Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 19, 2018

OTP 19 February 2018: Does Buster Posey Have a Post-playing Career in Politics?

Buster Posey is one of the most accomplished catchers in baseball history. At 30 years old, he already has a Hall of Fame resume.

In eight full seasons with the Giants, Posey has won National League Rookie of the Year, NL MVP, four Silver Slugger awards, a Gold Glove, and is a five-time All-Star. While he still has plenty of years left, Posey has naturally thought a bit about what he would like to do once his playing days are done.

But, politics? Well, kind of.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: February 19, 2018 at 08:04 AM | 2205 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: buster posey, giants, off-topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 20 of 23 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1901. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: February 25, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5630198)
"No malfeasance or misfeasance."
   1902. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5630201)
So what does pay have to do with arguing wrongly about .45s or a tweet wrongly stating that handguns won the day in Virginia?
   1903. zenbitz Posted: February 25, 2018 at 12:48 PM (#5630205)
Individual Sherman tanks were no match for German Panthers, but they still won the war.
   1904. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5630206)
Along with more fuel, more men, more artillery, more air support, and more allies. But,yeah, other than that Sherman tanks totally won war
   1905. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5630209)
I think you missed the point. Without the rifle the cops were ineffective in actually neutralizing the shooter and were taking on casualties. When the Virginia cop arrived with a rifle the gunfight ended in about a minute and in his first shot he was able to neutralize the opposing rifle.
No, your point is wrong: without the rifle the cops stopped the shooter from shooting his targets. (The "taking on casualties" is a gross exaggeration; one cop was hit once in the leg.)

Sure he wasn't able to aim at a bunch of scattering congressmen but without the presence of an opposing rifle the casualty list of policemen would likely have been higher. Now of course you're fine with that because police officers are supposed to die for 55k a year.
The "surely" is made up, the $55,000 is a complete fabrication¹, and the cops are supposed to die to protect the public. Volunteer firefighters are supposed to die for nothing, if they save people's lives. That's the job. (Not that I care too much about members of Congress, but, yes, cops taking casualties to stop kids from being killed is certainly something I am fine with.)




¹Specifically with respect to Peterson:
His annual salary in 2016 was $75,673.72, according to sheriff’s office records, but he made $101,013 that year with overtime and other compensation. Peterson has been the subject of two internal investigations, neither of which resulted in significant discipline.
   1906. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5630211)

So you think cops are carrying desert eagles? Handguns, despite what John mcclane taught you, are not instant kill machines. They are deadly of course but I've seen plenty of clips of handgun casualties to realize that they aren't instant kill machines the vast majority of time.
Yeah, and? When the congressional baseball shooter was shot by the Alexandria cop with the Bushmaster, he wasn't instantly killed either. He was shot twice. (As well as once with a handgun.) He died later at the hospital. You don't need to instantly kill a shooter; you need to stop him.
   1907. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:09 PM (#5630212)
I'm asking you to identify what you think is hackish about the Schiff memo, and you aren't doing it, and nobody else here has either.


It's hackish the phrasing of (both) memos, and the repeating of the talking points that gives the game away.

And much of what the conclusions rest on are subjective determinations. (Was the Steele information the "key" to the FISA applications or was it incidental?)

Obviously both sides are advancing an agenda, but that doesn't mean you can't figure out which one is accurate and which one is nonsense.


You simply cannot draw a reasoned conclusion of this unless you see the underlying FISA applications.

The MOST we can do is to identify hard statements of facts in the memo -- rather than subjective opinions -- and say, "Well, let's assume that Nunes/Schiff aren't just telling a black and white fact-checkable lie here."
   1908. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5630216)
Watching Sheriff Israel on Jake Tapper right now. The guy is a complete joke. Absolutely pathetic.


I called it right from the first thing I heard him say, which was that the deputy should have gone in and "killed the killer." "Families lost loved ones."

He's a clown.
   1909. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5630218)
Ray, what phrasing or talking points are hackish?

As I wrote earlier the only thing that was redacted that you arguably would need to see is the other evidence in the application in terms of how much the dossier was relied on; otherwise the main argument of the Nunes memo about the court being misled is clearly false and you can draw conclusions about the claim about the dossier given how little credibility Nunes has (see unmasking and all the parts of his memo we already know are BS).-
   1910. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:28 PM (#5630219)
By the way, stealing this from twitter: the Schiff memo also suggests that Contereras didn't approve the application for Page which really knocks down the "just asking questions about why Contreras recused himself from the Flynn case!" argument. Just more stuff being thrown at the wall.
   1911. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5630220)
No, your point is wrong: without the rifle the cops stopped the shooter from shooting his targets. (The "taking on casualties" is a gross exaggeration; one cop was hit once in the leg.)

No he fired plenty of shots at his "targets", the targets being human beings. But again the Virginia was best case scenario. You had two people armed within close proximity of the shooter with a limited number of targets in an open area. When they engaged with the shooter one got shot almost immediately while they couldn't hit the shooter with their handguns.



The "surely" is made up, the $55,000 is a complete fabrication¹, and the cops are supposed to die to protect the public. Volunteer firefighters are supposed to die for nothing, if they save people's lives. That's the job. (Not that I care too much about members of Congress, but, yes, cops taking casualties to stop kids from being killed is certainly something I am fine with.)

Pedant takes the pedantic bait. The actual salary amount is rather meaningless other than to show you're asking someone to die for middle class pay. Of course your fine with people dying for you but that doesn't make it a fact that they are supposed to die for you. There is no law or regulation that says someone must die as part of their employment.

Yeah, and? When the congressional baseball shooter was shot by the Alexandria cop with the Bushmaster, he wasn't instantly killed either. He was shot twice. (As well as once with a handgun.) He died later at the hospital. You don't need to instantly kill a shooter; you need to stop him.

So it was no big deal that the guy with the rifle was the only one able to hit the target while the target had a rifle and that it was his shot that disarmed him of that rifle and dropped him to the ground? That's not proof of anything for you?
   1912. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5630221)
   1913. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:35 PM (#5630222)
Good overview at lawfare blog.
   1914. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5630223)
The Nunes memo gets vetted by the White House and released with no redactions and the White House Seal of Approval. The Schiff memo gets vetted by the same crew and comes out heavily redacted and blasted by the White House. A bargain priced Brooklyn Bridge to anyone who thinks this is just one of those things.


I'm beginning to think Andy is just bean counting and doesn't know what the process is for releasing the memos.

The FBI and DOJ also had a say in what was redacted, not just the White House.

And if one document was heavy on sources and methods and the other wasn't, it's hardly rational to treat the two memos as being equal in starting point.

We really are not in a position to evaluate the fairness of the redactions. Anyone being objective would concede that.
   1915. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:39 PM (#5630224)
Ray, what phrasing or talking points are hackish?


You can't be serious.
   1916. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:42 PM (#5630226)
Yes, I am. What do you take issue with?
   1917. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: February 25, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5630227)
Yes, I am. What do you take issue with?


Why do you bother with Pajama Boy?
   1918. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:08 PM (#5630233)
if guns are fired, pretty much every situation quickly degrades into a ####show


Everybody has a plan until he gets punched in the mouth.
   1919. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:10 PM (#5630234)
Of course your fine with people dying for you but that doesn't make it a fact that they are supposed to die for you. There is no law or regulation that says someone must die as part of their employment.

That "logic" would have police never confront armed criminals anywhere due to the risk of being killed. Again, the standard post-Columbine operating procedure for active shooter incidents is a rapid response strategy. Those contending that waiting for the arrival of ovewhelming force and firepower is a superior approach are just making up stuff.
   1920. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5630239)
So you think it is a police officer's job to step in front of a bullet for you? That if he doesn't he will be fired? Why don't hostage negotiators offer to swap out policemen for hostages? After all it is the police's job to die for you.
   1921. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5630240)
What exactly is the rapid response strategy?
   1922. tshipman Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5630241)
The FBI and DOJ also had a say in what was redacted, not just the White House.


Right, except the WH ignored FBI & DOJ for the Nunes memo.
   1923. -- Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5630242)
The unredacted portions of Schiff memo completely undermine the main argument of the Nunes memo, which was that the FBI misled the court by not revealing that the dossier was politically motivated.


It doesn't get any more true on the 14,567th repetition. It's not that the FBI didn't reveal the generic "political motivation," it's that they didn't reveal that the thing was bought by the Democratic side -- which they knew. To repeat, to say "a major political party," indicates a roughly 50% chance it was the Republican Party. In fact, that chance was 0%, and the FBI/DOJ knew it was 0%.

That's, pure and simple, a material misrepresentation.
   1924. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 02:47 PM (#5630245)
By the way, stealing this from twitter: the Schiff memo also suggests that Contereras didn't approve the application for Page which really knocks down the "just asking questions about why Contreras recused himself from the Flynn case!" argument. Just more stuff being thrown at the wall.
I'll take my Vanilla Coke Zero for post 1844, please.
   1925. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5630248)
So you think it is a police officer's job to step in front of a bullet for you? That if he doesn't he will be fired? Why don't hostage negotiators offer to swap out policemen for hostages? After all it is the police's job to die for you.

You keep propping up straw men, and ignoring that law enforcement professionals came to a consensus that the best tactic for active shooter incidents was a rapid deployment strategy. That doesn't mean charging into a building firing indiscriminately, but it certainly doesn't mean pretending it's a hostage situation and just waiting outside. Police are trained to enter the building and proceed to the sound of the gunfire, using available cover. Again, those arguing for the superiority of other tactics are just making up stuff.
   1926. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5630249)

Pedant takes the pedantic bait. The actual salary amount is rather meaningless other than to show you're asking someone to die for middle class pay. Of course your fine with people dying for you but that doesn't make it a fact that they are supposed to die for you. There is no law or regulation that says someone must die as part of their employment.
I can't believe you're this ####### stupid, so I'm going to assume that you're desperately trolling here (which is underscored by the fact that you're describing your own asinine comments as "bait." THAT. IS. THEIR. JOB. If you don't grasp that, you're not intellectually qualified to be in this discussion; if you grasp it but won't admit it, then you're not morally qualified to be in it.
   1927. Srul Itza At Home Posted: February 25, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5630254)
You're paid to stop a bullet.
It's a soldier's job they say.
And so you stop that bullet.
And then they stop your pay.


[Chad Mitchell Trio, Rhymes for the Irreverent, 1964]
   1928. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5630255)
1924- I have to recuse myself from the coke decision. I'm not going to say why so you should assume it's because I approved a FISA application by an FBI agent who had the temerity to text "Gary Johnson stinks".
   1929. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5630256)

Again, those arguing for the superiority of other tactics are just making up stuff.
McCoy is not arguing for the superiority of other tactics; if he were, that would simply be error. He's arguing that tactics don't matter because it's not actually their job to try to protect people who are being shot (or firefighters' jobs to rescue people from burning buildings). Hey, if they could do it without any risk, sure, but otherwise, shrug.
   1930. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5630267)
The other argument in the Nunes memo (not including the nonsense about Ohr and the texts), was that the dossier formed a substantial basis of the application. The Schiff memo disputes that and there are a lot of redactions in this portion. I'm not sure how you get around the redactions, though, since there's an ongoing investigation and if we had other sources regarding Page's activities we wouldn't want to reveal them. But this is less relevant anyway - if the FBI didn't mislead the court, and it's clear that they didn't, then you're left with a pretty tenuous argument that even though Page was already under suspicion it was wrong to apply for surveillance using the dossier even if you told the court that the dossier was likely sponsored by someone who wanted to undermine Trump's campaign.
Actually, the key point in the Nunes memo is McCabe's assertion before HPSCI that, absent the dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant application. As I noted last night, the Schiff memo doesn't bring up McCabe's testimony, let alone contest what he supposedly said. This is most curious, considering the claims from Schiff and other Dems immediately following the Nunes memo release that it was inaccurate.
   1931. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5630268)
McCoy is not arguing for the superiority of other tactics; if he were, that would simply be error. He's arguing that tactics don't matter because it's not actually their job to try to protect people who are being shot (or firefighters' jobs to rescue people from burning buildings). Hey, if they could do it without any risk, sure, but otherwise, shrug.
Hmmm, maybe he believes it would have been their job if they made $56,000 per year?
   1932. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:14 PM (#5630269)
By the way, stealing this from twitter: the Schiff memo also suggests that Contereras didn't approve the application for Page which really knocks down the "just asking questions about why Contreras recused himself from the Flynn case!" argument. Just more stuff being thrown at the wall.
To be clear, suggestions and insinuations don't knock down anything unless later proven to be accurate.
   1933. -- Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:18 PM (#5630270)
I can't believe you're this ####### stupid, so I'm going to assume that you're desperately trolling here (which is underscored by the fact that you're describing your own asinine comments as "bait." THAT. IS. THEIR. JOB. If you don't grasp that, you're not intellectually qualified to be in this discussion; if you grasp it but won't admit it, then you're not morally qualified to be in it.


