Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03 Feb 2018, 04:11 AM   #683411 / #1
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,377
Default Nunes Memo

I think this deserves its own thread as it will likely be the final nail in Trump’s coffin and here’s why. The argument hinges entirely on this paragraph:

Quote:
[T]he public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard—particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.
Such a standard would literally require that the government include ALL “potentially favorable” information, which is not just absurd, it’s impossible. How would any organization know what would (or would not) pass such a subjective, open-ended threshold? Aside from the fact that it’s not materially relevant information.

The reason it’s the death nail is that this memo was supposed to be substantive enough for Trump to pressure Rosenstein to fire Mueller and/or enough to justify firing Rosenstein, so that Trump could put someone in his place who would then in turn fire Mueller. This memo does neither. At best, it’s just more irrelevant chum to stir up Trump’s 20% for another news cycle (already crushed as of this writing, but certainly by the end of the weekend), but public outcry isn’t a legitimate legal basis for firing Rosenstein.

Which means, the GOP’s last ditch effort was this knowingly non-substantive ploy that played Trump more than it played into Trump. Iow, as I have argued for some time now, it is all just rhetorical pretense that gives the appearance of supporting Trump while only actually serving to set him up for the inevitable fall.

The FBI already pre-emptied the “memo” and the memo itself was written by cheese-eating college grads, so in true “mafia” stupidity, Trump hoisted himself with a petard given to him by the GOP opening the way now for a thorough debunking (and response) that will fill all of next week.

Plus the stock market saw through it and that’s the best barometer of all. If this were favorable to Trump, it would have gone up, not down.

ETA: This about covers it.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 03 Feb 2018 at 04:41 AM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 10:11 AM   #683414 / #2
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

Then there's an objective view of this.

Quote:
Based on the memo released today by the House Intelligence Committee (read it here), current and former members of the FBI and the Department of Justice who signed off on applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will likely face contempt of court charges. Who? James Comey, Andy McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein. They effectively lied to a Federal judge. That is not only stupid but illegal.

Here are the critical points from the Nunes memo that you should commit to memory.:
The rest is at the site.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...s-tacitus.html
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 03:42 PM   #683416 / #3
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
Then there's an objective view of this...They effectively lied
So, your definition of the word “objective” is: opposite of its true meaning; purely subjective.

Tell us how one can “effectively” lie objectively.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 05:42 PM   #683421 / #4
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

What I meant was that Lang is an objective person, who after reading the memo called a spade a spade regarding how the warrant was obtained.

How's this one?

Quote:
I think it’s very fitting that the ever-tightening repetitive loops of America’s increasingly schizophrenic partisan warfare have finally hit peak shrillness and skyrocketed into a white noise singularity on Groundhog Day. Right about now I feel like we’re at the part of the movie where Bill Murray is driving over a cliff in a pickup truck with a large rodent behind the wheel.

If you only just started paying attention to US politics in 2017 what I’m about to tell you will blow your mind, so you might want to sit down for this: believe it or not, there was once a time when both of America’s mainstream political parties weren’t screeching every single day that there was news about to break any minute now which would obliterate the other party forever. No Russiagate, no Nunes memo, no Rachel Maddow red yarn graphs, no Sean Hannity “tick tock”, no nothing. People screaming that the end is nigh and it’s all about to come crashing down were relegated to street corners and the occasional Infowars appearance, not practicing mainstream political punditry for multimillion dollar salaries on MSNBC and Fox News.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/t...nt-1ac24a34444
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 07:24 PM   #683424 / #5
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
What I meant was that Lang is an objective person
What does that mean? And how is it relevant?

Are you trying to claim he isn’t biased? If so what is your evidence and why would that even matter in regard to the facts at issue?

Quote:
who after reading the memo called a spade a spade regarding how the warrant was obtained.
In no way did he do any such thing. He asserted that the FBI had “effectively lied.” Which means that they did not in fact lie. That’s what the adverb “effectively” indicates.

He also clearly has no idea how FISC works or what the actual FISA application contained or what it needs (or does not need) to contain. Or how basic logic works for that matter. If who paid for the investigation into Trump is at all relevant (it is not), then why omit the fact that it was initially paid for by a Republican organization? Because, of course, that instantly renders the question moot and underscores its irrelevance.

Quote:
How's this one?
Equally specious.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Feb 2018, 07:28 PM   #683426 / #6
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

Goddamn rwnj's are fucked in the head.

Eta: that is an objective fact

Last edited by BWE; 03 Feb 2018 at 07:29 PM. Reason: Eta
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus