House Republicans say probe found no evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia

[Shadowmelded]

I'm not trying to claim either side is biased, or not biased, I'm not trying to make that claim. I'm trying to describe how events will unfold. I'm trying to describe the reality. When I say that pro-collusion entities (people who believe there was Trump-Russia collusion) will disapprove of the committee conclusion, that's not a declaration of bias, that's a declaration of fact. I'm not saying they will disapprove of it because of bias, or because of a lack of bias, or because of partisanship, or a lack of partisanship, I'm simply stating the fact that they will do so, for whatever reason.

I'm not usually one to copy/paste dictionary definitions but it's unavoidable at this point;

a particular [...] opinion, [...] that is preconceived

Claiming that their prior position on collusion, either for or against determines whether they'll believe the conclusion is describing bias.

Find me someone who thought the Trump campaign colluded with Russia who now believes, upon the conclusion of the committee investigation, that they, in fact, did not.

Find me someone who did not think the Trump campaign colluded with Russia who now believes, upon the conclusion of the committee investigation, that they, in fact, did.

You know you're just backing up my point that the HSPCI investigation is a farce right? It hasn't changed anyone's minds because they haven't provided convincing evidence.

These people either don't exist, or exist in very small number. I'm not ascribing this to bias, or partisanship, or anything else, simply that that is the way people on either side are going to interpret the committee ending it's investigation.

And treating it as an immutable fact of life instead of pointing out the flaws in their reasoning is a cop-out. The "both sides are unwilling to compromise/are equally biased" is intellectually dishonest.

Well, the intelligence report was a judgment, after all. That is, a belief, not something provable. Unless we're talking about different reports. I'm talking about this one:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

The intelligence community doesn't do absolute statements, they deal with confidence levels. This assessment had "high confidence" which is pretty robust.

[cubby]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Intelligence Committee Republicans said on Monday the panel had finished conducting interviews in its investigation of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, and found no collusion between President Donald Trump’s associates and Moscow’s efforts to influence the campaign.

“We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” committee Republicans said as they released an overview of their probe.

Representative Mike Conaway, who has led the panel’s investigation, said the panel had finished the interview phase of its probe.

“You never know what you never know, but we found no reason to think that there’s something we’re missing in this regard. We’ve talked to everybody we think we need to talk to,” Conaway said in an interview on Fox News Channel.

Committee Democrats had no immediate response to the announcement, which was expected. Panel Republicans have been saying for weeks they were near the end of the interview phase of the probe.

Reflecting a deep partisan divide on the House of Representatives panel, Democrats have been arguing that the probe is far from over. Representative Adam Schiff, the panel’s ranking Democrat, said last week that there were dozens more witnesses who should be called before the panel, and many more documents that should be subpoenaed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GO2S1

With Nunes leading the investigation, did anyone not see this coming?

[Dacien]

I'm not usually one to copy/paste dictionary definitions but it's unavoidable at this point;


Claiming that their prior position on collusion, either for or against determines whether they'll believe the conclusion is describing bias.


You know you're just backing up my point that the HSPCI investigation is a farce right? It hasn't changed anyone's minds because they haven't provided convincing evidence.


And treating it as an immutable fact of life instead of pointing out the flaws in their reasoning is a cop-out. The "both sides are unwilling to compromise/are equally biased" is intellectually dishonest.

It's a matter of interpretation, not bias. Take Nunes, for example. Some people see him as a man who for some time now has suspected serious impropriety, and has stuck his neck out greatly in an effort to expose what he believes are improper actions. Others, they see him as a man who knows what he's doing isn't good or true, but he wants to run interference for the administration for any number of reasons.

These aren't biases, they're different interpretations of the facts. And this is just one example. If you take multiple examples of events and run different interpretations, and interpret these events to be indicative of a general narrative, let's assume honestly. Let's assume honestly. You're not trying to "stick it to Nunes" or "Stick it to Trump", you've evaluated the facts and you honestly believe that Trump or the Trump campaign colluded in some way with Russia, and Nunes is running interference for them. You're going to see this committee investigation closure, and you're going to refer back to your evaluation of the facts regarding Nunes and the committee, and you''re going to objectively decide that this is further demonstration of the partisanship of the committee. It's not bias, it's objective evaluation of the facts.

Now imagine the photo negative of that. Imagine someone who thinks the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, and Nunes simply found out about unmasking and improper use of FISA, and went out on a limb for what he thought was a noble cause, and now this committee investigation conclusion is simply the natural extension of these facts, that there is no Trump-Russia collusion. Again, this isn't bias, it's a different interpretation of facts.

We're talking about matters that have a lot of unknowns, and people draw different conclusions from different events. It's too simple to call it merely "bias".

[Macaquerie]

Take Nunes, for example. Some people see him as a man who for some time now has suspected serious impropriety, and has stuck his neck out greatly in an effort to expose what he believes are improper actions.

