Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › "the memo"
- This topic has 39 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 2 months ago by
Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 2, 2018 at 5:12 pm #80657
znModeratorFirst Take: The ‘Nunes Memo’ Is Even Weaker Than Expected
Josh Marshall
link: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/first-take-the-nunes-memo-is-even-weaker-than-expected
on November 2, 2017 in Washington, DC.Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America
Having given the Nunes Memo an initial but close read, here’s my take. The memo seems to tell us no more than what’s been reported in various sources for months and even on the most basic read seems obviously misleading on its face. Here’s why.Let me try to summarize the core argument of the memo more or less on its own terms. The memo argues that the Steele Dossier was a critical or central part of the government’s (i.e., the FBI’s) argument for obtaining a FISA warrant on Carter Page. In none of its applications or follow up applications (four total) did the FBI disclose to the FISA court that the Steele Dossier was essentially the fruit of the poisoned tree – ultimately funded by Democratic party funds, an inherently political document and only corroborated in its findings to a limited degree. That’s the gist of the memo: the FBI used a tainted and unreliable source to get a warrant for surveillance on an American citizen without disclosing to the court any of the reasons not to credit the information contained in the dossier.
The key hinge in the memo is that it consistently seeks to suggest that the Dossier was the heart of the government’s case or even the entirety of the government’s case without actually providing any evidence for this claim or – critically – describing any other evidence the government may have had or may have included in the application. I see two key places in the memo where they make this case. On page 2 the memo states the dossier was “an essential part” of the government application. On the bottom of page 3, the memo says: “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”
The latter quote is simply a characterization of what McCabe said. His actual quote would be critical to judging its significance. Even on its face, it doesn’t clearly mean there wasn’t other probative evidence. The earlier claim is simply a claim – that it was an essential part of the application. In short, the memo provides no real evidence that the Dossier was central to the application or how the government got the information. It also conspicuously refused to discuss or address what other evidence the government provided. Lots of reporting suggests there was significant additional evidence in the application. That squares with what we know about how FISA applications work and which ones get approved.
The one exception comes in the last paragraph of the memo where it says that the application also mentioned evidence about George Papadopoulos and his activities. “But,” say the memo authors, “there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos.”
Again, we don’t know the totality of evidence in the application. But if you’re providing evidence to suspect that a presidential campaign advisor is acting as the agent of a foreign power, it certainly seems relevant and probative to note evidence that one of his fellow advisors (one of five) also seems to be working with or for that foreign power, even if you don’t have evidence that the two advisors are working together. This strikes me as really obvious. Again, we can’t evaluate the application without knowing all the evidence contained in it. But the criticism here seems pretty weak.
Along the way, through the memo, there’s various trash talk about the memo or other players in the case. It claims that a September 2016 Mike Isikoff article was contained in the application as corroboration for the Dossier, even though it was based on the Dossier. I don’t know whether that’s true or not. And even the memo itself suggests that the FBI may not have known it was true at the time of the application.
At the end of the day, even a cursory read of the memo makes it sound like a cherry-picked effort to discredit the FISA warrant on Carter Page by focusing on one piece of evidence from the application while conspicuously avoiding any discussion of the other evidence. The memo also seems to rely heavily on the reader not knowing much about how warrant applications, particularly FISA warrant applications, work.
Through the couple weeks, this memo has been a source of controversy, critics of the document have argued that the memo shouldn’t be released without releasing the underlying materials it was based on. This seems like a pretty clear way of saying that it’s highly misleading without knowing what other evidence the FBI had on Page. Again, really obvious. What we have here is a memo going to town on the Dossier in ways that seems significantly misleading but not altogether inaccurate and making that the heart of not only the Page FISA application but the whole Russia probe while conspicuously refusing to discuss the other evidence it contained. Even the most basic read makes this obvious.
Here’s the text of the Memo itself. The limited annotations are ones I made myself in the course of reading.
A few stray points to note:
1) Republicans have repeatedly argued that the Dossier triggered the opening of the investigation. The memo states the contrary explicitly: it was the Papadopoulos report that triggered the investigation. That’s on page 4.
2) At the risk of stating the obvious, the Memo is entirely and exclusively about Carter Page, not the broader investigation.
3) Note on page 3 the quote that Steele was “desperate” for Trump not to be elected. From what we know of Steele this quote was likely a characterization of what he found and his belief that Trump had been compromised by Russia. The Memo provides this quote without context to create the impression that Steele was a political opponent. We can’t know for certain without context. But there’s good reason to believe this is another cherry-picked quote for a specifically misleading purpose.
February 2, 2018 at 5:34 pm #80658Billy_TParticipantNunes, or his bosses, were pretty smart about this in at least this one way:
The American people will likely never, ever be able to see a side by side comparison between the actual underlying evidence and his summary (Ironically, he apparently never read that underlying evidence, while Schiff has). We will never be able to see if the summary is accurate. They no doubt knew this. They no doubt knew that while the FBI might push back — they have — they wouldn’t divulge the underlying classified information, either. Nor will the FISA judges — all of whom were named by Chief Justice Roberts, btw.
IMO, this cherry-picking fits a pattern in conservative thought, and, to me, it’s a big mistake if the Dems try to make this only about Trump, or the Trump era. I’ve been reading and thinking lately about how far, in fact, this goes into the deep dark past, and one could say it begins with Adam and Eve, especially by way of Augustine (the first world-historical “conservative,” perhaps), on through Hobbes, Burke, and into Trickle Down Economics, “Welfare Queens,” Willy Horton, into Fast and Furious, the bogus IRS scandal right up to the Nunes memo.
