Since it appears the Russia/Trump thing isn't going away probably past time for a thread dedicated to it. The latest news is that Trump tried to influence a FBI investigation. How do we feel about that?
1) The Democrats never gave the slightest damn about national security, until suddenly they want to use wild speculation of Russian dealings with Trump officials as a contrived weapon against Republicans. But to date, there is NO MISCONDUCT by any Trump official, beyond pure insinuation. (EXAMPLES of Democrat indifference to national security: Hillary Clinton's illegal private server compromising national security, letting Russia run wild in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, letting Russia develop nuclear technology for Iran, letting China build islands that are the equivalent of aircraft carriers in the South China sea, letting China hack the U.S. government and most U.S. corporations over the 8 years of Obama's presidency with no retaliation or response)
2) Schumer and Pelosi, leading the charge against Sessions, have met with Russian officials as well. In Pelosi's case, she similarly met with the Russian ambassador and apparently forgot about it.
3) The meeting where the Russian ambassador met with sessions WAS ARRANGED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
4) Whatever the intent of the Russians, there is not even the slightest suggestion that A) The Russians were successful in influencing the U.S. 2016 election, or B) that the Trump administration, as slanderously alleged by Democrats, was in any way in collusion with the Russians.
>>>>>ALL<<<<< this is pure slander and diversion from the early successes and rising popularity of Trump, an attempt to tear him down and undermine him with false accusations.
Tucker Carlson looks at the remarks of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, and beautifully eviscerates them on their hypocrisy, in his 3-3-2017 program on Thursday. And on their utter lack of facts to support their allegations regarding the Trump administration allegedly having dealings with the Russians.
The problem Trump has WB is while he was gushing about Putin and having the GOP change it's party platform on the Ukraine his people were in contact with Russians but may have perjured themselves when asked about it under oath. You're not okay with perjury even if it's a republican are you?
The problem Trump has WB is while he was gushing about Putin and having the GOP change it's party platform on the Ukraine his people were in contact with Russians but may have perjured themselves when asked about it under oath. You're not okay with perjury even if it's a republican are you?
Lol, so we now have several Trump people who have given false statements and thus far G comes the closest to the actual topic in a way he would be laughing his ass off if I tried the same thing. Any theories as to why Trump people can't remember talking to people from the Russian government?
Perjury is not inaccuracy. It must be willfully false testimony. Willfulness is the criminal law’s most demanding mens rea (state of mind) requirement. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally — not by accident, misunderstanding, or confusion — said something that was untrue, with a specific purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Therefore, when there is an allegation of perjury, the alleged false statements must be considered in context. Any ambiguity is construed in favor of innocence. If there is potential misunderstanding, the lack of clarity is deemed the fault of the questioner, not the accused.
We will turn momentarily to the transcript of the exchange between Sessions and Senator Al Franken (D., Minn.). First, let’s highlight the inaccuracy in the testimony. Sessions stated that he did not have “communications with the Russians.” It is now known that there were at least two occasions during the 2016 campaign on which Sessions, then a senator and a member of the chamber’s Armed Services Committee, had contact with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States.
One of these occasions is easily dismissed: Apparently, Sessions saw Kislyak, in addition to dozens of other ambassadors, at a Heritage Foundation reception during the Republican convention. As Sessions was leaving the podium, a smaller group of these diplomats, including Kislyak, approached Sessions to chat briefly — mainly to compliment him on his remarks. Even the Washington Post doesn’t think much of this chance meeting (buried deep in its story) other than the fact that it happened.
A second meeting occurred in September in Sessions’s Senate office...Sessions has stated that this meeting with the Russian ambassador — one of several he held with ambassadors from various nations — occurred in the context of his Senate responsibilities and had nothing to do with his role as a Trump-campaign surrogate. Nevertheless, the meeting did occur and therefore ostensibly contradicts his confirmation-hearing testimony that he did not have communications with Russians.
Now, let’s look at the relevant portion of the transcript, the nub of which the Post has excerpted as follows: Franken: Okay. CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that, quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say, quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
Senator Franken patently framed this line of inquiry in the context of Russian espionage against the Trump campaign, drawn from CNN’s report of a salacious, discredited, uncorroborated dossier. It claimed that the Russians had acquired compromising personal and financial information about Donald Trump.
With that premise, Franken added the dossier’s claim that “there was a continuing exchange of information between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” The point that Franken was clearly driving at was that Sessions, having supported Trump and been a Trump-campaign surrogate, should recuse himself as attorney general from any investigation probing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
In that context, Sessions volunteered that he was not aware of “those activities” — clearly meaning the activities outlined in the dossier. He then appeared to discount the claim that he was a Trump-campaign “surrogate.” To be sure, “surrogate” is not so much a formal position as a blurry description, often offered by persons other than the so-called surrogate, of someone who supports a candidate and speaks on the candidate’s behalf. In an incomplete thought (which one often gets in witness testimony), Sessions appeared to quibble with the notion that he was a formal “surrogate” as opposed to someone who was occasionally referred to as one. It seems apparent that he was distancing himself from Franken’s insinuation about Trump surrogates colluding with Russians. At that point, Sessions abruptly cut himself off and summarily said he “did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
In context, Sessions obviously meant that he did not have communications with the Russians in the capacity of a surrogate for the Trump campaign and that he was unable to comment on the explosive allegations in the dossier. Manifestly, he was trying to say that he did not believe that Franken’s outline of the dossier provided any basis for him, Sessions, to recuse himself from any potential investigation. He was not saying that in his capacity as a United States senator, unrelated to the Trump campaign, he had never had any contacts with Russian officials.
It is fair enough for critics to maintain that Sessions should have been clearer. But if we consider this matter not as a political dispute but a potential perjury prosecution, then the burden was on Franken, not Sessions, to be clearer. The witness’s obligation, as a matter of perjury law, is to refrain from willfully providing testimony that is both false and intended to deceive the tribunal. The burden is on the questioner to remove all doubt or ambiguity by asking exacting follow-up questions.
So, was Sessions’s testimony inaccurate? Sure, especially taken out of context. But was it perjurious? Not even close. The context, established by Franken’s questioning, elucidates that when Sessions denied communications with Russians, he was denying that he had spoken with Russian officials as a Trump surrogate, particularly in any relation to the misconduct described in the dossier.
The Obama team's "non-denial denial" (where they condemn the accusation they were wiretapping Trump tower but never outright say they didn't do it) is that they didn't authorize the wiretapping. They basically acknowledge there was wiretapping, but just say they're not the ones who ordered it. And they don't deny that they knew about it either. A Clintonian Obama statement.
As with every scandal involving Obama or Hillary, they have subordinates actually give the order, so they have a "double wall" of deniability later. Unless of course, they openly brag about it, as they sometimes do.
" wiretapping involved FBI, CIA, NSA, Justice Department... all would be in Obama's daily briefing... I would assume Obama knew something, I mean unless he's Helen Keller..."
Larry Johnson, former CIA official, on the surveillance of Trump Tower, Obama's involvement, the illegality of the surveillance and release of surveillance, and the open plotting of many DNC loyalists withing the various intelligence agencies, to tear down Donald Trump as president:
Interviewed by Kim Guilfoyle on 3-4-2017, former CIA official Lt Col Tony Shaffer, who says he used to brief the White House on his operations, on the lack of basis for intel surveillance of Trump, and Obama's obvious involvement:
He compared the intelligence surveilance on Trump by the Obama administration to "soviet-style" use of government agencies against opponents. He concludes saying we could see the prosecution of Obama and his senior staff. Heavy stuff.
Is there anything there that falls into actual evidence WB? Since you have no comment about Trump people giving false statements under oath I expect the bar to be pretty high, lol
I don't see that you've made a case for that, M E M.
And not just Hannity, but multiple CIA and intelligence officials I youtubed above.
Mark Levin, a former chief of staff to attorney general Edwin Meese (in the Reagan years) lays out the case against Obama and his officials, citing from The New York Times and other well-known mainstream media sources, a steady stream of news stories over the last year, back to the spring of 2016, of FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA and DIA coordination to use FISA requests to spy on the Trump campaign, basically opposition research and an attempt to smear Trump with anything they could dig up and illegally release.
As Pariah said above, the Obama administration thought they could do anything they wanted and get away with it, because Hillary Clinton was presumed to win. Now that she didn't, and the dumbasses have continued their leaks on Trump, leaving a trail back to their Soviet-style abuse of government power, it is all coming to light.
Levin first cites a June 2016 application for a wiretap warrant to the FISA court that was rejected. Not said by Levin, this is significant because the FISA court usually rubber-stamps 98% of requests made. They narrowed the warrant and applied again and got it just 3 weeks before the election, and used this unfair advantage to release leaks on the Trump campaign with what they found.
Clearly NOT just Sean Hannity. And clearly NOT even just Republicans. Obama's spokesperson said officials should be "very careful" and not deny any knowledge of the wiretaps. That clearly implies Obama officials know something, and that the wiretaps and secret court FISA surveillance requests are not just made up.
Even other elected GOP officials are unwilling to run with this WB. The piece of shit has done this before and when it ends up not being true he Trump just goes on to the next accusation. If his tweet turns out to be a dud like usual will it mean anything to you?
Even other elected GOP officials are unwilling to run with this WB. The piece of shit has done this before and when it ends up not being true he Trump just goes on to the next accusation. If his tweet turns out to be a dud like usual will it mean anything to you?
No. Because the case has already been made by Mark Levin and others (as I Youtubed above, detailing the case against Obama and his administration).
The Republicans not getting on board, not supporting Trump's accusation, not supporting an investigation, just manifests their timidity, and also manifests their hostility toward Trump and their wish to see him go down in flames. Despite the fact that Trump could lead the GOP to a very successful 8 years, they still wish to see him crash and burn as much as the Democrats. Establishment Republicans vs. populist reformer Republicans.
Establishment Republicans are more friendly to establishment Democrats than they are to Trump. Add to that (as in Newt Gingrich's comments to Bartiromo and O'Reilly above) Democrat employees in the State Dept, CIA, FBI, NSA and DOJ *ALSO* want to see Trump crash and burn, and are leaking anything that could embarrass or destroy him they can. Even if it damages their agencies and national security.
Last week, on Meet the Press, James Clapper, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, said this:
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, “our,” that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.
That was a good Meet the Press on the subject. I remember when the Trump campaign demanded the GOP change its position on Russia and now apparently nobody remembers demanding that. Lots of amnesia going around with Trump and his toadies.
Even other elected GOP officials are unwilling to run with this WB. The piece of shit has done this before and when it ends up not being true he Trump just goes on to the next accusation. If his tweet turns out to be a dud like usual will it mean anything to you?
No. Because the case has already been made by Mark Levin and others (as I Youtubed above, detailing the case against Obama and his administration).
The Republicans not getting on board, not supporting Trump's accusation, not supporting an investigation, just manifests their timidity, and also manifests their hostility toward Trump and their wish to see him go down in flames. Despite the fact that Trump could lead the GOP to a very successful 8 years, they still wish to see him crash and burn as much as the Democrats. Establishment Republicans vs. populist reformer Republicans.
Establishment Republicans are more friendly to establishment Democrats than they are to Trump. Add to that (as in Newt Gingrich's comments to Bartiromo and O'Reilly above) Democrat employees in the State Dept, CIA, FBI, NSA and DOJ *ALSO* want to see Trump crash and burn, and are leaking anything that could embarrass or destroy him they can. Even if it damages their agencies and national security.
I don't think that's a reasonable rationale WB. At best Levin lays out how Trump's accusation but there is no supporting evidence that supports the wiretap charge. I agree this couldn't be done without leaving a trail. Your elected GOP know this and would surely be on board if there was actually something there. Trump made a serious charge and if it turns out being he can't provide evidence do you than agree he's a piece of shit or is that level of lying okay with you as long as it's a republican?
Even other elected GOP officials are unwilling to run with this WB. The piece of shit has done this before and when it ends up not being true he Trump just goes on to the next accusation. If his tweet turns out to be a dud like usual will it mean anything to you?
No. Because the case has already been made by Mark Levin and others (as I Youtubed above, detailing the case against Obama and his administration).
The Republicans not getting on board, not supporting Trump's accusation, not supporting an investigation, just manifests their timidity, and also manifests their hostility toward Trump and their wish to see him go down in flames. Despite the fact that Trump could lead the GOP to a very successful 8 years, they still wish to see him crash and burn as much as the Democrats. Establishment Republicans vs. populist reformer Republicans.
Establishment Republicans are more friendly to establishment Democrats than they are to Trump. Add to that (as in Newt Gingrich's comments to Bartiromo and O'Reilly above) Democrat employees in the State Dept, CIA, FBI, NSA and DOJ *ALSO* want to see Trump crash and burn, and are leaking anything that could embarrass or destroy him they can. Even if it damages their agencies and national security.
I don't think that's a reasonable rationale WB. At best Levin lays out how Trump's accusation but there is no supporting evidence that supports the wiretap charge. I agree this couldn't be done without leaving a trail. Your elected GOP know this and would surely be on board if there was actually something there. Trump made a serious charge and if it turns out being he can't provide evidence do you than agree he's a piece of shit or is that level of lying okay with you as long as it's a republican?
Your RESPONSE doesn't make sense.
I don't see that you answered any of the points I raised. The establishment GOP doesn't want to support Trump unless their voters hold their hands to the fire. AGAIN: The GOP establishment is more friendly to the Democrat establishment than to Trump OR THEIR OWN REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUENTS. That's true going back to at least when Boehner was House Speaker. And certainly continues to hold true under Ryan's speakership. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are likewise turncoats that liberals and the mainstream media love to point to as dissent in the GOP.
When Republican Senators and Congressmen start acting in the interests of the conservatives who elected them, I might be more inclined to believe them when they turn on President Trump. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that Trump is wrong, and PLENTY of evidence that the media has lied and distorted the facts, and continues to. Trump citing chaos in Sweden is one example. The media had a fit and said Trump had the facts wrong, and the same day muslims in Sweden were rioting and burning cars all over the place, and the facts came out that rapes have increased over 300% since Sweden began admitting muslim immigrants/refugees. So while the media selectively omits it, Trump was right again.
The nicest way of looking at this is Trump as being incompetent. Couldn't even imagine the shit storm you guys would be having if this happened under a democratic administration.
Would that be more or less "incompetent" than Barack Obama selecting multiple cabinet members, including his treasury secretary Tim Geithner in charge of the IRS who were guilty of tax evasion? Not to mention Tom Daschle, who likewise was guilty of corruption and finally had to be removed as a nominee? Not to mention also the many Marxist radicals (Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Mark Lloyd, etc.) and Islamic jihad-friendly staffers (Houma Abedin, whose family is deeply rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, and for whom Abedin herself has worked) who are anything but patriotic defenders of America.
As usual, you hold Trump and other Republicans to a far higher standard, while giving a complete free pass to Democrats guilty of far worse crimes... and incompetence.
No. I'm saying the trouble with nominees was far worse under Barack Obama in early 2009. I don't see that Trump vetters were negligent (and the full story is not disclosed) it seems to be a case of, if there was an error, Michael Flynn was not fully open about his conversations and meeting with the Russians, and at this point there is still no evidence of anything Flynn did wrong. And in the Democrat slander machine, what can be IMPLIED to have been done.
But just yesterday, the Russian spokesperson said the Russians had pretty much the exact same meetings with Hillary Clinton staffers during the same period just prior to the election. The Russians attempted to establish diplomatic relations with both sides that could have potentially won the election. WOW, SHOCKING!
Give it up, M E M. Your side has nothing but slander and innuendo. Trump has stories even the liberal media reported (see Mark Levin again, above) showing the Obama administration getting multiple FISA requests to spy on Trump Tower and monitor calls of his staff. That would be... the same crimes as were exposed in the Watergate investigation and convictions: abusing federal power (the Obama administration) to run illegal surveillance on the president's political opposition (the Trump campaign). And that's as serious as it gets. Your team may be going to jail.
Oh of course you think it was much worse under Obama. Silly me. Btw as pointed out earlier, meeting with Russians wasn't the problem. Making false statements under oath is.
Nunes said last week that "at this point we don't have any evidence" to support the president's tweeted claim that "Obama had [his] 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory," but he promised to investigate.
"We still want the Justice Department to respond to our letter," the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, said at Wednesday's press conference. "We've given them until March 20, we're both willing to use compulsory process if that's necessary, though neither of us, I think, believe that will be necessary."
It's kind of resistant to the facts to jump to that conclusion before having an investigation and looking at the evidence.
FACT: The Obama administration requested a surveillance warrant from a FISA secret court months before the election, and was turned down. FACT: They revised the warrant and requested again from the FISA court, and were granted a warrant just 3 weeks before the election. Does it make sense that they requested the surveilance warrant and then DIDN'T use it? NO. They obviously did, and I would have to hear a lot of explanation to even possibly believe they didn't use it. I'd also like to hear a good explanation of why surveillance was requested by the Obama team from the FISA court in the first place. TWICE!
I would point out that Trump was the one accusing the former President of a major crime with no real evidence. And the sad thing is everyone knew Of Trump's low character.
Yes, Obama Did Investigate Trump. The core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true: people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign, then criminally leaked mention of it to friendly news outlets in an attempt to derail his election.
Honestly, imo, Trump is becoming far too Nixonian within the first hundred days for me to see him do anything but fail spectacularly. He is one bad (or sick) guy!
While I like Trump and voted for him, about once a week or so he says or posts something that makes me cringe. I still see him as someone capable of shaking up the system and enacting real reforms, but then intermittently he consistently makes impulsive and erratic comments that de-rail the focus on his agenda.
I think the first that bothered me was how he campaigned against Hillary and said she needs to be investigated and subject to the same standard of justice as any other American. Then after the election, he backed off of calls to investigate Hillary. And at the time of the inauguration, he said that Bill and Hillary are "good people"!
In the last week, while I certainly want Obamacare repealed, I was put off by the rush to do so, including a rush by Trump himself. It was creepily similar to the March 2010 passing of Obamacare, where Representatives were expected to vote for the bill without any advance public disclosure of what was actually in the bill. And now just today, Trump had a Twitter post attacking the "Freedom Caucus" (I wish they's just call themselves the conservative/Tea Party caucus) saying that "we have to defeat them and the Democrats in 2018"! Wow, great way to build s coalition to pass it in a second round. First off, the Freedom Caucus were not the only Republicans who wouldn't vote for it. Second, I would only be satisfied with a bill offered in its entirety to the public in advance for review.
I still defend Trump against a lot of unfair attacks. But yeah, there can be no doubt that much of the negative press he brings on himself with his own impulsive and careless remarks.
The smoking gun against the Obama camp's illegal surveillance? Dr. Elizabeth Farkas, Obama's former Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense admitted yesterday on MSNBC's Morning Joe program the frenzy with which they gathered and spread as much surveillance intelligence as they could before the Obama administration left, and Trump's inauguration:
The admission broadcast on MSNBC, no less!
As O'Reilly said last night, to watch any network but FOX, you'd think that Trump and his staff were about to be indicted, instead of the reverse that is actually happening, to the Obama staffers.
With playful sarcasm, Alex Jones starts this clip mocking the liberal media's selectively ignoring the self-incriminating facts of the Obama administration's illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign and Trump presidency. Crazily ignoring the facts that THEY THEMSELVES reported months ago, now that those facts give validity to the Trump administration's comments on that illegal surveillance. And how the media also selectively ignores and doesn't report calls from the Left and globalists to assassinate Trump, to suspend Congress, and to replace it with a shadow government. Hey, nothing new, nothing to see here!
About 8 minutes in he interviews Trump advisor Roger Stone, and Stone beautifully lays out the incredible deviousness of John Podesta's strategy to accuse the Trump campaign of treasonous collusion with the Russians, getting the complicit liberal media to devote all their air-time on a wild goose chase for non-existent evidence of Trump ties to the Russians, to divert attention from the ACTUAL evidence of Hillary Clinton's treason and receipt of millions from the Russians!
As Ann Coulter said back in 2009, "if you want to know what the Democrats are up to, just look at what they are accusing Republicans of."
So, Carter Page was under a FISA warrant, according to unnamed sources. We still don’t know if anything felonious or impeachable was captured. FISA warrants are almost never turned down, so it’s apparent that the threshold is rather low.
What is absolutely true as of right now is that there is no definitive proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. But that Obamas people unmasked someone.
This is gonna work out fantastically for the Democrats. This and the AHCA, which probably won't make it through the Senate (which is, I think, a good thing), will essentially deplete what little goodwill the GOP had remaining and allow the Dems to sell themselves as free of corruption and champions of the working class. They're neither, of course, and if you covered up the letters after names you'd have a hard time telling the two parties apart, but DJT is the best thing to happen to the Democrats' marketing strategy since Goldwater.
Two weeks ago Comey was an incompetent republican stooge who helped cost Hillary the election. Now you think he's Archibald Cox. No wonder you support socialized medicine. You could never afford the treatment for the constant whiplash otherwise.
Yes I did have problems with Comey's handling of Clinton's emails that Trump has praised. Is it really credible that he's now done a flip flop and fired him for it? And right after Comey asked for more resources for the Russia investigation. This honestly does look like a cover up.
This is gonna work out fantastically for the Democrats. This and the AHCA, which probably won't make it through the Senate (which is, I think, a good thing), will essentially deplete what little goodwill the GOP had remaining and allow the Dems to sell themselves as free of corruption and champions of the working class. They're neither, of course, and if you covered up the letters after names you'd have a hard time telling the two parties apart, but DJT is the best thing to happen to the Democrats' marketing strategy since Goldwater.
These days I wouldn't assume much. I think you are probably correct about those things helping dems but neither party is popular right now. I don't think dems can do the same thing as the miniority party that the GOP did.
I honestly don't think it's a cover-up, or at least it wasn't planned as one. It's hard for me not to see Comey's firing as a bog-standard Trumper-Tantrum™, the timing of which was juuuuust unfortunate enough to look extremely suspect. It's suspect enough that it could easily merit further subpœnas and maybe allow impeachment (Trumpeachment™!) proceedings to make it onto the table. The worst thing the GOP could do at this point would be to circle the wagons and double down on TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG, but as an Ohioan it's easy for me to see (comparatively) moderate governors like Kasich and senators like Portman breaking ranks. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an unmendable split in the party, but then nothing would make me happier than the fracturing of both Democrats and Republicans in favor of a coalition-based system.
Two weeks ago Comey was an incompetent republican stooge who helped cost Hillary the election. Now you think he's Archibald Cox. No wonder you support socialized medicine. You could never afford the treatment for the constant whiplash otherwise.
Comey was always designed to be a the Democrats' controlled opposition. They pretended that he was a Trump stooge in an attempt to make him untouchable. The reality here is that Comey was helping to cover up the DNC's dirty little secrets--not to mention Hilldawg's--while, at the same time, posing as Hillary's enemy.
Their miscalculation was in assuming that Trump was going to lose. Now that Trump is in office and Comey's on the chopping block, they've completely reversed their position on him since he was their stop-gap.
Trump knew Comey was corrupt but couldn't get rid of him right away since DEMs were still trying to hammer him on the 'Russian' meme. So he waited until he had repetitive instances in which it was affirmed and reaffirmed that no evidence of Russian collusion existed before giving him the axe.
MEM is, of course, aware of all of this, but continues to take notes from Wasserman-Schultz and Dingy Harry and play dumb in an effort to passively support the hill(dawg) he'd already chosen to die on over six months ago.
Yes I did have problems with Comey's handling of Clinton's emails that Trump has praised. Is it really credible that he's now done a flip flop and fired him for it? And right after Comey asked for more resources for the Russia investigation. This honestly does look like a cover up.
Lol, g's safe space in all this. My opinion on how Comey handled Clinton's emails hasn't changed. Trump's has. Or more to the point he claims it has. And today it just sort of unraveled.
I love watching the spin on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC, that Trump's firing of FBI Director Comey is absolutely because "Comey was requesting further funding" to investigate Trump administration collusion with Russia. I've yet to hear one fact to support that wild assertion from the liberal media.
Only when you turn to Fox do you hear that Trump as president has the absolute right to fire the FBI director (like many other appointed heads) at any time and replace him, and that he is completely within his rights to do so. Only on Fox do you hear that, with Schumer-led Democrat obstruction, it took Trump over a month after inauguration to get his Attorney General, and only 2 weeks ago get his deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein (aapproved 94-6). And only with that addition of staff was Sessions able to delegate Rosenstein to evaluate how to restore the morale and integrity of the FBI. And lo and behold, he quite predictably said that James Comey is the source of that low morale and public distrust, and only with him gone can internal and external trust in the FBI be restored. It's perfectly logical that Comey would be fired once there is staff to re-tool the FBI. The announcement was at about 5:50 PM Tuesday, right before the 6PM news hour, that to me demonstrates some degree of calculation, for all the wailing about the firing being senseless.
Only on Fox News do you see the clips showing the hypocrisy of Democrats like Schumer, Reid, Durbin and Pelosi, who very recently called for Comey's resignation or firing as essential, and called Comey's actions blatantly corrupt, outrageous and untrustworthy. To be sure, there is hypocrisy in Trump saying before Comey was doing a "great job" and then suddenly saying he had to be fired for his incompetence. But Trump arguably initially needed Comey through the transition period. It's only logical that once Trump now has other staff in place, he's ready to cut Comey loose. But the actions by Comey, both his July speech saying "no reasonable person would prosecute" Hillary Clinton, while simultaneously making the case to indict her, and then days before the election re-opening the investigation, then again days after closing it, are abundant evidence that Comey was not following the rule of law and warranted being replaced at any moment.
The hysterical protests of the liberal media otherwise, raising wild conspiracies that Comey was fired to shut down the investigation of a Trump-Russia collusion, are just so much horseshit, without a shred of evidence to support it. Pure smear. Comey was director of the FBI, with thousands of agents, whether Comey is there or not, dozens of agents continue that investigation.
I haven't seen it reported that the firing was illegal or that it had to be because of Comey requesting more resources for the Russia investigation. Trump does have the right to fire somebody who is investigating him. Nixon did too.
That being said: Trumps tweets insinuating he's been recording Comey and/or others are wildly stupid. Putting aside the easy Nixon comparison, even if no such tapes exist he's opening up himself and the Justice Department to months or years of litigation attempting to have such tapes subpoenaed and/or released under FOIA.
As I sai before my opinion on how Comey handled Clinton's emails hasn't changed. Trump says his did. It keeps shifting so we can only guess what he really thinks. I can't imagine you guys being okay if Obama behaved this way, it's more than a little foolish to expect it to be different now that it's your guy.
As I sai before my opinion on how Comey handled Clinton's emails hasn't changed. Trump says his did. It keeps shifting so we can only guess what he really thinks. I can't imagine you guys being okay if Obama behaved this way, it's more than a little foolish to expect it to be different now that it's your guy.
Every last Democrat in the Senate and Congress who is now shrieking about what an outrage it is that Trump fired Comey, are the exact same Democrats who were demanding Comey's resignation or firing in the last 6 months.
Nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating him, causing the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to resign in protest. With the clear intent to stop and obstruct the Watergate investigation. Trump fired one guy that EVERYONE on both sides of the political aisle said was doing a bad job, and it doesn't obstruct the investigation. My only complaint is that Comey should have been pulled aside and told he was being fired, instead of having to find out watching the news. But Comey had unquestionably done things that both sides felt warranted his dismissal. The rest is posturing by Democrats and the liberal media, and a few RINO Republicans.
Do you imagine that you or g would have been fine if Obama had dismissed him just after requesting additional resources for an investigation that included Obama. Or how about the request for loyalty? Or the mess of lies and half truths that were thrown out as reasons for firing Comey. Trump doesn't look bad, he is bad.
Do you imagine that you or g would have been fine if Obama had dismissed him just after requesting additional resources for an investigation that included Obama.
Lying insinuation, with no facts to support it. The FBI investigation of Trump/Russia collusion continues regardless of Comey's firing, unimpeded. Likewise Senate and Congress investigations as well. Where, by the way, is ONE investigation of Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion? And in contrast WHERE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION AGAINST TRUMP?
Quote:
Or how about the request for loyalty?
I don't know specifically what you mean. But what administration doesn't require loyalty? The Obama administration was described even by decades-seasoned liberal New York Times and Washington Post reporters as the "most control freak" administration they'd ever dealt with, that was fanatical about tracking down and prosecuting leakers within the White House. THIS only the conservative media wanted to report, I don't see what the Trump administration could possibly be doing that exceeds that.
Quote:
Or the mess of lies and half truths that were thrown out as reasons for firing Comey. Trump doesn't look bad, he is bad.
Assertions with no evidence to back it up. AGAIN: Every last Democrat screaming foul play over Comey's firing has made one or more statements ON VIDEO calling for Comey's firing or resignation within the last 6 months. For them to allege now that it was inappropriate is laughable. Comey is no Archibald Cox.
My opinion of how you guys would have reacted to a hypothetical isn't a lie because after over 16 years of seeing your comments that is how I honestly feel.
yeah there are some of the old guard that seem to be not much liked by Trump people. For them Trump is the victim and anything to the contrary is to be attacked.
As is this: House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says he’s ready to subpoena a memo reportedly written by former FBI Director James Comey that, according to multiple sources, details a meeting with President Donald Trump in which the president asked Comey to end the bureau’s investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
And this: “It is important to get to the bottom of it,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. “We’ve got one standard, and we need to make sure that applies to everybody.”
And this: McConnell Calls for James Comey’s Testimony
You'll note they're ready to issue subpoenas to get to the bottom of this. They aren't running around, crying about a "witch hunt" or any of the stuff the DNC does to circle the wagons when one of theirs gets implicated in something potentially shady (see, eg, a certain airport tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton).
It's a witch hunt, lol. It's not the media's job to act as your parties propaganda arm g. The article brings up some legitimate points. How long and many times can Pence be "not informed"? It just isn't credible at this point.
What is unfair in the reporting g? Why should Pence's actions be ignored? I understand why you don't like it due to your political bias but is there anything more than that? A defense for Pence maybe?
"We need to know what the President, Vice President, White House Counsel, and other top officials knew about General Flynn ---- and when they knew it,"
The slightest whiff of a potential Trump scandal/conspiracy, with no actual evidence.
Clapper, the director of the combined NSA, CIA and FBI, said he has seen no evidence of a Trump collusion with the Russians.
Just today, former CIA Director John Brennan comes out as another high-level intelligence official to say there's no "there" there, regarding Trump collusion with the Russians.
Meanwhile, there's a stack of evidence a mile wide that the Hillary Clinton was in collusion with the Russians, that neither House or Senate Democrats, or the complicit liberal media want to discuss!
1) Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, signed off on a deal that gives the Russuans at least 20% of U.S. uranium. 2) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that while she was Secretary of State, allowed the Russians and the Chinese to access her e-mails and know in real time what the U.S.'s strategic planning was (both Hillary and the other high-level officials she communicated with, including President Obama, on her server) and to further compromise the internet security of every official she communicated with, for further hacking. One example: following a large Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton was given a $500,000 speaking fee by the same Russian company. 3) Hillary Clinton taking donations from Russia (and many other bad-player nations) at the Clinton Foundation, and using those donations to sell access to officials at the U.S. State Department. 4) Hillary Clinton's treason over Benghazi. We still have no answers, over 4 years later, where Obama and Frau Hitlery were, while Americans were dying at the embassy. And further indications that Benghazi was used to funnel guns and funding to questionably reliable Islamic militant groups in Syria. 5) Hillary and Obama's treason over allowing Russia to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, with absolutely no action.
Would that Democrats or the Destroy-Trump media would give the slightest fair and balanced attention to these PROVEABLE treasonous acts by Hillary and those around her.
Actually Brennan didn't say there was no there there yesterday. Trey Gowdy was trying to get him to say that but instead got answers that made it harder for the GOP to provide cover. Would you have been okay if Obama or any democrat was doing what Trump is doing?
The slightest whiff of a potential Trump scandal/conspiracy, with no actual evidence.
Clapper, the director of the combined NSA, CIA and FBI, said he has seen no evidence of a Trump collusion with the Russians.
Just today, former CIA Director John Brennan comes out as another high-level intelligence official to say there's no "there" there, regarding Trump collusion with the Russians.
Meanwhile, there's a stack of evidence a mile wide that the Hillary Clinton was in collusion with the Russians, that neither House or Senate Democrats, or the complicit liberal media want to discuss!
1) Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, signed off on a deal that gives the Russians at least 20% of U.S. uranium. 2) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that while she was Secretary of State, allowed the Russians and the Chinese to access her e-mails and know in real time what the U.S.'s strategic planning was (both Hillary and the other high-level officials she communicated with, including President Obama, on her server) and to further compromise the internet security of every official she communicated with, for further hacking. One example: following a large Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton was given a $500,000 speaking fee by the same Russian company. 3) Hillary Clinton taking donations from Russia (and many other bad-player nations) at the Clinton Foundation, and using those donations to sell access to officials at the U.S. State Department. 4) Hillary Clinton's treason over Benghazi. We still have no answers, over 4 years later, where Obama and Frau Hitlery were, while Americans were dying at the embassy. And further indications that Benghazi was used to funnel guns and funding to questionably reliable Islamic militant groups in Syria. 5) Hillary and Obama's treason over allowing Russia to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, with absolutely no action.
Would that Democrats or the Destroy-Trump media would give the slightest fair and balanced attention to these PROVEABLE treasonous acts by Hillary and those around her.
It's charming how everyone has such a death grip on this idea that Trump and the Clintons are moral and ideological opposites engaged in a tug-of-war for the soul of America. The inside-outside scam continues.
I see Jared "Fredo" Kusnher is a target of the FBI probe. I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not. The little sleaze always looked like the exact guy who would be into influence peddling.
It's charming how everyone has such a death grip on this idea that Trump and the Clintons are moral and ideological opposites engaged in a tug-of-war for the soul of America. The inside-outside scam continues.
Who in America thinks that either Trump or the Clintons are pure and without sin?
I'm obviously a Trump supporter, but even so, I don't see him as an ideological pole on one side of the spectrum, conservative or otherwise. Hillary, on the other hand, is a deceitful America-hating Alinsky-trained cultural Marxist who, like Obama, wants to radically transform America. And Hillary even more so than Obama is a tool of George Soros, who would like to enslave the United States to global government.
I also have no idea what you mean by the "inside-outside scam".
I was wondering what Cap meant too. Is it both sides are really the same type argument? Not sure if that is the case with Trump. Even his supporters see him as being different. The budget he came out with for example is something even a segment of republicans had issues with. It's something that takes us back to thinking prior to WW2. Personally I think we learned some lessons after that but as that generation has died off we're forgetting. The globalization that was built up than is a stabilizing force that is being taken apart.
I think we all know better than to assume anyone's hands are clean. What I'm getting at is that everyone talks about DJT as though this shitshow was his grand plan all along, that he and the Clintons have been opponents for years and years, and that they don't all ultimately drink from the same financial-sector wells. The Donald was the Clintons' BFF for years, an important DNC donor, who wanted to try something as a stunt and kind of fell backwards into this whole Presidential misadventure. It just so happened that along the way, the wrong people realized how incredibly useful he could be under the right circumstances. I don't know why some folks can chant "Hillary for prison!" and others can chant "Trump for prison!" as though they're mutually exclusive. Minimum-security isn't where the overpopulation is; there's plenty of room for both of them.
I think we all know better than to assume anyone's hands are clean. What I'm getting at is that everyone talks about DJT as though this shitshow was his grand plan all along, that he and the Clintons have been opponents for years and years, and that they don't all ultimately drink from the same financial-sector wells. The Donald was the Clintons' BFF for years, an important DNC donor, who wanted to try something as a stunt and kind of fell backwards into this whole Presidential misadventure. It just so happened that along the way, the wrong people realized how incredibly useful he could be under the right circumstances.
What the fuck does that even mean? In what context are you going to apply the "everybody's corrupt!" meme when Trump didn't have a hand in any political fuckery like Hilldog did?
The telling aspect of your disingenuous screed is that you don't expand upon any tacit claims of corruption, but rather you just cast aspersions, comfortable in the perception that it attributes to your character a form of pseudo-enlightenment that no one could possibly contradict because "everybody's corrupt".
And, of course, you have even less evidence that he was never serious about running in the first place, but you'll run with that narrative to justify your critique, and general dislike, of the ilk that supported and campaigned for him. It seems a far more realistic conclusion that you're still simply bitter about his win, which has permanently muddled your--and Iggy's--ability to bandy about the word "corrupt" and take for granted it's credibility in the context of politics. Unfortunately for your (and Iggy's) ego(s), Trump's private citizen status--juxtaposed with the incomparably evil character of the Clintons--nullifies the feasibility of your premises: "Hi! I'm Donald Trump. And I'm gonna run for president against the world's most powerful crime family--and win--while risking death, disgrace, and slander in the process because they and I were allies all along. Impressive scheme don't you think?"
I don't want to throw too much up at once for you, Sammitch, I don't assume, either with or without clarification on your part, that you intend any kind of deception. It's just frustrating when you (I think for intended brevity) lay down conspiracies so briefly described that we honestly have no clue what you mean!
I've laid out in multiple posts SPECIFICALLY how Hillary Clinton and her inner circle (partially including Obama through his knowing communication with her on the illegal private email server) are guilty of at least 4 different kinds of treason, that is fully documented if there is any will to prosecute.
In contrast, while Trump may have said and done some inappropriate things with women, while Trump has done some questionably ethical things in the decades of his real estate and financial/business investments, while Trump had some degree of communication with the Russians (I think ANY new administration would have such communication, in an effort to negotiate a resolution to rifted diplomatic relations, WHILE GUARANTEEING THE RUSSIANS NOTHING, just exploring the negotiable possibilities).
But in 7 months of barrage by the liberal media and beltway Democrats, in Trumps case there is no evidence, absolutely nothing, to warrant the accusations let alone an indictment of Trump. And while I think it is warranted to investigate any possible impropriety with the Russians by the Trump administration, I find it an infuriating double standard when Trump is under investigation to the hilt, and despite the mountain of incriminating evidence that is RIGHT THERE for the prosecuting Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama, no one accusing Trump wants to look at or even discuss it.
The media and liberals adored Trump before he made his presidential bid. Trump was a strong supporter of Bill and Hillary during their time in the white house, yes. But he was also an equally strong supporter of Reagan. For the Nth time, for whatever other flaws, what I like about Trump is he's a pragmatist who isn't ideologically anchored to either party. And at his best, he offers a pragmatist's business sense and efficiency to reforming Washington. And it definitely needs the reforming, and has for at least 20 years. That kind of reform was not offered during or since by any other candidate in the 2016 race. During or after.
About Trump and the Clintons (and the broader Washington elites of both parties) who "ultimately drink from the same financial-sector wells", that may have been true in the past before Trump broke the establishment stranglehold on both parties. But since he has been elected, I read that he has lost about 700 million in business for his defiance. When he broke from his support of Democrats, they turned on him. He was part of the club, but no longer is.
The Republican establishment simultaneously tries to make the best of his winning and work with him, while at the exact same time large Republican factions and "deep state" bureaucrats sabotage his every move. For example, when Trump wanted to begin with tax reform, and Paul Ryan convinced Trump to go with repeal/replace Obamacare first, then pulled out the rug on Trump and humiliated Trump with a failure to rally Republican a consensus vote on the bill that it was Ryan's job to assure!
There is beyond question a collective effort to destroy Trump's presidency, I don't understand the logic of trying to say he's still part of the club that is trying to destroy him.
Whatever Trump's egotism and indulgences, I see him as a guy who has been one of the U.S.'s richest men, who is now 70, and wants to leave a greater legacy for his life than success in real estate. He is a patriot who has said for 35-plus years that he didn't want to run for political office, but that if no one else stepped up, he wouldn't rule out a white house run. And he finally did. At 70, he wants saving America to be his legacy. And like other presidents before him, he's made a few mis-steps his first year. I'd just like to see him stay on message and get the job done.
That's the outline of my prespective Sammitch. I'd be interested to see the clarification of yours.
Or, maybe, the establishment is going after him because he is so openly flaunting what they would prefer to remain hidden. It all reminds me of Rome in the lead up to the collapse of the Republic.
I ultimately think it's a mistake to attribute too much intentionality to decisions with this many moving parts. A lot of compromises are made and backroom deals are struck, and we'll never know the full details of them all. Regardless, I don't think we're looking at conspiracies so much as at the interaction of faceless systems which have run for decades on interchangeable functionaries, functionaries distinguished by party affiliations which mean increasingly less. The chaos we're seeing right now isn't, I don't think, a deliberate effort at subverting the system as much as a collision between the system and an 'outsider' who is less unwilling than unable to play the game.
Imagine you're at a wedding reception and it's still kinda fun, cringey white-people dancing but no angry drunks so it's at least entertaining to watch. A whole bunch of people decide to bust out line-dance standards and a relatively coordinated Electric Slide breaks out. But there's this dude who's been there the whole time, family member on the groom's side, maybe. Well-dressed, looks like he's got decent money, but visibly uncomfortable whenever he's not the center of attention. Everyone's watching and laughing and having a good time and he's out there on the periphery of it all, increasingly discontent with being left out. Eventually he charges in, hellbent on having every last fragment of your attention, and plants himself dead center in the middle of the group. Looking on from the edge of the dance floor, you almost immediately realize "Holy shit, this guy doesn't know the steps at all!" But he's gonna dance, dammit, whether he matches the others or not. Only problem is, everyone else has done these same steps at, like, dozens of weddings and parties, and they know exactly where they've stepped next every time before. However, our would-be protagonist is doing his own thing in the middle, and there's no such thing to him as negative attention. The dancers can't avoid tripping over the guy and keep in step with the person on either side and know what the guy two people away is gonna do, and the result is a hilarious human pileup that renders it utterly impossible for anyone to dance.
Now, I'm more or less indifferent to the Electric Slide. Maybe the rich guy's possibly inebriated, unarguably uncoordinated dancing would be a hell of a lot more entertaining to watch, if he were out there by himself. But everyone else on that floor, bride's side or groom's side, knew the steps - even if they weren't the best steps - and they would've been able to keep their dance up for a while had they not been interrupted. And it ultimately doesn't matter whether the rich white guy's dance was better than the Electric Slide everyone else has been doing since forever, because when the pileup happens and everyone flops to the dance floor, nobody is dancing anymore.
