Release the Memo - page 23

Republicans call for release of memo on alleged surveillance abuses - CBS News... Read More

  1. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from herring_RN
    These Are the Ads Russia Bought on Facebook in 2016:
    http://<b> https://www.nytimes.com/2...book.html </b>

    ... Lawmakers released some of the 3,000 ads that Russian operatives bought during the 2016 presidential campaign and its aftermath. Facebook has said these ads were created by the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm in St. Petersburg, with the goal of influencing U.S. voters...
    http://<b> https://www.washingtonpos...2033b7e35 </b>

    Here are the Russia-linked Facebook ads released by Congress:
    http://<b> https://www.theverge.com/...ebook-ads </b>

    Google uncovers Russian-bought ads on YouTube, Gmail and other platforms:
    http://<b>https://www.washingtonpost...92048c714 </b>
    None of your links work.
  2. by   herring_RN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Your link is broken.

    The elections are free and fair. How are they not?
    Release the Memo
  3. by   herring_RN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    None of your links work.
    THANK YOU!
    Try now if you want to.

    Release the Memo
  4. by   MunoRN
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    She obviously meant Page to Strzok.

    If it was a innocent routine briefing, it seems odd she would need to tell Strzok that "potus wants to know everything we're doing." It seems that would be assumed.
    Briefings can vary from very brief to very detailed, so it's not unusual to clarify the depth of briefing requested.
    I don't think it's inappropriate for a sitting President to feel the need to at least be briefed on potential compromise of our election process, since that's pretty important, I would think there would be a much more concern had he just looked the other way.
  5. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Not if that investigation was not in relation to Trump and Russia, but Papadopoulos himself carrying out those actions. That's why the timeline was important, because at the time Papadopoulos apparently had this meeting, was about the same day that Trump announced Papadopoulos being a foreign policy advisor. He may not even been an advisor at that time.

    But as more "evidence" came out, leading to the FISA on Carter Page, they probably included it to show that there was another instance of a person, that after the incident, joined Trump's campaign, talked to Russia.



    The FBI paid Steele for his information, it doesn't ALL have to be from the FISA itself, but at least one further probable cause from the FISA itself. The Steele dossier emboldened whatever information they received from the FISA, but as you can tell, we don't have the actual FISA application to determine what they said about Page, besides the horrendous claims within the memo.



    Sources?



    What would Steele have to gain? Clinton paying him? For enough scandalous claims to lose Trump the election, in favor of Clinton? Seems pretty important on who paid for it.

    Again, obviously the FBI didn't confirm the sources, considering they included Steele's findings and a Yahoo article, with information from Steele, to corroborate Page's "collusion". The courts rely on the FBI to confirm the sources, the court's then decide based on the information. The FBI failed to confirm the accuracy of the sources, then blatantly omitted information, that the courts did not know about.
    The investigation is into possible Russian interference in the election and any role Trump or other campaigns staff might have had, it's not limited to Trump himself, his campaign only after they took office, or staffers only while they were officially part of the campaign or administration.

    A continuing FISA warrant is actually solely based on whether useful information has been obtained solely as a result of the warrant, information obtained outside the warrant doesn't meet criteria for justifying a renewal.

    The basis of your argument seems to be that the memo states the FBI never verified any information that they may have used from the memos, the Nunes memo makes no such claim, at no point does it contend that the FBI didn't provide due diligence or that the FISA court judges did not ensure this had occurred. All the memo contends is that the information the FBI presumably verified and the FISA court agreed had been sufficiently verified originally may have come in part from research done by a political campaign, even though there is nothing wrong with that so long as the information has been sufficient verified.

    The other argument seems to be that FISA court was not notified of the political connections of some of the original leads, even though Nunes and Gowdy appear to admit that the application did actually include this information, just that it was mostly in a footnote, even though footnoting is the standard way to provide extended information on sources in a document.
    Republicans concede key FBI &#39;footnote&#39; in Carter Page warrant - POLITICO
    Transcript: Rep. Trey Gowdy on "Face the Nation," Feb. 4, 218 - CBS News
  6. by   herring_RN
    Quote from itsybitsy

    How do you know President Trump isn't telling the truth?