(Might flesh this little theory out at a later date.)
To make a long story short, I think conservative ideology requires endlessly taking the part for the whole in order to score its points. This is the case, all too often, because the overwhelming evidence goes against conservative/reactionary theories — on evolution, climate change, the environment, the social safety net, economics, etc. . . . and, right now, GOP control of pretty much everything.
Another key factor: Taking one’s own, personal experience has universal, and universally applicable.
February 3, 2018 at 9:36 am #80675znModeratorYo' memo so stupid, Betsy DeVos let it graduate early #YoMemoJokes
— Ben Mautner 🔥🌎🔥 (@RoyalSapien) February 3, 2018
#YoMemo @DevinNunes your memo is such a fraud that @KellyannePolls REFUSED to categorize it as alternative facts.
— ALT- Immigration 🛂 (@ALT_uscis) February 3, 2018
Yo memo's so discredited that Wells Fargo won't even open up a fake account in it name. #YoMemoJokes
— Hemin (@Me_Llamo_Hemin) February 3, 2018
The memo is so fake they found it in the basement at Comet Pizza #Pizzagate #YoMemoJokes pic.twitter.com/MMN5dccyHK
— Media Will Kill! (@atom_attic) February 3, 2018
Yo memo so dishonest, it identifies as evangelical #YoMemoJokes
— The Asteroid (@realAsteroid) February 3, 2018
Yo Memo so insignificant that @jeffsessions remembered it. #YoMemoJokes pic.twitter.com/c4DqqvJ4jk
— ThatGirlAtTheParty (@tgatp) February 3, 2018
Hey, Devin.
Yo memo so bankrupt, it used to be a Trump casino.#YoMemoJokes pic.twitter.com/rOlXowGMO1— Steve Marmel (@Marmel) February 3, 2018
Yo’ memo so broke, the @GOP taxed it.
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) February 3, 2018
Yo’ memo is so unqualified, Trump made it a cabinet member. #YoMemoJokes
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) February 3, 2018
Yo memo is so dumb and pointless, Fox News offered it a job. #YoMemoJokes pic.twitter.com/zu1a6iyemH
— Machine "Pun" Kelly 😬 (@NotThatKellyAnn) February 3, 2018
Yo' memo's so dumb Putin wants to make it president. #YoMemoJokes pic.twitter.com/7csPsW7cEv
— 🦄 (@UnicornTruffles) February 3, 2018
YoMemo is so fake @RealAlexJones doesn't believe it.. #YoMemoJokes
— 🇺🇸Josh A Cox 🇺🇸 (@JoshCox69) February 3, 2018
February 3, 2018 at 10:18 am #80679Billy_TParticipantZN,
I think this is another one of those unfortunate cases wherein the wrong people are raising concerns, for the wrong reasons, about something that really does need reform.
We need a serious, non-partisan — not partisan or even bi-partisan — commission on reforms to Intel collections, scope, range, warrants, FISA courts, the whole enchilada. But Trump and company aren’t trying to do that. They all just voted to reauthorize the same 9/11 FISA stuff and give more powers to Trump. If they were really so worried about abuses, why did they do that?
In effect, Nunes, who again admitted he never read the underlying evidence, is trying to make a case for anti-Trump bias, as a deeply compromised pro-Trumpist. If the issue is “bias,” that’s not going to work out well.
Of course, the real aim here is for Trump to gain full and complete control over the probe into his own campaign. How could anyone think that’s even remotely an acceptable outcome?
February 5, 2018 at 6:57 am #80748
nittany ramModeratorMemo actually proves FBI was onto something…
February 5, 2018 at 3:24 pm #80765Billy_TParticipantMemo actually proves FBI was onto something…
Good article, Nittany.
Thanks for the good words in the other thread. Hope all is well.
February 5, 2018 at 3:32 pm #80766Billy_TParticipantThis one is good, too:
Excerpt:
1. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to Fox News on Friday night: “I would say that this is far bigger than Russia or Donald Trump, or even the Mueller probe. This is the first time in American history that politics has weaponized the FBI.”
In defense of Gaetz, who is 35 years old, he did not live through any part of J. Edgar Hoover’s nearly five decades in charge of the FBI and its predecessor.
But even before Hoover, what was then called the Bureau of Investigation was founded by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 to assist in Roosevelt’s trust-busting efforts. As the FBI’s own website says today, the bureau “was not yet strong enough to withstand the sometimes corrupting influence of patronage politics on hiring, promotions, and transfers.” By the 1920s, the FBI’s website recalls, it “had a growing reputation for politicized investigations. In 1923, in the midst of the Teapot Dome scandal that rocked the Harding Administration, the nation learned that Department of Justice officials had sent Bureau agents to spy on members of Congress who had opposed its policies.”
Hoover took over the bureau in 1924 on the promise to reform it. That … didn’t exactly happen. And for anybody who needs a refresher, read up on what the Church Committee found in the 1970s.
Blake chose a rather tame comment by Gaetz, relatively speaking, though it’s crazy. He’s been a guest on Infowars, and a real bombthrower, hysterically talking about jailing people involved with the Russia probe, etc. Unfortunately, plenty like him among far-right House members.
February 6, 2018 at 6:58 am #80780nittany ramModeratorRepublicans concede key FBI ‘footnote’ in Carter Page warrant
“Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.”
