SafeAsMilk wrote:I didn't read the whole article, but I don't see where it says he's a source beyond question.

It was the headline* I was complaining about. Judging by the tone of the article (which was pretty reasonable actually) it wasn't written by the same person as the article itself.

*I say headline, it may be a tagline or subheader really: "The Smearing of Christopher Steele—A former British intelligence officer provided information to the FBI because it alarmed him. Given the way he’s been treated, future tipsters will be less likely to come forward."

Thommo wrote:That's like saying it's not unbelievable that someone in this discussion likes to get pissed on by hookers, or has committed a rape. It's just not the way respectable politics, debate or investigation works. It's a blatant smear and by indulging in giving it credence without evidence we play our own little role in encouraging these tactics and debasing our public debate.

We need to be concerned with what the evidence is, same as always. And I think that's what the FBI is doing, and it's right that they investigate serious allegations, but the endless indulgence of confirmation bias in the media isn't a part of that, it's a separate issue that says "hey we don't like Donald Trump and he does bad stuff, so let's assume he is guilty of totally different bad stuff". Sex gossip about politicians is just low grade smearing, the same thing happened to David Cameron (at the time, a politician I really didn't like and felt was scraping the bottom of the barrel, but my how standards have slipped in a couple of short years) people who should have known better gave credence to bullshit.

I sincerely doubt Steele is a saint or a devil, but it simply doesn't matter. And I really don't approve of this playing the same silly song and dance just because this time it's from a different political slant which happens to suit my taste better.

Fair enough as to whether it should be believed at face value, but as I recall Steele didn't release that information to the media and it was never (as far as I can recall) used in the campaign. As somebody else said, what he provided was raw intelligence which needed further corroboration. From that standpoint, I don't see why he would be faulted for included a legitimate angle for blackmail regarding a political candidate.

In other words, I don't see how the inclusion of those details in his dossier speaks to his credibility in any way.

Wasn't it part of the stuff he deliberately leaked to the press?

The memo is correct about his relationship with the FBI (notwithstanding this dispute about whether he was a "source") being terminated after the leak (in general, not necessarily just the salacious parts), isn't it?

We have an equilibrium: Undocumented immigrant population in U.S. stays flat for eighth straight year (11 million)

They can go back and forth as needed for illegal immigrant type of jobs. And the idiot wants a wall. It will be harder for them to go back!

This sort of thing is more helpful, in my opinion:

http://www.newsweek.com/fact-checking-nunes-memo-798639

Thommo wrote:Wasn't it part of the stuff he deliberately leaked to the press?

As I recall the dossier was circulating as an "open secret" of sorts prior to being leaked so I'm not sure that can be blamed on the man who put it together.

Thommo wrote:
The memo is correct about his relationship with the FBI (notwithstanding this dispute about whether he was a "source") being terminated after the leak (in general, not necessarily just the salacious parts), isn't it?

I'm not familiar with those details. Are you saying he's implicated in releasing this to the press?

purplerat wrote:

Thommo wrote:
The memo is correct about his relationship with the FBI (notwithstanding this dispute about whether he was a "source") being terminated after the leak (in general, not necessarily just the salacious parts), isn't it?

I'm not familiar with those details. Are you saying he's implicated in releasing this to the press?

That's what the memo says and the fact checking seems to support it. His meetings with a number of press outlets at the instruction of his employer has, I believe, been confirmed.

Check that link I just posted above.

purplerat wrote:Why is the piss thing so unbelievable? Think about it this way; if you went into a coma in early 2015 and just woke up today, learning that Donald Trump was president and hearing all of the things both candidate Trump and president Trump has said and done of the past 2+ years - would getting pissed on by a hooker even be close to the most ridiculous thing that you'd have a hard time believing really happened?

I don't think it's unbelievable that he would actually do something like that, it just doesn't sound like particularly useful compromising information. It sounds more like something calculated to work up liberals without actually being illegal. Surely those that didn't like Obama wouldn't have any problem with it. It makes way more sense as a piece of info put out there to further divide people. If the Russians have compromising material on Trump, it's probably something much, much more problematic and less flashy.

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:I didn't read the whole article, but I don't see where it says he's a source beyond question.

It was the headline* I was complaining about. Judging by the tone of the article (which was pretty reasonable actually) it wasn't written by the same person as the article itself.

*I say headline, it may be a tagline or subheader really: "The Smearing of Christopher Steele—A former British intelligence officer provided information to the FBI because it alarmed him. Given the way he’s been treated, future tipsters will be less likely to come forward."

Again, I don't really see how that paints him as a source beyond question. Even if he thought the info was alarming and the FBI should know about it, that doesn't imply that his info should be accepted without question. His background does mean that the effort should be made to examine it though, don't you think? Do you not think that republicans are trying to smear him? While the "future tipsters" thing is a bit extreme, we do seem to be looking at a problem of allies not wanting to share info with us because of how it gets treated.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:Why is the piss thing so unbelievable? Think about it this way; if you went into a coma in early 2015 and just woke up today, learning that Donald Trump was president and hearing all of the things both candidate Trump and president Trump has said and done of the past 2+ years - would getting pissed on by a hooker even be close to the most ridiculous thing that you'd have a hard time believing really happened?

I don't think it's unbelievable that he would actually do something like that, it just doesn't sound like particularly useful compromising information. It sounds more like something calculated to work up liberals without actually being illegal. Surely those that didn't like Obama wouldn't have any problem with it. It makes way more sense as a piece of info put out there to further divide people. If the Russians have compromising material on Trump, it's probably something much, much more problematic and less flashy.

I think you're right that on face value it wouldn't be too compromising. But I think there could be additional layers. For example, we already know Trump has paid off a porn star to silence similar claims. Maybe he's already 'paid off' on the peepee claims but it's how he paid them off that is the really compromising stuff.

Thommo wrote:This sort of thing is more helpful, in my opinion:

http://www.newsweek.com/fact-checking-nunes-memo-798639

Excellent bit of information, thank you!

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:Why is the piss thing so unbelievable? Think about it this way; if you went into a coma in early 2015 and just woke up today, learning that Donald Trump was president and hearing all of the things both candidate Trump and president Trump has said and done of the past 2+ years - would getting pissed on by a hooker even be close to the most ridiculous thing that you'd have a hard time believing really happened?

I don't think it's unbelievable that he would actually do something like that, it just doesn't sound like particularly useful compromising information. It sounds more like something calculated to work up liberals without actually being illegal. Surely those that didn't like Obama wouldn't have any problem with it. It makes way more sense as a piece of info put out there to further divide people. If the Russians have compromising material on Trump, it's probably something much, much more problematic and less flashy.

I think you're right that on face value it wouldn't be too compromising. But I think there could be additional layers. For example, we already know Trump has paid off a porn star to silence similar claims. Maybe he's already 'paid off' on the peepee claims but it's how he paid them off that is the really compromising stuff.

But the porn star thing doesn't have that element of division that the pee tape has. The situation just seems so convoluted and convenient for the purpose of making libs mad and making reps chuckle. Maybe there is more to it, but I think the details are less important than the overall idea that they've got compromising material on him, if they in fact do.

edit: Realized I misread part of your post. Yes, there could be more layers to it, maybe even details that make the situation more horrifying are left out. We don't know, I don't think it accomplishes anything to speculate. The idea that they've got info to hold over him is enough.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:Why is the piss thing so unbelievable? Think about it this way; if you went into a coma in early 2015 and just woke up today, learning that Donald Trump was president and hearing all of the things both candidate Trump and president Trump has said and done of the past 2+ years - would getting pissed on by a hooker even be close to the most ridiculous thing that you'd have a hard time believing really happened?

I don't think it's unbelievable that he would actually do something like that, it just doesn't sound like particularly useful compromising information. It sounds more like something calculated to work up liberals without actually being illegal. Surely those that didn't like Obama wouldn't have any problem with it. It makes way more sense as a piece of info put out there to further divide people. If the Russians have compromising material on Trump, it's probably something much, much more problematic and less flashy.

I think you're right that on face value it wouldn't be too compromising. But I think there could be additional layers. For example, we already know Trump has paid off a porn star to silence similar claims. Maybe he's already 'paid off' on the peepee claims but it's how he paid them off that is the really compromising stuff.

But the porn star thing doesn't have that element of division that the pee tape has. The situation just seems so convoluted and convenient for the purpose of making libs mad and making reps chuckle. Maybe there is more to it, but I think the details are less important than the overall idea that they've got compromising material on him, if they in fact do.

libs are mad about the peepee allegation? I honestly can't think of anybody who was angered by it. Allegations of sexual assault and rape, sure that gets people mad, but not the peepee thing.

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I don't think it's unbelievable that he would actually do something like that, it just doesn't sound like particularly useful compromising information. It sounds more like something calculated to work up liberals without actually being illegal. Surely those that didn't like Obama wouldn't have any problem with it. It makes way more sense as a piece of info put out there to further divide people. If the Russians have compromising material on Trump, it's probably something much, much more problematic and less flashy.

I think you're right that on face value it wouldn't be too compromising. But I think there could be additional layers. For example, we already know Trump has paid off a porn star to silence similar claims. Maybe he's already 'paid off' on the peepee claims but it's how he paid them off that is the really compromising stuff.

But the porn star thing doesn't have that element of division that the pee tape has. The situation just seems so convoluted and convenient for the purpose of making libs mad and making reps chuckle. Maybe there is more to it, but I think the details are less important than the overall idea that they've got compromising material on him, if they in fact do.

libs are mad about the peepee allegation? I honestly can't think of anybody who was angered by it. Allegations of sexual assault and rape, sure that gets people mad, but not the peepee thing.

I was using "mad" as a shorthand. I doubt anyone was punching through walls because of it.

Deal looks bad bad bad. Because: spending!
Spending is bad. No wall for you Trump!(soup nazi voice)
http://www.businessinsider.com/governme ... ght-2018-2

Now he's nominated a fucking coal lobbyist for a top job at the EPA, a COAL LOBBYIST! Not only that but the kleptocrat trougher GOP members of the committee all voted in support. When will this lunacy be ended?

