we’re gonna have to have some good distractions to avoid the truth
m
All nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Chairman Adam Schiff resign his post. "We have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties," said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who led the House's Russia probe last year. Conaway said Schiff's insistence that there was ample evidence of collusion is "incompatible with your duties as the chairman of this committee." And he said the findings in special counsel Robert Mueller's report — which haven't yet been viewed by any members of Congress — "conclusively refute" Schiff's allegations.
This is Schiff's response:
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.
“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.
“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”
“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.
“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’
Ten post-Mueller questions that could turn the tables on Russia collusion investigators
BY JOHN SOLOMON
April 17th, 2019
Soon, the dust will settle from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and Americans will have a fuller understanding of why prosecutors concluded there wasn’t evidence to establish that Donald Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
At that point, many voters exhausted by the fizzling of a two-year scandal, once billed as the next Watergate, will want to move on like a foodie from an empty-calorie shake.
But a very important second phase of this drama is about to begin, as Attorney General William Barr, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) put the Russia collusion investigators under investigation.
Their work will be, and must be, far more than just a political boomerang.
It must answer, in balanced terms, whether the FBI was warranted in using the most awesome powers in the U.S. intelligence arsenal to spy on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign at the end of the 2016 election.
Investigators must determine, with neutrality, whether the bureau improperly colluded with paid agents of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign — Fusion GPS and its British operative, Christopher Steele — and then tried to hide those political ties and other evidence from the nation’s secret intelligence court.
For the likes of FBI castoffs James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, or Obama-era intelligence bosses John Brennan and James Clapper, there will be the additional uncomfortable reality that the Russia collusion narrative that they so publicly weaved through testimony, TV appearances, for-profit books and leaks, turned out to be as unsubstantiated as the Loch Ness monster.
The process of meting out accountability has begun.
Horowitz, my sources tell me, has interviewed between 50 and 100 witnesses in his exhaustive probe. Graham and his predecessor as Judiciary chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), laid out the most important investigative issues they saw in a letter last year. This month, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) sent a letter to DOJ identifying eight potential criminal referrals. His committee last year also released a memo on abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that may have occurred during the Russia probe.
And President Trump reportedly is readying an order to declassify five key buckets of documents on alleged FBI abuses.
My sources agree these 10 questions are the most important to be answered in the forthcoming probes:
1.) When did the FBI first learn that Steele’s dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party and written by a partisan who, by his own admission, was desperate to defeat Trump? Documents and testimony I reviewed show senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr first told his colleagues about Steele’s bias and connections to Clinton in late summer 2016. Likewise, sources tell me a string of FBI emails — some before the bureau secured its first surveillance warrant — raised concerns about Steele’s motive, employer and credibility.
2.) How much evidence of innocence did the FBI possess against two of its early targets, Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page? My sources tell me that agents secured evidence of the innocence of both men from informants, intercepts and other techniques that was never disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges in the case. I'm told learning exactly the sort of surveillance used on Page also may surprise some people.
3.) Why was the Steele dossier used as primary evidence in the FISA warrant against Page when it had not been corroborated? FBI testimony I reviewed shows agents had just begun checking out the dossier when its elements were used as supporting evidence, and that spreadsheets kept by the bureau during the verification process validated only small pieces of the dossier while concluding other parts were false or unprovable. And, of course, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted that, after nine months of investigation, the dossier’s core allegation of Trump-Russia collusion could not be substantiated.
4.) Why were Steele’s biases and his ties to the Clinton campaign — as well as evidence of innocence and flaws in the FISA evidence — never disclosed to the FISA court, as required by law and court practice?
5.) Why did FBI and U.S. intelligence officials leak stories about evidence in the emerging Russia probe before they corroborated collusion, and were any of those leaks designed to “create” evidence that could be cited in the courts of law and public opinion to justify the continuation of a flawed investigation?
6.) Did Comey improperly handle classified information when he distributed memos of his private conversations with Trump to his lawyers and a friend and ordered a leak that he hoped would cause the appointment of a special counsel after his firing as FBI director?
7.) Did the CIA, FBI or Obama White House engage in activities — such as the activation of intelligence sources or electronic surveillance — before the opening of an official counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016?
8.) Did U.S. intelligence, the FBI or the Obama administration use or encourage friendly spy agencies in Great Britain, Australia, Ukraine, Italy or elsewhere to gather evidence on the Trump campaign, leak evidence, or get around U.S. restrictions on spying on Americans?
9.) Did the CIA or Obama intelligence apparatus try to lure or pressure the FBI into opening a Trump collusion probe or acknowledge its existence before the election? Text messages between alleged FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page raised concerns about “pressure” from the White House, the “Agency BS game,” DOJ leaks and the need for an FBI “insurance policy.” And, as Strzok texted at one point in August 2016, quoting a colleague: “The White House is running this.”
10.) Did any FBI agents, intelligence officials or other key players in the probe provide false testimony to Congress? McCabe already has been singled out by the inspector general for lying about a media leak to an internal DOJ probe, and evidence emerged this year that calls into question Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony about his contacts with Ohr.
If Barr, Horowitz and Graham can answer these questions and release the still-secret evidence underlying their conclusions, Americans finally will have the wherewithal to answer the most troubling of all the questions raised about the Russia collusion narrative:
Was this a case of bureaucratic bungling, or an intentional effort to use the U.S. intelligence community for a political dirty trick aimed at defeating Trump at the polls and, later, delegitimizing his election?
It’s a question we all should want to be answered.
I said I was worried about the findings when they started focusing on Corsi and Stone, saying if thats all they have, we are not getting Trump this way.
At this point, 2020 is our only real out and I'm concerned we will end up w Bernie. This isnt his election. He missed his chance in 2016.
^ it was interesting to finally see Seth speak in person after only reading his tweets. I think he's got a great handle on things, but can be a bit tiresome to read when half of his writing is often dedicated to correcting the media. By the same token, even Bill Maher (along with just about every other news / show "host") feels compelled to "talk over" guests and control the narrative in some way shape or form. I realize it's their job to navigate the waters & orchestrate discussion with guests, but more times than not they don't give "experts" a full chance to expound on subjects. Then again, perhaps show hosts are used to having to contend with news correspondents who literally don't come up for air; effectively blocking anyone else from getting in a word edge wise.
Bill Maher can be pretty pretentious at times, but at least it's one of the shows that gives long interviews (and I love comedy). But I agree, would like to have heard a lot more of Seth going into details, w/ Maher just directing the flow of information (that Nixon tape bit was pretty worthless)
Bill Maher can be pretty pretentious at times, but at least it's one of the shows that gives long interviews (and I love comedy). But I agree, would like to have heard a lot more of Seth going into details, w/ Maher just directing the flow of information (that Nixon tape bit was pretty worthless)<<<<
Maybe it's just more of a general pet peeve of mine ... and I suppose comedy requires injecting oneself into the "normal discourse" to deliver punch lines ... which can often contain information / assessments that contain content of a far greater density (like poetry) ... so it might be more inescapable for someone like Maher or other "news comedians"
Kelly Ann Conway and Sara Sanders have more credibility than John Solomon. He is a right wing hack that has never written anything critical of Republicans.
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"
there are 78 pages on just "Russian Government links to and contacts with the Trump campaign" in the report.
page 117: "According to Akhmetshin, Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United States. Kaveladze similarly recalled that Trump Jr. asked what they have on Clinton, and Kushner became aggravated and asked "[w]hat are we doing here?"
Fear not, for there is a bright side to all of this:
When Noodler wakes up at 3 or 4 o'clock and/or Nanc takes a couple of potent mood stabilizers, we ought to get some pretty sweet memes and maybe a cool HuffPo link or two.
Many have already noted this. But I wanted to just flag that we can now see the clause of the sentence Barr quoted in his exoneration letter along with the rest of the sentence. It’s not a good look for Bill Barr.
The portion quoted is in red; the omitted portion in blue.
Mueller found clear evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia’s Internet Research Agency.
“The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted—typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting—pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA or through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States,” the report stated."
^^^^^
I see that as collusion. Collusion is not a defined term or a crime, but it seems pretty obvious that a candidate for President shouldn't be using and encouraging the use of foreign propaganda. If the make-up of the congress was different Trump would be impeached. Then tehre is this gem:
"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
So he didn't actually obstruct justice but he sure tried to.........It's a pretty damning report.
