The Nunes Memo Has Effectively Destroyed Intelligence Oversight
from the WTG dept
The Nunes Memo, capitalized to give it far more gravitas that it actually possesses, was released late last week to mixed reviews. Nunes had built it up to be a mind-blowing damnation of a politically corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation, more interested in destroying Trump than performing its appointed duties. The memo showed the FBI had relied on questionable evidence from the Steele dossier while securing FISA warrants to surveill former Trump adviser Carter Page. This memo was composed by the House intelligence oversight head -- one who had rarely expressed concern about domestic surveillance prior to investigations of Trump officials.
The memo showed the basis for the warrants may have been thin, but it didn't show it was nonexistent. In fact, the underlying warrants actually did inform the FISA court about the political background of Christopher Steele and his dossier. Nunes didn't know this because Nunes hadn't actually read the warrants. When he was finally apprised of this contradiction, he claimed the FBI disclosure didn't count because the disclosure was contained in a footnote.
The memo's release has had some serious side effects, however. But it will be Congressional oversight taking the damage, rather than the FBI. The memo's release showed the dumping of sensitive, classified info could be motivated by political whims, rather than as the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process. It showed oversight committee members were willing to jeopardize law enforcement sources and methods to score political points -- ironically the same claim Nunes was making about the FBI's motivations.
The damage will also be felt -- indirectly -- by the American public. Intelligence oversight is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance abuses. With this move, Nunes has destroyed its credibility, as Julian Sanchez points out.
It will be hard for anyone who has read the Nunes memo to regard the committee’s output as nonpartisan now. And by crying wolf about intelligence abuses with no serious evidence, Nunes and his enablers have made it far easier for America’s spy agencies to dismiss any future allegations, however meritorious, as yet another self-serving partisan distraction: at best, baseless conspiracy theorizing; at worst, an effort to obstruct legitimate investigations.
And that may not even be the worst of it. As Sanchez notes, the effectiveness of intelligence oversight will be blunted further. It's already mostly ineffective. Now, it may be completely broken.
[T]he committees are ultimately dependent on the intelligence community itself to direct their attention to areas that demand further scrutiny—whether in the form of official briefers, or whistleblowers who approach members with their concerns. Neither type is likely to repose much confidence in a committee that seems so enthusiastic to make a partisan circus of its grave task.
If the end game was to stop whistleblowing and give the nation's surveillance apparatus even more autonomy, well… mission accomplished. What was merely "dysfunctional" (according to the 9/11 Commission) will now be utterly useless.
And in the end, it won't matter to those who went along with Nunes' plan to own the libs (FBI Edition). For most committee members, intelligence oversight is a do-nearly-nothing job with zero political payoff. When things are fixed or further broken, the public is rarely informed. The few times the public is apprised of changes, it's handled obliquely with as many redactions as possible. Home state constituents waiting for their bridge to nowhere / vanity airport aren't going to be pouring funds into the re-election hoppers based on some shadowy, poorly-explained intelligence reforms. Everyone involved -- the overseers and the overseen -- would prefer as little interaction with each other as possible. By showing the House Oversight Committee is not above playing political football with FISA warrants, Nunes has virtually guaranteed the committee will be left alone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: house intelligence committee, infighting, intelligence community, nunes memo, oversight, politics
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Whining again, Techdirt
the help of the deranged left media, like Techdirt.
I miss the good old days when CNN called us an "extreme right wing" blog.
Hey, try this on for size: we are neither right nor left, and the fact that we argue against "your team" (just as we have frequently argued against the "other team") does not make us left or right. Some of us think that's all nonsense and would prefer to focus on the actual situation of what's going on -- as Tim did here. So, seriously, fuck off with your blue team/red team bullshit.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
nonpartisan, how about non-bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nonpartisan, how about non-bullshit
How can i be recruited as a team member please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
Same old claim, same old response:
Wikipedia: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
133 citations.
Wikipedia: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
407 citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
And why are people getting all upset about FBI surveillance? Especially the people who expanded their surveillance powers and often use the line "if you've got nothing to hide...?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
Techdirt is generally opposed to over-classifying government information. Strange that in this case it seems to be arguing that the memo should have remained classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
sources and methods... for tyranny!
Secret courts, secret judges, secret evidence, secret warrants and gag orders... they would not need these if they had nothing to hide... the true criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
Regardless of whether or not the classification of this sort of information in general is correct, publicly releasing this sort of information in this sort of context is not normally done, so doing it now and for these reasons really illuminates just how petty and political of a ploy all of this was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Techdirt tack
A big TD problem is its frequent focus upon & vilification of TD-despised personalities (e.g., Nunez, Pai, Trump, Boxer) rather than issues. That's the wrong tack.