About that promised swamp-draining

SafeAsMilk wrote:Again, I don't really see how that paints him as a source beyond question. Even if he thought the info was alarming and the FBI should know about it, that doesn't imply that his info should be accepted without question. His background does mean that the effort should be made to examine it though, don't you think? Do you not think that republicans are trying to smear him? While the "future tipsters" thing is a bit extreme, we do seem to be looking at a problem of allies not wanting to share info with us because of how it gets treated.

It reads to me like they are working way too hard to build him up, if you disagree, that's fine.

I agree with you that the intelligence should be properly investigated, because the implication of serious wrongdoing is there, and it's the FBI's job to enforce the law and investigation is literally in their name! I think it's obvious the Nunes memo is a pathetic attempt to get away from that single serious and central point.

I'm not really sure whether the Republicans are trying to smear him or not. He was paid a lot of money to dig up political dirt. But that just doesn't matter. How crimes come to light is not the issue, what is the issue is whether serious crimes that harm the US were committed or not. I guess if there was a conspiracy to illegally surveil an innocent man (Carter Page) that would also matter, but at this point it appears too implausible for me to dwell on that.

I can't speak for the British intelligence community, but I'm not sure they'll necessarily be troubled by the treatment of someone just because they happen to be British and a former member of that community. Certainly none of our state employees would normally work for a US political candidate (it would in fact be illegal, wouldn't it?).

Thommo wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Again, I don't really see how that paints him as a source beyond question. Even if he thought the info was alarming and the FBI should know about it, that doesn't imply that his info should be accepted without question. His background does mean that the effort should be made to examine it though, don't you think? Do you not think that republicans are trying to smear him? While the "future tipsters" thing is a bit extreme, we do seem to be looking at a problem of allies not wanting to share info with us because of how it gets treated.

It reads to me like they are working way too hard to build him up, if you disagree, that's fine.

There's a degree of sensationalism, sure. I guess I'm at least a little desensitized to that sort of thing. The article is certainly trying to push back against the narrative that attempts to paint him as negatively as possible. You might be right that even attempting to push back is giving that narrative too much credit.

I agree with you that the intelligence should be properly investigated, because the implication of serious wrongdoing is there, and it's the FBI's job to enforce the law and investigation is literally in their name! I think it's obvious the Nunes memo is a pathetic attempt to get away from that single serious and central point.

I'm not really sure whether the Republicans are trying to smear him or not. He was paid a lot of money to dig up political dirt.

Which isn't evil or illegal, as the Republicans are trying to make it sound. Seems like smearing to me. Going in the other direction and lionizing him is obviously not good either. But I'm betting what he got paid wasn't worth the trouble he experienced, and that's the point: would anyone find it worthwhile to bring information forward in this case, especially if they're not getting paid?

But that just doesn't matter. How crimes come to light is not the issue, what is the issue is whether serious crimes that harm the US were committed or not. I guess if there was a conspiracy to illegally surveil an innocent man (Carter Page) that would also matter, but at this point it appears too implausible for me to dwell on that.

I can't speak for the British intelligence community, but I'm not sure they'll necessarily be troubled by the treatment of someone just because they happen to be British and a former member of that community. Certainly none of our state employees would normally work for a US political candidate (it would in fact be illegal, wouldn't it?).

I think it's talking about people in general with information, not British agents in particular.

I think the figure appeared in something that I read, or something that's been linked as $168,000. I've no idea whether you'd consider that worth the hassle he's had or not. Doesn't seem too bad a paycheck, but I don't know how much time and effort he put into the contract.

I think I previously said in the slightly bizarre comparisons with Russia against what Steele did a couple of weeks ago that I do not think what he did was illegal, and there were various quotes from campaign financing laws that would seem to back up your point of view there. Clearly what he did isn't evil either.

I'm really not convinced that this Nunes memo and the surrounding kerfuffle is going to have any impact on either intelligence sharing with agencies like the British intelligence services, which were quoted as being the top US partner (and if it isn't, then it's at least up there), or on whistleblowers. I doubt anyone is really under illusions of what political impact the intel they share might have, or that there is going to be pushback.

We've all heard of deep throat, so I would suggest that at least among the intelligence community this has been a live issue since at least 1972.

All that said, there can be little doubt that the Trump presidency is alienating the US's international partners. I can't say as a British voter I've been enamoured with Trump's retweeting of fascists that murdered one of our MPs, his pathetic hate speech against the mayor of London, his ignorant attacks on the NHS this week or his dozens of other damaging and needless attacks on American-British relations. The same can certainly be said for American-German relations and I expect for many other EU countries as well. In that context, I really doubt this kind of low grade shenanigans on the part of the wider Republican party will make any difference.

Trump is the living embodiment of a negative stereotype of the US, fat, brash to the point of arrogance, ignorant and insular, coarse and basically thick as fuck (ok, he's probably not actually stupid, but in comparison to international leaders on the whole...), and if anything damages the prospect of people coming forward to challenge him I cannot believe it will be something as petty as this memo and the surrounding media hand wringing.

Of course, as always, I could be wrong.