"Morally qualified."

LOL.

It's not the "job" of policemen to do a solo Pickett's charge every time some madman unleashes a hail of bullets with a military rifle and a duffel bag filled with magazines. And it's most certainly not their job to do one where the bullets they fire in desperation will wind up in crowds of kids, likely hitting them. Where do you even come up with this stuff?

You're only saying this stuff because you want to defend the "right" of a loon to buy and brandish an AR-15. That's the only reason.

   1934. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5630272)
Watching Sheriff Israel on Jake Tapper right now. The guy is a complete joke. Absolutely pathetic.
Back on Thursday, I had suggested Tuesday was the over-under for the sheriff's resignation. My guess now is it will happen early this week, when Senator Nelson calls for him to step down.
   1935. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:35 PM (#5630274)
It's not the "job" of policemen to do a solo Pickett's charge every time some madman unleashes a hail of bullets with a military rifle and a duffel bag filled with magazines. And it's most certainly not their job to do one where the bullets they fire in desperation will wind up in crowds of kids, likely hitting them. Where do you even come up with this stuff?

Where do you come up with this stuff? The professional law enforcement community has reached a post-Columbine consensus that a rapid deployment response is the best strategy for active shooter situations, and rather than admit that, some folks here insist on mischarecterizing that strategy rather than concede they were wrong. Sad.
   1936. -- Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5630279)
The professional law enforcement community has reached a post-Columbine consensus that a rapid deployment response is the best strategy for active shooter situations, and rather than admit that, some folks here insist on mischarecterizing that strategy rather than concede they were wrong. Sad.


This is a hollow bromide of Bitter Mousian dimension -- one you've now repeated like ten times now. It's purely a facts and circumstances thing. Sometimes "rapid deployment" works, sometimes it doesn't. Where it's one guy, who's pretty much already "deployed" and he's lost the initiative, has no idea where the shooter is, is hideously outgunned, and whose primary hope would be to shoot rather indiscriminately into crowds of kids, then no. It's dumb.

In theory, he could have gotten extremely lucky. Depending on it as a matter of policy? Insane. Demanding it of him? Pure chickenhawk. Lots of things are easy to demand of other people from the comfort of Mom's basement and we're seeing that play out here.
   1937. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5630281)
The unredacted portions of Schiff memo completely undermine the main argument of the Nunes memo, which was that the FBI misled the court by not revealing that the dossier was politically motivated. We knew that was wrong from reporting a couple of weeks ago, and the Republicans who don't care about Russian interference and want to protect the president resorted to arguing that what was in the application wasn't enough because the DNC and Clinton weren't specifically identified, which didn't make any sense. But the Schiff memo quotes the actual language used.
From the footnote in question:
The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia.
Is the claim here that Simpson never informed Steele that Team Hillary and the DNC bankrolled this initiative? How was the FBI certain of this?
The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.
In comparison to the line above, this isn't exactly confident terminology. So if it had been the Free Beacon behind this research the FBI was using, would the language have read any differently? Because when one campaign is bankrolling the funding of research which is then used by counterintelligence officials to covertly investigate its opponents, one would hope these words would be a wee bit less wishy-washy.
   1938. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5630286)
It's purely a facts and circumstances thing. Sometimes "rapid deployment" works, sometimes it doesn't. Where it's one guy, who's pretty much already "deployed" and he's lost the initiative, has no idea where the shooter is, is hideously outgunned, and whose primary hope would be to shoot rather indiscriminately into crowds of kids, then no. It's dumb.

Like the claim that the SRO didn't hear the gunfire, this too is false. The Deputy knew the shooter's approximate location from the gunfire. No one, except perhaps those making up things in this thread, has suggested that the shooter was positioned to deny the SRO entry to the building. Operating alone, he would need to proceed cautiously, but that is much different from not acting at all, and he was soon joined by 3 other Sheriffs Deputies, who unfortunately also didn't enter the building. We can't say to what extent, if any, it would have made a difference, but we can say that rapid deployment was the appropriate strategy. Those arguing otherwise have continually made up stuff and ignored that, AFAIK, the entire professional law enforcement community disagrees with them.
   1939. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5630287)
The main argument in the Nunes memo was about the FBI misleading the court, not that the dossier was relied on too heavily (which by itself doesn't connect to all the other conspiracies that the GOP is trying to use to discredit the investigation because the GOP wants to protect Trump). And that footnote is enough to show the argument is false: it shows that the FBI alerted the court that the research was likely being backed by people looking to discredit Trump's campaign. It's not clear why it's relevant that it was the Clinton campaign behind it (and I don't recall if the FBI even knew that at the time); the point is to disclose that the person Steele was contracted to was in turn contracted by a group that didn't like Trump. I doubt that disclosure did or would have that much effect because it can't be surprising to the court that this type of research is being supported by people who don't like Trump, but in any event the disclosure is in there and the Nunes memo was obviously deliberately misleading.
   1940. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:00 PM (#5630288)
The Schiff memo argues that plenty of other evidence was used in the application, which is largely redacted but plausible considering that Page was previously of interest anyway and you know coincidentally there was a significant Russian operation underway to influence the election.
   1941. -- Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5630289)
The Deputy knew the shooter's approximate location from the gunfire.


"Approximate location" is nowhere near good enough to start shooting into crowds of kids.

Operating alone, he would need to proceed cautiously, but that is much different from not acting at all,


Understatement of the century. Given the weapon the shooter had, the only way to proceed "cautiously" is to stay in a place where the shooter didn't see him. The second he fires a single shot, the madman knows where he is and he's done. If the shot misses, it likely hits a kid.

and he was soon joined by 3 other Sheriffs Deputies, who unfortunately also didn't enter the building.


Four "good guys with guns," all "trained" -- and none of them made a bit of difference. That's the world of real human beings, as opposed to the fantasyland of the NRA and its lackeys.
   1942. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5630291)
"Approximate location" is nowhere near good enough to start shooting into crowds of kids.


Welcome to the world or argunig with a moron Clapper, where the deputy's only two options are to cower and hide or shoot into crowd of kids. No other action is possible.
   1943. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5630292)
Four "good guys with guns," all "trained" -- and none of them made a bit of difference. That's the world of real human beings, as opposed to the fantasyland of the NRA and its lackeys.




Far be it from me to defend the NRA, but that's exactly what happened in the Texas church shooting.
   1944. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5630293)
Quinta Jurecic:
I admit I thought it was a bad idea for Schiff to release the countermemo and prolong the story, but I was probably wrong. It's pretty devastating


JE, #1937:
From the footnote in question
The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia.
Is the claim here that Simpson never informed Steele that Team Hillary and the DNC bankrolled this initiative? How was the FBI certain of this?
The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.
In comparison to the line above, this isn't exactly confident terminology. So if it had been the Free Beacon behind this research the FBI was using, would the language have read any differently?

So the question is: Let's imagine that someone uninvolved had done something they didn't do, and if the FBI decided to make use of what that other someone had done, would the FBI have handled this imaginary something differently than they did... assuming the FBI might theoretically have felt differently about the conjectural someone whose imaginary info the FBI would have gotten in this alternate scenario compared to their presumed assessment of the actual someone whose actual something the FBI did do something with... and if so, would this postulated different handling expose something negative about political variability in what we presume is likely to be FBI protocol... hypothetically speaking?

The answer to that question: it would depend.
   1945. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5630294)
B-b-b-b-but Hillary...

You are morons.
   1946. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:15 PM (#5630295)
The Deputy knew the shooter's approximate location from the gunfire.

"Approximate location" is nowhere near good enough to start shooting into crowds of kids.

You are the only one arguing for "shooting into crowds of kids". It gets dumber each time you repeat it.

Given the weapon the shooter had, the only way to proceed "cautiously" is to stay in a place where the shooter didn't see him. The second he fires a single shot, the madman knows where he is and he's done. If the shot misses, it likely hits a kid.

More making up stuff. The idea that the shooter was some ultra-competent special forces ninja capable of simulateously shooting students and preventing anyone from entering a large building with multiple entrances has no basis in reality. Has anyone outside of this thread made that argument?
   1947. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5630296)
The main argument in the Nunes memo was about the FBI misleading the court, not that the dossier was relied on too heavily (which by itself doesn't connect to all the other conspiracies that the GOP is trying to use to discredit the investigation because the GOP wants to protect Trump).
"Too heavily" now? LOL.

Look, considering what we've learned about the dossier and how the information was obtained, this matters. The Bureau appeared to trust Steele and made little to no effort to assess the credibility of his informants (and their informants).

EDIT: And what prevented the FBI for including the term "opposition research" in that footnote, which would have been a more accurate description of Simpson's efforts?
   1948. -- Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5630298)
Far be it from me to defend the NRA, but that's exactly what happened in the Texas church shooting.


It can happen; it just can't be depended on to happen.

And they got him after he left the church, and 26 deaths isn't exactly a success story.
   1949. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5630300)
It can happen; it just can't be depended on to happen.


Then why have cops at all. If a policeman's only 2 options in a crisis are to either run and hide, or shoot into a crowd of innocent bystanders, why have police? Wouldn't we save $billions?
   1950. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:32 PM (#5630301)
Why does it matter? Do you think changing the description would or should have any effect on a courts decision to grant the application?
   1951. tshipman Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:33 PM (#5630303)
The Schiff memo argues that plenty of other evidence was used in the application, which is largely redacted but plausible considering that Page was previously of interest anyway and you know coincidentally there was a significant Russian operation underway to influence the election.


Right. The only factual dispute is how important the dossier was on the initial application.

Schiff describes it as a tipping point, with a bunch of other evidence providing the background, and the dossier being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Nunes describes it as being the entire case, with several quotes that are not placed in context and difficult to evaluate.

***

The rest of the Schiff memo largely shows that Nunes was being misleading or mendacious. There are no other items that are really disputed.

   1952. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:34 PM (#5630304)
"Approximate location" is nowhere near good enough to start shooting into crowds of kids.

Welcome to the world or argunig with a moron Clapper, where the deputy's only two options are to cower and hide or shoot into crowd of kids. No other action is possible.

Miserlou is so desperate to take potshots at me that he's willing to beclown himself in the attempt. Only SBB is arguing for the SRO "shooting into crowds of kids", and even he is using it as a straw man. All I've said is the SRO, and the 3 other quickly-arriving Sheriffs Deputies, should have implemented the active shooter rapid deployment strategy as they had been trained, pursuant to the post-Columbine consensus of the professional law enforcement community. That's what the Coral Springs Police did when they arrived. Those insisting the officers should have done nothing have such a weak argument that they have continually made up stuff here to try to defend the indefensible.

EDIT: I appear to have misconstrued Misirlou, misled by the lack of a comma and my own haste. Apologies. The point about SBB stands.
   1953. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5630305)
Well you are an idiot Clapper because Miserlou is calling SBB a moron.

Actually, you're both morons.
   1954. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:38 PM (#5630306)
Why does it matter? Do you think changing the description would or should have any effect on a courts decision to grant the application?
It certainly seems possible. And I'll ask you a variation of the same question: If it's so harmless, why wouldn't the FBI officials overseeing the warrant application provide a more accurate description of the work of Simpson-Steele?
   1955. BrianBrianson Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5630307)
More making up stuff. The idea that the shooter was some ultra-competent special forces ninja capable of simulateously shooting students and preventing anyone from entering a large building with multiple entrances has no basis in reality. Has anyone outside of this thread made that argument?


Yeah, that's a bit daft. Two people with minimal to no training shooting at each other - they could fire off a hundred shots and not hit each other. Which wouldn't be a bad idea if it weren't a crowded, enclosed space.
   1956. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:40 PM (#5630308)
Right. The only factual dispute is how important the dossier was on the initial application.

