Featured Post

Lost in Translation, Right Might Not Mean Right

I have written before about how the left sees words as important and tries to redefine them in ways that benefit the left, Words evolve. ...

Monday, February 26, 2018

Another Memo . . . sigh

OK. The long awaited Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes/GOP memo and, presumably, the Graham-Grassley letter and memo has finally come out, slightly redacted (full text here).

There's not a lot I can say about it; you, of course, should read it and decide for yourselves. I criticized the Nunes memo for being too short; the Schiff/Dem memo is too long--and, as you will see, has timeline problems. It is padded with lots of verbiage that does not deal with the core issue, i.e., did the FBI/DOJ/Obama abuse the government's tremendous surveillance powers by getting the FISC to issue warrants on the flimsiest of evidence? The Schiff memo has to acknowledge that the FBI relied in its request to the court principally upon the now widely discredited "Steele Dossier." The "other" evidence mentioned, it seems, turns out to be press reports on Trump-Russian collusion which relied upon--Surprise!--Steele as the source for verifying the information on collusion in the Steele dossier. Steele claimed that Steele was reliable. Nice journalism, there.

The Schiff memo, as you will see, goes through great verbal gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that the Steele Dossier was commissioned, bought, and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC--something the FBI/DOJ knew at the time. It also has difficulty with the-then FBI Director's admission that the Dossier was "salacious" and "unverified," but that the FBI used it anyhow.  You can read all sorts of take-downs of the Schiff memo (here is an excellent one)--including by Nunes's staff. I just don't have the energy to go through it all, again.

Clearly, we need ALL the info released. What was the FISC presented by the FBI? What evidence was collected over months of surveillance? Come clean.

All of this "Russian-Trump collusion" is nonsense. It is the biggest political hoax in the history of the Republic.

Just keep asking yourself, as this little blog has repeatedly, why, why, why would Putin want Trump to win?

The Russians, Putin no exception, are not fools. A Trump presidency means problems for Russia, e.g., revived US economy, a drive for US energy independence, revamped US nuclear and conventional forces. Why would Putin even think Trump was going to win? All indications were the opposite. Putin and his cronies had invested millions in catering to the Clinton Crime Family, not in Trump.

The story makes no sense, except as sabotage.


42 comments:

  1. Schiff TRIES to make a case for "other sources" than Steele and his famous dossier. I don't think he succeeds, except to the true believers. Color me skeptical. So the real question is, who in the NSC/FBI/DOJ/State Department colluded to build this scheme, and can they be prosecuted? I certainly hope so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. at this point.. 'other sources' needs to be specific, not just 'other'.
      the cat's out of the bag here.. there really can't be much use in redacting anything anymore in regards.. everybody's involved... it's everybody's votes who the media is trying to take away.... that's important... 'other' is insufficient...

      Delete
  2. Hillary CYA Clinton has a big A to C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I am so stealing that! Well said!

      Delete
  3. You are most likely correct in that Putin would have preferred Hillary. Since he had already bribed the Clinton's they were in his pocket, as he truly did have blackmail dirt on them, due to their acceptance of cash in the Uranium one deal. Putin's government likely dug out all the rumors and outright made up stuff and pitched it to Steele, who they no doubt knew was an intelligence operator. The whole collusion narrative was the "Insurance policy".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Most likely correct"?

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-russians-colluded-massively-with-democrats/

      Of course I rather doubt we'll be seeing Mr. Schiff doing a 'point-by-point' rebuttal of all that on Miss Maddow's show. Silly fellow.

      JK

      Delete
    2. JK,

      I think you are correct. I would not bother with a point-by-point rebuttal of that one-sided pile of gossip, either.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps then Clever One Brow you'll be so generous as to explain "the errors" in that NRO exposition?

      Recall Hillary's "Re-Set" and President Obumbling's, "After my re-election I'll have more flexibility"?

      JK

      Delete
    4. JK,

      Since when does gossip warrant a rebuttal? Filling in a picture from nine carefully selected points, while ignoring evidence contrary to that picture (as opposed to the specific points) is nothing but gossip, and you recognize it as such when it is directed at the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

      Delete
  4. I suspect the primary goal of the very trivial and limited russian impact on the election was the Mueller investigation. I don't think they had it in mind, but I think their paltry investment (< $30m, if I count it right) has pretty much hit the jackpot. For every story that the media runs about it, they magnify that investment. If there's collusion, it's between the media and the russian government. The media *knows* the purpose of that investment was to disrupt the nation, and the media continues to pursue this in full knowledge that they're working hand-in-hand with the russians on this effort. Amazingly, the destruction of America is a moneymaker in America.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  5. The entire FISC warrant will have to come out. Trickles to titillate the base is not enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree. What are the chances this will happen? If it favored the Democrat position you could count on Schiff leaking it. I understand he is a frequent source for journalists.

      Delete
  6. One little quibble sir; I think the "biggest political hoax in the history of the Republic" still remains the whole global warming scam.