Tim admits that Congressional oversight is mostly ineffective -- so why does he so loudly bemoan alleged new 'damage' to a virtually non-existent function ?
(... this, of course, is TD political posturing and perhaps some blog-bait)
The FBI/NSA/CIA and Congress have been corrupt forever... this Nunez episode is just another trivial symptom. How would a truly objective and non-partisan observer approach this overall government corruption issue -- that;s the tack to employ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New Techdirt tack
If you want to start your own blog, you can approach stories however you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New Techdirt tack
Nothing to see here, move along.
"truly objective and non-partisan observer"
No such thing, never has been & never will be.
"That's the tack to employ"
What does this mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
It's also generally opposed to selectively declassifying information for political purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
Personally, I hope the whole thing blows up and gets shit on everyone, Dems and Repubs. Burn the whole f*cking house down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
there is no way to get the politics out of this mess. Each side is going to defend their pile of shit as much as the next pile of excrement while acting like they have the high road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
Which investigation, the one started by the Republican-majority Senate Intelligence Committee, the one started by the Republican-Majority House Intelligence Committee, or the one being conducted by George W Bush's FBI director, who was hired by Donald Trump's Deputy AG?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
Been trying their damnedest since he won the vote and they still got a nothing burger!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt should take another tack on this ...
+1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't like Obama at all, but I accepted that he was the duly elected President.
But for the next Dem elected President. Fuck 'Em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump will repair the generations of damage caused by "imperial presidents".
The reaction to Trump will re-establish the checks and balances that have gone rusty or removed entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The GWB energy meetings are still classified.
Who knows what Obama did, or Reagan. Even Carter did horrible things, and Carter is quite possibly the best human to ever be President so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually!
can you get a mastercard or discover warrant as well?
... hillery is funny though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
We meddle in elections all day every day, so why wouldn't russia or china or japan or australia or mexico or iran? ... that is what governments do... coercion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Good grief man!
Just because governments do it, doesn't make it right or that we should just sit back and let it happen. The fact that it was Russia is irrelevant. It could have been China, or Turkey, or Britain for gosh sakes and we would be saying THE EXACT SAME THING. We don't want anyone meddling in our elections, even our own government for that matter.
Do you understand now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
I actually don't give a shit about what Russians posted to facebook or said on blogs or had trolls tweet. That is all BS, and the investigation into that "affecting" our elections is BS as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Did not say that... but don't ignore reality and stop spending taxpayers money + resources + wasting time on a non issue! Or stop meddling ourselves and lead by example. It never comes to that because it is a bunch of lies. They never mean what they say. They do what they need to stay in control! That is why it is never really for the children, or the people for that matter.
"If China meddles in the next presidential election to the point where none of our votes count"
Your vote does not count anyway... your choices are given to you and you can stamp A or B, where A = B.
"they vote in their own candidate"
I don't think trump is Russia's candidate at all... He just wasn't part of the in crowd... he is part of the slimy, dirty, not so bright, entitled business class that care less about the country and more about their image.
"Just because governments do it, doesn't make it right or that we should just sit back and let it happen."
you already said that... so, let's get rid of "governments" as they exist today... they don't work... they were a crutch along the way... but they are becoming a liability to human kind.
"The fact that it was Russia is irrelevant. It could have been China, or Turkey, or Britain for gosh sakes and we would be saying THE EXACT SAME THING."
It is the USA... they are the ones causing the problems... they have been for decades... It is the USA that has been fucking with Russia and China and everyone else forcing are agenda down their throat.... Do you understand now? Until we face this as the reality nothing will change...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Uh yeah, you kind of did say that, and even if you didn't mean that specifically, you basically said it's a non-issue and we shouldn't worry about. Hate to break it to you but meddling in our elections, by any government, including our own, is a BIG issue and needs to be investigated and taken seriously.
Why do you people keep repeating this? It has been rehashed to death and proven that is not the case. The logical conclusion of that reasoning is that even if everyone in America voted third party in the next election, a dem or rep would still be elected instead. The problem is not the system, the problem is the people who vote having completely bought into the whole red team/blue team war. If everyone just quit voting that way, it would all stop.
Then explain all the emails and other evidence pointing to Russia trying to help get Trump elected? Also, I was talking about China in that sentence, not Russia.