    Clinton, Bush, Obama - all know there were inferences with at least Russia and China during their elections. Again, where was the outrage the sitting Presidents at that time didn't do anything? Were they not doing their jobs?
    I wish you had a source for Russian interference in the last century and before 2016.
    Where did you get that information?


    Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking
    Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking - The New York Times

    President Trump signed the bill into law. Why hasn't he ensured enforcement?
    Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill
    Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill : NPR
    Trump is blatantly ignoring the Russia sanctions law
    Even if Trump is blatantly ignoring the Russia sanctions law, there’s not a lot Congress can do about it - The Washington Post
  7. by   macawake
    Quote from Lil Nel
    And this is for the other side, which just can't grasp the notion of Russian interference with our election(s). Even Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, says they are already interfering with 2018.
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Oh, so you're finally understanding... Russian interference is nothing new and happens even when Donald Trump isn't running for President.

    Congratulations.
    Itsybitsy, I feel have to remind you how this started.

    If I interpret Lil Nel's post correctly she's addressing people who won't even acknowledge that the Russians attempted to influence the 2016 election.

    * She doesn't say if she thinks they were successful or not.

    * She doesn't say if she thinks that they tried to help Republicans OR Democrats.

    * She doesn't say if she thinks that someone, either one of the candidates or someone associated with one of/either of the candidates' campaign/s coordinated this attempt with the Russians.

    She simply addressed people "who can't grasp the notion of Russian interference" with your elections.

    And then she goes on to mentioning your Secretary of State, possible interference with the 2018 midterm elections and links to an article.


    YOU then respond to her post by congratulating her on "finally understanding" that Russian interference doesn't only happen when Trump is running for President. That's a nonsensical response since she DID NOT claim that interference ONLY occurs when Trump is running for President.



    You show the same style of debate when you respond to me; ie not replying to what I'm actually saying.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    You're second paragraph still doesn't mean Trump has any part of that. Why is this hard for you to grasp?
    Quote from macawake
    Ask yourself, IF the Russians prefer Donald Trump as President, do you think that they'd prefer a Republican or Democratic majority in the House and Senate after the 2018 midterms? There's still plenty of rationale to interfere. You also have to remember that electing a specific individual isn't the sole reason for interference. I think I told you that a destabilized West is one objective so promoting infighting and division among us, even social unrest, is no doubt a victory as well.
    Well, the above quote was my second paragraph, the one you're claiming doesn't mean Trump "has any part of that". OF COURSE my second paragraph doesn't mean "Trump has any part of that". You know why? I never INTENDED for it to mean that or prove that. Seriously, stop twisting the meaning of my words around to make it fit the narrative you want to promote. If you want to disagree with something I said, that's of course fine. But try to disagree with something I ACTUALLY said, or kindly refrain from quoting me and just share whatever it is you wish to share.

    I even capitalized the word IF to indicate that I haven't made a 100% judgment one way or the other regarding Russia's attempt to help Trump. (I'm appr. 99.5% sure, but I still allow a little room for other possibilities). Nothing in my second paragraph, NOT ONE WORD, mentioned the possibility that Trump was actively invloved with coordinating this POSSIBLE interference (or in your words; "had any part of it). So why on earth would you respond by saying that my second paragraph didn't prove something I didn't even attempt to prove in the first place?

    The arrogance of "why is it so hard for you to grasp" is quite unbecoming, considering I didn't even made the claim you attempt to ascribe to me.



    I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying in the following quote:

    Quote from itsybitsy
    It's pretty clear they believe in Trump-Russia collusion. People are using interferences as claims to back up the Trump-Russia dossier, when in reality, it isn't anything new nor related.
    Who are "they" and "people" in the above quote? What does "using interferences as claims to back up the Trump-Russia dossier, when in reality, it isn't anything new nor related" mean? I take it "back up" means support or corroborate? What are "people" using the interferences as support for? The content itself of the Trump-Russia (Steele?) dossier? The reliability/accuracy of the information in the dossier? Or the claims that Russia interfered with your election?
  8. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from itsybitsy
    None of your links work.
    They worked for me.

