House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[carpedm9587]

There is another report about Winer here. The Hill is widely known as slightly-to-moderately left. Mediabiasfactcheck gives them a "mixed" assessment for reporting accuracy.

There is a more detailed summary here. WaPo is widely known as slightly-to-moderately left. Mediabiasfactcheck gives them a "high" assessment for reporting accuracy.

After a fair amount of digging, I am finding very little to get excited about here. Winer is lightly reported by left-leaning sites and heavily emphasized by right-leaning sites. Besides a lot of innuendo, I'm not seeing much but more efforts to throw a lot of sand into the air and get people all excited about something that doesn't amount to much of anything.

[Mountain Man]

I've notice a curious phenomenon:

When it makes Trump look bad, liberals say, "We got him! We got him! This time we really got him! "

When it makes Hillary or Obama look bad, liberals say, "So what? Who cares? No big deal. "

[rogue06]

I've notice a curious phenomenon:

When it makes Trump look bad, liberals say, "We got him! We got him! This time we really got him! "

When it makes Hillary or Obama look bad, liberals say, "So what? Who cares? No big deal. "

[One Bad Pig]

e.g.



The Computational Propaganda Research Project is supported by our own National Science Foundation and the European Research Council, the Ford Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and a couple other organizations I've never heard of. The Project itself is run out of Oxford. It's legit.

Analysis requires measures, and, while the need to be highly specific in describing those measures, as in any math-based field, does result in a technical vocabulary that can be sadly opaque to outsiders, it's inappropriate to label this language, dismissively, as "jargon."

Au contraire. It is entirely appropriate to label the language as jargon. It is, after all, technical vocabulary. You are merely assuming that I'm being dismissive in labeling it as such.

The criteria is three of five, and no, "pretty much every other source out there" isn't as bad. Most sites avoid conspiracy theories. This is a qualitative difference. Where the Washington Post made its mark on a generation of journalists with Woodward and Bernstein's revelations from "deep throat," the Patriot Post provides a welcome for otherwise unknown roadway entrepreneurs promoting "deep state" thinking.

Your opinion is duly noted. I understand the criteria, and find that approximately zero of five apply in this instance - hence, my skepticism.

Leaving aside the further information on methodology at the main side, an example is given for each of the sources listed in the article as a "known propaganda website" and on a standalone seed list spreadsheet (some of which lead to 404 pages), including an example from the Patriot Post (which is still currently available). The example shows opinion formatted as news, highly partisan language, deficient sourcing, and a lack of fact-checking.

The example shown is obviously opinion, beginning from the headline. Why you think it is formatted as news is beyond me.

There doesn't appear to be any reporting on the site at all, aside from a headline tracker filled with links to other sites on the list, echoing the study's findings.

#notallstories

But enough. It's junk news, piglet.

You've shared your opinion before.

But frankly, this is just data. Used with care, just about any data can be useful. Rasmussen polls, for example, can't be used for absolute measures, but when compared to themselves, are perfectly acceptable in showing trends.

One of the more compelling outstanding questions in the past election was the impact of Russian influence exerted through social media. We know from Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, which have remained remarkably bipartisan, unlike others we might mention in the House, (and I hope you appreciate the unshortened url's, because they're slow torture when editing), that there were 36,000 Russian bots loose on Twitter, just for instance.

Most of which, from what I recall, were late, obviously fake, and didn't reach a whole lot of people. I recall, i.e. the last president of our country openly attempting to sway elections in other countries. I don't recall you having a problem with that. Our country sort of has an impact on the rest of the world. It would be odd indeed if other countries did NOT attempt to sway the outcomes of our elections. I'm not on twitter, or facecrack, so I'm blissfully unaware of whatever dreck gets promulgated through them. We could hope for better-educated voters, but we both know that's not likely to happen.

[rogue06]

Uh-oh...

