Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rebelbacker

#Release The Memo

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, tspoke said:

Yeah how would anyone know that the political entity would be the DNC. I mean it was during the presidential campaign.

 

This was a warrant for surveillance on Page. Not the Trump campaign. He ended his working relationship with the Trump campaign a couple of months prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

Ha! I've said the same thing for months. When it all comes out you will look foolish. I told that to Jackmormon in December and I tell you two the same thing now.

 

Nunes shot his load. Now he has bukake all over his face. It is done for. Finished. Fini.  It worked better before they released it. "We have a secret memo. And if it ever gets out, it will expose all of Washington's corruption". Was much better than actually releasing it. It has already been discredited. Even by Nunes himself.

Next up? Phony State Dept. smoke screen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NVGiant said:

No worries though. Rebelbacker has the truth and he is out for justice! He's not going to let a footnote get in his way.* 

*(He is not at all interested in criminalizing politics and would be just as passionate about this if the partisan roles were reversed. It's all about the memo, truth, and justice for all, and particularly Republicans!!!) 

I'm interested in ANY politician or public office holder that is corrupt or a criminal going down. I wish the rest of you felt the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I'm interested in ANY politician or public office holder that is corrupt or a criminal going down. I wish the rest of you felt the same. 

Yes. Mueller really needs to get to the bottom of this.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I'm interested in ANY politician or public office holder that is corrupt or a criminal going down. I wish the rest of you felt the same. 

Lol. Enough with the bullshit. You don’t care. If you did you’d be giving that farce of a memo far more scrutiny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I'm interested in ANY politician or public office holder that is corrupt or a criminal going down. I wish the rest of you felt the same. 

Then you should be all for the Mueller special investigation.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Old_SD_Dude said:

Yes. Mueller really needs to get to the bottom of this.

Yes he does. It would be nice to actually see some evidence, any evidence, that Trump did anything wrong. Of course that doesn't matter to you and a bunch of other people on this board. Anything goes to get the guy out of office because you don't like him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Lol. Enough with the bullshit. You don’t care. If you did you’d be giving that farce of a memo far more scrutiny. 

So the gop members of the committee went to great lengths for over a year to get documents from the DOJ and FBI. Even threatening contempt of Congress to Wray and Rosenstein. The dems tried to block it

The gop wanted to release the memo and dems tried to block it even lying saying it would harm national security. A complete joke.

If anyone doesn't care it is you and the dems.  

If you think there is nothing in that memo that needs to be looked at more than you are a fool. Even Alan Dershowitz, no conservative, thinks we need to see more. http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372095-alan-dershowitz-on-the-nunes-memo-republican-truth-and-democratic-truth

I've always said I wanted everything redacted and released. The dems have fought against it the whole time. Why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

So the gop members of the committee went to great lengths for over a year to get documents from the DOJ and FBI. Even threatening contempt of Congress to Wray and Rosenstein. The dems tried to block it

The gop wanted to release the memo and dems tried to block it even lying saying it would harm national security. A complete joke.

If anyone doesn't care it is you and the dems.  

If you think there is nothing in that memo that needs to be looked at more than you are a fool. Even Alan Dershowitz, no conservative, thinks we need to see more. http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372095-alan-dershowitz-on-the-nunes-memo-republican-truth-and-democratic-truth

I've always said I wanted everything redacted and released. The dems have fought against it the whole time. Why? 

Because they knew that the allegations were enough? I don’t know and I’ve long past the point of caring about any of it. You’ll believe what you want to believe.

And as you waste your time pouring over every detail of one allegation of corruption, while ignoring other allegations and instances of corruption, remember that the memo is a farce, the democratic memo will be a farce, and at the end of it we’ll be no closer to the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

So the gop members of the committee went to great lengths for over a year to get documents from the DOJ and FBI. Even threatening contempt of Congress to Wray and Rosenstein. The dems tried to block it

The gop wanted to release the memo and dems tried to block it even lying saying it would harm national security. A complete joke.

If anyone doesn't care it is you and the dems.  

If you think there is nothing in that memo that needs to be looked at more than you are a fool. Even Alan Dershowitz, no conservative, thinks we need to see more. http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372095-alan-dershowitz-on-the-nunes-memo-republican-truth-and-democratic-truth

I've always said I wanted everything redacted and released. The dems have fought against it the whole time. Why? 

The Nunes memo is the ACORN pimp video of memos...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Because they knew that the allegations were enough? I don’t know and I’ve long past the point of caring about any of it. You’ll believe what you want to believe.

And as you waste your time pouring over every detail of one allegation of corruption, while ignoring other allegations and instances of corruption, remember that the memo is a farce, the democratic memo will be a farce, and at the end of it we’ll be no closer to the truth.

As will you. 

The difference is I want answers. We all should. The reason why government and politics is corrupt as it is is because we stopped caring and allowed it to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

As will you. 

