Can someone break down this whole Nunes Memo thing?

[XT]

It’s probably already been linked to, but thought I’d post some of this article from CNN.

But amid all of the partisan sniping, we have the FBI and the Justice Department. And this is where I run intro trouble with the memo – and what it apparently “proves.”

The FBI is run by a man named Christopher Wray. He was Trump’s hand-picked successor after the President fired James Comey. Rosenstein, who is tasked with overseeing the investigation into Russia’s attempted meddling in the 2016 election because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, is, like Wray, a pick of Trump’s Justice Department.

And yet, both men opposed the release of the Nunes memo.
“With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the FBI said in a statement on Wednesday. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

Read that again. “Grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

So. The FBI, which is run by a man Trump hand-picked to run it, says the memo commits the sin of omission and, by doing so, doesn’t present a totally accurate picture.

The memo also appears to give Trump what he believes is the leverage he needs to jettison Rosenstein. Asked Friday morning whether he still had confidence in Rosenstein, Trump responded, “You figure that one out.”

You don’t need an advanced degree in reading between the lines to see what Trump is driving at there.

Which is all well and good. As President, Trump does have the power to fire the deputy attorney general – and the AG too – if he so chooses.

But, to pin those firings – or Trump’s broader conspiracy about the deep state – on the Nunes memo is to do a disservice to the actual facts as we know them. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t do just that – he absolutely will – but a facts-first focus simply does not yield that conclusion.

[Czarcasm]

@D_Anconia

An appeal to your personal “insight” is a fallacious argument.

No. You made the claim about what FISA judges “care about.” Since you made the claim, YOU need to present the evidence.

You really shouldn’t make these arguments until you actually accept these arguments in regards to your own posts.

Do you?

[begbert2]

@D_Anconia

An appeal to your personal “insight” is a fallacious argument.

No. You made the claim about what FISA judges “care about.” Since you made the claim, YOU need to present the evidence.

Nope. The people making the outrageous claims get to provide the evidence. Your position, the position that judges don’t care whether facts in evidence are true, it the deranged one. You’re the dude who has to defend himself. Other people are free to simply sit back and wait for you to do defend yourself, possibly while commenting blandly about how obviously wrong you are.

[iiandyiiii]

Considering the multiple (3 so far, according to what I’ve seen, noted in my previous posts) and easily verifiable (with publicly available info) factual errors, I think it’s reasonable to suspect that the memo was either highly incompetently or highly dishonestly put together. Add to that the clear political motives (evidenced by the Republicans giving an “exclusive” early look at the memo to Fox News), and I think it’s quite reasonable to put very little value on any of the conclusions of the memo.

[D_Anconia]

@begbert2

Nope. The people making the outrageous claims get to provide the evidence. Your position, the position that judges don’t care whether facts in evidence are true, it the deranged one. You’re the dude who has to defend himself. Other people are free to simply sit back and wait for you to do defend yourself, possibly while commenting blandly about how obviously wrong you are.

Nope. The person making the claim has to provide the evidence. In this case, Aspenglow. That’s how debates work.

[begbert2]

@D_Anconia

Nope. The person making the claim has to provide the evidence. In this case, Aspenglow. That’s how debates work.

I’m sorry you don’t understand how debates work.

But, here, I’ll follow your model: This claim of yours: “The person making the claim has to provide the evidence. In this case, Aspenglow. That’s how debates work.” I don’t believe this claim of yours is true. Provide evidence.

[D_Anconia]

@begbert2

I’m sorry you don’t understand how debates work.

But, here, I’ll follow your model: This claim of yours: “The person making the claim has to provide the evidence. In this case, Aspenglow. That’s how debates work.” I don’t believe this claim of yours is true. Provide evidence.

Wrong. Aspenglow made the claim about “what FISA judges care about”. It’s up to her to provide the evidence.

Burden of proof (philosophy) | Holder of the burden

This is Debate 101.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@D_Anconia

Nope. The person making the claim has to provide the evidence. In this case, Aspenglow. That’s how debates work.

I’m sorry but, Alpenglow made no such claim; he was rebutting the notion that the justices do not know how to do their job. It is to be assumed that a judge knows how to be a judge until it is shown they do not, just as I would assume that an pilot knows how to fly a plane.

There can be no claim of “everything is normal” unless it rebuts a claim abnormality.

[D_Anconia]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I’m sorry but, Alpenglow made no such claim; he was rebutting the notion that the justices do not know how to do their job. It is to be assumed that a judge knows how to be a judge until it is shown they do not, just as I would assume that an pilot knows how to fly a plane.

There can be no claim of “everything is normal” unless it rebuts a claim abnormality.

No, it’s not logical to assume anything. He or she made the claim about what FISA judges care about.

That’s not a defensible position, in a debate forum.

[Sage_Rat]

@begbert2

I’m sorry you don’t understand how debates work.

But, here, I’ll follow your model: This claim of yours: “The person making the claim has to provide the evidence. In this case, Aspenglow. That’s how debates work.” I don’t believe this claim of yours is true. Provide evidence.

I’ve been posting in Great Debates for over a decade. The person making the claim has to provide the evidence for it.

This is the only way it really can be, because the counter is for the other person to prove a negative, which is impossible.

[yorick73]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Cite? :dubious:

ETA: Do you understand that your words are not a citation of fact? I really don’t want to play this game all afternoon.

My cite is the memo…mom!

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@yorick73

My cite is the memo…mom!

Okay, Ill take that the only way I can: you aren’t willing to back up your assertions with citations.

[D_Anconia]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Okay, Ill take that the only way I can: you aren’t willing to back up your assertions with citations.

Neither is Aspenglow. Have you criticized him or her in the same way? Why not?

[Aspenglow]

@D_Anconia

Neither is Aspenglow. Have you criticized him or her in the same way? Why not?

You’re the one claiming judges don’t care about doing their job in accordance with their duties and responsibilities, in the complete absence of evidence of that. I think you can assume they care about doing their jobs properly unless you have actual evidence that they don’t.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@D_Anconia

No, it’s not logical to assume anything. He or she made the claim about what FISA judges care about.

That’s not a defensible position, in a debate forum.

Good grief…you know the defenders of the Nunes memo have got nothing when it comes to this kind of nitpick.

Does Aspenglow know the mind of the judges? Nope and there is nothing in the record I am aware of to say one way or another what these judges are thinking.

All we have is Aspenglow’s claim of working with judges and that in his(?) experience they are diligent in their jobs. You can believe him or not but you have to take his word for it (he might be lying). If he is to be believed then all we can say is judges are more likely than not to be conscientious when it comes to their jobs. We know for a fact some judges aren’t and it could be that these judges are among the few who aren’t. Best we can get form this is if you had to bet chances are these judges take their duties seriously.

That said he was responding to a claim that the FISA judges are not diligent in their duties (paraphrasing). That claim requires proof from the person making the assertion and none was given. It seems to me the default position is the judges are conscientious and take their jobs seriously. Afterall they have bosses and if they suck at their job one hopes they would be removed or at least reassigned. When you get on a plane your default judgement is the pilots are competent and you have no reason to believe otherwise. Same goes here.

If someone wants to claim these judges are negligent in their duties they need to show that. Not to mention there are eleven of them so you need to suppose at least six of them suck at their job rather than just one.

Seems to me it is on the person making the initial claim that the judges do not care about their duties to provide evidence for that. It is not up to Aspenglow to provide evidence that they do care.

[D_Anconia]

@Aspenglow

You’re the one claiming judges don’t care about doing their job in accordance with their duties and responsibilities, in the complete absence of evidence of that. I think you can assume they care about doing their jobs properly unless you have actual evidence that they don’t.

Le sigh. YOU made the following claim in post #195.

“That is all the FISA judge cares about.” Where is your evidence?

[yorick73]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Okay, Ill take that the only way I can: you aren’t willing to back up your assertions with citations.

I’m still trying to figure out if you are dense or if you are just fucking with me. Here is what I said:

“The memo clearly states that Steele was being paid by Fusion and desparate that Trump not get elected.”

Here is what the memo, which I used as my cite, says:

“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.”

…

"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.”

What exactly are you disputing. If you have a problem with the memo then that is a separate issue. I told you I was citing the memo…did you bother to read it?

[yorick73]

The personal aspect is his desperation that Trump not be elected…the professional aspect is the money.

[Buck_Godot]

@HurricaneDitka

I know it doesn’t matter to anyone but me and maybe you, but I’d appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question nonetheless. What’s your best guess about the veracity of the dossier? If your too embarrassed / ashamed to answer publicly you could even PM me your answer.

I’m not actually sure that that question is actually straight forward. Consider for example the most “salacious and unvarified” portion of the dossier, that the Russians have a pee-tape involving Trump.

If the dossier made the statement, that “some Russian sources suggest that the Russian government has a pee tape involving Trump” I would think that it that statement is likely true. But as to the statement, " the Russian government has a pee tape involving Trump" I would classify that statement as likely false.

I personally suspect that the dossier is almost all true, but that a significant portion is true only according to the level indicated by my first example.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@iiandyiiii

A third factual error:

x.com

A minor one, to be sure, but also an incredibly easy one to avoid with just very basic quality control. Three factual errors so far.

Have you forgotten that facts don’t matter? I think you have.