Link: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/fbi-footnote-carter-page-warrant-390795
February 6, 2018 at 8:29 am #80782
wvParticipantOk, how about the ‘context’ and the ‘big picture’. Which is a separate-but-inseparable aspect of this to me. 🙂
Assume for the sake of argument that Trump had connections and deals with Russians that amount to “collusion” or whatever terms you wanna use. OK, assume the worst and assume its all true and even more is true that we dont even know about.
Put it in context.
How does it fit with all the ‘collusion’ America/CIA/NSA/Pentagon/Executive-Branch has done all over the world since, say, the end of World War II ?
Do you see any problem with the MSM discussing Russia-gate without putting it in historical context? IE, telling a story of russia being the bad guys and america being the shining city on the hill?Second question — Again, assume all the russia-gate stuff is true, for the sake of argument — How is the system USING this issue? In what ways, if any, are the MSM/Dems using this issue?
w
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 9:00 am #80784Billy_TParticipantOk, how about the ‘context’ and the ‘big picture’. Which is a separate-but-inseparable aspect of this to me. ;>)
Assume for the sake of argument that Trump had connections and deals with Russians that amount to “collusion” or whatever terms you wanna use. OK, assume the worst and assume its all true and even more is true that we dont even know about.
Put it in context.
How does it fit with all the ‘collusion’ America/CIA/NSA/Pentagon/Executive-Branch has done all over the world since, say, the end of World War II ?
Do you see any problem with the MSM discussing Russia-gate without putting it in historical context? IE, telling a story of russia being the bad guys and america being the shining city on the hill?Second question — Again, assume all the russia-gate stuff is true, for the sake of argument — How is the system USING this issue? In what ways, if any, are the MSM/Dems using this issue?
w
vFor me, it’s assumed from the bat that we’ve been doing this shit too, though it’s in much different forms, and we can’t do to Russia what it’s doing to us via cyber, because they’re nowhere near as open to it as we are. We can’t attack their social media systems in the same way. But, yeah, it’s back and forth, back and forth, for more than a century.
That said, how often should our media bring that up? Should they preface every discussion regarding Russia bots, facebook, google and twitter hacks, DNC hacks, Trump campaign collusion . . . with the fact that our two empires have been going at it for what seems like forever? Should every discussion be prefaced with the fact that this is not the good guys against the bad guys, but something far, far more complex? In my view, and I think it’s safe to say yours too . . . both “sides” being bad actors?
As for the last part. I think you and I agree about a lot of this, but we part ways, I think . . . and I’m still not exactly sure where you stand on this . . . I don’t see any tight nexus at ALL between the MSM and the Dems. I see the MSM as essentially “conservative,” and the narrative they push is “conservative,” and they mostly hope for both parties to keep things running smoothly — to the degree possible — for capitalism around the world. They’re going to “side” with the party that gives them that to the greatest degree, and for the majority of the time, for generations, that’s been the GOP. The Dems are close. But Corporate America gets a better deal from the GOP.
In short, they definitely like the way the Dems treat them, treat world capitalism. But they absolutely LOVE the way the GOP helps them.
Good questions, WV.
Will flesh out a bit more later.
February 6, 2018 at 9:23 am #80786wvParticipantThat said, how often should our media bring that up? Should they preface every discussion regarding Russia bots, facebook, google and twitter hacks, DNC hacks, Trump campaign collusion . . . with the fact that our two empires have been going at it for what seems like forever? Should every discussion be prefaced with the fact that this is not the good guys against the bad guys, but something far, far more complex? .
===================
Yes. Imho, the media should put the story in context every single time they talk about it 🙂
As it is now, the MSM NEVER ‘prefaces’ the story with any context. Never.
And thus the story simply ends up being propaganda. Its not like a Warner / Bulger story where you can tell one story without the other. In this case, any story that ignores context (how much did the CIA ‘collude’ in the choice of Yeltsin?) simply dums down the American public and manufactures consent about American exceptionalism which then makes it easier for american-oligarchs to bring neoliberalism and bombs to the rest of the world.w
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 9:47 am #80789Billy_TParticipantThat said, how often should our media bring that up? Should they preface every discussion regarding Russia bots, facebook, google and twitter hacks, DNC hacks, Trump campaign collusion . . . with the fact that our two empires have been going at it for what seems like forever? Should every discussion be prefaced with the fact that this is not the good guys against the bad guys, but something far, far more complex? .
===================
Yes. Imho, the media should put the story in context every single time they talk about it 🙂
As it is now, the MSM NEVER ‘prefaces’ the story with any context. Never.
And thus the story simply ends up being propaganda. Its not like a Warner / Bulger story where you can tell one story without the other. In this case, any story that ignores context (how much did the CIA ‘collude’ in the choice of Yeltsin?) simply dums down the American public and manufactures consent about American exceptionalism which then makes it easier for american-oligarchs to bring neoliberalism and bombs to the rest of the world.w
vIn a fair and righteous world, our media would actually take the time to do what you say. And, yeah, every time. I agree. And some print publications do try to take that time. But the TV side of things? They rush through their short blocks between ads, for the ads, and I don’t see them choosing that route, evah. I also don’t think it’s being done in other nations via Mass Media, either. At the risk of “whataboutism,” we’re not alone in that manufactured consent. It’s pretty much the rule. No excuse for it. But it’s everywhere.
