• entries
    213
  • comments
    4,005
  • views
    50,217
william.scherk

Entry posted by william.scherk

1,018 views

 Share

The Hill reports the 'breaking' news that the White House has approved the public release of the MEMO. The MEMO was crafted by staff of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

From an earlier report ...

Quote

The furor surrounding a controversial Republican-drafted memo alleging surveillance abuses at the Department of Justice reached a fever pitch on Thursday as the White House signaled that the release could be imminent.

President Trump has viewed the memo and been briefed on its contents. A senior administration official said the president supports making the memo public and is expected to sign off on its release as soon as Friday.

“It’s in Congress’s hands after that,” the official said.

But even as Trump inches closer to approving its release, the document has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill and has led to calls from top Democrats for the removal of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who spearheaded the document.

Nunes, whose committee would ultimately release the document, is under pressure to deliver after conservatives hinted heavily that the document holds the key to putting a stop to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia and the president’s campaign.
The Department of Justice and the FBI have fiercely opposed the release of the memo on the grounds that it is misleading and could expose sensitive intelligence sources and methods. Nunes has fired back sharply at the FBI’s efforts to cast doubt on the veracity of the document, calling their objections “spurious” and doubling down on the need to release the memo. 

The White House and the bureau have been wrangling over what redactions, if any, to apply to the document. Committee Republicans have said redactions are unnecessary.

The White House official insisted that the memo “doesn’t give away too much in terms of classification” and said that significant redactions appeared unlikely.

The drama took another unexpected turn on Wednesday night when Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, accused Nunes of altering the memo ahead of its release. Nunes says he only changed the memo to clean up grammatical errors and to make additions that Schiff and the FBI had asked for.

Democrats have drafted their own memo to rebut the Republican-drafted document. The majority on the House Intelligence Committee voted against making that document public earlier this week, although it could still be released.

But even as the embattled chairman has defended the memo, other senior Republicans have begun urging caution. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) this week pleaded with GOP members not to overplay the document’s findings and not to tie it to the Mueller investigation.

“What this is not is an indictment on our institutions, of our justice system. This memo is not an indictment of the FBI, of the Department of Justice. It does not impugn [Mueller’s] investigation or the deputy attorney general,” Ryan said Thursday at the Republican retreat in West Virginia.

“What it is, is the Congress’s legitimate function of oversight to make sure the FISA process is being used correctly,” he added, referring to a controversial government surveillance program. “If it wasn’t being used correctly, that needs to come to light and people need to be held accountable so this doesn’t affect our civil liberties.”

Then, on Thursday, Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (S.D.) told reporters that Nunes should heed the FBI’s concerns and share the memo with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) before releasing it publicly, noting that Burr has been unable to obtain the document. 

“There are important national security considerations they need to weigh, and hopefully they’re doing that,” Thune said.

 

 

 Share

21 Comments

Recommended Comments

william.scherk

FULL TEXT: 

Let the OL elite punditry begin!

Spoiler

January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

 

Investigation Update

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §,1805(d)(l)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the 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. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

 

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

a) 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.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

 

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

 

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, 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.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

Back on the old SoloHQ when I was a Perigo insider, I once caught him in a bare-faced lie where he was saying one thing to my face and another behind my back. When discussing this by email (and I have these emails somewhere), I presented the proof to him. How do you think he responded?

"Well, bully for you!"

That was it.

:)

Now Comey has been caught in a lie using a document full of made-up stories--one that he knew was fictional--to lie to a judge in a secret court. A memo from a Congressional committee was released saying this is what happened (among other sleazy things).

His response?

"That's it?"

And that was it. See here.

Bullies who lie act the same everywhere. No shame whatsoever for doing wrong. And no will to correct themselves.

You can't reason with them because their epistemological model--the one they use, not the one they say they use--is based on gaining domination over people (power), not facts.

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk
On 02/02/2018 at 9:42 AM, WSS, quoting the Nunes memo said:

The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.

Embedded here is the dossier in full, in case readers haven't examined it.

 

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Comey has been caught in a lie using a document full of made-up stories--one that he knew was fictional

Can we pinpoint that lie, so I can fill in the details?

Quote

--to lie to a judge in a secret court. A memo from a Congressional committee was released saying this is what happened [...].

