Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to testimony, Steele was not informed who was funding his investigation or what he supposed to be looking for. Why does it matter who actually paid for it?
 
Upchurch said:
According to testimony, Steele was not informed who was funding his investigation or what he supposed to be looking for. Why does it matter who actually paid for it?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter one lick, not to rational and sane people at least. Or to the judges who allowed the wiretapping.

This russia investigation is by the book, and the more these idiot republican pig dogs whine and try to bury it, the clearer that becomes.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Interesting analysis of how the hashtag #releasethememo started and grew, what role bots and semi-automated accounts had in that, and what it says about gaming the system
Click to expand...

Molly McKew said:
[...] The rapid appearance and amplification of this messaging campaign, flagged by the German Marshall Fund’s Hamilton68 dashboard as being promoted by accounts previously linked to Russian disinformation efforts, sparked the leading Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to write a letter to Twitter and Facebook asking for information on whether or not this campaign was driven by Russian accounts. Another report, sourced to analysis said to be from Twitter itself, identified the hashtag as an “organic” “American” campaign linked to “Republican” accounts. Promoters of #releasethememo rapidly began mocking the idea that they are Russian bots. (There are even entirely new accounts set up to tweet that they are not Russian bots promoting #releasethememo, even though their only content is about releasing the supposed memo.)

But this back and forth masks the real point. Whether it is Republican or Russian or “Macedonian teenagers” — it doesn't really matter. It is computational propaganda — meaning artificially amplified and targeted for a specific purpose — and it dominated political discussions in the United States for days. [...]
Click to expand...


LOL. So twitter itself says it was an organic American phenomenon, and the shady propaganda outfit Hamilton68 says it was dem Russian bots, but it doesn't really matter to Molly as she has just started to type up a lucrative multi thousand words pseudo-scientific load of bunk no robot could ever dream of.
 
Childlike Empress said:
LOL. So twitter itself says it was an organic American phenomenon, and the shady propaganda outfit Hamilton68 says it was dem Russian bots, but it doesn't really matter to Molly as she has just started to type up a lucrative multi thousand words pseudo-scientific load of bunk no robot could ever dream of.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article trying to find things to disagree with, or did you actually try to take in what it said? Your trying to characterise it as a partisan piece seems to indicate the former.

Oh, and Hamilton68 is a bit of software, not an organisation. You're thinking of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which is bipartisan.
 
Upchurch said:
Which, apparently, is neither required, necessary, nor customary. Even if Steele had been aware of the fact, it was still immaterial to the case.
Click to expand...

I have read some liberal law talking types spewing out nonsense that sounds like that but those people do not know that the standards are higher in the secret FISC
 
The Big Dog said:
I have read some liberal law talking types spewing out nonsense that sounds like that but those people do not know that the standards are higher in the secret FISC
Click to expand...

Back again to claiming to know more about the law than people who are more qualified in the law than you are., I see.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Did you read the article trying to find things to disagree with, or did you actually try to take in what it said?
Click to expand...


I read it until the paragraphs I quoted, then I gave it around three minutes of scrolling time. It isn't even worth the brief takedown I've given to that data visualization study recently. Written solely for believers.
 
Upchurch said:
According to testimony, Steele was not informed who was funding his investigation or what he supposed to be looking for. Why does it matter who actually paid for it?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say, so the central claim in the Nunes/White House memo is bunk. It's also fine example of how the memo attempts to spin a half-truth -- that the court wasn't told who paid for it, because it doesn't matter -- into a lie.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Did you read the article trying to find things to disagree with, or did you actually try to take in what it said? Your trying to characterise it as a partisan piece seems to indicate the former.

Oh, and Hamilton68 is a bit of software, not an organisation. You're thinking of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which is bipartisan.
Click to expand...

She called it "shady", which lacking anything of substance to say is the best she can do.

She would only see it as something that pushes a competing narrative from the one she pushes and therefore it's her obligation to discredit it by any means necessary.
 
Childlike Empress said:
LOL. So twitter itself says it was an organic American phenomenon, and the shady propaganda outfit Hamilton68 says it was dem Russian bots, but it doesn't really matter to Molly as she has just started to type up a lucrative multi thousand words pseudo-scientific load of bunk no robot could ever dream of.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, because freshly made accounts whose only purpose was to comment on the memo screams "organic American phenomenon".

Totally makes sense :thumbsup:
 
Upchurch said:
Your amateur opinion about the statutes vs people who actually this for a living. What specifically do you think you know?
Click to expand...

A living? The articles I have read were written by law professors who ignore the statute.

Feel free to delight us with the articles that you are referring to.
 
Upchurch said:
Your amateur opinion about the statutes vs people who actually this for a living. What specifically do you think you know?
Click to expand...

Law's a piece of cake. Spending several years in law-school is for chumps. All you need is 8th-grade English.
 
The Big Dog said:
A living? The articles I have read were written by law professors who ignore the statute.

Feel free to delight us with the articles that you are referring to.
Click to expand...

What does it matter? You know better. You've read the statutes and, I'm assuming, the case law and have a solid understanding of the precedents, correct? Your lay reading is clearly more accurate and knowledgeable than, what? Law professors?

Please, educate us with all the citations you've googled.
 
Upchurch said:
What does it matter? You know better. You've read the statutes and, I'm assuming, the case law and have a solid understanding of the precedents, correct? Your lay reading is clearly more accurate and knowledgeable than, what? Law professors?

Please, educate us with all the citations you've googled.
Click to expand...

You claimed that my opinions differed from those of people who “do this for a living” but when challenged to support this claim, it is found wanting.

Fascinating.
 
The Big Dog said:
No surprise, when you got absolutely nothing, resort to insults.

FISC applies a higher standard and requires affirmative disclosures by the government because it is held in secret without a public record.

Say you learned something.
Click to expand...

So does this make it more or less likely that there was more to the wiretap request than the Steele Dossier?
 
The Big Dog said:
No surprise, when you got absolutely nothing, resort to insults.

FISC applies a higher standard and requires affirmative disclosures by the government because it is held in secret without a public record.

Say you learned something.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that an application for a FISA warrant requires the applying body to reveal a third party payor in regard to information used in support of the application.

Because I, too, have read the statutes and they do not say this. You could, perhaps, grasp at straws by claiming that requiring “a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant...” implies such a thing, but that is an interpretation not backed up by expertise. And even if true it does not impugn what happened here in that a complete reveal of the circumstances would show that the DNC was only on the tail end of payment and that Steele himself only knew the payor to be Fusion/GPS.
 
Random said:
So does this make it more or less likely that there was more to the wiretap request than the Steele Dossier?
Click to expand...

There was, there were articles, which have their own problems.

The issue, here, is what we call lies of omission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom