One huge thing about the memo and Carter

[osu_orangestreak]

From the National Review(look at bold print):

The memo notes that a FISA warrant was sought on October 21, 2016 (and renewed three times since then, including by one of Trump’s own appointees) for surveillance of Carter Page. For all the controversy over surveillance of Page (Republicans outraged that a member of the Trump campaign was surveilled by Obama’s DOJ, Democrats upset that the voters weren’t told that Trump’s campaign was, like Hillary, under FBI investigation), it should be recalled that Page was basically a hanger-on and October 21 was just over three weeks before the election. Without more, that means that none of this really amounts to a major investigation of anyone deeply involved in the Trump campaign for any significant portion of the campaign.

 

[davidallen]

From the National Review(look at bold print):

The memo notes that a FISA warrant was sought on October 21, 2016 (and renewed three times since then, including by one of Trump’s own appointees) for surveillance of Carter Page. For all the controversy over surveillance of Page (Republicans outraged that a member of the Trump campaign was surveilled by Obama’s DOJ, Democrats upset that the voters weren’t told that Trump’s campaign was, like Hillary, under FBI investigation), it should be recalled that Page was basically a hanger-on and October 21 was just over three weeks before the election. Without more, that means that none of this really amounts to a major investigation of anyone deeply involved in the Trump campaign for any significant portion of the campaign.

So you (and the writer) believe the Mueller investigation is exclusively based on evidence surrounding Page?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

So you (and the writer) believe the Mueller investigation is exclusively based on evidence surrounding Page?

Pretty sure he is being somewhat facetious. When even the National Review fact-checks Trump that’s hilarious.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Pretty sure he is being somewhat facetious. When even the National Review fact-checks Trump that’s hilarious.

It's called critical analysis -- not cheerleading. (I wish a number of purported journalists would follow this pattern.)

I dare you to make a critical comment about Obama, Hillary or anyone connected to the DNC over the last 8 years.

 

[osu_orangestreak]

The lack of rebuttal in this thread is very telling.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

From the National Review(look at bold print):

The memo notes that a FISA warrant was sought on October 21, 2016 (and renewed three times since then, including by one of Trump’s own appointees) for surveillance of Carter Page. For all the controversy over surveillance of Page (Republicans outraged that a member of the Trump campaign was surveilled by Obama’s DOJ, Democrats upset that the voters weren’t told that Trump’s campaign was, like Hillary, under FBI investigation), it should be recalled that Page was basically a hanger-on and October 21 was just over three weeks before the election. Without more, that means that none of this really amounts to a major investigation of anyone deeply involved in the Trump campaign for any significant portion of the campaign.

So the narrative from the right is that the FBI tried to influence the campaign. That quote suggest the FBI wiretapped a nobody in the campaign, and too late to influence the election? What am I supposed to make of that?

 

[poke2001]

I don’t believe this is about influencing the election. Isn’t it about the “insurance policy”? Maybe a little bit of both. It is about developing the false narrative towards the end of the campaign to try and sink Trump (either before OR after the election.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Explain all the hand wringing from your team over this memo prior to the release.

They read what you did and freaked the f out.

But you know way more than them I suppose.

 

[poke2001]

Explain all the hand ringing from your team over this memo prior to the release.

They read what you did and freaked the f out.

But you know way more than them I suppose.

And now trying to spin it as nothing. Media will assist.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

Explain all the hand ringing from your team over this memo prior to the release.

They read what you did and freaked the f out.

But you know way more than them I suppose.

they are balls deep into the ‘nothing burger’ defense. what else can they do? it wasn’t hard to predict and neither will be the next thing that paints them into a corner.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

And now trying to spin it as nothing. Media will assist.

 

[Medic007]

The lack of rebuttal in this thread is very telling.

You do realize the memo only addresses one thing, right? It isn't exclusionary of the existence of other things. Even though you probably like the narrative of only one thing, how often do you find only one ant in your kitchen?

I guess the next thing to point out is that if the FISA warrant was obtained illegally or used illegally, and that's a big if, does the commission of a crime have to influence an election for it to be considered illegal and prosecutable?

The left is trying to deploy all kinds of weird mental gymnastics on this thing, none of which are logical or make any sense. Most people know that monster truck racing isn't an event in men's or women's gymnastics, and monster truck racing is as far away from gymnastics as these weird narratives are from the actual issues.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I'll timeline this for the slower people.

Nunes says he want to release memo.

Dems freak the f out.

Spend days saying how damaging releasing it will be.

President releases

Dems say it's nothing in an attempt to spin

Morons buy hook line and sinker.

 

[Medic007]

I'll timeline this for the slower people.

Nunes says he want to release memo.

Dems freak the f out.

Spend days saying how damaging releasing it will be.

President releases

Dems say it's nothing in an attempt to spin

Morons buy hook line and sinker.

If it was actually nothing, Nancy Skeletor Pelosi wouldn't have literally begged Paul Ryan to intervene to stop the release.

 

[Alpha Poke]

She looked like she'd just found out hell was indeed real and she was on the express.

Nothing.

I mean how can you logically look at the actions prior to the release and marry it to the reaction after and not see what's happening.

You have to actively avoid logic.

 

[Alpha Poke]

The lack of rebuttal in this thread is very telling.

Waiting.

 

[CBradSmith]

She looked like she'd just found out hell was indeed real and she was on the express.

Nothing.

I mean how can you logically look at the actions prior to the release and marry it to the reaction after and not see what's happening.

You have to actively avoid logic.

 

[Alpha Poke]

@osu_orangestreak

Still telling?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Pretty sure he is being somewhat facetious. When even the National Review fact-checks Trump that’s hilarious.

The National Review, as an institution, was against Trump's election from the drop, and remains largely against most of what he stands for today. Individual writers, whose pieces they publish online, write pieces in favor of various portions of his positions/proposals, or pointing out some of the ridiculousness of the Democrats/media paranoia and rage against Trump because they support diversity of opinion. Probably < 20% of the contributors there could accurately be described as Pro Trump.