For those who haven't read the memo, it is in the comment above. To repost (White House release PDF):

 

Quote

His response? [...] See here.

Quote

Bullies who lie act the same everywhere. No shame whatsoever for doing wrong. And no will to correct themselves.

Does this mean you believe James Comey is one of the bullies without shame?  This seems a rather broad brush, if so. Readers probably seek particulars, whether they agree or not with the sweeping denunciation.

Quote

You can't reason with them because their epistemological model--the one they use, not the one they say they use--is based on gaining domination over people (power), not facts.

Ah, if I could have the gift of second-sight, or the gift of espying "Them"'s epistemological model. I could see right into the basic operation of their minds!

Anyway, as I said above, this will be the Week That Was.  Somewhere above Grand Supreme Hoopla is another ranking, which I haven't come up with a rubric for. Here is an illustration, a snapshot of yesterday's collection of fevered commentary from Memeorandum:

Spoiler

memeorandum

 TOP ITEMS: 
RELATED:
i11.jpgshare.png Darren Samuelsohn / Politico:
Russia probe lawyers think Mueller could indict Trump  —  Special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation has gathered enough steam that some lawyers representing key Donald Trump associates are considering the possibility of a historic first: an indictment against a sitting president.
i17.jpgshare.png Joe Walsh / Washington Post:
Devin Nunes is acting like a partisan hack.  That's just how I remember him.  —  My former colleague doesn't seem to grasp what his job in Congress is.  —  I served in Congress with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).  Based on my experience working with him, nothing about the way he's behaving …
i15.jpgshare.png Kimberley A. Strassel / Wall Street Journal:
Memo Reading for Nonpartisans  —  Ignore the spin.  When the document goes public, here's what to look for.  —  The White House looks set to release the House Intelligence Committee memo on 2016 government surveillance abuses, which means the attacks on the document by Democrats …
i62.jpgshare.png Washington Post:
GOP memo criticizing FBI surveillance is released… A GOP memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI has been released, intensifying a fight between the White House and Republican lawmakers, on one side, and the nation's top law enforcement agency over whether the origins of a probe …
i129.jpgshare.png The Daily Beast:
Sean Hannity Has Been Advising Donald Trump on the Nunes Memo, Because of Course He Has … President Donald Trump is at odds with his own chief law enforcement officers over a controversial memo fueling Republican allegations of a conspiracy against the Trump presidency.
–
Discussion:
Adam L Silverman / Balloon Juice:   Release The Memo Update
i63.jpgshare.png Massimo Calabresi / TIME:
How Donald Trump Is Sowing Distrust in American Justice  —  U.S. President Donald Trump delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Joshua Roberts—Reuters  —  President Trump delivered a fairly traditional mix of barbs and bromides during his 80-minute State …
i69.jpgshare.png Cecilia Vega / ABC News:
President Trump authorizes release of controversial GOP memo with no redactions  —  President Donald Trump has declassified the GOP memo and approves of its release by the House Intelligence Committee without redactions, a White House official tells ABC News.
i3.jpgshare.png Washington Post:
A process that tarnishes the House  —  “WHAT THIS is not is an indictment of our institutions, of our justice system,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday about the now infamous “Nunes memo.”  “It does not impugn the Mueller investigation or the deputy attorney general,” the speaker insisted.
–
Discussion:
Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Does this mean you believe James Comey is one of the bullies without shame?

William,

Worse.

He's a toady for the Washington and globalist elitists. He's glorified muscle.

What's worse, he thinks the elitists think he's an elitist (one of them), too.

He's hired help and was never anything more. They just allowed him to think he was.

Once this memo thing expands and goes to where it is going to go to, I predict Comey will be one of those sacrificed without second thought by the elitists. And as he falls on his sword, he will be thinking about how unfair life has treated him--that there is no justice in the world.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
29 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Can we pinpoint that lie, so I can fill in the details?

William,

I was referring to Comey signing the FISA applications based on evidence he knew was fabricated.

That's the lie and he's been caught.

Sorry if that was unclear.

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
30 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Ah, if I could have the gift of second-sight, or the gift of espying "Them"'s epistemological model.

William,

You have never interacted with bullies before?

Odd...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

For readers who are still confused about the memo and FISA warrant kerfuffle, Sean Hannity breaks it down like a boss.

