We have the memo!

[Shalcker]

Than why didn’t Nunes say that?

Because he haven't seen it, duh, so he cannot claim one way or another.

His memo is as accurate as Republican notes on those FISA applications from which it was compiled.

- - - Updated - - -

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".

I didn't claim that it didn't, sorry. I just said that putting that information in footnote can be suspicious.

Can. Depending on overall context.

You're saying that "putting anything in footnote instead of main text" cannot ever be suspicious, under any circumstance? Really? "Suspicious", not even "criminal" or "proof of anything".

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

You're dishonest one here.

[Wyrt]

His memo is as accurate as Republican notes on those FISA applications from which it was compiled.

No, it's not. The FBI and DOJ both said that the memo deliberately left out facts that made it inaccurate before it was released. The memo was never accurate and was only meant to deceive.

[Endus]

I didn't claim that it didn't, sorry. I just said that putting that information in footnote can be suspicious.

Can. Depending on overall context.

You're saying that "putting anything in footnote" cannot ever be suspicious, under any circumstance? Really?

You're dishonest one here.

How could it ever be "suspicious"? The only way it's "suspicious" is if you're assuming the readers won't read the footnotes, which means it's "suspicious" only because the reader is willfully ignoring parts of the text.

Which is obviously absolute fucking nonsense.

By imputing that it even could be "suspicious", solely by being a footnote, you are making an argument about the context, sight unseen. You're literally making shit up about something you admit you know nothing about, and getting upset when people like myself point out that you're making it all up.

Well, tough. Stop making stuff up and acting like it's true.

[Rukh]

And we keep finding out how blatantly wrong this GOP memo is. What a garbage fire.

[Shalcker]

No, it's not. The FBI and DOJ both said that the memo deliberately left out facts that made it inaccurate before it was released. The memo was never accurate and was only meant to deceive.

You could just as easily say that Republican notes which were compiled from DoJ and FBI data were; and obviously they never could be totally comprehensive if they had to study them in DoJ "reading room" and were only allowed to bring their notes out.

[Felya]

Because he haven't seen it, duh, so he cannot claim one way or another.

His memo is as accurate as Republican notes on those FISA applications from which it was compiled.

So, republicans are setting up Trump now?

[Rukh]

You could just as easily say that Republican notes which were compiled from DoJ and FBI data were; and obviously they never could be totally comprehensive if they had to study them in DoJ "reading room" and were only allowed to bring their notes out.

So what would the responsible thing to do when you know you don't have all the information be? Make unfounded and clearly misleading claims?

[Shalcker]

How could it ever be "suspicious"? The only way it's "suspicious" is if you're assuming the readers won't read the footnotes, which means it's "suspicious" only because the reader is willfully ignoring parts of the text.

I certainly don't know one way or another; but as far as i see Congressional oversight certainly cannot go from just assuming they can trust DoJ word that they indeed read everything at the time and were well aware of those facts.

Oversight is about checking that what you suppose should be true is actually true.

Then, again, if this information is included and application is still accepted as basis for spying on American citizen, that is also can be and does seems to be seen by Republicans as a problem.

As i explained in previous pages, it opens up venue of spying on political opponents through FISA warrants that shouldn't be there.

[FlatBootyJudy]

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.

Wow! We need some fries with all the salt in this post! Did you not get their point?! You just voided your own argument!

Infracted

[Shalcker]

So what would the responsible thing to do when you know you don't have all the information be? Make unfounded and clearly misleading claims?

Point out what you see as likely abuse from what you've read, obviously, then have everyone "accused" defend themselves on every questionable detail (as it seems to happen right now).

[NYC17]

You could just as easily say that Republican notes which were compiled from DoJ and FBI data were; and obviously they never could be totally comprehensive if they had to study them in DoJ "reading room" and were only allowed to bring their notes out.

Incorrect.

Reset and try again.

[FlatBootyJudy]

Incorrect.

Reset and try again.

What is incorrect about it?

[NYC17]

Because he haven't seen it, duh, so he cannot claim one way or another.

His memo is as accurate as Republican notes on those FISA applications from which it was compiled.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't claim that it didn't, sorry. I just said that putting that information in footnote can be suspicious.

Can. Depending on overall context.

You're saying that "putting anything in footnote instead of main text" cannot ever be suspicious, under any circumstance? Really? "Suspicious", not even "criminal" or "proof of anything".

You're dishonest one here.

No. It is not inherently suspicious. The reason you think it's so is because you have little to no understanding of the subject you are attempting to discuss.

- - - Updated - - -

What is incorrect about it?

You can not say the memo, nor the notes used were accurate. Why? Because they were used to create an inaccurate memo.

Do try to keep up. I don't have the inclination to hold your hand through what should be rather basic exercises in comprehension.

[Endus]

I certainly don't know one way or another; but as far as i see Congressional oversight certainly cannot go from just assuming they can trust DoJ word that they indeed read everything at the time and were well aware of those facts.

The alternative is declaring that you believe those DOJ officials are incompetent and/or unethical, and should be removed from their positions.

