Political Roundtable Part XVII

[stilldropin20]

ok. found your generic statements. still no one's name on them but i get it. So i assume this is all from Rosenstein (who is named in the Nunez memo!!!!!!)

Nunez response:

Nunes Statement on FBI, DOJ Objections to Release of HPSCI Memo
f t # e
Washington, January 31, 2018
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today:

“Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. The FBI is intimately familiar with ‘material omissions’ with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts, and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses. Regardless, it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intelligence agencies and courts are never misused like this again.”

f t # e

[nate33]

uh huh. So college educated Africans (and African Americans while we're at it) are lagging in "achievement" in comparison to their counterparts, despite being more educated. Why is that?

Spoiler:

ANSWER: White Supremacy.

Because African colleges probably aren't very good.

LOL since when has the United States ever honored African college degrees? Those numbers are reflective of Africans who gained their degrees in America, buddy. That's there main reason for coming here.

?

When we are talking about immigrants with education, I thought it was assumed we meant immigrants coming here who already have an education - not immigrants who subsequently got a degree in America. Are you sure your source is referring to American college degrees?

[stilldropin20]

SD20 is such a clown.

In his fantasy world, the entire news media apparatus just invented Chris Wray's position on the memo, and Wray is sitting back casually accepting it when he could instantaneously clarify his position and make them all look bad in the process if they were actually lying.

The mental gymnastics going on here are really something to behold

That was my thought too.

You don't think Director Wray approved of the statement the FBI released?

Right.

To tell you the truth, I'm very confused by all this.

As I understand it, Wray was the only FBI official who actually walked into a SCIFF and viewed the classified document. Immediately afterward, he said that "he could not point to any factual inaccuracies".

One day later, the FBI releases an official statement saying there are "material omissions of fact" that impact its accuracy. I guess those two statements are not necessarily mutual exclusive, but they certainly convey dramatically differing viewpoints. Do we know for sure if Wray was involved in the 2nd statement? And if not, how could other officials comment on the issue if they haven't actually viewed it?

Ultimately, one cannot overlook that the memo likely implicates members of the FBI in a scandalous dereliction of duty, if not outright obstruction of justice and conspiracy. So naturally, the FBI is going to be inclined against it.

The solution is more information. I want the Nunes memo to come out and I have no problem with Schiff producing his own memo. I'm disappointed that Congress blocked him from doing so. It's bad optics.

im sure you know this but just pointing out that congress didn't block the schiff memo. they instead said that it goes through the same procedure the Nunez memo went through. which is a week in the house for all members to see. then a vote to release. then it goes to the president for final (veto for 5 days).

same prcodure for both memos seems fair. In terms of the Nunez memo getting released first? too bad. Schiff has been leaking things all year long. In fact schiff was the lone source on the email dating scandal that a couple people got fired and demoted over.

I'm all for releasing the schiff memo as well. it should have gone through all of the same procedural stuff as the Nunez memo in about T -minus 10 days from now. we can see it then. After Wray and the 2 FISA attorneys correct it for accuracy.

[nate33]

That was my thought too.

You don't think Director Wray approved of the statement the FBI released?

Right.

To tell you the truth, I'm very confused by all this.

As I understand it, Wray was the only FBI official who actually walked into a SCIFF and viewed the classified document. Immediately afterward, he said that "he could not point to any factual inaccuracies".

One day later, the FBI releases an official statement saying there are "material omissions of fact" that impact its accuracy. I guess those two statements are not necessarily mutual exclusive, but they certainly convey dramatically differing viewpoints. Do we know for sure if Wray was involved in the 2nd statement? And if not, how could other officials comment on the issue if they haven't actually viewed it?

Ultimately, one cannot overlook that the memo likely implicates members of the FBI in a scandalous dereliction of duty, if not outright obstruction of justice and conspiracy. So naturally, the FBI is going to be inclined against it.

The solution is more information. I want the Nunes memo to come out and I have no problem with Schiff producing his own memo. I'm disappointed that Congress blocked him from doing so. It's bad optics.

im sure you know this but just pointing out that congress didn't block the schiff memo. they instead said that it goes through the same procedure the Nunez memo went through. which is a week in the house for all members to see. then a vote to release. then it goes to the president for final (veto for 5 days).

same prcodure for both memos seems fair. In terms of the Nunez memo getting released first? too bad. Schiff has been leaking things all year long. In fact schiff was the lone source on the email dating scandal that a couple people got fired and demoted over.