Hannity did such a good job, Julian Assange called his summary "beautiful" (see here.)

Assange is not what one would call a Hannity fan. 

:)

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk

If you peek outside of the Trumpist silo, there are voices suffused with sense, passion, partisan grievance, incipient hysteria, gravid calm, magisterial grasp of the particles and sweep of history -- all in some mix or measure. I find the voices at Lawfare to be generally least hysterical of the legal minds commenting on the three Russia Russia Russia scandals.

In a fit of laziness, I will just poke in a look at my notes page for my home-learning.  Do have a listen to the first podcast if nothing else. Outside the silo, outside the echo, there are some ramifications that pay to keep in mind. That is whether or not you class Wittes and Co within the Comey liar powermonger rubric.

 

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
19 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

If you peek outside of the Trumpist silo, there are voices suffused with sense, passion, partisan grievance, incipient hysteria, gravid calm, magisterial grasp of the particles and sweep of history -- all in some mix or measure.

William,

I always peek outside the Trumpist silo. (I constantly post Jimmy Dore's stuff, for example. I look at all kinds of stuff.)

As to the voices suffused with such rhetorical and mental virtues, I agree and I agree even with mainstream journalists--that is, when they discuss their food, their clothes, their pets, the kinds of cars they like and so on.

:evil:  :)

When discussing the memo, they have tended to go batshit crazy so far. One of my favorite parodies--but quite accurate in what I have seen--is the following:

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

In a fit of laziness, I will just poke in a look at my notes page for my home-learning.  Do have a listen to the first podcast if nothing else.

William,

After looking at that list of headlines (the funniest being "Deep Thoughts by James Comey" :) ), in a fit of laziness, I think I'll pass on the podcast. But thanks for the recommendation.

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk
13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If you peek outside of the Trumpist silo, there are voices suffused with sense, passion, partisan grievance, incipient hysteria, gravid calm, magisterial grasp of the particles and sweep of history -- all in some mix or measure.

I always peek outside the Trumpist silo. [...]

As to the voices suffused with such rhetorical and mental virtues, I agree

-- excepting 'partisan grievance' and 'incipient hysteria' as virtues, right?

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When discussing the memo, they have tended to go batshit crazy so far.

"They" usually do. The other 'theys' ... not so much. Which is why I recommended a listen to the Lawfare Podcast.  Although partisan, not hysterically so, as in your tweet satire.

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In a fit of laziness, I will just poke in a look at my notes page for my home-learning.  Do have a listen to the first podcast if nothing else.

After looking at that list of headlines (the funniest being "Deep Thoughts by James Comey" :) ), in a fit of laziness, I think I'll pass on the podcast. But thanks for the recommendation.

The podcast, Michael is from Lawfare.  The "Deep Thoughts by James Comey" is from Powerline blog, which is from the other "silo." I don't know why a humorous Powerline article would turn you off the Lawfare podcast/s ...

 

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Can we pinpoint that lie, so I can fill in the details?

I was referring to Comey signing the FISA applications based on evidence he knew was fabricated.

That's the lie and he's been caught.

The Carter Page** FISA warrant extension applications were 'signed off' by Comey, Yates, McCabe and Rosenstein -- according to the Red Silo story at the Daily Caller. 

-- in dispute is whether or not the Carter Page FISA surveillance order (and subsequent extensions) was granted solely on the basis of the Steele Dossier. I am guessing that you know all these details, but may not be interested in discussing the disputes ... except from a Trumpist vantage.

From that vantage, Michael, what do you think of Carter Page?

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
23 hours ago, william.scherk said:
Quote

[Y]ou can't reason with them [unrepentant liars] because their epistemological model--the one they use, not the one they say they use--is based on gaining domination over people (power), not facts.

Ah, if I could have the gift of second-sight, or the gift of espying "Them"'s epistemological model. I could see right into the basic operation of their minds!

You have never interacted with bullies before?

