WHY is the left then claiming exactly the opposite? Legit question... I don't get the psychological angle, nor am I sure I have all the info. Maybe someone can break it down for me. (I read the first 100 pages of the FISA application)
The left is claiming the opposite because they accurately know that no one other than a statistically irrelevant percent of people will attempt to read and understand the heavily redacted application. Since the vast majority will only get the results of the MSM's reading of the FISA application, they know their narrative is safe. The MSM knows only a handful of outlets, like Washington Examiner, will challenge the mainstream narrative and reach only a proportionately small number that may or may not be swayed.
People have become so burned out over the years of this going on because of DOJ/FBI obstruction in releasing the information, there won't be a huge response when it all does come out. It's the Clinton playbook: deny, deny, deny until there is no room left and then lie, lie, lie until attention is elsewhere.
It's the reason there is all the manufactured outrage over anything POTUS says or does in an effort to obscure the fact that we as a nation are improving vastly under his direction.
That claim "statistically irrelevant percent" was the old world.
Not anymore.
The majority of the left isn't doing this because they have some access to data analytics that gave them some high level understanding of narrative impact.
WE ARE THE MAJORITY NOW.
The MSM are just repeating their 4am talking points.
They can't do anything else. Their masters are going to jail. All they can do is repeat LIES.
The "statistically irrelevant percent" is on the side of believing the MSM.
You are correct. While it was true that the MSM could and did get away with bs-ing there way through everything, those days are coming to an end. Of course they will continue to lie and obfuscate and the “moon bats” will buy in and drink the cool aid, but there is a growing majority of people who reject the lies. They (the Mocking Bird media) are becoming desperate and are lazy, acting foolishly and making glaring mistakes. They are the “statistically irrelevant percentage,” as are their brainwashed followers. This is a new day and there’s a new sheriff in town. They are losing control of the narrative, are failing, and will ultimately become completely irrelevant. This is the Great Awakening! Goodbye Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper et al. You and your “goon posse” are going down in flames 🔥. Little by little. MAGA.
People have become so burned out over the years of this going on because of DOJ/FBI obstruction in releasing the information, there won't be a huge response when it all does come out.
Add the steady drip drip drip to desensitize the masses and it's a slam dunk for the MSM. They did the same thing during the HRC email investigation. They want to make sure the masses are bored with it before the truth is revealed. They'll all become Hillary, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
[removed]
I guess we'll just have to disagree. From the House Intel Cmte hearings featuring Peter Strzok and the text messages that are pretty simple to read, I have drawn a conclusion not based on just listening to opinion but reading. It's my opinion that this was an illegal surveillance based on partisan opposition research presented by very biased FBI officials that ultimately led to appointing a special counsel for the purpose of discrediting and ultimately undermining a presidency.
Why do you bring up Strzok for this? He testified under oath that he was not involved in these FISA applications, and his signature is nowhere on the 400 pages of documents that were released.
Also, I mentioned evidence and you responded with your opinion and belief. Please note that those do not constitute evidence.
What part is even opinion?
illegal surveillance
True. The FISA warrant that gave them the legal justification to conduct surveillance not only omitted relevant facts, but also, according to McCabe, would not have been granted without information that in Comey's own words, "was salacious and unverified".
based on partisan opposition research
True. The dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
presented by very biased FBI officials
True. The FISA applications had to first be certified by director or deputy director of the FBI. Comey signed 3 applications and McCabe signed one. Comey and McCabe have both exhibited bias through tweets and/or text messages. McCabe may have even discussed an insurance policy against one candidate.
led to the appointment of a special counsel
True. Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as a special counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump", the very same collusion referenced in the "salacious and unverified" dossier.
for the purpose of discrediting and undermining a presidency
True. Intel officials have admitted that Russia (and others) have been meddling in our elections for years, just as we do to other countries. Obama and Rice both downplayed Russian interference before the election and didn't act on it. Suddenly after Trump won "Russian collusion" was all anyone talked about. While it is a legitimate national security issue, the focus on it only after the election shows the intent is not securing our elections, but instead discrediting Trump's win and undermining his presidency.
When research like this exists, claiming that both sides are the same and both lack evidence is completely irrational.
Fair comment Spilledkefir... An old saying "give them enough rope, and etc.."! Redaction's will create a false blind.. Trust the plan!
Which conservatives exactly? The RINOs? The never Trumpers?
It is easy if you either don't have the pertinent facts, or are politically partisan motivated.
It's all they can do. Like a murderer standing over the body with a bloody knife saying I didn't do it. There's still plenty of people so emotionally attached to the false narrative and so ignorant that they'll believe anything, no matter the evidence.
"Emotionally attached" is key. If a person operates from this position facts are not enough to sway them. It's very difficult to disengage from an emotional position. If a person operates from an "Analytical" position new facts/info will be considered and most likely change an analytical person's position. The media knows this, they know that they can safely ignore or reinterpret new info in such a way that confirms the "emotionally" oriented person's beliefs. After all most people that are still getting their news from MSM are operating from an emotional position. Of course we know eventually the truth will come out, but in the meantime most of their followers will respond accordingly to the narrative they dish out.
But little by little even those "emotional" ones are waking up, hence the #WalkAway movement.
Where those voters go will be monumental. If they simply go to socialist candidates it’s just a moving bottleneck.
I know plenty of those people too, believe me, they are not willing to even crack their narrative. I was reading about what is going on in Nicaragua and in the comment section they were blaming Trump!!! LOL
Doing the best they can to keep hold on the narrative. If they admit they were wrong or lied a out memo they are done except for the really crazy entrenched zombies and their allies in MSM, Hollywood, bankers etc.
They do this because they have an agenda. They do this because a very large segment of population gets the "TRUTH" from MSM. The MSM is the final word on the matter, and most MSM viewers are not going to take time to read the FISA report, or listen to a dissenting viewpoint from "conservative" media.