Those are Asshole #1's own words and still Mueller couldn't come to a conclusion based in reality ?
There is a difference between coming to a conclusion and one that is prosecutable with a high probability of conviction - not to mention the sticky question of whether or not you can indict a sitting president.. Clearly his intention was to move that action to Congress and the court of public opinion.
This one is rich....not that we don't know she makes shit up, but it's frightening that a president's press secretary just makes up stories....
According to special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia and the president’s interference in the investigation released Thursday, there was “no evidence” suggesting Trump had heard from FBI agents who had lost confidence in Comey before his firing, and “Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything.”
Conspiring with Assange gave the Trump campaign some kind of legal deniability, presumably that the Trump campaign did not "know" Assange was working with Russian Military Intelligence?
And asking Russia to hack the emails, well, how would Donald know GRU would follow through?
Manafort giving Kliminik campaign internal polling data and discussing the importance of Wisconsin & Michigan, well, so what?
WASHINGTON — To charge a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert Mueller decided he had to prove the existence of an explicit, corrupt agreement between the two sides. It wasn't enough, his report said, that the Trump campaign and Russia were acting out of mutual interest.
Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election campaign — and afterward.
Some might argue that verges on a different sort of collusion.
"The report reveals that there was an awful lot of contact between people in Trump world and Russians, and there appears to be at least some attempt at coordination," said Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney during the George W. Bush administration and senior FBI official. "One could argue you put all that together, it looks like collusion."
The report says, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
But it also says that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."
And after the Russians helped Trump get elected though efforts that were apparent to the Trump campaign, the report says, the Russians reached out to members of the Trump transition team, including the president's son-in-law, ostensibly seeking the fruits of their labors. After a backchannel meeting in the Seychelles, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund passed a friend of the president's son-in-law a two-page document proposing how the Trump administration could promote "U.S.-Russia reconciliation."
...
On Aug. 2, 2016, the report says, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, a man the FBI believes is a Russian intelligence operative. Kilimnik sought the meeting to deliver a peace plan for Ukraine — one that Manafort later acknowledged would have allowed Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine.
"They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states," the report says. Months before, Manafort "had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
Mueller doesn’t say what Kilimnik did with the polling data, but experts have said it could have been used to help the Russian election interference effort.
...
And then: "Immediately after the November 8 election, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. The most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts. The Russian Embassy made contact hours after the election to congratulate the President-Elect and to arrange a call with President Putin. Several Russian businessmen picked up the effort from there."
After that came the famous phone calls between National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and the Russian ambassador, lies about which led to Flynn's downfall.
The report makes no comment on the propriety of those contacts and meetings — in stark contrast to former FBI Director James Comey accusing Hillary Clinton of "extremely careless" conduct when he announced in July 2016 that he recommended no criminal charges in the case over her email.
But foreign policy experts and campaign veterans have said, over and over during the 22-month investigation, that it was not normal — and in fact was deeply suspicious — for a presidential campaign to foment a secret relationship with a major U.S. adversary.
That relationship and the actions Trump took to conceal it posed such a concern that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation, former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified.
There is no mention of that in the Mueller report. In fact, the word "counterintelligence" appears just eight times, all in pro forma fashion. The report does not say anything about financial ties, if any, between Donald Trump and Russia, or blackmail, or any other source of compromise.
Current and former intelligence officials say that Mueller does in fact have counterintelligence findings, but they are classified. The House Intelligence Committee has asked for a briefing on them, and so far has not received one.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
I really fully expect a war
I really fully expect a war to be announced today
we’re gonna have to have some good distractions to avoid the truth
m
All nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Chairman Adam Schiff resign his post. "We have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties," said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who led the House's Russia probe last year. Conaway said Schiff's insistence that there was ample evidence of collusion is "incompatible with your duties as the chairman of this committee." And he said the findings in special counsel Robert Mueller's report — which haven't yet been viewed by any members of Congress — "conclusively refute" Schiff's allegations.
This is Schiff's response:
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that the Russians offered dirt on the Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s OK.
“My colleagues might think it’s OK that when that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI; he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help – no, instead that son said that he would ‘love’ the help with the Russians.
“You might think it’s OK that he took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns, also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law also took that meeting. You might think it’s OK that they concealed it from the public. You might think it’s OK that their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better. You might think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that when it was discovered, a year later, that they then lied about that meeting and said that it was about adoptions. You might think that it’s OK that it was reported that the president helped dictate that lie. You might think that’s OK. I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that’s OK, I don’t.
“You might think it’s OK that that campaign chairman offered polling data to someone linked to Russian intelligence. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, if they were listening. You might think it’s OK that later that day, in fact, the Russians attempted to hack a server affiliated with that campaign. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that the president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret back channel of communication with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility. I don’t think that’s OK.
“You might think it’s OK that an associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency. You might think it’s OK that a senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say in terms of dirt on his opponent.
“You might think it’s OK that the national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions, and you might think it’s OK that he lied about it to the FBI.
“You might say that’s all OK, that’s just what you need to do to win. But I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it’s OK. I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical, I think it’s unpatriotic and, yes, I think it’s corrupt – and evidence of collusion.”
“Now I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do. He’s a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor.
“But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day that America lost its way.”
“And I will tell you one more thing that is apropos of the hearing today: I don’t think it’s OK that during a presidential campaign Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune – according to the special counsel, hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t think it’s OK to conceal it from the public. I don’t think it’s OK that he advocated a new and more favorable policy towards the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help, the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s OK that his attorney lied to our committee. There is a different word for that than collusion, and it’s called ‘compromise.’
“And that is the subject of our hearing today
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: long live the dead
https://apple.news/Adq3PtoZkSG69kklo0HVkKg
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bryen
Ten post-Mueller questions that could turn the tables on Russia collusion investigators
BY JOHN SOLOMON
April 17th, 2019
Soon, the dust will settle from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and Americans will have a fuller understanding of why prosecutors concluded there wasn’t evidence to establish that Donald Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
At that point, many voters exhausted by the fizzling of a two-year scandal, once billed as the next Watergate, will want to move on like a foodie from an empty-calorie shake.
But a very important second phase of this drama is about to begin, as Attorney General William Barr, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) put the Russia collusion investigators under investigation.
Their work will be, and must be, far more than just a political boomerang.
It must answer, in balanced terms, whether the FBI was warranted in using the most awesome powers in the U.S. intelligence arsenal to spy on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign at the end of the 2016 election.
Investigators must determine, with neutrality, whether the bureau improperly colluded with paid agents of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign — Fusion GPS and its British operative, Christopher Steele — and then tried to hide those political ties and other evidence from the nation’s secret intelligence court.
For the likes of FBI castoffs James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, or Obama-era intelligence bosses John Brennan and James Clapper, there will be the additional uncomfortable reality that the Russia collusion narrative that they so publicly weaved through testimony, TV appearances, for-profit books and leaks, turned out to be as unsubstantiated as the Loch Ness monster.
The process of meting out accountability has begun.
Horowitz, my sources tell me, has interviewed between 50 and 100 witnesses in his exhaustive probe. Graham and his predecessor as Judiciary chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), laid out the most important investigative issues they saw in a letter last year. This month, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) sent a letter to DOJ identifying eight potential criminal referrals. His committee last year also released a memo on abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that may have occurred during the Russia probe.
And President Trump reportedly is readying an order to declassify five key buckets of documents on alleged FBI abuses.
My sources agree these 10 questions are the most important to be answered in the forthcoming probes:
1.) When did the FBI first learn that Steele’s dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party and written by a partisan who, by his own admission, was desperate to defeat Trump? Documents and testimony I reviewed show senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr first told his colleagues about Steele’s bias and connections to Clinton in late summer 2016. Likewise, sources tell me a string of FBI emails — some before the bureau secured its first surveillance warrant — raised concerns about Steele’s motive, employer and credibility.
2.) How much evidence of innocence did the FBI possess against two of its early targets, Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page? My sources tell me that agents secured evidence of the innocence of both men from informants, intercepts and other techniques that was never disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges in the case. I'm told learning exactly the sort of surveillance used on Page also may surprise some people.
