FBI on Nunes Memo: Grave concerns on omissions of fact that fundamentally impact accuracy of memo
65 replies, posted
[quote](CNN)FBI Director Christopher Wray sent a striking signal to the White House Wednesday, issuing a rare public warning that a controversial Republican memo about the FBI's surveillance practices omits key information that could impact its veracity.
The move sets up an ugly clash with the President who wants it released.
"[B]With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the agency said in a statement. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."[/B]
Earlier Wednesday, White House chief of staff John Kelly predicted the memo would be released "pretty quick" and then "the whole world will see it."[/quote]
[quote]Some Justice Department officials had concerns about publicly expressing continued opposition to releasing the memo, according multiple officials. Trump had already been angered by [B]a letter that the Justice Department sent to the House Intelligence Committee last week warning the release would be "extraordinarily reckless."[/B] The FBI went ahead and issued the statement Wednesday anyway.[/quote]
FBI calling this memo bullshit. DOJ calling it extremely reckless. Republicans calling it, "BIGGER THAN WATERGATE!"
The GOP propaganda machine continues to assault the rule of constitutional law to protect the greatest traitor in the history of the United States. All who are taking part in this farcical display are complicit in an attack against the fundamental institutions that our country relies upon to protect us from... Well, [I]this.[/I]
[editline]/[/editline]
Better Sources:
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-says-it-has-grave-concerns-about-accuracy-of-nunes-memo/article/2647690[/url]
[url]https://www.businessinsider.nl/fbi-warns-against-releasing-devin-nunes-memo-2018-1/?international=true&r=US[/url]
[url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-memo/fbi-has-grave-concerns-over-republican-memos-accuracy-idUSKBN1FK25P[/url]
[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/31/fbi-grave-concerns-expected-release-nunes-memo/1083218001/[/url]
[URL="http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/"]http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/[/URL]
[IMG]http://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/left10.png?w=600&ssl=1[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Factual Reporting: [B]MIXED[/B][/QUOTE]
Do you have another source?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097813][URL="http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/"]http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/[/URL]
[IMG]http://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/left10.png?w=600&ssl=1[/IMG]
Do you have another source?[/QUOTE]
[url=https://www.google.com/search?q=we+have+grave+concerns+about+material+omissions+of+fact+that+fundamentally+impact+the+memo%27s+accuracy&oq=we+have+grave+concerns+about+material+omissions+of+fact+that+fundamentally+impact+the+memo%27s+accuracy&aqs=chrome..69i57.406j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]All of these..[/url]
Could you stop being such a massive baby?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Rude" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=srobins;53097832][url=https://www.google.com/search?q=we+have+grave+concerns+about+material+omissions+of+fact+that+fundamentally+impact+the+memo%27s+accuracy&oq=we+have+grave+concerns+about+material+omissions+of+fact+that+fundamentally+impact+the+memo%27s+accuracy&aqs=chrome..69i57.406j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]All of these..[/url]
Could you stop being such a massive baby?[/QUOTE]
I don't think asking for a source that is within the rules of the sections qualifies as "being such a massive baby".
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097813][URL="http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/"]http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/[/URL]
[IMG]http://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/left10.png?w=600&ssl=1[/IMG]
Do you have another source?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-says-it-has-grave-concerns-about-accuracy-of-nunes-memo/article/2647690[/url] - Washington Examiner has it too
[img]https://i.imgur.com/fYwgY9K.jpg[/img]
As does Bussiness Insider - [url]https://www.businessinsider.nl/fbi-warns-against-releasing-devin-nunes-memo-2018-1/?international=true&r=US[/url]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/ko7z2KW.jpg[/img]
In particular, here's a reuters article.
[url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-memo/fbi-has-grave-concerns-over-republican-memos-accuracy-idUSKBN1FK25P[/url]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097842]I don't think asking for a source that is within the rules of the sections qualifies as "being such a massive baby".[/QUOTE]
When it's a completely non-opinion piece factually reporting an easily verifiable quote from a public figure, yeah, you're just being a massive baby.
[QUOTE=srobins;53097832][url=https://www.google.com/search?q=we+have+grave+concerns+about+material+omissions+of+fact+that+fundamentally+impact+the+memo%27s+accuracy&oq=we+have+grave+concerns+about+material+omissions+of+fact+that+fundamentally+impact+the+memo%27s+accuracy&aqs=chrome..69i57.406j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]All of these..[/url]
Could you stop being such a massive baby?[/QUOTE]
I don't like Silence but he's completely correct. BDA's [i]own rules[/i] dictate that you have to provide a source that meets specific criteria, and his post didn't meet them. The fact that others stepped in to provide valid sources certainly legitimizes the story, but it doesn't absolve BDA of his responsibility.
[QUOTE=srobins;53097846]When it's a completely non-opinion piece factually reporting an easily verifiable quote from a public figure, yeah, you're just being a massive baby.[/QUOTE]
It's literally the subforum rules:
[QUOTE]
You must be able to produce an accessible source that is reliable and no more than 2 weeks old. It must not duplicate an existing thread and must be named appropriately (no editorialisation or tags please!).
[B]Use the most neutral source you can find. Sources that hold a heavy bias are not permitted. [/B]Refer to [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/[/url] if you need help selecting an appropriate source.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097813][URL="http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/"]http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/[/URL]
[IMG]http://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/left10.png?w=600&ssl=1[/IMG]
Do you have another source?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/31/fbi-grave-concerns-expected-release-nunes-memo/1083218001/[/url]
Bah, shoulda checked first. Forgot CNN was a poor source. This story is on every major news network in the country, though, so we're hardly starved for options.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53097870][url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/31/fbi-grave-concerns-expected-release-nunes-memo/1083218001/[/url]
Bah, shoulda checked first. Forgot CNN was a poor source. This story is on every major news network in the country, though, so we're hardly starved for options.[/QUOTE]
I don't fault you for it. I figured it was an oversight. No biggie.
Alternate sources have been provided, please don't further derail the thread with discussion about the rules regarding source selection. They're clear, and I violated them. Fuck up on my part -- went from memory without verifying the source. If some other mod wants to slap my hands for it, they'd be within their right to. I literally [I]wrote[/I] the fuckin' rules for this subforum, so I should really know better than to post a thread without a quick jaunt over to MBFC. There was no malice in it, just grabbed the first major source I saw on Google, but it's still a slip up.
Now shuddup about it here, because this is a news thread, and an incredibly important story. Go moan in GD, if you want.
[QUOTE]“The FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy,” the FBI said in a statement.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Democrats have said the memo selectively uses highly classified materials in a misleading effort to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Justice Department’s Russia probe, and Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who hired him.[/QUOTE]
Looks like it could all be true things, just taken out of context. I'll be interested to see what's in it and what's in the Democrat's rebuttal memo.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53097912]So can/will they publish an amended/corrected memo?[/QUOTE]
No, because this memo is not [I]intended[/I] to be accurate. It's dishonest propaganda: Trump's cronies don't give a single shit about whether or not it's "correct," only that they can use it to manufacture a bunch of false outrage in order to attack the credibility of the investigative team that's going to drag half of them to prison.
[editline]31st January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097915]Looks like it could all be true things, just taken out of context. I'll be interested to see what's in it and what's in the Democrat's rebuttal memo.[/QUOTE]
"Looks like it's all true things, just taken out of context" is a pretty fuckin' generous way to interpret, "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
When intentionally excluding key information "fundamentally impacts" the accuracy of the report, it's hardly "true" anymore, is it?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53097918]"Looks like it's all true things, just taken out of context" is a pretty fuckin' generous way to interpret, "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
When intentionally excluding key information "fundamentally impacts" the accuracy of the report, it's hardly "true" anymore, is it?[/QUOTE]
Yes. The information is still factual. You're only changing it's perception, not it's veracity. If I said I shot someone, leaving out that it was in self defense doesn't make it false.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53097933]If I tell you there's a 20% chance of rain tomorrow, and you go tell your friend that I told you that its GOING to rain tomorrow, you didn't take my words out of context, you flat out omitted the truth.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm getting from the article. What I'm getting from the article, and I may be wrong here, is that the claims aren't necessarily false, but they are presented in a way to purposefully remove context and make it damaging.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53097933]If I tell you there's a 20% chance of rain tomorrow, and you go tell your friend that I told you that its GOING to rain tomorrow, you didn't take my words out of context, you flat out omitted the truth.[/QUOTE]
Or: if I tell you that my electoral campaign was illegally targeted and wiretapped by the FBI, when in reality it was the spies from a hostile foreign nation who I was communicating with who were wiretapped, and I just happened to get caught on tape because I was cutting fuckin' deals with them, is the statement that my campaign was illegally targeted and wiretapped even remotely true?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097947]Yes. The information is still factual. You're only changing it's perception, not it's veracity. If I said I shot someone, leaving out that it was in self defense doesn't make it false.
That's not what I'm getting from the article. What I'm getting from the article, and I may be wrong here, is that the claims aren't necessarily false, but they are presented in a way to purposefully remove context and make it damaging.[/QUOTE]
You are absurd lol
The answer to the above rhetorical question is: no, it is not even remotely true. Omitting hugely important contextual information and facts doesn't just "change the perception" of a statement, it changes the basic fucking truth of it. That the FBI are coming out and saying, in no uncertain terms, that this memo is a load of crock is massive, and that you're sitting here trying to spin it as being "true, just a little biased :3" is incredibly goofy and disingenuous. I know that party loyalty is more important to you than objective reality, but come [I]on...[/I]
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53097965]The FBI, I mean. Are they in their right to release a correction?[/QUOTE]
One of the problems here, and a problem that the GOP are fully counting on in order to let their little propagandist narrative do its work, is that many of the facts they are omitting are likely classified in nature and [I]cannot[/I] be included without compromising active investigations, sources and methods, and intelligence gathering operations in progress. Hence the Intelligence Community's backlash against this memo for threatening national security.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097947]Yes. The information is still factual. You're only changing it's perception, not it's veracity. If I said I shot someone, leaving out that it was in self defense doesn't make it false.
That's not what I'm getting from the article. What I'm getting from the article, and I may be wrong here, is that the claims aren't necessarily false, but they are presented in a way to purposefully remove context and make it damaging.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, but leaving out that it was self defense turns it from lawful to unlawful. Considering the entire purpose and intended impact of this memo is to discredit the FBI so that when Mueller wraps up and near-inevitably finds Trump & Co. guilty of obstruction, collusion, etc. the public ignores it, it being "factual" doesn't make it any less dangerous. I don't understand why you're trying so hard to play devil's advocate for these people.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53097947]Yes. The information is still factual. You're only changing it's perception, not it's veracity. If I said I shot someone, leaving out that it was in self defense doesn't make it false.[/QUOTE]
Technically not, however changing the perception of it by omitting details is just as effective as lying, perhaps even more effective as people who look into it may find elements of truth and take the story at face value.
Omit the facts in the right way, and you can change the story.
[t]https://i.redd.it/prrt6rcvp7oz.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53098011]Technically not, however changing the perception of it by omitting details is just as effective as lying, perhaps even more effective as people who look into it may find elements of truth and take the story at face value.
Omit the facts in the right way, and you can change the story.
[t]https://i.redd.it/prrt6rcvp7oz.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
This exactly. Leaving out inconvenient facts to push a narrative is the same as lying.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53097955]You are absurd lol
The answer to the above rhetorical question is: no, it is not even remotely true. Omitting hugely important contextual information and facts doesn't just "change the perception" of a statement, it changes the basic fucking truth of it. That the FBI are coming out and saying, in no uncertain terms, that this memo is a load of crock is massive, and that you're sitting here trying to spin it as being "true, just a little biased :3" is incredibly goofy and disingenuous. I know that party loyalty is more important to you than objective reality, but come [I]on...[/I][/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to spin it as just a little biased. I'm saying it's most likely going to be downright misrepresentation of the truth, but still true nonetheless. I mean, I guess we have different qualifiers for what is true and what isn't.
Oh, and I'm not loyal to any party. I don't agree with some things on either side. I vote for who I think is the best. My last ballot had votes for republicans, democrats, libertarians, AND an independent, because in my opinion, each of those people were the best person for the job. To reduce my positions to some nonexistent party loyalty is just absurd.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53098566]I'm not trying to spin it as just a little biased. I'm saying it's most likely going to be downright misrepresentation of the truth, but still true nonetheless. I mean, I guess we have different qualifiers for what is true and what isn't.