Schiff describes it as a tipping point, with a bunch of other evidence providing the background, and the dossier being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Nunes describes it as being the entire case, with several quotes that are not placed in context and difficult to evaluate.
Look, it's quite simple: When the Nunes memo was released, Democrats cried out that the description of McCabe's testimony was inaccurate. And yet, in both the Nadler and Schiff rebuttals, none of the earlier objections were put in writing. So why now the silence? Hmmm.
   1957. BrianBrianson Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:43 PM (#5630309)
Then why have cops at all. If a policeman's only 2 options in a crisis are to either run and hide, or shoot into a crowd of innocent bystanders, why have police? Wouldn't we save $billions?


Police function just as well where they don't even carry guns. They do a lot of stuff.

But we don't know that Paul Blart ran and hid - only that he stayed outside. Maybe he was searching his emails on his phone for that video he had to watch on what to do about school shootings that he had to watch a decade ago, and pass a 10 question multiple choice test on.
   1958. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5630313)
One more thing: Let's remember that all of the HPSCI Republicans voted in favor of releasing the Schiff memo and even Trump didn't object so it doesn't sound like anyone was overly afraid of the Schiff rebuttal's contents.
   1959. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5630314)
You keep propping up straw men, and ignoring that law enforcement professionals came to a consensus that the best tactic for active shooter incidents was a rapid deployment strategy. That doesn't mean charging into a building firing indiscriminately, but it certainly doesn't mean pretending it's a hostage situation and just waiting outside. Police are trained to enter the building and proceed to the sound of the gunfire, using available cover. Again, those arguing for the superiority of other tactics are just making up stuff.

Superiority? Saying that the protocol is to go in regardless of the odds does not mean that doing that is the superior tactic. Also these so called "rapid deployment strategies" that have been in place since post Columbine have done what exactly? Where have we seen them deployed and proven effective? What is the procedure for a lone cop armed with a handgun?


Hey, we also had "No Child Left Behind" I guess we should take that literally just as it seems you're really really balls deep on this "rapid deployment strategy".
   1960. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:46 PM (#5630316)
1954- it doesn't seem possible it would affect a courts decision. I think the FBI deliberately did not "unmask" people and organizations it didn't have to. I also am not sure if they knew that the Clinton campaign was behind it at the time of the application but it really doesn't matter because contrary to the deliberately misleading claims in the Nunes memo it doesn't matter.
   1961. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:47 PM (#5630317)
I can't believe you're this ####### stupid, so I'm going to assume that you're desperately trolling here (which is underscored by the fact that you're describing your own asinine comments as "bait." THAT. IS. THEIR. JOB. If you don't grasp that, you're not intellectually qualified to be in this discussion; if you grasp it but won't admit it, then you're not morally qualified to be in it.

Once more. It is not their job to die for you. No matter how bold you make that statement or I firmly you believe it. The bait part was the salary which I figured you being the pedant would quibble with.
   1962. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5630319)
1954- it doesn't seem possible it would affect a courts decision. I think the FBI deliberately did not "unmask" people and organizations it didn't have to. I also am not sure if they knew that the Clinton campaign was behind it at the time of the application but it really doesn't matter because contrary to the deliberately misleading claims in the Nunes memo it doesn't matter.
So "opposition research" would have been considered "unmasking?" How so? And are you saying there's a material difference after all?

And Fusion GPS is known in DC as a firm that does, among other things, oppo research.

On a related note, has anyone bothered to offer a convincing explanation why Team Clinton lied to the faces of the Washington press corps about its connection to the dossier? If this was so above board -- hey, everyone does oppo research! -- why did the lying continue throughout most of 2017 until Simpson revealed the info toward the end of the year? Why hide it to the point of lying to Maggie Haberman and other journalists?
   1963. tshipman Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:52 PM (#5630321)
It certainly seems possible. And I'll ask you a variation of the same question: If it's so harmless, why wouldn't the FBI officials overseeing the warrant application provide a more accurate description of the work of Simpson-Steele?


From the very good Lawfare blog summary linked above:


In the earlier controversy, Nunes fretted that Obama administration officials had allegedly sought the unmasking of U.S. persons whose identities had been “minimized”—masked by generic words like “U.S. Person #1” in intelligence reporting—for supposedly political reasons. Leave aside for the time being that there appears to be no evidence that anyone behaved inappropriately in whatever unmaskings took place during that episode. Here Nunes’s complaint appears to be exactly the opposite: that the FBI was not unmasking the identities of U.S. persons and entities in its interactions with the FISA court.

The significance of these non-unmaskings is that they formed the basis for the Nunes memo’s allegations that the Justice Department and the FBI omitted from the Carter Page FISA application information on who created and funded the dossier that would have brought its reliability into question. While the application did indicate that “Steele was working for a named U.S. person,” the Nunes memo complained, it “did not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson.” The committee majority also argued that neither the original application nor any of the renewal applications “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.”

The Demo, by contrast, states that the decision not to directly identify Simpson stemmed from “longstanding [Justice Department] practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not ‘unmasking’ U.S. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.” The Demo doesn’t resist the opportunity of poking the majority on the contradiction of faulting the Obama-era investigation both for unmasking some Trump-related subjects and for not unmasking others, noting that “the Committee Majority … earlier accused Obama Administration officials of improper ‘unmasking.’” If the explanation is really as benign as the Demo suggests, the poke is justified.


This one should be relatively settled. In fact, it's exactly what one poster who worked with classified documents told you at the time of the release of the Nunes memo.

Look, it's quite simple: When the Nunes memo was released, Democrats cried out that the description of McCabe's testimony was inaccurate. And yet, in both the Nadler and Schiff rebuttals, none of the earlier objections were put in writing. So why now the silence? Hmmm.


1. In matters of judgment, reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps others simply disagreed with McCabe.
2. Nunes's quote was misleading, removing crucial context. However, that testimony is still classified, making it difficult to show how the context differed.

In any case, it's almost completely immaterial. As the Schiff memo points out:
In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting.


So you don't have the most sympathetic subject for your case, to put it lightly.
   1964. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:54 PM (#5630322)
and he was soon joined by 3 other Sheriffs Deputies, who unfortunately also didn't enter the building.


