(11-22-2019 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To file under the proverbial 'not enough smoke' banner, or the 'you must be completely daft to believe the NatSec apparatus would subvert an investigation into Trump' banner.

“FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe.”

Quote:An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

Quote:Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

…The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

By the way, this is not the 'lets edit the 302 after the first one didnt do the job' that Strzok and Page are seemingly occupied with presently.

Yep, some of us were completely daft to think some investigator's fingers were on the scale in the debacle and that smoke was present. [sarcasm off] Notwithstanding what others might have opined.

It will be interesting to see what the IG report states on the mess.

Will be very interesting to see what comes out regarding those changes, especially since, as the report says, it changed the meaning of the document. Was it a correction? Or was it intentional obfuscation/lying?

I do note that you left out a very crucial sentence from the paragraph you copied. From where you left off:

Quote:...came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources. According to the Washington Post, it did not change Horowitz's finding that the FISA application had a legal basis.

Wonder if the WashPo reporting is truthful.

So I guess it is copacetic to have a member of law enforcement change any document after the fact, and in a way to alter its meaning? Sounds like another smashing defense there from lad-world. Bluntly, it is fing immaterial what effect it had, the stark fact is that there was an active effort to change underlying documents at that level, and in that manner. I guess the implications of that overall dont mean anything to you given your comment above. Good fing grief.

By the way, are you aware that WashPo memory-holed the paragraph where it stated that the person worked under Strzok?

(11-22-2019 04:02 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 02:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To file under the proverbial 'not enough smoke' banner, or the 'you must be completely daft to believe the NatSec apparatus would subvert an investigation into Trump' banner.

“FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe.”

Quote:An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

Quote:Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

…The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

By the way, this is not the 'lets edit the 302 after the first one didnt do the job' that Strzok and Page are seemingly occupied with presently.

Yep, some of us were completely daft to think some investigator's fingers were on the scale in the debacle and that smoke was present. [sarcasm off] Notwithstanding what others might have opined.

It will be interesting to see what the IG report states on the mess.

Will be very interesting to see what comes out regarding those changes, especially since, as the report says, it changed the meaning of the document. Was it a correction? Or was it intentional obfuscation/lying?

I do note that you left out a very crucial sentence from the paragraph you copied. From where you left off:

Quote:...came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources. According to the Washington Post, it did not change Horowitz's finding that the FISA application had a legal basis.

Wonder if the WashPo reporting is truthful.

So I guess it is copacetic to have a member of law enforcement change any document after the fact, and in a way to alter its meaning? Sounds like another smashing defense there from lad-world. Bluntly, it is fing immaterial what effect it had, the stark fact is that there was an active effort to change underlying documents at that level, and in that manner. I guess the implications of that overall dont mean anything to you given your comment above. Good fing grief.

By the way, are you aware that WashPo memory-holed the paragraph where it stated that the person worked under Strzok?

How in the **** did you deduce that based on what I said?

Good fing grief is right, ya dingus.

(11-22-2019 05:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think both are very important. As I said, I want to know what changed and why it changed - perhaps it was a correction, or perhaps it was an intentional misdirection/lie/etc. The former is no issue, the latter is very concerning.

Quote:But it is important to note that the IG, who must know what the edit was, and why it happened, and how it changed the context of the document, said that it did not have an impact on whether the investigation it was a part of was started legally.

Quote:That is important because it speaks to whether the edit is a problem with an individual or a process. If it didn’t taint the process, then we can infer that the process is OK and focus instead on the individual guilty of making the edit.

(11-22-2019 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  heh.... noticed I graduated from 'intentionally ignorant', full of 'hubris', *and* 'pompous' to merely 'dingus'.

Perhaps I will graduate to 'mouth breather' in a couple of years or so.

(11-22-2019 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I agree with the Lowry tweet also. Especially note the last paragraph.

The Republican is an indecorous person and sometimes offensive person who is doing a good job for me and the country. Of course, I am biased, in that I favor a strong economy and a strong foreign policy.

(11-22-2019 05:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  heh.... noticed I graduated from 'intentionally ignorant', full of 'hubris', *and* 'pompous' to merely 'dingus'.

Perhaps I will graduate to 'mouth breather' in a couple of years or so.

If you get a PH.D. in mouth breathing, and publish some articles in Mouth Breathers Quarterly, you could be considered an expert mouth breather.

(11-22-2019 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How can you defend him? he calls people names.

(11-22-2019 06:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How can you defend him? he calls people names.

Does he rip them with 'intentionally ignorant', 'pompous', and 'dingus', in succession?

That would be seemingly over some people's 'decorous' line I would imagine.

But *whatever* you do, never step across the 'though' line. It is excessively antagonistic to some I have found. Almost triggering.

Quote:What Sanford was saying, in so many words, was that despite his loathing of Trump—which is well established—he would not reach for the radical, revolutionary tool of impeachment unless there was a gun billowing smoke that could be seen for miles.

(11-22-2019 09:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  On the subject of media bias, here is a tweet series from the chief political correspondent at Politico.

Is it my imagination or is he basically saying: 'If one loathes Trump, one should support impeachment and conviction regardless of a "high crime or misdemeanor" '. That seems to be the only message that makes sense in chastising Will Hurd and Mark Sanford (rather overt trump critics) for not supporting the impeachment process.

Sample:

Quote:What Sanford was saying, in so many words, was that despite his loathing of Trump—which is well established—he would not reach for the radical, revolutionary tool of impeachment unless there was a gun billowing smoke that could be seen for miles.

I think the message he tries to make is to reveal an ignorance in the GOP (where have we heard that charge before, it seems rather personal and germane). But knowing what the threshold is for an impeachment, the message I get only seems to reveal a rather stark and blatant bias from him.

(11-22-2019 05:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  heh.... noticed I graduated from 'intentionally ignorant', full of 'hubris', *and* 'pompous' to merely 'dingus'.

Perhaps I will graduate to 'mouth breather' in a couple of years or so.

If you get a PH.D. in mouth breathing, and publish some articles in Mouth Breathers Quarterly, you could be considered an expert mouth breather.

But, but, but...... I have so much experience at that..... {sniffle}.

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

(11-23-2019 12:26 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  heh.... noticed I graduated from 'intentionally ignorant', full of 'hubris', *and* 'pompous' to merely 'dingus'.

Perhaps I will graduate to 'mouth breather' in a couple of years or so.

If you get a PH.D. in mouth breathing, and publish some articles in Mouth Breathers Quarterly, you could be considered an expert mouth breather.

But, but, but...... I have so much experience at that..... {sniffle}.

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

(11-23-2019 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 12:26 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  heh.... noticed I graduated from 'intentionally ignorant', full of 'hubris', *and* 'pompous' to merely 'dingus'.

Perhaps I will graduate to 'mouth breather' in a couple of years or so.

If you get a PH.D. in mouth breathing, and publish some articles in Mouth Breathers Quarterly, you could be considered an expert mouth breather.

But, but, but...... I have so much experience at that..... {sniffle}.

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

Get two Ph.Ds, or write for Mad Magazine? Wear a bow tie? Get Hillary's endorsement?

None of that window dressing makes him, IMO, either reliable or unreliable. My point is not to verify by looking at the window dressing.


Kind of like how, at a trial, one side can present its experts, and the other side can counter with their experts. Both sets of experts are well credentialed, and at least one side is wrong. I, a juror, will choose which one I believe, if any, on other factors than merely their CV.

That's my point. I guess Tanq will have to explain his. Or not. I just enjoy joshing with him.