Apparently I have to repeat myself for it to get through to you. So according to you, none of the governments today are viable. Pray tell then, what is your answer? If we want to get rid of all current governments, we need to have a replacement ready, otherwise we have anarchy. And I'm SURE you aren't advocating for that, right?
So it was the USA that caused Russia to meddle in the USA's elections? Because that is what that paragraph says. If you believe that tomorrow we stopped "forcing are agenda down their throat" (it's 'our' btw) that they would stop meddling in our affairs you are beyond naive and stupid.
Even if America acted completely honorably and didn't interfere in any other country from the time the Constitution was ratified, there would still be countries out there like Russia and North Korea who would be trying to take us down because that's just how they are and how bad people work. Some people just can't stand not having everything, including control of the entire world and especially if someone has something shinier than they do.
So I fully acknowledge that the USA has done it's fair share of meddling. But even if we stop, that won't stop other countries from trying to meddle in our affairs. That's a problem we can't fix, no one can because we can't control what others do. What we can do, is investigate how and what they did to meddle with us and try to prevent it in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whining again, Techdirt
I know non-cyrillic alphabets are hard, but you won’t get paid if you put your crap messaging on the wrong platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
For the love of Kali when will the partisanship stop in favor of the idea that any government exists only to keep itself in power as opposed to doing anything remotely beneficial for their constituents.
One would hope that future voters would look at this election with the understanding that this was a false dichotomy. None of the choices were reasonable in any sense of the term. The tired idea that either one of them would have actually improved this country as opposed to adding to the amount of oppression felt by the average American is laughably naive. Both of them wanted nothing more than to add a win to their side & were willing to do almost anything to get it. Politics is nothing more than a sales pitch for a new moron in charge.
One day we'll start voting for those that bring us freedom as opposed to a source of unquestionable authority. That is the only thing that will truly "Make America Great Again".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
nope, you are so fucking mistaken on that that you look stupid.
The only thing we will happen from now on is a political divide that will deepen until war hits us on it.
The idiots from both sides will have to off each other until enough of us sane ones are left to be back in the majority and finally have the man power to try for liberty again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Really? Which one?
Because I seem to remember an "October Surprise" - the FBI Director (and Republican) James Comey announcing on October 29th that he was reopening an investigation of Hillary's email server. Not because of wrongdoing by Hillary, but as part of the Anthony Weiner investigation.
Nothing that couldn't have been done quietly or waited a couple weeks. Unlike say, all the evidence of foreign interference in the election itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
careless you say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Also, why is it OK for every Republican elected official to have a private server that they routinely wipe on leaving office (which is insane), yet if a Dem does it that's the end of civilisation?
And apparently it is, because Trump...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Funny how certain politicians were all up in arms about balancing the budget and kept proclaiming their support of no new spending, everything has to be paid for up front.
And now that they are in power, look at what they do - the complete opposite of what they have been yammering about.
No one believes anything these asshats have to say anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
So they 'covered' for her by making public statements regarding an investigation of someone else, an investigation that involved her only peripherally, with the statements made closer to the election when it would be more damaging?
I'd hate to see what you believe they would have done if they weren't on her side if that's how you think they helped her...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whining again, Techdirt
the help of the deranged left media, like Techdirt.
I miss the good old days when CNN called us an "extreme right wing" blog.
Hey, try this on for size: we are neither right nor left, and the fact that we argue against "your team" (just as we have frequently argued against the "other team") does not make us left or right. Some of us think that's all nonsense and would prefer to focus on the actual situation of what's going on -- as Tim did here. So, seriously, fuck off with your blue team/red team bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
No, he's not about teams. I guess you missed the massive amount of articles he wrote blasting Obama and many of his policies?
If you don't like people pointing out the problems with your team, maybe you shouldn't play teams either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Obviously you haven't actually read it. Here let me help: https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=obama
Also, nice try on changing the goal posts but it ain't happening. No one ever said there were daily articles specifically about 'restricting freedom of the press'. We did say he wrote a LOT of articles about a LOT of problems with Obama and his policies. Just like he's now writing a LOT of articles about a LOT of problems with Trump and his policies. Hint, transparency was a big thing neither Obama nor Trump do/did very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
If you didn't notice those sorts of articles cropping up as often when Obama was in office, perhaps it's because he wasn't engaging in such actions nearly as much as the current administration.
He was criticized plenty when he did something wrong, if Trump and team get criticized more it's probably because they're doing more worthy of being criticized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Where were the DAILY articles about Obama restricting freedom of the press?