Now imagine, if you will, that the guy who pushed his way to the middle of the floor is just the loudest and most visible of a number of somewhat drunk dudes who would rather do their own thing than follow the steps, and there are smaller pileups going on at least once or twice a song because these guys feel the need to express their dissatisfaction with the established dance moves from the middle of the floor. Nothing's gonna get done. And those guys have their own agendas - they didn't come with the rich guy in the middle - and they've got their own alternate alternate dance moves. That, to me, is what's going on in Washington right now.
At the risk of misjudging the man's character (though I at least won't insistently refer to him as a 'piece of shit' as others are wont to do), I feel it's relatively safe to say that the central figure of Donald J. Trump's ideology, his political philosophy, and his ontological construction of existence is none other than Donald J. Trump. I think many wealthy individuals, most sufficiently famous people, and damn near all politicians have at least a touch of clinical narcissism, but DJT the man seems to have been entirely subsumed by The Donald and the Trump brand. I think whatever he does at this point is aimed at the advancement of his image, or more accurately the advancement of the persona he's constructed through which to interact with the world. I'm not sure there's any real intent to create or destroy anything, just a compulsion to be the smartest guy who made the most final decisions about the most important issues. I'm sure, Wondy, that DJT would dearly love to be known as the guy who 'saved America' even if he's not really sure how to go about that. But at the moment he's a guy in the middle of the dance floor doing his own thing.
The problem is made far worse when you look around and see the other guys on the dance floor out to do their own thing, who've actually been dancing to the same steps as everyone else for years and years but suddenly see a chance to also be smart guys making final decisions about important things. At this point, in the GOP it looks like a split between the old money who care far less about actual Republican principle than just preserving the comfortable slice of the economic pie they've been carving out for themselves, and then the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party holdovers who are blindly but relentlessly driven by their own poorly-translated approximation of "real conservatism" and "traditional values", and would be perfectly content to trip up every single person on this proverbial dance floor just so long as they can stop that damn Electric Slide. Neither of those factions seems to have a coherent plan for how to actually create something new once they've finished pulling down all the shit they don't like, but I don't think even the few who are aware of that are particularly bothered by it. There are a handful who honestly just want to be done with the pointless cross-aisle bickering and are willing to compromise in pursuit of actually accomplishing something on behalf of their constituents, but they're very definitely lost in the shuffle.
So to recap, you've got the DNC and some of the GOP's old guard all over the floor, pissed off that they can't keep doing the dance they've been doing for years. You've got a few moderates trying to help people up and at least get them out of the pile to figure out what to do next. You've got a whole bunch of half-assed paleocon True Believers busting a clumsy yet tasteful and family-friendly move in the path of anyone who's still even attempting to do the previous dance, and then shouting angrily at those they knock over for having the temerity to disrespect their shitty-dancing "heritage". And finally you've got our hero dead-center in the middle of the dance floor, gyrating frantically and flailing his arms to something totally different from every other damn person out there, screaming for you to notice what a magnificent dancer he is and how important he looks with his big hands and totally natural hair.
Getting back on topic...if there had already been a close working relationship between the Trump campaign and the Putin government, then why would it have been necessary to set up a back channel in December?
It makes me laugh that the "Surrender America" party of the Democrats can accuse Trump or anyone else of "collusion" or treason.
Since at least the Pentagon Papers, since the V V A W era of John Kerry throwing his medals over the fence and accusing U.S. soldiers of atrocities and war crimes, since Michael Moore and others calling the beheaders of the Iraqi resistance (led by imported Al Qaida leadership) "freedom fighters", since Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) comparing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to Nazi storm troopers, since House Democrats in the years of George W. Bush trying to de-fund U.S. troops in Iraq, to force them to withdraw from Iraq.... THESE are the Democrats accusing Donald Trump and his administration of "collusion" or treason?!? Really?
"Collusion"? "Back channel negotiations" ?
That's not even getting into Obama telling Medvedev on a live mike that he "can be much more flexible after the election" (i.e., after he has deceived the American voters regarding his true anti-American goals and treasonous policy). MEDVEDEV: "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." Well done, Comrade Obama.
And without getting into Obama's utterly flaccid response to Russia's aggression in Crimea, Russia's ongoing invasion of eastern Ukraine, or Russia's aggression and support of genocide in Syria, including their firing on U.S. allies in there like the Kurds.
Or Obama's treasonous back-channel negotiations with Iran, that will enable Iran to get nuclear weapons within 10 years, and ICBM missiles to carry them as well. That never should have been negotiated, and when the infuriating Iran deal was announced, and THE EXACT SAME DAY was met by chants by a large crowd of "Death to America" with the Ayatollah at the podium, responding "Yes, death to America. Of course." Obama should have shredded that agreement the same day. Instead Obama gave them a generous reward for terrorism, while providing the weapons of destruction to kill us to a government with a ravenous bloodlust to use those weapons on us.
All in addition to the aforementioned 4 different DOCUMENTED and prosecutable kinds of treason that Hillary Clinton and her staff have engaged in, much of it involving Russia.
It is infuriating that the Democrats (with full assistance of the liberal media) can bombard Trump's administration day after day with wild speculation based on absolutely no evidence, and yet simultaneously ignore the Himalayan mountains of treason on the Democrat side, without the slightest shame or integrity.
Prior to that we didn't know they had tried that though. It makes Trump's actions even more questionable. From Comey's testimony Trump is really trying to cover and protect Flynn. In general he looks guilty as hell trying to obstruct the investigation.
In general he looks guilty as hell trying to obstruct the investigation.
Not even Comey is saying that. Very wishful thinking on the part of the left/their media press operation.
The most damning thing about Comey's testimony is not that Trump obstructed an investigation. It's that Trump is unable to grasp the difference between running a business and running the country.
G consider if it had been Obama asking everybody to leave the room and than saying what Trump said. Trump isn't ignorant, he knew what he was doing. Now why is he so intent on protecting Flynn?
G consider if it had been Obama asking everybody to leave the room and than saying what Trump said. Trump isn't ignorant, he knew what he was doing. Now why is he so intent on protecting Flynn?
Speaking from professional experience, it is far from uncommon for government officials to discuss with law enforcement (or law enforcement to discuss among themselves) the idea that "this guy had to resign in disgrace/got fired, he probably suffered enough, maybe we should cut him a break." And no one considers it "obstruction.'
And, of course, Comey testified that Trump's request, even if heeded, wouldn't have impeded the Russia investigation.
We tend to forget that the President, not the FBI director, is the federal official ultimately charged with enforcement of federal law. The FBI Director answers to the AG. The AG answers to the President. As such, a president can discuss, or even direct, that a prosecution not occur (see, eg, Obama's refusal to enforce immigration law) without it being obstruction.
While there is actually a part of me that would love to see what happens when the left blunders an impeachment into a Mike Pence or Paul Ryan presidency, I (like Alan Dershowitz) just can't go with the idea that so far there's any credible evidence of an impeachable offense.
Flynn is part of the Russia investigation so I'm not sure how you can claim it wouldn't be impeded. Trump is not somebody that strikes me as very loyal either. He fired Flynn for lying to Pence about his Russian meetings. Trump is very much about protecting his own fat ass. Flynn probably links Trump with the Russians and their attempts to get Trump elected.
And while I recognize politically it would be better for Trump to be President, if he did work with the Russians in an attack on our democracy that crosses a line that puts country before political parties imho
"Would closing out the Flynn investigation have impeded the overall Russian investigation?" Senator Angus King, I-Maine, asked.
"No, unlikely, except to the extent, there's always a possibility if you have a criminal case against someone and you bring in and you squeeze them, you flip them. But I saw the two as touching each other, but separate."
So, as usual, you're ignoring the blatant corruption of the Democrats, while clinging to the slightest completely unproven POTENTIAL for a scandal involving Trump and his administration.
Every major intelligence official has come forward and said there is no evidence of any kind for the allegations against Trump. Meanwhile, with piles of evidence, for anyone interested in prosecuting: 1) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national security in a major way to the Russians and Chinese 2) Hillary Clinton signing off on giving the Russians at least 20% of the U.S. uranium supply. 3) The Clinton foundation taking millions in donations, in exchange for access to state department officials for donors. 4) Hillary Clinton's negligence in Behghazi that resulted I the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador. We sstill don't even know where Hillary Clinton was during the 9-11-2012 attack. Or where Obama was.
And of course, M E M doesn't care.
Not to mention Clinton operatives in the DNC rigging the primaries to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, and shutting out Bernie Sanders. And the incredible corruption at the very top involving Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz, and Donna Brazile. The latter giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance to TWO televised CNN televised debates.
The double-standard is clear. Also clear is that M E M and other Democrats have absolutely no interest in finding the truth, protecting the nation or prosecuting criminals, only in what they can twist to smear Donald Trump, and to paralyze his administration.
I would just point out that republicans control not only the executive branch but also the legislative. If Clinton was actually guilty with all those piles of evidence you allege than really you need to be aiming your criticism at those in power. The big pile of shit that started chants of "lock her up" and race baited Obama with the whole birth certificate thing is responsible for the things he says and does and doesn't do. The Russians tried to interfere with our elections. Trump's response so far seems to be only about himself. Oh and Flynn.
I would just point out that republicans control not only the executive branch but also the legislative. If Clinton was actually guilty with all those piles of evidence you allege than really you need to be aiming your criticism at those in power.
While I agree 100% that the GOP congress and the GOP president should be directing DoJ to reopen the investigation of Hillary (and Lynch for that matter), I'm equally sure that, if they did, you and the liberal media would be screaming it was "political persecution" and that the winning party isn't supposed to criminally investigate its opponents.
Maybe Putin will help you guys out again? Seriously g, your argument is your party isn't doing it because they're afraid of what the other side is going to say? You might like the smell of your own bs but I'm grateful the internet is an odorless medium, lol. Btw is the liberal media now any news agency that doesn't bend over like Trump's cabinet?
So WB what do you have to say about the republicans that are ignoring "piles of evidence "? They could actually act on that. Or maybe there really isn't the evidence there that you allege. I think if there was you would see the GOP and Trump acting on it.
So WB what do you have to say about the republicans that are ignoring "piles of evidence "? They could actually act on that. Or maybe there really isn't the evidence there that you allege. I think if there was you would see the GOP and Trump acting on it.
They are establishment Republicans who want business as usual, and don't want the house-cleaning that Trump wants to put in place, that would end their lobbyist corruption, in collusion with the Democrats.
John Boehner and others outright said to others, in conversations revealed, that it was better for them if Hillary was elected. Better for them, but not for the American people.
Maybe Putin will help you guys out again? Seriously g, your argument is your party isn't doing it because they're afraid of what the other side is going to say? You might like the smell of your own bs but I'm grateful the internet is an odorless medium, lol. Btw is the liberal media now any news agency that doesn't bend over like Trump's cabinet?
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
So, as usual, you're ignoring the blatant corruption of the Democrats, while clinging to the slightest completely unproven POTENTIAL for a scandal involving Trump and his administration.
Every major intelligence official has come forward and said there is no evidence of any kind for the allegations against Trump. Meanwhile, with piles of evidence, for anyone interested in prosecuting: 1) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national security in a major way to the Russians and Chinese 2) Hillary Clinton signing off on giving the Russians at least 20% of the U.S. uranium supply. 3) The Clinton foundation taking millions in donations, in exchange for access to state department officials for donors. 4) Hillary Clinton's negligence in Behghazi that resulted I the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador. We sstill don't even know where Hillary Clinton was during the 9-11-2012 attack. Or where Obama was.
And of course, M E M doesn't care.
Not to mention Clinton operatives in the DNC rigging the primaries to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, and shutting out Bernie Sanders. And the incredible corruption at the very top involving Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz, and Donna Brazile. The latter giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance to TWO televised CNN televised debates.
The double-standard is clear. Also clear is that M E M and other Democrats have absolutely no interest in finding the truth, protecting the nation or prosecuting criminals, only in what they can twist to smear Donald Trump, and to paralyze his administration.
It makes me laugh that the "Surrender America" party of the Democrats can accuse Trump or anyone else of "collusion" or treason.
Since at least the Pentagon Papers, since the V V A W era of John Kerry throwing his medals over the fence and accusing U.S. soldiers of atrocities and war crimes, since Michael Moore and others calling the beheaders of the Iraqi resistance (led by imported Al Qaida leadership) "freedom fighters", since Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) comparing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to Nazi storm troopers, since House Democrats in the years of George W. Bush trying to de-fund U.S. troops in Iraq, to force them to withdraw from Iraq.... THESE are the Democrats accusing Donald Trump and his administration of "collusion" or treason?!? Really?
"Collusion"? "Back channel negotiations" ?
That's not even getting into Obama telling Medvedev on a live mike that he "can be much more flexible after the election" (i.e., after he has deceived the American voters regarding his true anti-American goals and treasonous policy). MEDVEDEV: "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." Well done, Comrade Obama.
And without getting into Obama's utterly flaccid response to Russia's aggression in Crimea, Russia's ongoing invasion of eastern Ukraine, or Russia's aggression and support of genocide in Syria, including their firing on U.S. allies in there like the Kurds.
Or Obama's treasonous back-channel negotiations with Iran, that will enable Iran to get nuclear weapons within 10 years, and ICBM missiles to carry them as well. That never should have been negotiated, and when the infuriating Iran deal was announced, and THE EXACT SAME DAY was met by chants by a large crowd of "Death to America" with the Ayatollah at the podium, responding "Yes, death to America. Of course." Obama should have shredded that agreement the same day. Instead Obama gave them a generous reward for terrorism, while providing the weapons of destruction to kill us to a government with a ravenous bloodlust to use those weapons on us.
All in addition to the aforementioned 4 different DOCUMENTED and prosecutable kinds of treason that Hillary Clinton and her staff have engaged in, much of it involving Russia.
It is infuriating that the Democrats (with full assistance of the liberal media) can bombard Trump's administration day after day with wild speculation based on absolutely no evidence, and yet simultaneously ignore the Himalayan mountains of treason on the Democrat side, without the slightest shame or integrity.
Once again, it's what President Trump and his top aides and family members are doing to themselves concerning Russia that is keeping things tangled, far more than anything Russia is doing to them. Now confronting the White House: Another undisclosed contact with a Russian operative, plus another set of misleading statements about that meeting. (Just what's being admitted to now – that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian source with the expectation of receiving damaging information about the Clinton campaign – is stunning.) Also for the president to sort out: Contradictions out of his meeting last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin about whether sanctions were discussed, how hard and to what end he pressed election meddling, and a bizarre presidential about-face concerning a cybersecurity task force the president himself proposed and disposed of on the same calendar day. White House aides want to compartmentalize Russia, to put the past behind them. But time and again, it's not just history. It's continued actions by the president, his children and members of his inner circle that confound and complicate. It's when inexplicable things happen that more people are intent on looking for explanations.
So Trump Jr. (NOT Trump) met with some Russian woman who said she had compromising information on Hillary Clinton, and turned out to be an advocate for adopting Russian children, and was not a representative of the Russian government. So the hell what? How is that different from the Hillary campaign operatives who spoke to someone who gave them video of Trump on the bus 11 years ago saying "you just grab them by the pussy"? Trump Jr was given a lead on his political opposition, he checked it out, and it turned out to be nothing.
It's not like she was a Putin employee looking to buy U.S. military secrets, and it's not like Trump Jr was selling her information. She (NOT a Russian government representative) set up a meeting with Trump Jr under false pretense, and Trump Jr. rejected both her and what she was selling. There is no scandal, just another attempt by liberals (and the "team-DNC" Newspeak liberal media) trying to create the APPEARANCE of scandal, to smear the Trump administration. Or as President Trump would say: fake news.
Do you mind if I ask why you even bother, MEM? Honestly, WB isn't going to budge in his love of Trump until he gets slapped on the forehead by some prime Russian collusion cock.
I guess it's always worth talking to people even if it's never going to change minds. And right now it's the WB's that are keeping Trump afloat. How he and other Trump supporters reacts to each revelation matters
I'm influenced by the facts, and I haven't seen any yet to indicate Trump collusion. Just a lot of insinuation by partisan zealots like yourself, M E M, who will defend the DNC to your dying breath and slander Republicans likewise, no matter how incriminating the facts against pretty much the entire Democrat leadership.
The case against Trump is a joke, vs. the case against Hillary Clinton and Obama, that is RIGHT THERE for anyone willing to look at it. Which the liberal media and corrupt investigators like Comey and his hand-picked man Meuller are not. And are stacking their "independent investigation" team with huge donors to the Obama and Hillary campaign, and one Hillary Clinton employed lawyer!
Meanwhile here's Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, hacked every day she was secretary of state by the Russians and the Chinese compromising national security. No one is investigating. Meanwhile here's Hillary Clinton signing away at least 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russians while secretary of state, simultaneous with a large donation to the Clinton Foundation, and simultaneous with a huge speaking fee paid to Bill Clinton for an appearance before Russian groups. No one is investigating. Meanwhile, here's the Clinton Foundation, whose donors worldwide contributed millions in a pay-to-play scheme to gain access to state department officials in exchange for their donations. No one is investigating.
There is an obsession, in both the liberal media, as well as in the corrupt pro-Democrat "deep state" rigged investigations with shouting from the rooftops the first hint of the slightest grain of improper action by Trump officials, while simultaneously ignoring Himalayan mountains of evidence of corruption and treason on the Democrat side. And on the Democrat side, it is painfully obvious, and you realy don't have to dig very deep. It's RIGHT THERE! Just LOOK at it!
Do you mind if I ask why you even bother, MEM? Honestly, WB isn't going to budge in his love of Trump until he gets slapped on the forehead by some prime Russian collusion cock.
Do you mind if I ask why you even bother, MEM? Honestly, WB isn't going to budge in his love of Trump until he gets slapped on the forehead by some prime Russian collusion cock.
Eat shit. And see above.
Jesus loves you, WB, and totally watches as you masturbate to the porn you share in the women forum because you are both fucking perverts.
Trump and company are no better than the other side. They may play the crooked game from the business side, but they still play the crooked game that tilts the table in their favor. You just can't accept he is no less a piece of shit than Hillary because your pride won't let you concede that he is just a turd of a different color and fragrance.
There is nothing wrong with saying that--while still glad you didn't elect Hillary--you still look at this clown and wish you could call mulligan.
I get that. I'm just talking about the really hardcore anti-Hillary folks. I don't think anyone is necessarily thinking that this ends with people going "Damn, I should've voted for Hillary." She was an inherently flawed candidate that also attracted mud like a magnet. Putting her on the ticket is part of the reason we are where we are today. Still, I just can't wrap my head around why WB and folks like him can't just call a turd a turd without thinking that it will somehow turn them into Democrats or some Serpentor like Communist candidate made from the DNA of Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Guevara, and Marx.
You are a pretty committed Democrat and I get that you may disagree with what I said, but I'm willing to speak to something closer to a Trump supporters view just to see why they are so committed to look at all that is happening and not really have an internal discussion about whether or not they fucked up.
Do you mind if I ask why you even bother, MEM? Honestly, WB isn't going to budge in his love of Trump until he gets slapped on the forehead by some prime Russian collusion cock.
Eat shit. And see above.
Jesus loves you, WB, and totally watches as you masturbate to the porn you share in the women forum because you are both fucking perverts.
Trump and company are no better than the other side. They may play the crooked game from the business side, but they still play the crooked game that tilts the table in their favor. You just can't accept he is no less a piece of shit than Hillary because your pride won't let you concede that he is just a turd of a different color and fragrance.
There is nothing wrong with saying that--while still glad you didn't elect Hillary--you still look at this clown and wish you could call mulligan.
All I see is insults in your above response, nothing that even slightly resembles a lucid case against Trump, or why he's allegedly as corrupt or more corrupt than Frau Hitlery. I've detailed the case against Hillary, as have many others. I see a lot alleged about Trump, and yet nothing proven. The worst thing he's said is "You just grab them by the pussy." Which still is just Trump saying that when you're famous, women want to be around you, and he takes what they're willingly giving him.
I see results from Trump: Even without a wall, illegal immigration is down by at least 50%. The stock market has risen by 20% since he took office less than 6 months ago. He has already passed considerable legislation, and at least has the potential to pass repeal/replace of Obamacare, and more achievable, tax reform. Trump is re-building our military, and has made the threat of U.S. military action actually mean something again, and given the world's worst players reason to hesitate, when they were on the march during Obama's feckless reign. Unemployment is down, and people who had given up looking for work under Obama are now back in the labor market looking for work. ISIS in Iraq/Syria is days away from defeat.
And you say Trump is a liar on a par with Hillary, full of empty promises!?! What are you smoking? Trump for whatever flaws has achieved more, and more quickly, than any president in my lifetime, in *LESS* than 6 months so far. Obama took 14 months to pass Obamacare during his presidency, and Trump is being called a failure in less than 6 months? Please.
For 5 years, Iggy, you've come across as a vindictive liar with an axe to grind. You support no Republican who has a chance of winning, you vindictively attack any Republican who does win. At best, your views are confused. And at worst, you're a treacherous liar, who misrepresents his true views, and is in all likelihood a closeted liberal pretending to be something he's not.
And more generally about Trump's beltway and grassroots opposition, I just don't get the unbridled hatred unleashed on him, particularly the ones who call Trump "right-wing", "racist" and so forth. Trump spent a good deal of his life as a Democrat. UNTIL JUST BEFORE TRUMP ANNOUNCED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY, Trump was a registered Democrat, who was a large Democrat donor. He has demonstrated himself for at least 35 years to be a patriot who would rather not run for office, but didn't rule it out if no one else stepped up to do the job, and when no one else stepped up, he finally ran, and won. I see Trump as a pragmatist who is not ideologically tethered to either party's ideology, and liberals should pray to God nothing happens to Trump, because Vice President Pence >>>>IS<<<< their worst nightmare of a conservative ideologue with a hard stance against abortion, gay marriage, and all the other hardline conservative hot issues. TRUMP IS NOT! Trump was among the first large employers to hire women and minorities in large numbers and hire them to high-paying executive positions. Trump is also very friendly and supportive of gays. Not since Reagan in 1980, or the Gingrich Revolution in 1994 have I seen elected leaders work so hard to keep their promises to the American people. And like tens of millions of other Americans who support Trump, I see his attackers as partisan liars tearing down a guy whose trying like hell to keep his promises and re-build America. Partisan liars who haven't a shred of evidence against him, beyond innuendo and wild speculation. Even as there >>>>IS<<< a strong case against Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Barack Obama, Jennifer Palmieri, Cheryl Mills, Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz, Donna Brazille, John Podesta, Robbie Mook, James Comey, and even against Robert Meuller (in his clearly DNC-tilted "independent investigation" lawyers, who far from independent, are all huge Democrat donors, and one a former lawyer for the Clinton foundation who filed suppression orders to hide the very evidence they are supposed to now be investigating. ) I've yet to hear >>>>>>>>>>ONE<<<<<<<<< valid accusation against Trump that has ever come to anything beyond wild speculation and a complete lack of evidence.
In the current case against Donald Trump Jr., the Russian lawyer he agreed to meet with (who misrepresented herself to secure the meeting) would never have been able to have legal status to be in the U.S. to meet with Trump Jr., if not for the approval of her passport by Loretta Lynch to give her legal status to be here. Hannity and several legal scholars have deconstructed the hypocrisies, of how Democrats SET UP the circumstances for this Russian lawyer to meet Trump Jr and her clear ties to Democrats who sponsored her. And how Clinton campaign officials in dealings with the Ukrainian government were not held to the same standard as Trump Jr.
So again, in short: NO EVIDENCE AGAINST TRUMP OR HIS ADMINISTRATION, just more wild speculation proven to have no basis.
So, hold Trump and Sessions accountable for seeing that justice against Hillary is finally served if her crimes are that numerous and clear! Otherwise, we're not talking about her or Obama's crimes here and you can leave that deflection at the door. Trump is either abrogating his duty to uphold the law or he knows there is no there there and all of it is just an elaborate game of politics that makes the likes of you become frothing-at-the-mouth partisans.
Secondly, I never said anything about Trump doing anything illegal. You guys going that route is another attempt to derail the conversation. What this revelation did do is flush six months of Trump narrative down the fucking drain. The administration killed their own credibility by not being forward about these things and treating it as a witch-hunt.
But, let's focus on Hillary. Please, tell me why Trump won't take the donessa down. It can't be for the good of the country as letting her and her cronies get away with it puts us in danger of them doing even more awful shit in the future to undermine America. Taking "Frau Hillary" down is--by your account of things--imperative for American survival because she is treacherously selling us out at every turn and Trump and co. are doing nothing to prevent such things from ever happening again. Why, wondy? Why does Trump care so little about our fucking country as to not save us from this horrible bitch of a woman?
That meeting also included Manafort and Kushner (who had been trying to secretly create a communication channel with Russia). These fuckers need to be testifying under oath and Kushner needs to be stripped of his security clearance!
So, hold Trump and Sessions accountable for seeing that justice against Hillary is finally served if her crimes are that numerous and clear! Otherwise, we're not talking about her or Obama's crimes here and you can leave that deflection at the door. Trump is either abrogating his duty to uphold the law or he knows there is no there there and all of it is just an elaborate game of politics that makes the likes of you become frothing-at-the-mouth partisans.
That is certainly what Trump and the Republican House and Senate majorities were elected to do. The evidence is overwhelming that Hillarry, Obama and the broader DNC leadership are guilty of multiple crimes. The reluctance to prosecute them makes no sense to me. Certainly Trump vowed to make Hillary accountable to the same justice as everyone else when he was campaigning. As early as election day, I expressed my frustration here that Trump pulled back and at the inauguration describe Bill and Hillary Clinton as "good people".
I can only speculate on Trump's motivations. But I would guess that he didn't press the issue of Hillary's crimes beginning at his inauguration because (1) She was out of power, and therefore no longer a threat despite her past crimes, (2) not pursuing Hillary would be healing to the nation, and perhaps not further humiliating her and the DNC would buy the cooperation of House and Senate Democrats in advancing his own agenda as president (which clearly hasn't happened), and (3) pursuing Democrats after they left office might set a precedent that Democrats, when eventually in power again, would similarly pursue Trump or other Republicans after they leave office.
Again, that's my best speculation, certainly not any inside knowledge.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
Secondly, I never said anything about Trump doing anything illegal. You guys going that route is another attempt to derail the conversation.
There was no malicious attempt on my part to misrepresent what you said or "derail the conversation". You just said above:
Quote:
Trump and company are no better than the other side. They may play the crooked game from the business side, but they still play the crooked game that tilts the table in their favor. You just can't accept he is no less a piece of shit than Hillary because your pride won't let you concede that he is just a turd of a different color and fragrance.
You condemned Trump in the harshest of terms and said he was just as bad as Hillary. Trump is alleged to have committed crimes by partisan Democrats. Don't blame me for your own harsh words and lack of clarity, where you appear to fully buy into the harshest rhetoric from the Democrat side of Trump's alleged crimes.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
What this revelation did do is flush six months of Trump narrative down the fucking drain. The administration killed their own credibility by not being forward about these things and treating it as a witch-hunt.
No. They didn't. This Russian lawyer is already proven to be a Democrat operative, whose very legal status to even be in this country was granted by attorney General Loretta Lynch on a special VISA passport that appears to be one of a kind, that permitted her to do her devil's work at Obama/Hillary's bidding.
Originally Posted By: Iggy
But, let's focus on Hillary. Please, tell me why Trump won't take the donessa down. It can't be for the good of the country as letting her and her cronies get away with it puts us in danger of them doing even more awful shit in the future to undermine America. Taking "Frau Hillary" down is--by your account of things--imperative for American survival because she is treacherously selling us out at every turn and Trump and co. are doing nothing to prevent such things from ever happening again. Why, wondy? Why does Trump care so little about our fucking country as to not save us from this horrible bitch of a woman?
That was a bit overly dramatic on your part. And I answered that in the first part of my post. I can only speculate on Trump's motive in not aggressively prosecuting overt and provable crimes by Obama and Hillary.
And regardless, Hillary is out of power and no longer a threat. The only threat left from both Obama and Hillary are their "deep state" loyalists in the State Dept, Defense Dept, Justice Dept, and intelligence fields of FBI/CIA/NSA that are leaking information every day and should all be fired.
The ability of Trump to do this is perhaps prevented by Democrat obstruction of his nominees, to an unprecedented level, where he can't pursue justice until he has a team in place. Which has now stalled 1/8th of his four-year term.
That meeting also included Manafort and Kushner (who had been trying to secretly create a communication channel with Russia). These fuckers need to be testifying under oath and Kushner needs to be stripped of his security clearance!
All they did was meet with someone who said they had compromising information about Hillary Clinton. They had a meeting, and it turned out she completely misrepresented herself to get aa meeting with Trump Jr.
I notice you never called for the same loss of security clearance from Obama, Hillary, or any of their involved staff for their BLATANT damage to national security and outright treason. But with the slightest whiff of a POTENTIAL scandal, on far less evidence, you call for removing Kushner and others.
Like I said, with absolute certainty, if a woman with a Russian accent had called the Hillary Clinton campaign saying they had dirt on the Trump campaign, Hillary officials would absolutely have met with her. And in Donald Trump Jr.'s case he met, saw the meeting was set up under false pretenses, and made no further contact.
If Trump Jr and the others with him didn't disclose the meeting publicly, it's likely because the meeting was insignificant, and was forgotten amid the many other meetings they've had over the last year.
And again, it's absolutely absurd to imply that what Trump Jr. or any Trump official did, was "collusion with the Russians" or some other category of "treason". *EVERYONE* in this country knows who the cultural Marxists who hate America are, who the traitors to America are, and they are clearly the ideological enemies of America in the Clinton and Obama administrations, in the Democrat party that since the Vietnam war has a 40-plus year history of betraying America at every turn.
You're biased so that hypothetical with Hillary is flawed from the start. All we know is that you're okay with Trump's family meeting in secret with people that were connected to the Russian government. You even attack media that doesn't provide propaganda and cover for them. It's pretty pathetic that Kushner's contact form he is supposed to have filled out for his security clearance is only being done so now because the media is reporting he had these meetings.
Hannity in yesterdays' program (Friday, July 14th) did an outstanding job of detailing Democrat hypocrisy on the meeting between Donald Trump Jr and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian woman who wouldn't even be in the country to meet with Trump Jr., if not for the extraordinary efforts of Loretta Lynch and other Democrats to give her special status to be in the U.S. in the first place.
That's bs, her department much less Lynch herself doesn't make those decisions. This is just more deflection for people who are okay if Trump or his people were being deceptive about their Russian contacts all along.
What did they get wrong with that article? So far you've attacked everyone except for those that have had secret meetings with Russians and lied to America about it. Do you imagine a good reason for their lies?
You push your narrowly shaved false narrative like a trained propagandist, M E M.
But your narrow shaving of the truth doesn't come NEAR explaining all the corrupt loose ends that Hannity details in the above two editorials, among many other Democrat deceptions he lays out nightly in his program. All you can say is Trump Jr. had a meeting he attended, where he was led to the meeting under false pretenses, and ultimately did nothing wrong, certainly no crimes.
As opposed the HIMILAYAN MOUNTAIN CHAIN -sized stack of evidence against Hillary Clinton and Obama, that I, G-man and others have laid out in this topic.
If Hillary is not being prosecuted, it is because of corrupt leadership by the likes of James Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Robert Meuller (who has assembled a set of attorneys to investigate who are huge donors to Obama, Hillary, and the DNC.)
You push your narrowly shaved false narrative like a trained propagandist, M E M.
But your narrow shaving of the truth doesn't come NEAR explaining all the corrupt loose ends that Hannity details in the above two editorials, among many other Democrat deceptions he lays out nightly in his program. All you can say is Trump Jr. had a meeting he attended, where he was led to the meeting under false pretenses, and ultimately did nothing wrong, certainly no crimes.
As opposed the HIMILAYAN MOUNTAIN CHAIN -sized stack of evidence against Hillary Clinton and Obama, that I, G-man and others have laid out in this topic.
If Hillary is not being prosecuted, it is because of corrupt leadership by the likes of James Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Robert Meuller (who has assembled a set of attorneys to investigate who are huge donors to Obama, Hillary, and the DNC.)
Note you didn't refute one thing in that article. You talk about facts but when confronted with them you pivot with more of the same flawed partisan accusations. Lynch again isn't in her position any longer but instead it's Trump's guy. They are the ones that are not going after Clinton. If they actually had a case they would but Hannity/Trump crap allegations don't actually work in court.
The fact is the woman who met with Trump Jr. should never have been in the country, and she was allowed in the country on some bizarre one-of-a-kind exemption to legal immigration BY LORETTA LYNCH. Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya arranged a meeting with Trump Jr. on false pretenses, nothing further, no information was exchanged, Trump Jr. did absolutely nothing wrong.
While uninvestigated, the Hillary campaign traded secrets with the Ukranian government and other foreign lobbyists, and ACTUALLY DID do what they accuse Trump Jr of doing, colluding with a foreign government to affect a U.S. presidential election. And Hillary's illegal private e-mail server that compromised national security to the Russians and Chinese EVERY DAY that Hillary was Secretary of State. And "pay to play" selling of State Department access to Clinton Foundation donors.
Incredible irony, to obsess over nothing about Trump Jr., while ignoring the massive evidence against Hillary.
I read the N Y Times piece, here are the trivialities they bring up:
Quote:
Ms. Veselnitskaya’s parole expired in February 2016. And according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security, she entered the United States in June through a visitor’s visa issued by the State Department.
A State Department spokesman could not confirm this, citing a law that prohibits the department from discussing individual visa cases. It is unclear what circumstances necessitated Ms. Veselnitskaya’s parole, and why she was able to obtain a visa in June.
Regardless, Ms. Lynch denied having any knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya’s personal travel. And all the immigration law experts The Times spoke to expressed doubt that the former head of the Justice Department had made the request for Ms. Veselnitskaya’s parole.
“Most paroles for litigation are routine and would not come to the attention of the cabinet secretary,” said David Martin, an immigration law professor at the University of Virginia.
While it is likely that a Justice Department official requested parole, the decision to authorize it came from the Department of Homeland Security. So, Ms. Stock said sarcastically, Mr. Trump would be more on target blaming Jeh Johnson, the former Homeland Security secretary, than Ms. Lynch.
“I’d be shocked if she personally was involved in this,” said Eli Kantor, a media liaison with the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
First off, they DON'T KNOW with certainly in the article who would have given Veselnitskaya's waiver status to allow her to stay in the U.S. It MAY have been Loretta Lynch's domain to make the Waiver. It MAY have been Jeh Johnson in DHS's domain. But they can't say with any certainty in the N Y Times article. What is certain is she's a Russian lobbyist (though not directly employed by the Russian government) who set up a meeting with Trump Jr that didn't go anywhere. But has far more extensive ties to Democrat causes and lobbyists. Likewise the situation with the Hillary Clinton campaign trading secrets with the Ukranian government, TO AFFECT THE 2016 ELECTION.
The more you guys try to pin allegations on Trump, the more it leads back to FAR more dirty connections in the Hillary campaign and wider DNC.
Seems we just uncover more lies by Trump and company. Considering their attempts to deceive they may just not be being truthful now. Correct? And alleging something about Lynch is actually the very type of spin you're accusing the other side. Her department wasn't the Department of Homeland Security. And Trump, Kushner and Manafort all our adults responsible for their choices and the lies they've told about it. Kushner has proven that he shouldn't have security clearances that he's got. They all need to be questioned under oath so that future dishonesty has a legal consequence.
DEMOCRAT AND LIBERAL MEDIA POSITION: We condemn in the harshest terms Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lobbyist, one time, that she deceived him under false pretense into having, with a lobbyist that we the Democrats have far more extensive lobbyist and campaign ties to.
And you know who should never have had security clearance?
TWO Saul Alinsky-trained America hating cultural Marxists, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and many of their leftist radical subordinates. Who have done far more to unquestionably damage U.S. national security than Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner could even be falsely alleged to have done.
DEMOCRAT AND LIBERAL MEDIA POSITION: We condemn in the harshest terms Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lobbyist, one time, that she deceived him under false pretense into having, with a lobbyist that we the Democrats have far more extensive lobbyist and campaign ties to.
Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
Harsh opinions (not facts) for everybody except for the proven liars. You have yet to even give token condemnation for some blatant dishonesty. And we really can't be sure if it was just the one time or what transpired since it's been made clear the Trump clan is willing to lie about their Russian dealings. They only admit after lying what the media has been able to prove.
You really can't be sure of anything, but are wildly speculating that Trump Jr. and others are "traitors", based on circumstances that obviously amount to absolutely nothing. The woman has a long history of lobbying political causes for the Democrats. The meeting with Trump Jr. was a baited trap, a hit-job, a set-up.
Ignoring, of course, the blatant ACTUAL treason of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As I've detailed multiple times in this topic.
We can be sure that little Trump lied about the meeting and continued altering his story as the media uncovered more information. Kushner likewise is only disclosing meetings with Russians only after they're uncovered. Your unproven allegation about it being a set up is sad and still would leave these turds responsible for taking the meeting and lying about it afterwards.
Again: You demonize Trump Jr. with absolutely no information, just wild speculation.
While you simultaneously ignore the MASSIVELY greater treason, foreign collusion and deceit by the Democrats, with the EXACT SAME PEOPLE you accuse Trump Jr of "colluding" with. Your hypocrisy is on full display, M E M. Nothing but lying MediaMatters talking points.
So, as usual, you're ignoring the blatant corruption of the Democrats, while clinging to the slightest completely unproven POTENTIAL for a scandal involving Trump and his administration.
Every major intelligence official has come forward and said there is no evidence of any kind for the allegations against Trump. Meanwhile, with piles of evidence, for anyone interested in prosecuting: 1) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national security in a major way to the Russians and Chinese 2) Hillary Clinton signing off on giving the Russians at least 20% of the U.S. uranium supply. 3) The Clinton foundation taking millions in donations, in exchange for access to state department officials for donors. 4) Hillary Clinton's negligence in Behghazi that resulted I the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador. We still don't even know where Hillary Clinton was during the 9-11-2012 attack. Or where Obama was.
And of course, M E M doesn't care.
Not to mention Clinton operatives in the DNC rigging the primaries to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, and shutting out Bernie Sanders. And the incredible corruption at the very top involving Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz, and Donna Brazile. The latter giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance to TWO televised CNN televised debates.
The double-standard is clear. Also clear is that M E M and other Democrats have absolutely no interest in finding the truth, protecting the nation or prosecuting criminals, only in what they can twist to smear Donald Trump, and to paralyze his administration.
Again: You demonize Trump Jr. with absolutely no information, just wild speculation.
While you simultaneously ignore the MASSIVELY greater treason, foreign collusion and deceit by the Democrats, with the EXACT SAME PEOPLE you accuse Trump Jr of "colluding" with. Your hypocrisy is on full display, M E M. Nothing but lying MediaMatters talking points.
It doesn't require speculation to see that little Trump lied. He didn't accidentally not be truthful. On the other hand you're making accusations that if they actually had merit Trump would be all over that.
AGAIN: Your speculation, not fact. It looks to me like it was an uneventful meeting, among days/weeks/months of many other more eventful meetings, and he simply didn't recall or feel there was anything to disclose, until the liberal media had a major hissy fit about it.
WHILE THAT SAME LIBERAL MEDIA ignored Hillary Clinton's FAR more blatant crimes, collusions with foreign governments, and blatantly treasonous acts.
Hannity on his program tonight, the entire program, knocked it out of the park detailing the "collusion" and treason of the Democrats, with the media ignoring the blatant collusion of the Hillary Clinton campaign with the EXACT SAME PEOPLE they make an unrelenting case of Trump Jr. even having an innocuous glancing meeting with!
These people from both Ukraine and Russia have lobbied causes for the Democrats, and the Ukrainian government had to try and make peace with president-elect Trump because of the BLATANT sharing of opposition research on Trump given to the Clinton campaign, in its efforts to prevent Trump's election!
Hannity also appropriately blasted Congress and Senate Republicans for not keeping their 2016 campaign promise to repeal Obamacare, saying they don't deserve to be re-elected if they don't follow through. And vote for the exact same bill they passed 2 years ago that Obama vetoed.
Once again, anonymous sources, allegedly from illegally leaked intelligence from FISA surveillance, once again no specifics, other than the anonymous source vaguely alleges Sessions and a Russian official had "substantive discussions".
The last time similar allegations were made about sessions, all he did was shake hands in a crowded room for a few seconds with a Russian official, in a meeting that was SET UP BY DEMOCRATS for him.
So, as usual, you're ignoring the blatant corruption of the Democrats, while clinging to the slightest completely unproven POTENTIAL for a scandal involving Trump and his administration.
Every major intelligence official has come forward and said there is no evidence of any kind for the allegations against Trump. Meanwhile, with piles of evidence, for anyone interested in prosecuting: 1) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national security in a major way to the Russians and Chinese 2) Hillary Clinton signing off on giving the Russians at least 20% of the U.S. uranium supply. 3) The Clinton foundation taking millions in donations, in exchange for access to state department officials for donors. 4) Hillary Clinton's negligence in Behghazi that resulted I the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador. We still don't even know where Hillary Clinton was during the 9-11-2012 attack. Or where Obama was.
And of course, M E M doesn't care.
Not to mention Clinton operatives in the DNC rigging the primaries to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, and shutting out Bernie Sanders. And the incredible corruption at the very top involving Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz, and Donna Brazile. The latter giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance to TWO televised CNN televised debates.
The double-standard is clear. Also clear is that M E M and other Democrats have absolutely no interest in finding the truth, protecting the nation or prosecuting criminals, only in what they can twist to smear Donald Trump, and to paralyze his administration.
If there was a case against Clinton I think you know Trump would be pushing his Justice Department to actually pursue it. These days he's looking into Presidential pardons. Which times was it wrong for the media to report his administrations undisclosed and or contradicted contacts with Russians?
If there was a case against Clinton I think you know Trump would be pushing his Justice Department to actually pursue it. These days he's looking into Presidential pardons. Which times was it wrong for the media to report his administrations undisclosed and or contradicted contacts with Russians?
That is complete and total bullshit. There are no accusations, so what in the hell is there to pardon. Someone randomly asked Trump a nonspecific question about if, in a very hypothetical way he would pardon someone in his administration. And he responded in a similar nonspecific way that he is president and he has the hypothetical right to pardon, as any other president has previously.
