WWTBAM Bored

BackInTex wrote: Don't worry, it will be leaked, because those wanting it released have no qualms about breaking the law.

If releasing the Republican version is in the national interest, why isn't releasing the Democratic version?

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
LOL - you're still telling yourself it was Comey who cost Hillary the election?

Comey didn't cost Hillary the election but he didn't help. The question is if Comey was part of this vast, secret anti-Trump conspiracy to elect Hillary, why did he reopen the Wienergate mess 10 days before the election when it could only hurt Hillary?

He wasn't supposed to 'help' - that's kind of the point. You'd have to ask him why - I'd guess it was an attempted case of 'cya,' but I'm a cynic.

tlynn78 wrote:I haven't seen the Dem response memo.

It is clear to anyone who isn't blinded by Trump-hate that Clinton, after first cheating Bernie to assure herself the nomination, continued to attempt to secure the presidency by any means necessary, aided by the Obama administration. Tell me you'll be fine if Trump has "his" FBI conduct similar activities against his opponent in three years.

If by "cheating Bernie" you mean arranging to have more people vote for her in the primaries, then I guess she's guilty.

If you think the FBI or its top political appointees were trying to help Secretary Clinton win the election, then you're smoking crack.

There was a time I had confidence that most elected Republicans would prioritize love of country over their love of political power. As Senator McCain and a few others have demonstrated, such Republicans do still exist. Sadly, however, most of them have demonstrated that they are more interested in clinging to power by any means necessary, even if it means ignoring hostile acts against us by a foreign government. Despite my disagreement with most Republican policy positions over the years, I used to think they were patriots. They're proving me wrong about that. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: There was a time I had confidence that most elected Republicans would prioritize love of country over their love of political power. As Senator McCain and a few others have demonstrated, such Republicans do still exist. Sadly, however, most of them have demonstrated that they are more interested in clinging to power by any means necessary, even if it means ignoring hostile acts against us by a foreign government. Despite my disagreement with most Republican policy positions over the years, I used to think they were patriots. They're proving me wrong about that. --Bob

That's funny right there. Where'd you get that line of talk from? Nowhere have any Republicans given one of our top enemies $billion in cash and with it the means to expand their support of global terror and nuclear capabilities.

Perhaps we have different understandings on the term "patriot", or maybe just different countries we love.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: There was a time I had confidence that most elected Republicans would prioritize love of country over their love of political power. As Senator McCain and a few others have demonstrated, such Republicans do still exist. Sadly, however, most of them have demonstrated that they are more interested in clinging to power by any means necessary, even if it means ignoring hostile acts against us by a foreign government. Despite my disagreement with most Republican policy positions over the years, I used to think they were patriots. They're proving me wrong about that. --Bob

That's funny right there. Where'd you get that line of talk from? Nowhere have any Republicans given one of our top enemies $billion in cash and with it the means to expand their support of global terror and nuclear capabilities.

Perhaps we have different understandings on the term "patriot", or maybe just different countries we love.

It's beyond funny, wandering into delusion.

BackInTex wrote: Nowhere have any Republicans given one of our top enemies $billion in cash and with it the means to expand their support of global terror and nuclear capabilities.

I assume you're talking about Obama's Iran deal, which was a matter of public record and debated extensively in Congress.

As opposed to the disinformation campaign and other meddling done by Russia in secret at the behest of Trump.

silverscreenselect wrote: As opposed to the disinformation campaign and other meddling done by Russia in secret at the behest of Trump.

Seriously? Have you not read the memo? The facts are not being debated. There is no evidence anyone on behalf of Trump worked with the Russians. Just the opposite. Plenty of facts showing parties supporting and being funded by the Democrats worked with the Russians.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: There was a time I had confidence that most elected Republicans would prioritize love of country over their love of political power. As Senator McCain and a few others have demonstrated, such Republicans do still exist. Sadly, however, most of them have demonstrated that they are more interested in clinging to power by any means necessary, even if it means ignoring hostile acts against us by a foreign government. Despite my disagreement with most Republican policy positions over the years, I used to think they were patriots. They're proving me wrong about that. --Bob

That's funny right there. Where'd you get that line of talk from? Nowhere have any Republicans given one of our top enemies $billion in cash and with it the means to expand their support of global terror and nuclear capabilities.

Perhaps we have different understandings on the term "patriot", or maybe just different countries we love.

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia?

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: As opposed to the disinformation campaign and other meddling done by Russia in secret at the behest of Trump.

Seriously? Have you not read the memo? The facts are not being debated. There is no evidence anyone on behalf of Trump worked with the Russians. Just the opposite. Plenty of facts showing parties supporting and being funded by the Democrats worked with the Russians.