So despite you keep saying that rushing in is the standard operating procedure and is the consensus of law enforcement officers when it was actually time for the trained law enforcement officers to do just what you wanted them to do they didn't do it. More came and not all of them went in either.

   1965. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:59 PM (#5630324)
It is not their job to die for you.


Funny, I thought their job was to "Serve and Protect".

Seems like the only things he "protected" were his ass and his pension ...
   1966. Count Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:05 PM (#5630326)
JE the distinction between what they wrote and what you are suggesting is so small that it's getting silly. Again, no idea why a court would care.

I don't have a good explanation for the Clinton people lying beyond the fact that they habitually lie. It is possible that they were insulated enough that they didn't know they were funding the dossier but the lawyer should have corrected them if he did know (which I assume).
   1967. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:07 PM (#5630327)
This one should be relatively settled.
Again, nowhere is the term "opposition research" mentioned. Why not?
In fact, it's exactly what one poster who worked with classified documents told you at the time of the release of the Nunes memo.
That would only explain why there's no mention of individual names. Again, it doesn't explain the weak footnote description.
So you don't have the most sympathetic subject for your case, to put it lightly.
Right, that's Schiff's claim. Nunes and Grassley-Graham say otherwise.

And it's still noted that you and others continuously shy away from addressing the Grassley-Graham criminal referral of Steele, even though the (classified) memo predates Nunes, and backs up the latter.
   1968. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5630328)
. . . and he was soon joined by 3 other Sheriffs Deputies, who unfortunately also didn't enter the building.

So despite you keep saying that rushing in is the standard operating procedure and is the consensus of law enforcement officers when it was actually time for the trained law enforcement officers to do just what you wanted them to do they didn't do it. More came and not all of them went in either.

Why do you keep suggesting there isn't a post-Columbine law enforcement consensus on a rapid deployment response in active shooter incidents? You have a computer, by now, you certainly made some effort to find support for your contention, yet provided nothing but your own opinion. Yes, the Sheriffs Deputies performed poorly, but how does that excuse them? Are they being defended anywhere outside of this thread? The other police followed the rapid deployment plan, and I haven't seen anyone say those folks should be disciplined for departing from the stand & wait strategy.
   1969. Swoboda is freedom Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5630329)
So despite you keep saying that rushing in is the standard operating procedure and is the consensus of law enforcement officers

Because the shooting are still fairly rare. Way to common but still rare. Most cops are not trained on how to deal with it, so they wait.

The tactic that works best is the rush, but for most cops entering a active fire fight is not a preferred option.
   1970. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5630330)
We'll know more when the report comes out supposedly this week but it appears that that the Coral Springs cops arrived after the shooting had stopped. Which is a bit different of a situation to walk up on than rapid gunfire and screaming. Would be interesting to know what the three local cops came up on when they decided to stay behind. It also appears that multiple cops stayed behind even after some Coral Springs cops chose to go in.
   1971. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:10 PM (#5630331)
JE the distinction between what they wrote and what you are suggesting is so small that it's getting silly.
While others believe one campaign effectively weaponizing the federal government against the other through a FISA warrant requires way more care than the weak-ass language contained in the footnote.
   1972. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:11 PM (#5630334)
The tactic that works best is the rush, but for most cops entering a active fire fight is not a preferred option

Again, what do you mean by rush? What is the tactic for a lone cop with a handgun?



Why do you keep suggesting there isn't a post-Columbine law enforcement consensus on a rapid deployment response in active shooter incidents? You have a computer, by now, you certainly made some effort to find support for your contention, yet provided nothing but your own opinion. Yes, the Sheriffs Deputies performed poorly, but how does that excuse them? Are they being defended anywhere outside of this thread? The other police followed the rapid deployment plan, and I haven't seen anyone say those folks should be disciplined for departing from the stand & wait strategy.


Why do you keep going strawman? What is the actual tactic? Saying rapid over and over and over doesn't actually mean what I think you think it means. What is the tactic for a lone cop with a handgun? How does he proceed? How recklessly does he have to charge towards the shooter to have made a difference in this situation?
   1973. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:15 PM (#5630336)
Funny, I thought their job was to "Serve and Protect".

Seems like the only things he "protected" were his ass and his pension ...


That's because you haven't kept up with the law. The supreme court ruled that cops do not have a duty to protect you. This is why David's antics are so amusing. He's a lawyer, he appears to know about this ruling and yet insists that they must die for him.
   1974. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:20 PM (#5630338)
Miserlou is so desperate to take potshots at me that he's willing to beclown himself in the attempt. Only SBB is arguing for the SRO "shooting into crowds of kids", and even he is using it as a straw man.


WTF?!

edit: missed the edit.
   1975. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:23 PM (#5630340)
Four "good guys with guns," all "trained" -- and none of them made a bit of difference. That's the world of real human beings, as opposed to the fantasyland of the NRA and its lackeys.

Far be it from me to defend the NRA, but that's exactly what happened in the Texas church shooting.
It's also what happened in the congressional baseball shooting, despite the efforts of some to obscure that. It's also what happened at the Draw Mohammed shooting in Garland, Texas -- where a cop with a Glock stopped two terrorists armed with semiautomatic rifles, and the only injury they inflicted was a minor wound to an unarmed security guard.
   1976. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:24 PM (#5630341)
Avi Mayer:
Al Jazeera's Faisal al-Kasim, one of the most influential TV personalities in the Arab world, asked his five million followers, in Arabic, who they'd support if war broke out between Israel and Iran and its militias in Syria.

56% said Israel.

The times, they are a-changin'...
Note too that Al Jazeera is a Qatari entity so closer to the Iranian regime and hardly pro-Saudi or Emirati.
   1977. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:26 PM (#5630342)

You are the only one arguing for "shooting into crowds of kids". It gets dumber each time you repeat it.
No. You can't get dumber than peak SBB.

The entire argument is a fabrication, including the "crowds of kids." The only time we know of that Cruz was in crowds of kids was after he stopped being an active shooter, when he left the school after having dropped his weapon.
   1978. zenbitz Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:28 PM (#5630343)
So you think it is a police officer's job to step in front of a bullet for you?


No, I think it's their job to prevent children from being massacred. Up to and including taking a bullet for them. Not me.