Trump is paralyzed from launching any new investigations by the fact that Attorney General Sessions recused himself to avoid the slightest appearance on conflict of interest. WOULD THAT ROSENSTEIN, MEULLER, AND MEULLER'S APPOINTED LARGE DONORS TO HILLARY AND OBAMA CAMPAIGNS WOULD SIMILARLY RECUSE THEMSELVES, FOR VISIBLY FAR GREATER CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
As Trump pointed out in a Twitter post, Rosenstein, once appointed, wrote a report advising Trump that the only way to restore public confidence in the FBI was to fire Comey. Then when Trump did exactly as Rosenstein himself advised Trump to do, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecuter (handpicked by Comey, with a clear team of Democrat partisans and heavy DNC donors) to investigate Trump for doing exactly as Rosenstein advised!
Not a shocker. Trump really is a pice of shit. Whoever replaces him is going to really have to do some cleaning to get the stain out that he's leaving in the WH.
M E M, when you call the president a "piece of shit" it is not a convincing argument. If you have a case to make, respectfully make it. But all the namecalling does is diminish your own arguments.
Like it or not, Trump is the legally elected president of the United States. And arguably has more experience and judgement to be president than Barack Obama. And unlike Obama, isn't a far-left cultural Marxist radical who hates America. Quite the contrary, Trump is quantifiably improving the U.S. and defending its national interests, far more than Obama.
M E M, when you call the president a "piece of shit" it is not a convincing argument. If you have a case to make, respectfully make it. But all the namecalling does is diminish your own arguments.
Like it or not, Trump is the legally elected president of the United States. And arguably has more experience and judgement to be president than Barack Obama. And unlike Obama, isn't a far-left cultural Marxist radical who hates America. Quite the contrary, Trump is quantifiably improving the U.S. and defending its national interests, far more than Obama.
Seriously? You say that to MEM and wonder why so many people that used to be around here couldn't take your arguments seriously? Okay.
M E M, when you call the president a "piece of shit" it is not a convincing argument. If you have a case to make, respectfully make it. But all the namecalling does is diminish your own arguments.
Like it or not, Trump is the legally elected president of the United States. And arguably has more experience and judgement to be president than Barack Obama. And unlike Obama, isn't a far-left cultural Marxist radical who hates America. Quite the contrary, Trump is quantifiably improving the U.S. and defending its national interests, far more than Obama.
I'm just calling him what he is. Was it good judgement to get his son to try to lie about the meeting with the Russians? Is that a value for you? Is that loving America?
No. You're not. It's just pure emotion, vindictiveness and slander on your part.
Quote:
Was it good judgement to get his son to try to lie about the meeting with the Russians?
That's (yet another) unsourced hit piece by the Washington Post with nothing to back it up. Trump's White House counsel (an actual source!) says that story is complete fabrication. And he met ONE TIME with a Russian lobbyist lawyer where no information was exchanged. He ended the meeting when he saw it was a bait-and-switch meeting set up under false pretenses. And as has been widely reported in sources actually interested in the facts and not just trying to smear President Trump, that lawyer is >>>>>FAR<<<<<< more heavily tied to Democrat lobby interests. Trump Jr had one meeting with the Russian lobbyist attorney, and once she visibly deceived him, Trump Jr walked out and would have nothing to do with her. As opposed to the Democrats' extensive ties. As opposed to Hillary Clinton's signing away 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, in exchange for millions in donations to the3 Clinton Foundation, and immediately after a sudden $500,000 speaking fee in Russia for Bill Clinton. THAT is where the smoke and the fire is, not Trump Jr.
Originally Posted By: M E M
Is that a value for you? Is that loving America?
Trump is rebuilding our military. Even without an actual fence yet, Trump has reduced illegal immigration by 70%. The stock market was at 18,000 when Trump was elected, it is expected to pass 22,000 today. A 20% increase in just his first 6 months.
In myriad ways, Trump is strengthening our sovereignty and pushing back globalism's attempts to undermine U.S. sovereignty, and preserve our national identity from external domination and submission.
As opposed to Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, who are cultural Marxists who ideologically despise capitalism and have deceitfully used Saul Alinsky tactics to undermine the U.S. their entire adult lives. Hillary Clinton, the chosen tool of George Soros to crush U.S. supremacy and reign us into the globalist order. Hillary Clinton, the tool of the Council on Foreign Relations, the instrument of anti-American globalism. Hillary Clinton, who regards police and military as "pigs", and despises their uniforms so much that she made them wear plain business suits when their duties brought them to the White House.
Trump has the overwhelming support of our military. I certainly think they are in a position to know which of the two campaign sides honors our country, and which side hates America.
Hannity in yesterdays' program (Friday, July 14th) did an outstanding job of detailing Democrat hypocrisy on the meeting between Donald Trump Jr and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian woman who wouldn't even be in the country to meet with Trump Jr., if not for the extraordinary efforts of Loretta Lynch and other Democrats to give her special status to be in the U.S. in the first place.
It makes me laugh that the "Surrender America" party of the Democrats can accuse Trump or anyone else of "collusion" or treason.
Since at least the Pentagon Papers, since the V V A W era of John Kerry throwing his medals over the fence and accusing U.S. soldiers of atrocities and war crimes, since Michael Moore and others calling the beheaders of the Iraqi resistance (led by imported Al Qaida leadership) "freedom fighters", since Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) comparing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to Nazi storm troopers, since House Democrats in the years of George W. Bush trying to de-fund U.S. troops in Iraq, to force them to withdraw from Iraq.... THESE are the Democrats accusing Donald Trump and his administration of "collusion" or treason?!? Really?
"Collusion"? "Back channel negotiations" ?
That's not even getting into Obama telling Medvedev on a live mike that he "can be much more flexible after the election" (i.e., after he has deceived the American voters regarding his true anti-American goals and treasonous policy). MEDVEDEV: "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." Well done, Comrade Obama.
And without getting into Obama's utterly flaccid response to Russia's aggression in Crimea, Russia's ongoing invasion of eastern Ukraine, or Russia's aggression and support of genocide in Syria, including their firing on U.S. allies in there like the Kurds.
Or Obama's treasonous back-channel negotiations with Iran, that will enable Iran to get nuclear weapons within 10 years, and ICBM missiles to carry them as well. That never should have been negotiated, and when the infuriating Iran deal was announced, and THE EXACT SAME DAY was met by chants by a large crowd of "Death to America" with the Ayatollah at the podium, responding "Yes, death to America. Of course." Obama should have shredded that agreement the same day. Instead Obama gave them a generous reward for terrorism, while providing the weapons of destruction to kill us to a government with a ravenous bloodlust to use those weapons on us.
All in addition to the aforementioned 4 different DOCUMENTED and prosecutable kinds of treason that Hillary Clinton and her staff have engaged in, much of it involving Russia.
It is infuriating that the Democrats (with full assistance of the liberal media) can bombard Trump's administration day after day with wild speculation based on absolutely no evidence, and yet simultaneously ignore the Himalayan mountains of treason on the Democrat side, without the slightest shame or integrity.
The L A Times article is a lie from the outset. It basically says that Trump Jr spoke to President Trump about the meeting. I didn't see anything there to lay out how the President "helped write" a response to inquiries about the meeting with Russian attorney Veselnitskaya.
Trump Jr was called and offered information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. What campaign WOULDN'T answer that offer to see what they could offer about the opposition? Certainly there is no dirty trick that the Hillary Clinton campaign didn't resort to, including corrupting TWO DNC chairs, corrupting DNC officials at the highest level to suppress Bernie Sanders in the primaries, to unethically rig Hillary as the DNC presidential candidate, and getting the answers to TWO different televised debates in advance from CNN consultant Donna Brazile. That's for OPENERS.
Plus all the other openly treasonous acts by Hillary Clinton, involving her illegal e-mail server, bribes selling State Department access to foreign donors in exchange for millions in foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation. INCLUDING CLINTON/DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN COLLABORATION WITH VESELNETSKAYA, URANIUM ONE, FUSION GPS, AND THE UKRANIAN GOVERMENT. The very Russian enemies Trump is accused of collaborating with! Far more ACTUAL Hillary/Democrat Russian conspiracy than the alleged piddly nonsense Trump Jr is merely hinted at doing by the liberal media!
There is nothing illegal that President Trump has to even defend himself from. Whereas ACTUAL PROSECUTABLE CRIMES by Hillary Clinton, James Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner are completely ignored, in the Left's and liberal media's zeal to distract from the real corruption and smear Trump unfairly.
Ha! You really are the loon that masturbates to paedo-porn everyone that's left here has accused you of being, aren't you?
All three branches of the government lean right and--yet--Hillary is untouchable from facing justice? Surely, they can do something...right? No, I forgot that only the guys you really like are the true patriots in Washington and they are just outnumbered. That's why it seems a grand jury has been empaneled in the Mueller investigation, right?
Nothing may come of this. But, you becoming this seething paedo-beast of raging impotence as the wheels of justice continue to work against your guy is...pretty fucking hilarious.
But, please, do continue to keep me entertained...however, lay off the kiddos.
Why is the article a lie from the outset WB? Seems like every couple of days more of it gets confirmed by the WH. Your previous post for example cites a Trump lawyer saying Trump had nothing to do with JR's meeting. That clearly wasn't true. Now we know Trump was involved.
Ha! You really are the loon that masturbates to paedo-porn everyone that's left here has accused you of being, aren't you?
You're such a petty schmuck. Personal insults, that's what you're all about.
Quote:
All three branches of the government lean right and--yet--Hillary is untouchable from facing justice? Surely, they can do something...right? No, I forgot that only the guys you really like are the true patriots in Washington and they are just outnumbered. That's why it seems a grand jury has been empaneled in the Mueller investigation, right?
Because Republicans, like attorney general Sessions, recused himself to avoid the slightest appearance of conflict of interest. While Meueller and his special investigative committee of Clinton and Obama donors are unashamedly corrupt about their clear conflict of interest. As are Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Donna Brazile, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jennifer Palmieri, Anthony Weiner, and others among their zealous Marxist radical staff who would gladly fall on their swords for them.
Quote:
Nothing may come of this. But, you becoming this seething paedo-beast of raging impotence as the wheels of justice continue to work against your guy is...pretty fucking hilarious.
No justice. And you have some rather odd fantasies. Wheels of Democrat corruption, that demonstrate their contempt for the rule of law, in whatever advances their leftist agenda.
Quote:
But, please, do continue to keep me entertained...however, lay off the kiddos.
Bill Clinton and pedophile island are the child molesters. Whatever lies you are trying to front.
Why is the article a lie from the outset WB? Seems like every couple of days more of it gets confirmed by the WH. Your previous post for example cites a Trump lawyer saying Trump had nothing to do with JR's meeting. That clearly wasn't true. Now we know Trump was involved.
Because it isn't "confirmed". All it says is that President Trump talked to Trump Jr regarding the meeting. Which again, was set up by Veselnetskaya under false pretenses, and in which no actual information was exchanged. You guys cling to the slightest whiff of a POTENTIAL Trump scandal, while ignoring the ACTUAL Hillary Clinton corruption, collusion and bribes: 1) Hillary's illegal e-mail server compromising national security to the Russians and Chinese, 2) Clinton Foundation accepting millions in foreign bribes in exchange for foreign access to State Dept. officials. 3) Signing away 20% of U.S. uranium by Hillary to Uranium One, a Russian company, at precisely the time Bill Clinton suddenly was given an unprecedentedly high $500,000 speaking fee in Russia. 4) Hillary Clinton's betrayal and undisclosed actions during the 9-11-2012 Benghazi attack, and lies/cover-up before, during and after the attack.
5) letting Russia run wild in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and Syria/Iran.
So, as usual, you're ignoring the blatant corruption of the Democrats, while clinging to the slightest completely unproven POTENTIAL for a scandal involving Trump and his administration.
Every major intelligence official has come forward and said there is no evidence of any kind for the allegations against Trump. Meanwhile, with piles of evidence, for anyone interested in prosecuting: 1) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national security in a major way to the Russians and Chinese 2) Hillary Clinton signing off on giving the Russians at least 20% of the U.S. uranium supply. 3) The Clinton foundation taking millions in donations, in exchange for access to state department officials for donors. 4) Hillary Clinton's negligence in Behghazi that resulted I the deaths of 4 Americans, including the ambassador. We still don't even know where Hillary Clinton was during the 9-11-2012 attack. Or where Obama was.
And of course, M E M doesn't care.
Not to mention Clinton operatives in the DNC rigging the primaries to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, and shutting out Bernie Sanders. And the incredible corruption at the very top involving Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz, and Donna Brazile. The latter giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance to TWO televised CNN televised debates.
The double-standard is clear. Also clear is that M E M and other Democrats have absolutely no interest in finding the truth, protecting the nation or prosecuting criminals, only in what they can twist to smear Donald Trump, and to paralyze his administration.
Ummm...you do know your guys are in power and could open a criminal investigation if they wanted to, right? The fact that they aren't, but are using all of that to shore up the base anytime they need a distraction from other events should tell you something.
Why is the article a lie from the outset WB? Seems like every couple of days more of it gets confirmed by the WH. Your previous post for example cites a Trump lawyer saying Trump had nothing to do with JR's meeting. That clearly wasn't true. Now we know Trump was involved.
Because it isn't "confirmed". All it says is that President Trump talked to Trump Jr regarding the meeting. Which again, was set up by Veselnetskaya under false pretenses, and in which no actual information was exchanged. You guys cling to the slightest whiff of a POTENTIAL Trump scandal, while ignoring the ACTUAL Hillary Clinton corruption, collusion and bribes: ....
So unless Trump confirms something it's a lie? I think you know that is a very flawed standard that you only are employing politically. As for the Clinton stuff, your side is in power so again you are very political in your outrage. Tell you what though, if the Russia stuff reaches the level of your Benghazi witch hunt the GOP had (investigation after investigation) I'll actually agree with you on the veracity of this special counsel on Russia. All happening not because of the Dems btw.
Ummm...you do know your guys are in power and could open a criminal investigation if they wanted to, right? The fact that they aren't, but are using all of that to shore up the base anytime they need a distraction from other events should tell you something.
How dense are you? You asked this question before and I answered it.
Trump clearly wants Hillary investigated for multiple crimes, and the Obama administration for the surveillance and intelligence unmaskings. Trump appointed attorney general Sessions, and Sessions for reasons of avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest, recused himself. To Trump's exasperation. Why Sessions didn't appoint someone beyond question to investigate is a mystery to me, and to many, and Trump shares our exasperation. Comey is a deep state bureaucrat, with ulterior motives. Rod Rosenstein is a deep state bureaucrat with ulterior motives. Rosenstein instructed Trump IN WRITING to fire Comey to restore public trust in the FBI, and then appointed Meuller (a 30-year close friend of Comey) to do a special investigation of Trump for doing so! And Meuller hired 8 large donors to the Obama/Hillary/DNC campaigns, an obvious conflict of interest. But conflict of interest obviously isn't held to the same standard among Democrats.
Trump could fire Meuller, but that would create another scandal for Trump. I wish both Democrats and Republicans would publicly condemn the clear conflict of interest in Meuller's investigation, and call for its dissolution , and replacement with a truly objective and conflict-of-interest- free special commission to replace it.
But all this is an obstruction to the type of investigation most of us (including Trump) would like to see.
Tammy Bruce a few days ago said what I have thought since the 2016 campaign, that Trump, despite winning on the Republican ticket, is essentially an independent, fighting the establishment in both parties to create necessary reforms in the federal government. Reforms that are a threat to the lobbyist system that infests and enriches the elites in both parties.
I've been aware of this since the push toward globalism, export of jobs( i.e."offshoring"), the passing of NAFTA and GATT, the surge in national debt that began in the G H W Bush years, and further exploded under W Bush and Obama, the third-worlding of the U.S. since about 1990 through immigration (both legal and illegal), and the complete collapse of immigration enforcement under W. Bush and Obama. It seem obvious to me that the establishment in both parties are bought out by globalist interest and are behind the massive explosion in debt that globalists want, and as they have done with third-world nations, will eventually collapse the U.S. dollar and use that to reign us into the global order, probably first with a North American union and a North American dollar. Trump is a nationalist who is working to reverse this. Despite the opposition within the establishment in his own party.
Why is the article a lie from the outset WB? Seems like every couple of days more of it gets confirmed by the WH. Your previous post for example cites a Trump lawyer saying Trump had nothing to do with JR's meeting. That clearly wasn't true. Now we know Trump was involved.
Because it isn't "confirmed". All it says is that President Trump talked to Trump Jr regarding the meeting. Which again, was set up by Veselnetskaya under false pretenses, and in which no actual information was exchanged. You guys cling to the slightest whiff of a POTENTIAL Trump scandal, while ignoring the ACTUAL Hillary Clinton corruption, collusion and bribes: ....
So unless Trump confirms something it's a lie? I think you know that is a very flawed standard that you only are employing politically. As for the Clinton stuff, your side is in power so again you are very political in your outrage. Tell you what though, if the Russia stuff reaches the level of your Benghazi witch hunt the GOP had (investigation after investigation) I'll actually agree with you on the veracity of this special counsel on Russia. All happening not because of the Dems btw.
There isn't much new to respond to here either.
The Benghazi investigation wasn't a "witch hunt", between limits on time that those involved could be questioned, and the Obama administration threatening the careers of CIA and State Dept officials who cooperated with investigators, the ability to make a case and prosecute was blunted and obstructed by Democrats. And we >>>STILL<<< don't even know where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were during the hours of the attack, no investigation could seriously be considered complete until that question is answered. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice blatantly lied about the Benghazi attack, and there is absolutely no question about that.
Just as Democrats are creating a false narrative about Trump administration's alleged "Russian collusion" to obstruct Obama illegal surveillance and unmasking, and Hillary Clinton's BLATANT Russian collusion and other treasonous crimes.
At this point of conspiratorial bullshit that you have to manufacture to not see the obvious, you might as well have a missile hitting the Pentagon on 9/11 and Bill Clinton being controlled by lizardmen from the moon. When anyone that doesn't stand with Trump is against him and/or have ulterior motives, you might as well go full Infowars.
Your insults are not fact. It is a fact that the national debt has increased from 3 trillion in the Bush Sr years, to 5.5 trillion during the Clinton years, to 10.5 by the end of the W. Bush years, to 20 trillion in the Obama years.
Far from "lizardmen from the moon", dipshit, I have cited a number of books that have formed my opinions, based on considerable fact. The lobby influence on our elected leaders is the clear determinant of policy, i.e. rising debt and erosion of sovereignty into a global system. As cited and sourced in multiple books by Pat Buchanan beginning with DEATH OF THE WEST, and OBAMANOMICS by Timothy Carney that details the lobbyist influence on both parties, and lists specific amounts from the largest lobbyist sectors to elected leaders of both parties. The most recent I've been reading has been THE SHADOW PARTY by David Horowitz. The Council on Foreign Relations, the 40 or so who drafted the founding documents of the U.N., the folks at the U.N. in Brussels, Strobe Talbott who served in the Clinton administration, Cass Sunstein of the Obama administration, Brezinski and Rockefeller in their forming of the Trilateral Comission, and Soros and his vast web of acolytes and funded front groups (MediaMatters, CodePink, Center For American Progress and the Obama and Hillary Clinton Campaigns among them), have all been quite clear about their desire to create a global government. And many of those have been clear about their plans to topple United States government sovereignty, that they openly define as an annoying obstruction to their plans.
It is beyond question and beyond conspiracy theory that these plans exist. Chapter and verse, clearly stated by their proponents.
Why is the article a lie from the outset WB? Seems like every couple of days more of it gets confirmed by the WH. Your previous post for example cites a Trump lawyer saying Trump had nothing to do with JR's meeting. That clearly wasn't true. Now we know Trump was involved.
Because it isn't "confirmed". All it says is that President Trump talked to Trump Jr regarding the meeting. Which again, was set up by Veselnetskaya under false pretenses, and in which no actual information was exchanged. You guys cling to the slightest whiff of a POTENTIAL Trump scandal, while ignoring the ACTUAL Hillary Clinton corruption, collusion and bribes: ....
So unless Trump confirms something it's a lie? I think you know that is a very flawed standard that you only are employing politically. As for the Clinton stuff, your side is in power so again you are very political in your outrage. Tell you what though, if the Russia stuff reaches the level of your Benghazi witch hunt the GOP had (investigation after investigation) I'll actually agree with you on the veracity of this special counsel on Russia. All happening not because of the Dems btw.
There isn't much new to respond to here either.
The Benghazi investigation wasn't a "witch hunt", between limits on time that those involved could be questioned, and the Obama administration threatening the careers of CIA and State Dept officials who cooperated with investigators, the ability to make a case and prosecute was blunted and obstructed by Democrats. And we >>>STILL<<< don't even know where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were during the hours of the attack, no investigation could seriously be considered complete until that question is answered. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice blatantly lied about the Benghazi attack, and there is absolutely no question about that.
Just as Democrats are creating a false narrative about Trump administration's alleged "Russian collusion" to obstruct Obama illegal surveillance and unmasking, and Hillary Clinton's BLATANT Russian collusion and other treasonous crimes.
You skipped over the whole "unless Trump confirms it you call it a lie". I think you're actually the one guilty of the witch hunts. The GOP is in charge now so it's something that loses its effectiveness at this point.
Your insults are not fact. It is a fact that the national debt has increased from 3 trillion in the Bush Sr years, to 5.5 trillion during the Clinton years, to 10.5 by the end of the W. Bush years, to 20 trillion in the Obama years.
Far from "lizardmen from the moon", dipshit, I have cited a number of books that have formed my opinions, based on considerable fact. The lobby influence on our elected leaders is the clear determinant of policy, i.e. rising debt and erosion of sovereignty into a global system. As cited and sourced in multiple books by Pat Buchanan beginning with DEATH OF THE WEST, and OBAMANOMICS by Timothy Carney that details the lobbyist influence on both parties, and lists specific amounts from the largest lobbyist sectors to elected leaders of both parties. The most recent I've been reading has been THE SHADOW PARTY by David Horowitz. The Council on Foreign Relations, the 40 or so who drafted the founding documents of the U.N., the folks at the U.N. in Brussels, Strobe Talbott who served in the Clinton administration, Cass Sunstein of the Obama administration, Brezinski and Rockefeller in their forming of the Trilateral Comission, and Soros and his vast web of acolytes and funded front groups (MediaMatters, CodePink, Center For American Progress and the Obama and Hillary Clinton Campaigns among them), have all been quite clear about their desire to create a global government. And many of those have been clear about their plans to topple United States government sovereignty, that they openly define as an annoying obstruction to their plans.
It is beyond question and beyond conspiracy theory that these plans exist. Chapter and verse, clearly stated by their proponents.
Cass Sunstein, Rockefeller, CFR, and TriLat Commission? Oh, god, you really have gone full retard. The CFR is nearing its century mark. By all realistic metrics, they are the epitome of shitty conspirators who look to overthrow the Republic and usher in an oppressive, fascist, world government if they were really trying to take over the world. You need psychiatric help, dude.
Does that mean they are without blemish? No. I think groups like that can develop insular thinking that does unintentional damage to those not of "elite" status. But, the bullshit you are expounding? Nah, that's just some dense bullshit...
At this point it's pure speculation. We'll find out Monday.
It would be beautiful if the indictment was of Hillary Clinton and aides in the Clinton Foundation, where the indictment truly belongs. But instead, it'll probably be a last desperate attempt for Meuller to smear Trump with perp-walk of Manafort or Gen Flynn, despite that the flashing neon trail increasingly points right to Frau Hitlery and the broader DNC.
You have to know that if there was anything the GOP could legitimately charge Clinton with it would be done. Sad to see the other party turn into this.
Only obstruction is preventing indictment of all these DNC players.
There are MOUNTAINS of evidence against Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, FusionGPS, Bill and Hillary's pay-to-play selling State Dept influence in exchange for Clinton Foundation donations, Hillary's illegal private server and e-mails that compromised national security every day of the 4 years she was secretary of state. Using FBI, CIA and NSA to spy on the Trump Campaign, and post-election on the Trump Administration. The clear ethical breaches and crimes of James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Rod Rosenstein, and the thoroughly discredited Meuller investigation that was created only by lies and corruption, and is stacked with huge campaign donors to Obama, Hillary and the DNC, and therefore clearly not neutral and objective. Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting conservative Tea Party groups and large GOP donors. On and on. All this evidence is RIGHT THERE waiting to be investigated and prosecuted. Federal agencies like the State Dept, DOJ, FBI, CIA and IRS are stonewalling those willing to investigate. All these are bureaucrats who clearly voted for Hillary, and are immorally abusing their positions to help the DNC and hurt Trump.
Those are the facts, for those willing to objectively look at them.
My only guess is that the establishment Republicans (1) don't want Trump to succeed and topple their power structure where they have more in common with the establishment Democrats than they do with their conservative Republican voters, and (2) they don't want to set the precedent of the GOP investigating the outgoing Obama administration, because eventually the Democrats will be back in power and then can do the same to them, and their GOP profitable earmarks, insider trading, and other sweetheart deal activities they don't want revealed. One hand washes the other, if we don't lower the hammer on you establishment Dems, you won't do it later to us establishment Republicans.
You have to know that if there was anything the GOP could legitimately charge Clinton with it would be done. Sad to see the other party turn into this.
Mueller shifts to Tony Podesta, Democratic lobbying firm: Tony Podesta's brother is John Podesta, a veteran of the Clinton administration and the campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid. The siblings co-founded Podesta Group in 1988.
Taking out Trump would be worth it if they end up frog marching Hillary out of Chappaqua.
Another significant aspect of the Manafort indictment is that it's for Manafort's actions that preceded his brief tenure in the Trump administration.
It is a blatant attempt to intimidate Manafort into flipping and making a plea bargain for a lesser sentence by testifying against the Trump administration, possibly with false accusations against Trump just to keep himself out of jail. AGAIN: there is absolutely no evidence at this point, roughly a year and a half into the investigation of Trump, of any "collusion" with the Russians, let alone any crimes by the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, there are increasing mountains of evidence against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, of THEIR collusion with the Russians and crimes, that still goes uninvestigated and unprosecuted, as all attention is drawn by the media and the Meuller special commission to the baseless and manufactured charges against Trump.
The appearance of criminal activity by a Trump official (from a period before he worked for Trump) with no substance to back it up. With Meuller investigation's suppression of the evidence that leads to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, where the smoke and the fire truly is.
The references in the Manafort indictment to “Company A” and “Company B” are believed to be euphemisms for the Podesta Group and above-mentioned Mercury LLC. Why the organizations are not referred to directly in the charging documents is unclear.
What is clear is that Tony Podesta’s organization played a large role in the lobbying activities at the basis of Manafort’s indictment and that his firm is apparently guilty of at least one of the crimes Manafort was arrested for today.
Know what would be even less bad than that? NOT FUCKING WITH ELECTIONS. Trying to say Party X's infraction is less egregious than that of Party Y further underscores the absolute lack of integrity in our political system and the unworthiness of most of this crop of civil servants.
With Gen. Flynn's plea to lying in testimony, the likelihood is that he would have pleaded to more if this was going to move any further. It is likely this was the most Meuller's DNC-donor-heavy partisan hit squad has pushed this investigation as far as it will go. And to do so, Meuller took the Special Investigation (set up to investigate the Trump campaign's alleged illegal/treasonous "collusion" with Russia prior to the election) >>>FAR<<< outside the scope of what it was created to investigate.
With Flynn, it convicted him for doing things that were legal when he did them, but for which he lied in testimony about what he was legally allowed to do. It is normal for an incoming elected administration (between the Nov 5 2016 election, and the Jan 20 2017 inauguration) to reach out and establish relationships with foreign governments with their "transition team"), but for some reason Flynn did not want to disclose what he had legally done, and lied. Flynn's only real crime was not disclosing that he had prior to joining the Trump team, acted as an undisclosed representative in other matters for the Turkish government.
The lead investigator for Judicial Watch (on Lou Dobbs Tonight yesterday, Dec 1 2017) said "give me two hours of deposition with anyone, and I can make them lie in testimony." There is no crime, just someone who didn't know how to legally answer the question.
Actually the lesser plea sounds like Mueller is using him to get bigger fish. Considering what level Flynn was at you're looking at Trump and his inner circle.
And now we have the Nixonian argument that Trump is above the law. Anybody agree with a President being above the law?
No president is above the law but the law does allow any president, in his/her role as chief federal law enforcement officer, prosecutorial discretion (that is, discretion in what cases to enforce and/or prosecute). That's how, for example, Obama could refuse to enforce immgration laws and not get impeached or arrested for official misconduct. Similarly, a president has more or less unfettered authority to hire and fire his staff, including an FBI director and/or Attorney General.
The question is at what point is the line crosses from prosecutorial discretion to obstruction. Real people can, of course, disagree since it's largely a fact-based analysis.
I suspect in your case, the law is crossed as soon as the discretion is exercised by someone who doesn't have "D" after his or her name.
You understand that you are in no position to be a credible judge. Again 13 years of your "work". You always go after the person more than doing the debate.
You understand that you are in no position to be a credible judge. Again 13 years of your "work". You always go after the person more than doing the debate.
Why are you more credible than G-man? I don't see that he goes for you personally any more than you go after him. I think G-man mostly quotes mainstream sources to cite information for the views he posts. I don't see that he cites any sources as partisan as MediaMatters or RAW, although a good amount of the time you cite mainstream sources too.
There are times where we all get a bit personal when the passions run high. At best, over many years here, I like that despite the more passionate and personal words, there remains a dialogue where both sides present a case for their POV.
Over the acrimony that sometimes occurs, I want to say again that I like you, M E M, and I daresay that you often express yourself with more restraint than I do. And that if we were ever to meet I think we'd like each other and have a pleasant conversation on this and other subjects. But I think it's difficult for both sides to fully understand why the other feels loyalty to what we ourselves oppose. I see the deceit of Obama and the Clintons, the anti-American cultural Marxism of them, where they will literally do ANYTHING to advance their agenda. Objectively, the current Democrats have demonstrably abandoned the Constitution and rule of law, and pick and choose who they prosecute and give a pass to, in service of their own power and political agenda (Manafort and Flynn who did nothing wrong are entrapped into perjury, while Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, clearly guilty of crimes are never similarly deposed to perjure themselves, are given plea deals and a complete free pass). The IRS is weaponized by the Obama administration against Tea Party groups and large Republican donors. FISA requests allow the Obama administration to use NSA and CIA to monitor Trump campaign and Trump administration communication, as opposition research to entrap and destroy the Trump administration. FBI, CIA, State Department, IRS and other federal agencies are dominated by pro-Hillary "Deep-State" Democrats, who are weaponizing these agencies against Republicans, and against the Trump administration in particular, in a complete bypass of the rule of law, and abandonment of equal protection under the law. A free pass system exists for Democrats, a lynch-mob mentality exists for manufacturing a corrupt case against Republicans.
I've cited over and over the things Democrats have done that are undeniably corrupt and indefensible against criticism. Unquestionably, Hillary and Obama and their minions have broken the law, or at best unethically corrupted it. It frankly scares me that Democrats have this level of power, and so shamelessly abuse it. And even worse, that grassroots Democrats have no problem with that abuse! I can easily see at this point a day in the near future where if Democrats regain the Presidency and Senate/House majorities, they would IRS-audit Republicans, deny Republicans employment for their beliefs (in government jobs, or in the private sector), and get police to stand by while Republicans are attacked by liberal mobs. We have already seen that on a limited scale over the last four years or so.
And yet you defend the corrupt abuses of the Democrats. You somehow justify this in your mind. I find that both difficult to understand, and deeply disturbing. Democrats' views are with a level of hatred and ideological zeal that the Nazis went after the Jews in 1930's Germany. I'd say we're at about 1933 levels of lawlessness and hatred. We are moving toward a point where liberals regain control of all branches and unleash a 1939 level of intolerance, violence and suppression of conservative thought.
We already know what Hillary would have done if elected. She would have fired the government officials who exposed her national security -endangering e-mails. What incredible corruption we know, we know ONLY because Trump was elected president. If she were elected, despite the incredible levels of corruption, we would never know! And even so, the "deep state" liberal zealots are doing their best to suppress investigation of the obvious facts. Eventually the pendulum will shift to the Democrats, and all this will be swept under the rug. And it will be open season again on conservatives, as we saw a glimpse of from 2012-2016.
And, unfathomable to me, you seem to endorse that, and welcome whatever gives your DNC buddies power. Rigging debates. Rigging primaries, favoring Hillary over Sanders. Operatives paid $1,500 each to go into Trump rallies and create violence to paint Trump supporters as violent. And openly gloat (video recorded) they are Hillary operatives, deceitfully paid through a "double wall" of deniability, that would be unprovable if not for their self-incriminating gloating. Manipulating FISA requests to use the CIA and NSA to do opposition research surveillance on Trump officials! Weaaponizing the IRS to do audits of Republican individuals and Tea Party and Christian activist groups! Arguably narrowly winning the 2012 election due to this corrupt abuse that ever so slightly tipped the scales 3% or so in their favor.
And you endorse all that. For you to endorse that, for you to give that a free pass, I put you in the same category as Lenin, Trotsy, Stalin, Castro and Mao.
Seriously, how can you possibly look the other way when the Democrats are that corrupt and abusive of Federal power?
Flynn for example did nothing wrong regarding his representation of Trump. FISA surveillance allowed every word of his 5 conversations with the Russian ambassador to be recorded. Meuller's lawyers knew every detail of his interactions with the Russian ambassador, and his interactions were perfectly legal. His only crime was lying under oath to hide some subtle details of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, that were otherwise perfectly legal. Flynn was part of a "transition team" establishing relations with a foreign government the Trump administration would soon be dealing with! Nothing wrong. Knowing in advance EVERY WORD of Flynn's conversation (through corrupt FISA surveillance by the CIA) the only purpose of his deposition was NOT to acquire information, but to trap him in his own words on a technicality and use that manufactured perjury to leverage him. Even as Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, James Comey and Rod Rosenstein get a free pass.
Just pointing out that my response to g wasn't out of nowhere WB. He inserted a partisan snipe. That's fine if he wants to do that but I think it's boring and silly coming from somebody that is hardly nonpartisan. I think the topic probably doesn't allow him to say much that benefits republicans. Flynn lied and he didn't do it by accident btw. He's not a victim. And I don't think he's going to be the big fish at the end of this.
I would also add that despite your accusations republicans have investigated the Clinton's so many times and let's be honest, it's been political. I think if there was anything they could have legitimately hanged Hillary for they would have. Now with Trump in office a lot of political effort is going into trying to shut down the Mueller one. I hate that your politics go so far to really making huge accusations at the other side. I like you also because I think your still a good person btw. Over the years we've gotten into heated arguments and both have said some really horrible things. I regret the times when I've attacked you personally. I think we both want a better country but just have different politics to achieve it.
You completely bypassed the serious Constitutional democracy-threatening actions of the Obama-Hillary "deep state" I raised, M E M.
And by the way, Bill Clinton WAS impeached. Bill Clinton WAS disbarred as an attorney and fined $90,000. Bill Clinton WAS forced to pay a $700,000 settlement to Paula Jones. Not to mention Bill Clinton's many other female accusers, who either couldn't legally prove their assaults as well, or were intimidated into silence.
The only reason Hillary Clinton (and Obama) are not convicted of gross negligence and other charges over Frau Hitlery's private e-mail server compromising national security is because of the obstruction of Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, FBI agent Peter Strvok, Robert Meuller and DNC-bundler special investigation team of DNC donors, Andrew Weissman (who laughably is presented as a "neutral" investigator and ATTENDED HILLARY CLINTON'S ELECTION NIGHT PARTY, in addition to praising temporary Obama-holdover DOJ head Sally Yates for her defiance of Trump. Or Meuller's "right hand man" attorney Aaron Zebley, also part of the special investigation, who represented the I.T. guy who on orders used a hammer to destroy Hillary's self-incriminating cel phones!
On and on! Only a liberal MediaMatters zealot could not be sick to his stomach over the incredible incestuous relationships between the FBI and Meuller investigators, and their long and deep ties to Obama and Hillary.
You defend the vilest and most blatant of Democrat corruption, I have to wonder if you really want a better country, one run by rule of law, or one run by a DNC Kremlin with an iron fist. Because that is exactly what is occurring in the obstructive incestuous relationships I just cited. Many truly neutral watchdogs (Deven Nunez, Charles McCullough) went on record and stated the Democrats have made clear their threats if Dems had the power to fire them and sweep their evidence under the rug.
A government watchdog who played a central role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation during the Obama administration told Fox News that he, his family and his staffers faced an intense backlash at the time from Clinton allies – and that the campaign even put out word that it planned to fire him if the Democratic presidential nominee won the 2016 election.
“There was personal blowback. Personal blowback to me, to my family, to my office,” former Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III said.
The Obama appointee discussed his role in the Clinton email probe for the first time on television, during an exclusive interview with Fox News aired on "Tucker Carlson Tonight." McCullough – who came to the inspector general position with more than two decades of experience at the FBI, Treasury and intelligence community – shed light on how quickly the probe was politicized and his office was marginalized by Democrats.
In January 2016, after McCullough told the Republican leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the “Top Secret” level passed through the former secretary of state's unsecured personal server, the backlash intensified.
All of a sudden I became a shill of the right,” McCullough recalled. “And I was told by members of Congress, ‘Be careful. You're losing your credibility. You need to be careful. There are people out to get you.’”
But the former inspector general, with responsibility for the 17 intelligence agencies, said the executive who recommended him to the Obama administration for the job – then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – was also disturbed by the independent Clinton email findings.
“[Clapper] said, ‘This is extremely reckless.’ And he mentioned something about -- the campaign … will have heartburn about that,” McCullough said.
He said Clapper's Clinton email comments came during an in-person meeting about a year before the presidential election – in late December 2015 or early 2016. “[Clapper] was as off-put as the rest of us were.”
After the Clapper meeting, McCullough said his team was marginalized. “I was told by senior officials to keep [Clapper] out of it,” he said, while acknowledging he tried to keep his boss in the loop.
As one of the few people who viewed the 22 top secret Clinton emails deemed too classified to release under any circumstances, the former IG said, “There was a very good reason to withhold those emails ... there would have been harm to national security.” McCullough went further, telling Fox News that “sources and methods, lives and operations” could be put at risk.
Some of those email exchanges contained Special Access Program (SAP) information characterized by intel experts as “above top secret.”
WikiLeaks documents show the campaign was formulating talking points as the review of 30,000 Clinton emails was ongoing.
The campaign team wrote in August 2015 that “Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified.”
McCullough was critical of the campaign’s response, as the classified review had barely begun. “There was an effort … certainly on the part of the campaign, to mislead people into thinking that there was nothing to see here,” McCullough said.
In March 2016, seven senior Democrats sent a letter to McCullough and his State Department counterpart, saying they had serious questions about the impartiality of the Clinton email review. However, McCullough was not making the decisions on what material in Clinton’s emails was classified -- he was passing along the findings of the individual agencies who got the intelligence and have final say on classification.
“I think there was certainly a coordinated strategy,” McCullough said.
McCullough described one confrontation with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office just six weeks before the election, amid pressure to respond to the letter – which Feinstein had co-signed.
“I thought that any response to that letter would just hyper-politicize the situation,” McCullough said. “I recall even offering to resign, to the staff director. I said, ‘Tell [Feinstein] I'll resign tonight. I'd be happy to go. I'm not going to respond to that letter. It's just that simple.”
As Election Day approached, McCullough said the threats went further, singling out him and another senior government investigator on the email case. “It was told in no uncertain terms, by a source directly from the campaign, that we would be the first two to be fired -- with [Clinton’s] administration. That that was definitely going to happen,” he said.
McCullough said he was just trying to do his job, which requires independence. "I was, in this context, a whistleblower. I was explaining to Congress -- I was doing exactly what they had expected me to do. Exactly what I promised them I would do during my confirmation hearing,” he said. “... This was a political matter, and all of a sudden I was the enemy."
He said pressures also increased early on from Clinton’s former team at the State Department, especially top official Patrick Kennedy.
"State Department management didn't want us there,” McCullough said. “We knew we had had a security problem at this point. We had a possible compromise."
Speaking about the case more than a year after the FBI probe concluded, McCullough in his interview also addressed the possibility that a more cooperative State Department and Clinton campaign might have precluded the FBI’s involvement from the start.
“Had they come in with the server willingly, without having us to refer this to the bureau … maybe we could have worked with the State Department,” he said.
More than 2,100 classified emails passed through Clinton's personal server, which was used exclusively for government business. No one has been charged.
Asked what would have happened to him if he had done such a thing, McCullough said: “I'd be sitting in Leavenworth right now.”
Fox News asked a Clinton campaign spokesman, Feinstein’s office and Clapper for comment. There was no immediate response.
_____________________
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”
The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday that it had cleared House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., of claims that he improperly disclosed classified information while leading the committee's investigation of Russian actions during the 2016 election.
In a statement, the committee said that classification experts in the intelligence community had concluded that "the information that Rep. Nunes disclosed was not classified."
In March, Nunes held a news conference in which he discussed viewing intelligence reports in which the names of Trump associates were "unmasked" by then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice in the final weeks of the Obama administration. Nunes then controversially went to brief President Trump on the information before meeting with the Intelligence Committee.
Nunes stepped away from his role at the head of the probe April 6, the day the Ethics Committee announced it was investigating him. At the time, Nunes described the accusations against him as "entirely false and politically motivated" by "several leftwing [sic] activist groups."
In a statement Thursday, Nunes thanked the ethics committee for clearing him and reiterated his claim that "the allegations against me were obviously frivolous and were rooted in politically motivated complaints filed against me by left-wing activist groups."
"I respect the ethics process, but I remain dismayed that it took an unbelievable eight months for the Committee to dismiss this matter," added Nunes, who called on the committee to release "all its transcripts related to my case."
In Nunes' absence Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, had led the Russia probe "with assistance" from Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla. When Nunes was asked if he was formally re-taking the helm of the Russia probe, he answered "I'm in charge, I was always in charge."
Despite stepping away from the Russia investigation, Nunes has remained involved in the intelligence committee's other work. The panel has launched a separate investigation into Hillary Clinton and the so-called "Uranium One" deal, which was consummated while Clinton was secretary of state under President Barack Obama.
The accusation's purpose was to slow down and obstruct his investigation for 8 months.