Oh, and I'm not loyal to any party. I don't agree with some things on either side. I vote for who I think is the best. My last ballot had votes for republicans, democrats, libertarians, AND an independent, because in my opinion, each of those people were the best person for the job. To reduce my positions to some nonexistent party loyalty is just absurd.[/QUOTE]
What is even the point of this annoying pedantic "I'm defending them but I'm not" bullshit? Misrepresenting the truth is not "still the truth". Saying that somebody who committed self defense committed a murder is not "still the truth". If they present cherry-picked facts in such a manner that is intended for the viewer to draw an untrue conclusion about the situation, i.e. that the FBI acted improperly or even illegally, that isn't the truth. This is such a stupid, annoying argument and I don't understand the point behind it other than being a massive pain to everyone.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53098566]I'm not trying to spin it as just a little biased. I'm saying it's most likely going to be downright misrepresentation of the truth, but still true nonetheless. I mean, I guess we have different qualifiers for what is true and what isn't.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that misrepresentation of the truth can have an effect that is no different than lying. The definition to lie is broadly "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". The words spoken may not be lie, but what is said is deliberately meant to deceive.
As a very basic and exaggerated example. "He shot a man who was crossing the street outside of a crosswalk," versus "He shot a man charging towards him with a knife." Neither statement is false, but the meaning of the statement dramatically changes. You can dramatically shift the meaning by leaving out or including true but otherwise critical information.
Watching General Hayden on Chris Cuomo.
Hayden says the memo Is highly deficient in its evidence, and the intelligence community sees this as a bunk report meant to bolster the administrations position.
So fucking fed up with the defences some of you toss out
[editline]31st January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53098566]I'm not trying to spin it as just a little biased. I'm saying it's most likely going to be downright misrepresentation of the truth, but still true nonetheless. I mean, I guess we have different qualifiers for what is true and what isn't.
Oh, and I'm not loyal to any party. I don't agree with some things on either side. I vote for who I think is the best. My last ballot had votes for republicans, democrats, libertarians, AND an independent, because in my opinion, each of those people were the best person for the job. To reduce my positions to some nonexistent party loyalty is just absurd.[/QUOTE]
You are "down right misrepresenting the truth" on this issue.
[QUOTE=Potus;53098904][media]https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/958897790469464064[/media][/QUOTE]
[I]Who would have suspected?[/I]
So not only has Nunes refused to recuse himself all year, he's now playing horseshit games with Congress and the White House over matters of national security to help orchestrate what appears to be a slow coup.
If there's anyone who deserves to spend five years in Joe Arpaio's tent Guantanamo, it's Nunes and everyone knowingly conspiring with him.
[QUOTE=srobins;53098683]What is even the point of this annoying pedantic "I'm defending them but I'm not" bullshit? Misrepresenting the truth is not "still the truth". Saying that somebody who committed self defense committed a murder is not "still the truth". If they present cherry-picked facts in such a manner that is intended for the viewer to draw an untrue conclusion about the situation, i.e. that the FBI acted improperly or even illegally, that isn't the truth. This is such a stupid, annoying argument and I don't understand the point behind it other than being a massive pain to everyone.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. You will have to ask yourself and everyone else who flipped out over an accurate post that I made because it described the events as "true, but taken out of context." I'm the one being told that my rhetoric isn't up to snuff to what people on here would like to see.
Tell me this, how is saying something that is true "defending" anyone? Defending them would be saying something like "This needs to be released because the American People need to know what is going on in their agencies!" I didn't say anything even close to that. So how am I defending them by stating a simple fact?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53099597]I don't know. You will have to ask yourself and everyone else who flipped out over an accurate post that I made because it described the events as "true, but taken out of context." I'm the one being told that my rhetoric isn't up to snuff to what people on here would like to see.
Tell me this, how is saying something that is true "defending" anyone? Defending them would be saying something like "This needs to be released because the American People need to know what is going on in their agencies!" I didn't say anything even close to that. So how am I defending them by stating a simple fact?[/QUOTE]
because it goes without saying that a misrepresented truth still contain some form of the truth. it's a distinction without value or purpose beyond splitting hairs to make nunes look better, and giving yourself an angle where you can defend this while still pretending to stand up for the "truth"
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53099597]I don't know. You will have to ask yourself and everyone else who flipped out over an accurate post that I made because it described the events as "true, but taken out of context." I'm the one being told that my rhetoric isn't up to snuff to what people on here would like to see.
Tell me this, how is saying something that is true "defending" anyone? Defending them would be saying something like "This needs to be released because the American People need to know what is going on in their agencies!" I didn't say anything even close to that. So how am I defending them by stating a simple fact?[/QUOTE]
You're stating a clearly biased fact that's only true on a technical level, as people have repeatedly pointed out to you. The same bullshit those who actually defend these idiots do constantly. That combined with the fact you're a known conservative on the site makes it easy to interpret you as being the same.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