I'm all for releasing the schiff memo as well. it should have gone through all of the same procedural stuff as the Nunez memo in about T -minus 10 days from now. we can see it then. After Wray and the 2 FISA attorneys correct it for accuracy.

Thanks for the correction. If they do go through the process, I hope the GOP votes to approve its release.

[cammac]

Some on the forum criticized Clare McCaskill for not being liberal enough.
We ll this is what she is running against!

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R), who is challenging Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D) bid for reelection, suggested in a speech last month that the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s led directly to the human sex trafficking crisis.

Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, an expert on sex trafficking, told the Star, however, that there is no evidence linking the sexual revolution to an increase in sex trafficking, saying that the problem has existed in the U.S. for centuries.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/371682-mccaskill-challenger-links-human-trafficking-crisis-to-sexual-revolution-of

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

To tell you the truth, I'm very confused by all this.

As I understand it, Wray was the only FBI official who actually walked into a SCIFF and viewed the classified document. Immediately afterward, he said that "he could not point to any factual inaccuracies".

One day later, the FBI releases an official statement saying there are "material omissions of fact" that impact its accuracy. I guess those two statements are not necessarily mutual exclusive, but they certainly convey dramatically differing viewpoints. Do we know for sure if Wray was involved in the 2nd statement? And if not, how could other officials comment on the issue if they haven't actually viewed it?

Ultimately, one cannot overlook that the memo likely implicates members of the FBI in a scandalous dereliction of duty, if not outright obstruction of justice and conspiracy. So naturally, the FBI is going to be inclined against it.

The solution is more information. I want the Nunes memo to come out and I have no problem with Schiff producing his own memo. I'm disappointed that Congress blocked him from doing so. It's bad optics.

You have your facts wrong, and you shouldn't accept things from Fox News uncritically.

This is the key bit you're glossing over:

a source familiar with the matter told Fox News – adding that the officials “could not point to any factual inaccuracies.”

An anonymous source - who is very likely Devin Nunes - is telling Fox News that Wray and another official were shown the memo, and the source, NOT Wray claims that Wray and the other FBI official couldn't point to any factual inaccuracies at that moment.

So, you, Nate, are under the impression Wray said he didn't see any inaccuracies when in actuality a source (Nunes) told Fox News that he allegedly observed that at that moment Wray couldn't find any factual inaccuracies.

These are obviously massively different things.

Fair enough. I agree that "sources familiar" is pretty weak. I certainly don't believe it when leftist papers cite it, so I understand your skepticism from Fox News.

The 'sources' bit isn't really what's important to me.

You thought Wray had said there weren't any factual inaccuracies in the memo, when in reality it's the Fox News source claiming Wray didn't mention any at that time.

So we went from:

Chris Wray: "There are no factual inaccuracies in the memo"

To:

FN Source (probably Nunes): "Wray didn't point to any factual inaccuracies at the time, and I may or may not have even asked him. He could have also given an infinite number of plausible reasons why, such as 'I need to cross-reference it with the full breadth of documents before commenting' but I'm not mentioning any of that in this very specific one-liner I'm giving the Republican arm of the media."

Like, just by reading the actual words in the article we were able to unearth a massively, massively different interpretation of the facts here...

[gtn130]

And my larger point is that this is how misinformation works

[nate33]

[stilldropin20]

You have your facts wrong, and you shouldn't accept things from Fox News uncritically.

This is the key bit you're glossing over:



An anonymous source - who is very likely Devin Nunes - is telling Fox News that Wray and another official were shown the memo, and the source, NOT Wray claims that Wray and the other FBI official couldn't point to any factual inaccuracies at that moment.

So, you, Nate, are under the impression Wray said he didn't see any inaccuracies when in actuality a source (Nunes) told Fox News that he allegedly observed that at that moment Wray couldn't find any factual inaccuracies.

These are obviously massively different things.

