usmbguest5318
Gold Member
1 -- Did you ever write a book report about a book you didn't read?
2 -- Nunes' memo contains implicit specious assumptions that it does not establish as points of factual happenstance.
3 -- The Steele dossier was not part of the first FISA application and did not spur the 2016 investigation of Carter Page.
4 -- In the presentation of data, who produced that information is irrelevant to the data's veracity.
According to Trump, the Nunes memo vindicates Trump from wrongdoing and that, per Trump, is why he authorized its declassification. The memo does nothing of the sort!
As for why Trump and his supporters in Congress wanted the memo released, I think the primary reason is to shift the conversation away from whether Trump and/or his campaign/WH team members committed illegal acts. I think that because ever since investigations into the "Russia" matter began, Trump has repeatedly uttered/tweeted various forms of deflective rhetoric all of which has been one or another form of tu quoque, ad hominem and relative privation lines of so-called reasoning.
In effect, writing a book report about a book he didn't read is precisely what's Devin Nunes did when he wrote (claimed to have written, if his staff wrote it) the memo that's now occupying so much of the national cable news conversation. The "book," about which Nunes' memo purports to describe is the actual FISA Court request for authorization to wiretap Carter Page, and Nunes has clearly stated he didn't read the FISA Court (FISC) application for that wiretap.
I don't care what one writes, or what hindsight may indicate about how accurately or inaccurately one guesses about the nature of the "book," the simple fact is that at the time one writes a report about a book one has not read, one does not know what one is writing about. Period.
I don't care what one writes, or what hindsight may indicate about how accurately or inaccurately one guesses about the nature of the "book," the simple fact is that at the time one writes a report about a book one has not read, one does not know what one is writing about. Period.
2 -- Nunes' memo contains implicit specious assumptions that it does not establish as points of factual happenstance.
- Nunes' memo presumes that the Steele dossier information submitted to the FISC was not verified by other sources. It's been reported repeatedly that some elements of the Steele dossier were corroborated by other means/sources and some were not. Insofar as Nunes has no idea of what of that dossier's content made it into the FISA warrant application. h
- Nunes' memo presumes that the key basis on which the FISC is the Steele Dossier was pivotal in the FISC's, yet Nunes' memo asserts nothing about what in the FISA warrant application moved the FISC judge(s) to grant the FISA warrants.
- Nunes' memo contains a running theme whereby it suggests that one's bias for or against something somehow affects the veracity (or lack thereof) of their assertions about points of fact, points of what happened, when, and who did what.
"According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application."
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI.
-- Devin Nunes, "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation"
In fact, Carter Page had been under FBI investigation since 2013!The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI.
4 -- In the presentation of data, who produced that information is irrelevant to the data's veracity.
The claim/inverfence made by Nunes, Trump and others is that because the Steele dossier was paid for by the Clinton Campaign, the information in it that made its way into the application submitted to the FISC is somehow inaccurate, unreliable, etc. is nothing other than a claim/inference based on fallacious ad hominem reasoning, specifically a mix of the forms called "guilt by association" and "poisoning the well."
5 -- Why or how facts are obtained and shared has nothing to do with their verity.
That information that (1) came from the Steele Dossier and (2) that was included in the application submission, provided that it was verified by other research and/or credible attestations, is factually, contextually and/or interpretively accurate is neither more nor less so because that information was first obtained by the Clinton campaign. To think otherwise is tantamount to "your" thinking that because "so and so," who is "your" opponent whom "you" don't like/trust, first discovered/publicized that "such and such" happened, that it happened is doubtful, even though "you" confirmed via other sources/methods that it did in fact happen.
What matters from a legal and logical standpoint is whether the information is accurate or isn't accurate. Period. The motivations of the person(s) who first obtained the factual information have no bearing on the information's veracity. Because that's so, it doesn't make any difference whether third parties know of the information originator's motivations or don't know of them.
6 -- The point of an investigation is to determine what is/isn't so and/or what did/didn't transpire.What matters from a legal and logical standpoint is whether the information is accurate or isn't accurate. Period. The motivations of the person(s) who first obtained the factual information have no bearing on the information's veracity. Because that's so, it doesn't make any difference whether third parties know of the information originator's motivations or don't know of them.
When law enforcement personnel submit to courts requests to wiretap someone's electronic communications or search one's property, the request always has the following argumentative (rhetorical) structure:
From what I can tell, Trump and certain of his backers object to the "Russia" investigation on the basis that it aims to discover what exactly is/was the nature of Trump's and other's interactions with Russian state actors and/or cutouts. Now if Trump or any of his cohorts know they did something culpably illegal, I understand why they'd be annoyed about the very existence of a federal investigation into such things: such an investigation notably increases the likelihood of discovery re: any culpably illegal acts they committed.
Do I know that is a reason Trump despises the existentiality of the investigation into his and his campaign's dealings? No. I know only that were I being thus investigated, I'd be "freaking out" about what they might find that I did wrong and about which I either didn't know I had done wrong or had hoped to keep secret the fact that I'd done wrong.
Trump says he and his team members (WH and/or campaign) did nothing wrong. A key goal of the "Russia" investigation is to determine the veracity of that attestation. While politically, his attestation to that effect may, in some quarters, "hold water" and be taken as truthful, in a legal context, it holds no water as being truthful unless and until it becomes sworn testimony, and even then, if that attestation is in direct contravention of an indictment's assertions, it's only relevance is as a "not guilty" plea.
Based on the information included in this application, we believe there is probable cause to think "so and so" is party to ongoing/possesses/ "such and such." In order to determine whether in fact "so and so" is party to/possess "such and such," we request that the Court grant us a warrant to "do the following things."
Searches and seizures of any sort are but part of the means used to determine what did and didn't happen and what role(s) various individuals played in the undertaking of what transpired.From what I can tell, Trump and certain of his backers object to the "Russia" investigation on the basis that it aims to discover what exactly is/was the nature of Trump's and other's interactions with Russian state actors and/or cutouts. Now if Trump or any of his cohorts know they did something culpably illegal, I understand why they'd be annoyed about the very existence of a federal investigation into such things: such an investigation notably increases the likelihood of discovery re: any culpably illegal acts they committed.
Do I know that is a reason Trump despises the existentiality of the investigation into his and his campaign's dealings? No. I know only that were I being thus investigated, I'd be "freaking out" about what they might find that I did wrong and about which I either didn't know I had done wrong or had hoped to keep secret the fact that I'd done wrong.
Trump says he and his team members (WH and/or campaign) did nothing wrong. A key goal of the "Russia" investigation is to determine the veracity of that attestation. While politically, his attestation to that effect may, in some quarters, "hold water" and be taken as truthful, in a legal context, it holds no water as being truthful unless and until it becomes sworn testimony, and even then, if that attestation is in direct contravention of an indictment's assertions, it's only relevance is as a "not guilty" plea.
According to Trump, the Nunes memo vindicates Trump from wrongdoing and that, per Trump, is why he authorized its declassification. The memo does nothing of the sort!
- The memo contains no information that shows probatively whether Trump did or did not collaborate (willfully or unknowingly) with Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 electoral process.
- The memo contains no information that shows probatively whether Trump did or did not commit any other illegal acts.
As for why Trump and his supporters in Congress wanted the memo released, I think the primary reason is to shift the conversation away from whether Trump and/or his campaign/WH team members committed illegal acts. I think that because ever since investigations into the "Russia" matter began, Trump has repeatedly uttered/tweeted various forms of deflective rhetoric all of which has been one or another form of tu quoque, ad hominem and relative privation lines of so-called reasoning.
Last edited:
