was investigated, instead of charged? No shit... we are discussing an investigation... not charges...

Spy was "busted" and fled; Page wasn't "busted", he was just interviewed for investigation that concluded he was innocent. That's it. Page case closed.

No, it did not conclude he was innocent. What the fuck are you talking about? No charges were brought up, but the investigation did not result in a charge of him being found innocent of. You seem to be confused... we are discussing investigations.

There is no indication that he was ever "compromised".

Other than handing over the documents he did, to a Russian Spy.

That's your logic, Mr Russian Agent.

What? You told me to pretend you are a Russian spy. Should I stop? My logic... lol

- - - Updated - - -

@Shalcker doesn't even understand how footnotes are used in legal memorandum. They are always reviewed but those reading the documents.

It’s hilarious... I am telling him that Page was compromised and that he is lying. But, he still calls me a Russian agent... at no point realizing what that means about Page. If I am his standard for calling him out, as a Russian Agent, Page has to be KGB agent. That’s how absurd what he is saying is now...

This is ignoring the fact that he told me to pretend he was a Russian spy.

- - - Updated - - -
@Shalcker ask me for any documents. Even like a guide to Monster Hunter World. I’ll show you the difference between what Page did and what I would do.

Here is a preview... sasy huy ne psehuy... phonetically, obviously...

https://youtu.be/1u4oXXL1a5A

[Shalcker]

That's an argument that Gowdy is wrong and misrepresented the facts, then.

Investigations, even Congressional ones, are done by people; people can and do make mistakes now and then.

It wasn't part of memo either way.

No. Not even a little, not in any respect whatsoever. Your claim here is disinformation, because there is no circumstance where putting source citations and such in footnotes is ever remotely suspicious. It's standard professional and academic practice internationally and across nearly every field of study.

You haven't seen that footnote and how it interacted with text of which it was part, so you cannot say if it was or wasn't appropriate to be done that way, or was it comprehensive enough to convey all needed information to judge.

[Felya]

You haven't seen that footnote and how it interacted with text of which it was part, so you cannot say if it was or wasn't appropriate to be done that way, or was it comprehensive enough to convey all needed information to judge.

Than why didn’t Nunes say that? Memo said it wasn’t disclosed. Now it is disclosed, but only as a footnote. You are adding shit no one is suggesting. My imagination is limitless too...

[Dontrike]

So when is Trump getting impeached?

We understand you hate Trump, but you gotta be patient. Don't worry.

[Endus]

You haven't seen that footnote and how it interacted with text of which it was part, so you cannot say if it was or wasn't appropriate to be done that way, or was it comprehensive enough to convey all needed information to judge.

And neither have you, but you're sure comfortable claiming it didn't, without any justification whatsoever for making that argument. Solely because "it's a footnote".

Your own counter-argument here demonstrates the dishonesty inherent in your original argument. Good job.

[NYC17]

Investigations, even Congressional ones, are done by people; people can and do make mistakes now and then.

It wasn't part of memo either way.

You haven't seen that footnote and how it interacted with text of which it was part, so you cannot say if it was or wasn't appropriate to be done that way, or was it comprehensive enough to convey all needed information to judge.

Yes we can. That's a default understanding, that judges, are thorough people. The reason Nunes needed to obfuscate its inclusion is because it undermines his whole assertion.

You need to prove otherwise. You can't.