It's apparent that Nunes is running defense for Trump. I think the GOP do need Mueller's investigation to continue because your sides credability is just zero on investigating. What's coming out of the Mueller investigation isn't looking good for Trump. If your party forces that to shut down you will only add fuel to the wave that is building for 2018.
It's apparent that Nunes is running defense for Trump. I think the GOP do need Mueller's investigation to continue because your sides credability is just zero on investigating. What's coming out of the Mueller investigation isn't looking good for Trump. If your party forces that to shut down you will only add fuel to the wave that is building for 2018.
What's apparent is that Rep. Nunes was accused of wrongdoing, endured 9 months of investigation, and was completely exonerated.
And that the bias is completely on the side of Comey, Meuller, Rosenstein, Lynch and their illicit personal relationships with THE VERY HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN THEY ARE INVESTIGATING.
He might not actually know anything but at some point is it being kept out of the loop on purpose?
This article is just a diversionary tactic where you attempt to change the subject from the ACTUAL issue: That Meuller's investigative committee is stacked with liberal partisans who are huge donors to the Hillary/Obama/DNC campaigns, and are deeply invested in exonerating her by any unethical/illegal means. As I detailed above.
From your own "destroy Trump" liberal media USA Today article:
Quote:
But Andy Wright, who was a lawyer for Vice President Al Gore and for President Barack Obama, said it’s too soon to tell what Flynn’s indictment, and other developments in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, may mean for Pence.
“I think they have raised questions that Pence will have to answer,” Wright said. “But, right now, I haven’t seen anything that suggests his legal liability, absent more information.”
They wildly speculate that V P Pence might at some distant point possibly be guilty of something, but have not even the slightest shred of evidence pointing in that direction. Which allows the USA Today hit piece to avoid talking about the blatant conflict-of-interest of virtually every DNC-donor staffer of the Meuller investigation, who are deeply invested in exonerating Hillary, the very person they are supposed to be investigating!
Since it appears the Russia/Trump thing isn't going away probably past time for a thread dedicated to it. The latest news is that Trump tried to influence a FBI investigation. How do we feel about that?
Roughly a year later, it has been revealed that:
1) Rosenstein wrote a report that called for James Comey to be fired to restore public and internal confidence in the FBI. Trump fired Comey on Rosenstein's recommendation not out of any corruption, or for Trump to hide any dealings he had with the Russians.
2) Comey leaked confidential FBI information through a college professor friend that set up the circumstances to call for a special investigation. And Deep State brethren Rosenstein (again at the center) was the one who appointed Meuller as special investigator. Who appointed 9 attorneys who were all huge donors to the DNC, Obama and Hillary, and therefore clearly not neutral investigators.
3) Andrew McCabe (and wife whose campaign was funded $700,000 by Terry MacAuliffe, a Hillary operative), Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked for Fusion GPS and gave McCabe Russian information from Fusion GPS), the 9 lawyers on the Meuller commission, including Jeannie Rhee who previously worked for the Clinton Foundation suppressing/obstructing FOIA requests for Clinton Foundation donation records. Top FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who exchanged messages about how much they loathe Trump, how much Trump needed to be stopped, and how they needed to put in place an "insurance plan" and "secret society" to either prevent Trump from being elected, or make sure Trump was crippled politically and thus prevented from acting as president. Loretta Lynch who met Bill Clinton on an airplane secretly, days before Loretta Lynch exonerated Hillary of criminal charges. Comey usurped his authority to similarly exonerate Hillary, something he had no authority as FBI director to do. Comey and other FBI officials also gave amnesty to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, in exchange for nothing. AND authorized the destruction of evidence that would have convicted them and Hillary. >>>ALL<<<< of these manifest corruption at the highest level, and what amounts to a "Deep State" political coup to remove president Trump, by whatever corrupt means available. ALL these DOJ and FBI should have recused themselves for their lack of impartiality, ALL should face criminal charges for not doing so, and at the very least be removed from their jobs.
3) The FISA request that began this whole "Russian collusion" false narrative was based entirely on a "Russia dossier" that was known by Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and other higher-ups at the DOJ and FBI to be fraudulent and unreliable, AND YET THEY PUSHED IT ANYWAY on a FISA judge for a surveillance request, to do illegal surveillance on Carter Page, General Flynn and others in the Trump campaign. And post election, STILL did FISA surveillance on the incoming Trump administration. It was done as opposition research to share confidential Trump campaign information with the Hillary campaign, and to manufacture a fake case against Trump officials. In Flynn's case, to threaten his son with imprisonment, and despite that there was no Russia collusion on his part or Trump's, to manufacture perjury charges against Flynn to leverage Flynn to support the false narrative of "Russian collusion" on Trump's part. TO THIS DAY, A YEAR LATER, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT TRUMP OR HIS CAMPAIGN/INCOMING ADMINISTRATION DID ANYTHING WRONG. But ironically, there is clear proof that Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and FBI/DOJ officials >>>>DID<<<< collude with the Russians through Christopher Steele/FusionGPS/an insulating law firm/the Hillary Clinton campaign. In nothing less than a coup of slander, based entirely on Steele's "Russia dossier". Which Deep State officials in DOJ and FBI falsely represented as legitimate, and falsely represented as verified by an independent 2nd source. THAT last one alone should throw out all the FISA surveillance as "fruit of the poisonous tree", and result in charges for the FBI and DOJ officials who pushed it for malicious prosecution based on false evidence.
Right off the bat the first one is incorrect. Trump had already decided to fire Comey before getting Rosenstein's memo. I'll let you go ahead and check the rest of your post for other errors. Let me know when you're sure that it's all accurate.
The fact is, Rosenstein (the current deputy director of the FBI!) wrote a report that the only way to restore public and internal confidence in the FBI was to fire Comey. I don't doubt that Comey's irresponsible acts made Trump consider the possibility of firing Comey before that. SO THE HELL WHAT?!? It was certainly not an unreasonable consideration. But it was on the recommendation of DOJ deputy director Rosenstein that Trump did so, for the good of the organization, not as part of any cover-up.
If you have a case for inaccuracy of that, feel free to make it.
But he didn't, M E M. BUT HE DIDN'T ! You're trying to blur the real corruption by bringing up this manufactured non-issue. Trump later eventually made the decision to fire Comey, as he was advised to in a written report on the specific recommendation of deputy DOJ director Rosenstein.
Regardless, the REAL issue is the conspiracy that involves Lorretta Lynch, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and others, to suppress and destroy the case against Hillary Clinton to allow her to be president. And to simultaneously authorize FISA surveillance under false evidence on Trump officials, to leak that masked information to destroy Trump's candidacy (before the Nov 2016 election), and Plan B to smear and cripple his administration (after the election). That is undeniably where every piece of evidence leads, despite your best efforts to change the subject.
In his opening commentary, Hannity shows a dozen names of FBI and DOJ officials who have been fired, resigned, or transferred off the case (Strzok and Page) in the last two months, for their OBVIOUS corruption and lack of impartiality regarding the DOJ/FBI's Hillary and Trump/Russia investigations.
As I pointed out Rosenstein knew Trump had made the decision to fire Comey when he wrote the memo. Furthermore what was actually in Rosenstein's memo were items that Trump had publicly cheered Comey on. Plus he made at least one comment about his firing Comey and his hope on how it would affect the Russia investigation. I think he's screwed if he actually has to testify under oath. And you can stick with your very biased and partisan pro-trump sources for news but it's pretty embarrassing what gets left out and how little is required to make accusations of the other side.
I don't see that it's proven Trump was going to fire Comey before Rosenstein's report. EVERYTHING reported about Trump is "anonymous sources", which when it is anonymous that much of the time, means it's fake news that doesn't really have any sources.
And assuming conversely it was true, how reputable is Rosenstein if he would just abandon all integrity and cater his report to whatever Trump was demanding? Leaving Rosenstein no more reputable than the liberal hate-Trump/destroy-Trump mainstream media.
Finally, the indictment of Russians yesterday is widely seen as a vindication of Trump. 1) the Russian conspiracy began in 2014, way before Trump ever announced as a candidate. Before even Trump himself knew he would run! 2) With these 13 indictments of Russian individuals and groups, there is still not the slightest evidence, after roughly 18 months of investigation and a Special Investigation (Meuller), NOT THE SLIGHTEST evidence that that gives even any whiff of Trump being guilty of anything.
and 3) Still waiting for an investigation of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, where all the evidence, illegal FISA warrants, FusionGPS, Christopher Steele, Uranium One, illegal private server and Clinton Foundation millions in foreign donations, actually leads.
The article I linked to is sourced with named sources as it concerns Rosenstein's testimony on him knowing that Trump had already decided to fire Comey prior to his memo. Trump says a lot of things that are provably untrue btw. He knows this latest move by Mueller doesn't vindicate him at all just like he knew it wasn't all a hoax like he claimed previously. Putin chose well.
The article I linked to is sourced with named sources as it concerns Rosenstein's testimony on him knowing that Trump had already decided to fire Comey prior to his memo. Trump says a lot of things that are provably untrue btw. He knows this latest move by Mueller doesn't vindicate him at all just like he knew it wasn't all a hoax like he claimed previously. Putin chose well.
Putin's agent was Hillary Clinton, who procured for Putin 20% of the U.S. uranium supply.
Hillary Clinton, who with an unsecured private server, left her State Department private communication with the Pentagon and White House officials at the highest level ripe for the hacking by Russians and the Chinese EVERY SINGLE DAY she was secretary of state.
Not to mention her Saul Alinsky-indoctrinated radical leftist ideology, where she has been hollowing out holes from within of American weakness in every position she has held in federal government for 30 years.
From the L.A. Times article you linked on Rosenstein's alleged knowing in advance:
Quote:
The No. 2 official at the Justice Department told senators Thursday that he knew President Trump wanted to fire James B. Comey before he wrote a letter criticizing the FBI director.
In an unusual closed-door briefing with the full Senate, Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein offered a few new details about a frenetic nine days that have thrown the White House into crisis, beginning with Comey’s firing and climaxing in Rosenstein’s decision to appoint former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III as a special counsel. In that role, Mueller will head an investigation into Russian meddling in the election and possible collusion with figures in the Trump campaign.
At Trump's request, Rosenstein last week wrote a letter that laid out the case for Comey's firing, focused on what Rosenstein said was Comey's improper handling of the 2016 Hillary Clinton email investigation. Initially, the White House claimed Trump fired Comey based on Rosenstein's recommendation, though Trump later said he planned on removing the FBI director regardless.
Though some have suggested Rosenstein was used by the White House as a pawn to justify Comey's firing, senators said Rosenstein told them Thursday he was aware of Trump's plans. “He knew that Comey was going to be removed prior to him writing his memo,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told reporters after emerging from the session.
“He knew the day before,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “On May 8 he learned.”
Rosenstein's visit to Capitol Hill was originally planned to discuss Comey's firing and the future of the Russia investigation, but the meeting was quickly dominated by Rosenstein's surprise decision Wednesday evening to appoint Mueller. According to Durbin, Rosenstein said he named Mueller to "make certain the American people thought this would be handled fairly and justly."
Rosenstein was careful not to address some other recent revelations in the fast-moving controversy, senators said, including reports that Comey wrote his own memo detailing a private conversation he says he had with Trump when the president asked him to end an investigation into Michael Flynn, just after Flynn had been pushed out as national security advisor for lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Trump on Thursday denied he asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.
Both Republicans and Democrats were clearly relieved by the appointment of Mueller, a 12-year FBI director with a solid reputation for probity and thoroughness. But the naming of a special counsel has also raised questions about how to proceed with a number of Russia-related investigations already underway in Congress.
“The shock to the body is this is now considered a criminal investigation,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had opposed naming a special counsel. “And Congress' ability to conduct an investigation of all things Russia is severely limited. I think a lot of members wanted the special counsel to be appointed, but don't understand you're pretty well knocked out of the game.”
Graham said some potential witnesses might refuse to cooperate out of concern for self-incrimination. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard M. Burr (R-N.C.) indicated Thursday that Flynn may not willingly meet the committee’s subpoena request for information, though Democrats vowed to push the issue.
“I am going to go to the mat — go to the mat — to make sure that this subpoena with Mr. Flynn is carried out,” said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. Comey, senators believed, would be a more willing witness who would work with Mueller as well as the oversight committees on Capitol Hill.
"At some point I believe he has a responsibility he will honor to come before the Judiciary Committee and tell his story to the American people," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). "He owes the American people his story, and from all I can see he has no reluctance to tell it." Democrats and some Republicans insisted that the congressional panels would not take a back seat to Mueller's work.
"After this meeting it is clear as ever that the Intelligence Committee in the Senate should continue its work and it should continue full throttle ahead," said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "And the need for former Director Comey to come testify soon in public is as great as ever."
Democrats also are pressing for an inquiry into Trump’s statements that may have revealed secret intelligence to two top Russian officials. Three Democratic senators on Thursday asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats to conduct a “damage assessment” on whether Trump may have compromised sensitive intelligence methods.
Before Mueller was named, Rosenstein, a career federal prosecutor, was overseeing the inquiry because Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions recused himself over his failure to disclose in his Senate confirmation hearing that he'd had meetings with Russia's ambassador to Washington.
But Rosenstein came under intense pressure from Democratic lawmakers to step aside and name an independent prosecutor after he became embroiled in the political fight over why Comey was fired on May 9, a battle that raised questions of whether Rosenstein was sufficiently independent of the White House.
Under the special counsel law, Mueller will enjoy what Rosenstein called "a degree of independence from the normal chain of command" in the Justice Department. But Rosenstein, as acting attorney general for purposes of the Russia investigation, also maintains some control. Mueller will decide the scope of his investigation, including whether it will take charge of a federal grand jury in Virginia that has subpoenaed documents involving Flynn.
Under the law, Mueller will have authority to choose his own staff and within 60 days request his own budget, which Rosenstein approves.
Rosenstein will not directly supervise Mueller's work but can request that he explain any steps he's taking and may overrule them as "inappropriate or unwarranted." If he does, though, the law requires him to notify the judiciary committees in Congress. And the law says Rosenstein should "give great weight to the views of the special counsel."
joseph.tanfani@latimes.com
First of all, the thing is from close to a year ago, from May 18, 2017, long before Meuller had even assembled his partisan commission of DNC/Obama/Hillary donor lawyers. And one of those Special Investigation lawyers was previously employed by the Clinton Foundation, litigating obstruction to the FOIA requests of Clinton records. Hey, no partisanship whatsoever!
If there was any substance whatsoever to this hit piece, it would have surfaced a long time ago. The "sources" you cite are ambiguous partisan remarks by the likes of Sen Dick Durbin, Sen. Claire McCaskill, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, three of the primary Democrat talking pieces hacking out partisan remarks to the media at every turn. They say Rosenstein "knew" days ahead, or one day ahead, or whatever, but offer no specifics to back it up, and their speculation of when Rosenstein knew is not consistent even within this article.
And further, details of Flynn's forced plea over manufactured perjury came out since this was written. As has the manifest partisanship of the witch-hunting Meuller investigation's 9 DNC-donor lawyers. Some of whose DNC donations exceed my annual disposable income.
And again, aside from the diversionary smoke that Rosenstein "knew" in advance, what does this change? NOTHING. Assuming Rosenstein knew in advance, if Rosenstein thought Trump was wrong, he could have defied him in his report. The worst Trump could do was retire or fire him, and Rosenstein was hardly a man without means. He could retire with a substantial nest egg, or have taken another position in the public or private sector. So again: If Rosenstein knew in advance, so the hell what? Rosenstein had the same options whether he knew or not. Whether Rosenstein knew or not, he could have agreed with Trump or dissented from Trump. And if he thought Trump wanted Comey fired and agreed just to go along with Trump, that speaks badly for Rosenstein's character not for Trump's. Way before Trump ever wanted to fire James Comey, there were certainly plenty of other Senators and public officials who have publicly stated Comey wasn't doing his job and should be fired, >>>>WAY<<<< before Trump ever got around to firing him, WITH ROSENSTEIN'S WRITTEN ADVISEMENT TO DO PRECISELY THAT.
So again, whether Rosenstein did or didn't know, I don't see where that amounts to the slightest speck of difference in how things went down.
Trump's reaction since the indictments has been to attack everyone except Russia.
Gee, what a shock you would say that. That is, of course, the DNC/MediaMatters /RAW/Center For American Progress/MSNBC/CNN partisan talking points of the day.
Never Mind that Trump:
1) is strengthening our military, 2) has defeated ISIS and taken back 97% of their territory in Iraq and Syria, and has killed 100 Russian-backed fighters there in an attack on a U.S. base there in the last week 3) that Trump is now providing defense aid to Ukraine so they can defend themselves from Russian aggression. 4) that under Trump, the U.S. has become the largest energy exporter in the world, which weakens Russia's energy stranglehold on Ukraine, Poland, Germany and the rest of Europe.
See, the absolute shit lying talking points your side fronts only work on that percentage of the public that knows nothing about what is actually occurring in the world. To anyone who knows, they are obvious and infuriating lies.
More than a nice try WB. It just doesn't matter to you but it should. Trump attacked everyone but Russia. Why? You also failed to mention he won't do the Russia sanctions that a republican controlled congress passed. I don't agree about it not mattering what Rosenstein knew when he wrote the memo. It obviously matters in trying to determine what the real reason was for Trump firing Comey. And Flynn was not forced to plead guilty. Imagine if I tried saying that about a democrat. You're making partisan accusations and than downplaying somebody like Flynn who is actually guilty of what he's said he's guilty of.
You're being ridiculous, M E M. I just listed all the things Trump did that Russia doesn't like. It's like saying Trump was a cop who arrested a guy for murder, armed robbery and violent assault, and his opponents making a big deal that he didn't add tresspassing to the list of charges.
I've given a laundry list of treasonous offenses Hillary Clinton is guilty of that are >>>>FAR<<<< more serious than the Trump allegations, with far more evidence to back them up, but because the investigators and key people at DOJ and FBI are rabidly anti-Trump, and are "Deep State" Hillary loyalists, they are giving Hillary, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and others a total free pass. The FBI and DOJ have given them immunity for their clear crimes, in exchange for nothing. The FBI and DOJ have authorized the destruction of computer files and other evidence against them. They are not even required to testify under oath!
Rosenstein is one of the Deep State criminals trying to dislodge Trump with a twisting of the law that amounts to a political coup. And Rosenstein, Meuller, McCabe (and wife), Comey, along with Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (and wife) and several others, should all be up on charges themselves, not manufacturing a case against Trump. For anyone who is not a partisan Democrat looking for any twisting of the law to leverage out Trump, it is OBVIOUS the unprecedented conflict-of-interest of all the DOJ/FBI players manufacturing the case against Trump.
The Stalinist/KGB style of this case, where the evidence is prepared to cater to the foregone conclusions, and the ignoring of where the real evidence ACTUALLY leads, to Hillary Clinton/FusionGPS/UraniumOne/The Clinton Foundation, should terrify you, but for no reason other than Democrat partisanship, you are cheering on the weaponization of federal agencies against the Republican party, and against their presidential candidate who WON A LANDSLIDE VICTORY AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON IN A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION.
I shudder to think what this four years would be like if Hillary Clinton had won in Nov 2016. Even corrupt power abusers like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were afraid of not looking loyal enough to Hillary. Even after they'd illegally moved heaven and earth already to corrupt the system in Frau Hitlery's favor!
There is no defending what these people in key positions in the FBI and DOJ have done.
And that it fits the same pattern used through the IRS in 2012 to attack Tea Party leaders and large Republican donors is no coincidence. You defend and lyingly ignore the most dangerous abuses of the Democrats, in the DNC's suppression of all political opposition.
And this follows the same deceitful pattern back over 10 years:
2004: Dan Rather's attempted October Surprise on George W. Bush that got Rather fired. But the truth was exposed, NOT because of the liberal media, but because Drudge and other internet journalists exposed the real evidence and put pressure on the liberal media to tell the truth. 2006: The Rep Mark Foley story was known of and held back by liberal journalists for a year until right before the 2006 election, and in a perfectly orchestrated propaganda event, the liberal media and DNC leadership successfully tarred the entire GOP as a "culture of corruption", that allowed the DNC to win majorities in both the House and Senate. 2008: The year the liberal media abandoned all pretense of objective coverage, and began its love-fest for Barack Obama, unquestionably helping Obama win, suppressing any coverage of Obama's well-known radicalism, flying cover for Obama, while simultaneously giving overwhelmingly negative coverage to John McCain, with the media blaming the entire financial crisis solely on Republicans. Again, a successful propaganda war in favor of the Democrats. 2012: What I just detailed above, about Obama using the IRS to suppress Republican grassroots political organization and donors, that allowed Obama to narrowly win a 51%-48% victory. With many key voting districts suspiciously voting 100% OR MORE for Obama, with many people rising from the dead to vote Democrat, or voting twice. 2016: What we're seeing now, where the DOJ and FBI leadership, in clear communication with Obama (see Strzok and Page texts) got illegal FISA warrants to do surveillance on Trump campaign officials, unmasked some illegally right before the election to hurt Trump politically, and continued to do surveillance on Trump staffers EVEN AFTER the election. And are still trying to depose Trump, despite the level of DOJ/FBI corruption exposed at this point.
That is a clear pattern of deceit and subversive coordination between Democrats and FBI, DOJ, IRS and the liberal media, using every deceit and abuse of federal power available to them. With the press acting, not as an external watchdog and guardian against abuse of power, but as a participant and PR wing of the DNC Politburo.
Accusations are not facts WB. In your mind do you really see Rosenstein as a criminal? Or Flynn being "forced" to plead guilty?
At least 80% of what I said is absolute undeniable fact, and the little bit of speculation I made are dots easily connected.
I do think Flynn was forced. He had to mortgage his house to pay for his defense and had exhausted his resources. And he was further threatened with his son going to jail. He took a plea to put an end to it.
Please tell me in detail what precisely YOU think he did wrong. The sole purpose of charging him was to leverage him to testify against Trump. It was a shakedown.
Rosenstein knew the Steele-manufactured "Russia dossier" was, in Comey's words "unreliable and salacious", and yet he used it to get a FISA judge to sign off on surveillance of Trump officials. I'm not a lawyer, G-man could more easily tell you the specific criminal offenses. Let's start with perjury, malicious prosecution, and falsifying evidence. Those charges would also apply to others up the chain, including James Comey, Loretta Lynch, her short-term successor Sally Yates, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page. Among other clearly evidenced crimes and fellow conspirators.
Those crimes possibly go all the way up the chain to Barack Obama, who Page and Strzok said wanted "everything" regarding the Russia dossier. Even people as high up as Rosenstein and Comey don't make FISA surveillance requests on Trump officials without authorization higher up. And there isn't many others between their high positions and Obama himself.
No you made a bunch of accusations. It means nothing to me that you claim a percentage of it as fact. Flynn is where he is because he lied to the FBI. You can explain to me why that makes him a victim to you. I understand why partisans on your side are trying to make him a victim but do you actually have something resembling a principled argument that makes sense at the same time "you connect the dots"
Flynn lied in deposition about things that he was legally allowed to do, but did not want to make public. It was a perjury trap. Again, Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch said: "Give me two hours of deposition and I can make anyone perjure themself."
I don't like or understand why Flynn did other things, like working with foreign governments without clearing it (as a former general and intelligence official) with the Defense Department as he was required to. Or the plot to kidnap Erdewan's political opponent and extradite him back to Turkey. Or his conflict of interest in his contract work with Turkey. But those are things that should have gotten him fired by Trump, they are not things where Trump was intertwined with Flynn's bad acts. The perjury trap was to leverage Flynn to testify against Trump, possibly falsely just so Flynn could save himself. The kind of dishonest prosecution Weissman is known for.
I posted this here because his stated views specifically pointed at Fox News reporting and opinion on the Meuller investigation, and largely >>>proven<<< ethical and criminal action by federal figures like Loretta Lynch, acting DOJ head Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe (and wife), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (and wife), Flynn Case judge and FISA secret court judge Rudolf Contreras, and blatantly partisan "independent" special investigation head Robert Meuller who has stacked his investigation with 8 Democrat-donor lawyers, many of whom have even worked for Democrats including the Clinton Foundation they are allegedly investigating! And prosecutor Andrew Weissman, who has a history of unethical and malicious prosecution, of cases where he has imprisoned innocent men, brought down the accounting corporation Arthur Anderson and destroyed thousands of jobs needlessly, that a reversal on appeal could not undo the damage of.
Col. Peters says he is "ashamed" of how Fox is attacking the partisanship of these FBI and DOJ investigators. But I see what is "alleged" about these government officials as very proven, largely in self-incriminating e-mails, campaign donations and other partisan and criminal activity.
I've always respected Peters in the past, but lose respect for him here, as he does not specifically name ONE example of unwarranted attack on public the Federal officials in question. These officials have disgraced themselves, Fox News is only the messenger reporting the known facts. Facts most other networks, in their liberal partisanship, selectively omit and ignore.
Fox has nothing to be ashamed of. These are the facts, and they are right to call the above named officials to account for their actions. A number of them have been fired or demoted, >>>not<<< by partisans in the Trump administration, but by new FBI director Wray, by facts reported from Inspector General Horowitz that got McCabe fired, and by the internal affairs division of the FBI itself. Again: NOT partisan, NOT false accusations, absolutely proven, in total contradiction of what Col. Peters alleges.
It appears Peters has joined the other side. And has also jumped aboard the liberals' push for a complete assault weapons ban.
So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 1, 2018
It's become increasingly clear that Meuller's probe is not about the truth, it's about laying a perjury trap to take down Trump on any technicality of wrongdoing the Meuller investigation can possibly manufacture.
I don't think Trump should testify at all.
Meanwhile here's Hillarry Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, who destroyed 33,000 e-mails, wiped the hard-drives on all their computers repeatedly with bleach-bit, and smashed 4 cel phones with a sledge hammer to hide evidence. After these records were already subpoenaed! These three were NEVER EVEN ASKED to testify under oath. These three were suspiciously GIVEN IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION in exchange for... nothing! Mountains of evidence, not investigated.
As compared to the highly aggressive and arguably unlawful way the Meuller investigators are trying to convict Trump, on any half-baked charge they can manufacture. An outrageously clear double-standard. Comey and McCabe are already being investigated on the charges they previously manufactured for Trump officials.
If Hillary can do 9 hours under oath against partisan republicans I'm sure Spanky can answer a couple of questions from a fellow republican. It's only perjury if he lies and I don't see any questions about his sex life.
Hillary Clinton and her aides were NEVER subject to the scrutiny or legal jeopardy that they are trying to hold Trump to, despite that there is a fraction of the evidence against Trump that exists for a case against Clinton. Hillary and her aides were never subject to testifying under oath. Their testimony was not even recorded.
There is no crime Trump can even be accused of, so the Meuller investigators are trying to MANUFACTURE a crime to accuse him of, in the form of a perjury trap.
All the obstruction, perjury, and deliberate falsification of evidence is by Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Rudolf Contreras, James Clapper, John Brennan, and other Deep State conspirators in the DOJ and FBI, who deliberately falsified evidence to destroy Trump and his administration. While they simultaneously obstructed prosecution and destroyed evidence to exonerate Hillary Clinton and her minions.
I increasingly think if Hillary had won the election, these same people would have done a Stalinist purge of Republican leaders and campaign donors. When will you admit how truly evil your side is, M E M?
1) Hillary and her inner circle rigged 2 televised CNN debates. 2) As internal e-mails revealed (by WikiLeaks) Hillary and the DNC leadership rigged the Democrat primary. 3) Hillary Clinton's illegal email server that compromised national security and all her State Department e-mail communication to the Russians and Chinese. 4) The Clinton Foundation exchanging hundreds of millions in foreign donations in a pay-to-play selling of State Department access during Hillary's 4 years running the State Department. 5) The Clintons taking further millions, and huge speaking fees, to slip through a sale of 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to the Russians, in the Uranium One deal. 6) Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin destroying 33,000 emails, using bleachbit to wipe computer hard-drives of their computers, and smashing four cel phones with a sledgehammer, to hide evidence of their crimes, AFTER all these records were subpoenaed by Congress and FBI/DOJ investigators.
Why won't you admit to these crimes? The evidence is obvious, the crime of destroying much of this evidence is obvious. You can't deny it.
As compared to: Roughly two years of intense investigation of Trump, and all they can do at this point is try to manufacture charges against Trump.
And why can't you admit that even the basis for the FISA warrants against Trump officials, and the basis for appointing Mueller as special investigator, is all of it , ALL, based on false evidence. Even if Trump were actually guilty of anything (and he's not) the investigation should be ended on the basis of the corruption of how the prosecution was pushed along at multiple points by false evidence. Manafort, Flynn, Gates and all involved should be exonerated, since all the evidence against them is fruit of the poisoned tree. Or in the case of Michael Flynn, a manufactured perjury trap.
By all the evidence presented, Hillary Clinton ACTUALLY DID collaborate treasonously with he Russians in all the ways I just posted above.
Whereas Trump and members of his campaign/administration were set up to LOOK like they were collaborating, but didn't. As self-incriminatingly stated by several Deep State players, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (setting up an "insurance policy" in the event Trump were elected). And the deceitful actions of Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan and all the others, where even the circumstances to open FISA warrants and a Rosenstein-appointed Meuller special investigation against Trump, were all, ALL OF THEM, borne in deceit and falsified evidence. Or in the case of Veselnetskaya, Loretta Lynch signed off on a very odd immigrant Visa that allowed her to even be in the country to offer a meeting (a baited trap) for Jared Kushner. Where he met with her for 20 minutes, saw she was a deceiver, and never even did business with her.
All the facts, all the lies, lead right back to Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and her agents in the DOJ and FBI, and Clapper (DNI), and Brennan (CIA). THAT's clearly where the guilt is, not with Trump.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said new details about James Comey's leaking of memos is "further evidence of FBI corruption" during Comey's tenure as FBI director.
Comey sent the memos detailing his private conversations with President Trump to a friend, who then leaked the contents of one memo to the New York Times.
It's now been discovered that the friend, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, worked as an FBI "special government employee" for at least 19 months – during which time he reported directly to Comey and repeatedly defended the FBI director in media interviews amid the Hillary Clinton email probe.
On "Outnumbered Overtime," Fitton said this goes to show that the FBI is as political an organization as any other government bureaucracy.
"They have press operations and they try to defend themselves in the media," Fitton said, arguing that Richman had an obligation to disclose his relationship with the bureau, instead of only being identified as a law professor or policy adviser to Comey in interviews.
Fitton also noted that during Comey's Senate Intelligence Committee testimony in June 2017, after his firing, he did not volunteer that Richman was an FBI employee.
Fitton said that Richman's status as an FBI employee was an important material fact that people would have wanted to know when evaluating Comey's decision to use him as an intermediary to leak sensitive information.
"You can bet that given Richman's role at the FBI and [he and Comey's] close relationship that this wasn't the first time that leaks like this occurred," Fitton said, calling for a "credible investigation" into Comey's leaking.
In an interview with Fox News last week, Comey said the contents of the memos were not classified and that his actions did not constitute a "leak."
And in answer to that last Comey deceptive remark:
Daniel Richman is the Columbia University professor that Comey leaked FBI documents to, which Richman in turn leaked to the press. That Comey leaked (as he testified and was videotaped before Congress in hearings) with the stated clandestine intent to trigger a special investigation, that Meuller was appointed to head. And it did.
Another interesting detail is that Meuller submitted himself for an appointment and was rejected by the Trump administration, in a meeting that Rosenstein sat right beside Meuller. And right after the rejection, Rosenstein appointed Meuller (who had an axe to grind, for being rejected by Trump) to lead the special investigation of Trump!
Rosenstein likewise has multiple conflicts of interest, and should have recused himself a long time ago. 1) Rosenstein submitted the written report that recommended Comey's firing, that prompted Trump to fire Comey. 2) In the investigation of Comey's firing, Rosenstein simultaneously oversees the special investigation (Meuller's boss), and at the same time is a witness to the events leading to Comey's firing. 3) Rosenstein's wife was a political candidate who received over $500,000 from Terry McAuliffe, a Hillary Clinton aide, and has a clear influence and conflict of interest in an investigation related to the Clintons.
And that's just a small slice of the conflict of interest all the way up and down the Deep State investigative chain.
I think Ghouliani added another reason Spanky fired Comey today but the following is from the President himself.... “[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”
I think Ghouliani added another reason Spanky fired Comey today but the following is from the President himself.... “[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”
But ultimately, Rosenstein with his authority then as DOJ assistant attorney general, recommended that Trump fire James Comey as the only way to restore public and internal trust in the FBI. Which Trump did. Since then, two internal investigations 1) the FBI's Inspector General (Michael Horowitz), and 2) the FBI's internal affairs investigators (i.e., the Office of Professional Responsibility) both found in McCabe, Comey and others precisely the "lack of candor" (lying, falsification of evidence) and corruption that Trump fired Comey for.
If you were honest, you would admit that vindicates Trump's firing of Comey.
He said he was going to fire him anyway. There are now a couple of versions of why he fired Comey. That hardly vindicates Spanky.
There were certainly many legitimate reasons Trump had to fire Comey. And many Democrats, including Schumer, Durbin and Pelosi, said on camera that he should be fired.
As I said above, TWO internal investigations in the FBI, 1) the Inspector General, and 2) the Office of Professional Integrity (i.e., internal affairs) have made the recommendation that Andrew McCabe be fired, and that certainly included Comey's antics involving McCabe. From what I saw reported by Sara Carter tonight, the IG's full report will be released soon, and its release will require James Comey to have legal counsel to keep him out of jail. Over and over, you ignore that virtually everyone in DOJ/FBI, including internal investigators, as well as in the House and Senate, of both parties, called for Comey's firing. And out of pure slander you ignore that and act like Trump did something wrong. He had more than legitimate reasons to fire Comey, and virtually everyone in Washington has said so, prior to the firing.
Act like Trump did something wrong? Lol, I think Spanky is certainly acting like he did. I'm waiting to see what Mueller eventually presents. The whole thing with Rudy the last couple of days doesn't bode well for your guy. I guess Giuliani may have actually waived his right to attorney client privilege with Trump with the interviews he did. What do you figure happened there? I think it was clear he was doing Spanky's bidding with what he was revealing but now today there was backtracking.
I would actually be surprised if Spanky doesn't take the fifth if subpoenaed because at this point it's hard to see how he could truthfully answer questions.
In other words, Trump doesn't want to walk into a perjury trap. Where Meuller's special investigation lynch mob of Democrat donors try to manufacture a crime to impeach him.
Friday was a very good day for Trump.
1) a federal judge, T.S. Ellis, in a Virginia court regarding the Paul Manafort case, blasted the Meuller investigation for their attempt to manufacture a crime where there is none. Something revealed is that in 2007, the Justice Department had investigated Manafort, and closed the case because they didn't think it warranted prosecution. ONLY when they felt it could be manipulated to make Manafort "sing" on Trump, or even "compose" false charges against Trump, was the case re-opened. There are multiple people including Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and Roger Stone, who have had to mortgage their homes and have been bankrupted by these manufactured charges. Some have even asked for public donations for their defense. 2) Two of the Deep State conspirators in the FBI, Lisa Page and James Baker, resigned on Friday. They'd already been demoted and re-assigned, pending internal investigation by the FBI's Inspector General, and by the FBI's Office of Professional Integrity (i.e., FBI's internal affairs), precisely for their unethical anti-Trump/pro-Hillary bias and actions. Word is, the Inspector General's full report will be released in the next week or so, and that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr and Baker will all require lawyers when it is released, and the two who resigned are choosing to do so quietly now on their terms, rather than wait to be fired and lose benefits.
Which --of course!-- CNN and the liberal media did their damnedest to pretend didn't happen, and selectively omitted coverage of, so they could devote more time to Stormy Daniels, what members of Trump's administration gossiped about Trump and are likely to resign, as was heard from --of course!-- unnamed sources.
Meanwhile, Comey, McCabe and the rest are greasing their asses for what they know is coming. Even if the mainstream media isn't reporting it.
Lol, the judge didn't say any crime was manufactured. He blasted Mueller basically for doing his job and using very accepted and legal means to do so. He might feel the President is above the law but that isn't what he's ruling on though. Trump and toadies are running a political defense for his base but everybody can see that the piece of shit is a liar.
No, you've completely twisted it around into Democrat/MediaMatters spin.
The judge blasted Mueller for hubris, the abuse of power to manufacture a crime where there is none, just because they can. There are multiple people who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong, and yet have been destroyed and bankrupted by accusations of crimes they clearly didn't commit.
It would be some minor satisfaction and payback if James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissman, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, James Baker and the like were similarly bankrupted by legal defense for crimes they ACTUALLY COMMITTED.
A list I hope later includes Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jennifer Palmieri. And Obama officials who lied about not knowing about Hillary Clinton's private server, and even used fake e-mail names to communicate on Hillary's e-mail server (i.e., clear consciousness of guilt).
And I'd love to see the case re-opened against Lois Lerner and Koskinin and others at the IRS who weaponized that agency against Republican donors, Tea Party members and religious conservative groups.
Apparently you missed the part where Judge T.S.Ellis said Meuller's investigation were trying to leverage Manafort to "sing" (to testify against Trump, under pressure of manufactured charges). And he followed up saying under pressure to make Manafort "more than sing, to compose" (i.e., under pressure of going to prison, to push Manafort to lie,to say anything, to make up any story to get Trump, just so Manafort could use it to plea himself into being given immunity and avoid jail).
Further, both Robert Meuller and Andrew Weissman have a history of such tactics, suborning perjury, and withholding exculpatory evidence, that sent many people to jail, in cases that later were reversed on appeal and released. Regarding Arthur Anderson accounting firm case, it bankrupted a company and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs, and two falsely imprisoned died in jail before the others were released on appeal. These are the people trying to entrap the president.
Every single night on Lou Dobbs, Hannity and every other Fox program, more details come out about how rigged this Meuller investigation is, and how dirty Obama, Hillary the broader DNC and the FBI, DOJ and Meuller investigations are.
In the last week, Lisa Page was forced to resign. The FBI's Inspector General will be releasing a report in the next 2 weeks or so, that should provide evidence for the indictment of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and others. Lisa Page resigned to allow her to exit before she would have been fired.
Now there seems to be increasing evidence that not only were the FBI doing illegal surveillance of the Trump administration under falsified evidence to get FISA warrants, but that the FBI even hired a mole informant to work inside the Trump administration. Just a sampling of the Alinsky/Stalinist/KGB-style abuse of federal power that would have occurred if Frau Hitlery had won the presidency. I'm daily amazed at what they get away with WITHOUT Hillary in power.
And of course, everything we know about Comey, McCabe and the other deep-state operators would have been swept under a rug. And the few journalists investigating no doubt similarly surveilled by the FBI, and arrested and jailed in midnight raids.
Hate to break up WB's insane screeds, but why do you keep bothering posting here, MEM? The place--this forum, especially--is as lost a cause as slavery and the confederacy (things I assume WB supports). Leave this place to the racist pederast and go live your best life. Seriously.
Apparently you missed the part where Judge T.S.Ellis said Meuller's investigation were trying to leverage Manafort to "sing" (to testify against Trump, under pressure of manufactured charges). And he followed up saying under pressure to manke Manafort "more than sing, to compose" (i.e., under pressure of going to prison, to push Manafort to lie, to make up a story to get Trump, just so Manafort could use it to plea himself into being given immunity and avoid jail).
Further, both Robert Meuller and Andrew Weissman have a history of such tactics, suborning perjury, and withholding exculpatory evidence, that sent many people to jail, in cases that later reversed on appeal and released. Regarding Arthur Anderson accounting firm case, it bankrupted a company and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs, and two falsely imprisoned died in jail before the others were released on appeal. These are the people trying to entrap the president.
It's a common and legal practice of prosecutors to use those crimes committed by smaller fish to get a bigger one. And Trump isn't being treated any differently than Clinton was. In fact he has it better with republicans in control he really doesn't have to worry .
And in this case, they ignore the big fish (Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Fusion GPS, and their allies in DOJ and FBI) only because they have a (D) next to their names. That is selective and malicious prosecution. There has been extensive investigation and commentary on this, and not just from the conservative/Republican side.
Oraganizations like Judicial Watch. And legal scholars like Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz have criticized the blatant partisanship and one-sidedness of this investigation.
Still waiting for someone to investigate the MOUNTAINS of evidence against Hillary Clinton and her staff. And for the liberal media to even report that mountain of evidence exists. And why officials like Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were given amnesty for their obvious crimes in exchange for nothing. Why they were NOT required to testify under oath, and perjury traps were set for Trump officials like Manafort, Flynn, Page and Gates.
1) House Republicans have threatened the FBI with obstruction of justice charges if they don't release documents to House investigators that FBI/DOJ have been stonewalling (CLEARLY those responsible in FBI/DOJ are Clinton/Democrat loyalists who are slow-walking release, attempting to run out the clock till at least November, when they hope Democrats will win a majority in the House, and the Democrats will corruptly end the House investigation, despite any evidence released and made public after that point). So far the FBI and DOJ have released 9,000 documents, out of over 1 million to House investigators.
2) House Republicans have petitioned, AFTER OVER A YEAR OF NO EVIDENCE AND NO CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, to order the Meuller investigators within 30 days to produce the slightest evidence, or to end the investigation.
3) And today it was revealed that the Meuller investigation does not have the evidence to subpoena Trump to testify, and will not call him to testify, because again, there is NO EVIDENCE, NONE, against Trump. And as Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said to Lou Dobbs today: "If that's the case, then why is there still a Meuller investigation?"
And once again, over here on the other side are mountains of evidence of crimes by Hillary Clinton and her staff at both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, that for odd unexplainable reasons FBI and DOJ have not and will not investigate. And have even given amnesty to many key players (in exchange for nothing) and have allowed them to destroy tons of evidence (whereas simultaneously in the cases of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, the FBI did midnight raids to prevent the possibility of destroying evidence, even as they sat on their hands and let Hillary Clinton staffers ACTUALLY DESTROY EVIDENCE, deleting 33,000 e-mails, destroying the files on hard-drives of multiple computers, and smashing 4 Hillary cel phones to bits with a sledge hammer to prevent electronic texts and documents on them from being read. All >>>AFTER<<< the FBI, DOJ and House investigators had already subpoenaed all these records.
Lol, it's Trump's DOJ! The guy heading it is a republican. As for one year being to long when did you ever apply that to democrats being investigated? To me it's crazy that house republicans now complain about a year with the Mueller investigation but want to re investigate Clinton. Lets get Spanky under oath for a couple of hours before you talk about equal justice.