Are you making that declaration, and do you have the evidence to conclusively prove it? No? Then yes, you have to assume they are acting in accordance with the requirements of their position.

Otherwise, you're just making shit up without any basis at all for it. Making those kinds of accusations without basis is potentially legally actionable, as slander.

Oversight is about checking that what you suppose should be true is actually true.

Yeah, we're not talking about oversight here, at all.

Then, again, if this information is included and application is still accepted as basis for spying on American citizen, that is also can be and does seems to be seen by Republicans as a problem.

As i explained in previous pages, it opens up venue of spying on political opponents through FISA warrants that shouldn't be there.

You didn't "explain" shit, and your claims don't hold up. If your political opponents are engaging in closeted shenanigans with foreign agents, they probably should be surveilled under a FISA warrant.

There's nothing wrong with using opposition research here.

[Bodakane]

It isn't the same argument. It's a completely different argument. You're attacking a straw man, rather than what I was saying.

I'm saying even if the Page warrant relied heavily enough on the dossier's intelligence that it would not have been issued without said dossier, even if we grant that, so what?

It doesn't invalidate the dossier. Nothing has. Folks on your side keep acting like the dossier isn't evidence, which isn't justified by anything that's occurred.

It's not that "we need more information". It's that you folks keep making stuff up to fill that void of information, and have absolutely no justification for it.

We DO need more information. But the proper stance in that case is to say "this looks bad but it's not confirmed yet", not "here's a bunch of bullshit I made up that misrepresents what facts we DO know." You're doing the latter.

Knew a guy who was always scamming people, so he thought everyone else were always scamming. This is what we have here. Conservatives would think nothing of fabricating stuff to go after their enemies with, so they assume the same thing is happening to them with the dossier.

- - - Updated - - -

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! The funny thing is there is plenty of evidence of Russia collusion from the DNC!

- - - Updated - - -



Meeting with a lawyer to find dirt on Clinton is not working with the Russian government.

Pay attention.

Trump Jr is not Trump Sr.

Pay attention.

There's a shit ton of evidence. There's more evidence against Trump and his team for collusion and obstruction then there is for all the things you guys believe about Hillary and Obama.

[solinari6]

One thing to point out after the repub talking point went from:

1) they didn't disclose it was political!
to
2) well it was just a footnote!
to finally:
3) opposition research should NEVER be allowed into FISA warrant application

... but they never can point to any law or statute that actually SAYS that opposition research shouldn't be allowed. So maybe if they really feel that way, that's something that they can work on changing. But really ...

If you are doing oppo research, and you uncover stuff that looks like your opponent is engaged in treasonous activity, what would you do? Well I would HOPE you would turn that into the FBI. And then I would HOPE that the FBI would look at that material objectively, and if they thought it was solid enough to include in a FISA application, they should be able to do that.

Sure, we could argue that there should be more transparency, or double checks to make sure it's done objectively, but to put out a blanket statement that that info can NEVER be used? Well that's just dumb.

[Ripster42]

One thing to point out after the repub talking point went from:

1) they didn't disclose it was political!
to
2) well it was just a footnote!
to finally:
3) opposition research should NEVER be allowed into FISA warrant application

... but they never can point to any law or statute that actually SAYS that opposition research shouldn't be allowed. So maybe if they really feel that way, that's something that they can work on changing. But really ...

If you are doing oppo research, and you uncover stuff that looks like your opponent is engaged in treasonous activity, what would you do? Well I would HOPE you would turn that into the FBI. And then I would HOPE that the FBI would look at that material objectively, and if they thought it was solid enough to include in a FISA application, they should be able to do that.

Sure, we could argue that there should be more transparency, or double checks to make sure it's done objectively, but to put out a blanket statement that that info can NEVER be used? Well that's just dumb.

It's basically the dumbest argument I've seen:

"We've got evidence of corruption because we looked for it."

"Oh, you were looking for it? Looks like we can't use it then."

[solinari6]

It's basically the dumbest argument I've seen:

"We've got evidence of corruption because we looked for it."

"Oh, you were looking for it? Looks like we can't use it then."

Nevermind that Hillary would pay $12 million for fake oppo research. Gurl ... I could have wrote up better stuff for 1/2 that!

[Endus]

Nevermind that Hillary would pay $12 million for fake oppo research. Gurl ... I could have wrote up better stuff for 1/2 that!

Not to mention, to repeat a point I've made several times now, oppo research has to include explanations and justifications where it's relevant. Or you're setting the client up to "expose" something their opponent has a ready explanation for, which ends up a win for their opposition and just makes your client look bad.

Opposition research is not about muckraking. You might dig up muck, but you need to be real sure it's real much that will actually stick.

[Rukh]

Point out what you see as likely abuse from what you've read, obviously, then have everyone "accused" defend themselves on every questionable detail (as it seems to happen right now).

And we know he DIDN'T. So he lied and was misleading. So you agree that he shouldn't have said anything when he didn't see anything actually wrong. Good to know.