Also, just to clarify on the Dem/MSM thing. I’m by no means trying to say it’s just the GOP and not the Dems. I’m saying it’s both, with the GOP being worse. Both parties are guilty. I get confused a bit by some of the videos you post, cuz it seems like the people in them are saying it’s all on the Dems, and not the GOP at all. Like Trump and the GOP are the victims. I may be misreading them completely, but they seem reluctant to mention Republican complicity and responsibility. I mean, when Cohen talks about Dems degrading political speech in the era of Trump . . . with his constant insults and direct, personal attacks on a daily basis? Sheesh. He just called the Dems “treasonous” yesterday for not giving him standing ovations at his SOTU speech.
Oh, well. I know in the larger scheme of things, that’s trivial and a distraction.
February 6, 2018 at 10:01 am #80790Billy_TParticipantI’d be really interested in knowing what you think actually happened, via the election, Russia, Trump, etc.
My own take, which will change with new information, is basically this:
Trump never thought he’d win. Most people surrounding him never thought he’d win. He ran to help his business brand and get help with his massive debts. His connections with Russia, and his seeking out so many foreign agents with even more connections, was because of business and that debt. I think Russia didn’t believe he’d win, either, but tried to help him because, even if he lost, it would weaken future president Clinton, whom Putin hated — partially because he thought she was involved in election interference in Ukraine, ironically.
He and his campaign got into trouble because they lied endlessly about those connections, and because he actually won. His main dilemma was if he and they told the truth from Day One, it would have ruined his business plans. It obviously would have killed his chances for the presidency, which I still think wasn’t all that important to him.
Heading out soon to yet another doctor but will check back. Hope to read your take, etc.
February 6, 2018 at 10:04 am #80791nittany ramModeratorOk, how about the ‘context’ and the ‘big picture’. Which is a separate-but-inseparable aspect of this to me.
Assume for the sake of argument that Trump had connections and deals with Russians that amount to “collusion” or whatever terms you wanna use. OK, assume the worst and assume its all true and even more is true that we dont even know about.
Put it in context.
How does it fit with all the ‘collusion’ America/CIA/NSA/Pentagon/Executive-Branch has done all over the world since, say, the end of World War II ?
Do you see any problem with the MSM discussing Russia-gate without putting it in historical context? IE, telling a story of russia being the bad guys and america being the shining city on the hill?Second question — Again, assume all the russia-gate stuff is true, for the sake of argument — How is the system USING this issue? In what ways, if any, are the MSM/Dems using this issue?
w
vFor me the priority is removing Trump/Pence from office. So while I agree that it’s important for Americans to be aware of our own interference in elections in other countries, the focus should be on Trump’s collusion with Russia and anything else that makes his removal possible. All other considerations are secondary to that.
February 6, 2018 at 12:11 pm #80795wvParticipantFor me the priority is removing Trump/Pence from office. So while I agree that it’s important for Americans to be aware of our own interference in elections in other countries, the focus should be on Trump’s collusion with Russia and anything else that makes his removal possible. All other considerations are secondary to that.
————-
Ok, cool, but i couldnt disagree more 🙂
Trump is driving the biosphere off the cliff at 90 mph.
The Dems would drive the biosphere off the cliff at 75 mph.I just dont see replacing trump with a dem as a priority.
When we are this-totally-fucked….i dunno what the priority is anymore.
w
vw
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 12:25 pm #80796wvParticipantI get confused a bit by some of the videos you post, cuz it seems like the people in them are saying it’s all on the Dems, and not the GOP at all. Like Trump and the GOP are the victims. I may be misreading them completely, but they seem reluctant to mention Republican complicity and responsibility..
=================
Well as ive said before, i think there’s a Dem-MSM and Rep-MSM nowadays. I think both MSMs share some basic assumptions about American-Exceptionalism, but i think there are also some differences between Fox and MSNBC. Both Fox/talk-radio and MSNBC/NPR dum down the nation and preach American-exceptionalism. Both essentially paint a Norman Rockwell picture of the ‘system’.
But then of course there are differences between Fox and NPR too. I dont think i need to point out those differences. They are talking to different audiences.
But they both fulfill their propaganda and gate-keeper functions.
They keep the discussion in the approved-spectrum of thot, as Noam has talked about endlessly…etc and so forth.Separate subject — are the Reps worse than the Dems? Yes. And the gap seems to widening a bit with insane-ass-clown as Prez.
Do a lot of the vids i post pick on the dems more than the reps? Yes. I gravitate toward those because the Dems annoy me more. They always have. Its just a personal thing. I know the Reps are worse. But the Dems annoy me more. 🙂
For me its just a GIVEN that today’s Reps and Trump are the most hideous force in America. What Chomsky said. Ya know.
w
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 1:10 pm #80797nittany ramModeratorFor me the priority is removing Trump/Pence from office. So while I agree that it’s important for Americans to be aware of our own interference in elections in other countries, the focus should be on Trump’s collusion with Russia and anything else that makes his removal possible. All other considerations are secondary to that.
————-
Ok, cool, but i couldnt disagree more <img alt=”🙂”
Trump is driving the biosphere off the cliff at 90 mph.
The Dems would drive the biosphere off the cliff at 75 mph.I just dont see replacing trump with a dem as a priority.
When we are this-totally-fucked….i dunno what the priority is anymore.
w
vw
vThe Dems are diving it off the cliff at 75 mph, Trump is doing it at mach 2.
