House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[Juvenal]

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.

"... determined that, whatever their jargon, they're not nearly as unbiased ..."

Not a lot of assumption there.

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

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

The Patriot Post, named to mimic a newspaper, presented the example piece like this.

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
How the Demo/MSM Blew It in 2016

Here's how the NY Times presented a recent political news story.

POLITICS

And how the Times presented a recent Krugman piece.

Opinion | OP-ED COLUMNIST

The first two are formatted as news, as is obvious to anyone who reads MS print M regularly.

You've shared your opinion before.

And provided evidence, including meaningful examples, such as the piece cited by CPRP. The headline signaled not an opinion piece, but a conspiracy piece, and it delivered.

Of course, this same media had no problem helping a traitor who jeopardized national security and left Americans to die while scapegoating a filmmaker.

From treason to Benghazi, it caromed off Hillary hit squads and misattributed CIA talking points. Basic fact checking went wanting: State has no troops to send. The Secretary of State isn't listed on any military chain of command. "Leaving Americans to die" is counterfactual.

The bias in this piece is not merely quantitatively, but qualitatively greater than any bias it could hope to expose. And again, its ostensible opposition to bias is contradicted by evidence that bias is not a problem for this author.

The story had no meaningful editorial review. No corrections or clarifications have been added. And it's still on the site, which is more than can be said for other examples from the seed list.

On that last note, the Forbes timeline you commented on elsewhere went 404 before I had a chance to read it. Somewhere on my to-do list is checking to see if, and when, and, if possible, why Comey's first FISA application on Page was refused.

Most of which, from what I recall, were late, obviously fake, and didn't reach a whole lot of people.

I'll point out again that the Patriot Post is obviously fake, and yet has at least one defender I would think would know better.

There were larger influences, and smaller influences, and influences too small to swing the election. Without analysis, we can't say much more than that the Russian social media campaign was somewhere in the middle. It could not have swung the election without larger influences, and was possibly too small to make any difference.

I'd like an answer to that question, and I'd like an answer to how much of a difference such a campaign could make in the 2018 elections. Answers with numbers.

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.

In opposition to Netanyahu in Israel? You could have asked. In context, though, there's no question whether it was sufficient to sway his election. And that barest blip was answered with an unprecedented escalation, which was also insufficient to sway an election. I don't recall you having a problem with that.

Your own recollections seem less than sufficient. Elsewhere on TWeb over the years I've been quite clear about my issues with far less ambiguous US interventions, from the coup of Mossadegh, to the installation of Pinochet, to the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I'll say it again. These interventions are not in our best interests, even when successful in creating a government friendlier to the US. It's always better to hand out butter than guns. We the People know it's always better to have the people with us than the king.

Mossadegh's removal led to an identification of the US with the Shah's abuses. The coup that installed Pinochet turned the continent against us, pushing much of it directly into the Soviet sphere. If there's one thing 17 years of war in Afghanistan has taught us, it's that the Afghans have always had everything they need to defeat invading armies on their own.

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.

I agree we should expect others to attempt to interfere with our elections, and add that we should do what's needed to defeat those efforts. What you describe as "obviously fake" I'd describe as obviously low-hanging fruit.

[carpedm9587]

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.

Can you provide a source for these facts? I'm not finding it.

[Juvenal]

Can you provide a source for these facts? I'm not finding it.

The characterization of McCabe's testimony is from the Nunes memo. The rest is from a timeline published and then pulled by Forbes. I found a cache copy, or the first of five pages of it, anyway, on another blog that was asking where it had gone. It was an opinion piece, in any case.

[carpedm9587]

The characterization of McCabe's testimony is from the Nunes memo. The rest is from a timeline published and then pulled by Forbes. I found a cache copy, or the first of five pages of it, anyway, on another blog that was asking where it had gone. It was an opinion piece, in any case.

So this is a claim that the Nunes memo is asserting, but several Democrats have indicated that McCabe's testimony has been misrepresented? So the right is saying, "accurate as is in Nunes memo," and the left is saying "not accurate as is," and this is being put forward as "fact," because it's in the Nunes memo? Do I understand that correctly?

[Mountain Man]

Can you provide a source for these facts? I'm not finding it.

It's all spelled out in the Nunes memo. I'm sure you've heard of it.

[carpedm9587]

It's all spelled out in the Nunes memo. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Yes - I have heard of it and read it. Your use of "fact" suggested you had corroboration (to me) for these claims. That you would characterize what is in that memo as "fact" is pretty revealing, especially when there are several voices claiming the memo misrepresents many things and cherry-picks data. At this point, I'm not willing to accept anything in that memo as "fact" until and unless it is fairly thoroughly corroborated. There is too much partisanship going on in this entire thing for me to trust these documents. The same will go for the Democratic memo if/when it is ever released.

[Starlight]

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.

That is false. McCabe is not on record saying that. Those are not facts. You are a brainwashed idiot.

[Mountain Man]

Yes - I have heard of it and read it. Your use of "fact" suggested you had corroboration (to me) for these claims. That you would characterize what is in that memo as "fact" is pretty revealing, especially when there are several voices claiming the memo misrepresents many things and cherry-picks data. At this point, I'm not willing to accept anything in that memo as "fact" until and unless it is fairly thoroughly corroborated. There is too much partisanship going on in this entire thing for me to trust these documents. The same will go for the Democratic memo if/when it is ever released.

Notice that nobody has disputed any of the revelations in the memo. The liberal spin is, "It's true, but it doesn't matter."

[carpedm9587]

Notice that nobody has disputed any of the revelations in the memo. The liberal spin is, "It's true, but it doesn't matter."

Apparently not...this is one of many reports about segments of the memo that are characterized as misrepresentations, or selective use of data.

Also, with respect to the McCabe claim:

SOURCE)

As I said - this is a partisan sideshow with all sorts of claims being made by both sides, most of which do not seem to have been corroborated. I'm not likely to waste my time on it much further, until/unless someone can provide adequate corroboration.

[Mountain Man]

Apparently not...this is one of many reports about segments of the memo that are characterized as misrepresentations, or selective use of data.

Like I said, they can't dispute the facts, so they just spin them instead.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, they can't dispute the facts, so they just spin them instead.

[Mountain Man]

The WSJ (widely ranked as slightly right-leaning, with high reporting accuracy) is MM - that's an explicit statement that the memo is misrepresenting testimony (i.e., making a false claim).

Yet you still cling to the statements in the memo as "facts?"

That is the very definition of spin.

And you should know better than to quote Snopes on any political matters. They're as credible as a guy on a street corner selling a miracle cure in a bottle.

[One Bad Pig]

"... determined that, whatever their jargon, they're not nearly as unbiased ..."

Not a lot of assumption there.

I've been using, as an example, their opinion of the Patriot Post, so ...not an assumption.

The Patriot Post, named to mimic a newspaper, presented the example piece like this.

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
How the Demo/MSM Blew It in 2016

Here's how the NY Times presented a recent political news story.

POLITICS

And how the Times presented a recent Krugman piece.

Opinion | OP-ED COLUMNIST

The first two are formatted as news, as is obvious to anyone who reads MS print M regularly.

They were initially named The Federalist. They changed their name to avoid confusion with The Federalist Society. Further, since I've been reading (well over a decade now), it has never been (or billed itself as) an independent news source. It has evolved somewhat, now putting out a news digest 5 days a week instead of MWF, but anything outside of the digest is going to be commentary/opinion pieces - including the one you brought up. I don't need something to be labeled an op-ed to successfully identify it as such. I'd think you'd be bright enough to do so as well, but for some slight amount of bias.

And provided evidence, including meaningful examples, such as the piece cited by CPRP. The headline signaled not an opinion piece, but a conspiracy piece, and it delivered.

Of course, this same media had no problem helping a traitor who jeopardized national security and left Americans to die while scapegoating a filmmaker.

From treason to Benghazi, it caromed off Hillary hit squads and misattributed CIA talking points. Basic fact checking went wanting: State has no troops to send. The Secretary of State isn't listed on any military chain of command.

Well, yes, if you're determined to pick nits, State has no troops to send. State, however, theoretically has a direct line to CinC, who does. This is the 21^st century, not the 19^th.

I'll point out again that the Patriot Post is obviously fake, and yet has at least one defender I would think would know better.

Your opinion is duly noted. I'm not the one confusing a commentary piece with straight up news.

There were larger influences, and smaller influences, and influences too small to swing the election. Without analysis, we can't say much more than that the Russian social media campaign was somewhere in the middle. It could not have swung the election without larger influences, and was possibly too small to make any difference.

I'd like an answer to that question, and I'd like an answer to how much of a difference such a campaign could make in the 2018 elections. Answers with numbers.

It would be nice to know, yes. I don't think it's remotely possible to find out, however; it would require extensive, unbiased polling of a group likely to give honest answers.

In opposition to Netanyahu in Israel? You could have asked. In context, though, there's no question whether it was sufficient to sway his election. And that barest blip was answered with an unprecedented escalation, which was also insufficient to sway an election. I don't recall you having a problem with that.

Your own recollections seem less than sufficient. Elsewhere on TWeb over the years I've been quite clear about my issues with far less ambiguous US interventions, from the coup of Mossadegh, to the installation of Pinochet, to the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I'll say it again. These interventions are not in our best interests, even when successful in creating a government friendlier to the US. It's always better to hand out butter than guns. We the People know it's always better to have the people with us than the king.

Mossadegh's removal led to an identification of the US with the Shah's abuses. The coup that installed Pinochet turned the continent against us, pushing much of it directly into the Soviet sphere. If there's one thing 17 years of war in Afghanistan has taught us, it's that the Afghans have always had everything they need to defeat invading armies on their own.

I appreciate the correction.

I agree we should expect others to attempt to interfere with our elections, and add that we should do what's needed to defeat those efforts.

Agreed, to a point. We are an open society. It takes the efforts of a China or Iran to have a decent shot at squashing outside influence, and that takes a big bite out of the first amendment.

[carpedm9587]

That is the very definition of spin.

And you should know better than to quote Snopes on any political matters. They're as credible as a guy on a street corner selling a miracle cure in a bottle.

So now we know you are prone to the genetic fallacy. And Snopes merely pointed to a WSJ article, which explicitly claims McCabe said something different from what the Nunes memo claims. That's not "spin." That's a claim that the Nunes memo is flase in at least one respect - and coming from a right-leaning source. My confirmation is fairly high.

And your inability to admit you over-reached is, again, VERY evident.

[Mountain Man]

McCabe said something different from what the Nunes memo claims.

That's how the liberal media is trying to spin it at any rate, and you're swallowing it hook, line, and sucker (autocorrect turned "sinker" into "sucker", but it seems appropriate, so I'm leaving it. ).

Look at your Snopes quote again. What's their source? Unnamed "officials", those infamous anonymous sources who always seem to tell the liberal media exactly what they want to hear. Anytime an article refuses to name names, you need to be suspicious. You gotta open your eyes and see this for yourself, carpe, because I won't always be around to point this stuff out to you.