I'm a middle aged white dude. If I have *any* reasonable chance of protecting kids from being slaughtered in school, I would like to think I'd take that chance.

   1979. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:32 PM (#5630345)

No, I think it's their job to prevent children from being massacred. Up to and including taking a bullet for them. Not me.


Except that isn't their job.
   1980. tshipman Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:34 PM (#5630346)
And it's still noted that you and others continuously shy away from addressing the Grassley-Graham criminal referral of Steele.


I addressed it when it happened. I'll pull one of your preferred rhetorical strategies and ask you to google it.

Again, nowhere is the term "opposition research" mentioned. Why not?


Here's what the Schiff memo quotes the application as saying:
[Steele] was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.



I mean, what about that is unclear? Do you think that all the judges who work on FISA are idiots?
   1981. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5630347)
It certainly seems possible. And I'll ask you a variation of the same question: If it's so harmless, why wouldn't the FBI officials overseeing the warrant application provide a more accurate description of the work of Simpson-Steele?
The Schiff memo implies that they did not have any more information. It quotes the warrant application as saying, "The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 [Steele] as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1 's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S.. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." So it was 100% accurate, and as precise as it could be. And gave the judge the information needed to assess the application: that it was coming from someone anti-Trump, as opposed to some neutral party. It doesn't matter whether that person was a Republican or a Democrat -- although only a delusional troll loon pretends to think that it was a 50-50 possibility -- as long as the person was known to be anti-Trump.

EDIT: I'll give Shipman half a can of coke.
   1982. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:40 PM (#5630348)
Why do you keep going strawman?

The existence of a law enforcement best practice of attempting to rapidly neutralize an active shooter is no strawman:
Unquestionably, the sooner police officers make entry into the hot/kill zone, the better for the innocents in harm’s way. If the shooter(s) is still actively killing, the goal is simple: stop the killing. If the active killer is gone or has self-inflicted — as they are often do — then your mission is to make a safe area for “downrange EMS” and treat the most severely wounded with the gear you have.

Here are four things the first arriving officer should do to save as many lives as possible:

1. Don’t wait for four officers. If your training/policy still requires a four-officer team, you are long out of date. Several studies point to the need for an instant response by the first responding officer.

2. Make immediate entry into the hot/kill zone and begin hunting the killer(s). Keep dispatch frequently advised of your location so arriving officers can find you and combine into a more effective team.

No one said this is easy, which is one reason there is so much emphasis on training (since actual incidents are thankfully rare), but rapid deployment is the standard policy.
   1983. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:42 PM (#5630349)
It's also what happened at the Draw Mohammed shooting in Garland, Texas -- where a cop with a Glock stopped two terrorists armed with semiautomatic rifles, and the only injury they inflicted was a minor wound to an unarmed security guard.

um, the Draw Mohammed shooting happened in a heavily policed event and the two shooters opened fire on a cop and a guard in a cop car. It was a SWAT team that eventually killed them.
   1984. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5630350)
I addressed it when it happened. I'll pull one of your preferred rhetorical strategies and ask you to google it.
Snore. I'll concede you might have given a passing wave at Grassley-Graham the day it got released, but all I've seen for the past few weeks is you and others (and friendly analysts) going after Nunes, presumably because you folks think it's far easier to make him the villain.
The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.
First, it's got a passive tone, particularly when compared to the earlier sentences. For example, how did the FBI know with absolute certainty that the "U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation" but didn't firmly establish that Simpson was conducting opposition research?
   1985. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5630351)
The existence of a law enforcement best practice of attempting to rapidly neutralize an active shooter is no strawman:

I don't think you understand the strawman argument. I'm stating you're giving me a false position and arguing against that.

your link is odd in that it is a person saying here is how we can make the strategy more effective which argues that it what he is suggesting is not the established doctrine. The link also points out that the first people on the scene do in fact delay rushing in. In fact the link is stating that it is policy in places to wait to build a four man team.

So the reality looks like you are wrong. It is not established nor required doctrine for the first person to go rushing in like you kept stating it was.
   1986. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5630352)
Yeah, yeah, CNN is #FakeNews.

First story:
President Donald Trump's approval rating in a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS stands at 35%, down five points over the last month to match his lowest level yet.
Second story:
President Donald Trump's re-election campaign used a photo of a survivor of the Parkland, Florida, shooting in an email Saturday that asks its recipients to donate money to the campaign.
I'm sure Trump's Defense Brigade will be happy to justify the CREEP photo; doubtless some Dem, somewhere, at some point, has been just as reprehensible, and that makes it OK, if not required, right? Sure, make the argument.
   1987. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:47 PM (#5630353)
So you think it is a police officer's job to step in front of a bullet for you?

No, I think it's their job to prevent children from being massacred. Up to and including taking a bullet for them. Not me.

I'm a middle aged white dude. If I have *any* reasonable chance of protecting kids from being slaughtered in school, I would like to think I'd take that chance.
Right, like several teachers at the school did. But you might not. But as David French wrote -- I hate to keep quoting him the way Ray quotes Dilbert/Dershowitz/Turley, but he is sensible (and btw has military experience) -- in talking about the importance of courage:
We can and should state this moral truth while remaining deeply humble and self-aware. There is a world of difference between stating, “That cop should have intervened” and puffing out your chest and declaring, “I would have done better.” You can imagine the kind of person you want to be, and you can dream of being a hero, but many imaginary warriors have turned tail at the sound of the guns. Simply put, you don’t truly know how you’ll respond to a crisis until you’ve been in a crisis.
The issue isn't whether we here are better than Peterson. The issue is whether Peterson did his job. The fact that it was a hard job is an explanation, not a justification.
   1988. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:49 PM (#5630355)
Deciding to die for something is a personal choice not a job requirement.
   1989. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 06:55 PM (#5630356)
The Schiff memo implies that they did not have any more information.
So now we're saying the FBI didn't make much of an effort to dig into the dossier and its origins before using it as evidence to obtain a FISA warrant?

Sorry, no sale.