February 6, 2018 at 1:44 pm #80799Billy_TParticipantFor me the priority is removing Trump/Pence from office. So while I agree that it’s important for Americans to be aware of our own interference in elections in other countries, the focus should be on Trump’s collusion with Russia and anything else that makes his removal possible. All other considerations are secondary to that.
————-
Ok, cool, but i couldnt disagree more
Trump is driving the biosphere off the cliff at 90 mph.
The Dems would drive the biosphere off the cliff at 75 mph.I just dont see replacing trump with a dem as a priority.
When we are this-totally-fucked….i dunno what the priority is anymore.
w
vw
vThe Dems are diving it off the cliff at 75 mph, Trump is doing it at mach 2.
I agree, Nittany. While no one is gonna confuse the Dems with the Greens, they’re just waaaay better on the environment than the GOP. Trump has already done the following, and has anti-environmental, pro-corporate ideologues in place to go much further:
1. Opened up drilling along our coasts. Opened up drilling in previously protected Arctic reserves
2. Signed off on the Tar Sands pipelines
3. Privatized more than two million acres of previously protected wilderness.
4. Killed regulations for protected species
5. Raised tariffs on Wind and Solar
6. Killed funding for Wind, Solar and other clean alternatives
7. Left the Paris Accords
8. Installed the head of Exxon as his Secretary of State
9. Put a lifelong opponent of the EPA (Pruitt) in charge of the EPA. They no longer support Climate Change research, or even that it exists. They’ve massively deregulated our already too weak environmental laws in favor of business
10. Interior is being run by another lifelong opponent of conservation efforts (Zinke), who installed, at taxpayer expense, secret rooms to deal with lobbyists for the extraction industries, in secret.
As you know, from Day One, they’ve been at war with science as well, all across the board, from NIH to the EPA, to CDC, to Interior, Commerce, etc. etc.
It’s not close.
February 6, 2018 at 2:00 pm #80800Billy_TParticipantWV,
Adding a bit more to what I think happened and why:
Trump’s business was massively in debt. Still is. He’s gone bankrupt six or seven times, and was no longer able to borrow from anyone, really, but the Russians. He has a terrible reputation for stiffing his business partners, workers, suppliers, banks, etc.
Putin and his oligarchs are rolling in money. Hundreds of billions. Trump wanted, desperately needed a piece of that. Putin wanted help with sanctions. Also, desperately. It was a “marriage of convenience,” transactional, opportunistic.
So they “colluded” on the election. I think Kushner gave the Russians help with micro-targeting via his Cambridge Analytica, and Russia did the heavy lifting via stealing the emails, flooding the zone with “fake news,” twitter and facebook bots, and endless attempts to game google. Wikileaks, we now know, was directly involved in favor of both Trump and Russia. We have that paper trail. Assange offered direct help to the Trump campaign, and they exchanged emails. Roger Stone had direct connections to Gucifer 2.0 and bragged about it.
Long story short, I think it’s a slam dunk that Trump or his campaign broke our election laws, lied about it, lied about his connections with Russia, got caught, tried to cover it up, and has been extremely busy trying to kill the investigation. Mueller likely has him on several counts.
February 6, 2018 at 2:04 pm #80801Billy_TParticipantAt the same time, if Clinton and her campaign are guilty of breaking election laws, she needs to be held to account, too.
Too bad we have this absurd, two-party system, that moves so quickly into ultra-partisanship, CYA and endless lies about each other. We need a system without parties, IMO. Or, at the very least, half a dozen — especially to the left of the Dems.
February 6, 2018 at 3:06 pm #80802wvParticipantWV,
Adding a bit more to what I think happened and why:
Trump’s business was massively in debt. Still is. He’s gone bankrupt six or seven times, and was no longer able to borrow from anyone, really, but the Russians. He has a terrible reputation for stiffing his business partners, workers, suppliers, banks, etc.
Putin and his oligarchs are rolling in money. Hundreds of billions. Trump wanted, desperately needed a piece of that. Putin wanted help with sanctions. Also, desperately. It was a “marriage of convenience,” transactional, opportunistic.
So they “colluded” on the election. I think Kushner gave the Russians help with micro-targeting via his Cambridge Analytica, and Russia did the heavy lifting via stealing the emails, flooding the zone with “fake news,” twitter and facebook bots, and endless attempts to game google. Wikileaks, we now know, was directly involved in favor of both Trump and Russia. We have that paper trail. Assange offered direct help to the Trump campaign, and they exchanged emails. Roger Stone had direct connections to Gucifer 2.0 and bragged about it.
Long story short, I think it’s a slam dunk that Trump or his campaign broke our election laws, lied about it, lied about his connections with Russia, got caught, tried to cover it up, and has been extremely busy trying to kill the investigation. Mueller likely has him on several counts.
================
Well theres a whole lot there that you are asserting is true or proven. You and i would have to take each assertion one by one, and look at the actual evidence. But I doubt we would end up agreeing because I doubt i would trust your sources.
Plus there’s parts of this that just dont ‘bother’ me. Like Assange favoring Trump over Hillary. I dont care if he did. Its not illegal for him to favor Trump over Hillary. He called them both diseases, btw, as we know. Though, from day one, i suspected he favored Trump. I mean why wouldnt he. He knew Hillary wanted him in prison. He didnt know what Trump would want at the time.
My main point though, is, i dont trust the sources you are relying on, to tell us the facts/truths. Its a big issue for me now. Loss of trust in sources of info.
