Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It also explains why Schiff was claiming the memo was misleading. Nunes claimed that "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials." While technically true that the application did not specify Hillary Clinton or the DNC, it did apparently alert the judge to the fact that it was compiled for political reasons. Nunes omission in that regard paints a false narrative that suggests the FBI failed to inform the judge of that the dossier politically-motivated when the opposite was true.
This language requires some serious parsing (which no doubt Committee attorneys did)... but because the bolded is in a clause that modifies the sentence subject I suppose the sentence CAN be read as technically correct. Nunes just omitted that not only was the political bias KNOWN to senior DOJ and FBI officials they also DISCLOSED it.
But the average reader would take away that the FISA application did NOT disclose the political origins of the Steele dossier.
A subsequent admission that is not true will mean little to the Base because neurologically we tend to retain first-heard information.
But when Nunes is criticized (as he should be) ... he'll THEN turn around and use his Monday admission as "proof" that the Democrats aren't being fair, and slandering him.
This ... is .... how .... the ... game ... works.
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-06-2018 at 11:02 AM..
but i'm guessing that it will correctly mention that the FBI did include the political origins of the dossier in their FISA application.
Quote:
It's hard to defend a lie with any semblance of truth.
agreed.
my favorite of the week has been nunes' claim that popadoupolus never met trump. when shown the photographic proof, nunes' lawyer claimed just because popadoupolis was sitting on his national security advisory team with trump doesn't mean that trump knew who he was.
This language requires some serious parsing (which no doubt Committee attorneys did)... but because the bolded is in a clause that modifies the sentence subject I suppose the sentence CAN be read as technically correct. Nunes just omitted that not only was the political bias KNOWN to senior DOJ and FBI officials they also DISCLOSED it.
But the average reader would take away that the FISA application did NOT disclose the political originals of the Steele dossier.
A subsequent admission that is not true will mean little to the Base because neurologically we tend to retain first-heard information.
But when Nunes is criticized (as he should be) ... he'll THEN turn around and use his Monday admission as "proof" that the Democrats aren't being fair, and slandering him.
This ... is .... how .... the ... game ... works.
And it works so well on susceptible people. I find this whole thing quite an interesting study in psychology and manipulation.
But not that it was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Why would the specific identity entity ultimately paying for the investigation be more or less compelling in the eyes of a FISA judge than the information that the compilation of the dossier was politically motivated? Particularly since Steele did not even know who was funding his work?
Of course, had the memo specified that it was the DNC that ultimately funded it, then Nunes would be claiming that the inclusion of a specific reference to the DNC was improper because the Judge had a soft-spot for "leftists" because his or her second cousin donated $50 to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1991. Because that's how this game is played.
Re: the bolded. So do we now need to put you in charge of National Security? What are your qualifications to assess what does and does not harm national security? You do not know.
In the course of my job, I "get" to read classified information several times a year. Many times, I am left scratching my head as to why it is classified. It doesn't seem important and is often times very mundane. The reasons for classifying things are beyond the scope of what the average person knows or thinks is worthy or not worthy. In the context of what is going on in the world and who we want seeing what we do and how we do it, is for others to decide.
I won't bother giving you links to the many, many experts who condemn the government for routinely classifying information for reasons unrelated to national security. I don't think it would matter to you.
Think about this. Everything in the Nunes memo came from classified documents. I've yet to hear of a single thing from the memo that remotely implicates national security.
Some things don['t require a Ph.D. in Classification and National Security. You're willing to accept without question that a "CLASSIFIED' stamp is automatically for the right reason. I'm not. In fact, I'll bet that many of those seemingly mundane docs you read are mundane, embarrassing to someone, cover-up mistakes and failures, or have other bad reasons to classify them.
but i'm guessing that it will correctly mention that the FBI did include the political origins of the dossier in their FISA application.
agreed.
my favorite of the week has been nunes' claim that popadoupolus never met trump. when shown the photographic proof, nunes' lawyer claimed just because popadoupolis was sitting on his national security advisory team with trump doesn't mean that trump knew who he was.
This is a Nunes classic.
Yesterday he was using THIS as an example of how he is slandered so very unfairly by the press. They actually accuse him of lying !!!
Now in making the complaint he was very careful not to disclose the setting of the photo. Instead he claimed it was nothing but a PHOTO OP - just like what one would take if he went to see U2. Would he THEN say that the U2 members knew him. No, of course not. How silly, he said - so very earnestly. (Here I gotta admit the guy is good.)
I kid you not. That was his argument.
Would he really WANT to maintain that Trump has advisory staff meetings with no idea that he's met the folks at his table?
Well, guess, so - you wrote that Nunes' lawyer tried out that one.
But not that it was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
that's the current claim.
here's how gowdy explained it:
"I read the footnote. I know exactly what the footnote says," Gowdy said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It took longer to explain it the way they did, than if they just come right out and said, 'Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.' But they didn't do that."
so hopefully we'll see how it was explained in the schiff memo.
Would he really WANT to maintain that Trump has advisory staff meetings with no idea that he's met the folks at his table?
not just any advisory team...... NATIONAL FREAKIN' SECURITY!!!
Trump: "who is that guy"?
Aide: "don't know. says his name is Boris something. Boris......... Badinoff."
Trump: "huh. oh well, the more the merrier i guess. ok, lets discuss US national security!"
But not that it was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Well, if Nunes wanted that specified in the FISA application (and here I've NO idea of the level of detail that a judge might want to see or what is customary in these applications) ...
then Nunes shouldn't have written the memo to seemingly allege there was a total omission of any political bias - which in the end is the key conclusion.
It's funny (or not) - Gowdy is complaining that the FISA application footnote was not clear enough.
What about the Nunes memo?
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-06-2018 at 11:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
