GAME CHANGER: FISA Memo To END Mueller’s Russia Investigation Into Trump, Sources Say

[Dashinka 24,786]

1 minute ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

the Post  is a must see movie, luved it

What is it about?

[Dashinka 24,786]

22 hours ago, bcking said:

In fairness while yes the left-sided media was heavily reporting it, I highly doubt that news outlets "pushed" anyone to start a special investigation. I'm not saying the investigation will find anything, but the intelligence community concluded that they had high confidence that Russia interfered in our election. It was perfectly reasonable to appoint a special counsel for that. There may have been minimal (if any links) directly with Trump, and yes I think the media has pushed that bit of it (Trump personally colluded). However the investigation isn't specifically to investigate Trump only.

 

As a side topic - Have you seen "The Post"? I realize it has a heavy left-leaning bent, and definitely tries to create connections between Nixon and Trump. That aside though, I think it did have some interesting points. There are a few good moments in it about how news people and politicians used to be able to be friends, and have trust in one another. I feel the same way about politicians on both sides of the aisle. We used to have far more cooperation, and a far more professional atmosphere. It's become quite aggressive/combative at all levels (the public, politicians, presidential candidates etc...).

Agreed, it really seems like it was triggered by political research done by one campaign over another.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

What is it about?

It's about the leaking of the Pentagon Papers and The Post's decision to publish them after the New York Times was served an injunction by the AG.

 

Meryl Streep plays Katharine Graham, the owner of the post. Tom Hanks plays the Editor Ben Bradlee.

 

It is very well acted, but it DEFINITELY alludes to the present a bit and quite obviously is trying to draw comparisons between the current adversarial climate between President and Media and Nixon trying to censor the media. You may take issue with that.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Agreed, it really seems like it was triggered by political research done by one campaign over another.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

I wouldn't necessarily call this "political research done by one campaign"

 

I'm not saying the left didn't do everything they could to call attention to it, but the initial investigation and report by ODNI that supported setting up the Special Counsel was not "political research". 

[Dashinka 24,786]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

It's about the leaking of the Pentagon Papers and The Post's decision to publish them after the New York Times was served an injunction by the AG.

 

Meryl Streep plays Katharine Graham, the owner of the post. Tom Hanks plays the Editor Ben Bradlee.

 

It is very well acted, but it DEFINITELY alludes to the present a bit and quite obviously is trying to draw comparisons between the current adversarial climate between President and Media and Nixon trying to censor the media. You may take issue with that.

So an MDL self promotion movie?  Not really my cup-of-tea.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

So an MDL self promotion movie?  Not really my cup-of-tea.

As I said it is a well acted movie, and the story is compelling. I thought it only fair to warn you about it's underlying message (at least that message seemed pretty obvious to my wife and I). Yes clearly the makers, and probably even the actors were trying to "say something", but it is still a good movie with or without those "hidden messages".

 

For me the biggest negative was that it was just another big "Meryl Streep Oscar Nomination" movie. She is pretty much the only character with an emotional journey in it. It's a good one, and she is great in the role don't get me wrong...but you kind of feel like you've seen it before with her. Tom Hank, as the other "star actor" has a far less interesting "emotional journey". He is basically the same from beginning to end.

[Dashinka 24,786]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

I wouldn't necessarily call this "political research done by one campaign"

 

I'm not saying the left didn't do everything they could to call attention to it, but the initial investigation and report by ODNI that supported setting up the Special Counsel was not "political research". 

Don't have time to read the entire document.  Is this the one that says the Russians spent $100K or so on FB ads to buy votes?  As to determining if Russian Intelligence tried to impact the election, I think there is an easy answer to that, yes.  However, I think there is a big assumption that the Kremlin and Putin wanted Trump elected.  How do we know this?  Glenn Simpson said Christopher Steele went to the FBI as they were worried the Russians may have blackmail material on Trump, sure, makes sense, but do we know if the Russians have blackmail material on Hillary that would have allowed them to control her even more?

 

Also, when will the DNI investigate the US roles in foreign elections?

[Dashinka 24,786]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

As I said it is a well acted movie, and the story is compelling. I thought it only fair to warn you about it's underlying message (at least that message seemed pretty obvious to my wife and I). Yes clearly the makers, and probably even the actors were trying to "say something", but it is still a good movie with or without those "hidden messages".

 

For me the biggest negative was that it was just another big "Meryl Streep Oscar Nomination" movie. She is pretty much the only character with an emotional journey in it. It's a good one, and she is great in the role don't get me wrong...but you kind of feel like you've seen it before with her. Tom Hank, as the other "star actor" has a far less interesting "emotional journey". He is basically the same from beginning to end.

I don't know, I have never been that impressed by either Streep or Hanks.  Every time I see Hanks in a movie I remember him dressed in drag in Bosom Buddies.  I go more for British humor movies anyway.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Don't have time to read the entire document.  Is this the one that says the Russians spent $100K or so on FB ads to buy votes?  As to determining if Russian Intelligence tried to impact the election, I think there is an easy answer to that, yes.  However, I think there is a big assumption that the Kremlin and Putin wanted Trump elected.  How do we know this?  Glenn Simpson said Christopher Steele went to the FBI as they were worried the Russians may have blackmail material on Trump, sure, makes sense, but do we know if the Russians have blackmail material on Hillary that would have allowed them to control her even more?