What good would daily articles about Obama serve now? Do you not know how "news" works?
I haven't seen a daily article about Obama anywhere since the small-handed orange retard was elected by the Russians. Why should this site commit financial suicide by reporting about shit that's more than a year and a half old?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Not AS often, because Obama wasn't constantly ranting - as Trump does - about the "failing New York Times", "Failing CNN", etc. Heck, he didn't even criticize Fox News as much as Trump does. He didn't declare "fake news" every time - and perhaps not ANY time - every time he was asked a legitimate question. He didn't make suing reporters or reigning them in with legislation a campaign promise.
He didn't engage in the Trump administration specialty: Accusing reporters of "fake news" for mentioning something that Trump himself said on camera or tweeted earlier that day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
2. If one team is constantly fucking us over, don't you think that's worth talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
2. Just one team huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
but fuck that one team with a new article everyday
Yup. Fuck those lying Russia-loving pieces of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News: Sadly not focused on nothing but foxes...
'Primarily tech based' does not mean 'nothing but tech'(seriously, how many times does this need to be explained?), and if one team happens to be getting more attention recently maybe it has something to do with them being the ones currently in charge such that what they are doing has more of an impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
You aren't about teams, but fuck that one team with a new article everyday about matters unrelated to tech, right?
No. Nothing that you said is correct, which is kind of embarrassing, since it's all easily checked.
As many others have noted, we wrote frequently about abuses and problems with the intelligence community under Obama (and other issues regarding Obama, including drones, the AUMF, torture and more). We also -- contrary to your claim -- don't write every day about Trump, but we will write about what we want to write about and until you're the editor here, you don't get to tell us what is and what is not okay to write about.
I mean, it's certainly true that RIGHT NOW we talk more about Trump than Obama -- but there's a pretty good fucking reason for that. One of them is in charge. During the Obama admin, we didn't talk much about Trump. So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
I'm sure someone here with severe OCD will check this to prove me wrong, but one thing I've noticed since Trump took office:
Under Obama, negative articles here were titled along the lines of "FCC Adminsitrator...". NOW they're titled "Trump's FCC Administrator...", as if Trump is personally at fault for the actions of others.
Perhaps it's a small thing, but it's the kind of thing that people reading notice and assign alignment to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
TD is obviously left leaning. Yes they still attack the democrats for certain things but I has been my experience that since Trump won election they have gotten a lot more shrill.
I didn't even vote for the limey bastard because it was clear he was garbage, but it sure is a fucking turn off to listen to them rail against Trump after running someone like Hillary.
TD's heart seems to be in the right place, it's just that their gray matter is missing most of the time so they come off as agenda driven to me.
Also, any attack on the left means you are a Trumpist to them. Yea, they lean left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
The fact that 99.99999% of what you say is the exact same as what Trump supporters say is what causes us to assume you are a Trumpist. Stop saying things like that and we'll stop calling you a Trumpist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
this. is exactly the trump blinder independents see from the left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
... or Seth Rich?
Assange has made some hints..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
I believe Clinton is being investigated right now, in part for just that. No idea what the deal is with Seth Rich or Assange, haven't seen anything about them in the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
It may seem that way during a Republican administration, just as it would seem the opposite during a Democratic administration. Whichever party is power gets the most criticism for obvious reasons.
See the First Word post by Mike Masnik, "I miss the good old days when CNN called us an "extreme right wing" blog."
A quick search on the Obama meta-tag shows that "Obama's _____" got plenty of use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whining again, Techdirt
If you're upset that they're investigating so many people tied to Trump, it's because they spent an awful lot of time talking to Russians (and seemed to "forget" about those conversations when asked).
Don't want the scrutiny? Don't talk to Russians. It's as simple as that. They're under investigation because him and his fucking family are crooked pieces of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
My response to what you just said. Ya, I am pretty sure Russian hacking stories AND an insecure election system stories have been around before Trump, Hell even before Obama's FIRST election. iirc. Those stories have been around since BUSH'S first election (That would be Al Gore, for those of you kids).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, the Mein Kampf reference is out of line. It's Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, that he keeps by his bed.
Business Insider:
Thank you for pointing this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
These guys are not that bright around here, you have to forgive them... right after you tell them that they are fucking idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, lots of idiotic statements around here with lots of made up facts. Just not from us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would we care that they are partisan...
This doesn't strike me as a horrible revelation; we all knew it was partisan because in modern America, EVERYTHING is.
