RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events From Russia with love

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?

Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories

Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

Pelosi says she never met Russian ambassador, as photo emerges of … Pelosi with Russian ambassador



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?

Suddenly MEM cares about perjury again.

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?

Andrew McCarthy is a formerly federal prosecutor. He writes that "The Perjury Allegation against Jeff Sessions Is Meritless:

• 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.

Mark Levin on Hannity, discussing the evidence for the wiretapping:



Hannity, March 3, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZnWkVTe8Q



And Levin again making the same case on Fox & Friends morning show, again on March 5th.


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..."

The full Hannity show, from Monday, 3-6-2017:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mv_2NWonmQ

Also from 3-6-2017, O'Reilly's opening editorial, and discussion of it with Newt Gingrich.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7rJqvS7ubk

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:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=larry+johnson+cia+


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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij0ShwRx5bc

More interview of Lt Col Tony Shaffer, this clip from Fox & Friends (morning show) 3-4-2017:


Lt Col Schaffer on wiretapping Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGOl7AO8OVY



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

GOP Hill leaders back away from Trump on wiretap allegations

Notice how CNN crafts headlines like this while still avoiding any coverage of the release of Vault 7 like it's the plague.

The US IC is about to get a massive referendum for the bullshit they've been pulling. And Trump's charge has given it a starting momentum.

You should try the article that supports the headline Pariah. Outside of the Hannity/propaganda stuff it's looking like the piece of shit lied again.

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.


Mark Levin, collusion is by Democrats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpAQG5eoluo




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.

Newt Gingrich, interviewed on the subject, March 5th:


Gingrich: "Obama knew about wiretapping"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYvhr8amzRA



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?

Pence dodges question on Trump's wiretapping claims

More on topic...
Franken says he thinks Sessions committed perjury

Well, if Stuart Smalley believes it, it must be true. Because he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.

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.

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.

Trump team knew Michael Flynn might register as a foreign agent for Turkey work

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.

Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping

Now to be clear when I call Trump a big fat lying piece of doughy shit, I actually am using the words as intended.

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.

So you're really upset like you were with Obama if you feel it's the same thing? It seems you were much more vocal than,

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: No Evidence of Trump Tower Wiretapping

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!