I’m asking literally. As in you’re presented something. It’s 100% going to have to come from DC or some other such entity due to its very nature. Given that, when you’re presented with any evidence, what steps do you go through to decide if it’s non-partisan and untarnished?
1 Like
People also need to prepare to take our law enforcement/intelligence agencies’ word for it. I’m sure there is no shortage of classified information that won’t be publicly known for years/decades.
1 Like
Trusting the professionals is for suckers. It doesn’t matter what the “facts” are. Trump’s here to make DEEEEEEALS and they go away. This winning
2 Likes
I started to type “Most Trumpers will go to their graves thinking…” but I abandoned it as it was redundant.
2 Likes
But of course…
2 Likes
In the immortal Words of perhaps the Greatest “Marine’s Marine” of all time…PFC Gomer Pyle…
“…Surprise, surprise, surprise…!!!..”
1 Like
Protip: if it’s 3x longer than the piece it’s looking to rebut, it’s probably not entirely written in good faith.
Politics, people.
Lol considering the thing being rebutted wasn’t wrote in good faith that wouldnt surprise me for a minute
1 Like
Or, you know, it simply contains more information that paints a picture of what actually happened.
2 Likes
Exactly, it’s just political tit for tat… given the obvious ease with which a rejection of the memo could be spun into “Trump’s hiding something,” it’s not a particularly Machiavellian move to sprinkle a few choice details in there that would prompt the FBI and DOJ to request redactions.
Again, it’s 3x longer than the original memo.
I’m not discounting the validity of the case, just assuming that the HIC Dems have at least a couple neurons to rub together.
It IS reassuring to see that the outcries of national security issues and constitutional crises go right out the window when the shoe is on the other foot, though.
Again, politics.
That being said, have we determined what details in the original memo prompted the histrionics re: security concerns?
Straight from the Hannity Playbook…
Trump called the Dem Memo “Political”…
(Oh, my Hell…)
1 Like
That’s not a protip, because it’s factually wrong. It’s more like amateur swing and a miss.
It usually takes more space to rebut, because the original likely left out important context to make its point, and supplying the necessary context (and the facts that back it up) takes some doing.
Pro tip. Good one.
3 Likes
But… but… there’s a 280 character limit…
2 Likes
Color me skeptical that they weren’t just throwing it all against the wall, but agree to disagree.
We’ll be reading it soon enough, anyways.
edit: not to completely undercut the “agree to disagree” above, but to clarify: when issuing a rebuttal that is triple the length of the original material, if inclusive of all supplementary context and facts ostensibly required to illustrate the refutation, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the additional context and facts have a substantially greater impact on the sensitivity of the piece.
Because of that, the immediate reaction to reach for torches and pitchforks over Trump following the FBI/DOJs direction here, when he didn’t before, seems a stretch.
Again - I’m not discounting the validity of the case the Dems are trying to present, but I have difficulty accepting anyone’s genuinely surprised that all of this additional material might necessitate an additional degree of oversight.
I think the Senate and House Intel Committees exist for the purpose of exercising oversight on things such as the FISA warrant process. If that process is abused, which it appears to be the case here, then Congress should act and hold people accountable. This weird fetish some have for defending the FBI even if they abuse power is the real danger, imo.
Congressmen swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. We are all guaranteed the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Even Carter Page.
Even Trump.
Even you.
I highlighted the part most people skip past.
1 Like
And? Even if they were, that doesn’t mean the memo is discredited or made in bad faith. Given that the Nunes memo was written with so much intentional context left out, it’s no wonder it took some length to explain why it wasn’t accurate.
Um, ok. My question to you is: wouldn’t it have been better for Nunes to include the context andd facts the first time around?
I’m all for additional oversight. A memo misleading the public as to what really transpired is not oversight. You agree with that, right?
1 Like
That’s why I used words like probably and entirely in my initial post, and why I subseqeuntly mentioned that I’m not discounting the validity of the case.
Of course - but again, the histrionic outrage over additional information requiring additional oversight is silly. It was a first draft; save the hashtags and hypertension for actual stonewalling.
Of course.