 

Also, when will the DNI investigate the US roles in foreign elections?

I don't see why our DNI would investigate our role in foreign elections...I'd take a guess and say that our current DNI probably already knows our roles in foreign elections. It would be up to the foreign countries to investigate it. 

 

What I linked was the "Intelligence community Assessment" that was declassified after they briefed the President about it in January 2017. It was an assessment by the CIA, FBI, NSA and ODNI into Russian interference. It obviously isn't the entire report, it is only what is declassified. Those who decided to set up a Special Counsel would have obviously had access to the classified report, that provides the evidence for its conclusions. As I've said multiple times in these forums, I don't think it is the public's place to determine whether the Special Counsel's appointment was justified or not. None of us are privy to enough of the details to have an educated, intelligent opinion on the matter. Even with leaks, what we know is a fraction of what those who actually make the decisions are privy to.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't know, I have never been that impressed by either Streep or Hanks.  Every time I see Hanks in a movie I remember him dressed in drag in Bosom Buddies.  I go more for British humor movies anyway.

Have you seen What We Do In the Shadows? New Zealand, not British, but it's funny.

 

I like a lot of genres. I can't just watch comedies though. I do like drama and I find Streep and Hank generally fantastic actors. At this point in their careers though it has become a little repetitive. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

28 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What is it about?

The first amendment

[Dashinka 24,786]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I don't see why our DNI would investigate our role in foreign elections...I'd take a guess and say that our current DNI probably already knows our roles in foreign elections. It would be up to the foreign countries to investigate it. 

 

What I linked was the "Intelligence community Assessment" that was declassified after they briefed the President about it in January 2017. It was an assessment by the CIA, FBI, NSA and ODNI into Russian interference. It obviously isn't the entire report, it is only what is declassified. Those who decided to set up a Special Counsel would have obviously had access to the classified report, that provides the evidence for its conclusions. As I've said multiple times in these forums, I don't think it is the public's place to determine whether the Special Counsel's appointment was justified or not. None of us are privy to enough of the details to have an educated, intelligent opinion on the matter. Even with leaks, what we know is a fraction of what those who actually make the decisions are privy to.

The problem is was this something that was brought up as the fix in case Trump was elected by those supposed unbiased agents in the deep state?  The issues coming out and being unveiled are really driving down any credibility these agencies have.  I do want to know what was the reasons for spying on Trump during the transition?  Everyone said he was a kook for suggesting his team was under surveillance, but it appears to have been true.  Why were Susan Rice's credentials used hundreds of times to unmask American citizens that were captured talking to foreign citizens (she said it wasn't her, so were her credentials just convenient for someone else)?

 

As to the Russian meddling, unless we can prove they actually changed vote numbers then it is what it is.  The press (US and foreign) have tremendous power to sway opinion, and they do it all they can.  If the Russians are only guilty of running bots, or buying a few FB ads, then so what.  I believe people are more capable to make an informed decision based on many inputs, and to think Trump won just because of the Russians makes assumptions similar to the assumptions Gruber made back in the ACA days that American are just plain stupid.  Trump won for one big reason, he promised to protect the border.  

[Dashinka 24,786]

2 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

The first amendment

The right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

Have you seen What We Do In the Shadows? New Zealand, not British, but it's funny.

 

I like a lot of genres. I can't just watch comedies though. I do like drama and I find Streep and Hank generally fantastic actors. At this point in their careers though it has become a little repetitive. 

I will have to look for it.  Is it on Prime?

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

I will have to look for it.  Is it on Prime?

I believe it's on Netflix, not sure about Prime.

 

It has the "Flight of the Conchords" guys, if you know them. From New Zealand, so not British but I find their comedy somewhat similar. If you know of them and don't find them funny, you probably won't enjoy it. It's also starring Taika Waititi (and co-directed by) who is now a big name because of Marvel (Directed Ragnarok).

 

When I think of British Comedy I don't immediately think about films. Other than older stuff (Monty Python, Terry Gilliam etc...). I think more about television. Though most of that is somewhat older also I guess. Mitchell and Webb Look, Armstrong and Miller, Fawlty Towers.

 

I have a hard time watching Pointless because Armstrong plays it so flat and serious. Armstrong and Miller has some really funny stuff. Their WW2 Airforce pilots are probably one of my favorite sketches of all time.

Edited January 25, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,786]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

I believe it's on Netflix, not sure about Prime.

 

It has the "Flight of the Conchords" guys, if you know them. From New Zealand, so not British but I find their comedy somewhat similar. If you know of them and don't find them funny, you probably won't enjoy it. It's also starring Taika Waititi (and co-directed by) who is now a big name because of Marvel (Directed Ragnarok).

 

When I think of British Comedy I don't immediately think about films. Other than older stuff (Monty Python, Terry Gilliam etc...). I think more about television. Though most of that is somewhat older also I guess. Mitchell and Webb Look, Armstrong and Miller, Fawlty Towers.

 

I have a hard time watching Pointless because Armstrong plays it so flat and serious. Armstrong and Miller has some really funny stuff. Their WW2 Airforce pilots are probably one of my favorite sketches of all time.

Yes, Kiwis and Aussies have a similar sense of humor.  Thanks.