You have been thoroughly brainwashed by the Russians.

Bob Juch wrote: You have been thoroughly brainwashed by the Russians.

Меня не промывают мозги

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: There is no evidence anyone on behalf of Trump worked with the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_bet ... _officials

But if you want harder proof, Mueller is going to provide it fairly soon.

And here's what a law professor and former prosecutor has to say about the legal argument raised in the memo.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-leg ... asethememo

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: There is no evidence anyone on behalf of Trump worked with the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_bet ... _officials

But if you want harder proof, Mueller is going to provide it fairly soon.

And here's what a law professor and former prosecutor has to say about the legal argument raised in the memo.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-leg ... asethememo

Thank you. This says with much more detail and relevant background what I was looking for words to articulate. The memo's entire case is that Steele's funding source gave rise to a bias should have been disclosed to the judges who approved the application. This link explains in considerable detail why that claim is complete bullshit. I'd be willing to bet that the Democratic memo contains a lot more information about the other factual information that supported the application, making it clear both that a great deal more than the Steele memo supported the application, that Steele's track record of reliability undercut any claim that his information was not credible, and that there was more than enough corroboration to support probable cause. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_bet ... _officials

But if you want harder proof, Mueller is going to provide it fairly soon.

And here's what a law professor and former prosecutor has to say about the legal argument raised in the memo.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-leg ... asethememo

Thank you. This says with much more detail and relevant background what I was looking for words to articulate. The memo's entire case is that Steele's funding source gave rise to a bias should have been disclosed to the judges who approved the application. This link explains in considerable detail why that claim is complete bullshit. I'd be willing to bet that the Democratic memo contains a lot more information about the other factual information that supported the application, making it clear both that a great deal more than the Steele memo supported the application, that Steele's track record of reliability undercut any claim that his information was not credible, and that there was more than enough corroboration to support probable cause. --Bob

Maybe, bob, but that is just one person's opinion. Maybe a member of the resistance, like you. Regardless, this is going to go where it's going to go. Probably hasn't changed anyone's mind. But what about all the unmaskings? I may be wrong, but weren't these based on what the FISA warrants gathered?

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: As opposed to the disinformation campaign and other meddling done by Russia in secret at the behest of Trump.

Seriously? Have you not read the memo? The facts are not being debated. There is no evidence anyone on behalf of Trump worked with the Russians. Just the opposite. Plenty of facts showing parties supporting and being funded by the Democrats worked with the Russians.

You have been thoroughly brainwashed by the Russians.

Possibly, but at least he has a brain to be washed.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_bet ... _officials

But if you want harder proof, Mueller is going to provide it fairly soon.

And here's what a law professor and former prosecutor has to say about the legal argument raised in the memo.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-leg ... asethememo

Thank you. This says with much more detail and relevant background what I was looking for words to articulate. The memo's entire case is that Steele's funding source gave rise to a bias should have been disclosed to the judges who approved the application. This link explains in considerable detail why that claim is complete bullshit. I'd be willing to bet that the Democratic memo contains a lot more information about the other factual information that supported the application, making it clear both that a great deal more than the Steele memo supported the application, that Steele's track record of reliability undercut any claim that his information was not credible, and that there was more than enough corroboration to support probable cause. --Bob

Maybe, bob, but that is just one person's opinion. Maybe a member of the resistance, like you. Regardless, this is going to go where it's going to go. Probably hasn't changed anyone's mind. But what about all the unmaskings? I may be wrong, but weren't these based on what the FISA warrants gathered?

It's an opinion informed by (a) a reading of the memo, and (b) years of experience obtaining similar warrants. It's also readily checkable, because he's citing and linking to the case law that he's describing. If you think his opinion is wrong, explain which of the cases he's relying on doesn't actually say what he claims it says. Or explain why his logic is faulty. Or explain how he's misreading the memo.

You can't. Because he isn't. You're entitled to your own opinion. But you're claiming here the right to your own facts, and you don't have a right to your own facts. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Thank you. This says with much more detail and relevant background what I was looking for words to articulate. The memo's entire case is that Steele's funding source gave rise to a bias should have been disclosed to the judges who approved the application. This link explains in considerable detail why that claim is complete bullshit. I'd be willing to bet that the Democratic memo contains a lot more information about the other factual information that supported the application, making it clear both that a great deal more than the Steele memo supported the application, that Steele's track record of reliability undercut any claim that his information was not credible, and that there was more than enough corroboration to support probable cause. --Bob

Maybe, bob, but that is just one person's opinion. Maybe a member of the resistance, like you. Regardless, this is going to go where it's going to go. Probably hasn't changed anyone's mind. But what about all the unmaskings? I may be wrong, but weren't these based on what the FISA warrants gathered?