   "Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men?" [answer]

-- on the larger, global issues of Russia, Russia, Russia, I believe that the desired sea-change in American relations with Russia is likely to come after the Mueller investigation is concluded. I believe that President Trump's campaign policy towards Russia remains White House policy, but that the "witch hunt" prevents its implementation. (readers may be interested to learn that the sanctions package passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress -- and signed grudgingly by the President -- is being held in abeyance.  References on request, but independent research may serve you better.)

russiaSanctionsAbeyanceNewsResult.png

I believe that the Mueller inquiry will not implicate the President directly in anything but the stated desire to make nice with Russia; he was clear and consistent on the trail, in that he did not hide his wish to repair a damaged relationship.

___________________________________________________

** Carter Page is a bucket of fun. I will include here links to Friends and Foes discussion of the Page Effect. In the meantime, suggested search query to get folks up to speed on details in the news today ...

carterPageFISAnewsFeb4.png

  
BONUS! OL for the Blind episode 143:

  
 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
14 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

-- excepting 'partisan grievance' and 'incipient hysteria' as virtues, right?

Nope.

Here's the guy you clipped off from my quote.

Jimmy Dore, who I disagree with a lot as he is a Bernie dude, is a lot more objective than Demopublican big state partisans (the ones I call globalist elitists).

Jimmy didn't say it here, but he constantly says what the Dems (like Schiff and Clinton) are doing helps Trump. It doesn't hurt Trump.

He's right.

As a Trump supporter, I appreciate that support from the neoliberal side of the Democrats. They constantly keep the Bernie side from becoming a serious opponent. :) 

18 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... what do you think of Carter Page?

I don't think of Carter Page. He's a pawn in a globalist elitist game he isn't even playing.

Collateral damage, so to speak.

In reality, nobody gives a fart in a shit factory about Carter Page as a human being.

Anyway, all this is academic (in a non-academic sort of way). A real shit-storm is coming to government insiders and I don't see anything short of a Trump assassination stopping it. So some swamp creatures are going to experience pest control. Obviously, they are baring their fangs.

The fallout from that swamp-draining should be the concern of big-picture people (like: will this bring a different kind of police state?), but so far, all I see is bickering over big-state-swamp non-fact propaganda--Trump hating qua Trump hating and not much more. Muh Russians! Muh Russians! 

I'm not really passionate about anything during this go-around. Why? I don't mind if swamp creatures think they win an argument here and there as they are being cleansed from public office and public service. 

Michael

Link to comment
Jon Letendre

Well stated, Michael. As usual.

My thought about Trump getting hurt, I love the guy of course, but it doesn’t matter.

He won because The Alliance wanted him. If someone better had run, they would have chosen differently and that would be our President now.

If Hillary, despite their best-laid plans to prevent the cheat, had won, then they would have launched a coup right before she committed us to war with Russia or North Korea, launching the global war the globalists want.

Trump is great at what he does, but The Alliance doesn’t need him and nothing is going to stop them now.

Link to comment
Jon Letendre

On the fallout issue, that’s a real issue as we effectively have a military government now. The Alliance is international, obviously, or it wouldn’t stand a chance and we wouldn’t be where we are right now. The US portion is military and military intel, that’s why Flynn and Mattis and all the generals. I estimate the Alliance checkmated the elite globalist cabal a couple years ago and has been planning the no-see-it takedown since. I am impressed that we are this far along and it is still under the public’s radar. 

Link to comment
Jon Letendre

And William, I think I understand your request from the other thread, there are many reasons to cite sources, when possible. In this case I can say I am aware that Q tells a narrative in agreement with my narratives above. But I did not hear it first from Q, rather, I heard it first over the last two years, from many people. I’m not going to go and dig any of it up. I’m ok if you don’t believe me. And I’m ok if you don’t want me posting in this manner on any of your pieces/threads/whatever the kids are calling these now.

Of all the explanations for what we see in the world around us, including Ayn Rand’s and I respect her very much, this narrative makes the most overall economical and direct sense of recent history as I myself have experienced it in my almost fifty years.

Michael changed how I look at the issue of looking for explanations sometime around the same time he started arguing for Trump. That lead to changing where I look. That was about 2.5, two and a half, years ago. I had never seen Alex Jones until Michael (or someone) on the Donald Trump thread posted some. He tells a version of this narrative. It is widespread.

Link to comment
william.scherk
21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- excepting 'partisan grievance' and 'incipient hysteria' as virtues, right?

Nope.

Wait. You think incipient hysteria and partisan grievance are rhetorical virtues?