Not even Nunes himself believes this.

[cubby]

It's a matter of interpretation, not bias. Take Nunes, for example. Some people see him as a man who who for some time now has suspected serious impropriety, and has stuck his neck out greatly in an effort to expose what he believes is improper actions. Others, they see him as a man who knows what he's doing isn't good or true, but he wants to run interference for the administration for any number of reasons.

We're talking about matters that have a lot of unknowns, and people draw different conclusions from different events. It's too simple to call it merely "bias".

But it's not with Nunes. If we were discussing someone like McCain, I could see you point. But Nunes is already a proven hatchetman for the administration, working directly for them, while supposed both investigating them and recusing him from the investigation.

I see what you mean about some things definitely being a matter of interpretation, but Nunes himself, and this committee (GOP led side), have already proven themselves to be wholly biased and incapable of objectivity. You can pick any number of reasons - but objective fact proves their bias and our conclusion.

Many other people will fall into the general category you've described, from both sides, but not Nunes and not the GOP "intelligence" committee. It's too late for them.

[Tidestorm]

I'm guessing their probe was them looking around in the room they were currently in, going. "I don't see any evidence, do you see any evidence?" and shaking their heads and shrugging at each other.

How long have these investigations been going on? Over a year? Guess it takes at least that long to fabricate evidence and come up with a story believable enough to impeach Trump.

[Stop Pretending]

I was being sarcastic. But the way this crap is going, they seem to want to drag them out and suck as much blood money from the tax payers they can get by with.

Like the 8 Benghazi investigations?

[Garnier Fructis]

How long have these investigations been going on? Over a year? Guess it takes at least that long to fabricate evidence and come up with a story believable enough to impeach Trump.

Lol. /10char

[Heladys]

Republicans and Trump supporters don't get to say a single fucking word about the length of investigations until this has surpassed all the various Benghazi iterations, and the horseshit overreaching under Ken Starr.

[Shadowmelded]

It's a matter of interpretation, not bias. Take Nunes, for example. Some people see him as a man who for some time now has suspected serious impropriety, and has stuck his neck out greatly in an effort to expose what he believes are improper actions.

Suspects with no evidence and every attempt to justify his claims has been debunked pretty thoroughly.

Others, they see him as a man who knows what he's doing isn't good or true, but he wants to run interference for the administration for any number of reasons.

Not without reason.

I felt like I had a duty and obligation to tell him, because, as you know, he’s taking a lot of heat in the news media

That's not how the head of an investigation should be treating someone they're investigating.

These aren't biases, they're different interpretations of the facts. And this is just one example. If you take multiple examples of events and run different interpretations, and interpret these events to be indicative of a general narrative, let's assume honestly. Let's assume honestly. You're not trying to "stick it to Nunes" or "Stick it to Trump", you've evaluated the facts and you honestly believe that Trump or the Trump campaign colluded in some way with Russia, and Nunes is running interference for them. You're going to see this committee investigation closure, and you're going to refer back to your evaluation of the facts regarding Nunes and the committee, and you''re going to objectively decide that this is further demonstration of the partisanship of the committee. It's not bias, it's objective evaluation of the facts.

You don't need to have a definitive answer to whether Trump colluded to see that this investigation has been a farce.

Republican Rep. Tom Rooney is calling for an end to the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into possible collusion in Russia's 2016 election meddling, arguing that its only purpose is to drive the media narrative for Democrats.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/p...ntv/index.html

Were the communications of officials or associates of any campaign subject to any kind of improper surveillance? The Intelligence Community has extremely strict procedures for handling information pertaining to any U.S. citizens who are subject even to incidental surveillance, and this Committee wants to ensure all surveillance activities have followed all relevant laws, rules, and regulations. Let me be clear: we know there was not a wiretap on Trump Tower. However, it’s still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.

Nunes opening statement at an open hearing into Russian active measures.

They were never interested in investigating Russia and instead spent their time trying to change the subject to Wiretapping, Unmasking, Uranium One, Christopher Steele, the FISA court.

Now imagine the photo negative of that. Imagine someone who thinks the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, and Nunes simply found out about unmasking and improper use of FISA, and went out on a limb for what he thought was a noble cause, and now this committee investigation conclusion is simply the natural extension of these facts, that there is no Trump-Russia collusion. Again, this isn't bias, it's a different interpretation of facts.

We're talking about matters that have a lot of unknowns, and people draw different conclusions from different events. It's too simple to call it merely "bias".

Except what you're describing is literally bias. Your starting point is someone who already thinks Trump didn't collude and everything after that reaffirms their previously held belief.

[NYC17]

It's a matter of interpretation, not bias. Take Nunes, for example. Some people see him as a man who for some time now has suspected serious impropriety, and has stuck his neck out greatly in an effort to expose what he believes are improper actions.