    Your remarks about Russian interference in our elections don't make much sense to me. We know that Russia hacked into voter registration records in several states, gave money to individuals and groups top fund conservative candidates, and filled some markets and media options with marketing which was primarily anti Clinton (including conspiracy theories). We know that they hacked and released emails to sway voters. We know that multiple Russians meet with members of Trump's team that the team either couldn't remember or lied about. We just don't know yet if Trump or or anyone from his team literally conspired with Russia in the election activities. Trump Jr said he loved the idea and Trump senior invited Russia to find emails and get involved, so it's easy to accept the need for thorough investigation. Why is this so confusing for you?
  9. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from macawake
    Itsybitsy, I feel have to remind you how this started.

    If I interpret Lil Nel's post correctly she's addressing people who won't even acknowledge that the Russians attempted to influence the 2016 election.

    * She doesn't say if she thinks they were successful or not.

    * She doesn't say if she thinks that they tried to help Republicans OR Democrats.

    * She doesn't say if she thinks that someone, either one of the candidates or someone associated with one of/either of the candidates' campaign/s coordinated this attempt with the Russians.

    She simply addressed people "who can't grasp the notion of Russian interference" with your elections.

    And then she goes on to mentioning your Secretary of State, possible interference with the 2018 midterm elections and links to an article.


    YOU then respond to her post by congratulating her on "finally understanding" that Russian interference doesn't only happen when Trump is running for President. That's a nonsensical response since she DID NOT claim that interference ONLY occurs when Trump is running for President.



    You show the same style of debate when you respond to me; ie not replying to what I'm actually saying.





    Well, the above quote was my second paragraph, the one you're claiming doesn't mean Trump "has any part of that". OF COURSE my second paragraph doesn't mean "Trump has any part of that". You know why? I never INTENDED for it to mean that or prove that. Seriously, stop twisting the meaning of my words around to make it fit the narrative you want to promote. If you want to disagree with something I said, that's of course fine. But try to disagree with something I ACTUALLY said, or kindly refrain from quoting me and just share whatever it is you wish to share.

    I even capitalized the word IF to indicate that I haven't made a 100% judgment one way or the other regarding Russia's attempt to help Trump. (I'm appr. 99.5% sure, but I still allow a little room for other possibilities). Nothing in my second paragraph, NOT ONE WORD, mentioned the possibility that Trump was actively invloved with coordinating this POSSIBLE interference (or in your words; "had any part of it). So why on earth would you respond by saying that my second paragraph didn't prove something I didn't even attempt to prove in the first place?

    The arrogance of "why is it so hard for you to grasp" is quite unbecoming, considering I didn't even made the claim you attempt to ascribe to me.



    I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying in the following quote:



    Who are "they" and "people" in the above quote? What does "using interferences as claims to back up the Trump-Russia dossier, when in reality, it isn't anything new nor related" mean? I take it "back up" means support or corroborate? What are "people" using the interferences as support for? The content itself of the Trump-Russia (Steele?) dossier? The reliability/accuracy of the information in the dossier? Or the claims that Russia interfered with your election?
    Your analysis is spot on macawake. Spot on.

    And kudos to you for continuing to reason with the unreasonable.

    As for myself, I am done trying to converse with bricks in the wall.

    Good luck to you!
  10. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from herring_RN
    This one is still not working.
  11. by   elkpark
    Quote from itsybitsy
    This one is still not working.
    It works for me.
  12. by   herring_RN
    Quote from herring_RN
    Release the Memo
    Quote from itsybitsy
    This one is still not working.
    It works for me. All the included links worked too.
    Can someone else try it?
  13. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    I don't think it's inappropriate for a sitting President to feel the need to at least be briefed on potential compromise of our election process, since that's pretty important, I would think there would be a much more concern had he just looked the other way.
    It seems he had a different view than you: CLIP: Obama &#39;I do not talk to FBI Directors about pending investigations&#39; EXCEPT James Comey - YouTube

close