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
33 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Wait. You think incipient hysteria and partisan grievance are rhetorical virtues?

William,

Really?

You didn't understand what I was saying, then jumped to a stupid conclusion that flies in the face of everything you know about me?

Really?

That's the way the mainstream media does all the time these days.

If you didn't understand my "nope," maybe it was not artful or clear. But reread that statement of yours I was responding to and read it in context. Hell, on rereading it, the best I can say is that it is not artful or clear. But I'm not accusing you of calling me a bigot.

There's a better way to do that.

Here. When you get stuck for a phrase in doing what you just did, they've got an automated thingie that will break through the block. Granted, this is more geared toward social justice warriors than mainstream media pundits, but the essence is the same.

SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR INSULT GENERATOR

Here are a few from the program to get an idea:

Quote

“You're a racist, Eurocentric, Putin-loving transphobe!”

“You're a woman-hating, close-minded, hate-mongering fear-monger!”

“You're a Eurocentric, oppressive, Nazi Islamophobe!”

“You're a misogynistic, mansplaining, imperialistic prude!”

:) 

Saying that I consider "incipient hysteria and partisan grievance" to be rhetorical virtues is on the same level. The only difference is that it's the gateway to get to such clarity of raw emotion expressing the poorly identified. The next step is to talk about dog whistles...

We often disagree, but you have never been that before. You have a precious good mind which is the basis of why I value you so highly. But unless your post was a quip, it looks like that (a hack) is what you are in danger of becoming.

As a friend, I feel called on to say, "Danger, danger! Do not lose yourself..."

The Sufis say you become what you gaze upon. So unless you aspire to become a mainstream media hack of the Rachel Maddow molds constantly saying "Muh Russians!", maybe it's a good time to check the premise that gazing on mainstream media hacks for information is a good thing--especially those long lists of headlines from the worst of the lot you constantly post.

Nietzsche said (to paraphrase) when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks right back into you.

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk
On 03/02/2018 at 10:59 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Once this memo thing expands and goes to where it is going to go to, I predict Comey will be one of those sacrificed without second thought by the elitists.

Release the (other) MEMO!

On 05/02/2018 at 8:21 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But unless your post was a quip, it looks like that (a hack) is what you are in danger of becoming.

I am sorry that I belaboured a snatch of your posting above** ... it led to a tart comment in the subsequent Gaccia exchange that was quite unnecessary and inflammatory. Obviously, I believe, you did not mean you approve 'incipient hysteria' as a rhetorical device.

I should have just let your responding comment stand and move on; it doesn't matter that you did not yourself say "Of course not," and it led to a bad feeling ... and the responsibility for that is primarily on me. Please accept my apologies.

Regarding Jimmy Dore and his opinions ... once I discovered he was a Sarin Truther and did fuck all independent research into the topic, I do not value him as a "truth-teller." Lazy, sloppy, dogmatic, shallow, sneering ... yes. Informed, no.

The memo released with redactions is an adequate response to the Nunes memo.  The main contentions from that misbegotten document are -- if not disproved -- reduced to a partial and misleading read of underlying fact and process. Nunes is a hack and a hyperpartisan fount of misleading reporting. In my opinion.

** exceptingPartisanGrievance.png

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
william.scherk

"I'm not convinced that the Nunes Memo was full of Cohen lies. You?"  Listen for the railway Wheel Squeal as you attempt to turn a tight corner.  Can one say "derailment"?  Next station, CONSPIRACY!

On 2/24/2018 at 2:27 PM, william.scherk said:

The memo released with redactions is an adequate response to the Nunes memo.  The main contentions from that misbegotten document are -- if not disproved -- reduced to a partial and misleading read of underlying fact and process. Nunes is a hack and a hyperpartisan fount of misleading reporting. In my opinion.

Opinion. Hurr hurr.  Not so fast. Now that Michael Cohen got caught and has admitted lying to Congress ... well, what does that mean for the "Memo"?

It could be argued that the parts of the memo that depended on truthful testimony from Cohen are ... what's that word ... defective? bullshit? 'fake news'?  You decide. CYA later.

Bottom line: the Nunes Memo is worth shit. In my opinion. Hurr hurr squeal.

2_2_57449_2_1_690x520.jpg

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now