It's an opinion informed by (a) a reading of the memo, and (b) years of experience obtaining similar warrants. It's also readily checkable, because he's citing and linking to the case law that he's describing. If you think his opinion is wrong, explain which of the cases he's relying on doesn't actually say what he claims it says. Or explain why his logic is faulty. Or explain how he's misreading the memo.

You can't. Because he isn't. You're entitled to your own opinion. But you're claiming here the right to your own facts, and you don't have a right to your own facts. --Bob

If I was so inclined, I could troll the internet and find someone who uses just as many words as this judge that will have the opposite opinion. Bob, you have no credibility in this matter as you have publicly declared your dedication to bring down trump using whatever means possible. If you had any ethics, you would recuse yourself from any discussion related to this issue.

The memo was endorsed for release by Trey Gowdy, who probably has as much experience and more credibility than this judge. So, as I said, this will play out however it plays out.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:No response yet from the usual suspects. I guess there are no clear focus group talking points released yet from CNN.

Is this one of the usual suspects?

Here's another "usual suspect," a former Whitewater prosecutor who is now working for a conservative/libertarian think tank.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 8?lo=ap_b1

But even on the limited data we have in the Nunes memo—and even disregarding any concern that the memo was motivated by partisan purposes—it simply doesn’t prove misconduct, much less game-changing misconduct by the FBI or DOJ.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The memo was endorsed for release by Trey Gowdy, who probably has as much experience and more credibility than this judge.

Is that the same Trey Gowdy who spent four years and numerous hearings investigating Benghazi and finding nothing criminal?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Maybe, bob, but that is just one person's opinion. Maybe a member of the resistance, like you. Regardless, this is going to go where it's going to go. Probably hasn't changed anyone's mind. But what about all the unmaskings? I may be wrong, but weren't these based on what the FISA warrants gathered?

It's an opinion informed by (a) a reading of the memo, and (b) years of experience obtaining similar warrants. It's also readily checkable, because he's citing and linking to the case law that he's describing. If you think his opinion is wrong, explain which of the cases he's relying on doesn't actually say what he claims it says. Or explain why his logic is faulty. Or explain how he's misreading the memo.

You can't. Because he isn't. You're entitled to your own opinion. But you're claiming here the right to your own facts, and you don't have a right to your own facts. --Bob

If I was so inclined, I could troll the internet and find someone who uses just as many words as this judge that will have the opposite opinion. Bob, you have no credibility in this matter as you have publicly declared your dedication to bring down trump using whatever means possible. If you had any ethics, you would recuse yourself from any discussion related to this issue.

The memo was endorsed for release by Trey Gowdy, who probably has as much experience and more credibility than this judge. So, as I said, this will play out however it plays out.

Right. That's called an ad hominem fallacy, flock. The only basis you have for disagreeing with the argument is that I'm the one making it.

That doesn't work. You need to dispute either the premises or the logic of the analysis presented. If you do find someone willing to put their professional reputation on the line by defending this partisan hack job, then I'll almost certainly find time this weekend to explain in detail exactly where the premises or logic of the piece are flawed. But you can't challenge the analysis presented here, because both the facts and the logic are right.

You'll believe what you want to believe, flock. But I think enough Americans are sufficiently skeptical that they'll see this for exactly what it is. And public officials who try to defend the memo will have to answer to history. They won't like the verdict. As a lifelong Republican and former Director of the FBI remarked not very long ago, there aren't many schools or streets named after Joe McCarthy. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The memo was endorsed for release by Trey Gowdy, who probably has as much experience and more credibility than this judge.

Is that the same Trey Gowdy who spent four years and numerous hearings investigating Benghazi and finding nothing criminal?

Gee, it's a good thing the people conducting that investigation weren't the least bit prejudiced against its target. That might have made the investigation illegitimate. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It's an opinion informed by (a) a reading of the memo, and (b) years of experience obtaining similar warrants. It's also readily checkable, because he's citing and linking to the case law that he's describing. If you think his opinion is wrong, explain which of the cases he's relying on doesn't actually say what he claims it says. Or explain why his logic is faulty. Or explain how he's misreading the memo.

You can't. Because he isn't. You're entitled to your own opinion. But you're claiming here the right to your own facts, and you don't have a right to your own facts. --Bob

If I was so inclined, I could troll the internet and find someone who uses just as many words as this judge that will have the opposite opinion. Bob, you have no credibility in this matter as you have publicly declared your dedication to bring down trump using whatever means possible. If you had any ethics, you would recuse yourself from any discussion related to this issue.

The memo was endorsed for release by Trey Gowdy, who probably has as much experience and more credibility than this judge. So, as I said, this will play out however it plays out.