3.) Why was the Steele dossier used as primary evidence in the FISA warrant against Page when it had not been corroborated? FBI testimony I reviewed shows agents had just begun checking out the dossier when its elements were used as supporting evidence, and that spreadsheets kept by the bureau during the verification process validated only small pieces of the dossier while concluding other parts were false or unprovable. And, of course, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted that, after nine months of investigation, the dossier’s core allegation of Trump-Russia collusion could not be substantiated.
4.) Why were Steele’s biases and his ties to the Clinton campaign — as well as evidence of innocence and flaws in the FISA evidence — never disclosed to the FISA court, as required by law and court practice?
5.) Why did FBI and U.S. intelligence officials leak stories about evidence in the emerging Russia probe before they corroborated collusion, and were any of those leaks designed to “create” evidence that could be cited in the courts of law and public opinion to justify the continuation of a flawed investigation?
6.) Did Comey improperly handle classified information when he distributed memos of his private conversations with Trump to his lawyers and a friend and ordered a leak that he hoped would cause the appointment of a special counsel after his firing as FBI director?
7.) Did the CIA, FBI or Obama White House engage in activities — such as the activation of intelligence sources or electronic surveillance — before the opening of an official counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016?
8.) Did U.S. intelligence, the FBI or the Obama administration use or encourage friendly spy agencies in Great Britain, Australia, Ukraine, Italy or elsewhere to gather evidence on the Trump campaign, leak evidence, or get around U.S. restrictions on spying on Americans?
9.) Did the CIA or Obama intelligence apparatus try to lure or pressure the FBI into opening a Trump collusion probe or acknowledge its existence before the election? Text messages between alleged FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page raised concerns about “pressure” from the White House, the “Agency BS game,” DOJ leaks and the need for an FBI “insurance policy.” And, as Strzok texted at one point in August 2016, quoting a colleague: “The White House is running this.”
10.) Did any FBI agents, intelligence officials or other key players in the probe provide false testimony to Congress? McCabe already has been singled out by the inspector general for lying about a media leak to an internal DOJ probe, and evidence emerged this year that calls into question Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony about his contacts with Ohr.
If Barr, Horowitz and Graham can answer these questions and release the still-secret evidence underlying their conclusions, Americans finally will have the wherewithal to answer the most troubling of all the questions raised about the Russia collusion narrative:
Was this a case of bureaucratic bungling, or an intentional effort to use the U.S. intelligence community for a political dirty trick aimed at defeating Trump at the polls and, later, delegitimizing his election?
It’s a question we all should want to be answered.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439234-ten-post-mueller-question...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
Whatever we learn won't have
Whatever we learn won't have any teeth.
I said I was worried about the findings when they started focusing on Corsi and Stone, saying if thats all they have, we are not getting Trump this way.
At this point, 2020 is our only real out and I'm concerned we will end up w Bernie. This isnt his election. He missed his chance in 2016.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Druba
https://www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObqVwmO9pU
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
^ it was interesting to
^ it was interesting to finally see Seth speak in person after only reading his tweets. I think he's got a great handle on things, but can be a bit tiresome to read when half of his writing is often dedicated to correcting the media. By the same token, even Bill Maher (along with just about every other news / show "host") feels compelled to "talk over" guests and control the narrative in some way shape or form. I realize it's their job to navigate the waters & orchestrate discussion with guests, but more times than not they don't give "experts" a full chance to expound on subjects. Then again, perhaps show hosts are used to having to contend with news correspondents who literally don't come up for air; effectively blocking anyone else from getting in a word edge wise.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Druba
Bill Maher can be pretty
Bill Maher can be pretty pretentious at times, but at least it's one of the shows that gives long interviews (and I love comedy). But I agree, would like to have heard a lot more of Seth going into details, w/ Maher just directing the flow of information (that Nixon tape bit was pretty worthless)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Bill Maher can be pretty
Bill Maher can be pretty pretentious at times, but at least it's one of the shows that gives long interviews (and I love comedy). But I agree, would like to have heard a lot more of Seth going into details, w/ Maher just directing the flow of information (that Nixon tape bit was pretty worthless)<<<<
Maybe it's just more of a general pet peeve of mine ... and I suppose comedy requires injecting oneself into the "normal discourse" to deliver punch lines ... which can often contain information / assessments that contain content of a far greater density (like poetry) ... so it might be more inescapable for someone like Maher or other "news comedians"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
> BY JOHN SOLOMON <
> BY JOHN SOLOMON <
This guy is a real ass hat
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Richard Cranium
Face it, the fix is in and he
Face it, the fix is in and he got away with it.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://www.justice.gov
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
...
