From reading just a few of your posts, I sincerely doubt that you will judge the contents of the memo objectively.
After attempting to de-legitimize the press, WH+GOP going after Justice department.
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
From reading just a few of your posts, I sincerely doubt that you will judge the contents of the memo objectively.
A problem here is the Democrat members of the committee are claiming that the memo the committee voted to release mentions only part of the evidence presented to the FISA court. They are claiming that there was additional evidence presented that would be supportive of the FISA courts decision. The additional evidence was apparently gathered using methods the intelligence community and DOJ would rather not have disclosed. Then the question becomes why? Was the "other" information gathered illegally, or are these agencies legitimately concerned methods and contacts will be disclosed making their job more difficult and perhaps even personally endangering cooperative sources? These are clearly the kinds of questions that need to be decided by a third party further removed from politics, such as the court system.
Last edited:
I have made up my mind, but my opinion is not necessarily fact, and I remain open to new information that would convince me that I am wrong. When I am clearly wrong, I have no problem admitting it. I've had lots of practice making mistakes over the years.
I haven't made up my mind re the so called memo, by the way. But it seems to me that there is plenty to raise our suspicions here.
Last edited:
Let's see all the information.
It seems that you have made up your mind. When people use the term "so called", they are usually trying to disparage what ever subject follows it. For example:
So called patriot piezoe, protested the national anthem.
We really would need to, and perhaps we will. I'm perfectly OK with letting a disinterested third party decide, such as the courts. But release of only partial information by a non-disinterested party is definitely suspicious. Let's not fall for it.
Not exactly. I thought those who were wanting football players who were kneeling during the national anthem to be fired were missing the point, and behaving ironically. I haven't changed my opinion on that. Let the owners take up the issue at contract time I say. And then take it to the courts if the parties can't agree. What if you owned a shoe factory and decided that everyone should stand at attention and sing the national anthem at the start of each day? You own the factory, but not the cobblers! You pay the cobblers to make shoes, are you paying them to sing the national anthem? Is singing the national anthem a reasonable part of their duty to you; after all they have a choice. They don't have to work for you. What if the factory is in the midst of a football field and the public has bought tickets to watch the workers make shoes. You don't own the the field and you don't own the players, but you hire them to work in front of the paying public. you can see were this leads. and you can also see that there is nuance involved, not the least of which is the question of what is in your own best interest as "the owner". And then there is a little thing like the Constitution. You can see where this leads. It leads to nuance. Life is filled with nuance, and sometimes our gut reactions lead us astray, particularly when we overlook nuance; on those occasions we only see black and white and no shadow detail.
Last edited:
Very perceptive. Not many would have caught that. I am calling attention go the use of the term "memo" in this specific instance.
mem·o
ˈmemō/
noun
informal
noun: memo; plural noun: memos
a written message
ˈmemō/
noun
informal
noun: memo; plural noun: memos
a written message
"After attempting to de-legitimize the press"...the press have already de-legitimized themselves. No intellectually honest person believes much of what they say. The Justice department and the FBI exposed themselves during the campaign to be colluding with the Clintons, providing cover for illegal activities, and demonstrating an extreme political bias where none is supposed to be. There's no need to "attempt" to delegitimize them, they did it to themselves.