Now, I get your point that the intelligence community can use this as a political excuse to ignore their oversight... but if it wasn't this, it would be something else, sooner not later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would we care that they are partisan...
The Nunes Memo will not effect how the intel community works one iota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why would we care that they are partisan...
Sure, while nothing really stays the same, there is truly nothing new under the sun. Corrupt politicians will roust their sheep to wage war on the other sheep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Democrats part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
Plus, if proven true, it is possible Trump was elected with illegal help and interference from a foreign nation.
Oh, and, by the way, Hillary is being investigated for her part in all of it. It was kind of all over most major news sources last month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
That's precious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
I'm hoping you're just some 12 year old, but if not...
This is a serious matter, not some republican vs democrat game of thrones. If you are 'team republican' or 'team trump' say that and be done. I think what your barely coherent comment is referring to is 'opposition research' on Trump first paid for by republicans during the primary then by democrats in the general. Which is mostly irrelevant.
What two sides are there? This is not a debate or a discussion. This is an investigation. For the FBI, right now, there are no sides and when that investigation is done there will be one side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
Two things.
For future reference: You meant to say either “supposed to be non-biased” or “supposed to avoid showing bias”. This has nothing at all to do with the discussion, just being a grammatical pedant about people using nouns where they should be using adjectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Democrats part.
Since people have torn down the rest of your comment, I'll hit this one.
The idea that the party "fixed" the primary race for Hillary is laughable. She won by votes, plain and simple.
If your argument is the Democratic party put more money into supporting her... well, duh. She's been a Democrat for decades, while Bernie was an independent who criticized the Democrats at every opportunity. He only signed up for the Democratic Party when he realized he had a shot at the Presidency, but could never swing it as an independent third-party vote.
In other words, the Democrats supported the person who had been supporting them for decades, rather than the guy who tossed his hat into the ring at the last minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Democrats part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Democrats part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading legal documents
I'm not a legal professional. However, I read a lot of legal documents because it's part of my job. One of the first things that anyone doing learns (or should learn) in the first hour of the first day or Reading Legal Documents 101 is "read the entire document".
Read the cover sheet. Read the footnotes. Read the appendices. Read the the attachments. READ EVERYTHING.
If I can manage that, despite my lack of formal education and training in the field, don't you think that someone in the US Congress, someone charged with oversight of Intelligence, ought to be able to manage it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading legal documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading legal documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading legal documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading legal documents
But anyone who has ever sat in a courtroom with a federal judge should know that's not going to happen. They just about always catch EVERYTHING. And if you try to screw with them by attempting to sneak something true...well...you would be better off trying to run in circles, barefoot, on broken glass. They are not to be trifled with.
Two rules in DC: 1. Never lie to the FBI. 2. Don't test the patience of a federal judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading legal documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading legal documents
How does one read a bill before signing it when said bill is covered in hand written changes and corrections some of which are illegible? What, exactly, are these congress critterz signing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't really work down here by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Both corrupt as dirt shat on by Thad. peeeeyooooo!!!!
Hillary just underestimated how hated she was so Trump whooped dat ass in the election. And of course the out of touch loonies all saying Hillary was going to mop the floor with Trump has not taught them to stop over estimating what they think they know.
You clowns so deserve each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am interested in why you think that I am heart broken about Hillary losing the race? I think it is hilarious that she lost after having getting the DNC to fuck Bernie silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She lost,
Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hillary*
So you don’t get your panties in a knot about much spelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think people that feel the need to pick on people for misspelling are a bit childish.
With that out of the way, good deal.
Trump won,
Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My problem is that I cannot trust anything. I cannot trust that Trump did or did not get he help. Do you want to know why? Because that is how corrupt government is now. So damn corrupt that I cannot and will not trust any evidence they say they do come up with.
I would say the same for Hillary too. There is so much corruption I can trust anything and it is because of people like you. Keeping people like Hillary and Trump in power!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that went so far over your head it's currently in an escape orbit.
Alright, let's try a little thought experiment. Suppose we have two, equally dangerous deranged lunatics. Call them A and B. B is carrying a loaded gun, A is not. Which one do you worry about?
Since I suspect you'll miss the point of that as well, I'll be more literal. Say we start with the a priori assumption that Hillary is as terrible as Trump. Even in that case it makes no sense to complain about Hillary, because Trump is the one in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol, no matter how many times I have to point this out you losers never "get it". You ran Hillary, a person so corrupt that you remove any moral/ethical standing to complain about any other politician period.
When you clean up your own house, then I will keep my trap shut when you whine about the reps cleaning theirs.