...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
Cool story, bro.
Cool story, bro.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
word searchable version here:
word searchable version here: https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/mueller-report.pdf
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
> BY JOHN SOLOMON <
> BY JOHN SOLOMON <
This guy is a real ass hat
Kelly Ann Conway and Sara Sanders have more credibility than John Solomon. He is a right wing hack that has never written anything critical of Republicans.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> "After 7 29 months of
>> "After
729 months of investigations & committee hearings about my 'collusion with the Russians,' nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!"Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
"If we had confidence after a
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"
Page 2, volume II
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
Kelly Ann Conway and Sara
Kelly Ann Conway and Sara Sanders have more credibility than John Solomon
That's what I call a credibility gap!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
(No subject)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
ctrl+f: "Teflon"; ctrl+f:
>> word searchable version here
ctrl+f: "Teflon"; ctrl+f: "Don"
Sad way to spend three years, imo.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
there are 78 pages on just
there are 78 pages on just "Russian Government links to and contacts with the Trump campaign" in the report.
page 117: "According to Akhmetshin, Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United States. Kaveladze similarly recalled that Trump Jr. asked what they have on Clinton, and Kushner became aggravated and asked "[w]hat are we doing here?"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
Allow me to help you locate
Allow me to help you to locate the collusion.
Possibly try ctrl+f: "Collusion?"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: thinthread
lol
lol
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
Fear not, for there is a
Fear not, for there is a bright side to all of this:
When Noodler wakes up at 3 or 4 o'clock and/or Nanc takes a couple of potent mood stabilizers, we ought to get some pretty sweet memes and maybe a cool HuffPo link or two.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: El Nino
From TPM
From TPM
Many have already noted this. But I wanted to just flag that we can now see the clause of the sentence Barr quoted in his exoneration letter along with the rest of the sentence. It’s not a good look for Bill Barr.
The portion quoted is in red; the omitted portion in blue.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
Mueller found clear evidence
Mueller found clear evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia’s Internet Research Agency.
“The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted—typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting—pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA or through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States,” the report stated."
^^^^^
I see that as collusion. Collusion is not a defined term or a crime, but it seems pretty obvious that a candidate for President shouldn't be using and encouraging the use of foreign propaganda. If the make-up of the congress was different Trump would be impeached. Then tehre is this gem:
"The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."
So he didn't actually obstruct justice but he sure tried to.........It's a pretty damning report.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
So are they going to let him
So are they going to let him finish his term?
Why won't they indict him?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Sound and Vision
"This is the worst thing that
"This is the worst thing that has ever happened to me."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: g-reg
Poor little donnie
Poor little donnie
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
My expectations of any kind
My expectations of any kind of justice for any trump is absolutely zero.
Not while lock step boot licking nazi repub scum rule our senate.
Fuck that asshole Mueller. It took him 2 years to kick the can to congress ? Really Bob ?
A fucking blind man can see the trump's treason. They make the Borgias look like amateurs.
Yep we're fucked, chump ain't goin nowhere.
Better up the anti- depressant script for the next 2 years folks.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Rasputin O'Leary
"This is the end of my
"This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked"
Those are Asshole #1's own words and still Mueller couldn't come to a conclusion based in reality ?
There Is No God
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
Those are Asshole #1's own
Those are Asshole #1's own words and still Mueller couldn't come to a conclusion based in reality ?
There is a difference between coming to a conclusion and one that is prosecutable with a high probability of conviction - not to mention the sticky question of whether or not you can indict a sitting president.. Clearly his intention was to move that action to Congress and the court of public opinion.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Woz
This one is rich....not that
This one is rich....not that we don't know she makes shit up, but it's frightening that a president's press secretary just makes up stories....
According to special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia and the president’s interference in the investigation released Thursday, there was “no evidence” suggesting Trump had heard from FBI agents who had lost confidence in Comey before his firing, and “Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything.”