Right. That's called an ad hominem fallacy, flock. The only basis you have for disagreeing with the argument is that I'm the one making it.

That doesn't work. You need to dispute either the premises or the logic of the analysis presented. If you do find someone willing to put their professional reputation on the line by defending this partisan hack job, then I'll almost certainly find time this weekend to explain in detail exactly where the premises or logic of the piece are flawed. But you can't challenge the analysis presented here, because both the facts and the logic are right.

You'll believe what you want to believe, flock. But I think enough Americans are sufficiently skeptical that they'll see this for exactly what it is. And public officials who try to defend the memo will have to answer to history. They won't like the verdict. As a lifelong Republican and former Director of the FBI remarked not very long ago, there aren't many schools or streets named after Joe McCarthy. --Bob

You seem to be angry, there, fella. I am not arguing that anybody is innocent or guilty based on this memo, I'm just saying you put your dog in the hunt a long time ago, and that taints anything you might say. That was your choice. trump is presumed innocent by law, but you have stated you presume him guilty of anything anyone might come at him with, because you don't like him. What is the legal term for that, bob?

As far as I can gather from this information, Carter Page had been investigated in 2013. A lot of lefties are using this as the reason for suspicion of trump's campaign. But I think what he was investigated for in 2013 had long been closed. This new one, in the summer of 2016, was because he made a trip to Moscow. In the FISA application was information from Steele's contribution and from Yahoo News, which actually got their information from Steele. So I think your argument is that even if Steele had an animus toward trump, the FBI gets info from people who don't like each other all the time. The difference here, IMO, was this information was clearly commissioned and paid for by Clinton and the DNC, and marketed to friendly media, even after it was shown to be inaccurate. And it was included in the application even though it was known to be discredited.

Because Page was under investigation and was working very loosely with the trump campaign, his conversations included other people. Susan Rice asked for many unmaskings. Why?

There is just too much political stink on this from both sides. I don't think there ever will be a definitive answer. Whatever the truth is, it will be buried in the swamp, like so much else is. From your previous posts, I think you are still counting on Mueller to find evidence that trump had something to do with the Wikileaks of Podesta's emails. Good luck with that.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:You seem to be angry, there, fella.

You're damn right I'm angry. You should be too.

A foreign government demonstrably interfered with our election process. Now, for purely partisan advantage, some of our highest elected officials are doing their level best to interfere with and discredit the investigation into that interference. Those elected officials are claiming that the reason that investigation shouldn't be trusted is that the investigators were biased. That claim appears to be factually false, but even if it were true, that didn't seem to matter a lick to them (or anyone else) when they were the ones doing the investigating and the target of their investigation was a prominent political figure in the other party. So using that as the basis for criticizing the Mueller investigation is also the height of hypocrisy.

Our current elected officials are seriously eroding protections and institutions that are important to the preservation of the republic. And you're defending them. I'll say it again. You're damn right I'm pissed. And I'll be using as much time and money as I can spare this fall to make sure that the people responsible for this damage to the country I love lose their ability to inflict more damage. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:You seem to be angry, there, fella.

You're damn right I'm angry. You should be too.

A foreign government demonstrably interfered with our election process. Now, for purely partisan advantage, some of our highest elected officials are doing their level best to interfere with and discredit the investigation into that interference. Those elected officials are claiming that the reason that investigation shouldn't be trusted is that the investigators were biased. That claim appears to be factually false, but even if it were true, that didn't seem to matter a lick to them (or anyone else) when they were the ones doing the investigating and the target of their investigation was a prominent political figure in the other party. So using that as the basis for criticizing the Mueller investigation is also the height of hypocrisy.

Our current elected officials are seriously eroding protections and institutions that are important to the preservation of the republic. And you're defending them. I'll say it again. You're damn right I'm pissed. And I'll be using as much time and money as I can spare this fall to make sure that the people responsible for this damage to the country I love lose their ability to inflict more damage. --Bob

I suggest saving a little for mental heath care in case this November's "flood of blue" works out like last November did.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Because Page was under investigation and was working very loosely with the trump campaign, his conversations included other people. Susan Rice asked for many unmaskings. Why?

If you remember, the masked names were in intelligence reports about Russian interference in U.S. elections. They had nothing to do with Carter Page. As it turns out, our wiretaps picked up Russian diplomats hoping that the new administration would be more friendly to them. And the reports remained classified after the names were unmasked. Rice didn't leak them; Nunes did.

some of our highest elected officials are doing their level best to interfere with and discredit the investigation into that interference.

Please provide factual information, first hand data and documents to support and prove that accusation. Until you can, it is only your opinion, which is clouded by your stated declaration of war on trump. And it is just as valid as anyone else's, including mine.