    Other than that, spot on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stand corrected, shame-faced and glancing downward at my sneakers . . . .

      Delete
    2. Why is conservatism so closely connected with hating science and distrusting expertise?

      Delete
    3. In the case of global warming it's more a case of hating a junk science scam. As for expertise, so much stuff passed off as expertise is mere fraud. As Galbraith (was it?) said, economic forecasting was invented to give astrology a good name.

      Delete
    4. There's nothing here about hating science. I'm not going to speculate on distrust of expertise.

      At the heart of it, the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. At this time, there is no scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis. Without falsifiability, it's hard to consider it a scientific pursuit. This is as opposed to atmospheric science in general, which scientifically studies features and phenomena of the earth's atmosphere.

      What global warming *is*, is a mathematical pursuit, much like the statistics of baseball or election forecasting like that done at the fairly-decent 'Fivethirtyeight' blog (while they threw pielke under the bus for financial expediency, they also were one of the few to admit that they and other journalism outlets have a clear liberal bias). But there is no prospective experimental validation in global warming, it is purely statistical fitting.

      Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that global warming isn't happening? No. Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that mankind has had anything other than 'at least non-zero' impact on the global temperature of the earth? I don't think so either. There's simply a *very* complex system, not much evidence, and no mechanism of experimenting in a controlled fashion. I can say with some certainty that at least 95% of atmospheric science researchers are honest and dedicated scientists, I met quite a few in graduate school. But the biggest 'science activists' in global warming aren't atmospheric science researchers.

      I've watched this change... I was first introduced to the greenhouse effect in 1991 in Kittel's Thermal Physics as an undergrad... and remarkably, physics college texts even as recently as 2012 (last time I taught a physics course at a university) showed remarkably appropriately couched remarks considering the scientific side of the question. But little has actually changed in twenty years in regards to global warming. We still have one planet under study, and only an additional 20 years of data, much of it having been constantly adjusted and re-adjusted. While I can find reasoning behind said adjustments, it's a warning sign that these adjustments were made because the measurements did not match expectations. In *any* scientific field, when that happens, everything is extensively redone to verify new assumptions. But with very limited data sets (satellites are expensive), it's pretty catastrophic to have to go back and rework your experimental data after the fact.

      Delete
    5. But compare it to LLNL's NIF. Huge laser, best laser and plasma physicists in the world, hands down, and it's a dud. I assume everybody knows this? Well lay people might not, because there is a stream of announcements coming out of it regarding 'energy gain' and 'neutron yields'. But it's a dud because the intent was 'ignition', the 'I' in the name, which never happened. And this is from an experiment with a testable hypothesis.

      Billions of dollars and thousands of world class scientists can be wrong about an experiment that was actually be performed. How much veracity should I put into pronouncements from far less qualified scientists with no hope of producing an experiment in the next two hundred years?

      Global warming cannot be experimentally verified, therefore it requires belief based upon faith, rather than experimental verification. It is a religion. Former IPCC head Pachouri's remarks were apropos when he stated that global warming was his religion in his leaving remarks.

      There is pretty much *no* other discipline near the hard sciences in which I have a conflict with popular opinion.

      We just don't know, and no amount of hyperventilation and alarm about the possible consequences of making the wrong prediction will change that. We're not comfortable with not *knowing* everything, because humanity has had a fantastic streak in pushing back the borders of the unknown. It certainly must seem unconscionable that there could still be something in this world that defies rigorous scientific study, so the answer has been to redefine rigorous scientific study to fit the desired answer.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    6. ^^ my apologies, Diplomad, for posting so much, this is a subject about which I have strong opinions and which implicates my profession.... some day.. I'll put it on a separate blog.. I promise. - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. ok.. maybe I misread your comment, One Brow... are you saying that conservatism should *not* be considered to be 'closely connected' to 'hating science' and 'distrusting expertise' because skepticism is rational, and conservatism is being unfairly tarred as though skepticism requires a hatred for science? It doesn't.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. "Why is conservatism so closely connected with hating science and distrusting expertise?"

      Your Clever One Brow's "expertise" we might suppose?

      If not whose then? Is not Science's own Confession to be "Subject to argument" and its Testament "Until Law is formulated all theory shall be testable?"

      The "One Brow Law" being the sole incontestable?

      So here we (very few) Diplomad 2.0 readers are privileged beyond, and it's One Brow only not subjected to peer-review we're to be the firsts to find out we're the only recipients of One Brow's grandeur?

      (Though, were this a Courtroom, given the rarest of examples by which a display of "Innocence owing to Insanity" hasn't been polled of the Jury by a motion to the presiding Judge.)

      JK



      Delete
    9. 1482, that's a great comment. You should turn it into a column. If you don't, I am going to steal from it.

      Delete
    10. will do will do will do

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    11. As to distrusting expertise... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/

      And this isn't the only one caught changing temperatures to exaggerate differences.

      Delete
    12. For those interested, I crafted a long response to reader #1482 here, on my blog. He found it before I posted the link.