It changes things for me.w
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 3:51 pm #80803Billy_TParticipantWell theres a whole lot there that you are asserting is true or proven. You and i would have to take each assertion one by one, and look at the actual evidence. But I doubt we would end up agreeing because I doubt i would trust your sources.
Plus there’s parts of this that just dont ‘bother’ me. Like Assange favoring Trump over Hillary. I dont care if he did. Its not illegal for him to favor Trump over Hillary. He called them both diseases, btw, as we know. Though, from day one, i suspected he favored Trump. I mean why wouldnt he. He knew Hillary wanted him in prison. He didnt know what Trump would want at the time.
My main point though, is, i dont trust the sources you are relying on, to tell us the facts/truths. Its a big issue for me now. Loss of trust in sources of info.
It changes things for me.w
vOn trust: I don’t accept anything blindly, and I question everything. But when patterns emerge for me, and check out with a variety of sources, I think we’ve gotten close to the truth. And when it comes to Trump over the course of the last two years or so, the patterns are there.
Boiled down, they first denied any contacts with the Russians, whatsoever. News sources prove that to be false. Trump or his spinners walk back their story, little by little, but claim it’s not important because they supposedly talked about something trivial.
News sources give us more specifics. Trump or spinners walk back previous stance and try to say those specifics aren’t important and on and on. IOW, they end up confirming what the news sources have been publishing. They end up admitting they were right all along.
So I’m going to generally trust news that ends up being accepted even by the people who initially denied everything, because they were under fire, etc. Sources like the New York Times, the WaPo, the New Yorker, the Intercept, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, to name a few . . . they’ve all gone through that process when it comes to Trump and his campaign.
Donny Jr’s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower is a great example of that game. They ended up actually publishing the email chain after they were caught by the NYT. They lied and denied until they couldn’t anymore, and then finally admitted it was true.
This has happened literally hundreds of times in the last coupla years. I think it’s safe to trust these sources, while always being open to other possibilities.
February 6, 2018 at 4:09 pm #80804Billy_TParticipantAnother big factor for me: Why would these newspapers lie about any of this? What’s in it for them? And lie together, in unison? Think about the complexity of such a media conspiracy, and what it would take to pull that off, and for what rewards?
Again, Corporate America had no reason to favor the Clintons over Trump and the GOP. They get a better deal with the latter, and we’ve already seen that in spades with the massive tax cuts, deregulation, military buildup, etc. If you’re going to go to all the trouble of mounting some huge conspiracy that involves unified, coordinated lying about a particular candidate, president or party, it better be worth it.
I see no advantage, whatsoever, for the MSM to go after Trump and the GOP, from any bottom line angle. And news sources are going to lose their audiences if caught in coordinated lying campaigns. Again, what’s in it for them?
As for Assange. I don’t care whom he “favored” either. I care about who willingly accepted his help, and actually called publicly for more, which breaks our election laws. I also find it wrong, immoral, cheating, and would prefer our leaders say no to all of that.
February 6, 2018 at 4:19 pm #80805wvParticipantWell theres a whole lot there that you are asserting is true or proven. You and i would have to take each assertion one by one, and look at the actual evidence. But I doubt we would end up agreeing because I doubt i would trust your sources.
Plus there’s parts of this that just dont ‘bother’ me. Like Assange favoring Trump over Hillary. I dont care if he did. Its not illegal for him to favor Trump over Hillary. He called them both diseases, btw, as we know. Though, from day one, i suspected he favored Trump. I mean why wouldnt he. He knew Hillary wanted him in prison. He didnt know what Trump would want at the time.
My main point though, is, i dont trust the sources you are relying on, to tell us the facts/truths. Its a big issue for me now. Loss of trust in sources of info.
It changes things for me.w
vOn trust: I don’t accept anything blindly, and I question everything. But when patterns emerge for me, and check out with a variety of sources, I think we’ve gotten close to the truth. And when it comes to Trump over the course of the last two years or so, the patterns are there.
Boiled down, they first denied any contacts with the Russians, whatsoever. News sources prove that to be false. Trump or his spinners walk back their story, little by little, but claim it’s not important because they supposedly talked about something trivial.
News sources give us more specifics. Trump or spinners walk back previous stance and try to say those specifics aren’t important and on and on. IOW, they end up confirming what the news sources have been publishing. They end up admitting they were right all along.
So I’m going to generally trust news that ends up being accepted even by the people who initially denied everything, because they were under fire, etc. Sources like the New York Times, the WaPo, the New Yorker, the Intercept, the Atlantic, Mother Jones, to name a few . . . they’ve all gone through that process when it comes to Trump and his campaign.
Donny Jr’s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower is a great example of that game. They ended up actually publishing the email chain after they were caught by the NYT. They lied and denied until they couldn’t anymore, and then finally admitted it was true.
This has happened literally hundreds of times in the last coupla years. I think it’s safe to trust these sources, while always being open to other possibilities.
===================
Well I wouldnt wipe my but with the New Yorker, the NYTimes, the Wash Post,
the NY Review of Books, Time, The Atlantic, The BBC…I could go on 🙂I used to think ‘layering’ lots of sources brought us a decent picture of things, but now i think if we just layer sources like i just listed, we just end up with layered-propaganda.
Why in the world would i trust ‘news’ from Corporate-Sources owned by the same Mega-Corporations that are bonded with the Deep-State/Corporotacracy?
Its a problem. (for me) Where are sources i can trust?
