(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-ge...ranscript/

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 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.

With all due respect, the on air comment was a deeply edited one -- one that stripped out most of the context. Why am I not surprised at that edit.

Then somebody ran with it, AtEase bleated it out, and lad went after that bone lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

I guess I was rather friggin' prescient for noting that it appeared that Barr was edited mid-thought. Of course, that is only apparent when one views the segment, as are the supporting comments I pointed out (the lipstick per lad). It is like the whack a mole posted blindly, and lad followed blindly. And none of them in the middle ever bothered to look at the fing tape itself.

(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-ge...ranscript/

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, since it was very apparent an edit/cut and more comments followed the one liner you went a little crazy over. I wanted to see what those comments were that were cut out. Funny how they absolutely change the context of the one-liner aired and promulgated.

Here is another juicy tidbit at the end of the interview transcript.

Barr: I mean, it's not gonna be the end of it.

Q: What do you mean, it's not the end of it?

Barr: Well, I said we're gonna get to the bottom of what happened.

(05-08-2020 01:04 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

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

Any comment from the whack a mole on the full context of the statement in an unedited version?

(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-ge...ranscript/

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 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-ge...ranscript/

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.

Considering that you ignored every statement he made in that tape to the process of law to focus blazingly on one comment that wasnt really on the topic, I am not surprised that you 'didnt study is as closely'.

I mean, hell, you painted out every portion of the tape except for one. Pretty much intentionally ignored every other statement on the tape, to be honest about it.

Didn't we just have a discussion of deceptive editing a few weeks ago?

(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.

(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.

(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.

Maybe next time you wont fall for a tweet comment. Even when it hits your sweet spot.

Funny, not even a comment that you were wrong as hell, nor any comment on your cute little aside that ran with the tweet post.

You are welcome for the full context. My pleasure. Even from a 'faux anti-authoritarian'. I wont bother with an equivalent smug ass aside like that which accompanied your original post, mind you.

Here is the entire text of an article by Rep. Jim Jordan published in 'The Federalist' today.

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.

Just wondering - who provided the full transcript? The news service was definitely bad for peddling that angle, but I believe they provided the full transcript themselves, which obviously says something in comparison to PV.

To their credit they did provide the complete transcript. Most people whom are interviewed now demand that as part of the agreement to be interviewed. Or they bring their own video as a counterpoint.

CBS was pretty bad for peddling that angle. Perhaps now that there is crystal clear glowing example in front of us, maybe perhaps you wont be as skeptical of those who note the rote dishonesty of the media. I find this present example to be such rote dishonesty. It has been present since the mid-80's, and has gotten 'progressively' (pun, haha) worse since then.

If anyone is interested, the full motion to dismiss with exhibits is here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov....98.0_6.pdf

Here are a couple of excerpts from the exhibits:

Exhibit 5: Testimony of James Comey before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (3/02/2017) about the FBI interview with Michael Flynn (1/24/2017)

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.

Exhibit 13: Form FD-302, notes of FBI internal interview with Peter Strzok (7/19/2017) about his interview of Michael Flynn (1/24/2017)

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."

Here are a couple of amusing entries in the docket sheet.


01/09/2018 MINUTE ORDER. A voicemail message was received in chambers today from government counsel stating that (1) defense counsel was on the call and (2) government counsel has a question about the Court's "discovery order." The parties are advised that to the extent they seek clarification they may do so by filing a motion on the public docket. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/9/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 01/09/2018)

01/15/2018 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED. "Vast Right-Wing United Way Cabal Infiltrating & Undermining Trump Law & Order Cabinet" as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/15/18. (tl) (Entered: 01/19/2018)

The first one is the court sort of slapping the attorneys a bit.

The second is "What the heck?" It might be fun to see that document!

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'.

Not even any real "smoke". Just "I hate Trump". There really was a conspiracy - one the leftists here will deny even as they continue to advance their hate agenda.

I woke up this morning wondering who, if anybody, the Democrats or Republicans could run that would induce me to vote Democratic. Realistically, nobody. Only an open white supremacist. David Duke type. The lying cheating and stealing on the part of the above mentioned Dems has taken me to the conclusion that they are not only wrong in their methods, but dishonest in their actions. But they keep supporting them and voting for them.

(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...

(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...

Just the smoke they were blowing up our asses...