MooreTrucker said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Yeah. I'll believe this destroyed the Dems when I see that from somewhere other than The Federalist.

---

Somewhere such as.....?

---

I want it piped into about 100 mil households. It's hard to imagine the Federalist reaches enough warm bodies to move the needle.

We have huge volumes of evidence that the human memory and human perception are FAR from precise, and that functionally, in order to process the vast volumes of input from our senses, we automatically categorize, stereotype, conflate, the information we retain and compress it by discarding or ignoring most details and incorporating the memory into narratives that already exist.

Very few of us can recall to a great level of detail anything, with precision, over time. We can recall a few outstanding details and feelings, perceptions, and impressions.

We relied on memory when we had nothing better. We are well aware of its deep flaws as an unbiased precision recording medium, however.

aggiehawg said:

---

I just thought of something that my late uncle, who was a brilliant doctor, always said. He didn't remember printed words unless he read them out loud to himself. His memory was triggered by auditory stimuli, not his vision. (I'm the exact opposite, I remember what is written, even dream in print at times.)

How many times a year are FBI agents tested on their hearing and retention of that information? Since the FBI refuses to have either video or audio recordings of their interviews and interrogations, shouldn't that be a requirement for agents writing 302s after the fact?

Seems simple to me as different people retain information in far different ways.

---

How often FBI agents are administered lie detector tests may correlate with memory retention as well. If I remember correctly, Strzok flunked his last one in January 2016 -- it's called 'out of scope' not flunked -- & then he accurately writes Flynn's 302 the following month??? Seems that ought to be an issue raised by Sydney Powell as well.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/29/peter-strzoks-out-of-scope-polygraph/

MouthBQ98 said:

---

We have huge volumes of evidence that the human memory and human perception are FAR from precise, and that functionally, in order to process the vast volumes of input from our senses, we automatically categorize, stereotype, conflate, the information we retain and compress it by discarding or ignoring most details and incorporating the memory into narratives that already exist.

Very few of us can recall to a great level of detail anything, with precision, over time. We can recall a few outstanding details and feelings, perceptions, and impressions.

We relied on memory when we had nothing better. We are well aware of its deep flaws as an unbiased precision recording medium, however.

---

Agree. And the overtime aspect is the critical one. Even the rules of evidence acknowledge that near contemporaneous memorializations written by the same witness can be used to refresh the witnesses' memory.

One other thing truly bothers me and that the precise nature and content of the question being posed. For FBI agents who are not lawyers, can they really pose a concise question that is black and white as to whether the answer is truthful or not?

I go back to the anathema that was Franken's question to Sessions at his confirmation hearing that was a complete mishmash and led to Sessions (stupidly) answering the question he thought he was being asked.

If one is witness, never assume you and the questioner are on the same page, especially if it is a third rate comedian-turned-Senator like Franken. Unless it involves bananas and apes, Franken was never on anybody else's page.

(Same problem with Chris "Tingles" Matthews. Throws so much complete crap in the multiple predicates in his rapid fire questions, that Zell Miller had enough and wanted to threaten Matthews to a duel. The Hubs and I were howling and then stood up and saluted Zell over that one.)

Mouth, I'm still talking about our big victory at Clemson this year!!

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190021183510646784.html

Strong evidence that Team Mueller (Van Grack) has hidden original 302s + drafts on the Flynn interview including a 302 written by Pientka. Lied to Powell as well. Lies, lies & more damn lies.

---

Or Strozk's notes were written after Page's edits so there would be some back up for those 30 statements.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190042002328621056.html

Short thread on Lee Smith's new book. Some interesting revelations:
There were 'protodossiers' floating around prior to Steele's Dossier.
Steele cut & pasted some material into the Dossier from earlier reports.
Whatever Brennan told Harry Reid, Nunes confirmed that Brennan didn't tell him.
"The financial collapse of the press was followed by its professional and ethical collapse."
Rosenstein lied about there being no 302s on Bruce Ohr, or he was out of the loop.
Steele likely wasn't the author of the Dossier.

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190042002328621056.html

Short thread on Lee Smith's new book. Some interesting revelations:
There were 'protodossiers' floating around prior to Steele's Dossier.
Steele cut & pasted some material into the Dossier from earlier reports.
Whatever Brennan told Harry Reid, Nunes confirmed that Brennan didn't tell him.
"The financial collapse of the press was followed by its professional and ethical collapse."
Rosenstein lied about there being no 302s on Bruce Ohr, or he was out of the loop.
Steele likely wasn't the author of the Dossier.

---

Steele wasn't the author of the Dossier just like Mueller wasn't the author of the Mueller Report...it's amazing the amount of subterfuge we have to wade through to even get a morsel of the truth. It pisses me off to no end.