Source: Former State Dept. Official: I Fed Oppo Research from Sidney Blumenthal to Christopher Steele

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...topher-steele/

© Copyright Original Source

The "Clinton operatives" in question were "long-time Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal" and journalist Cody Shearer who has close personal and professional ties to the Clintons.

And liberals are still trying to pretend that the dossier is legitimate, independent, and unbiased intelligence work.

Blumenthal is the Clinton's dirty tricks master. The Obama Administration wouldn't even let Hillary use him as an advisor when she was Secretary of State. Possibly because he tried to push the birtherism issue to a couple news outlets during the 2008 primaries?

[Charles]

There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.

Trey Gowdy

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...a_dossier.html

[Tassman]

Trey Gowdy

[Mountain Man]

Trey Gowdy

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...a_dossier.html

Without the dossier and the Democrats pushing the false narrative that Trump colluded, nobody would even be talking about Russia right now. At the very least, you can be sure nobody would be talking about the Hillary campaign cooperating with Russia to smear Trump.

So the question is, will Mueller follow these new revelations which lead straight to Hillary, the Democrats, and the Obama White House, or will he continue his political witch hunt against our duly elected President? I guess it depends how much integrity Mueller really has.

[Mountain Man]

Interesting analysis and speculation from the Conservative Treehouse... the reason Nunes has been proceeding with such disarming confidence is because he has a highly-placed source within the FBI: Comey subordinate Bill Priestap who Comey inadvertently threw under the bus during his testimony leaving Priestap the choice of either taking the fall, or turning state's evidence and cooperating with investigators. Based on what's happening now, and the fact that we've heard virtually nothing about Priestap while everybody around him is getting cut down, it seems obvious that he chose the latter. Nunes' team has hinted that we'll be hearing more about Priestap in the near future.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...chris-stewart/

[JimL]

Without the dossier and the Democrats pushing the false narrative that Trump colluded, nobody would even be talking about Russia right now. At the very least, you can be sure nobody would be talking about the Hillary campaign cooperating with Russia to smear Trump.

So the question is, will Mueller follow these new revelations which lead straight to Hillary, the Democrats, and the Obama White House, or will he continue his political witch hunt against our duly elected President? I guess it depends how much integrity Mueller really has.

Ah, the FBI investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians began prior to the Steele dossier, hense the obstruction of Trump and his firing of Comey.

[Mountain Man]

Ah, the FBI investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians began prior to the Steele dossier, hense the obstruction of Trump and his firing of Comey.

We've been over this before, Jimmy: McCabe admitted on the record that their investigation was dead in the water without the fake news dossier.

[JimL]

We've been over this before, Jimmy: McCabe admitted on the record that their investigation was dead in the water without the fake news dossier.

As they did with their memo they did with McCabe's testimony, they take his "behind closed doors" words out of context. The fact is that the investigation was underway long before the dossier came out, much of which has been corroborated. The warrant was a 5th time renewal to watch Carter Page, they didn't need the dossier for that anymore than they needed it the previous 4 times it was granted.

[Mountain Man]

As they did with their memo they did with McCabe's testimony, they take his "behind closed doors" words out of context. The fact is that the investigation was underway long before the dossier came out, much of which has been corroborated. The warrant was a 5th time renewal to watch Carter Page, they didn't need the dossier for that anymore than they needed it the previous 4 times it was granted.

Spin like that would make even an astronaut dizzy.

[JimL]

Spin like that would make even an astronaut dizzy.

You've proven many times over MM, that you've been so brainwashed by Fox, Breibart, and the like, that you can no longer tell the difference between facts and what the right calls alternative facts, a.k.a. spin. If the propagandists say it, you automatically accept it as fact every time.

[Mountain Man]

Jimmy, McCabe is ON RECORD saying that the warrant depended on the phony dossier, which means that the months of investigation did not yield sufficient evidence to secure a warrant -- remember, the first application, submitted before the dossier, was DENIED. They then had to LIE about the dossier in order to get the second application through the court.

Spin it however you like, but those are the FACTS.