(05-08-2020 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the full quote, lad:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

Amazing how what was edited out seems to say just what the hell you are jawing about here, isnt it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/

Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. Or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume. I look forward to your statement that you mouthed off on a subject without having the full facts, and opined on a comment that was not the full comment, and that the full comment did what you said it should do.

Leave it to the whack a mole to publish a partial and misleading comment. Leave it to lad to go full fing jihad on the deceptive aired edit.

(05-08-2020 02:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Lad, surely you know that the observation that history is written by the winners is an old saw.

In fact, it's one that revisionists love to cite.

Yep, I'm well aware of the saying.

It seems grossly inappropriate for Barr to use it. I mean, he is an appointed official that did not run for office, and he oversees the DOJ. So him falling back on that saying is startling to say the least. I always think of that saying as being political in nature - shouldn't this decision be apolitical, especially since Barr laid out how he feels it was grounded in law?

But in that one sentence he is not commenting on the DOJ decision, he is making an observation about the nature of history. If someone asks you a question about history, it is not "grossly inappropriate" to make a comment about the nature of history. And to be honest, I'm surprised that anyone -- especially anyone familiar with the saying in the first place -- would seize on this comment as anything other than that.

(05-08-2020 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the full quote, lad:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

Amazing how what was edited out seems to say just what the hell you are jawing about here, isnt it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/

Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. Or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume. I look forward to your statement that you mouthed off on a subject without having the full facts, and opined on a comment that was not the full comment, and that the full comment did what you said it should do.

Leave it to the whack a mole to publish a partial and misleading comment. Leave it to lad to go full fing jihad on the deceptive aired edit.

I mean, did you defend that comment at first without know he added those words behind it?

Or did you look it up after you started to defend it?

(05-08-2020 01:04 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Surprised this got no mention from the faux anti-authoritarians.

(05-08-2020 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the full quote, lad:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

Amazing how what was edited out seems to say just what the hell you are jawing about here, isnt it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/

Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. Or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume. I look forward to your statement that you mouthed off on a subject without having the full facts, and opined on a comment that was not the full comment, and that the full comment did what you said it should do.

Leave it to the whack a mole to publish a partial and misleading comment. Leave it to lad to go full fing jihad on the deceptive aired edit.

I mean, did you defend that comment at first without know he added those words behind it?

Or did you look it up after you started to defend it?

I actually viewed the tape. Something that some apparently did not do.

Then I commented on the other statements in the tape. The ones you called 'lipstick'. Those comments seemed very much at odds with the written one liner there.

I also noticed Barr's comments were cut off mid sentence in the tape. I noted that edit in my first comment. I noted those suspicions in my comments to you. You blew them off as 'lipstick'.

Unlike you or the whack a mole, I think I looked at the entirety of the tape and noticed those discrepancies. Then I looked the transcript up.

(05-08-2020 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the full quote, lad:

"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

Amazing how what was edited out seems to say just what the hell you are jawing about here, isnt it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-on-michael-flynn-obamacare-and-coronavirus-restrictions-transcript/

Seems you shot off a tad early without all the fing facts. Or bleat some more. I do love the somewhat deceptive edit that was aired. It fooled the stupid ones I assume. I look forward to your statement that you mouthed off on a subject without having the full facts, and opined on a comment that was not the full comment, and that the full comment did what you said it should do.

Leave it to the whack a mole to publish a partial and misleading comment. Leave it to lad to go full fing jihad on the deceptive aired edit.

I mean, did you defend that comment at first without know he added those words behind it?

Or did you look it up after you started to defend it?

I actually viewed the tape. Something that some apparently did not do.

Then I commented on the other statements in the tape. The ones you called 'lipstick'. Those comments seemed very much at odds with the written one liner there.

I also noticed Barr's comments were cut off mid sentence in the tape. I noted that edit in my first comment. I noted those suspicions in my comments to you. You blew them off as 'lipstick'.

Unlike you or the whack a mole, I think I looked at the entirety of the tape and noticed those discrepancies. Then I looked the transcript up.

I watched the tape, I just didn't study it as closely as you did. Definitely just watched it briefly in between work and my masochistic tendencies of posting here.

(05-08-2020 03:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Didn't we just have a discussion of deceptive editing a few weeks ago?

(05-08-2020 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Any comment from the whack a mole on the full context of the statement in an unedited version?

(05-08-2020 04:15 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Any comment from the whack a mole on the full context of the statement in an unedited version?

Thanks for providing the full transcript.

Quote:Rep. Jim Jordan: A Look Back On The Russia, Mueller, And Flynn Investigations
MAY 8, 2020 By Jim Jordan

We were right about everything.

Mr. Jordan is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

(05-08-2020 04:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 03:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Didn't we just have a discussion of deceptive editing a few weeks ago?

We did. lad was not happy over deceptive editing, in fact pretty much snarly that he wouldnt believe anything from that group over it. Apparently he is not as hot to push that agenda button today.

