Just did a quick scan of alt-right Twitter and rather than them focusing on anything in particular about what's actually in the memo they just seem pissed off that everyone's calling it a giant nothingburger. Considering the hype they and their russian bots have been giving this over the last couple of weeks they must feel so deflated, bless.
Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
This has already been denied by twitter, why do people keep repeating this?
https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/twitter_response_jan_26.pdf
They are right to be pissed since this was hyped up to be a massive thing and wound up petering out into nothing.
Spoken like a true Russian botski.
Doesn't sound very conclusive to me - not to mention - why would Twitter ever officially admit to being invaded by bots and single purpose accounts? Their shares would tank.
It didn't come across as particularly convincing to me either. It seemed more like an initial crisis communications email to assuage Congress while they do a deep dive into what actually happened.
1:00 Nunes never actually read the underlying intelligence
Last edited:
Why 'invaded'? Just detecting unusual or suspect activity, or just detect the source of the tweets. Happens all the time. There is of course always the possibility that they could still find something in the future, but why treat it as a fact and repeat it like it's a fact, when the only credible source we have right now (and the one directly controlling the service) is denying it, for now at least.
If you read it carefully the only thing they are denying is the notion that #ReleaseTheMemo was trending directly because of automation.
That wasn’t the issue, the issue was that the Twitter landscape was filled with obvious bots commenting on and sharing memes and articles related to that topic. It’s irrelevant whether the twitter algorithms disregard activitity directly traceable to these bots (retweets and replies) because the reality is that as mentioned it fills the comments section of feeds with these topics anyway and leads to organic growth - people deciding to create a new unique tweet based on what they have read that evening.
True, it was clearly not definitive, the part where they denied the Russian involvement, but the part that I found more convincing (probably for them too) was where they explained why the hashtag was so popular. They seem to have identified where most of the hashtags actually came from, and seem to have found a logical explanation for its popularity, without the need to think about abnormal behaviors.
What a crazy day its been. Just hope once this is all done and dusted, Nunes is taken down.
I think you are still missing the point because it's not actually about the Steele dossier. It's about the FBI's handling of affairs regarding the submission of evidence to FISA judges. It doesn't matter what exactly the dossier is about or who financed it or whatnot. It's about the FBI not providing all their information regarding the source which to me looks like poor judgement (why not provide everything?).
You could argue that the FBI provided all the info on the source they thought was relevant but I'm not sure that it's their call to make in the first place. Intuitively it makes more sense to place it with the judges imo.
If we go by the Nunes memo and McCabe's testimony there that would obviously make matters worse but it's not making the aforementioned problem go away, just less severe. From what I gathered by skimming the NY Times article the Hill quoted the Dem memo also isn't disputing that aspect so at this point in time it seems logical to conclude that there is FBI misbehaviour in this case.
(I understand that information regarding the source is not actually making the claims said source makes any less true per se but I still think that the assessment of the credibility of a source is a viable part in the analysis of it's claims. Again, it's not actually about that.)
It's human nature, regardless of evidence - Trump has been an unscrupulous businessman for decades, so why should his M.O. change just because he's in politics now? You're effectively asking people to forego common sense conclusions in favour of a supposed 'objectivity' which looks an awful lot like bias (ironically); why on earth should Trump and his enablers deserve the benefit of the doubt, considering their shabby hstory and blatant self-interest?
Can somebody explain how all this affects Rosenstein, a Trump appointee and a Republican? How does this strengthen the case to fire him?
It's clear the majority of Trumps followers are bots. His Tweets likes have risen by around 80,000 on the last couple of weeks since all this memo shit started.
Imo it basically shows mishandling of submissions to the FISA court (submitted evidence didn't include all information the FBI gathered on it's source; Rosenstein signed it off at least once). The magnitude of this I cannot evaluate.
It's like Kim K, with her (supposed) 58m Twitter followers; a likely story, since her tv show only draws a million viewers per week. Fake popularity, like Trump's.
Trump would love to fire him since that would allow him to nominate a sycophant to replace him, who could then wreak havoc on the Mueller investigation. However, it now looks like there is enough sentiment in both parties to keep Rosenstein, so Trump doesn't appear likely to do anything at the moment.