Those people are called idiots. Their opinion isn't worthy of serious consideration.

Also, you're grossly understating what the opposite opinion of Nunes is.

[Dsonsion]

I'm guessing their probe was them looking around in the room they were currently in, going. "I don't see any evidence, do you see any evidence?" and shaking their heads and shrugging at each other.

Hah, just how I pictured it.

By being so categorical they only make themselves look biased, when there's so much going on with Mueller's investigation. I hope America remembers the names of those representatives when it turns out they were wrong.

[Adam Jensen]

House Republicans with a vested interest in seeing probe closed claiming there's no evidence for probe.

Yep, no conflict of interest there, totally nonbiased and trustworthy . . .

- - - Updated - - -

I did not say suspend it for 3 years. It was a sarcastic hypothetical situation to begin with. Benghazi should have been concluded in less than a year, with Clinton removed from her position at the time.

Why would she be removed before they proved she did anything wrong?

[Felya]

Why would she be removed before they proved she did anything wrong?

Because she is a devil worshiper, hell bent on starting WW3? The most corrupt person in the universe? She is a witch that should be hunted!!!

[Dacien]

Not without reason.
That's not how the head of an investigation should be treating someone they're investigating.

I dunno, if someone was inclined to believe that Nunes had found out about information that was unfairly being used to target Trump, those people would be inclined to believe that Nunes was willing to risk this bold maneuver to inform him about it. Again, interpretation of events.

You don't need to have a definitive answer to whether Trump colluded to see that this investigation has been a farce.

I'll wait for the 150-page report before I render an opinion.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/p...ntv/index.html

Nunes opening statement at an open hearing into Russian active measures.

They were never interested in investigating Russia and instead spent their time trying to change the subject to Wiretapping, Unmasking, Uranium One, Christopher Steele, the FISA court.

This is quite a rabbit hole, Shadowmelded. All of these matters you mention are interconnected.

Except what you're describing is literally bias. Your starting point is someone who already thinks Trump didn't collude and everything after that reaffirms their previously held belief.

Not at all. If you evaluate events and render a verdict, when new facts come about that coincide with your previously-rendered verdicts, that doesn't make it bias. That builds a case. It constructs a narrative that you believe happened. Detectives do this all the time. And oftentimes they're wrong. Oftentimes they're right. Doesn't mean they're biased, it means they have a certain interpretation of all the facts that they have available.

Interpretations of events, of factual occurrences, can vary. That doesn't mean that variance in interpretation is due to bias. Look at Alan Dershowitz. He's a life-long liberal Democrat who evaluated facts regarding Trump firing Comey, and that it cannot possibly be obstruction. As a constitutional scholar, that's his evaluation of the facts. You can hardly say he's biased.

[Adam Jensen]

Because she is a devil worshiper, hell bent on starting WW3? The most corrupt person in the universe? She is a witch that should be hunted!!!

Seemed to me like she was just another moderate right-of-center Democrat who would have pretty much just been a continuation of Barack Obama's policies, but I suppose it's possible she's also the Great Satan.

[Dacien]

Also, you're grossly understating what the opposite opinion of Nunes is.

Oh, I absolutely am. Trust me, I know.

[Calfredd]

How long have these investigations been going on? Over a year? Guess it takes at least that long to fabricate evidence and come up with a story believable enough to imprison Hillary.

/tencharacters

[NYC17]

Oh, I absolutely am. Trust me, I know.

You should aspire to be as accurate as their opinion is of him then.

- - - Updated - - -

I dunno, if someone was inclined to believe that Nunes had found out about information that was unfairly being used to target Trump, those people would be inclined to believe that Nunes was willing to risk this bold maneuver to inform him about it. Again, interpretation of events.



I'll wait for the 150-page report before I render an opinion.



This is quite a rabbit hole, Shadowmelded. All of these matters you mention are interconnected.



Not at all. If you evaluate events and render a verdict, when new facts come about that coincide with your previously-rendered verdicts, that doesn't make it bias. That builds a case. It constructs a narrative that you believe happened. Detectives do this all the time. And oftentimes they're wrong. Oftentimes they're right. Doesn't mean they're biased, it means they have a certain interpretation of all the facts that they have available.

Interpretations of events, of factual occurrences, can vary. That doesn't mean that variance in interpretation is due to bias. Look at Alan Dershowitz. He's a life-long liberal Democrat who evaluated facts regarding Trump firing Comey, and that it cannot possibly be obstruction. As a constitutional scholar, that's his evaluation of the facts. You can hardly say he's biased.

You don't get to interpret facts when your knowledge of them is incomplete and you actively try and obfuscate and ignore information. That's not an interpretation; it's a scam.

Man, that whole thought you had there was just...disgusting.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So the probe by House Republicans found nothing on Trump.

Wasn't this kind of an assumed outcome since Republicans will fall in line behind power, even if it's completely corrupt and swampy?