The more you stick to the loonies on the left the more the loonies on the right are going to stick out too. Do you know why this is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol, no matter how many times I have to point this out you losers never "get it".
Perhaps that's because you're not pointing out anything of value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who do you hate more? The pot smoker who leaves other pot smokers alone or the pot smoking cop that arrests pot smokers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Getting people to stop being a hypocrite is a very high value item to point out.
Ahhh, then it must be your communication skills that are deficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I made posts explaining things to the detail required to help people like you understand everyone would only reply.
TLDR
I have hopes that you will one day become smart enough to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I made posts explaining things to the detail required to help people like you understand everyone would only reply.
We're listening, we understand.
It's what you're saying that's useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is literally NOTHING that will satisfy you. You will whine and gripe no matter what form of government is in charge, no matter what country, party, or citizenry that person you're talking to originates from. I could be Middle Asian yet somehow be responsible for Trump because some dumbass anarchist wannabe said so.
It bears repeating: you are fucking boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he was saying not that people replying would be a negative, but that the only thing people would say in response would be "TL;DR".
Which might be true (although given the number of personalities around here which seem to get entertainment from baiting him, who knows), but doesn't necessarily mean what he might think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Just like, assuming Hillary and Trump are equally corrupt, I worry more about Trump because he is the one causing damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At this point, no one is saying anything about "Well if so and so had won". No, we're all saying "Hey, the guy who is currently in charge of running our nation, that we all live in, is doing a really crappy job.".
Calling us losers only makes you look more foolish because you are the one who doesn't get it and your only resort is to attack us on merit-less grounds and call us names like an offended, powerless, schoolyard bully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sir, it will always be about that. Not because it should be, but because most people cannot get past it.
"It's about who is currently in power."
Yes, I did not say that it was not.
"Right now, the guy in power is making an awful lot of dumb decisions."
Agree, but it also seems like the same number of dumb decisions that last few made so why all the outrage just now?
"Personally I didn't want Hillary either, which is why I voted third party, and I would wager so did an awful lot of the other posters on here. Why? Because we all are sick and tired of partisan politics and neither team is any better."
Thank you for having a far more clear head about this than the vast majority. Hopefully more people will follow yours or my example.
"No, we're all saying "Hey, the guy who is currently in charge of running our nation, that we all live in, is doing a really crappy job."
Again, why now? Trump is just 1 link in a chain of terrible decisions. Image a pole where each president is holding up the one above him. Each President is literally built upon the foundations of his predecessors.
"Calling us losers only makes you look more foolish because you are the one who doesn't get it and your only resort is to attack us on merit-less grounds and call us names like an offended, powerless, schoolyard bully."
You didn't vote for Hillary, you have a right to complain, or were you not really listening to what I said? I did not call you the loser, just those that voted for her, so why are you defensive about it? Feeling guilty? Or is it that you didn't vote for Hillary, but you would have voted for her instead of Trump?
I do not feel powerless, neither do I feel offended, and neither am I a bully. I am just here pointing out hypocrisy. If you don't like that, then perhaps you are the bully and just do not know it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously you can't, even if you do vote third party. Did you miss the part where TD and everyone on here also complained about Obama's policies?
No, but you are ignoring it.
Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=obama
See link above. Also, he is the one currently in power so that kind of makes reporting on him more important than past presidents that we can't do anything about anymore. Just because you missed all the past reporting on past presidents doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You certainly didn't exclude me.
Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean you aren't. Racists don't feel they are racists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, it's clear you are either trolling, lying, or just plain confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you consider being told the truth to be trolling well then yes, I am trolling you, hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will you folks kindly quit feeding the troll?
Willful ignorance is no better than willful blindness, and neither should be forgiven.
Just flag him and move on.
A man who has nothing inside him has nothing to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't about assigning blame. The past is the past, we can only affect the future. I do not play Govball. I don't care whether Red Team wins, or if Blue Team screwed their chances at the Govball trophy. What I care about is the person in power making terrible decisions that affect our nation.
Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am doubting that, or you would not feel insulted or targeted by my comments.
"Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?"
That would seem to be my question for you, would it not? Why do you feel offended at me for not even attacking you? Are you offended on their behalf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Secondly, what offends me is your blatant whataboutism. You are nothing but distraction from real, current issues. You can’t see past your blind team worship long enough to actually consider the issues at hand.
I'm done with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whataboutism is just a word people like you use to deflect accusations of hypocrisy. If you stop being a hypocrite people would stop calling you one.