Hate to break up WB's insane screeds, but why do you keep bothering posting here, MEM? The place--this forum, especially--is as lost a cause as slavery and the confederacy (things I assume WB supports). Leave this place to the racist pederast and go live your best life. Seriously.
I don't spend a huge amount of time here anymore but I still find it worthwhile. We've been through several Presidents together on this board and I'm probably to old and stubborn to just completely leave it. Always good advice to live one's best life! I just think it can be done despite a couple of post here and there on the RKMB
Hate to break up WB's insane screeds, but why do you keep bothering posting here, MEM? The place--this forum, especially--is as lost a cause as slavery and the confederacy (things I assume WB supports). Leave this place to the racist pederast and go live your best life. Seriously.
And the petty vindictiveness continues...
Iggy, you really are a lying piece of human excrement. I've already deconstructed your lies and slanders on multiple occasions.
I'm on record for close to 20 years, and in multiple topics in the last year as thinking the "alt right" and KKK racists are idiots. I welcome everyone from anywhere, of every race, who LEGALLY immigrates to the United States and wants to be one of us, and doesn't harbor a first loyalty to other countries, or Cultural Marxism, or a wish to hate, kill or marginalize me just because I'm white (I'm also part Cherokee, by the way). I don't endorse slavery or the Confederacy, except as part of our history in statues, monuments and cemetaries, rather than wiped away by an Orwellian revisionist Left that wants to change the meaning or erase what actually occurred. I'm not a racist. (I've criticized white, black and Hispanic racists.) I'm not a pederast (I barely even know what that is, except some variant of pedophile, which I'm not either. As if anyone seriously thought I was. It seems to be the RKMB takedown slander of choice levelled at many here in the last 15 years or so, by the ugliest meanest users on these boards.)
Or to put it succinctly: Fuck you, Iggy. I would love, LOVE to print out your posts on these boards, and pass copies of them to all your administrative superiors, colleages and students, and show them what an ugly, vile, vicious person you are. And I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the office as you begged for your job when confronted with these comments by your administrative superiors. These and your comments about vindictively discriminating against your Christian students, and various other ugliness.
You posted a photoshopped picture of Comey wearing a Clinton shirt and a swastika and call it great commentary. Shame on you.
Shame on James Comey, for abusing his position, rigging the Hillary Clinton investigation where he wrote his public statement recommending to not prosecute her, two months before he ever looked at the actual evidence!
Shame on Comey for submitting, and following attorney general Loretta Lynch's order to call the Hillary Clinton investigation a "matter", and not an "investigation" as it truly was. Further evidence of Comey's reluctance to pursue justice on Hillary Clinton's crimes.
Shaame on Comey for staging midnight raids on Manafort and Cohen, shaking them down and extorting plea-bargain confessions out of them, to avoid decadess-long jail sentences way beyond what anyone else would be charged for the same crime.
Shame on Comey for lying about the reliability of the Russia Dossier, and using it to falsify evidence to apply for >>>four<<< illegal FISA surveillance requests to spy on Trump officials.
Shame on Comey for leaking documents to a Columbia university professor friend to leak to the press, to through deceptive means manufacture the pretense for a special investigation of Trump for "Russia collusion". Which quickly went way beyond its scope, on the falsified FISA evidence, was only able to create perjury traps to shakedown plea bargains from innocent men. SHAME ON COMEY for ruining these men's lives, forcing them to sell their homes and go into bankruptcy over false charges, that were only levelled in a vindictive overzealous attempt to get President Trump by any deceitful means, innocence, equal justice, and rule of law be damned.
Shame on Comey for all the remarks he has made since being fired, and going on a book tour and endless TV interviews to attack the president, disclosing details of private FBI/Presidential meetings like no previous FBI director in history. Like a gossipy schoolgirl, not an FBI director.
Shame on Comey for ruining the reputation and integrity of the FBI, that it will spend a decade regaining public confidence, if ever. The selective prosecution, midnight raids, shakedown tactics, intimidation, abuse of federal power, all arguably make that swastika on his arm funny, in how close to the truth it is. Nazis are known for brutal abuse of state power, midnight raids, and intimidation. Those are precisely what Comey and his inner circle have done.
Comey clearly is a Hillary Clinton supporter, there is no distortion in his views in photoshopping that on his chest. He said that his wife and all 5 children voted for Hillary, and he barely veiled his own support for Hillary, saying that if not then, now is a Democrat.
A Cambridge professor with deep ties to American and British intelligence has been outed as an agent who snooped on the Trump presidential campaign for the FBI.
Multiple media outlets have named Stefan Halper, 73, as the secret informant who met with Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos starting in the summer of 2016. The American-born academic previously served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations.
The revelation, stemming from recent reports in which FBI sources admitted sending an agent to snoop on the Trump camp, heightens suspicions that the FBI was seeking to entrap Trump campaign aides. Papodopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, while Page was the subject of a federal surveillance warrant.
“If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal,” President Trump tweeted Saturday, calling for the FBI to release additional documents to Congress.
The Halper revelation also shows the Obama administration’s FBI began prying into the opposing party’s presidential nominee earlier than it previously admitted.
Halper’s sit-downs with Page reportedly started in early July 2016, undermining fired FBI Director James Comey’s previous claim that the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign began at the end of that month.
Halper made his first overture when he met with Page at a British symposium. The two remained in regular contact for more than a year, meeting at Halper’s Virginia farm and in Washington, DC, as well as exchanging emails.
The professor met with Trump campaign co-chair Sam Clovis in late August, offering his services as a foreign policy adviser, the Washington Post reported Friday, without naming the academic.
Clovis did not see the conversation as suspicious, his attorney told the paper — but is now “unsettled” that “the professor” never mentioned he’d struck up a relationship with Page.
Days later, Halper contacted Papadopoulos by email. The professor offered the young and inexperienced campaign aide $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to write a paper about energy in the eastern Mediterranean region.
“George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?” the professor pressed Papadopoulos when they met, according to reports — a reference to Trump’s campaign-trail riffs about Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Sources close to Papadopoulos told NBC News that he now believes Halper was working for an intelligence agency.
Highly detailed descriptions of the FBI informant in Friday reports in the New York Times and Washington Post pegged Halper in all but name. Outlets including NBC and Fox News subsequently connected the dots. The revelation confirms a March report in the Daily Caller that outlined Halper’s repeated meetings with Papadopoulos and Page.
It is not clear if the professor was paid [by the FBI] to speak with Trump campaign figures, but public records show that he has received large payments from the federal government in the last two years.
The Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment — a shadowy think tank that reports directly to the secretary of defense — paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017.
Halper has close personal and professional ties to the CIA reaching back decades. He is the son-in-law of a former deputy director of the agency and worked on the 1980 presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush, who had served as CIA director.
When Bush became Ronald Reagan’s running mate, Halper was implicated in a spying scandal in which CIA officials gave inside information on the Carter administration to the GOP campaign.
Meanwhile, reports emerged Saturday that Donald Trump Jr. met in August 2016 with a representative of Saudi crown princes, who offered pre-election help to his father’s campaign.
An Israeli political strategist who attended the meeting told the New York Times that their plan to carry out a pro-Trump social media campaign did not go forward.
Fox News, for reasons I don't quite understand, is not disclosing the mole's name yet, but they are discussing the ramifications of his being identified. For the last week his name has been known, and every night on Fox they have been discussing the abuses of power, the threat to Constitutional freedoms, and the outright tyranny of the FBI, DOJ, CIA (John Brennan), Director of National intelligence (James Clapper) in their weaponization of federal agencies against one party, and coup against Trump and his officials. And likely these same FBI investigators were providing opposition research for Obama during his presidency, and for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
No one can say this is minor. The Watergate break-in was small in itself. But it revealed that the Nixon administration was using the FBI and CIA to do surveillance on several thousand Democrat/Left and Vietnam anti-war protestors without warrants or justifiable cause. That was the real significance of Watergate.
Before this is over, we will see that a similar abuse of power has occurred under the Deep State/Democrats. We are already seeing exposure of that circle of abuse widening.
The even scarier part for me is that (unlike under Watergate) the news media(sometimes called the "Fourth Estate", for its trusted position to be a watchdog on the three branches of government), whose job it is to expose government abuse, IS ACUALLY DOWNPLAYING, COVERING UP AND ENABLING this abuse of power. It is precisely their job to hold the three branches of government accountable. But instead they are completely on Team Obama/Hillary. During Watergate, the media was all over the Watergate investigation and its dangerous ramifications. Now the media are actually suppressing its importance. Oh yes, let's interview Stormy Daniels' attorney for a 75th time! Nothing to see here!
And that Democrats, both at the grassroots and in the media, even knowing all the crazy abuses by Obama/Hillary and their Deep State federal officials, they would still have Hillary over Trump, and dislodge Trump by any deceit and abuse of power they could manage. We see that playing out every day.
Spanky doesn't have much credibility. And what he's doing now looks to me like somebody who's guilty and is just trying to trash the investigation because it's not going to exonerate him. We'll see what actually comes out of the latest accusations but already his claim that the one guy was embedded into his campaign is untrue. And this looks more like a move to position Nunes to actually get Trump info on the investigation so maybe we won't see.
I didn't see any specifics about "what Trump has done".
But on Laura Ingraham, it was revealed that the Russian lawyer Veselnetskaya (who had one meeting with Donald Trump Jr) before she met with Trump Jr, met BEFORE, and AFTER with Fusion GPS (the Russia Dossier folks paid for by Hillary Clinton), so it's pretty clear who was pulling the puppet strings in making that meeting happen. Add to that Veselnetskaya was only in the U.S. because of a very unusual special Visa arranged by Loretta Lynch. On multiple levels, your Democrat-orchestrated Deep State at work.
I'm hard-pressed to summarize the disclosures in just the last week.
For openers, details have indicated a SECOND FBI mole pushing members of the Trump administration to walk into a trap since May 2016, in particular Sam Clovis and Michael Caputo, who received calls out of the blue offering them Hillary Clinton e-mails repeatedly, bait they didn't take. Both also being bankrupted by contrived charges from the Meuller investigation. Amazingly, Michael Caputo said he reported these attempts to the House investigation, the Senate investigation, and the Meuller investigation, and none of them showed the slightest interest, or have inquired to confirm or deny it over the last 2 years. Caputo said the Meuller investigation acted as if they already knew all about it before he reported it.
A reminder: Peter Strzok and Lisa Page exchanged texts that "POTUS wants information on everything we know." Indicating Obama in 2016 was fully aware of their surveillance and tactics.
Newt Gingrich last night on Laura Ingraham's show (Tuesday, 5/22/2018 program) said that when you consider what even veteran Washington Post and New York Times reporters called the most "control freak" administration they had ever dealth with, more so than even the Nixon white house, Gingrich said that given that level of lockdown and surveillance on its staff, it's impossible that Obama wasn't fully aware of what the DOJ(Rosenstein, Lynch), FBI(Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr), CIA(John Brennan) and DIA(James Clapper) bad players were doing.
Tonight on Hannity (Wednesday 5/23/2018 program), Sam Clovis' lawyer Toengsten said that both Clovis and Caputo reported offers made to them to the FBI, and there was no pursuit of it. Logically, precisely because it was the FBI's failed sting operation that they didn't bite on. The third Trump official they pulled the sting on, obscure and insignificant 27 year old Trump campaign employee George Pappadapoulos, finally took the bait and was snared into charges, in the most peripheral possible manufactured indictment.
Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday I've been glued to the coverage of Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham. As infuriating as the scandals themselves is the reluctance to even investigate them, or even report them by the "lean forward"/Deep State liberal media.
It may be true that President Trump illegally conspired with Russia and was so good at covering it up he’s managed to outwit our best intel and media minds who've searched for irrefutable evidence for two years. (We still await special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings.)
But there’s a growing appearance of alleged wrongdoing equally as insidious, if not more so, because it implies widespread misuse of America’s intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
Here are eight signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump for political reasons.
1) CODE NAME
The operation reportedly had at least one code name that was leaked to The New York Times: “Crossfire Hurricane.”
2) WIRETAP FEVER
Secret surveillance was conducted on no fewer than seven Trump associates: chief strategist Stephen Bannon; lawyer Michael Cohen; national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner; campaign chairman Paul Manafort; and campaign foreign policy advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
The FBI reportedly applied for a secret warrant in June 2016 to monitor Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos and Flynn. If true, it means the FBI targeted Flynn six months before his much-debated conversation with Russia’s ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
The FBI applied four times to wiretap Page after he became a Trump campaign adviser starting in July 2016. Page’s office is connected to Trump Tower and he reports having spent “many hours in Trump Tower.”
CNN reported that Manafort was wiretapped before and after the election “including during a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Trump.” Manafort reportedly has a residence in Trump Tower.
Electronic surveillance was used to listen in on three Trump transition officials in Trump Tower — Flynn, Bannon and Kushner — as they met in an official capacity with the United Arab Emirates’ crown prince.
The FBI also reportedly wiretapped Flynn’s phone conversation with Kislyak on Dec. 31, 2016, as part of “routine surveillance” of Kislyak.
NBC recently reported that Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, was wiretapped. NBC later corrected the story, saying Cohen was the subject of a “pen register” used to monitor phone numbers and, possibly, internet communications.
3) NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS
Another controversial tool reportedly used by the FBI to obtain phone records and other documents in the investigation were national security letters, which bypass judicial approval.
Improper use of such letters has been an ongoing theme at the FBI. Reviews by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General found widespread misuse under Mueller — who was then FBI director — and said officials failed to report instances of abuses as required.
4) UNMASKING
“Unmasking” — identifying protected names of Americans captured by government surveillance — was frequently deployed by at least four top Obama officials who have subsequently spoken out against President Trump: James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence; Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Susan Rice, former national security adviser; Sally Yates, former deputy attorney general.
Names of Americans caught communicating with monitored foreign targets must be “masked,” or hidden within government agencies, so the names cannot be misused or shared.
However, it’s been revealed that Power made near-daily unmasking requests in 2016.
Prior to that revelation, Clapper claimed ignorance. When asked if he knew of unmasking requests by any ambassador, including Power, he testified: “I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not — I could not answer with any confidence.”
Rice admitted to asking for unmasked names of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports after initially claiming no knowledge of any such thing.
Clapper also admitted to requesting the unmasking of “Mr. Trump, his associates or any members of Congress.” Clapper and Yates admitted they also personally reviewed unmasked documents and shared unmasked material with other officials.
5) CHANGING THE RULES
On Dec. 15, 2016 — the same day the government listened in on Trump officials at Trump Tower — Rice reportedly unmasked the names of Bannon, Kushner and Flynn. And Clapper made a new rule allowing the National Security Agency to widely disseminate surveillance material within the government without the normal privacy protections.
6) MEDIA STRATEGY
Former CIA Director John Brennan and Clapper, two of the most integral intel officials in this ongoing controversy, have joined national news organizations where they have regular opportunities to shape the news narrative — including on the very issues under investigation.
Clapper reportedly secretly leaked salacious political opposition research against Trump to CNN in fall 2017 and later was hired as a CNN political analyst. In February, Brennan was hired as a paid analyst for MSNBC.
7) LEAKS
There’s been a steady and apparently orchestrated campaign of leaks — some true, some false, but nearly all of them damaging to President Trump’s interests.
A few of the notable leaks include word that Flynn was wiretapped, the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” of political opposition research, then-FBI Director James Comey briefing Trump on it, private Comey conversations with Trump, Comey’s memos recording those conversations and criticizing Trump, the subpoena of Trump’s personal bank records (which proved false) and Flynn planning to testify against Trump (which also proved to be false).
8) FRIENDS, INFORMANTS and SNOOPS
The FBI reportedly used one-time CIA operative Stefan Halper in 2016 as an informant to spy on Trump officials.
Another player is Comey friend Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor, who leaked Comey’s memos against Trump to The New York Times after Comey was fired. We later learned that Richman actually worked for the FBI under a status called “Special Government Employee.”
The FBI used former reporter Glenn Simpson, his political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele to compile allegations against Trump, largely from Russian sources, which were distributed to the press and used as part of wiretap applications.
These eight features of a counterintelligence operation are only the pieces we know. It can be assumed there’s much we don’t yet know. And it may help explain why there’s so much material that the Department of Justice hasn’t easily handed over to congressional investigators.
__________________________________________
Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program, “Full Measure.”
The “deep state” is in a deep state of desperation. With little time left before the Justice Department inspector general’s report becomes public, and with special counsel Robert Mueller having failed to bring down Donald Trump after a year of trying, they know a reckoning is coming.
At this point, there is little doubt that the highest echelons of the FBI and the Justice Department broke their own rules to end the Hillary Clinton “matter,” but we can expect the inspector general to document what was done or, more pointedly, not done. It is hard to see how a yearlong investigation of this won’t come down hard on former FBI Director James Comey and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who definitely wasn’t playing mahjong in a secret “no aides allowed” meeting with former President Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac.
With this report on the way and congressional investigators beginning to zero in on the lack of hard, verified evidence for starting the Trump probe, current and former intelligence and Justice Department officials are dumping everything they can think of to save their reputations.
But it is backfiring. They started by telling the story of Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat, as having remembered a bar conversation with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. But how did the FBI know they should talk to him? That’s left out of their narrative.
Downer’s signature appears on a $25 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation. You don’t need much imagination to figure that he was close with Clinton Foundation operatives who relayed information to the State Department, which then called the FBI to complete the loop. This wasn’t intelligence. It was likely opposition research from the start.
In no way would a fourth-hand report from a Maltese professor justify wholesale targeting of four or five members of the Trump campaign. It took Christopher Steele, with his funding concealed through false campaign filings, to be incredibly successful at creating a vast echo chamber around his unverified, fanciful dossier, bouncing it back and forth between the press and the FBI so it appeared that there were multiple sources all coming to the same conclusion.
Time and time again, investigators came up empty. Even several sting operations with an FBI spy we just learned about failed to produce a DeLorean-like video with cash on the table. But rather than close the probe, the deep state just expanded it. All they had were a few isolated contacts with Russians and absolutely nothing related to Trump himself, yet they pressed forward. Egged on by Steele, they simply believed Trump and his team must be dirty. They just needed to dig deep enough.
Perhaps the murkiest event in the timeline is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of a special counsel after he personally recommended Comey’s firing in blistering terms. With Attorney General Jeff Sessions shoved out of the way, Rosenstein and Mueller then ignored their own conflicts and took charge anyway. Rosenstein is a fact witness, and Mueller is a friend of Comey, disqualifying them both. Flush with 16 prosecutors, including a former lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, and an undisclosed budget, the Mueller investigation has been a scorched-earth effort to investigate the entirety of the Trump campaign, Trump business dealings, the entire administration and now, if it was not Russia, maybe it’s some other country.
The president’s earlier legal team was naive in believing that, when Mueller found nothing, he would just end it. Instead, the less investigators found, the more determined and expansive they became. This president and his team now are on a better road to put appropriate limits on all this.
This process must now be stopped, preferably long before a vote in the Senate. Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again.
Its prosecutions have all been principally to pressure witnesses with unrelated charges and threats to family, or just for a public relations effect, like the indictment of Russian internet trolls. Unfortunately, just like the Doomsday Machine in “Dr. Strangelove” that was supposed to save the world but instead destroys it, the Mueller investigation comes with no “off” switch: You can’t fire Mueller. He needs to be defeated, like Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Clinton.
Finding the “off” switch will not be easy. Step one here is for the Justice Department inspector general report to knock Comey out of the witness box. Next, the full origins of the investigation and its lack of any real intelligence needs to come out in the open. The attorney general, himself the target of a secret investigation, needs to take back his Justice Department. Sessions needs to act quickly, along with U.S. Attorney John Huber, appointed to conduct an internal review of the FBI, on the Comey and McCabe matters following the inspector general report, and then announce an expanded probe into other abuses of power.
The president’s lawyers need to extend their new aggressiveness from words to action, filing complaints with the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility on the failure of Mueller and Rosenstein to recuse themselves and going into court to question the tactics of the special counsel, from selective prosecutions on unrelated matters, illegally seizing Government Services Administration emails, covering up the phone texts of FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and operating without a scope approved by the attorney general. (The regulations call for the attorney general to recuse himself from the investigation but appear to still leave him responsible for the scope.)
The final stopper may be the president himself, offering two hours of testimony, perhaps even televised live from the White House. The last time America became obsessed with Russian influence in America was the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. Those ended only when Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) attacked an associate of the U.S. Army counsel, Joseph Welch, and Welch famously responded: “Sir, have you no decency?” In this case, virtually every associate and family member of the president has been subject to smears conveniently leaked to the press.
Stopping Mueller isn’t about one president or one party. It’s about all presidents and all parties. It’s about cleaning out and reforming the deep state so that our intelligence operations are never used against opposing campaigns without the firmest of evidence. It’s about letting people work for campaigns and administrations without needing legal defense funds. It’s about relying on our elections to decide our differences. _________________________________________
Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author of “Microtrends Squared.” He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during Clinton’s impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter @Mark_Penn.
Finally a Democrat who gets it.
That if they can spy on the Trump campaign and Trump administration, and manufacture a case to depose Trump, prosecute multiple members of Trump's campaign on manufactured evidence (while simultaneously NOT prosecuting Hillary Clinton despite overwhelming evidence against her), and even rigging the Democrat primary to leverage out Bernie Sanders, there is no one their abused power could not be unleashed on.
Just yesterday Trump's Secretary of State grudgingly admitted there wasn't a deep state. My guess is the evidence if we get to see it will show Spanky colluding and obstructing among other things. Imagine if this was a democrat. Do you really think anything your saying now would be in that case.
Just yesterday Trump's Secretary of State grudgingly admitted there wasn't a deep state. My guess is the evidence if we get to see it will show Spanky colluding and obstructing among other things. Imagine if this was a democrat. Do you really think anything your saying now would be in that case.
Come on, M E M.
You HAVE to know by now that there is FAR more evidence of Hillary Clinton/Obama/DNC collusion with the Russians. And despite the off-the-cuff remark of one official (that I'm not sure you even quoted in context) plenty of evidence of a Deep State in an Orwellian and decidedly undemocratic way.
And that much of the alleged "collusion" by Trump officials was orchestrated to appear that way by Obama/Deep State officials. Veselnetskaya and her meetings BEFORE and AFTER she met with Trump Jr. I mentioned above. Jeff Sessions, who was photographed shaking hands with the Russian ambassador at a public event, another meeting that was orchestrated by Democrats. (i.e., Democrats at multiple stages have set up the situation where Trump officials can falsely be accused of "collusion", when Democrats KNOW the allegations to be false, because they manufactured those situations (not Trump officials) in the first place!
Maybe you saw my comment above, where Michael Caputo reported the many offers made to him of potentially top secret Hillary Clinton e-mails, that he reported to House, Senate and Meuller investigators, who were remarkably uninterested. Because he didn't take the bait for their trap!
With the possible exception of the Kennedy assassination, there has never been more evidence of a massive and ambitious conspiracy. A conspiracy so wide that even many Establishment/Deep State Republicans don't want to investigate it.
There wasn't a deep state till Trump needed one. The Secretary of State was asked point blank yesterday if he thought there was a deep state. That isn't "off the cuff". When Spanky replaced all his lawyers he's basically switched from having a legal strategy to a political one. A change made because he knows he's in trouble?
Clearly, now-Secretary of State Pompeo may not call it a Deep State, but he still acknowledges that there is widespread "malfeasance" across federal agencies. And it was off-the-cuff because he was asked not knowing the question in advance, and answered in his opinion, not from a prepared statement.
He also narrows his comments to deny the existence of a Deep State in the department he heads. I think his comments are to downplay the obvious, in an attempt to not undermine public trust, despite the clear widespread "malfeasance".
A review of the Deep State conspirators:
Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch. Acting AG Sally Yates. DIA director James Clapper. CIA director John Brennan (a onetime communist). DOJ assistant attorney general Rod Rosenstein (and his wife who ran for public office and received over $500,000 from Terry MacAuliffe, a longtime Clinton operative. FBI director James Comey, assistant director Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr in DOJ (plus Ohr's wife who works for Fusion GPS and piplined their disinformation into the FBI investigation), James Rybacki, and James Baker. OF THOSE THAT ARE KNOWN.
At the very least, that includes the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th highest positions in the FBI. Plus Obama's national security advisor Susan Rice, and ambassador Samantha Powers, who "unmasked" Trump staffers illegally right before the election to embarrass Trump and influence the election. Then there's Rudolf Contreras, the judge who oversaw the manufactured conviction of Michael Flynn on manufactured perjury, and then mysteriously recused himself AFTER Flynn's conviction. But despite this oddness, the conviction still stands. Contreras also is a FISA court judge who approved at least one of the four FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, Flynn, and other Trump campaign/administration officials. And is discussed in texts of Strzok and Page, as having a secret ex parte meeting hidden inside a dinner party to advance their secret agenda.
Then there's Robert Mueller, who applied to replace Comey as FBI director but was declined by Trump, who then was appointed by Rosenstein hours later to lead the special investigation of Trump! Clear conflict of interest.
Mueller then appointed 17 lawyers to his special investigation 13 of whom are Democrats, 0 of whom are Republicans, 11 of whom donated to the campaigns of Obama, Hillary and the DNC, most in the hundreds and thousands of dollars, clearly partisanly invested in the Hillary Clinton and Obama, and invested against Trump. On top of that some investigators actually worked for the Clinton Foundation, MORE conflict of interest.
Now... are we seriously supposed to not believe there is a Deep State working against Donald Trump, and deceitfully exonerating Hillary Clinton and her staffers? That's turning a blind eye to a remarkable amount of evidence.
And that's not even getting into the State Department and its resistance to Trump's leadership. One official I saw interviewed described the State Department as a "lost cause", because it is so infiltrated with Obama/Hillary loyalists.
You can parse words in Clintonian evasion of the truth, but a rose by any other name is still a widespread conspiracy for Hillary/Obama and against Trump. High-level federal bureaucrats, undermining the will of the people and their elected president by deceit and abuse of federal power. Just because the election didn't go the way they wanted it to.
While Politico is the incest-bred cousin of the Washington Post (formed by a group of former reporters for the Washington Post, and therefore another front of the liberal media), it does at least acknowledge the existence of the Deep State, even as it mocks and diminishes Trump for drawing attention to its existence.
The Deep State is made up of influential people in both parties, and transcends the power of either party. Its goals are primarily globalist, but even above that is enriching themselves. In Hillary Clinton they found their perfect candidate, the most corrupt and buyable candidate ever offered, making her their perfect vehicle of choice. And conversely, Trump is a threat to them because he is the most dedicated to breaking up their power structure, and is the least pliable to their control. That is why they want to destroy him.
And the rest of that headline from Politico says it might not be what you think. Trump is and has always been one of those people where it's always somebody's fault. Whether it's his own Justice Department, women, the press or even fellow republicans that might be critical, it's never him being responsible for his own actions.
The Deep State is made up of influential people in both parties, and transcends the power of either party. Its goals are primarily globalist, but even above that is enriching themselves. In Hillary Clinton they found their perfect candidate, the most corrupt and buyable candidate ever offered, making her their perfect vehicle of choice. And conversely, Trump is a threat to them because he is the most dedicated to breaking up their power structure, and is the least pliable to their control. That is why they want to destroy him.
I didn't see anything in the quoted Politico piece to contradict that.
It DOESN'T break down to strictly Democrat/Republican. Clearly, there is a lot of Establishment Republican resistance to Trump. And going back to Boehner's period as House Speaker, it was visible (even in Boehner's own words) that a rather large faction of Republicans favored Hillary over Trump (i.e., the "Deep State" by any other name.)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said on Tuesday that the FBI’s use of an informant for the Trump campaign in 2016 was appropriate, joining top Democrats in disputing President Donald Trump’s characterization of the informant as a spy.
“I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got, and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump,” Gowdy said during an interview on Fox News.
In recent days, Trump has parroted misleading claims about the FBI’s use of the informant as part of its counter-intelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, dubbing the individual a “spy” and referring to the controversy as “Spygate.”...
A rose by any other name is still a spy. Mole, spy, confidential informant, all the same thing.
I can call a gas station attendant a "petroleum transport engineer", but regardless, he's still a minimum wage laborer who pumps gas.
I can call a nude strip club dancer an "exotic dancer", but she's still a stripper.
And a spy/confidential informant inside the Trump campaign, placed there by the FBI to set bait, frame Trump officials and give opposition research to the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton campaign is still a big, BIG fucking deal. That parallels if not exceeds the worst authoritarian power grabs of the Watergate scandal.
By any name, it is weaponizing federal agencies by Democrats against the opposing Republican campaign, AND WAS STILL spying on them even after the Jan 2017 inauguration! This is something not done in Western democracies with rule of law and equal protection under the law. That fact that it happened is bad enough. That you can't even recognize the criminal Orwellian abuse of power that occurred, and tens of millions of Democrats like you, scares me at least as much.
Is there no Democrat abuse of power you will not endorse?
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., used to be a prosecutor. So he’s not entirely new to the concept of evidence, investigations, charges and conflicts of interest.
What he apparently doesn’t understand is the FBI’s idea of a “conflict-of-interest-free” special counsel’s office, which employed a key investigator who helped clear a political candidate he supported and later targeted one he vehemently opposed.
“There are a lot of issues I’d like to ask you about, Mr. Deputy Attorney General,” Gowdy told Rod Rosenstein at a House hearing Wednesday. “We had the terrorist incident in New York this week. We have 702 reauthorization that is pending in Congress. Gun violence. The opioid epidemic. Criminal justice reform.
“But when I go home to South Carolina this weekend, trust me when I tell you that no one is going to ask me about any of those issues. They’re going to ask me what in the hell is going on with the Department of Justice and the FBI.”
Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the allegations the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller later stacked his staff with almost exclusively Democratic Party donors.
Rosenstein’s appointee even hired someone to help investigate allegations about President Trump as a candidate who talked about having an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won.
After months of bashing Trump in texts and stating that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton “just has to win,” Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page exchanged a cryptic text concerning an “insurance policy” against a Trump win.
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok wrote: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s] office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Whatever parsing of terms, Gowdy is still essentially correct on the basic points regarding obstruction of justice, the FBI/DOJ obstructing the Clinton e-mails investigation, and the false evidence submitted by Comey and McCabe to obtain FISA warrants for surveillance of Trump campaign officials based on submitting falsified evidence to a judge. I don't know exactly how much prison time those charges would lead to for Comey and McCabe, but even with a sweetheart plea bargain, that sounds like AT LEAST a decade or longer in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for these two!
And Peter Strzok. And Linda Page. And James Clapper. And John Brennan. And Loretta Lynch. And before it's all over, I'm confident the chain of control of this operation will lead all the way to Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett. Just as the IRS scandal following the same strong-arm abuse of federal power did. Strzok and Page's text conversations already show the chain goes up that high.
New York Times reporter Ali Watkins' past tweets are raising eyebrows after revelations she had a three-year romantic relationship with a Senate Intelligence Committee aide now accused by federal prosecutors of leaking sensitive information to journalists, including herself.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that federal investigators had seized years' worth of Watkins’ email and phone records as part of a leak probe into James Wolfe, the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee indicted for giving false statements to FBI agents. Wolfe appeared for a federal court hearing in Baltimore on Friday, where he relinquished his passport and was prohibited from traveling outside of the District of Columbia and Maryland.
The indictment says Wolfe leaked information to reporters about the committee’s work, including its subpoena last fall of an individual believed to be former Trump adviser Carter Page.
But in several tweets in September 2017, Watkins, while dating Wolfe and working for Politico, seemed to point the finger at attorneys for President Trump over various media disclosures.
In one tweet, Watkins noted how the Intelligence Committee is “SOOO frustrated in recent weeks by the constant dribble of leaks about who's testifying to them.” She then said the committee believes “Trumpster lawyers will leak info about upcoming appearances, blame the committee, then use as a pretext not to cooperate.”
It's unclear who was responsible for those specific leaks -- the tweets were posted about a month before a different reporter published the story on the Page subpoena. But the indictment strongly suggests Wolfe was a top source for committee stories and that Watkins was among the reporters who got information from Wolfe.
The indictment said Wolfe, 58, began dating Watkins -- who is in her 20's -- in 2013 when she was an undergraduate student working as a news intern. The indictment said the pair ended the relationship in December 2017.
In an April 2013 tweet, Watkins also tweeted about the fictional Netflix television show “House of Cards,” where a young reporter has an affair with an older member of Congress.
“I wanted to be Zoe Barnes...until episode 4,” she tweeted. “Sleeping with your source- especially a vindictive congressman? #badlifechoice #HouseofCards”
In another tweet, Watkins asked: "So on a scale of 1 to ethical, how does everyone feel about pulling a @RealZoeBarnes for story ideas? #TOTALLYKIDDING @HouseofCards."
The “House of Cards” tweets were posted months before prosecutors said her relationship with Wolfe began.
The revelations also have raised questions about how much her employers knew about the relationship. Watkins previously worked for BuzzFeed, Politico and McClatchy.
The New York Times said Watkins informed her editors about the previous relationship when she was hired. The newspaper also said Watkins claimed to have told both Politico and BuzzFeed about the relationship, though she continued covering the committee.
The Times article said the newspaper only learned Thursday that the DOJ sent her a letter in February about the record seizure. She joined the newspaper in Decmber 2017.
Since the story went public, her employers have expressed concerns about the government obtaining her records.
“This decision by the Justice Department will endanger reporters ability to promise confidentiality to their sources and, ultimately, undermine the ability of a free press to shine a much needed light on government actions,” New York Times spokesman Eileen Murphy said. “That should be a grave concern to anyone who cares about an informed citizenry."
“We’re deeply troubled by what looks like a case of law enforcement interfering with a reporter’s constitutional right to gather information about her own government,” said Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News.
This is the first known instance of the Trump administration obtaining the records of a journalist.
The Obama administration also drew criticism for going after reporter records, including a move to subpoena Associated Press journalists’ phone records and seize records for several Fox News phone lines as part of leak investigations.
In the latter case, court documents showed investigators also secured a search warrant for the personal emails of former Fox News correspondent James Rosen. Facing an uproar at the time, the Justice Department eventually tightened its rules for pursuing reporter records, though Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ramped up leak investigations under the Trump administration.
In the case of Wolfe, the former Senate aide is accused in the indictment of lying about his relationship with Watkins, identified in court papers as "REPORTER #2.”
Wolfe later admitted the relationship after he was shown photos of the two of them together, according to the indictment.
Prosecutors said Wolfe communicated with other journalists, too, and lied to the FBI in December 2017 about contacts he had with several reporters -- including sharing non-public information about committee matters.
He is not charged with leaking classified information.
The indictment indicated Wolfe and Watkins exchanged tens of thousands of electronic communications and often daily phone calls, and they would meet at the reporter’s apartment.
On April 3, 2017, Watkins’ byline appeared on a BuzzFeed article that revealed that Page had met with a Russian intelligence operative in 2013.
Wolfe allegedly called her nearly a half-hour after the story went live and had a phone conversation for about seven minutes.
In December 2017, Wolfe messaged her, according to the indictment, and said: “I always tried to give you as much Information (sic) that I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else.”
On Friday, before boarding Marine One, President Trump reacted to the indictment of Wolfe.
“I'm a very big believer in freedom of the press,” the president said, “but I'm also a believer that you cannot leak classified information.”
Wolfe's employment with the committee ended in December 2017
And in the case of Manafort, what he is being further indicted for STILL has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or Russia. Charges for influencing witnesses, a crime that would not even exist if not for the manufactured perjury charges he is being forced to accept a plea-bargain to.
The case against Manafort was something that was deemed by DOJ as not worth pursuing in 2005. Only when they could use it as a pretense to indict Manafort as a pawn to leverage against Trump was it re-opened. And the FISA surveillance that the case was re-opened to spy on Manafort with was filed by Comey and McCabe based solely on the Russia Dossier THEY KNEW to be falsified evidence. Therefore the surveillance is fruit of the poisoned tree and should be thrown out of court. And Comey and McCabe, who submitted false evidence to a judge, malicious prosecution, falsifying evidence, might well be the ones in the dock facing prosecution, rather than Manafort. That's without even going into the Judge Rudolf Contreras, who in addition to being the judge in the Michael Flynn case (who recused himself suspiciously AFTER he secured a conviction of Flynn!), could also be one of the secret-court unidentified FISA judges who approved one of the multiple warrants for surveillance of Trump officials which (AGAIN) were submitted by Comey and McCabe on evidence they KNEW to be false.
The slightest whiff of a potential Trump scandal/conspiracy, with no actual evidence.
Clapper, the director of the combined NSA, CIA and FBI, said he has seen no evidence of a Trump collusion with the Russians.
Just today, former CIA Director John Brennan comes out as another high-level intelligence official to say there's no "there" there, regarding Trump collusion with the Russians.
Meanwhile, there's a stack of evidence a mile wide that the Hillary Clinton campaign was in collusion with the Russians, that neither House or Senate Democrats, or the complicit liberal media want to discuss!
1) Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, signed off on a deal that gives the Russuans at least 20% of U.S. uranium. 2) Hillary Clinton's illegal private e-mail server, that while she was Secretary of State, allowed the Russians and the Chinese to access her e-mails and know in real time what the U.S.'s strategic planning was (both Hillary and the other high-level officials she communicated with, including President Obama, on her server) and to further compromise the internet security of every official she communicated with, for further hacking. One example: following a large Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton was given a $500,000 speaking fee by the same Russian company. 3) Hillary Clinton taking donations from Russia (and many other bad-player nations) at the Clinton Foundation, and using those donations to sell access to officials at the U.S. State Department. 4) Hillary Clinton's treason over Benghazi. We still have no answers, over 4 years later, where Obama and Frau Hitlery were, while Americans were dying at the embassy. And further indications that Benghazi was used to funnel guns and funding to questionably reliable Islamic militant groups in Syria. 5) Hillary and Obama's treason over allowing Russia to invade Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, with absolutely no action.
Would that Democrats or the Destroy-Trump media would give the slightest fair and balanced attention to these PROVEABLE treasonous acts by Hillary and those around her.
Clapper and Brennan, who defended Trump a year ago, are now among his attackers. Perhaps because the evidence they thought would never lead to them (Fusion GPS, Russia Dossier, FISA warrants to spy on Trump), now does?
Veselnitskaya also met with Fusion GPS before meeting with Trump Jr., and after meeting with Trump Jr.
What's wrong with this picture. Clearly all the puppet strings for this meeting led back to the Hillary Clinton campaign/FusionGPS/Loretta Lynch and the other Deep State operatives in DOJ and FBI.
Veselnitskaya was one of, in FBI/DOJ's words, the Oconus "lures" (outside contiguous United States, foreign contract spies, used to bait a trap for Trump officials).
With similar traps set for Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone, Michael Caputo, and Sam Clovis. Al lured with bait by foreign agents contracted by the FBI.
And where that didn't work, they set perjury traps, and bankrupted wealthy men with legal fees, men who had done nothing wrong, just to frame Trump.
Actually nobody forced Trump people to lie and some of them are up on some serious charges. Trump sure is acting guilty btw.
Nobody lied! Trump Jr. took a phone call from Veselnitskaya, set up a meeting to clarify what she was offering, saw she was deceiving him and ended the meeting after only several minutes, with no transaction.
Pappadapoulos was set up by an Australian ambassador. Again, a baited trap that he didn't bite on.
Manafort did some questionable stuff, but again, the FBI already decided in 2005 that it didn't warrant prosecution. The charges against him were just a shakedown to force him to make a plea. When he, a previously wealthy man, was BANKRUPTED defending himself against false charges, and DOJ/Weissman (who attended Hillary Clinton's victory party on election night 2016) threatened to throw his family in jail on further manufactured charges, having already been forced to mortgage his home ON FALSE CHARGES, he opted to take a plea just to end it. That's the closest to being guilty of anyone on Trump's team. Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for a total of 48 days. The charges he was forced to take a plea on were from prior to 2005.
Roger Stone, Michael Caputo and Sam Clovis were offered top secret classified Hillary Clinton e-mails (the bait, dangled by FBI contract Russians), they said no thanks. Caputo and Clovis in particular had backgrounds in intelligence work, and understanding the seriousness of being offered classified information, they notified the FBI of what they had been offered. The FBI never made any attempt to investigate or prosecute the "Russians", because (again) these were the FBI's own operatives !
So... where are the "lies" ? All the lies are on the Democrat/FBI/Meuller/Deep State/Obama/Hillary side. The Trump people not only didn't take the bait, they tried to report it to the FBI !
What possible justification is there at any point in the last 2 years for this kind of aggressive entrapment OF A SITTING U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION ? There isn't. All the deception is on the Democrat/Deep State side.
Incredibly, Peter Strzok is still receiving a paycheck at the FBI. Although last week he was escorted out of the building, he is still receiving a paycheck on paid administrative leave apparently. He was demoted like a year ago to the FBI's human resources department.
Given how emboldened Strzok and friends are by what they've gotten away with for so long, that's probably not far from the truth.
In the cases of Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, I'm not arguing they're saints who have never done anything unethical or possibly criminal, but their disqualifying/unethical actions occurred BEFORE they were ever part of the Trump administration.
And there has certainly been a politically-motivated shakedown by FBI/DOJ to maliciously charge the Trump officials listed, despite their *NOT* taking the bait.
And despite all the evidence against Hillary and the Democrats, and key players in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and DNI, a clear and partisan reluctance to prosecute despite overwhelming evidence against them. Those are the facts.
An unidentified FBI attorney assigned to the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election left that case after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog discovered instant messages that “included statements of hostility toward” then-candidate Donald Trump, including one stating "viva le resistance," according to a new report.
The highly anticipated report from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, released Thursday, disclosed text messages and instant messages sent on FBI devices by five FBI employees who were assigned to the Clinton email probe.
“We found that the conduct of these five FBI employees brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI,” the report said.
One unidentified lawyer, named in the report as “FBI Attorney 2,” worked in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel, National Security and Cyber Law Branch and was assigned to the Clinton email and Russia probes, as well as special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling.
But he left the special counsel’s team in late February 2018, the report stated, after the Office of the Inspector General provided the special counsel with instant messages that raised political issues, including Trump. Three exchanges identified by the inspector general “raised concerns of potential bias.”
One exchange was sent Oct. 28, 2016, the day then-FBI Director James Comey notified Congress the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server had effectively been reopened.