I tend to trust people who have built up trust (with me) over years and years. Chris Hedges, Max Blumenthal, Noam Chomsky…I tend to trust other radicals. Radical Journalists/Activists. Course thats problematic too…..blah blah blah.
Its a problem.
w
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 4:47 pm #80806Billy_TParticipantWell I wouldnt wipe my but with the New Yorker, the NYTimes, the Wash Post,
the NY Review of Books, Time, The Atlantic, The BBC…I could go onI used to think ‘layering’ lots of sources brought us a decent picture of things, but now i think if we just layer sources like i just listed, we just end up with layered-propaganda.
Why in the world would i trust ‘news’ from Corporate-Sources owned by the same Mega-Corporations that are bonded with the Deep-State/Corporotacracy?
Its a problem. (for me) Where are sources i can trust?
I tend to trust people who have built up trust (with me) over years and years. Chris Hedges, Max Blumenthal, Noam Chomsky…I tend to trust other radicals. Radical Journalists/Activists. Course thats problematic too…..blah blah blah.
Its a problem.
w
vBut, again, it makes sense to trust the source when the “accused” eventually admits they were telling the truth, right? And that’s the pattern.
And I’m saying the trust is case by case. Never blind.
IMO, where our corporate media most often falls short is via omission. Sins of. They’re not bad at all in reporting that the sun is out today when it is. They have troubles looking at the stuff off the radar, where corporations don’t want them to look. Environmental destruction, consumer scams, banking scams, systemic fraud in the financial system, international arms dealings, war crimes, prison system sadism, etc. etc. They go after the bright shiny stuff, not the stuff purposely kept off screen — with exceptions.
That’s where we get most of the “manufactured consent,” in what they DON’T talk about. They’re generally pretty good at reporting general political stuff, because it’s understood that politicians and parties and government are supposed to be bashed. They’re supposed to take the fall and the heat for their masters.
As for trusting our fellow radicals. Yeah, I prefer them too. And I prefer the Big Picture philosophical stuff beyond that, as you probably have noticed.
;>)
But I haven’t seen our favorite radicals disprove what the mainstream sources are writing about Trump, Russia, collusion and obstruction. I haven’t even seen them really try. Chomsky hasn’t. The folks at Jacobin haven’t. I haven’t seen that at Dissent, to name a few.
Do they profess “suspicion” of the authorities? Sure. What leftist doesn’t? But that’s not an argument. And since Trump and the GOP run the entire show, including the FBI, DOJ, the Courts, FISA, Congress and the Executive, it’s a pretty tough task to try to claim they’re the beleaguered minority/underdogs and powerless in all of this. And, again, if there is a “deep state,” it’s controlled primarily by the GOP, not the Dems.
In short, WV, I’m not at all persuaded by the idea that Trump is being framed by anyone. I honestly think he’s guilty as sin, and he brought all of this on himself.
February 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm #80807Billy_TParticipantWhen you get the time, I still would like to hear what you think did happen, during the campaign, with Trump, Russia, and the whole deal. Not about the false narrative you think is being presented. But what you believe actually happened instead.
February 6, 2018 at 6:26 pm #80809wvParticipantWhen you get the time, I still would like to hear what you think did happen, during the campaign, with Trump, Russia, and the whole deal. Not about the false narrative you think is being presented. But what you believe actually happened instead.
==========
Billy, I dont think anything ‘worse’ happened than whats happened with Obama or Clinton or Bush, with regard to…say…Israel. And i dont hear a firestorm from either the Dem-MSM or the Rep-MSM about ‘that’.
Thats not the ‘kind’ of answer you are looking for, I know, but thats how wv-brain looks at this stuff, nowadays.
You noted some of the vids i post almost make it out that Trump is a ‘victim’ — well, i dont think he’s a victim, i think he’s a monster, but i totally ‘get’ the subtext among some radicals that he’s a victim. They are picking up on the fact that the MSMs didnt go after Obama or Bush or Clinton for ‘their’ various collusions with mega-powers. Be they Israel or Mega-toxic-Corporations (I dont see the difference btw, in ‘colluding’ with Russia or colluding with Monsanto or Exxon. See the famous movie ‘Network’ speech — you know the one 🙂
PS — as for the specifics of the Trump and Russia thing — I dunno what happened. I dont think we ever get to know the full extent of these kinds of gangster weddings. I’m sure Trump and his evil henchmen got in bed with all kinds of other National and Corporate gangsters and Oligarchs. But i just dont see what they did as any more harmful than what Obama did getting in bed with Goldman Sachs, etc. I mean you can say the russia thing was “illegal” and the Goldman Sachs thing is all nice and “legal” — but are ‘you’ satisfied with that kind of distinction? 🙂
We are being fucked to death…by…”powerful forces of Nature, Mr Beale” 🙂
w
vFebruary 6, 2018 at 7:22 pm #80812Billy_TParticipantWhen you get the time, I still would like to hear what you think did happen, during the campaign, with Trump, Russia, and the whole deal. Not about the false narrative you think is being presented. But what you believe actually happened instead.
==========
Billy, I dont think anything ‘worse’ happened than whats happened with Obama or Clinton or Bush, with regard to…say…Israel. And i dont hear a firestorm from either the Dem-MSM or the Rep-MSM about ‘that’.
Thats not the ‘kind’ of answer you are looking for, I know, but thats how wv-brain looks at this stuff, nowadays.