"You are nothing but distraction from real, current issues."
Until you get rid of that hypocrisy, those real current issues, are never going to be fixed, idiot!
"You can’t see past your blind team worship long enough to actually consider the issues at hand."
I did not realize that independents were a team. But then again, based on your butt hurt reaction to being a hypocrite it does not surprise me that you are too stupid to understand that.
"I'm done with you."
Well, there goes some lost sleep. And this is why the hate from both sides builds up. You are not only incapable of having political discourse intelligently, you are willing to write off every other citizen. Remember, those you write off, write you off too. And guess what happens when people cannot have a conversation any more? Physical Violence, that is the next step and apparently you are ready for it.
I am just going to step out of the way and let you and all of the other idiots beat each other up. And you are done fighting each other I will be around to take over and put you little trolls back into your caveman caves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But what about other forms of logical fallacies such as ad hominem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we get it. Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election due to a myriad of reasons which cannot be boiled down to “she was a shit candidate”. (I mean, she was, but that was not the only reason she lost.) She is not, and likely will never be, the president of the United States.
Therein lies your problem: You want to keep litigating the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton lost; even if she still has some semblance of political power and capital left in the so-called “swamp”, it is dwarfed by the power of our current sitting POTUS. Acting as if we are still in an election season and Hillary needs to be taken down a peg or three shows the emptiness of your arguments.
Hillary lost. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are in orbit, you have not escaped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trajectory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oversight, well, there's been an oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Aye, 'tis why Ben Wittes and co have poked the FISC with an amicus brief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think he wants the facts out in public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless By “Oversight” You Mean ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, who are you kidding? Dumping sensitive, classified info motivated by political whims? Like this is new? How about when Obama released info about who and how Osama was killed? That was classified (and with good reason.)
You seem to want to make everything into bashing Trump, which I get, but it doesn't serve you well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replacing 'What' with 'How' doesn't hide the tactic
Tim, who are you kidding? Dumping sensitive, classified info motivated by political whims? Like this is new? How about when Obama released info about who and how Osama was killed? That was classified (and with good reason.)
Yes, but what about some third party who might have done something even worse? Who cares about Trump/Nunes or Obama, there's a distraction over there just begging for attention!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup. Osama, the Taliban and the Pakistani government would never have found out about the attack otherwise. No-one would have connected the crashed stealth helicopter to the US or any attack. "Damned kids and their RC toys. Say, has anyone seen the neighbors lately?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Never mind that the president has the authority to declassify anything, at any time, for any reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oy! Fun to relax and watch the barking rats yap and chase their own tails!
Pretty soon the one valiant AC will notice that he's disadvantaged by the "system" that hides his comments, but not those of the fanboys. That's the intent, and that's why it's the "system", in which Techdirt appears to not be responsible, but which in fact, must have an administrator approving the hiding. In any case, it only works one-way.
Masnick just does his characteristic pick the weakest dissenter and do a little lofty dismissal.
Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oy! Fun to relax and watch the barking rats yap and chase their own tails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oy! Fun to relax and watch the barking rats yap and chase their own tails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oy! Fun to relax and watch the barking rats yap and chase their own tails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI: No Oversight is Good Oversight
Mission accomplished. Stop hypothesizing about the intent and observe the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole
The Nunes Memo Has Effectively Destroyed Intelligence Oversight
Hokum!
There has never been and there shall never be any effect Oversight of the criminal cabals masquerading as US intelligence agencies.
Congress since the creation of the US national security state (which created a 4th unaccountable branch of government) in 1947 has completely abdicated it's Oversight authority. While the very agencies that congress is supposed to be overseeing have grown exponentially in both size/power and are now using blanket surveillance to blackmail congress members that have been authorized to provide Oversight.
This is not a Democrat/Republican problem (aside from the fact they created and nurtured the intelligence leviathan into existence).
The problem is that unelected persons ensconced within the highest echelons of the US intelligence apparatus and DoJ (HaHa) have decided to abuse the unconstitutional surveillance powers criminally granted to them via congress/courts in order to overturn a popular election (ie 2016 Presidential Elections) in the US (the intelligence criminals have overthrown dozens of foreign governments since 1947).