Fair enough. I agree that "sources familiar" is pretty weak. I certainly don't believe it when leftist papers cite it, so I understand your skepticism from Fox News.

The 'sources' bit isn't really what's important to me.

You thought Wray had said there weren't any factual inaccuracies in the memo, when in reality it's the Fox News source claiming Wray didn't mention any at that time.

So we went from:

Chris Wray: "There are no factual inaccuracies in the memo"

To:

FN Source (probably Nunes): "Wray didn't point to any factual inaccuracies at the time, and I may or may not have even asked him. He could have also given an infinite number of plausible reasons why, such as 'I need to cross-reference it with the full breadth of documents before commenting' but I'm not mentioning any of that in this very specific one-liner I'm giving the Republican arm of the media."

Like, just by reading the actual words in the article we were able to unearth a massively, massively different interpretation of the facts here...

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

and the big daddy

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Given the responses from you and cammac, it appears that I didn't explain myself well

I propose a merit-based immigration system. The things we would be looking for are education, youth, lack of criminal history, ability to speak English and job prospects already lined up. If we enacted such a policy, as Canada does, we would surely end up with more immigrants from Europe, East Asia and India, and fewer from Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.

So when cammac brags about the success of Canada's immigration program, and I see that the majority of the immigrants are from Europe and East Asia, I'm not going to sit here and commend them for their generosity and devotion to diversity. I will merely remark that they have a rational immigration policy. We should too.

Can't disagree with that... I would add that we need to have specific language that ends birthright citizenship and that allows (but at a lower priority) familial based immigration (which is the priority currently).

And the numbers need to be much higher...

Nate continuing to peddle his **** as usual:

Sub-Saharan immigrants have much higher educational attainment compared to the overall foreign- and native-born populations. In 2015, 39 percent of sub-Saharan Africans (ages 25 and over) had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 29 percent of the total foreign-born population and 31 percent of the U.S.-born population. Nigerians and South Africans were the most highly educated, with 57 percent holding at least a bachelor’s degree, followed by Kenyans (44 percent), Ghanaians (40 percent), Liberians (32 percent), and Ethiopians (29 percent). Meanwhile, Somalis had the lowest educational attainment of all sub-Saharan Africans, with 11 percent having graduated from a four-year college.

Sub-Saharan Africans participated in the labor force at a higher rate than the overall immigrant and U.S.-born populations. In 2015, about 75 percent of sub-Saharan immigrants (ages 16 and over) were in the civilian labor force, compared to 66 percent and 62 percent of the overall foreign- and native-born populations, respectively.

Compared to the total foreign-born population, sub-Saharan Africans were much more likely to be employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations (38 percent) and much less likely to be employed in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (3 percent; see Figure 5). The occupational distribution by origin group follows the pattern of educational attainment: South African (62 percent) and Nigerian (53 percent) immigrants were the most likely to be in management positions, while 37 percent of Somali immigrants worked in production, transportation, and material moving occupations.

Nate's stormfront talking points are lies.

Having said all that - do you still agree that we should give priority to those with education, youth, lack of criminal history, ability to speak English and job prospects already lined up?

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Lol you can't make this stuff up

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Lol you can't make this stuff up

the letter that exonerated her???

even though she was guilty as ****!!!! no suprises here. i wont about this over 8 months ago in these very pages. this is a problem for Comey and mccabe and strzok.

[Pointgod]

And my larger point is that this is how misinformation works

Nate and SD20 know this. They're just in the cult of Trump and their brains aren't wired to acknowledge anything that conflicts with their worldview.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Lol you can't make this stuff up

The narrative is falling apart. Notice how the Uranium one investigations and Hillary's emails died down? Before it was a deep state conspiracy from the guy who wanted to reopen an investigation into Hillary and now they're going after Rod Rosenstein. Last week it was secret societies and missing emails. Now it's this flawed partisan memo. The playbook is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't a complete moron.

[verbal8]

Read on Twitter

A number of the Republicans belong in the criminal justice system vs office.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

Lol you can't make this stuff up

the letter that exonerated her???

even though she was guilty as ****!!!! no suprises here. i wont about this over 8 months ago in these very pages. this is a problem for Comey and mccabe and strzok.

Deleted, (wrong letter)