You noted some of the vids i post almost make it out that Trump is a ‘victim’ — well, i dont think he’s a victim, i think he’s a monster, but i totally ‘get’ the subtext among some radicals that he’s a victim. They are picking up on the fact that the MSMs didnt go after Obama or Bush or Clinton for ‘their’ various collusions with mega-powers. Be they Israel or Mega-toxic-Corporations (I dont see the difference btw, in ‘colluding’ with Russia or colluding with Monsanto or Exxon. See the famous movie ‘Network’ speech — you know the one 🙂
PS — as for the specifics of the Trump and Russia thing — I dunno what happened. I dont think we ever get to know the full extent of these kinds of gangster weddings. I’m sure Trump and his evil henchmen got in bed with all kinds of other National and Corporate gangsters and Oligarchs. But i just dont see what they did as any more harmful than what Obama did getting in bed with Goldman Sachs, etc. I mean you can say the russia thing was “illegal” and the Goldman Sachs thing is all nice and “legal” — but are ‘you’ satisfied with that kind of distinction? 🙂
We are being fucked to death…by…”powerful forces of Nature, Mr Beale” 🙂
w
vI think you’re making a much more sensible argument than most of those videos you post. Unlike them, in general — with exceptions — you readily admit that Trump and the GOP are also guilty of X, Y and Z . . . and then you zoom out big picture to say that national borders aren’t important. It’s the corruption shared by political actors, the degree of corruption, the quid pro quo of it all, etc. It’s the gangsterism of it all. Their venal “weddings.”
If I read you correctly, that is. Which is a pretty good argument for total repeal and replacement of our current system. I think you and I both want full democracy instead, egalitarian, free from concentrations of wealth and power, and oh so green, clean and sustainable . . .
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by Billy_T.
February 6, 2018 at 7:25 pm #80814Billy_TParticipantA quick aside on motivations and reasons for suspicion of the “official narrative,” and why I don’t always sync up with some of the folks you post. If Trump were a champion of the people, a lover of democracy, a warrior against inequality, on behalf of Planet Earth and so on . . . if he were a Camus, a Chomsky, a Gandhi, an MLK . . . if he really were some real threat to the Establishment because he was a leftist freedom fighter . . . my suspicions regarding all of this would likely be off the charts. I would be thinking there was a logical reason for a phony attack on his legitimacy. But he aint that guy. He’s the opposite of that guy. He’s, in many ways, a dream come true for the oligarchs here and elsewhere, for the extraction industry, for the MIC, for Wall Street, etc. etc. He’s about as far from being a threat to monied interests as Jamie Dimon.
In short, I just don’t see rational motivations for cooking up some big false narrative to bring him down. I honestly think he’s guilty . . . and, yeah, others have been too. But who’s in the White House now? Who should we be dealing with now?
February 6, 2018 at 8:07 pm #80815wvParticipantI think you’re making a much more sensible argument than most of those videos you post. Unlike them, in general — with exceptions — you readily admit that Trump and the GOP are also guilty of X, Y and Z . . . and then you zoom out big picture to say that national borders aren’t important. It’s the corruption shared by political actors, the degree of corruption, the quid pro quo of it all, etc. It’s the gangsterism of it all. Their venal “weddings.”
If I read you correctly, that is. Which is a pretty good argument for total repeal and replacement of our current system. I think you and I both want full democracy instead, egalitarian, free from concentrations of wealth and power, and oh so green, clean and sustainable . . .
=================
Well probly the no.1 voice I’m echoing is Chris Hedges. He sez Trump is a monster, but he aint buying into Russia-gate or Syria-gate. I agree with him. Again, he KNOWS trump is a monster. He’s not saying Trump is not a monster — but he doesnt like the WAY the russia-gate story is being written and told. Too much is being left out. Too much context is left out to make sense of the story. The way the story is being told by the Dem-MSM is merely going to lead to another Hillary/Obama/Goldman-Sachs.
1) Yes Trump is a monstrous-monster.
2) But the MSM reflects the Deep State agenda — and that agenda is not to get at the truth or talk about the truth. (truth being the big picture, context, empire, etc)
3) And without that big-picture-context, any MSM stories about Trump — end up being Propaganda. Add the big-picture-context and then, yes, the stories about Trump might make the bewildered-herd into actual functioning citizens.I would not have said this about five or six years ago. I would have said something like “a story about Trump is perfectly fine if its narrow and only about Trump”. But now, I see it differently. Now i see that the OMISSION of context leads to idiot-citizens. It just does. The way the MSM tells stories just leads to the idiot-voters voting for Hillary…or Trump…or Obama…or Bush…or Reagan…or…Clinton….
There’s no real, useful, comprehensible ‘truth’ as long as what I’m calling ‘the context’ is being left out. (and its being left out for all the reasons Noam and Herman talked about in Manufacturing Consent)
Among knowledgeable, critical thinkers with high POLITICAL IQs (leftists like you)
these MSM stories can be understood and critiqued and used. But among the bewildered Herd these stories about Russia-gate (and i would argue Syria as well, and a gazillion others) amount to nothing more than deep-state Propaganda.…ps — and one teeny tiny pet-peeve that annoys the hell out of me. And it points to what I’m talking about in a very small way — WHY does the MSM use the word “Oligarchs” to describe rich russians but not billionaire Americans? Why would that be? They want us to go in search of enemies. They want us to think in terms of Nationalism and borders. They do not want us to think in terms of power. Who has it, and who doesnt.
w
v -
This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