A snapshot of the criminal surveillance abuses perpetrated in the 2016 US presidential election was provided by NSA director Admiral Mike Rodgers in May 2017 when he brought to the FISA courts attention that there was unlawful surveillance and collection of U.S. persons occurring.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/05/operation-condor-how-nsa-director-mike-rogers-saved -the-u-s-from-a-massive-constitutional-crisis/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/ 05/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order.pdf
Reducing criminal/unconstitutional surveillance to petty partisan bickering is to wave good-bye to the remnants of Constitutional government and welcome with open arms a total surveillance police state where the will of the people may be overturned by unaccountable unelected criminals masquerading as government officials who think they know better than everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're completely missing the point (due to your political bias!)
The critical point you are overlooking is that the Dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaigns. What's more is that either Sidney Blumenthal or Cody Shearer told Christopher Steele what they wanted to be in the dossier!
The whole fake dossier was just a political smear campaign, yet Clinton allies within the FBI and DOJ used it as the "evidence" for obtaining a FISA warrant on four occasions. In every application to the court they withheld who had paid for the Dossier and that Steele's own comments said he would do whatever it took to prevent Trump from becoming President (paraphrased).
It's a massive scandal that far surpasses Watergate. You have a subset of people within the DON and FBI all colluding together to take-out a political rival to their political ally. They deliberately lied by commission to the FISA court to obtain such warrants.
The FISA court, along with the DOJ & FBI is supposed to be above such political biases. The memo reveals a huge problem that disgraced all those institutions involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're completely missing the point (due to your political bias!)
You hit on basically all of Nunes' debunked talking points. Do they pay you extra if you get bingo?
The sole "evidence" provided to the do FISA court to obtain spying warrants was the fake Steele dossier - described to Congress by James Comey himself as "Salacious and Unverified".
The memo itself admits (at the end) that it was not the "sole" piece of evidence. It also admits that some of the dossier was corroborated. So it's not "fake." Again, that's from the memo.
The critical point you are overlooking is that the Dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaigns.
Tim does not overlook this and explains why this is not the issue.
The whole fake dossier was just a political smear campaign, yet Clinton allies within the FBI and DOJ used it as the "evidence" for obtaining a FISA warrant on four occasions. In every application to the court they withheld who had paid for the Dossier and that Steele's own comments said he would do whatever it took to prevent Trump from becoming President (paraphrased).
They stated in the application that it was paid for by a political campaign. They don't name which because they're not supposed to name Americans who are not targets. Also, it doesn't actually matter who paid for the dossier in getting a FISA warrant.
It's a massive scandal that far surpasses Watergate.
No. It's not and it doesn't. By any stretch of the imagination (and your imagination is stretched).
The FISA court, along with the DOJ & FBI is supposed to be above such political biases.
Yeah. And we've only been reporting on problems with FISA for like over the past decade. We're well aware of the problems with FISA. THIS was not one of them. Meanwhile, where were you for the past 10 years while we were highlighting the problems of FISA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're completely missing the point (due to your political bias!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're completely missing the point (due to your political bias!)
Nope. The memo tries to present the Steele Dossier as the sole evidence used to obtain the warrant, but it wasn't. It was one of several pieces of evidence used to obtain the warrant.
Seems to me you're the one whose interpretation of the memo is affected by political bias; there's really no other reason for trusting the word of Devin Nunes. If he told me it was sunny and warm outside, I'd go check and make sure. And I'm in Phoenix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tardy to the party---so sorry
Personally, I cannot imagine what Trump is thinking about. But he never could have made it into his new job without Hillary. The 2016 election was America's "Just say no to Hillary" moment. (Didn't need no Russians for that. They were an irrelevancy.)
Back in 2016 when MSM announced that "Russians" had "hacked the DNC," I could already smell baloney. "Russian hacking," intoned ad infinitum, was the meme du jour.
"Russian meddling" is just a big joke now. MSM got so enamored of the phrase, they wore it right out. And we're still hearing it! Tell us, how much ineffectual meddling/interference does it take to "tilt" an election?
goalpost is one word
humankind is one word
no hyphen in nonpartisan
no hyphen in nonpolitical
no hyphen in worthwhile
no reign in "reining them in"
oftentimes is one word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tardy to the party---so sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tardy to the party---so sorry
There's a difference between claiming that there was Russian interference in the 2016 elections and saying that that interference swung the election.
Blaming Russian interference for the outcome of the 2016 election is foolish; you're right about that. All available data indicates that good old-fashioned home-grown propaganda did a lot more to swing the election than any Russian propaganda did.
But claiming that means there wasn't any Russian interference is also foolish. There's ample evidence of Russian interference, from compromised e-mail servers to guilty pleas from members of Trump's campaign.
"Russian interference didn't swing the election" is not the same thing as "There was no Russian interference," at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]