Subject: OT: "Weaponized obfuscation"
What a great phrase!
'An ugly pattern
This is part of a pattern, in which one absurd conspiracy theory after
another has crashed and burned. Let’s review:
The Nunes memo actually revealed that the genesis of the FBI probe of
Trump-Russia collusion was the activity of a Trump adviser
(Papadopoulos) who had been apprised of dirt gathered by Russia on
Clinton. It predated the FBI’s use of the Steele dossier, which is at
the center of the grand alt-narrative, and showed that the FBI probe had
been repeatedly validated by judges.
Republicans release a September 2016 text between the FBI’s Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page, which said Barack Obama “wants to know everything we’re
doing.” This is supposed to demonstrate Obama interference in the FBI
probe of Clinton. But there was no Clinton probe at the time — it had
been resolved in July (and was only reopened in late October). What’s
more, associates of Strzok and Page say Obama actually wanted
information on Russian meddling. This makes much more sense — and, if
true, it shows that this “scandal” is that Obama wanted information on
Russian sabotage of our democracy, which Trump still often maintains
Republicans darkly said another Strzok-Page text containing the words
“secret society” signaled deep FBI corruption. Then the full text was
released, and it turned out to be about calendars and appeared to be a joke.
Congressional GOP investigators are preparing to interview an informant
who supposedly has the goods on the Uranium One “scandal,” in which
Clinton supposedly authorized a deal in which Russia obtained uranium
extraction rights in the United States, in exchange for kickbacks to the
Clinton Foundation. But top Oversight and Intelligence committee
Democrats just released a letter claiming that the Justice Department
privately briefed committee staffers and told them that the Justice
Department had actually dismissed the reliability of this informant in a
separate investigation. To be fair, this has not been confirmed. But as
it is, the idea that the Uranium One deal is a scandal has already been
thoroughly debunked. And independent reporting is likely to confirm that
account soon enough.'
Now remember this, wing nuts:
You can't refute any of this except with actual facts.