Yep, retroactively too. His tweets were down to around 6k-15k retweets and 20-30k likes around mid-December and early January. Now his tweets are getting 45k+ retweets and 100-200k likes. All his old tweets have now had their numbers boosted.
I honestly think it comes back to Obama once more. Trump thinks he’s the king of Twitter and then Obama tweets something thoughtful and heartfelt and picks up 500k retweets and 1.5m likes within the hour. Knowing what we know about Trump, that’ll sting like duck tape off a 70s minge.
I like honest replies, because it leads to better (and shorter) discussions.
I understand what you're saying. However, I still don't think this is the way to go. This is the reason behind Twitter's and facebook's popularity, the media bias, the fake news. Because people aren't objective, they don't really want to hear the truth, but rather hear what they want to hear. When both sides lose objectivity, and start believing what they want to believe, regardless of small details like 'evidences', then it's not gonna end well for any country.
And you couldn't put it any better, we're indeed here in a situation where both sides are so polarized, that for both, objectivity will be seen as bias.
It doesn’t show anything because the full facts aren’t there to show. You haven’t even said who you think signed it off.
Wow wow wow. Especially start watching around 6:55 - does that response from Nunes look like a man who is being honest? Odd stuff. Also, toward the end he says this is "phase 1" and that he will also look at other departments - in particular the role of the State department he says. In general too its still completely wacky how he's trying to make it seem like Carter Page is a nobody but he can't stop talking about the guy.
Even if we agreed that Trump has bots following him, why can't those bots be Israeli bots (or even Saudi bots), who definitely have an interest in keeping Trump in power, especially now? May be the increase in the likes coincided with the Quds decision? Is there a reason why this can't be a possibility?
Those number seem lower than what i saw. He did have a slump in user engagement, but he was getting better figures than that.
Last edited:
Right, I didn't realize Rosenstein was involved back in 2016 at all.
Yeah I get that, was just wondering why him and the likes of Coulter believe this memo reflects badly on Rosenstein.
Not saying you don't have a point that there could clearly be (and probably are) other parties behind this than just "The Russians" but you may wish to give pages like this a look which actively monitors some of the known actors: dashboard.securingdemocracy.org
I'm going by the released memo postet in this thread in full length and the NY Times article that is roughly characterising the so called 'Demo memo'. My take is that this is all the information that is out there and I'm basing my statement on them. From what I gather the dem memo is disputing the amount of information the FBI provided (it says that is was more than the Nunes memo claimed) but it does not say that the FBI provided all the info.
That is ofc assuming the FBI knew about the financing, even if it happens to have started with Republican money.
Who I think signed it off is not important. Both the memo (first page, at the end of the 3rd paragraph) and the NY Times article state the FISA extension was at least once signed by Rosenstein:
Edit: The link to the NY Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/us/politics/trump-fbi-memo.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur
I just skimmed the memo but I believe there was a reference in there where Rosenstein, among others, was one of the people who approved renewal for the FISA.
Sooooo.... What would that mean? It wouldn't disprove collusion if that's where you're going with this. If we are gonna do whatabouts, maybe it was all of the above? Still don't see the importance...
You have such a way with words
I don't follow. What is a stretch?
I mean it seems like a hopeful punt from the Trump team, one that is unlikely to have the desired effect.
Ah right. I thought you (thought you) were showing two contradicting stances there between me and Raoul, thanks for clearing it up.
Nunes' November opponent already on the case.
Last edited:
This is all reminiscent of the Vatican Bank/Banco Ambrosiano scandal of the late 70s & early 80s: similarly faux-outraged cries of 'bias' and nefarious conspiracy on the part of the investigators; similar threats of prosecution towards State officials; similar idiotic statements and threats issued by the sons of the accused etc etc. The main difference - literal, if not in spirit - is that the accused Italians were actual mafioso rather than today's politicians and 'respectable' businessmen.
They don’t need to provide all the info they have to get an extension. This is one part (of many) of the GOP memo that is demonstrably false.