The unidentified FBI attorney told two FBI employees, “I mean, I never really liked the Republic anyway.”
He told a third employee, “I’m clinging to small pockets of happiness in the dark time of the Republic’s destruction.”
The lawyer told the Office of the Inspector General that the messages reflected his “frustration” that the FBI “was essentially walking into a landmine in terms of injecting itself” into the presidential election.
The second exchange was sent Nov. 9, 2016, and involved another unnamed FBI employee not assigned to the Clinton probe.
The lawyer told the other employee then, “I am numb.”
The unidentified employee replied, “You promised me this wouldn’t happen. YOU PROMISED.”
The FBI attorney later said, “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently,” and said the FBI “broke the momentum” for Clinton.
In that exchange, the FBI employee called Trump voters “poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing.”
The FBI attorney replied, “I’m just devastated. I can’t wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days.”
“I just can’t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true,” he said in a later message, according to the report. “I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.”
He said it was difficult “not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states.”
The lawyer lamented the fact that his “god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff," which appears to be a reference to Trump.
The FBI attorney told the Office of the Inspector General of the exchange that the two were discussing personal feelings about the election, but said his “personal political feelings or beliefs … in no way impacted” his work on the Clinton email or Russia investigations.
The third exchange involving the unnamed FBI lawyer took place Nov. 22, 2016. In that discussion, which involved another attorney, the two remarked on the amount of money a member of the Trump campaign, who was the subject of an FBI investigation, had been paid.
The second attorney asked, “Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?”
The FBI lawyer in question responded, “Hell no,” adding, “Viva le resistance.”
When asked by the inspector general’s office if the latter comment indicated he was “going to fight back” against Trump, the attorney said it was just “commentary” between two people “in a personal friendly capacity where she is just making a joke, and I’m responding.”
The FBI attorney said both he and the other lawyer were assigned to the Russia probe when the exchange took place and acknowledged “the perception issues that come from” the messages.
The inspector general noted in the report that the conduct in question from the FBI officials “cast a cloud over the” bureau's Clinton email investigation. The Justice Department’s watchdog, though, said there was no evidence that connected the political views expressed in the messages to the decisions related to the Clinton email probe.
On top of everything else, no less.
And... WHY is the Meuller investigation still credibly unpartisan and not shut down at this point? Will anyone still believe their findings are not corrupt at this point?
The press has known for 2 weeks who this lawyer is, but for reasons that are a mystery, his name has been kept secret.
New revelations show that senior FBI officials were committing precisely the same offenses for which they were investigating Hillary Clinton and President Donald Trump
Newly-released text messages show that FBI special agent Peter Strzok and attorney Lisa Page used personal devices for official government work and “gmailed” government information to one another using unsecured systems.
The activity would be fine if the duo worked in the private sector and they hadn’t been in charge of one of the most public investigations in FBI history, questioning Clinton for precisely the same thing.
Not only did the senior bureau officials send thousands of text messages to one another over a period of five months (which quite frankly begs the question, “Doesn’t anyone work anymore?") According to those texts, the lovers used personal Gmail email accounts to share government documents and information.
They also used personal devices and Apple iMessages to discuss their investigations.
The pair also discussed their advanced knowledge of news articles before they were published, which suggests that the FBI officials may have been complicit in media leaks.
In another twist of irony, Strzok and Page also strategized just how easy to go on Clinton in what they saw as the likely event that she would become president. Of course this is the very definition of collusion – the very thing for which they were investigating then-candidate Donald Trump.
Their actions should have been due cause to recuse themselves from the case or to be forcibly removed from the investigations.
However, blinded by its bias against then-candidate Trump, the FBI did nothing. In fact, the pair’s unethical communications went completely unnoticed by the bureau.
What’s worse, the FBI appears to have not initially captured or preserved the text messages; it was only this week that a Department of Justice watchdog reported to congress that his office had unearthed the messages.
Before the texts were rediscovered, the FBI was missing messages from several critical time periods: the day that the Trump dossier prepared by British spy Christopher Steele was published by BuzzFeed; the day that then-FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump; the day that Strzok interviewed Gen. Michael Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017; and the final day of the missing text messages — May 17, 2017 — the day that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel of the FBI’s Russia investigation. Color me suspicious but those are kind of important time periods during which the American people ought to see the communiques of the FBI officials involved.
After all, it was Page who had been assigned as a top lawyer to Mueller’s special counsel office for the Russia investigation — a post from which she has since (rightfully) been removed.
In his own right, Strzok wasn’t just pushing papers around the FBI, either. He was the senior FBI official who signed the opening argument for the Russia investigation in July 2016, served as the second in command of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, and was the FBI agent that softened the language of the Comey memo regarding Clinton’s use of a private email server from ”grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
The fact that the pair was so biased is bad enough; however, the duo behaving so recklessly themselves is, in and of itself, alarming. It is grounds for both of their firings, yet both of them remain at the FBI collecting taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits.
Whatever the ending to the case of the missing text messages, one thing is now abundantly clear: Disgraceful hypocrisy at the FBI was at an all-time high during a time when integrity should have been.
Jen Kerns served as the spokeswoman for the California Republican Party. A two-time appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, she went on to serve as spokeswoman and communications director for the victorious Prop. 8 campaign in California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Americans for Prosperity in California, and numerous rare successful Statewide races as a Republican press secretary.
Un-flipping believable. Not new developments, but an incredible collection of the hypocrisies involved in the FBI investigation.
One outrage I just became aware of is that the FBI Strzok/Page texts were initially turned over to congressional investigators in an unreadable form. Only by using technology shared by the Department of Defense (DoD) were they able to decode them into readable form. Another example of the FBI's lack of cooperation and attempt to hide the truth about their own partisan activities.
First, they colluded to get Hillary off.
Then they colluded to destroy Trump's candidacy. ("He's not going to be president...right? RIGHT?" "No, no. We will stop him.")
Then the broader FBI didn't disclose the messages of the colluders.
Then when confronted by others outside the FBI who knew the messages existed, they finally turned them over... in unreadable encrypted form.
Then, no thanks to the FBI, congressional investigators (the Republicans among them, who actually want the truth) were with DoD technology able to un-encrypt the hidden texts.
Then the FBI said "Hey, we were just kidding! We may have hated Trump and talked about stopping him, but you can't PROVE we actually did it."
And incredibly, all these people, two years later, still have jobs at the FBI. I can't believe Peter Strzok is still receiving a paycheck.
The article also reveals that they were talking about news stories before the were even published, indicating that they were the ones who leaked them to the press. No doubt to advance the cause of their bitch queen:
Appropriately, it looks like the flag of some foreign country.
Peter Strzok testified before Congress today for a tedious 10 hours. His annoying arrogant smirk made me and the rest of America want to smack him. It infuriates me, and many, that these people are guilty as sin, and yet defiant and arrogant about how their buddies in high positions keep them out of jail.
The hearings were a televised foodfight, where Democrats shouted over and interrupted proceedings constantly to prevent the facts from being heard. Even so, Strzok is still employed at the FBI, and STILL HAS A SECURITY CLEARANCE, unbelievably. And despite his attempts to obfuscate and lyingly imply otherwise, it was made clear over and over that FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz clearly said in his report that Peter Strzok's texts showed such incredible bias that he had to be taken off the investigation.
I was annoyed no one asked why his investigative team gave immunity to all Hillary's aides in exchange for nothing. Or why they stood by and let Hillary and her evil minions FOR WEEKS destroy computers, cellphones and other records. And conversely made midnight arrests of Manafort and Cohen to prevent them from destroying evidence, while Hillary and friends destroyed evidence with impunity and never faced charges for it later.
Don't speak for the rest of America please. You and other partisans can speak for yourself but that is hardly "the rest of America " as you put it. It's not a crime to not like Trump.
No, but that hatred becomes dangerous when huge swaths of Democrats like yourself openly endorse mob rule and violation of the rule of law. You endorse burying the overwhelming evidence against Hillary, and destroying Trump by any deceitful means. That is not equal protection under the law. I'm sure at some point polls will demonstrate that a majority of Americans think Strzok is not someone rational people want in the FBI. He abuses his FBI power as a weapon to protect Democrats, not the law.
Strzok, who worked on both the Clinton email and Russia probes, was escorted from the FBI on Tuesday, following a referral for further investigation from DOJ IG Michael Horowitz. The watchdog, as part of his Clinton case review, found that Strzok and four other FBI employees sent “hostile” anti-Trump messages on bureau devices.
The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility is expected to further investigate the findings against the five FBI employees.
“A referral certainly is very serious and they will investigate the accusations if it’s serious enough,” retired FBI special agent and former national spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Thursday. “The accusations are a violation of FBI rules.”
Iannarelli explained that FBI employees are not allowed to use bureau devices for matters other than bureau business.
“As I like to say, every FBI agent has a political opinion, we’re just not allowed to express them,” Iannarelli said. “You’re supposed to keep to yourselves and you certainly can’t let it impact your work. What we see here are individuals who disregarded this.”
So sending 100 texts a day to Lisa Page alone would be a violation. As would posting political views, particularly on a case they were working on, particularly on a case soo incredibly public and of such national significance.
Quote:
MYE, or “Midyear Exam,” was the code used in the FBI to refer to the Clinton probe.
The report noted that it was specifically concerned about text messages exchanged between FBI officials Strzok and Lisa Page that “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”
Horowitz ultimately found no evidence that the bias among the several FBI agents impacted prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton email probe.
Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, both served for a short period of time on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team. Strzok was reassigned [within the FBI, to personnel] following the revelations of his anti-Trump texts. Page resigned last month. [Before the final IG report was released.]
But while many of those texts were made public in late 2017, the IG report revealed a new one in which Strzok vowed to "stop" Trump from becoming president -- and made clear that as many as five total FBI employees exchanged politically charged messages.
It strikes me as odd, and Democrat/FBI-favoring, that the I G would say only that their texts creat an "appearance" of impropriety, when they are openly conspiring to stop Trump from being president. (PAGE: "Trump isn't going to be president, right? RIGHT?" STRZOK: "No, no he won't. We'll stop it." And there's also the later plot to set up "An insurance policy" just in case Trump gets elected, like "just in case you die before you turn 40." ) That's way the fuck beyond just "political opinion". Clearly this is political conspiracy, not just political opinion.
These are people in very powerful FBI positions, and very coincidentally ended the Hillary investigation just in time to save her candidacy, then very opportunely opened a Trump "Russia Collusion" investigation, based on a false Russia Dossier, and used that Dossier that Comey and McCabe KNEW to be false, to open FISA surveillance warrants on Carter Page and other Trump campaign officials. They (or someone high up in the FBI) also hired Russian contract agents to approach multiple Trump officials and offer them "Russian-obtained top secret" Hillary Clinton emails (to Roger Stone, Sam Clovis, and Michael Caputo), who actually reported these offers to the FBI rather than taking the bait!
More of the article:
Quote:
Last week’s inspector general report largely dealt with the Justice Department and FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server but uncovered numerous messages that “appeared to mix political opinion with discussions about the MYE investigation.”
MYE, or “Midyear Exam,” was the code used in the FBI to refer to the Clinton probe.
The report noted that it was specifically concerned about text messages exchanged between FBI officials Strzok and Lisa Page that “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”
Horowitz ultimately found no evidence that the bias among the several FBI agents impacted prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton email probe.
Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, both served for a short period of time on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team. Strzok was reassigned following the revelations of his anti-Trump texts. Page resigned last month.
But while many of those texts were made public in late 2017, the IG report revealed a new one in which Strzok vowed to "stop" Trump from becoming president -- and made clear that as many as five total FBI employees exchanged politically charged messages.
Yes. So why the soft-pedal? Clearly it was conspiracy, not just "appearance of".
Quote:
The text messages and instant messages sent by these employees included statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton," the report said.
The report also revealed instant messages between unnamed agents, which House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows suggested at a public hearing could be FBI agents Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer—though neither Horowitz nor the FBI would comment on the accuracy of that speculation.
A spokesman for Meadows did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on why Meadows cited those names.
If Strzok and others are pursued in connection with this report, Iannarelli said the FBI has an “established series of penalties,” with potential punishment for agents ranging from “censure, policing your file, to cutting off from work without pay until termination.”
“One violation is ‘lack of candor,’ during an investigation interview. That is grounds for termination and there is no exception to that,” Iannarelli said.
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was fired in March by Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his lack of candor when interviewed regarding an unauthorized leak of a self-serving story to the media. McCabe allegedly lied to FBI investigators and his boss, former FBI Director James Comey, though McCabe has pushed back on those findings.
A month later, and we STILL don't know who those other unnamed agents are. And no sign that they're similarly being investigated, suspended, fired or otherwise disciplined.
Quote:
Iannarelli told Fox News that Strzok’s forcible exit from the bureau was a “rare occurrence,” and that he has seen a number of FBI employees who were eventually terminated, but continued performing functions until OPR decisions were made.
“To be escorted out of the building before the OPR [Office of Professional Responsibility, FBI's internal affairs investigators]investigation is completed and a decision is rendered is fairly extraordinary,” Iannarelli said.
One former senior Justice Department official speculated on Thursday that Strzok might also be implicated in a separate inspector general’s review on the start of the Russia investigation.
“My take is that it is possible that escorting him out meant that the inspector general’s Russia investigation is going to be brutal for him,” the former official told Fox News. “If you’re the subject or mentioned by name in an OIG report, they typically show you the parts of the report that relate to you.”
The official added: “At the end of the day, one of the drafts of the next inspector general report is making its way around and the findings are alarming to the FBI.”
Horowitz on Tuesday confirmed that he is investigating whether Strzok’s anti-Trump bias factored into the launch of the FBI’s Russia investigation.
During testimony on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Horowitz acknowledged that Strzok’s text messages “clearly shows a biased state of mind.”
It was revealed earlier this year that Horowitz’s office was investigating allegations of government surveillance abuse tied to the start of the Russia probe. But Horowitz’s testimony this week, meant to answer questions about the conclusion of the Clinton case review, revealed some of the specifics involved in the ongoing Russia case review, including the Strzok texts.
“I can’t imagine FBI agents even suggesting that they would use their powers to investigate any candidate for office,” Horowitz said Tuesday. “I thought this was completely antithetical to the core values of the department and extremely serious.”
The former official also speculated Strzok’s escort out of the building could be related to a loss of security clearance, or even [Strzok's escort out being related to] the findings of personal texts or emails from Strzok and Page that the inspector general was not able to obtain.
But regardless of the basis for Strzok’s exit, Iannarelli told Fox News that FBI rank-and-file are “shaking their heads.”
“This is such an aberration of what the FBI stands for,” Iannarelli told Fox News. “You have a couple of people who have done these things and draw the spotlight and attention away from all of the good agents and good work being done at the FBI.”
Strzok's attorney did not respond to Fox News' request for comment but in a statement issued in response to his removal from the office earlier this week said Strzok wants to continue to serve.
"Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to be the target of unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks," attorney Aitan Goelman said. "All of this seriously calls into question the impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears tainted by political influence. Instead of publicly calling for a long-serving FBI agent to be summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process to play out free from political pressure.
"Despite being put through a highly questionable process, Pete has complied with every FBI procedure, including being escorted from the building as part of the ongoing internal proceedings."
The report, separately, found instances of FBI employees who “improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events."
Any consequences from those perks, however, might come later. Because the gifts were outside the scope of this report, Horowitz said the watchdog "will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded."
I liked what Mollie Hemingway said on today's 6PM report. That however bad Strzok looked from his revealed text messages, he looked even worse trying to defend them before Congress in hearings yesterday.
Lol, guilty of not liking somebody isn't a crime. More indictments rolled out today that were obviously more important than the partisan shit show the GOP had earlier. I wonder which congressional candidate was talking with the GRU? The public deserves to know.
Oh as for your earlier speaking for America WB, your master has threatened violence at his rallies so many times that it's pretty fantastic that you only see it being the other side. For the record I don't condone violence. Neither Hillary or fat piece of shit should be above the law. If evidence rolls out either way on him he should be treated accordingly. And if Trump supporters get out of line break out the tear gas and rubber bullets.
How Obama repeatedly interfered with the investigation in his public statements, as reflected in e-mails and texts of DOJ and FBI officials.
As would any Trump official, or average American.
Way beyond that, it details that Obama is guilty of lying if not perjury in alleging he didn't know about Hillary's private e-mail server until he learned about it "on the news, just like everyone else." In point of fact, Obama was one of only 13 people who communicated with Hillary Clinton on her private server (Obama doing so under a fake user-name), on some occasions when Hillary was communicating from the nation "of a sophisticated hostile adversary" (who could intercept and de-code their e-mails) with Obama. Which obviously endangered national security.
So Obama 1) lied about his knowledge of Hillary's illegal private server, 2) communicated with Hillary on her illegal server, and 3) ENDANGERED NATIONAL SECURITY by communicating with her on her private e-mail server. One or all of which he could be indicted for.
Certainly, any sailor aboard a U.S. submarine who unwittingly took a photo out of patriotic pride in his job would be indicted and jailed for far, FAR less.
Lol, guilty of not liking somebody isn't a crime. More indictments rolled out today that were obviously more important than the partisan shit show the GOP had earlier. I wonder which congressional candidate was talking with the GRU? The public deserves to know.
Indicting 12 Russian computer hackers who have never been on U.S. soil, and never will be, just so DOJ/FBI can posture tough without ever actually jailing anyone.
If they really wanted to prosecute the guilty, they could start with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Natalia Vesenetskaya and the others who offered bait to Trump officials that Trump officials didn't bite on, Loretta Lynch, James Holder, Sally Yates, and all the other corrupt FBI and DOJ officials who KNEW the Russia Dossier was false, but still used it to judges to get FISA warrants, and build manufactured cases against Trump officials.
They could go after the FBI/DOJ officials who deliberately threw the Hillary Clinton e-mail server case, allowed them to smash phones and computers, and gave out immunity for sinister reasons other than prosecution.
That would yield some actual results, and actual justice. Indicting 12 anonymous people in Russia never will.
But then... justice isn't DOJ/FBI's goal is it? The only real goal is taking down Trump by any deceitful means available. Heil Hitlery!
Oh as for your earlier speaking for America WB, your master has threatened violence at his rallies so many times that it's pretty fantastic that you only see it being the other side. For the record I don't condone violence. Neither Hillary or fat piece of shit should be above the law. If evidence rolls out either way on him he should be treated accordingly. And if Trump supporters get out of line break out the tear gas and rubber bullets.
Trump made a joke and said about a DNC heckler, "Get him out of here." And plenty of others on the Democrat side have said ALMOST EXACTLY what Trump said, about wanting to smack someone who annoyed them. Or several times in Biden's case alone, wanting to take Trump out behind the gym. You keep manufacturing the same tired accusations.
And as I pointed out the last time you raised this allegation, the guy filing suit can't even name any injuries he received. Even if the guy actually hit the heckler at the Trump rally, Trump didn't authorize the guy to hit the jerk. If he actually did.
Oh as for your earlier speaking for America WB, your master has threatened violence at his rallies so many times that it's pretty fantastic that you only see it being the other side. For the record I don't condone violence. Neither Hillary or fat piece of shit should be above the law. If evidence rolls out either way on him he should be treated accordingly. And if Trump supporters get out of line break out the tear gas and rubber bullets.
Trump made a joke and said about a DNC heckler, "Get him out of here." And plenty of others on the Democrat side have said ALMOST EXACTLY what Trump said, about wanting to smack someone who annoyed them. Or several times in Biden's case alone, wanting to take Trump out behind the gym. You keep manufacturing the same tired accusations.
And as I pointed out the last time you raised this allegation, the guy filing suit can't even name any injuries he received. Even if the guy actually hit the heckler at the Trump rally, Trump didn't authorize the guy to hit the jerk. If he actually did.
As I've established with linked studies before Snopes, Factcheck and Politifact are all liberal-partisan spin sites, that 75% of the time target Republican/conservatives, and only a fraction of the time target liberals, and only for the surface APPEARANCE of balance. They're owned by liberals and reviewed and editorialized by liberals, under an obscene veil of objectivity that doesn't truly exist. As I've also cited before, they'll often take a statement that is absolutely true by Trump or some other Republican, and despite it being true, they'll make up some nuance that wasn't covered, and label it "partly true".
It's a trick of pseudo-fact, from a source that is far from neutral.
Problem is Trump said everything they go through. Plenty of other sources verify and back up what he said publicly also in these rallies. Way to many witnesses. It's dishonest to say it didn't happen. You are not the credible source here.
The indictment is vague concerning the unnamed congressional campaign, saying only: “On or about August 15, 2016, the [Russian internet hacker] Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent.”
At that point in the 2016 election cycle, first-time candidate Mast was embroiled in a six-way GOP primary, which he won Aug. 30 with 38 percent of the vote. He then defeated Democrat Randy Perkins in the general election.
Perry points out the campaign didn’t use some of the more vicious information it had against Perkins, and he said he was unaware of any hacking inquiries made by the campaign. He said he started after the primary and didn’t have contact with Mast’s former political consultant, Anthony Bustamante, who last year told reporters that he used hacked information from Guccifer 2.0.
and
Quote:
“There’s no actual information whatsoever linked to us,” said Stewart, blaming Democrats for spreading the story for political advantage in the district, one of Florida’s few congressional swing seats.
“A: It’s speculation it was [contracted political consultant]Anthony [Bustamonte]; I have no idea if that’s the case,” Stewart said. “And B: if it was him, it was 100 percent not related to our campaign at all.”
So basically, at this point it's speculation, and if it was a Republican campaign, they unknowingly bought information from a Russian hacker (Guccifer 2.0), and didn't even use the worst dirt that they could have. IF.
But the headline implies a more deliberate and malicious conspiracy.
Politico = Washington Post reporters = Trump-hating Democrat ally liberal media
This article glosses over the criminality that was exposed within the DNC at the highest level, and especially Debbi Wasserman-Bitch-Cunt-Schultz. I'm AMAZED this woman has the nerve to remain in politics, and that the human cattle in her district still vote for her, after she rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary and against Sanders. Her being immediately hired after her forced resignation as DNC chair just highlights the shameless corruption and malice at the very heart of the DNC and Clinton campaign. But don't expect the liberal media to ever expose that.
I don't see any indication that what was used by the Mast campaign extends beyond Democrat grassroots "get out the vote" strategy, and a list of reliable Democrat voters, leaning-Democrat voters, and Republican voters toward that strategy. There's no top secret Hillary e-mails, there's no collaboration in Russian treason against the United States.
Until this last election, I've never heard of any past campaign being approached by Russian operatives with information. How would anyone receiving campaign strategy data even guess that it could be coming from Russians? Or in the case of Trump's 2016 campaign (not this local Florida race) that it could be the FBI sending contracted Russians as bait to entrap them? For guys like Michael Caputo, Sam Clovis, Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr. to figure out that there could be a danger in accepting this information demonstrates they are pretty damn smart.
That implies a lot without actually saying anything. What point are you trying to make.
What they describe as the Christian end-time prediction is something I don't think is accurate of mainstream Christianity, and that makes me question the accuracy of what they say about this secretive Christian "The Family" group. The time leading up to the Antichrist is supposed to be preceded by the Rapture, where all believing Christians are swept away to Heaven before the Tribulation begins. The Antichrist rules for 7 years, 3 and a half are prosperous, and then Hell on earth in the latter half. The Rapture is generally believed to occur before the Antichrist (or the Beast) seizes power, or before the Tribulation. Some believe the Rapture occurs later, during or after the Tribulation.
All I get out of that link is a benign prayer breakfast and diplomatic meetings are vaguelky portrayed as sinister, when it really seems benign. Persuading leaders makes them open to further evangelism in their countries. Without further detail, I fail to see that as malevolent.
The wolves and sheep thing is again vague. As a Christian, I think their vision could be seen as consistent with the parable of the prodigal son. That God is most pleased when the worst and truly lost come back to him. Like, say, an Adolf Hitler or a Saddam Hussein. Or a Vladimir Putin. Souls have to be won one at a time, it's not like just because you win the faith and support of a powerful leader all his subjects become Christian. Again, it's all pretty vague, and implying malicious intent without plainly stating it.
I thought it said quite a bit and thought it was interesting. A little depressing too. It explains why a Russian spy would be interested in it and why what I think of traditional religious values concerning the poor and needy seem to be changing. It's less about helping and more about power.
Assuming anything in that article is true about "The Family", let alone broader Christianity, even accepting that article's arguments as true, it makes clear that "The Family" is not representative of broader Christianity, only the secret plans of "The Family". I don't see having a private meeting between the U.S. and Russian presidents to negotiate peace without a huge public spectacle as necessarily bad. Any more than having Dennis Rodman meet with Kim Jong Un was bad. Or Jesse Jackson secretly negotiating the release of hostages. Or Ronald Reagan meeting with Pope John II to bring about the collapse of communism in Poland.
As an occasional churchgoer and occasional participant in Christian events, I've certainly seen that Christianity in the U.S. has become less WASPY and exclusive to the white middle/upper class, and much more international and multicultural, whereas in the 1970's Christianity was more in pockets of white churches, black churches, Hispanic churches, separate from Jews, and often anti-Semitic. Whereas now (you could google it) Evangelical Christians actually give more money and support to Israel than the American Jewish community.
I'm definitely not a typical Christian, but I do think I'm representative in this way, that despite not being Jewish, as a Christian I believe supporting Israel against persecution is essential for Christians, because Jews are God's chosen people and the instrument through which God gave us the Old Testament and New Testament, and through which God continues to fulfill prophecy of the End Times. Essentially Christians are a sect of Judaism. Up until Jesus, the Bible and salvation were exclusively offered to the Jews. With the life and teachings of Jesus, it became a message and salvation offered to the entire world. And far from judgemental or elitist or racist (as "The Family" is accused of being) it is a salvation and unity offered to all. Including criminals and the enemies of Christianity. In the New Testament, Paul was imprisoned by the Romans, and realized that he was sent there to spread the gospel to the damned and lost there. Christ during his crucifixion had two other criminals on crosses right next to him, one of whom professed his faith in Christ and was saved. And again, as I cited above, God far from hating or wanting to condemn anyone, most celebrates the return and redemption of the prodigal son. Criminals, drug addicts, even enemies and murderers of Christians, as Paul was in the book of ACTS (a traditional Jewish elder who killed Christian sectarians, before his conversion), or homosexuals, are all offered salvation and welcomed back into the brotherhood of Christianity.
So it's really absurd to allege Christianity, or the sect of "The Family", is some elitist authoritarian Hitler-like group to force or trick an entire nation into Christianity as some political force. That goes against the free-will individual choice that is the core nature of Christian faith.
Christianity didn't seize authoritarian control of the country when Reagan was president. (Although it sure was portrayed that way in the liberal media!) Christianity didn't seize authoritarian control under George W. Bush. (Who actually was a devout born-again Christian who prayed in White House meetings. But even so, I saw interviews with Christian leaders who felt used and marginalized by the Bush White House despite their strong aid in getting him elected.) Christianity under Trump has seen restored some of their religious and political free speech rights, but is hardly seizing authoritarian control under Trump either. Trump is supportive of Christianity, and keeping his word to Christians better than Bush. But while likely being a Christian on some level, Trump is not the same kind of born-again devout guy that George W. was. Obviously Trump's lifestyle, his multiple marriages, and extramarital/adulterous affairs with women, he isn't one to make too much a show of devoutness.
If you want to whip up a scary spectre of a Christian threat, M E M, you could always point to the Westboro Baptist Church. Which has maybe 30 members last time I looked, is disowned as hateful and not Christian in spirit by any other known Christian denomination.
Or maybe the Christian Identity movement, that is basically the last remnant of the white supremacist gleichschaltung re-invention of Christianity under Nazi Germany, to make Christian religion conform with the ideology of Nazi Germany. And all the thousands of true Christians who refused to practice it were thrown in Nazi concentration camps. A Christian Identity movement that has maybe a few hundred members in the U.S., probably all of whom are on an FBI watch list.
Byron York, in his July 22 article for the Washington Examiner shows the language from the redacted FISA request backs up what Nunez said in his memo about it. Basically, that Christopher Steele's salacious and unreliable "Russia Dossier" was the primary, and likely the only, "evidence" that Comey and McCabe submitted for their 4 FISA requests to do surveillance on Trump officials. (i.e., that it was deliberately fraudulent and manufactured evidence, that James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Bruce Ohr, and wife Nellie Ohr who was directly employed by Fusion GPS and was the conduit to bring the fake evidence into the FBI, that the "Team Hillary" investigators leaped on the chance to use. )
There are now at least half a dozen ways the investigation is fraudulent and the tree of evidence is poisoned and should be evidence thrown out, that the investigation should be ended, and that the investigators themselves should be facing criminal charges and jail time.
Reporting on FBI/DOJ's release of the first of the 4 FISA warrants on Lou Dobbs' Tuesday July 23rd broadcast, although in ridiculously redacted form, every page almost completely blacked out:
Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch gives some great commentary at the beginning of the program. On the abuse of the FISA court, the deliberate falsification of FISA evidence, the criminality of submitting false evidence to FISA judges for which the investigators can be prosecuted. That the level of criminality in the FBI is so excessive that not just the leadership but the entire FBI hierarchy is influenced, corrupted and cannot be trusted to police and investigate itself, and needs to be purged of its criminal elements. Farrell suggests using external U.S. Marshalls to investigate.
To date, the only clear "Russia collusion" and criminality is from the Hillary Clinton campaign that financed Fusion GPS/ Christopher Steele/the Russia Dossier, and the criminality of hierarchy of the DOJ and FBI who used it as false evidence to quasi-legally (but actually illegally) spy on the Trump campaign.
CHRIS FARRELL: "The fish rots from the head down, but at some point even the rank-and-file either become negligent or complicit."
Absolutely true. If your bosses are Comey and McCabe and Ohr and Strzok and Page, and you know they want Hillary to go free and a case to be manufactured against Trump, and it's going to destroy your career to follow the evidence where it leads, what do you do?
It scares me that's the system that exists in DOJ, FBI, the State Department (one Trump official called it "occupied territory" because it is so entrenched with deep-state Democrats), and the IRS. And as we learned from the Lois Lerner corruption, that same corruption exists in other federal agencies such as ATF, EPA, and OSHA, that also targeted Tea Party leaders in collaboration with the IRS.
One can only imagine the evil these FBI/DOJ officials would be emboldened to if Hillary Clinton were president and they could sweep all this under the rug, and they had free reign to unleash federal power on anyone who even ventured to inquire about the truth.
Even with Trump as president FBI/DOJ not only falsified evidence for FISA warrants and manufactured cases against Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Pappadapoulos, Carter Page, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Sam Clovis and Michael Caputo, but are squeezing and extorting plea bargains out of them by bankrupting them in legal fees against manufactured charges until they take a guilty plea bargain. All just so they can smear and cripple Donald Trump as president, on clearly manufactured evidence.
It's a shakedown.
And a political coup against the president himself.
Where Obama bashed Trump during a speech in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Great comments about how the media flew cover for Obama during his 8 years. As compared to how they are 90% (at least!) aligned against Trump, and how Obama attacks Trump as dangerous to the world, whereas Obama TRULY WAS dangerous and destructive to the U.S. and the world (Obama's being passive on Russian invasions in Crimea and East Ukraine, how Obama actually created the exodus of 5 million refugees from Syria by his "red line" inaction sitting on his hands, Obama invading Libya then not helping them rebuild or defend themselves from ISIS and Al Qaida, Obama giving a free pass to China's aggression and cyberhacking that costs the U.S. $600 billion a year in international theft, China's aggression toward its neighbors and building military-use islands in the South China Sea, completely unresisted by Obama).
Trump is visibly fixing these things, and is blasted for it by Obama and the media. Obama did these things that endangered us, and the media didn't even report it.
A very respected guy, to unleash such a stinging indictment of Brennan. And really harsh comments all the way around about the Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, in how they "would bring the whole world to global thermonuclear war rather than admit Hillary lost the election." And about the Democrat/Deep State-subservient CIA, NSA and FBI, turned under Obama "from competent organizations into Apparatchiks". Where one of the most competent intelligence officials says he no longer trusts his bosses who were appointed under Obama.
He's a piece of garbage that suggested Obama should be assinated. I think he's respected by those that describe Obama's 2008 win as razor thin and now speak of Trump's huge electoral win. Easy pass
Tucker Carlson in his August 1st program had some fantastic commentary about the abuse of power by DOJ/FBI and the Mueller investigators, in the Manafort and Flynn trials in particular. But also overall the politicization and weaponization of federal agencies in service of the Democrat party, akin to what is seen in authoritarian communist countries and banana republics, and the danger these institutionalized abuses present to the republic itself:
Feel free to be specific about what you disagree with. The point was the partisan bias of the FBI/DOJ/Mueller investigation.
Most tax evaders, Carlson factually states, get an average sentence of 1 year and three months. Paul Manafort, who is 69, is being aggressively pursued by Andrew Weissman and Mueller investigators for 305 years, a sentence that would exceed the rest of his life. Andrew Weissman, who was at Hillary Clinton's victory party on election night 2016, and who has made several Facebook posts that make clear his anti-Trump bias.
It is an attempt to shake down Manafort (and others) to manufacture any half-baked pretense to impeach Trump, despite no evidence to that effect. David Gergen made a telling remark a few days ago that his conversations with investigators make it clear they don't want to criminally prosecute Trump in the speculative event they get something, but instead want to immediately pursue impeachment. And their easiest and most legally abusive path to that end would be a perjury trap, where you can convict an innocent man, so long as you can pursue one other witness who says the defendant's being untruthful, or withholding some tiny part of the truth (one other witness who will "sing or compose" to keep himself out of a life sentence on manufactured charges). Which is exactly what they did to Michael Flynn. What they're doing now to Manafort. And Rick Gates, and Pappadapoulos. And Arthur Anderson (overturned by 9 of 9 justices years later, AFTER several Arthur Anderson executives had already died in prison.) And Martha Stewart. Comey, Weissman and Meuller have a lengthy history of shaking down and convicting innocent people, just so they can have a conviction.
Whatever editorial opinion or sarcasm by Tucker Carlson, his factual point is that the Meuller investigation is more interested in getting a "win" and a conviction in the cases of Manafort, and Flynn, AND TRUMP, than in actual justice. Their goal is a partisan political coup, and they're perfectly happy to ruin and convict innocent men toward that goal.
I don't watch talking heads in general. If you got print I'll scan it and maybe comment but beyond Sunday's political shows I have no interest in republican or democrat schills. It's just funny that between posts where you attack the media for bias you post stuff from patently biased conservative sources. Does that seem principled to you at all?
The conservative views I post are equal time, that deconstruct the liberal narrative spread across 80%-plus of the media. They point out with facts why the completely manufactured liberal narrative is blatantly untrue.
The conservative views I post are equal time, that deconstruct the liberal narrative spread across 80%-plus of the media. They point out with facts why the completely manufactured liberal narrative is blatantly untrue.
Oh please, it allows you to hold onto a false narrative. You bitch about bias and than wallow in it.
There's nothing I said that is not factual. As I've said often, every poll for 50 years, reporters themselves self-identify as 80% liberal. And I would wager since 2009, it's even higher than that. And that outside of Fox News and National Review, it would be a career ender for reporters in most newsrooms to even admit that they're Republican. As I've quoted Tim Groseclose, he cited that 93% of Washington DC based reporters voted for Obama in 2008. A higher ratio of Democrat support than such liberal hubs as Boston, Massachusetts and Berkeley, CA, that even those Democrat populations have a lower ratio of Democrat support than the Washington media does.
The false narrative is obviously the DEMOCRAT narrative. How many times has the media been busted and had to retract stories, or even fire reporters and news producers for blatantly false stories about Trump? ALMOST WEEKLY! CNN and MSNBC are crashing in the ratings because NO ONE outside liberal Democrat zombies believe the narrative those networks are selling. As I've also said, even Harvard has released studies that quantify the unprecedented bias. CNN and NBC top the list with 93% negative coverage of Trump.
Even in Tucker Carlson's more "editorial" program, he cites a lot of facts. That the average person convicted of tax evasion gets a jail sentence of 1 year and 3 months. Whereas Manafort has charges in front of him that stack up to 305 years. You accuse Carlson of being a false narrative, but he cites the facts that prove YOUR SIDE are Jacobinist fanatics who are abusing power and weaponizing government against their Republican opposition. And that the extremist rhetoric, fanaticism and violence of your party are building toward a Kristallnacht on Republicans.
If Manafort were a Democrat serving Hillary, he would have gotten blanket immunity and the freedom to destroy all evidence, and he wouldn't even be facing a trial let alone jail time. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and several aides who helped her destroy cel phones and computer files should all be in jail. But because they're Democrats and their buddies in DOJ and FBI helped them destroy the evidence and absolutely refuse to prosecute them, they don't even have to defend themselves in court. It's obscene.
Just a reminder: Everything Manafort is accused of was investigated over 12 yeaqrs ago by the FBI, and FBI/DOJ ultimately decided that it didn't warrant prosecution. They ONLY re-opened the case as a way to smear "the Trump administration" with criminal allegations, that anyone aware of the true facts knows has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, all the allegations precede Manafort's period with the Trump campaign. And exactly how long was Manafort the campaign manager for Trump? Exactly 48 days. In other consultant and supportive roles, maybe 5 months with the campaign. And that warrants charges to keep Manafort in jail for 305 years, a life sentence.
What enrages me about this is not just that the Mueller investigators are 100% Democrat, and many with conflicts of interest up the wazoo 9 of the 17 are huge DNC/Obama/Hillary donors, one(Jeannie Rhee) used to represent the Clinton Foundation squashing FOIA requests the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she is assigned to do as a Mueller investigator.
What enrages me most is also not just that the Meuller investigators are clear partisans who are vindictively trying to prosecute and unseat Trump with any malicious contrivance they can manufacture.
What REALLY enrages me is how the Meuller team, FBI and DOJ have ignored far more blatant and expansive evidence that points to Hillary Clinton, and to officials of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Where FBI/DOJ made midnight raids and jailed Manafort and Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen to "prevent them from destroying evidence", they almost simultaneously did >>>>>NOT<<<< do the same with Hillary Clinton officials, and actually LET THEM DESTROY EVIDENCE. And gave them WEEKS unmonitored, un-arrested time to destroy it! Was there ever any evidence destroyed by Manafort, Flynn or Cohen? NO! Was there evidence destroyed by Hillary Clinton officials? FUCK YES!
Why aren't Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, the guys smashing Hillary Clinton's incriminating cel phones, and the bleach-bit guy up on charges?
Clearly, there is an infuriating double-standard.
DOJ and FBI are corrupted. And the Mueller investigation is so corrupt that NO MATTER WHAT they eventually conclude, no one will believe it. At the very least, Mueller should recuse himself, the 9 large DNC donors should recuse themselves and Jeannie Rhee should recuse herself. Or be removed by others above them. The fact that they continue on the investigation as the blatant Democrat partisans they are just manifests their shameless bias. It's this kind of arrogance and smug elitism that caused us to have a Revolutionary War.
Manafort and Flynn have demonstrated a lack of good judgement if not crimes, but that clearly preceded their time in the Trump campaign. All the others are entrapment by either Fusion GPS (NAtalia Veselnitskaya), or contracted Russians hired by the FBI to act as bait to other Trump officials. Entrapment. Or perjury traps. Or mountains of manufactured charges to force them to take plea bargains despite that they never committed an actual crime in their interactions with Russians. It's a shakedown.
And meanwhile, everything that Trump officials are accused of doing, officials of the Hillary Clinton campaign ACTUALLY DID. And UNSOLICITED, not baited as Trump officials were. The Clinton campaign using a fronting law firm to hire a former British intelligence agent (who despises Trump) to create a "Russia Dossier" filled with knowingly false information, obtained FROM RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, and no one in FBI/DOJ or the Meuller commission think this warrants investigation. Also the fact that this Russia Dossier was illicitly smuggled into the FBI by unusual channels through Bruce Ohr (who hates Trump) and his wife (Fusion GPS employee, who hates Trump). And then used by James Comey and Andrew McCabe (who both hate Trump) as the sole "evidence" (THAT THEY KNEW TO BE FRAUDULENT WHEN THEY SUBMITTED IT) for a FISA court judge, for the FIRST FISA SURVEILLANCE WARRANT, and knew it was false evidence for every warrant after.
How is there still an investigation? Everything obtained from that point forward is "fruit of the poisoned tree". Manafort's case should be thrown out. Flynn's guilty plea bargain should be thrown out. Even more so because Rusdolf Contreras, the judge who tried Flynn's case, recused himself suspiciously AFTER the conviction of Flyn. And the text messages revealed between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussing Contreras as a like-minded anti-Trump friend, and how they would meet with Contreras to discuss their plot in an ex-parte meeting hidden inside a dinner party. Peter Strzok in particular I'd like to see go down hard and do lengthy prison time for his malicious actions. No Democrat even blinks at the fact that the FBI's own inspector General has condemned the actions of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, on and on. And many have left the FBI, in advance of being fired.
M E M, seriously, how blind are you to the facts? Anything that simply points out these facts you dismiss as "right wing propaganda". Is the FBI's inspector general's report just "propaganda"?
Democrats have no interest in justice, or equal justice under the law.
No mention of Rick Gates testimony today WB? I've been actually following the trial and I think Mueller's got Manafort pretty much nailed. His biggest defense was that he wasn't aware he was breaking the law and now that really isn't credible.
"As part of a plea deal..." Which begs the question: is he "singing" or "composing", to get the lightest sentence he can get?
In any case, it is about him helping Paul Manafort cheat on his taxes, and how Gates himself embezzled several thousand from Manafort as his employer, through several hundred thousand dollars in falsified expense reports. All of which is independent of the Trump campaign. The Democrat-partisan Mueller investigation still has nothing on Trump himself. Or for that matter "Trump officials." This is just two guys embezzling and cheating on their taxes. This is still a witch-hunt in search of an actual crime, desperately clawing at manufactured peripheral charges, because in truth they have nothing related to the thesis of the Meuller investigation's formation. (i.e., it's true purpose is as a smear campaign against the Trump administration, to damage him in the 2018 and 2020 elections, and even longer if they can stretch it.)
This is Senator Diane Feinstein, the same Senator who has led the charge for investigating Donald Trump for "Russia collusion" and being negligent of U.S. national security. WHO IS HERSELF negligent of national security and enabling foreign spies.
This reminds me of the IT people hired by Debbi Wasserman-Schultz who managed the internet security (and government information) for 80 Democrat Congress members. Who, AGAIN, they were reluctant to expose, prosecute, or even fire.
And how Democrats wailed about the Russians hacking their DNC computer systems. But they neglect to say that the Russians tried to hack the Republican RNC systems too, but were unable to, because Republicans has a better security system that the Russian hackers could not penetrate. BECAUSE REPUBLICANS TAKE NATIONAL SECURITY SERIOUSLY.
Again, Natalia Veselnitskaya was a Russian national contracted by Fusion GPS (i.e., the Clinton campaign) and the day she baited Donald Trump Jr and met him at Trump tower, for a grand total of about 20 minutes, where no transaction occurred, she met with Fusion GPS BEFORE AND AFTER the meeting, so it's clear where the puppet-strings that moved the offer came from. Likewise, all the meetings with other Trump officials like Carter Page, George Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone, Sam Clovis and Michael Caputo were Russian nationals hired as bait by the FBI (i.e., Hillary loyalist deep state operatives) to entrap and smear the Trump campaign, to make Trump lose in Nov 2016, or in the event he won "As an insurance policy"[in the words of Peter Strzok], to cripple Trump's presidency after the election.
There's also the "Russia collusion" involving James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr (and wife Nellie Ohr employed by Fusion GPS, again, contrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign) who pipelined the "Russia Dossier" into the FBI through unusual backchannels, and used falsified information (information they KNEW to be false) taken directly from Russian officials to manufacture as "evidence" to request FISA warrants, to spy on Trump officials.
Once again, ALL the dealings with the Russians were by the Hillary Clinton campaign. All the payments for the Russia Dossier, all the bait offered to Trump officials, all the illegal falsified evidence submitted to judges to request FISA warrants. ALL OF IT. Hillary Clinton and her staff are the ones who should be facing imprisonment, and the corrupt FBI and DOJ have refused to, handed out immunity for no logical reason, and actually allowed the destruction of evidence that incriminates the Hillary campaign. The double-standard that protects Dems and aggressively and falsely prosecutes Republicans enrages me, and millions of other Americans.
In the "it's about fucking time" department, Peter Strzok has finally been fired from the FBI, it was announced yesterday. Although apparently he was officially fired Friday.
My impression is that the Deep State apparatus in the FBI that continues without him did everything they could to prevent and slow-walk his dismissal, and if it wasn't for public accountability, Peter Strzok would still be in the FBI to rig future investigations.
I'm not at all confident of the FBI after his dismissal, precisely because of their reluctance to dismiss him, new Director Christopher Wray's dismissal of the notion that there is corruption in the FBI or a Deep State, and the lack of re-opening cases like Lois Lerner and the Hillary e-mail investigation. And the disproportionate aggressiveness with which they STILL pursue the Mueller investigation. Based on the number of FBI and DOJ officials related to these cases, ALL these cases should be dismissed, or at least re-started with neutral players from outside the preceding DOJ/FBI corruption. The players who have either been fired or resigned are just the tip of the iceberg. Even the FBI inspector general's reports were soft on the level of visible corruption of Strzok, Page and the Bruce Ohr/Nellie Ohr/Fusion GPS/FISA warrant corruption.
The fact that no one in the vast FBI reported or complained about abuses of leadership that abused FISA surveillance on false evidence to spy on the Trump administration and attempted to remove him from office with agents sent to trick and bait them by the FBI itself, the FBI remains corrupt and untrustworthy, even without Strzok , Page and other players. They are gone, the corrupt DNC-subservient FBI machine still lives.
"It is not only indicative of a biased state of mind, but even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the candidate's electoral prospects." --the FBI Inspector General's report, regarding Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's texts.
TEXT by PETER STRZOK: Hillary should win by 100,000,000 to 0
Texts by Strzok and Page, August 8, 2016: PAGE: [Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?! STRZOK: No. No he's not. We'll stop it.
What more proof does anyone need of Peter Strzok's zealous willingness to rig the FBI's multiple investigations, and deliberately influence the 2016 election. What continues to amaze me is the enormous forces aligned against Trump, and how he still miraculously overcame them and won the election.
What also continues to amaze me is the Democrats' defense of this corruption, and their attempts to sweep it under the rug and obstruct investigation and reporting of it. This is more devastating and corrupt than Watergate. It is weaponizing the branches of government to attack a presidential candidate, and attack the elected President himself, in an ongoing attempt to cripple and depose him, and reverse the election.
A 10-minute video that gives an overview of all the vile stuff done by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, to attempt to win the 2016 election using every dirty trick in the book, and still, gloriously, lost.
I think over time, we tend to forget just how evil these people are. And that they are still mounting a coup against the elected Trump administration, weaponizing government agencies against U.S. citizens (both conservatives, and even Bernie Sanders and anyone else on even the Democrat side who gets in their way), and ultimately against their elected president. That is truly frightening. The Democrats are now truly the party of Alinsky, Ayers, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Che. God help us if these bastards ever regain power.
This shows prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's memo to Senate Republicans after she deposed Christine Blasey Ford for a few hours, her legal conclusions. She objectively summarizes the multitude of inconsistencies in Ford's tesimony. I still find it mind-bending that anyone on the Democrat side can deny the inconsistencies, and still condemn Brett Kavanaugh, in light of these facts. And the two other disproven allegations. And the last minute orchestrated Democrat attacks, led by Senator Feinstein.
Since it appears the Russia/Trump thing isn't going away probably past time for a thread dedicated to it. The latest news is that Trump tried to influence a FBI investigation. How do we feel about that?
Roughly a year later, it has been revealed that:
1) Rosenstein wrote a report that called for James Comey to be fired to restore public and internal confidence in the FBI. Trump fired Comey on Rosenstein's recommendation not out of any corruption, or for Trump to hide any dealings he had with the Russians.
2) Comey leaked confidential FBI information through a college professor friend that set up the circumstances to call for a special investigation. And Deep State brethren Rosenstein (again at the center) was the one who appointed Meuller as special investigator. Who appointed 9 attorneys who were all huge donors to the DNC, Obama and Hillary, and therefore clearly not neutral investigators.
3) Andrew McCabe (and wife whose campaign was funded $700,000 by Terry MacAuliffe, a Hillary operative), Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked for Fusion GPS and gave McCabe Russian information from Fusion GPS), the 9 lawyers on the Meuller commission, including Jeannie Rhee who previously worked for the Clinton Foundation suppressing/obstructing FOIA requests for Clinton Foundation donation records. Top FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who exchanged messages about how much they loathe Trump, how much Trump needed to be stopped, and how they needed to put in place an "insurance plan" and "secret society" to either prevent Trump from being elected, or make sure Trump was crippled politically and thus prevented from acting as president. Loretta Lynch who met Bill Clinton on an airplane secretly, days before Loretta Lynch exonerated Hillary of criminal charges. Comey usurped his authority to similarly exonerate Hillary, something he had no authority as FBI director to do. Comey and other FBI officials also gave amnesty to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, in exchange for nothing. AND authorized the destruction of evidence that would have convicted them and Hillary. >>>ALL<<<< of these manifest corruption at the highest level, and what amounts to a "Deep State" political coup to remove president Trump, by whatever corrupt means available. ALL these DOJ and FBI should have recused themselves for their lack of impartiality, ALL should face criminal charges for not doing so, and at the very least be removed from their jobs.
3) The FISA request that began this whole "Russian collusion" false narrative was based entirely on a "Russia dossier" that was known by Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and other higher-ups at the DOJ and FBI to be fraudulent and unreliable, AND YET THEY PUSHED IT ANYWAY on a FISA judge for a surveillance request, to do illegal surveillance on Carter Page, General Flynn and others in the Trump campaign. And post election, STILL did FISA surveillance on the incoming Trump administration. It was done as opposition research to share confidential Trump campaign information with the Hillary campaign, and to manufacture a fake case against Trump officials. In Flynn's case, to threaten his son with imprisonment, and despite that there was no Russia collusion on his part or Trump's, to manufacture perjury charges against Flynn to leverage Flynn to support the false narrative of "Russian collusion" on Trump's part. TO THIS DAY, A YEAR LATER, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT TRUMP OR HIS CAMPAIGN/INCOMING ADMINISTRATION DID ANYTHING WRONG. But ironically, there is clear proof that Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and FBI/DOJ officials >>>>DID<<<< collude with the Russians through Christopher Steele/FusionGPS/an insulating law firm/the Hillary Clinton campaign. In nothing less than a coup of slander, based entirely on Steele's "Russia dossier". Which Deep State officials in DOJ and FBI falsely represented as legitimate, and falsely represented as verified by an independent 2nd source. THAT last one alone should throw out all the FISA surveillance as "fruit of the poisonous tree", and result in charges for the FBI and DOJ officials who pushed it for malicious prosecution based on false evidence.
How do "we" feel about THAT ?
Almost another year later, with Jeff Sessions resigning as Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein is still assistant A G, despite that he drafted some of the illegal FISA warrants used to illegally spy on Trump officials. Rosenstein is both supervisor of the Meuller probe, a witness to what occurred leading up to it, and an unindicted defendant for his part in knowingly falsifying the FISA request to do surveillance on Trump officials, with "Russia Dossier" information he knew at the time to be unreliable, and to be directly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And by the way, all this hysteria to investigate Trump for allegedly scheming with the Russians is being investigated on complete specualtion, not a shred of evidence. While siimultaneously there are mountains of evidence that Hillary Clinton and her campaign ACTUALLY DID both get information directly from Russian officials, and PAID the Russians for the information in her "Russia Dossier". And the FBI and DOJ officials (Comey and Rosenstein) likewise knew where that information came from and fraudulently used Russia-provided information to submit their FISA warrants. Yet none of that is being investigated or indicted.
What really scares me is that knowing all this, a majority of Democrats would still elect Hillary Clinton, and try to sweep all this under a rug. But still, despite no evidence, believe the demonstrably false conspiracy theory that Trump collaborated with the Russians to rig the 2016 election. Just incredible.
If you repeat a lie enough times, the low-information human cattle who vote Democrat begin to believe it. Despite that no evidence has surfaced in 2 years, and despite that everyone investigating, from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew Weissmann, on down, are all Hillary Clinton loyalists doing their damnedest to indict Trump, while simultaneously ignoring the evidence of Hillary Clinton campaign's overwhelming guilt on the same criteria.
I guess we look at people from the other party differently WB.
I look at the Democrat leadership as the deceitful cultural marxist demagogue liars that they are. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joseph Biden, Kirsten Gillibrans, Cory Booker, Kamalah Harris, Keith Ellison, Dick Durbin on down. And in the last election Kyrsten Sinema, Claire McCaskill, Andrew Gillum, Tracey Abrams, Phil Bredeson, Bill Nelson, all exposed as liars and demagogues who will say absolutely anything, splinter the nation, just to win an election, or when losing, poison the well for the next election out of pure spite. Or more likely, Alinsky tactics. But either way, dividing the nation.
And then they have the audacity to demogogue Trump as the divider. Trump, who's actually trying to negotiate actual solutions that have been stalemated for decades! The same way they demagogued Reagan, Bush Sr, George W., McCain and Romney before him. The last two about as moderate and non-polarizing as any Democrat could ask for from the opposing party. But demonized as "right wing" anyway. Whereas your Democrat party has turned far-left and radicalized, and adopted the scorched-earth tactics of the Bolsheviks.
I wish I could say that grassroots Democrats can't be swept in the same radical category. But that they know all the incredible abuses of power by Hillary Clinton (using FBI, DOJ and fraudelently obtained FISA warrants to spy on, offer bait, frame and shake down the Trump administration) and they would still select Hillary as president, and would eagerly allow their party to lynch Trump by whatever unlawful means, they are lawless human cattle who endanger our Democracy. It absolutely terrifies me these maniacs could EVER regain power, and yet inevitably at some point they will.
I'd hoped that the current Democrat leadership would suffer a humiliating across-the-board defeat on Nov 6th, that would make the Democrats abandon the maniacs, but they actually achieved a partial narrow victory mixed with some narrow losses, that if anything has emboldened them going into 2020. And I fear what damage they can do, when the cattle that vote Democrat have no regard for their party leadership's abuses of the law and federal power, and give them a rubber stamp to do whatever they want.
We've already seen the weaponization of the IRS in 2010-2013 with no punishment or consequences, which emboldened them to weaponize the DOJ and FBI and FISA court in 2016. Emboldened by this further abuse and getting away with it, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans were forbidden to work and put in concentration camps if your party won. Your party has abandoned any semblance of law, and what terrifies me is that not one Democrat I've spoken to has said this is the train to crazytown and this is where I get off. They're all aboard.
On the testimony of Cohen, a proven liar. His credibility is shattered by the age-old opening cross examination question: "Were you lying then... or are you lying now?"
Cohen is composing, not just singing, to tell the Mueller investigators whatever will give him the minimum sentence.
Just pointing out: None of the "crimes" of Flynn, Cohen, Pappadapoulos, Manafort, Stone or Corsi are accused of, are crimes from actions as Trump officials. Virtually all are manufactured "perjury traps" where they did absolutely nothing wrong, but they were forced to take a plea to avoid imprisonment for manufactured perjury that wasn't even real.
The remainder are charges for unethical things that no one in FBI even considered worth pursuing, except as leverage to make them "sing" or "compose" false charges against Trump.
In the case of Manafort, the crimes they convicted him for were investigated in 2005 and were dropped by the FBI as not worth pursuing. Resurrected only as leverage to get Trump any way they can, even though they know the charges are bogus. So basically, for the same crimes anywhere else, Manafort could live out his life without fear of further investigation, but because he was Trump's campaign manager for 40 days, and committed no crimes during that time, he will spend the rest of his life in jail.
Likewise Pappadapoulos. He was entrapped by FBI-employed foreign "assets", and despite the great attempts to make him "compose" about Trump, he did not, and spent a grand total of two weeks in jail.
In the case of Flynn, everything Flynn did was during his time as an Obama official. He was a consultant to the Turkish government and did some questionable things to advocate in favor of his Turkish employers, but again, not as a Trump official. And again, Flynn was put in a perjury trap and overcharged with essentially a life sentence, and bankrupted, forced to sell his home, and with the threat of further convicting Flynn's son as well, Flynn finally with no options took the plea deal. A situation worthy of a Kafka novel.
The part that really makes me want to rip someone's jugular open with a dull rusty knife is the scorched-earth aggressiveness with which Trump officials are being prosecuted, vs. the kid gloves with which the same investigators treated Hillary Clinton officials. There is so much more that the Hillary campaign is clearly guilty of. Through insulated covered-up channels, the Hillary campaaign hired a law firm (Perkins Cole), who hired Fusion GPS, who hired Christopher Steele for $2 million, to gather scandalous dirt on Donald Trump of highly questionable reliability, much of which information was purchased directly from Russian government officials. The Hillary campaign officials who contracted this, on much more clear evidence than against any of the above Trump officials should be convicted. But are not even being investigated.
Likewise, the lack of investigation of James Comey, Rod Rosenstein and other officials who falsified the evidence for FISA warrants to spy on Trump officials. They belong in jail. And with the FISA warrants exposed as fraudfulent, all the fruit of those poisoned trees becomes inadmissible as evidence, and the case falls apart.
Likewise the Obama officials who unmasked the names of Trump officials exposed but unnamed in those FISA warrant surveillaance reports. Until they illegally unmasked them and exposed the names. In an attempt to prevent Trump from winning the election.
Likewise, the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, where donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign governments, some of them very bad players, each resulted in a phone call to Hillary Clinton's state department, and gave each access to State Department officials and cooperation. But Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Jennifer Palmieri were all given blanket immunity in exchange for no information, no perjury traps or potential charges, so they will never reveal anything about Hillary Clinton/Clinton Foundation crimes. And FBI authorized the destruction of evidence that would incriminate Hillary on computers, files, and cel phones.
Likewise Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server, that compromised U.S. national security and internal white house communication ripe for the hacking by the Russians and Chinese every single day Hiollary Clinton was secretary of state.
And Benghazi.
It's infuriating. The FBI/DOJ and Meuller investigation manufacture crimes to try and destroy the Trump campaign and Trump administration, and destroy the lives of innocent people. While simultaneously obstructing and sabotaging the far greater evidence that would convict Hillary Clinton and her inner circle.
And the Democrat politburo is set to be inaugrated in January and further obstruct what's left of the investigation against Demcorats. Just sweep it all under the rug.
The Bolshevik party. Weaponizing government against its political opponents, with no interest in the facts and actual justice.
The documents offer a scathing portrait of his former lawyer as a criminal who deserves little sympathy or mercy because he held back from telling the FBI everything he knew. For that reason, prosecutors said, he should be sentenced to “substantial” prison time, suggesting possibly 3½ years.
Knowing what I know now about the dishonorable way the FBI treats cooperating witnesses, ensnaring innocent people with perjury traps, I would lawyer up and not reveal anything. And I think tens of millions of Americans, having observed this, feel likewise now about the FBI.
Like Flynn, I previously was naive thinking that as an innocent person I would cooperate fully with nothing to hide. Now millions of us know better, that they will create a perjury trap with your cooperation and prosecute you anyway, just to get you to say whatever it is they want you to say.
One day after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's legal team made the bombshell allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his fateful Jan. 24, 2017 interview with agents at the White House, the federal judge overseeing Flynn's criminal case is demanding answers from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller late Wednesday to turn over all of the government's documents and "memoranda" related to Flynn's questioning. The extraordinary demand puts Mueller under the microscope, and sets a 3:00 p.m. EST Friday deadline for the special counsel's office to produce the sensitive FBI documents.
Sullivan -- who overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light -- is weighing how to sentence Flynn, who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to federal authorities during the 2017 interview in the West Wing. Flynn faced mounting legal bills that forced him to sell his home amid the prosecution, and Mueller has already recommended he receive no prison time.
The judge's brief order states that Mueller can choose to file the materials under seal if necessary.
Sullivan also ordered the Flynn team to turn over the documents backing up its assertions. The judge could determine why the FBI apparently took a significantly more aggressive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency's sit-downs with Hillary Clinton and ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.
Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday -- but Sullivan's move might delay that date, or lead to other dramatic and unexpected changes in the case. Sullivan even has the authority to toss Flynn's guilty plea and the charge against him if he concludes that the FBI interfered with Flynn's constitutional right to counsel, although he has given no indications that he intends to do so.
Federal authorities undertaking a national security probe are ordinarily under no obligation to inform interviewees of their right to an attorney unless they are in custody, as long as agents do not act coercively. Flynn's lawyers claimed in Tuesday's filing that FBI brass had threatened to escalate the matter to involve the Justice Department if Flynn sought the advice of the White House Counsel before talking with agents.
Sullivan, first appointed a judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and then to the D.C. federal bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, could also assess why the two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn -- including fired anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok -- would have provided an Aug. 22, 2017 date on their so-called "302" report documenting what Flynn told them during their conversation at the White House.
The August date on the FBI 302 cited by the Flynn team is nearly seven months after the Flynn interview took place, and about a week after reports surfaced that Strzok had been summarily removed from Mueller's Russia probe because his persistent anti-Trump communications had surfaced.
So-called 302 reports are ostensibly contemporaneous accounts by agents of what is said during their interviews with witnesses and subjects, as well as other critical details like interviewees' demeanor and descriptions of where the interview took place. They are often critical pieces of evidence in false statements cases where, as in the Flynn case, the FBI typically does not audio- or video-record interviews.
In June, Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C, charged that the FBI may have "edited and changed" key witness reports in the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations. Meadows also raised the possibility that the FBI misled the Department of Justice watchdog in an attempt to hide the identities of FBI employees who were caught sending anti-Trump messages along with Strzok.
Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies," according to the 302 prepared by Strzok and another agent.
In a lengthy court filing Tuesday, Flynn's attorneys alleged that then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that ultimately led to his guilty plea on a single charge of lying to federal authorities.
The document outlines, with striking new details, the rapid sequence of events that led to Flynn's sudden fall from the Trump administration.
While Flynn is among several Trump associates to have been charged with making false statements as part of the Russia probe, no one interviewed during the FBI’s Clinton email investigation was hit with false statement charges – though investigators believed some witnesses, including Clinton herself, were untruthful.
Much more at the link, but there's everything you need to know, right there.
In the Flynn case the FBI knew he was lying about his russia contacts because they listened in on the calls if I recall correctly. Why would he lie WB?
In the Flynn case the FBI knew he was lying about his russia contacts because they listened in on the calls if I recall correctly. Why would he lie WB?
With an illegal FISA warrant applied for with falsified evidence by James Comey and Andrew McCabe. Who should both be in jain for falsifying evidence given to a judge.
Flynn was tricked in what appeared to be a casual meeting with FBI officials (one of them Peter Strzok) with no warning that his statements could be used to manufacture perjury charges. He was even discouraged to bring an attorny to advise him. In contrast in a similar meeting Hillary Clinton had NINE attorneys to advise her.
Even the FBI ageents who interviewed Flynn said they did not think he was lying. And then despite his cooperation, turned it around and threatened him with a long perjury sentence, to shake him down into accepting a plea bargain. The same trick they did to Pappadapoulos. The same trick they did to Manafort. The same trick they attempted on Jerome Corsi (who said they offered him no jail time, if he would testify to the false script they gave him to read.)
The officials running the investigation are the ones committing the crimes, not the ones they are shaking plea bargain confessions out of. They should be convicted and in jail.
Mueller, Weissmann and Comey have a history of shaking down people and convicting innocent people. Just ask the executives at Arthur Anderson and the 10,000 people they employed, who lost their jobs because of them. Ask the higher court who overturned the conviction, but not before two of the executives died in prison. And after the conviction was overturned years later, it wasn't possible to recreate the company and the 10,000 jobs lost.
I don't understand how you think Flynn was tricked into lying about his Russian contacts. It's pretty obvious he chose to lie. Do you see it like a Miranda type thing where a crook can still get away with committing a crime because an officer didn't read him his rights?
Flynn was in a casual conversation with two FBI agents who he somewhat informally invited to his then-White House office, and even gave them a friendly office tour.
Flynn committed no crimes. He was charged with perjury regarding discussion of a conversation with the Russian ambassador Flynn was legally allowed to have. The only crime was the manufactured perjury. And even the two FBI agents who manufactured the perjury said that Flynn appeared to be not be lying, or at least unaware that anything he said was untruthful. It is a manufactured "process crime", not an actual crime, used to extort Flynn to either "sing" or "compose" something incriminating about Trump. And Jerome Corsi in the last week said the Meueller team gave Corsi a scripted lie to testify to, and he would rather spend the rest of his life in jail than take the offered plea deal to lie. The partisan Mueller investigation is a house of cards, ready to collaapse.
Watch the Tucker Carlson program I linked, or at least the first 10 minutes.
Judge Jeanine tonight (herself a former prosecutor, a former District Attorney, and a former Judge) on her program also laid out how the FBI interview of Flynn was highly irregular, and calculated to entrap him in a mis-statement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ounNHoLiFGE
Alan Dershowitz also lays out how Flynn's interrogation was misleading and improper. I've also seen multiple former FBI officials say this was improper. And Comey even brageed in the last two days about how he got away with these deceptions.
I think that still doesn't make Flynn's intentional lies okay and not a crime. You realize because he lied Russia than already had something on him right? And there is the question of why he lied. At best Flynn lied because he thought he was doing something illegal that may not have been.
I think that still doesn't make Flynn's intentional lies okay and not a crime. You realize because he lied Russia than already had something on him right? And there is the question of why he lied. At best Flynn lied because he thought he was doing something illegal that may not have been.
The FBI and the two agents who intervieewed him in his White House office as National Security Advisor (one of them Peter Strzok, one of them *REDACTED* and undisclosed, Strzok alone makes it suspicious, let alone the second interviewer being undisclosed).
1) The FBI did not disclose to Flynn that he was a suspect of anything or that he could be aggressively pursued for his answers, in a very suspicious meeting, where the FBI/McCabe encouraged Flynn not to include a lawyer. Hillary Clinton in the same situation had NINE lawyers. 2) Even Peter Strzok and the other suspiciously unnamed attorney who interviewed Flynn said in their minutes that Flynn appeared to be very open and not consciously lying or witholding any information, and thus fully cooperative. 3) Undisclosed to Flynn, an illegal FISA warrant based on falsified and misrepresented evidence from the "Steele Dossier" allowed the FBI to listen in on Flynn's perfectly legal conversations with the Russian ambassador, that were essentially a normal establishment of diplomatic relations for the then-incoming Trump administration. So the FBI knew every word in advance of the FBI's Flynn interview that he had said to the Russian ambassador. Legal authority Allan Dershowitz said that it's highly irregular for the FBI to ask questions of someone that they already know the answers to, particularly when he was encouraged not to bring a lawyer. That stinks to high heaven of being a perjury trap, whose only purpose was to entrap Flynn. 4) The "lie" you speak of is likely him being asked "Did you speak to the Russian ambassador about x and y" and Flynn saying "No." And that either Flynn simply forgot that detail was discussed, that the KGB at the FBI alread had a transcript and knew every word of. They never discussed the FISA transcript with Flynn or tried to partly disclose what they knew he had said to refresh his memory, so that Flynn could say "Oh yeah, x and y too, now I remember." No. Its sole purpose was to entrap him on a technicality.
Like everything else about the FBI, DOJ and Mueller investigators, it reeks of political bias and corruption. The corrupt acts to destroy evidence agaainst Hillary and her aides. The corrupt acts to vindictively and selectively manufacture evidence and prosecute Trump and his officials, just to politically bury the Trump administration in false allegations.
How do you get around the fact that all of the Mueller investigators are Democrats, ZERO are Republicans? 9 of the 16 are Democrat campaign donors, at least one of them who donated more than my annual disposable income! Another one (Rhee) who was an attorney immediately prior employed by the Clinton Foundation, squashing FOIA requests for Clinton records, now essentially still protecting Clinton and attacking her political opposition legally from within the Mueller investigation.
To not see the bias and corruption, one has to be a Democrat partisan who would cheer any criminal act that advanced their Bolshevik party.
Glad the judge at least understands Flynn's lies are a serious crime.
The judge acted in a bizarre and unprofessional way yesterday, and said something about Flynn being guilty of treason. Which was so astonishingly inappropriate that it could have been mistaken for a joke. Even the prosecution uncomfortably advised the judge that treason was never even a charge in the case, to which the Judge Emmett Sullivan said there's so many conspiracy theories related to the case that he just thought he'd throw it out there. WHAT?!? Completely unprofessional.
Then today he ranted some crazy stuff that all the illegal immigrants caught who were deported should all be brought back to the U.S. and given refugee consideration hearings. Apparently he doesn't know that there is a backlog of 800,000 refugees awaiting hearings (three times the backlog that existed in 2009, a direct result of Barack Obaama's policy, and Democrat obstruction of attempts to secure the border). And that they were already given consideration and review by border patrol and ICE before being deported.
Over the weekend, Buzzfeed reported that Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen (who had already lied to Congress and been convicted of related crimes) newly alleged without evidence that Trump had instructed him to pursue a real estate deal with the Russians in 2016.
The 92% anti-Trump liberal media went absolutely wild with speculation that "if true" this meant Trump was headed for resignation or impeachment. But not one of these networks, in their zeal to smear and bring down Trump, vetted the allegations to see if they WERE true. And within 24 hours yesterday, Robert Mueller came forward to say that the Mueller investigators had no information or evidence to that effect. So Buzzfeed is wrong. And the entire liberal media is wrong, and that much less believable in the future. It blew up in their faces.
How many times has this happened, where the media alleged something, and within 48 hours the latest allegations about Trump are yet again proven to be completely false? On a few occasions, reporters and network producers have been fired for these glaring errors. The liberal media has zero credibility at this point, and it is clear to the public that the liberal media are part of the conspiracy to bring down Trump, by any deceitful or unlawful means.
Jay Sekulow said that the only reason Mueller came forward to dispell Buzzfeed's false narrative is because if he didn't, DOJ in the coming weeks would be investigating the leaks to the media coming from Mueller investigation officials. Mueller made a statement ending the cointroversy to prevent investigation, of his own investigation. Just a reminder, 12 of the 17 lawyers on the Mueller investigation are not just Democrats, but highly committed Democrat campaign donors. Not one lawyer on the investigation is a Republican. And one lawyer, Jeannie Rhee, came straight from the Clinton Foundation where her job was suppressing FOIA requests for Clinton records. Wow, what a neutral, trustworthy objective investigation. NOT AT ALL a witchhunt, no sir.
The reporting I saw on this outside of Buzzfeed stressed that they could not verify the story. Because the Buzzfeed reporters have broken some news on Trump previously that has been confirmed I understand how this was catching a lot of attention.
Lying to the FBI is an actual crime WB as is is witness tampering. And reading the indictment he lied about things that you would expect an investigation into collusion would be asking. Also point out that the indictment has a part in it about a senior campaign official being told to direct Stone into getting in touch with Wikileaks. Who could that have been?
One example of the "lying to the FBI" crimes Roger Stone allegedly committed is where they interviewed him (and he was fully cooperating with no clue they would try to trick him):
Roger Stone was asked if he communicated with someone by phone. He said yes. The FBI created a process crime by saying he failed to disclose he communicated by e-mail and text with the same person.
Compare with Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, where they destroyed tens of thousands of e-mails, bleach-bitted the memory of computers, and smashed 3 cel phones to conceal evidence. Never arrested by a SWAT team armed to the teeth, never investigated, never charged. Quite the contrary, they bent over backward to avoid charging Clinton officials, despite overwhelming evidence. And actually, incredibly, each given full immunity. Just the slightest difference in treatment by FBI of Trump officials, vs. Clinton officials.
I read the indictment and see how he cooperated. You don't source what your stating as fact btw. Looks like the usual politically motivated spin to be honest.
A former prosecutor debunked CNN’s and MSNBC’s coverage of Roger Stone’s indictment during a Monday afternoon appearance on MSNBC.
Sol Wisenberg was on “Meet the Press” with Katy Tur and discussed the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s long-time confidant being indicted. Stone was charged with seven counts, including five for making false statements to Congress, one for witness tampering and one for obstruction of a government proceeding.
The indictments did not, however, prove any sort of collusion with Russia. The charges center on Stone’s discussions with associates and Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks and that organization’s role in releasing Democrats’ emails during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“So he’s been charged with lying, with obstruction and with tampering with a witness. He was not charged with conspiracy. When we look back at what we have seen coming out of Mueller’s office, there have been filings about how the Russians were able to influence social media and the election,” Tur began.
She added,
There have been filings about the hacking into DNC e-mails and Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. There have been a number of filings detailing all of the people that have lied in the Russia investigation. What there hasn’t been so far is any evidence or any charges of conspiracy on the American side in terms of, like, collusion. Do you think that is because the Mueller team doesn’t have it? Are they building up a public case of sorts? What is your interpretation?”
“I don’t think they have it, I don’t think it is there, and all of this stuff I see where people are ‘ooh-ing and ah-ing’ over this indictment in terms of getting us closer to a conspiracy allegation, I think are quite incorrect,” Wisenberg stated.
“In fact, if anything, the indictment shows, tends to show, that the Trump campaign was not involved in a conspiracy because they had to ask Roger Stone, ‘Hey, go ask WikiLeaks what kind of damaging stuff they have on Hillary and when they’re going to release it next.'”
He continued, “That doesn’t sound like somebody leading a conspiracy or in on what’s going to happen. They’re having to ask Roger Stone, so I reject the primary narrative that I’m seeing a lot on your network and on CNN. It’s just another case of lying.”
So when the Mueller investigators don't have anything, they do a big show arrest with more guns than they used to take out Osama Bin Ladin, to make it look like Roger Stone is guilty of something, even calling CNN in advance to film the overkill arrest, just so the Mueller team can save face.
There's so much FBI, DOJ and Mueller have done that is unethical and in violation of standard procedure, that it strains credibility the charges against Roger Stone at this point are legitimate. Like a Soviet investigation, the result is predetermined.
As was the exoneration of Comrade Commissar Hillary Clinton, despite the mountain of evidence against her that remains uninvestigated. James Comey's press conference speech exonerating her was written 2 months before the first scrap of evidence was looked at.
Even two years into the preceding Hillary e-mail server investigation, and the ongoing Trump/Russia/FBI/DOJ/FISA investigation, and following it almost daily, I still get lost sometimes in all the moving parts.
There was mention in one report I saw of the FBI-codenamed "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation that made me look up this National Review article critiquing (and linking) the original New York Times exposure of the FBI's secret, the central point of which is the FBI planted an "asset" (or FBI informant) inside the Trump campaign in 2016.
Which was essentially Democrat opposition research to try and find something incriminating inside the Trump campaign, to either criminally prosecute Trump, or to at least make public and ruin Trump's candidacy, to allow Hillary (the candidate the entire top floor of the FBI wanted to win) to become president (after already previously sabotaging the case against Hillary Clinton, before manufacturing a case against Trump.)
And that's all in addition to manufacturing four FISA warrants to investigate Trump officials, based on fraudulent "Russia Dossier" evidence that Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and Sally Yates all knew to be "salacious" and "unreliable", in their own words.
And beyond that, hiring foreign nationals as further "assets" to bait low-level Trump officials such as Carter Page, Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone and Michael Caputo into incriminating themselves with offers of Russian-provided "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. In the cases of Stone and Caputo, they reported these offers to the FBI, and the FBI did nothing, because the intent was for them to take the bait!
And then in addition to that Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russian attorney Vesselnitskaya who also offered confidential dirt on Hillary, who met for about 20-30 minutes with Trump Jr before he saw it was bogus and ended the meeting with no transaction. Vesselnitskaya should never have been in the U.S. and was only here because then-attorney general Loretty Lynch personally signed the paperwork to allow her to be here. In addition Vesselnitskaya worked directly with Fusion GPS, and met with them both before and after her meeting with Trump Jr. And thus was so obviously a set-up to try and smear and incriminate the trump campaign.
That's not even all the moving parts. But enough to demonstrate there was, and remains, a massive conspiracy by Democrat/Hillary/Obama loyalists in the FBI, DOJ, Clapper(DNI), Brennan(CIA) and others to rig the 2016 election and/or falsely incriminate/smear the Trump campaign. And post-Nov 2016, to create enough illusion/appearance of scandal, and Trump investigation on multiple fronts to cripple his presidency. And in spite of all that aligned against him, Trump is still the most accomplished president of at least the last 50 years, in only his first 2 years.
As both Manafort's lawyer and the prosecuting judge made clear, none of the charges were related to "Russia collusion", to Trump, or to the Trump campaaign.
Again, Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for about 40 days, and was only part of the Trump campaign for about 100 days. Again, Manafort was aggressively prosecuted for a case initally closed by the FBI 13 years prior, and closed because they deemed it unprosecutable for a lack of evidence. THE ONLY reason this case was re-opened was for vindictive prosecution of a Trump official, to shake down Manafort and bankrupt him (a wealthy man up till then) with legal fees, so that at some point he could no longer fight and was forced to seek a deal. That is the pattern with EVERY Trump official in this Stalinist proceeding. It is to intimidate anyone who would consider serving under Trump going forward, and punishment for helping Trump win the election. Disguised as a legal investigation. That is its true purpose.
As contrasted with the Hillary Clinton investigation, where (in sharp contrast to how overzealously they prosecuted Trump officials) the same FBI,DOJ and Mueller investigators bent over backward to destroy evidence, allow evidence to be destroyed, avoid interviews that would create similar perjury traps for Hillary officials, and handed out immunity for no logical reason so they could not be leveraged as witnesses later.
The weaponization of law by Hillary's praetorian guard against their political opposition, disguised as a legal proceeding.
And I think it is safe to say that if Manafort had not served, however briefly, in the Trump administration, he would never have been convicted of a single one of these charges.
His only real crime he was so aggressiveely prosecuted for was having an allegience to Trump.
In any case, the Mueller investigation is winding down, reports are that many of the lawyers on the Mueller investigation have left or are in the process of setting up their subsequent employment, and that the final report is being prepared for attorney general Barr within the next few weeks. It's over. There is no "collusion". It's over. For all the vindictive prosecution, the manufactured "Russia Dossier" allegations and illegal FISA warrants, for all the lies and false narratives of Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell, it's over.
House Democrats are desperately trying to open multiple new committee investigations to keep the "Russia collusion" myth alive, and spread it to investigating every aspect of Trump's life and that of his family, but they lack the resources that the Mueller investigation had, so that narrative is smoke and mirrors and will go nowhere. It's over.
Y'know, the scandal Democrats all want to compare this to is Watergate. And if you look at the sentences of those convicted in that far more serious conspiracy...
...most of them were imprisoned for only 4 to 6 months. The ones who were sentenced to 2 1/2 to 8 years ended up serving about 18 months. Even E. Howard Hunt who supervised the break-in only got about 6 months. Attorney General Colson served 19 months. And the one who got the harshest sentence, who supervised the break-in, Gordon Liddy, was sentenced to 8 to 20 years, and ultimately because his sentence was so disproportionate to the others, President Carter commuted it, so he served a little over 4 years.
So... It frankly pisses me off that Democrats want Manafort to be sentenced to 20 years (that's what Robet Mueller and Andrew Weissman gave as a sentence recommendation), which is really vindictive and disproportionate. Even if Manafort is sentenced to even more time next week at his second sentencing hearing for other charges, it would be highly disproportionate for him to actually serve even 4 actual years in jail.
Meanwhile, for actual crimes Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other aides who actually betrayed the nation and compromised national security with: 1) Hillary's illegal private e-mail server, that knowingly compromised access to her top secret e-mails to the Russians and Chinese EVERY DAY she was secretary of state. Obama also communicated with her on this e-mail, under a false name (consciousness of guilt). 2) selling foreign access to State Department cooperation in exchange for about $150 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, 3) the Uranium One deal selling a vast percentage of U.S. Uranium to Russia, 4) negligence, perjury and cover-up of Hillary/Obama's Benghazi negligence, and 5) Team Hillary's destruction of subpoenaed files, computers, e-mails and cel-phones.
>>>>>ALL<<<<< scream for investigation, and yet have never been seriously investigated.
Compare: The gun-heavy midnight Seal-Team 6-style raids of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, to allegedly prevent them from destroying evidence. As compared to Hillary Clinton officials whom the FBI gave free reign for weeks to destroy evidence. Who actually did destroy evidence! FBI Perjury traps set for Trump officials. Hillary officials never even forced to testify under oath, and then given immunity for providing no evidence or convictions.
For all of the loose (frequently hysterical) talk in Congress, the foreign policy community, and the news media about President Donald Trump’s alleged eagerness to appease Vladimir Putin, U.S. policy remains as confrontational as ever toward Russia.
Among other actions, the Trump administration has involved U.S. forces in NATO military exercises (war games) in Poland and other East European countries on Russia’s border, as well as in naval maneuvers in the Black Sea near Russia’s sensitive naval base at Sevastopol. Washington has even sent U.S. troops as participants in joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces—an act that Moscow considers especially provocative, given its tense relations with Kiev.
On no issue is the administration’s risky course more evident than its military policy toward Ukraine. Recent measures are certain to provoke Moscow further, and entangle the United States to an unwise extent with an extremely murky, ideologically troubling Ukrainian regime.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has approved two important arms sales to Kiev’s ground forces in just the past nine months. The first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million), it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles—the kind of weapons that Barack Obama’s administration had declined to give Kiev. Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama’s administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the initial small-weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev.
On September 1, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker disclosed during an interview with The Guardian that Washington’s future military aid to Kiev would likely involve weapons sales to Ukraine’s air force and navy as well as the army. “The Javelins are mainly symbolic and it’s not clear if they would ever be used,” Aric Toler, a research scholar at the Atlantic Council, asserted. One could well dispute his sanguine conclusion, but even Toler conceded: “Support for the Ukrainian navy and air defence would be a big deal. That would be far more significant.”
Volker’s cavalier attitude about U.S. arms sales to a government locked in a crisis with Russia epitomizes the arrogance and tone-deaf nature of the views that too many U.S. foreign policy officials exhibit regarding the sensitive Ukraine issue. “We can have a conversation with Ukraine like we would with any other country about what do they need. I think that there’s going to be some discussion about naval capability because as you know their navy was basically taken by Russia [when the Soviet Union dissolved]. And so they need to rebuild a navy and they have very limited air capability as well. I think we’ll have to look at air defence.”
One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to America’s borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in Canada’s internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government, and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S. relations with Ukraine.
Moreover, although Kiev’s cheerleaders in the Western (especially U.S.) media like to portray Ukraine as a beleaguered democracy that plays the role of David to Russia’s evil Goliath, the reality is far murkier. Putin’s government overstates matters when it alleges that Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan revolution was a U.S.-orchestrated coup that brought outright fascists to power in Kiev. Nevertheless, that version contains more than a little truth. Prominent, powerful U.S. figures, most notably the late Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, openly sided with demonstrators seeking to unseat Ukraine’s elected government. Indeed, Nuland was caught on tape with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt scheming about the desired composition of a new government in Kiev.
It is unfair to portray Ukraine’s current administration led by President Petro Poroshenko as a neo-fascist regime. Post-revolution elections appear to have been reasonably free and fair, and there are major factions that are committed to genuine democratic values. But Ukraine also is hardly a model of Western-style democracy. Not only is it afflicted with extensive graft and corruption, but some extreme nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups play a significant role in the “new” Ukraine. The notoriously fascist Azov Battalion, for example, continues to occupy a prominent position in Kiev’s efforts to defeat separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass region. Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic in the pro-Russia rebel-occupied city of Donetsk, was assassinated on September 1 and officials there and in Russia are blaming Kiev. The Ukrainian government has denied involvement.
Other ultranationalist factions act as domestic militias that attempt to intimidate more moderate Ukrainians. Even the Poroshenko government itself has adopted troubling censorship measures and other autocratic policies. Officials in both the Obama and Trump administration have taken a much too casual attitude toward U.S. cooperation with extremist elements and a deeply flawed Ukrainian government.
Both the danger of stoking tensions with Moscow and becoming too close to a regime in Kiev that exhibits disturbing features should caution the Trump administration against boosting military aid to Ukraine. It is an unwise policy on strategic as well as moral grounds. Trump administration officials should refuse to be intimidated or stampeded into forging a risky and unsavory alliance with Kiev out of fear of being portrayed as excessively “soft” toward Russia. Instead, the president and his advisers need to spurn efforts to increase U.S. support for Ukraine. A good place to start would be to restore the Obama administration’s refusal to approve arms sales to Kiev. Washington must not pour gasoline on a geo-strategic fire that could lead to a full-blown crisis between the United States and Russia. ____________________________________
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at TAC, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs.
Despite all the false-narrative blather from the Democrat/Left about Trump being a "Russian asset" and collusion B.S.
Mueller's report should have been the end of that.
So... to pivot away from the fact that the Mueller investigation (made up of 19 lawyers who despise Trump and most of whom made large campaaign donations to Obama or Hillary) found absolutely no evidence for: 1)Trump collusion with Russia, or 2) Trump obstruction of justice regarding the Russia investigation. If there was ANY WAY they could maanufacture even a half-baked innuendo, this team of partisan Trump haters would have found it. But no, they had to admit there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING!
To pivot away from that documented fact, you are creating a false narrative about a few snarky tweets by Trump that prove nothing?
Smooth move, Ex Lax!
I fail to see that however opinionated or spiking the ball, Trump said anything that was factually wrong. It was a witch hunt and a waste of time from the start. It was conducted based on false allegations, malicious prosecution, Democrat partisanship and illegal FISA warrants (and I hope the evil S O B's in DOJ and FBI who did this clandestine operation will be going to jail for these crimes). However undiplomatic in his posts, Trump is demonstrably right on all those points.
Politico = former Washington Post reporters = Trump-hating centerpiece of the 93% anti-Trump Liberal media
Politico posted an article not approving of something Trump is doing. Wow, I'm shocked.
There was only a y'know, 93% chance that would happen.
Or to be fair, the 93% mark was reached only by CNN (i.e., DNCNN) and NBC. The average for all the media was 80% negative Trump coverage, and only 5% positive.
The media's hatred for Trump knows no recent historical parallel. Though comparable data don't exist, our guess is today's Trump hatred outstrips the deep media loathing of Richard Nixon during his first-term "honeymoon" in 1969. Even the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, often credited with helping to take down Nixon, advised today's reporters to "stick to the reporting" and accused them of "binge-drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid."
This is why much of the reporting — even from the leading lights of print journalism — has been so shabby and unfair. Both the Post and the Times, for instance, have used unnamed sources and even the supposed content of documents that they've never viewed as the basis for major revelations about Trump in recent days. They've let their raw hatred get the better of them.
Such a media environment is dangerous for American democracy. We don't expect the big media to show Trump love, but is simple fairness too much to ask?
Apparently so. Instead of fairness, they've colluded with progressive Democrats on the "impeach Trump" movement. Expecting basic professionalism from the media, sadly, seems to be too much.
They reported the fat corrupt piece of shit own words. He tends to do some very hysterical tweets no?
I guess that's your TOTALLY neutral and unbiased opinion.
Trump's twitter posts are not what I would post, but then again, I won't ever knock out 16 other Republicans in a primary election, and then pound Hillary into the dirt in a general election, Despite that Hillary had a 2 billion campaign war chest, and I only had maybe half of that. AND hold the entire 93% negative liberal media at bay with Tritter posts. What Trump posts on Twitter is how he circumnavigates the overwhelming media bias. And he is much better at it than I will ever be. Or you.
Yup I call somebody that is a piece of shit a piece of shit. That's different than your broad and nasty attacks on the press, democrats, science and any entity that doesn't suck Trump's dick. And if those types of tweets came from a democrat you wouldn't be attacking the press for reporting them. Principles and ethics are not a partisan value. Your fellow Americans are not your enemy WB.
Yup I call somebody that is a piece of shit a piece of shit. That's different than your broad and nasty attacks on the press, democrats, science and any entity that doesn't suck Trump's dick. And if those types of tweets came from a democrat you wouldn't be attacking the press for reporting them. Principles and ethics are not a partisan value. Your fellow Americans are not your enemy WB.
Your inability to logically discuss Trump, and to instead unleash the most bitter and personal insults on Trump, doesn't speak well for your objectivity. I'm hard pressed to think of an occasion I didn't cite sourced facts to back up what I said about the lawless Cultural Marxist Bolsheviks who run the Democrat party. And I've cited example after example of their vicious lawless tactics for seizing power. And specific examples of how they DESPISE this country, and only love what they can radically transform it into.
Even Bob Woodward, as I cited above, shares my opinion of the shabby and vindictively personal coverage of Trump by the media. And as vindictively as they pursue Trump is how much of a free pass they gave to their beloved Cultural Marxist Obama. And in betraying their responsibility, have endangered the nation, as they've become cheerleaders for violence on Republicans, and flown cover for the Bolshevik maniac Democrats trying to seize power, using every deception possible.
You're actually the one who sounds like the radical who see's much of our country as the enemy. I don't like Trump because I've read about him, he is truly an awful man. Many republicans acknowledge that too but because of his and the GOP's hold on power he gets away with it. You on the other hand fall into the loyal soldier, you post about the media being hysterical on Trump, I post one of Trump's batshit crazy and hysterical tweets and you respond with the media is all democrats meme using a fake stat of 93 percent. It might be true that only 7 percent of journalist in a poll identify as republican but it's only a slightly larger percentage that identify as democrat. That of course doesn't matter because his tweets are usually batshit crazy and wrong but instead of that being a problem with you, attacking the press is what you choose.
In this list of Democrat leftists, look up Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Frank Marshall Davis (Obama's Mentor), Bill Ayers (Obama's mentor), Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Obama's Mentor), or even Michelle Obama. Lunatic marxist radicals, every single one. Likewise Joseph Biden (the most moderate, but still corrupt), Cory Booker, Elizabet Warren, Kamala Harris and the other Left-lurching 2020 Democrats.
Also pick up the book The Shadow Party by David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Yours is not just a party that wants to enact liberal policy, yours is a party of radicals who barely hide their goal to destroy our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional republic, to hand what's left of the nation over to globalist domination, or otherwise to rogue nations who are our enemies.
Bernie Sanders is a guy who had a Soviet flag on the wall in his Burlington, VT mayor's office for a decade. This is a guy who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, who endlessly praised the Soviets, the Castro government in Cuba, the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua, the communist Chinese government. Overlooking their genocide and brutality to heap praise on their "system". The only government Bernie Sanders unrelentingly railed on as inherently evil was... the United States.
Likewise Obama and Hillary have been openly insurrectionist marxists their entire lives, with a contempt for the capitalist free-market system, for police and our military, and for the rule of law.
How ideologically blinded are you, M E M ? The facts are right in front of you, if you would only read them.
Trump is an "awful man" according to the liberal/leftist Newspeak you feed on,, despite that they are proven wrong almost weekly (and I've cited examples many times). Again, even Bob Woodward has said what I have about the liberal media's venomous Kool-Aid fed lack of objectivity.
Likewise said by Alan Dershowitz, a Hillary-voting Democrat. Likewise legal scholar Jonathan Turley. Likewise Doug Schoen, a Democrat who served in the Carter administration. Plus a number of other Democrats who respectfully express concern that your party has gone off the deep end and is destroying itself.
I'm a "loyal soldier" ? Who is consistently critical of the campaign-finance-bought RINO "Republican establishment". The problem is that many in the Republican party are bought off by the same corporate globalists who have even more so bought off the Democrats.
If you watched Lou Dobbs for a week, you would see that there is widespread contempt within the GOP for these Republican sellouts who have more in common with the Democrats than with Trump and the conservative voters who elected them (RINOs such as Boehner, Paul Ryan, McCain (while alive), Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney and others who enrich themselves off those corporate globalists and their lobby money, destroying our sovereignty in exchange for those lobbyist dollars. It is a pure and simple fact that across multiple elections, their Republican voters have elected them to do one thing, and then they betrayed their voters and pursued another agenda. Such as border security. Such as repealing Obamacare. Only when Trump has put faith in these Republicans has he failed.
Trump's "Batshit crazy and hysterical tweets" is not an objective look at them. Amid some snark, Trump's Twitter posts cite many facts that the overwhelmingly Anti-Trump media refuses to report, that his tweets force the media to answer and acknowledge. "Batshit crazy" is just the meme your spoonfed Media Matters propaganda tries to contain it with.
And you really are delusional if you believe the media is balanced. As I've said many times, (starting with the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg, a 30-year veteran journalist for CBS News and self-identified liberal. Who used to be an anchor for 60 Minutes until he was ostracised for saying in a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial (reprinted in the book) that any bias is bad, whether conservative bias and liberal bias, and that we liberals have to be on guard for bias in our own ranks as well. For simply stating that truth, he was taken off the air by CBS and marginalized from that point until he retired from CBS.
Likewise Sharyl Atkisson. She was widely praised as a journalist and won awards at CBS for her investigative reporting on the W. Bush administration. When she attempted to do the same investigative reporting on the Obama administration, her news stories were blunted and heaavily edited, and delayed from airing, until she finally politely broke her contract and resigned from CBS. She also had her computer hacked into and files deleted by intelligence agencies under the Obama administration.
My facts are not "fake", they are sourced and linked. And as Goldberg cited back in 2001, the media in poll after poll dating back 50 years when asked if they are "very liberal", "liberal", "middle of the road", "conservative" or "very Conservative" in every poll for 50 years consistently identify at a rati of 80% as "liberal" or "very Liberal", and as I said, only 7% identify as "conservative" of "very conservative". And I doubt many would dispute to even reveal you're conservative in most news rooms would be a career ender. Just as it would deny you tenure as a university professor.
A trick liberal journalists are increasingly using to hide their liberal bias is to register as "independent" or "Republican" (yeah, like how Comey and Rosenstein are "Republican"). But looking at their campaign donations reveals how they truly align and vote, 96% for Hillary Clinton. You will again note that is not a right-wing poll or news report.
Quote:
In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
And as I've often cited from multiple polls of journalists, over decades:
But yeah, just keep drinking the Media Matters Kool-Aid and lying to yourself, M E M. I attack the mainstream media because they have consistently been wrong like never before over the last 3 years. It is obvious they are lying, and you keep on believing the lies because you just don't want to know the truth.
Hannity in his opening editorial did a chronology from the very beginning of the Hillary investigation in 2015 and up through the present of how wrong the media have been at every turn, and how they have just lyingly reported the talking points of the Obama, Hillary and the Democrats, with a complete disinterest in the truth as they fron that lying narrative.
Even when they are proven 100% wrong, they don't acknowledge the error, and just move to a different angle of lying attack on Trump, and even on Barr, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Dershowitz, who are heroes to the Democrats until they suddenly expose inconvenient facts, at which point they are portrayed as "hacks" and "right wing stooges". But facts are facts, and they expose Democrats and their prropagandists in the liberal media as the true hacks they are.
Trump is an awful man by his lifetime of acts and deeds. You may hate the media because they do their job but that doesn't alter what he's done. And you deciding reporters are trying to trick people by registering as independent or republican falls into opinion not fact. An opinion by somebody who displays his bias and hatred for the other side practically everyday here. And yes that bias and hatred makes you look radical imho.
Just today I see he was looking into trying to ship people trying to cross the border into cities controlled by political opponents. He truly is an awful man.
Trump is an awful man by his lifetime of acts and deeds.
Wishful thinking, facts not in evidence. Vicious things alleged by the Left and his enemies. But nothing proven.
Originally Posted By: M E M
You may hate the media because they do their job but that doesn't alter what he's done.
Dear God!!! You can't be serious! The liberal partisan Newspeak media have been caught lying over and over in the last 2 years, almost weekly, sometimes several times in one week. They have fired reporters, or more often, just quietly deleted stories from their websites and tried to pretend they weren't caught lying.
In the case of the Wikileaks exposure right before the July 2016 Democrat National convention, e-mails exposed that reporters were e-mailing stories to the Clinton campaign and getting approval of stories before they ran them to make sure they wouldn't damage the Clinton campaign, and giving the Clinton officials the ability to delete anything that would have hurt them. Far from "opinion", Wikileaks proved this WITH THE DNC AND HILLARY CAMPAIGN'S OWN INTERNAL E-MAILS!
Likewise the Journo-list exposure in 2008. The whole point is that journalists in the liberal media are >>>>NOT<<<<< "doing their job", and are blatant propagandists on Team Democrat, all the way!
You are lying to yourself, M E M, but you are certainly not fooling me.
Originally Posted By: M E M
And you deciding reporters are trying to trick people by registering as independent or republican falls into opinion not fact.
I posted a link to those who investigated it. And from liberal media, not conservative. That is not an "opinion", that is a documented fact.
Originally Posted By: M E M
An opinion by somebody who displays his bias and hatred for the other side practically everyday here. And yes that bias and hatred makes you look radical imho.
It only looks radical to you because your idea of a news source is the liars at Media Matters whose stated mission is to shut down Fox News and any conservative media, by whatever deceitful means. A drop of conservative opinion in an ocean of liberal media is not a threat to anyone, it is equal time. ESPECIALLY since Fox News gets the story right, in contrast to liberal media, who have been exposed getting story after story wrong in their overzealous fanaticism to bring Trump down, rather than omake any attempt to objectively report the facts.
And that's not even counting the many other times the liberal media uses anonymous sources, alleging things about Trump they never actually prove. "Anonymous sources" means they don't have sources, so they just made it up.
Just today I see he was looking into trying to ship people trying to cross the border into cities controlled by political opponents. He truly is an awful man.
I was out to dinner earlier talking to friends about this, and I said that this is like so many other times, where Trump says something like this with no actual intent of doing it, but says it just to make the Left go insane in response to it.
Congratulations, you Leftist wack jobs fell right into Trump's baited trap for you. AGAIN!
You posted a link that showed 96 percent of donations went to Clinton but this included journalists that reported on fashion. It also didn't include Trump shills like Hannity if I understand correctly. "Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally." So basically those actually covering and trying to shape opinion are not included.
Here's actual polling on this that I referred to previously... 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican That shows drops in party identification by reporters over the decades. It's 28 percent for democrats but most reporters identify as something else.
Just today I see he was looking into trying to ship people trying to cross the border into cities controlled by political opponents. He truly is an awful man.
I was out to dinner earlier talking to friends about this, and I said that this is like so many other times, where Trump says something like this with no actual intent of doing it, but says it just to make the Left go insane in response to it.
Congratulations, you Leftist wack jobs fell right into Trump's baited trap for you. AGAIN!
According to reports this was something the WH asked DHS about. So you are in error trying to paint this as just something he said to get the left going. Honestly though even it was a case of him playing dishonest games with immigration politics, you should remember this involves actual human beings while you're yucking it up.
As opposed to the dishonest "news" stories and fake journalism and Democrat slanders unleashed on Trump every day?
When Trump actually does it, get back to me. But by doing the head-fake, Trump has exposed the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Who bemoan that illegal immigrants are a benefit to the nation, but don't want them shipped to their cities. Who are eager to secretly have illegals released and transported to cities and towns all over America, but don't want them shipped to THEIR towns! It is a pure and simple fact that these illegals are responsible for thousands of murders, rapes, drunk driving incidents, burglaries, drug trafficking, gang activity, child molestations, shoplifting and other crimes, and as IO cited before, at last estimate cost U.S. taxpayers $136 billion in the last year. And with the huge increase in illegals, no doubt more this year.
If it were up to me, I would tear-gas them daily on the Mexican side of the border (before they set foot on U.S. soil) , bind them, put them back on planes and helicopters, air-lift them 1500 miles, and dump them right back on the beaches of the countries they ILLEGALLY came here from. And I would do that daily over and over, until they became exhausted with even trying. And I would send CIA or some other federal clandestine force to decimate the marxist leadership organizing these "caravans" and drug cartel organized trafficking routes. Trump by comparison is is being very reserved and patient and playing by the rules.
It is not dishonest of Trump to simply expose the deceitful tactics and rhetoric of the Democrats. Democrats are not on the side of illegals immigrants, they are just using them as pawns, orchestrating chaos to try and make Trump look bad. And the Democrats sure as fuck are not on the side of the American people.
I would also point out that in the case of the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein'ss vice president Tariq Azziz, when captured and interviewed by 60 Minutes, said that even when W. Bush was assembling all those U.S. troops on the Saudi border, and giving Saddam warnign after warning to comply and then to leave Iraq, Saddam and Azziz thought it was an elaborate bluff and Bush would never invade.
So... you don't know what Trump or his cabinet's intentions are. It could be an elaborate head-fake. It could be an actual plan. It could be a head-fake with the potential to actually be enacted. Or a diversion for another different approach. Either way, I trust Trump to do everything he can to secure the border, and I trust the Democrats about as far as I can throw a piano.
The mere threat of securing the border was doen and over when Trump came to office. But Democrat obstruction turned the magnets back on and encouraged the worst wave of illegals we have seen. And that is coming from interviews of Border Guard officers and officials who have been patrolling the border for 30-plus years. I see interviews of Border Guard, ICE, and DHS, from administrators to the frontline officers, as well as police from counties nationwide, especially the illegal-inundated counties, and they ALL support Trump! Former DHS leader Thomas Homan has worked to secure the border through 6 presidential administrations, and none has been as committed to actually securing the border as Donald Trump, who he obviously supports. Fact. Those who understand the situation ALL support what Trump is doing.
I think your trying to argue that Trump's dishonesty is okay because it pleases you. It's still dishonesty though. I might even agree with you that it's a tactic he's using although in this case I suspect it's to draw attention away from the Mueller report. And while your hatred for your fellow countrymen keeps Trump afloat you don't consider Trump needs to work with the Dems on immigration to actually get some of what he says he wants. Instead you get this show. It may be entertaining for you but the country deserves better.
Still reading the report but it's pretty clear Trump tried obstructing the investigation but couldn't get his toadies to cross that line. And Sarah Sanders lying about Comey should have some consequences beyond her losing her job. The bar is so low now though I doubt she'll even lose that.
Still reading the report but it's pretty clear Trump tried obstructing the investigation but couldn't get his toadies to cross that line. And Sarah Sanders lying about Comey should have some consequences beyond her losing her job. The bar is so low now though I doubt she'll even lose that.
Trump contemplated firing Mueller and others, but ultimately did not. He was fucking pissed off at being portrayed as a Russian asset by the liars undermining him at DOJ, FBI, DNI (James Clapper), and CIA (Brennan), and very much wanted to fire them, but ultimately followed the advice of his legal counsel, despite his not being able to traitorusly insubordinate and incompetent employees.
It is a lying cocksmoker's argument of the liberal media, in collaboration with vicious partisans like Representatives Swallwell, Schiff and Nadler, to keep the narrative going with the faintest vestiges left of the "Russia collaboration" false narrative. Ultimately, the report 4 weeks ago (as summarized in 4 pages by Attorney General Barr) found 1) no evidence of Russia collussion, and 2) no evidence of obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation, despite Trump being frustrated the Russia hoax and false narrative to almost act several times.
The impetus of the Mueller investigation and other House investigations was alleged illicit Trump activities with Russia. That has been absolutely disproven. So now Democrats and the lying DNC-PR-wing media are desperately trying to save face by clinging to the very last fading vapors of the former Russia conspiracy false narrative, widened by Mueller to include an "obstruction of justice" false narative, despite that even that was disproven by his partisan investigation by 19 Democrat and DNC donating, and Clinton foundation Hillary loyalist lawyers. EVEN THESE rabid Democrat partisans with an unlimited investigative budget could find nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to support that false narrative. And ultimately, finally had to release a report disclosing that, after dragging it unnecessarily past the Nov 2018 mid-term election, so as to benefit their Democrat brethren.
The committees in the House, despite moving forward at this point on nothing but fumes and lies, will no doubt continue their investigation and false narrative sometime past Nov 2020. Your party has absolutely no ethics, M E M.
Well not shocked at your response but it defies reality. Trump did more than contemplate firing Mueller. The report details his efforts and lies. Also the lies of his toadies like Sarah Sanders. You can bare all the partisan hate you want but we both know who the corrupt liar is here.
Wallace I think pulls his punches on Fox News Sunday with liberal/Dems frequently, to try and look more neutral. It frankly annoyed me in that interview (both with Guiliani, and right after with Schiff himself) that he didn't go harder on Rep. Adam Schiff when Schiff's allegations against Trump were brought up in the program. Three glaring gaps in Wallace's interview:
1) Wallace just acted as if Schiff raised legitimate points about Trump "obviously" and "proven" colluding with Russians, when that has, in fact, been disproven by the Mueller special investigation report.
2) Wallace also didn't raise the point that there is far more evidence against Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Obama administration, the DNC, and their partisans in the FBI, DOJ, DNI, CIA and FISA court who are guilty of federal crimes for actual collusion, and actual obstruction of justice (submitting false evidence to a judge, malicious prosecution, not disclosing exculpatory evidence, etc., etc.)
3) Wallace also didn't (as Sean Hannity does almost every night on his show) show the eagerness with which Rep. Adam Schiff tried himself to collude with Russians who phoned him offering secret nude/compromising photos of Trump with Russian women. The two guys who called and recorded Schiff have a radio show and recorded the call broadcast live on air, where Schiff during the call eagerly took notes, wrote down every detail and had no reservations about getting this information from what he thought were Russian officials. Interviewed by Hannity, the two Russian guys said Schiff and his congessional staff, not knowing they'd been pranked by a radio show, called the two guys back over and over for weeks trying to get the dirt on Trump from "Russian agents".
The incredible hypocrisy of this was not even mentioned by Chis Wallace, which to me only undermines Wallace's own credibility, to omit and not correct the record with these vital facts.
Witholding the truth and allowing a Democrat false narrative to be fronted is not ethical. It's just not disclosing the truth.
I think Chris Wallace is a dedicated journalist and trying to do right. He's just misguided. He's worried about appearing too conservative. But his job is to challenge false statements from either side, and disclose the true facts. The irony is that despite Fox News is seen as conservative, theirs is in truth the most balanced news coverage, and in cases like this, they are often harder interviewing Republican guests, and often give a free pass to crap like this from Democrat guests.
Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.
That’s a big change from the past. When the Chosen One, Barack Obama, completed his first 100 days, a similar study found that coverage was 59 percent positive, 41 percent negative. Skewed, but not that bad. The numbers were flipped for George W. Bush, of course: 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive. For Bill Clinton, way back in 1993, in the days when news was news (which means reporters were hard on the president regardless of his political affiliation), the coverage was 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
and
Quote:
“The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive,” Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner. “Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.”
It has been a pattern since President Trump was inaugurated well over a year ago. Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center, which has been tracking the phenomenon since Mr. Trump hit the campaign trail in 2016.
It was over 90 percent hostile then — and remains so now. The trend is unprecedented, according to the analysis.
The conservative press watchdog monitored nightly evening networks newscasts throughout January and February to find that anchors and correspondents uttered 10 times more negative comments about the president than positive statements. Analysts examined over 500 stories.
Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent. The rest — 647 comments — were negative, amounting to 91 percent. The ongoing Russia collusion investigation was the leading topic of choice, followed by immigration issues, the recent government shutdown, and the White House response to the Parkland student shooting.
Throughout January and February, the analysts found that 63 percent of news coverage was devoted to scandals — and just 37 percent to real policy issues. “The results are essentially unchanged from the 90 percent negative coverage we documented for all of 2017, and matches the 91 percent negative coverage we tallied during the 2016 general election campaign,” said Rich Noyes, senior editor for Newsbusters.org, the analytical arm of the Media Research Center.
It's been another year since that article as well, and chances are the liberal media Trump derangement hasn't diminished a bit.
As in the recent example of Brett Baier and Sheppard Smith both trying to get "Judge Jeanine" Pirro fired, Wallace may be part of a group at Fox trying to get respect from their peers by appearing more moderate (i.e., softpedaling on liberals) under the illusion it will make them more respected in the eyes of their foaming-at-the-mouth ultra-Left liberal colleages. It will not.
Any more than moderates like McCain (2008) or Romney (2012) gained better treatment from the liberal media. These were the most centrist and across-the-aisle guys the GOP could possibly offer, and they were still treated by the media like the second coming of Hitler.
Anyone who is not a brainwashed liberal zealot knows this was an attempt to discredit William Barr before he investigates and indicts the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and elements of the Obama administration (STRZOK AND PAGE TEXT: "POTUS wants to see everything we have." ), and Clinton campaign and DNC, who directly funded the Russia Dossier (directly paying Russian state agents for information, the real "Russia collusion").
These Democrat/Deep State agents in FBI and DOJ have obstructed investigations, deliberately sabotaged the evidence against Hillary Clinton, gave immunity to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in exchange for no prosecution or other logical reason, and illegally signed off on a FISA warrant to do surveillance (that's spying by any other name) on Carter Page and other Trump officials. Submitting false evidence to a federal judge(FISA court judge) is a criminal offfense, as are obstruction of justice, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and malicious prosecution. All of which the above named are involved in.
Democrats are attacking Barr's credibility now, to either 1) prevent Barr's investigation and enforcement of the law, or 2) to cast illegitimacy on Barr if he succeeds in prosecuting these criminals. They will not stop him, he will prosecute them. And resurrect equal justice under the law, that Democrats tried to twist into a partisan weapon in the Obama years. Democrat control has become a threat to the republic.
1 Accusations filed in court against Trump 1.1 Ivana Trump (1989) 1.2 Jill Harth (1992) 1.3 Summer Zervos (2007) 1.4 Alva Johnson (2019)
2 May 2016 New York Times story 3 Recording controversy and second 2016 presidential debate
4 Public allegations of unwanted physical contact since 2016 4.1 Jessica Leeds (1980s) 4.2 Kristin Anderson (1990s) 4.3 Cathy Heller (1997) 4.4 Temple Taggart McDowell (1997) 4.5 Karena Virginia (1998) 4.6 Mindy McGillivray (2003) 4.7 Rachel Crooks (2005) 4.8 Natasha Stoynoff (2005) 4.9 Juliet Huddy (2005 or 2006) 4.10 Jessica Drake (2006) 4.11 Ninni Laaksonen (2006) 4.12 Cassandra Searles (2013)
5 Allegations of pageant dressing room visits 5.1 Miss Teen USA contestants 5.2 Bridget Sullivan (2000) 5.3 Tasha Dixon (2001) 5.4 Unnamed contestants (2001) 5.5 Samantha Holvey (2006)
They rearranged it to the ones who have actually file cases in court, and into a second tier of those who publicly accused Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior short of rape.
And a third tier who said he walked in the Miss America dressing rooms and saw them changing, or "He looked at me creepy" typoe stuff. Which again, in the latter two categories, is not rape or sexual assault.
At least Wikipedia is a bit more honest about that in this new reformatting of their listing.
Less clear: none of these allegations are proven (as compared with, say, Bill Clinton, or the Kennedys).
Also less clear: Many of these women either: 1) were involved in business with Trump, and only made sexxual allegations after their business didn't go their way, and thus was motivated by payback 2) were politically motivated, by women who clearly stated their allegience to Hillary Clinton as who they were voting for and "Trump has to be stopped". And adding evidence to this motive, most of them revealed their allegations in October 2016, as an orchestrated "October surprise" to cripple Trump's candidacy in the weeks before the election. Most likely orchestrated by the Hillary campaign itself.
Can’t he pretend it’s a democratic governor that was going to be kidnapped by a right wing militia, tried and than executed?
This is just the same Democrat complaining about every crisis Trump faced during his presidency over the last 4 years: Why isn't Trump publicly telling the liberal media, and through them the Russians and the Chinese and the Iranians and the North Koreans, what he is planning?
Gee, I can't imagine. Perhaps so he won't telegraph his strategy and lose the element of surprise, so our enemy won't know in advance what he's doing?
THE DEMOCRATS: If it's bad for America, that's what they support.
Maybe, y'know, if the deep state/Democrat-loyalist FBI and DOJ and CIA were not focused for the last 5 years on trying to destroy Trump and his administration, they might have been able to detect the foreign threats to our country's cyber-infrastructure THAT IT IS THEIR JOB TO PROTECT US FROM.
Since I posted trump actually did speak on this by contradicting his own government by saying it could be Gina, lol. Putin is going to miss his orange buffoon.
Maybe, y'know, if the deep state/Democrat-loyalist FBI and DOJ and CIA were not focused for the last 5 years on trying to destroy Trump and his administration, they might have been able to detect the foreign threats to our country's cyber-infrastructure THAT IT IS THEIR JOB TO PROTECT US FROM.
But yeah, it's all Trump's fault. Sure M E M...
M E M, you don't know your own ass from a hole in the ground. It's terrifying that you can vote, with your overzealous resistance to the true facts.
Our country's cyber-infrastructure has been hacked, and it's believed that the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians are all involved in it. It's not Trump saying that, it's every expert and official I've seen interviewed regarding the cyber-security field. And no one can say for sure who did the hacking at this point, but the fingerprints seem to lead most to a group of Russian-employed hackers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear
These are people who could be paralyzing our country for a military invasion, could cause all our nuclear reactors nationwide to melt down, or imminently unleash a nuclear attack after neutralizing our early warning defense, and counter-attack capability. Or just shut down the nation's power grid, so we would all starve to death in a matter of weeks.
And you're partisanly just jumping on this as another way to blame Trump for something. Clearly, Trump is not any more of a cyber-security expert than Joe Biden is. It's the bureaucrats who are entrusted to protect us who have dropped the ball, not Trump himself. And I would far more Trust a proven and decisive leader like Trump to jump on eliminating those holes in the system, vs. an incompetent and corrupt Joe Biden, who is enslaved to the very nations attacking us by his corrupt financial relationships with them.
AGAIN: If these agencies were not turning all their energy the last 5 years on destroying Trump, maybe they would have detected these foreign attacks on U.S. cyber-security in advance.
Delivering in his final days on one of his last unfulfilled promises, President Trump is declassifying a massive trove of FBI documents showing the Russia collusion story was leaked in the final weeks of the 2016 election in an effort to counteract Hillary Clinton's email scandal.
The memos to be released as early as Friday include FBI interviews and human source evaluation reports for two of the main informants in the Russia case, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and academic Stefan Halper.
The president authorized the release of a foot-high stack of internal FBI and DOJ documents that detail significant flaws in the investigation and provide a detailed timeline of when the FBI first realized the Steele dossier was problematic, multiple government officials told Just the News. Among the bombshell revelations is an admission by Steele that he violated his confidential human source agreement with the FBI and leaked information from his dossier to the news media in the final weeks of the election because he wanted to counteract new revelations in the Hillary Clinton email scandal that were hurting her election efforts. The former foreign intelligence officer made the confession in a fall 2017 interview with agents.
Steele, who was hired by Clinton's campaign law firm to compile anti-Trump dossiers attempting to link Trump to Russian influence, told agents he had two clients at the time — Clinton and the FBI — and chose the interests of the Democratic candidate over the bureau in leaking. Steele told the bureau that then-FBI Director James Comey's decision to reopen the Clinton email probe in fall 2016 triggered him to leak his dossier details in what he described as a taking-the-gloves-off moment.
The FBI interview summary makes clear that Steele, a British citizen, was allegiant to Clinton, did not like Trump and believed a Trump presidency would be negative for his homeland and thus made a decision to meddle in the U.S. election by leaking information to the news media. The leaks, which led to Steele's termination as an FBI informant, have been known for more than a year, but his motivation for leaking was hidden in the classified documents.
His admission that the Russia collusion narrative, later debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was injected into the public as a means of counteracting Clinton's email scandal corroborates other information obtained by the CIA.
Late last year, the Trump administration declassified evidence showing the CIA warned President Obama and the FBI that it had intercepted intelligence indicating Hillary Clinton had personally ordered up an operation to "vilify" Trump with a false story of collusion as a means of distracting from the negative publicity of her email scandal. Multiple investigations have concluded that much of Steele's dossier was debunked or never corroborated by the FBI and likely contained Russian disinformation planted with his sources.
The probes found the FBI wrongly continued to rely on the allegations of Russia collusion to target Trump campaign figures for investigation and failed to disclose major flaws in their investigations to the courts that had authorized surveillance warrants.
The investigation also found that Steele's primary source of Russian intel later disowned or distanced himself from the claims attributed to him in the Steele dossier and that U.S. intelligence had concerns the source was tied to Russian intelligence. The soon-to-be-released records also expose a tantalizing connection between Steele, his primary source and one of the Democrats' key impeachment witnesses in the Ukraine scandal, former Trump National Security Council Russia expert Fiona Hill.
Steele divulged to the FBI that he was introduced by Hill to his primary sub-source of information for his anti-Trump dossier and that he later told Hill that the source had provided information for his now infamous memos.
The documents also will settle a long-debated question in Washington about whether the FBI's tactics amounted to spying on the Trump campaign. Tasking instructions the FBI gave to Halper, an academic who long worked as an FBI informant, make clear he was instructed to infiltrate the Trump campaign by posing as someone who wanted to work for the GOP nominee and then targeting campaign advisers to find out what they knew about Trump or his campaign's ties to Russia.
Halper was specifically instructed by the FBI to focus on campaign advisers Sam Clovis, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, in some cases recording some of their conversations, the records are expected to show.
In her impeachment testimony in 2019, Hill acknowledged she knew Steele since 2006 when he worked for MI6 and she worked for the Bush administration. She, however, did not make any mention of introducing Steele’s primary subsource and in fact expressed her own doubts about the Steele dossier, suggesting it could very well have been Russian disinformation. She said she held “misgivings and concern that he could have been played” by the Russians because they “would have an ax to grind against him given the job that he had previously.”
“I don’t believe it’s appropriate for him to have been hired to do this,” she testified about Steele. “I almost fell over when I discovered that he was doing this report.”
This could lead to indictments even after Trump's departure. And at the very least, at least much that has been stonewalled and hidden by FBI, DOJ and State Department bureaucrats, even after Trump months ago pressed them to disclose it, will finally be revealed to the public.
And maybe that sunlight alone will embarass corrupt officials into resigning, and vindicate Trump and his officials, after four years of malicious persecution.
This is the best news since Ric Grennell as acting Director of National Intelligence released a swarm of documents, including clossed-door testimony transcripts, whose mere revelation prevented the Democrat leadership from further lying, and crippled the Democrats' deceitful narrative that there was massive evidence against Trump regarding Russia collusion. There wasn't a single shred of evidence, and in a single day that narrative was over, and all the Democrats involved were proven to be liars. They lied for 3 years to CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times, saying there was evidence against Trump, but under oath in closed-door testimony they had to tell the truth, that there was no evidence against Trump. Which is why Rep. Adam Schiff kept the closed-door transcripts locked away and classified for so long. And once revealed, Adam Schiff has absolutely no credibility left. Likewise Rep. Eric Swalwell.
I hope this latest round shames a lot of these federaal agency Democrat operatives into resigning. Prison is where they belong, but I'll settle for truth that ruins their credibility, and simultaneously vindicates Trump.
In a weird (and barely reported) event, FBI U.S. attorney John Durham stepped down as a U.S. attorney, but is staying on as special investigator of the Russia Hoax.
OAN Newsroom UPDATED 8:31 AM PT – Wednesday, March 3, 2021 FBI Director Chris Wray admitted to slowing the investigation into origins of the Russia hoax, but insisted former U.S. attorney John Durham was to blame.
“Because we’re cooperating fully with Mr. Durham’s investigation, at his request, we have slowed that process down to allow his criminal investigation to proceed,” explained the agency chief. Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that the Obamagate probe had to proceed slowly because it had to go through the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
During the hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) attempted to get Wray to identify the cause behind the delay. “At the moment, that process is still underway in order to make sure that we’re being appropriately sensitive to the criminal investigation,” stated the Louisiana lawmaker. “So, you’ve had had to hold up as a result of a criminal investigation.” Republican senators have criticized the bureau for dragging their feet with regards to the potential prosecution of top Obama-era officials. They said those officials illegally spied on the 2016 Trump campaign and helped promote the Russia hoax for political purposes.
I'm very cynical that this investigation will ever turn up anything. It is a ruse to convince the public, and particularly Republicans, that investigation is actually happening. But I suspect this is just theatre, and in truth no case is being made. It is a ruse to give former Obama administration officials (specifically Obama himself, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, Sally Yates, and FBI officials like Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Kevin Clinesmith, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, and others in FBI/DOJ) cover for several more years, until they can say it was so long ago that it no longer matters, and quietly let the case die with no indictments. Whereas the Comrade Commissar Soviets of the 97% Democrat-aligned DOJ/FBI maliciously prosecute non-existent crimes by the likes of Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and George Pappadapoulos, with absurdly long sentences, corrupt judges and corrupt juries, just to smear and destroy those who supported Trump.
This comes despite Durham having resigned as U.S. attorney last month. Meanwhile, he has continued in charge of the Russia hoax as a special counsel. Which is planned to accomplish absolutely nothing. I'd love to be proven wrong and see actual indictments and prosecutions of those I named above. But I'm not holding my breath.
It’s not weird because that happens routinely when a new President is elected. Biden will allow Trump’s politically motivated investigation to continue but it’s main reason for being failed like his attempt to stop Congress from certifying the election results. Republicans are now focusing on making it harder to vote. I’m sure there will be new allegations for 2024 too I’m sure.
It’s not weird because that happens routinely when a new President is elected. Biden will allow Trump’s politically motivated investigation to continue but it’s main reason for being failed like his attempt to stop Congress from certifying the election results. Republicans are now focusing on making it harder to vote. I’m sure there will be new allegations for 2024 too I’m sure.
It's not "politically motivated" because it was then-attorney general Barr who appointed Durham. And even then, Barr took his sweet time appointing a special investigation by Durham as U.S. attorney to investigate the CLEAR Democrat abuses in the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, and in the Trump-Russia investigation. If iDurham's investigation were politically motivated, that investigation would have concluded at least 6 months to a year before the Nov 2020 election, as it should have. That Durham has stonewalled, as did the previous judge appointed before him, and has come forward with absolutely nothing despite overwhelming evidence, in particular internal self-incriminating texts and e-mails that FBI has done their damnedest to erase. But even what they couldn't hide is overwhelming and incriminating. Likewise the Hunter Biden laptop they tried to hide, and the Anthony Weiner laptop before that. Interesting how all these hidings of evidence work in the Democrat party's favor. AGAIN: by an FBI and DOJ that politically donates 97% for the Democrats. They have become the Democrat-Bolshevik party's KGB. They fly cover for Democrts, and maliciously prosecute and manufacture the evidence and FISA warrants to prosecute Republicans who should never have been prosecuted.
The politically motivated action is on the part of the 97% Democrat-campaign-donating DOJ and FBI. And by Democrats across the board in any branch of government, anywhere they are in power. In New York, in Michigan, in California, in the Dianne Feinstein case where she employed a Chinese spy for 20 years. In the Eric Swalwell case where he was funded and having sex with a Chinese spy for his entire political career. And he still sits on House national security and judiciary committees, where he could be leaking top-secret information to China, who have incredible leverage over him. Likewise "Joe China" Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden, who have made tens of millions in secret deals with China, and are likewise wide open to blackmail. Talk about your Manchurian candidate!
Your piece of shit Democrat party is corrupt to the core. I'm deeply concerned that this country might not be able to survive four years of Biden/Democrat control. In every conceivable way, they are doing a fast-track to destroy this country:
1) ending the Canadian XL pipeline,
2) ending drilling on public lands (that also prevents drilling on private lands), Ending U.S. energy independence, despite that Trump made us energy-independent for the first time in 70 years. Now we will once again be dependent on hostile foreign nations, and more likely drawn into foreign mid-east wars that Trump insulated us from by energy independence.
3) ending construction on the border wall, ending 16,000 high-paying oil and construction jobs in the process, and ultimately 2 million jobs in related industries that will disappear, 4) putting the U.S. back in the Paris Accord agreement that will cripple U.S. industry, despite that we were lowering emissions faster than any other country WITHOUT the agreement under Trump, and despite that the agreement doesn't force similar compliance by the world's greatest polluters such as China, India, Pakistan, and Iran.
5) Not only ending Trump's securing of the border for the first time ever, but disastrously inviting a flood of illegal immigrants, enriching drug cartels who traffic illegals, and by encouraging it, subjecting tens of thousands of women and children to rape, murder and prostitution, that simply maintaining Trump's policy would have prevented. And also subjecting the entire nation to a surge of unvetted, medically untested illegals, many with Covid-19. Biden is endangering the entire country by not securing our border.
6) The flood of illegals is used as cover to further cause a spike in drugs across the border that Trump's policy was strangling out of existence.
7) an open border also means a flood of new criminals and terrorists to prey on Americans.
8) passing election legislation "House H R 1" bill, that will permanently destroy election integrity if passed. What was done in 6 states in Nov 2020 will become corrupt policy in all 50 states.
9) passing a 1.9 TRILLION "Covid relief": bill, that in truth is packed with decades of wet-dream Democrat pork spending, only 9% of which would actually go for Covid-19 prevention, and most of it going to Democrat political allies as a slush fund to attack Republicans.
10) Democrats are pushing to basically outlaw dissenting thought, to take Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax off of cable. To silence all non-Democrat political dissent in broadcast news. While simultaneously trying to take every Republican/conservative political group and grassroots spokesperson off of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and other social media. It is the death of free speech, and the birth of a system like China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela, all of which regimes Democrat leaders have praised and share Bolshevik / authoritarian ideology with. It's no surprise they would attempt a power grab in the same vein as the authoritarian leaders they openly admire, quote and emulate. From the Clintons to the Obamas to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez, on down.
And that's far from a complete list of the Democrat-Bolshevik pushes to seize power, and destroy the nation on all fronts. What more evidence do you need, that the Democrats despise this country, and enact policy on every front to destroy it. Even in education and popular culture indoctrinating "1619 Project"-type ideology that the U.S. historically was and still is a racist, misogynist and evil place that doesn't deserve to exist. That serves only the ideological interests of Russia, China and every other foreign power that would like to destroy us. Democrats are destroying the country for them.
“ It's not "politically motivated" because it was then-attorney general Barr who appointed Durham.”
I think it's pretty clear that Trump was increasingly displeased with Barr's performance as attorney general in the last few months.
And that the evasion and delay of an actual investigation happened with Durham's predecessor, and continues now. If Durham's investigation were politically motivated, his report would have been released 6 to 12 months before the Nov 2020 election, to benefit Trump.
Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.
Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.
The indictment against Sussmann, says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
But Durham's filing on Feb. 11, in a section titled "Factual Background," reveals that Sussmann "had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign."
Durham’s filing said Sussmann’s "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations."
.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/iMwpWzt.jpg)