The difference is I want answers. We all should. The reason why government and politics is corrupt as it is is because we stopped caring and allowed it to happen. 

I always want answers. I just know I won’t get them from a politician’s memo. It’s the speculation and fill-in-the-blank narratives that you have engaged in for 30-plus pages now that I don’t care about. That’s the shit that makes people not care.

Short of some no-doubt smoking gun, you’ll never accept the possibility that the memo is bullshit, which means you aren’t interested in the truth or the answers. You care about the narrative and you’ll twist anything to support it.

Corruption in government is an inevitability so long as it’s a government of human beings. Nunes’ memo might be in the end proven to be as strong an example of corruption as anything else. Time will tell. 

People who choose to spin narratives based on incomplete or erroneous information, all of which seems to magically support your narrative, and an undermining of a free press is how corruption festers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I always want answers. I just know I won’t get them from a politician’s memo. It’s the speculation and fill-in-the-blank narratives that you have engaged in for 30-plus pages now that I don’t care about. That’s the shit that makes people not care.

Short of some no-doubt smoking gun, you’ll never accept the possibility that the memo is bullshit, which means you aren’t interested in the truth or the answers. You care about the narrative and you’ll twist anything to support it.

Corruption in government is an inevitability so long as it’s a government of human beings. Nunes’ memo might be in the end proven to be as strong an example of corruption as anything else. Time will tell. 

People who choose to spin narratives based on incomplete or erroneous information, all of which seems to magically support your narrative, and an undermining of a free press is how corruption festers. 

 

Your assertions about me are crap. If I only cared about the narrative why did I say I had no issue with the dem memo? Why have I said since day 1 I wanted EVERY document released to the public? I want it all out and let the people decide. 

Interesting I'm the only poster here you call out for supporting a narrative. But since those others are people you agree with that must be the truth. 

I will agree with you on one thing. If the press actually did it's job corruption would be exposed much easier. There used to be a time when the press cared about issues like this. Now in this case the press is for government secrecy and concealing information from the public.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

Your assertions about me are crap. If I only cared about the narrative why did I say I had no issue with the dem memo? Why have I said since day 1 I wanted EVERY document released to the public? I want it all out and let the people decide. 

Interesting I'm the only poster here you call out for supporting a narrative. But since those others are people you agree with that must be the truth. 

I will agree with you on one thing. If the press actually did it's job corruption would be exposed much easier. There used to be a time when the press cared about issues like this. Now in this case the press is for government secrecy and concealing information from the public.  \

 

Who am I going to go after, Jackmormon? Everybody has a go at him, and he is not on here trying to pretend like he is some white knight crusading for the truth. You're a lot more fun. Besides, I've been on plenty of Russian threads warning the liberals to be careful what they wish for in the Russian investigation. I have my suspicions, sure, but I don't generally agree with anyone who has drawn a conclusion. 

As for the press, you don't have the foggiest idea about it. It's that evil New York Times that has made a formal request for access to the support documents so it can release them to the public, not any politician. But you won't care unless it completely supports what you have been selling. You will say the press is concealing the real truth or is biased. There can never be any end because you'll never be satisfied, unless your narrative is proven.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Who am I going to go after, Jackmormon? Everybody has a go at him, and he is not on here trying to pretend like he is some white knight crusading for the truth. You're a lot more fun. Besides, I've been on plenty of Russian threads warning the liberals to be careful what they wish for in the Russian investigation. I have my suspicions, sure, but I don't generally agree with anyone who has drawn a conclusion. 

As for the press, you don't have the foggiest idea about it. It's that evil New York Times that has made a formal request for access to the support documents so it can release them to the public, not any politician. But you won't care unless it completely supports what you have been selling. You will say the press is concealing the real truth or is biased. There can never be any end because you'll never be satisfied, unless your narrative is proven.

 

I've worked with the press for 18 years in the financial sector. I've seen how reporters shade stories to fit what narrative they want to provide. So if you want to sell me that reporters are all white knights and they shouldn't be called into question then no, I'm not buying. 

As for the rest of it, we will have to agree to disagree. You're going to think what you want no matter what I say. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebelbacker said:

I've worked with the press for 18 years in the financial sector. I've seen how reporters shade stories to fit what narrative they want to provide. So if you want to sell me that reporters are all white knights and they shouldn't be called into question then no, I'm not buying. 

As for the rest of it, we will have to agree to disagree. You're going to think what you want no matter what I say. 

 

  

My support of journalism is often mischaracterized here, which is fine. I'll answer your strawman. They're not white knights. None of them are. Some are fantastic at what they do, others are terrible, most in between, just like every other profession. I have seen plenty of them all over the years. Despite what people assume about me, I acknowledge that every reporter has a bias (which is different than an institutional bias for one party or another, though they are often conflated). Of course they do. They are human beings. And for that reason, reporters should always be questioned. 