All of this stuff still needs to be declassified, with minimal redactions.
   1990. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:00 PM (#5630358)

um, the Draw Mohammed shooting happened in a heavily policed event and the two shooters opened fire on a cop and a guard in a cop car. It was a SWAT team that eventually killed them.
I see your silliness is as steadfast here as with respect to the baseball shooting. It doesn't matter whose bullets killed them. It matters who stopped them. The cop took them both down. The SWAT team killed them after they were both down (and, from the description, likely dying). And he did it despite being outnumbered, and outgunned, because despite you guys kneejerkedly chanting "assault weapon," that's not the primary factor.
   1991. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5630359)
Deciding to die for something is a personal choice not a job requirement.
The claim is both false and dishonest. We are not talking about "deciding to die." That is a fabrication and a strawman. We are talking about risking death, and that's a job requirement.
   1992. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5630361)

For example, how did the FBI know with absolute certainty that the "U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation"
Well, obviously they asked Steele. What else could they do? (Maybe they asked Simpson also.)
   1993. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5630362)

Actually, the key point in the Nunes memo is McCabe's assertion before HPSCI that, absent the dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant application.
No; that's only the key point if there was something wrong with them relying on the dossier. Such as them misleading the judge about its origins so that he/she gave it more credence than he should've. Which Nunes implied, but which Schiff refutes.
   1994. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5630363)
your link is odd in that it is a person saying here is how we can make the strategy more effective which argues that it what he is suggesting is not the established doctrine. The link also points out that the first people on the scene do in fact delay rushing in. In fact the link is stating that it is policy in places to wait to build a four man team.

McCoy seems determined to misconstrue all the evidence contrary to his position, even at the cost of being deliberately disingenuous. The article is about the most effective way to implement the rapid deployment strategy. That there are continued refinements to the strategy doesn't indicate rapid deployment isn't the standard practice. The article, which is from 2016, also points out that any policy of waiting for other officers "is long out of date". McCoy can nit-pick all day, but he has yet to provide any justification for the standing & waiting approach, and I have yet to see a defense elsewhere.
   1995. Swoboda is freedom Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:12 PM (#5630364)
Deciding to die for something is a personal choice not a job requirement.

All jobs have risks. This one was more obvious than most. Firemen do that every day. They go into a fire. Cops are supposedly trained for this.

No one is asking him to throw his life away. But remember the cop has several tactical advantages
1) He knows where the suspect is (approximately)
2) There are students that will help and guide him there.
3) The gunman does not know he is there.
4) The gunman is probably not aware of his surroundings. He his hunting easy prey, not looking at his 6. He could be surprised.
5) The gunman's weapon advantage is more limited inside the building. We are not in an open field where we are shooting 25+ meters. We are close in, probably 20 feet max range.
6) The policeman can get in a cover position and surprise him.

Remember the Texas tower shooting? A single policeman, with a civilian covering the door, killed the shooter. Once they were in close range, the officers pistol was a pretty effective weapon.
   1996. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:13 PM (#5630365)
Well, obviously they asked Steele. What else could they do? (Maybe they asked Simpson also.)
So in this instance there's certitude but two sentences later there's mealy-mouthed language when it comes to Simpson's and Steele's intentions? Come on.
   1997. Greg K Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:15 PM (#5630367)
Al Jazeera's Faisal al-Kasim, one of the most influential TV personalities in the Arab world, asked his five million followers, in Arabic, who they'd support if war broke out between Israel and Iran and its militias in Syria.

56% said Israel.

The times, they are a-changin'...
Note too that Al Jazeera is a Qatari entity so closer to the Iranian regime and hardly pro-Saudi or Emirati.

It certainly seems like the Middle East is increasingly defined by the Saudi/Iran rivalry. Even Israel is secondary.
   1998. Stormy JE Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5630368)
No; that's only the key point if there was something wrong with them relying on the dossier. Such as them misleading the judge about its origins so that he/she gave it more credence than he should've. Which Nunes implied, but which Schiff refutes.
Again, come on. Schiff attempts to refute.

We've yet to see proof the Bureau credibly attempted to corroborate any of the Steele assertions, which came not from Steele himself but his informants and informants of informants.
   1999. -- Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:26 PM (#5630370)
The entire argument is a fabrication, including the "crowds of kids."


Yeah, it's not like there are 3,000 students at the school or anything.

You're lying -- yet again.

I hate to keep quoting him the way Ray quotes Dilbert/Dershowitz/Turley, but he is sensible (and btw has military experience) -- in talking about the importance of courage:


You have no standing whatever to lecture anyone about "courage."

And your hissy fit about the deaths being "abstract" now looks even more ridiculous with your blathering about other people completely unknown to you not showing the requisite "courage."
   2000. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 25, 2018 at 07:29 PM (#5630371)

So in this instance there's certitude but two sentences later there's mealy-mouthed language when it comes to Simpson's and Steele's intentions? Come on.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you think that they should have the same amount of certainty about different factual assertions just because these assertions are near each other in the affidavit.

Steele to FBI: "I developed this after I was hired by Fusion/Simpson."
FBI: "Okay, but who hired Simpson?"
Steele: "A law firm hired him."
FBI: "Yes, but who was the ultimate client?"
Steele: "I can't be sure. I was never told."

FBI to Simpson: "Who's your client?"
Simpson: "I'm not revealing that. All I will tell you is that it's someone politically motivated."
Page 20 of 23 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWeekend OMNICHATTER for September 22-23, 2018
(128 - 4:04pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(2162 - 4:03pm, Sep 23)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogTickets available as Marlins host Reds
(31 - 4:03pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMariners extend longest postseason drought in major North American sports to 17 years
(2 - 3:50pm, Sep 23)
Last: Endless Trash

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(86 - 3:32pm, Sep 23)
Last: Toby

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(530 - 2:32pm, Sep 23)
Last: Athletic Supporter is USDA certified lean

NewsblogDodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig burglarized for the fourth time
(10 - 1:36pm, Sep 23)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(164 - 1:36pm, Sep 23)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com

NewsblogFive Tool Players | Articles | Bill James Online
(1 - 1:33pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(825 - 12:26pm, Sep 23)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogWainwright impresses Giants' Bochy
(13 - 12:09pm, Sep 23)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(12 - 11:55am, Sep 23)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(66 - 11:37am, Sep 23)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(383 - 10:56am, Sep 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT - August/September 2018 College Football thread
(282 - 10:07am, Sep 23)
Last: dlf

Page rendered in 0.7270 seconds
46 querie(s) executed