I know nothing regarding the above poster. Someone I follow retweeted this.

crinum, I don't care, I like it. I've decided to take the Dem view of things, and if it sounds good, pass it along as fact.

SIAP



https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/31/cia-director-deep-state/

I'll out this over here too, since it deals with the obstruction stuff that Mueller put in his report. Kinda scary.

Interesting article on what the Democrats might be trying to do. By Sundance

Wildcat said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Yeah. I'll believe this destroyed the Dems when I see that from somewhere other than The Federalist.

---

Somewhere such as.....?

---

I want it piped into about 100 mil households. It's hard to imagine the Federalist reaches enough warm bodies to move the needle.

---

Wanting it broadcast to the masses is different from not believing it until you hear it from ....whoever...

We ALL want it broadcast to the masses, but still believe it's true.

Half the country thought OJ was framed after seeing it on TV.

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

scottimus said:

---

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

---

Tucker's days at Fox are numbered. The ruling class can't allow someone with high ratings exposing them night after night.

Tom Hagen said:

---

scottimus said:

---

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

---

Tucker's days at Fox are numbered. The ruling class can't allow someone with high ratings exposing them night after night.

---

Another network will emerge or Fox will lose enough viewers they will skew back to the right...there are WAY too many people who recognize the MSM as the leftist propaganda machine they've become to not impact that decision.

At the end of the day these networks are still driven by money and more and more younger Americans are getting their news from non-traditional sources...at some point they will have to adapt or die.

My guess is another news network will rise out of the ashes or OAN or Newsmax will take off. Too much conservative talent to just go away (Tucker, Hannity, O'Reilly, and others).

That's a disturbing article to read.

Rapier108 said:

---

SIAP



https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/31/cia-director-deep-state/

---

The last part they guy said about the CIA being the most honest group in Washington should get anyone banned from all public service and should have gotten him laughed off stage.

drcrinum said:

---

That's a disturbing article to read.

---

Yes it is. The Last Refuge has been saying from the beginning that the House will impeach. When you make the rules, you hold the keys.

Its funny how for years and years we have heard...

"There is no Deep State, it is all just right wing conspiracy theory."

NOW they want to praise it and knowledge it saying it is patriotic Americans.

Prosperdick said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

scottimus said:

---

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

---

Tucker's days at Fox are numbered. The ruling class can't allow someone with high ratings exposing them night after night.

---

Another network will emerge or Fox will lose enough viewers they will skew back to the right...there are WAY too many people who recognize the MSM as the leftist propaganda machine they've become to not impact that decision.

At the end of the day these networks are still driven by money and more and more younger Americans are getting their news from non-traditional sources...at some point they will have to adapt or die.

---

I think that too. At least I hope so and another network will see the opportunity to capture us starving viewers to the political right.
Networks have to see and know that they have lost so much credibility and perhaps the only remedy is to jettison much of their staffs and remake themselves. I'm hoping one of the major networks (abc, nbc, cbs) will make that move. We will see? Perhaps CBS will be the one to make the move first and grab the golden goose that is waiting?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/donald-trump-versus-the-interagency-consensus/

Quote:

---

.....The people doing these things may even sincerely justify what they're doing as motivated by patriotism, but that doesn't mean these abuses aren't being done at the expense of a vision of America at odds with what the people want. Even if you don't like Trump, this is a huge threat to the rule of law and the legitimacy of federal governance in the eyes of American citizens.

A Bureaucrat 'Consensus' Versus the Elected President

With that in mind, an aspect of Vindman's testimony against Trump did raise alarm bells. "In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency," Vindman said in his opening statement. "This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."

What are the "consensus views of the interagency" in this context?.....

---

Excellent article -- well worth a read. Discusses how unelected federal bureaucrats have become very powerful & are running the government in many ways, despite the will of the majority of the populace in many cases. I believe "Agency Consensus" is somewhat different in concept than "Deep State" = "The Swamp"; the latter is usually associated with typical political power, corruption, kickbacks, ulterior motives, personal/family financial gain, etc,, whereas the former is aligned more with ideology & self importance. There is definitely overlap, & the Deep State can certainly manipulate Agency Consensus, something at which Obama was very good.

MooreTrucker said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Yeah. I'll believe this destroyed the Dems when I see that from somewhere other than The Federalist.

---

Somewhere such as.....?

---

I want it piped into about 100 mil households. It's hard to imagine the Federalist reaches enough warm bodies to move the needle.

---

Wanting it broadcast to the masses is different from not believing it until you hear it from ....whoever...

We ALL want it broadcast to the masses, but still believe it's true.