If you really want my take on the state of media I'm happy to offer it. By any definition, I am a media expert. Not just because I was once a reporter, but because knowing how the media works is how I make my living today. I get infuriated with things like the National Correspondents Dinner and other chummy Washington crap. I resent those who trade in access. I think media outlets are increasingly trying to serve up superficial, sensational nonsense because that is what sells to a public that craves it. Newspapers use to be a relative safe harbor from such things, but no longer. In the medium's fight for survival, they can be almost as petty and simplistic as cable news. And I think too many reporters can either be overly aggressive in search of their version of Watergate, and can get themselves into trouble by getting ahead of the facts (exactly what I have been accusing you of doing in this thread), or weaklings who are essentially glorified stenographers.

Still, my view is that as flawed as journalism can be, it is our best defense against "The Swamp" and certainly a better defense than swamp creatures like Donald Trump or Devin Nunes. And while every story should be met with a critical eye, readers should not summarily dismiss news that challenges their own view. And that happens every single day, even with some of the most apparently mundane stories. In my experience, those who are the most sure of media bias are often the most biased among us and lack the proper perspective to make that call. They rarely can tell the difference between facts and opinion. I see this with my clients constantly and find myself in some version of this conversation regularly.

Finally, let me ask you this. If all these reporters are so unfair to you all the time, why do you keep taking their calls? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I get infuriated with things like the National Correspondents Dinner and other chummy Washington crap. I resent those who trade in access. I think media outlets are increasingly trying to serve up superficial, sensational nonsense because that is what sells to a public that craves it. Newspapers use to be a relative safe harbor from such things, but no longer. In the medium's fight for survival, they can be almost as petty and simplistic as cable news. And I think too many reporters can either be overly aggressive in search of their version of Watergate, and can get themselves into trouble by getting ahead of the facts (exactly what I have been accusing you of doing in this thread), or weaklings who are essentially glorified stenographers.

I agree with this. Well, except the part about me. 

 

22 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Still, my view is that as flawed as journalism can be, it is our best defense against "The Swamp" and certainly a better defense than swamp creatures like Donald Trump or Devin Nunes

I agree as well. Why don't they? 

 

23 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

They rarely can tell the difference between facts and opinion. I see this with my clients constantly and find myself in some version of this conversation regularly.

Isn't that because the two are now intermixed? And isn't that the exact problem with cable news? 

 

24 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Finally, let me ask you this. If all these reporters are so unfair to you all the time, why do you keep taking their calls? 

I never said unfair to me. I said I've seen them shade stories to fit their narrative. But I'll answer your question. Most of the time I answer the call because it is good for business to be recognized in a publication as an expert in the subject matter. However there are a few I won't talk to because I didn't like the way their stories were written that did not reflect reality. And when that has happened I called and talked to their editor about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

I agree with this. Well, except the part about me. 

 

I agree as well. Why don't they? 

They do, but you have to know where to look. You can’t turn on CNN and expect quality journalism. 

 

Isn't that because the two are now intermixed? And isn't that the exact problem with cable news? 

Yes. Cable news is trash. But this isn’t an issue at the NYT, WSJ, etc.

I never said unfair to me. I said I've seen them shade stories to fit their narrative. But I'll answer your question. Most of the time I answer the call because it is good for business to be recognized in a publication as an expert in the subject matter. However there are a few I won't talk to because I didn't like the way their stories were written that did not reflect reality. And when that has happened I called and talked to their editor about it. 

Good. I’ll assume your criticism was fair. That’s how it is supposed to work. Not every journalist is good at their job and sometimes good journalists make mistakes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me see if I have this down....

While they were publicly investigating Hillary, damaging her campaign in the process, the FBI was actually pro-Hillary. This pro-Hillary bias was exhibited by them going after Carter Page in October, someone who was not a part of the Trump campaign, and who the Trump campaign had distanced themselves from. This happened two weeks prior to the election, and it was so secret that the New York Times wrote an article stating that the FBI hadn't found any Russian links to Trump at the end of October. This is done in a secret FISA court, and they request a FISA Title I Order, which required both the Deputy Attorney General and Director of the FBI to show probably cause that Carter Page might be an agent of a foreign power. Meanwhile, they very publicly re-opened the Hillary e-mail investigation at almost the exact same time, which did further damage to her campaign. That being said, they were still very obviously pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. 

So... if they had really wanted to bring Trump down, why wouldn't they have.... oh I don't know, "leaked" that they were going after a FISA warrant for Page? Or maybe, I don't know, not leaked information about "new" e-mails on Anthony Weiner's laptop? It just seems like that would have been easier than getting a FISA warrant for someone that was no longer a part of the Trump campaign in an organized attempt to "illegally" bring Trump down. I guess that would make too much sense though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...