That edit is pretty gross --- kind of presses all the button there. In fact, I would say that edit changes the meaning of what was said in a fundamental manner. I guess that isnt something to get snarly about.

Quote:The administration takes office on the 28th, obviously. On the 24th, I directed agents to go to the White House to interview Mr. Flynn and had the Deputy Director call Mr. Flynn and say: We want to send over a couple agents to interview you. Are you willing to talk to them?

And he said: Sure. Send them over. I will talk to them right now.

And we sent two of our most experienced counterintelligence investigators over to the White House. I did not tell the Department of Justice that I was taking that step until after I had taken the step. And two experienced agents went over and met Mr. Flynn alone.

The Deputy Director said: If you want to have somebody else there, that is fine.

He said: I will meet with them alone.

And he met with the two agents and was interviewed in his office in the West Wing and said essentially what the Vice President had said on television, which is: I didn't talk to the Russians about their expulsion of diplomats. I didn't talk to the Russians about their -- the sanctions. I didn't talk about that at all.

And then the agents, obviously being experienced agents, start interviewing him, and not -- they didn't show him the transcripts, but they started using in their questions words that were taken directly from the transcripts: Well, did you say this, and did you say that, and did you say this?

And he obviously began to pick up that they had something else that was underlying their questions, and he said: Look, it is possible. I am guessing you guys [redacted] the Russians, but -- he said: I don't remember talking about that. I was in the Dominican Republic. I didn't get his text because I had bad coverage there. I called him back. And I don't remember talking to him about this. And I am sorry, but I didn't -- he said: My recollection is I did not talk to him about that.

And the agents -- and the reason I mention their experience is because I talked to them about this -- they discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn't see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.

And they interviewed him completely, went through it all, did not show him the transcript, [redacted] or transcripts, and then came back and drafted a 302 and reported to me and the Deputy Director.

Quote:Strzok conducted the interview and [redacted] was primarily responsible for taking notes and writing the FD-302.

Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very "sure" demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception. He did not parse his words or hesitate in any of his answers. He only hedged once, which they documented in the 302. Strzok and [redacted] both had the impression that that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying. Flynn struct Strzok as "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated."

(05-09-2020 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The House Intelligence Committee finally (under pressure) released transcripts of interviews from its investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Schiff *only* released them after the ODNI itself threatened to release them --- a mere 20 month delay by Schiff. Here is a condensed version of the sworn testimony of former Obama administration officials on the subject.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:
“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, in response to the same question:
“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, with regard to conspiracy:
“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

When asked if she ever saw evidence of coordination, she answered:
“I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.” She gave the same answer when asked about collusion.

When asked about collusion.
“I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.”

Obama’s former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes:
“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information. I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch:
she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, when asked about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Steele dossier, admitted they were never able to prove its legitimacy.

When asked what was the most “damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that” he “now knows is true,” McCabe replied “We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”

In fing credible. Zero tangible, real evidence. Funny, I can still remember the shrill cries of 'oh lots of smoke'.

(05-09-2020 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The House Intelligence Committee finally (under pressure) released transcripts of interviews from its investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Schiff *only* released them after the ODNI itself threatened to release them --- a mere 20 month delay by Schiff. Here is a condensed version of the sworn testimony of former Obama administration officials on the subject.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:
“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, in response to the same question:
“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, with regard to conspiracy:
“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

When asked if she ever saw evidence of coordination, she answered:
“I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.” She gave the same answer when asked about collusion.

When asked about collusion.
“I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.”

Obama’s former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes:
“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information. I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch:
she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, when asked about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Steele dossier, admitted they were never able to prove its legitimacy.

When asked what was the most “damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that” he “now knows is true,” McCabe replied “We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”

In fing credible. Zero tangible, real evidence. Funny, I can still remember the shrill cries of 'oh lots of smoke'.

(05-09-2020 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The House Intelligence Committee finally (under pressure) released transcripts of interviews from its investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Schiff *only* released them after the ODNI itself threatened to release them --- a mere 20 month delay by Schiff. Here is a condensed version of the sworn testimony of former Obama administration officials on the subject.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:
“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, in response to the same question:
“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community”

Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, with regard to conspiracy:
“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

When asked if she ever saw evidence of coordination, she answered:
“I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.” She gave the same answer when asked about collusion.

When asked about collusion.
“I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.”

Obama’s former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes:
“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information. I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch:
she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, when asked about the accuracy and legitimacy of the Steele dossier, admitted they were never able to prove its legitimacy.

When asked what was the most “damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that” he “now knows is true,” McCabe replied “We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”

In fing credible. Zero tangible, real evidence. Funny, I can still remember the shrill cries of 'oh lots of smoke'.

You sum up those statements pretty well - pretty much each of them said there wasn’t a smoking gun, but there was smoke...