---

I didn't write that I didn't believe the story, but that it "destroyed the Dems". If no one is talking about it because it is being reported on a web site with a following in the tens of thousands, it won't move the needle, let alone destroy anyone.

PearlJammin said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

That's a disturbing article to read.

---

Yes it is. The Last Refuge has been saying from the beginning that the House will impeach. When you make the rules, you hold the keys.

---

I am 51/49 that they won't.

They don't want the public to see the REAL information. Right not they can show their side, and keep the other side out of the story. IF they do impeach, it will open a whole can of worms because the Presidents team will bring out all the dirty little secrets from Russiagate and Phonegate. Not to mention it will be broadcast all over the MSM and local stations. Which will have a ton of eyeballs watching Trumps team shot hole after hole in the Democrats story.

I also think this sham of an impeachment whatever will go on until close to election day, when the Democrats will keep their "investigation" going but will say "We will just let the people decide at the ballot box."

That way if he wins, they can keep the charade going and harass him more during his second term. Or maybe THEN pass articles of impeachment.

If they impeach, doesn't it put the Senate members running for POTUS in the penalty box for the primaries? I don't see how they can do that

Interesting construct. Possible there's a few R's running for re-election not wanting to get their hands dirty with a full Senate trial ... but wouldn't it take 67 votes to change Senate rules to make this possible?

Sundance said:

---

This is my interpretation of what the Lawfare group will attempt.

"Concurrence of two-thirds of the members present"

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial. the media will be sympathetic.. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial "under oath and affirmation."

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require "two-thirds" or thirteen for a conviction. Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions. This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

---

ccatag said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

scottimus said:

---

Haven't seen it on this thread, but Catherine Herridge is jumping to CBS news.

Sad to see her go.

CNN reporting that Foxnews is going more NeverTrumper.

---

Tucker's days at Fox are numbered. The ruling class can't allow someone with high ratings exposing them night after night.

---

Another network will emerge or Fox will lose enough viewers they will skew back to the right...there are WAY too many people who recognize the MSM as the leftist propaganda machine they've become to not impact that decision.

At the end of the day these networks are still driven by money and more and more younger Americans are getting their news from non-traditional sources...at some point they will have to adapt or die.

---

I think that too. At least I hope so and another network will see the opportunity to capture us starving viewers to the political right.
Networks have to see and know that they have lost so much credibility and perhaps the only remedy is to jettison much of their staffs and remake themselves. I'm hoping one of the major networks (abc, nbc, cbs) will make that move. We will see? Perhaps CBS will be the one to make the move first and grab the golden goose that is waiting?

---

As long as Ben Rhodes's brother is president of CBS News don't hold your breath.

captkirk said:

---

If they impeach, doesn't it put the Senate members running for POTUS in the penalty box for the primaries? I don't see how they can do that

---

Read this article that I posted above. But I will post the relevant section in regards to a Senate trial. This is sundance's opinion:

Quote:

---

That brings up the Senate trial. From a review of their signaling and positioning, it appears to me the objective of the Lawfare group, via the impeachment managers, will center around modifications to Senate Impeachment Rules and the use of a Senatorial Trial Panel.

The senate rules on impeachment processes can be changed and modified [Example here from 1986]. Additionally there is nothing in the constitution that requires an established number of senators to sit or convict during the trial [Constitution, Article 1, Sec 3]:

This is my interpretation of what the Lawfare group will attempt.

"Concurrence of two-thirds of the members present"

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial. the media will be sympathetic.. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial "under oath and affirmation."

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require "two-thirds" or thirteen for a conviction. Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions. This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

---

So if they could get their jury of 10 Rep. and 10 Dem. it would only take 3 Republicans to jump ship and vote for impeachment to succeed. And you know the Republican Senators that the Democrats would try to get on the jury...

Collins
Murkowski
Romney

To name a few.

Short video clip via Catherine Herridge. Sounds like they know Vindman stepped out of bounds.

Where is the IG report? I hope they are securing indictments right now and that's why we can't see it.

These Trump Traps are pretty amazing.

benchmark said:

---

Interesting construct. Possible there's a few R's running for re-election not wanting to get their hands dirty with a full Senate trial ... but wouldn't it take 67 votes to change Senate rules to make this possible?

Sundance said:

---

This is my interpretation of what the Lawfare group will attempt.

"Concurrence of two-thirds of the members present"

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial. the media will be sympathetic.. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial "under oath and affirmation."

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require "two-thirds" or thirteen for a conviction. Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions. This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

---

---

There may not be anything in the constitution to prevent it, but no a senate controlled by Republicans would allow that to happen. If you think for one minute that Cocaine Mitch is going to let the sh/t flinging monkeys in the zoo that is the House dictate how (if) he conducts a trial, you haven't been paying attention.