      Delete
    13. dearieme,

      Climatology is neither junk science nor a scam. It's results are unpalatable for a number of wealthy entities, and so they have engaged in a disinformation campaign similar to those of the tobacco industry, anti-GMO protesters, etc.

      Delete
    14. Your Clever One Brow's "expertise" we might suppose?

      I have little expertise generally, and certainly none here. I merely convey information I have read from the more-well-versed over the years.

      If not whose then? Is not Science's own Confession to be "Subject to argument" and its Testament "Until Law is formulated all theory shall be testable?"

      While there are several things inaccuracies packed into that sentence, I will focus on 2.

      1) There is no incontestable status in science regarding interpretations, just that all interpretations need to explain the data.

      2) Theories don't become laws. Theories use laws as part of their explanatory process, in the way that electrons are a part of matter. There is no higher level of certainty than theory.

      Delete
    15. JK,

      Just to be clear, I was above referring to scientific theories and scientific laws, not those of any other sort.

      Delete
    16. BobJustBob,

      Neither your link, nor the website your link relied upon, presented any of the reasoning by the NOAA, nor any reason to think the manipulation was for the purpose of supporting climate change.

      The existence of a record cold in a small part of world in a single year is not incompatible with global warming. So, those accusing the NOAA of wrongdoing should perhaps offer an reason why they would bother here.

      Delete
  7. One Brow:

    The people who hate science and distrust expertise are liberals who have trivialized science, asking us to believe that it is a matter of consensus, not testing of hypotheses. Science is not consensus, and if you choose to reply to this post, I'll tell you in advance I will stop reading your reply if you once say anything like "90% of scientists agree global warming is real." That's just plain misdirection. And dishonest on top of the misdirection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I also ask why Putin would want Trump to win, when he already owned Hillary Clinton?

    ReplyDelete
  9. How about Congress issuing a subpoena for the phone and e mail records of the FISA judges who considered this. Including those who rejected and the one who accepted the governments request. The text would not be necessary to see (though I'm sure interesting), but addressees should be fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. was there a rejection at some point? all I heard was that four judges approved it... like "tap columbian cartel leader?" "check" "tap north korean spy network?" "check" "tap campaign of rival candidate for the presidency?" "check"

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  10. The sad fact, I think, is that there's THE truth and then, for the Democrats, there's THEIR truth.

    And their truth is that there's no possible way Trump could have been elected without outside help. So who made this happen? It had to be the Russians, not the American people they pretend to care so deeply about. And certainly not that Hillary Clinton was, to put it kindly, an abysmal carrier of their party's banner.

    Just before the 2016 election, Nate Silver predicted there was a 29% chance that Trump would be elected. It doesn't sound like much, but if I were told I had a 29% chance of winning a Powerball jackpot, you can bet I'd ante up $2 for a ticket.

    The long-shot paid off for Trump, as it would in three out of ten cases, but since that isn't part of the Democratic-media narrative, it can't possibly be right for them.

    (Plus, as a bonus, they take the election's outcome as license to be even more overt in their attempts to deligitimize a Republican president than they would usually employ.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing for sure, the "Democratic" Party has shown its colors and nailed them to the mast. We are now living with an insurrection---social, bureaucratic and judicial. When the losing side refuses to acknowledge their loss as has been the American tradition, this is insurrection which is the first step in a civil war.

      Delete
  11. During the campaign it was obvious to many of us outside the US that Trump wasn´t interested in the globalists/neocons New World Order, Hillary was the chosen enforcer here. Trump was interested in MAGA in his own way and in working relations with Russia. That was very promising, at last less tensions. Remember that the Obama/Hillary team brought the east/west to dangerous conflicts with the Ukraina intervention. I also believe that these two men, Trump and Putin, genuinely liked and respected each other. But Trump won the election on his own merits. Now, after the election, it seems like these shadow-rulers call forth and evoke the "Russia-Trump collusion" like a ghost whenever needed. What is it ? What is the substance here ? Yes, Russian hackers probably helped to bring out some bad news about the Democrats and Hillary and that was a great gift to humanity. We have an upcoming election in Sweden and I really pray that the Russians bring out some scandals and news that our politicians, and certainly the lying media, try to hide. Is it collusion that voters are correctly informed before they vote ? Is it collusion that the high and mighty cannot hide their doings anymore ? Then I want more collusion.
    Swedish lady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to start a blog. You have excellent observations: Oracle of Ragnarok . . .

      Delete
  12. Thank you Diplomad. Ragnarök, good idea. We already have a Fimbul-winter over here. According to the old Edda, three harsh Fimbul-winters forebode the darkness of the powers,the Ragnarök, the great struggle between the Gods and the Giants when Tor kills the evil Midgårdsorm. A magnificent drama. I trust the old Edda. So, two more winters like this and we will sure have to worry ( or hope ). But who is the Midgårdsorm today ? I would say, Islam....
    Swedish lady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your first post for your new blog! A Modern Edda!

      Delete
  13. Oh, I am so stealing that! Well said!










    bacc1688

    ReplyDelete