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Bucky Badger
^^^^ yup, she has now
^^^^ yup, she has now admitted that she lies during press conferences. not spin, lies.
GREAT to have that confirmed by Sanders herself
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
Conspiring with Assange gave
Conspiring with Assange gave the Trump campaign some kind of legal deniability, presumably that the Trump campaign did not "know" Assange was working with Russian Military Intelligence?
And asking Russia to hack the emails, well, how would Donald know GRU would follow through?
Manafort giving Kliminik campaign internal polling data and discussing the importance of Wisconsin & Michigan, well, so what?
O.K.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
(No subject)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://twitter.com
https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1118984891176226833
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://twitter.com/ezraklein
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1118919750145298433
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Was it a crime to say most
Was it a crime to say most Mexicans are rapists?
I think it's disgustingly bad but 60 million people agreed with him.
What are the Democrats in the House and Senate going to do before the next election?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
The ones in the Senate will
I suppose the starting place is inviting Mueller to testify.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: thinthread
>>>Was it a crime to say most
>>>Was it a crime to say most Mexicans are rapists?
when was that said?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
https://www.nbcnews.com
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/mueller-report-shows-russians-trump-camp-were-friends-benefits-collusion-n996101
April 18, 2019, 5:10 PM CDT
By Ken Dilanian
WASHINGTON — To charge a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert Mueller decided he had to prove the existence of an explicit, corrupt agreement between the two sides. It wasn't enough, his report said, that the Trump campaign and Russia were acting out of mutual interest.
Mueller said he didn't find a conspiracy he could prove. But he did establish in painstaking detail that the Russians and the Trump campaign pursued a relationship of mutual benefit during the election campaign — and afterward.
Some might argue that verges on a different sort of collusion.
"The report reveals that there was an awful lot of contact between people in Trump world and Russians, and there appears to be at least some attempt at coordination," said Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney during the George W. Bush administration and senior FBI official. "One could argue you put all that together, it looks like collusion."
The report says, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
But it also says that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."
And after the Russians helped Trump get elected though efforts that were apparent to the Trump campaign, the report says, the Russians reached out to members of the Trump transition team, including the president's son-in-law, ostensibly seeking the fruits of their labors. After a backchannel meeting in the Seychelles, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund passed a friend of the president's son-in-law a two-page document proposing how the Trump administration could promote "U.S.-Russia reconciliation."
...
On Aug. 2, 2016, the report says, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, a man the FBI believes is a Russian intelligence operative. Kilimnik sought the meeting to deliver a peace plan for Ukraine — one that Manafort later acknowledged would have allowed Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine.
"They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states," the report says. Months before, Manafort "had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting."
Mueller doesn’t say what Kilimnik did with the polling data, but experts have said it could have been used to help the Russian election interference effort.
...
And then: "Immediately after the November 8 election, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. The most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts. The Russian Embassy made contact hours after the election to congratulate the President-Elect and to arrange a call with President Putin. Several Russian businessmen picked up the effort from there."
After that came the famous phone calls between National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and the Russian ambassador, lies about which led to Flynn's downfall.
The report makes no comment on the propriety of those contacts and meetings — in stark contrast to former FBI Director James Comey accusing Hillary Clinton of "extremely careless" conduct when he announced in July 2016 that he recommended no criminal charges in the case over her email.
But foreign policy experts and campaign veterans have said, over and over during the 22-month investigation, that it was not normal — and in fact was deeply suspicious — for a presidential campaign to foment a secret relationship with a major U.S. adversary.
That relationship and the actions Trump took to conceal it posed such a concern that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation, former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified.
There is no mention of that in the Mueller report. In fact, the word "counterintelligence" appears just eight times, all in pro forma fashion. The report does not say anything about financial ties, if any, between Donald Trump and Russia, or blackmail, or any other source of compromise.
Current and former intelligence officials say that Mueller does in fact have counterintelligence findings, but they are classified. The House Intelligence Committee has asked for a briefing on them, and so far has not received one.
...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: The Sound of Steam and Caffeine
Right?
Right?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
<<<What are the Democrats in
<<<What are the Democrats in the House and Senate going to do before the next election
Shit and fall back in it.