Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[CID1990]

I covered this above.

No, there is nothing illegal or even improper about having a diplomatic back channel.

A back channel to circumvent US intelligence and government agencies is.

Why is it illegal for the President to circumvent US intelligence and government agencies? Don't those agencies all work for him/her in the first place? If the President wants to say something to another head of state, do the US intelligence and government agencies have to give approval or be allowed to listen in? I'm not asking what's prudent or wise, I'm just asking to the legality of it since you say it's illegal for the President to do so.

It isn't. That is precisely why administrations do it- to avoid leaks, etc

If Congress wants to get rid of the President for it, then that's the recourse.

The negotiations with Iran over the nuke deal was a confusing mess of back channel negotiations with unlikely interlocutors- but a good example of why it is sometimes done this way, especially in the case of an adversary with whom public talks could be politically uncomfy

That said, Kushner could be on the hook for disclosure issues for his clearance- right up to the point where Trump says "I authorized him to do it." Then it's nothing

[Ibanez]

White House Communications Director Mike Dubke confirmed reports he had resigned,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN18Q179

[HI54UNI]

WaPo has multiple sources. It's a good way to tell a piece of investigative journalism from access journalism. They're not going to run the story based on one source like your Fox fluff piece. They verify it with other sources.

But, you're right. Maybe it is just a Deep State conspiracy!! But, again, BDK... it means you have to choose. "FAKE NEWS" or "JAIL THE LEAKERS."

Was it good investigative journalism when they claimed that a Vermont utility and the electric grid had been hacked by the Russians?

[Ibanez]

WaPo has multiple sources. It's a good way to tell a piece of investigative journalism from access journalism. They're not going to run the story based on one source like your Fox fluff piece. They verify it with other sources.

But, you're right. Maybe it is just a Deep State conspiracy!! But, again, BDK... it means you have to choose. "FAKE NEWS" or "JAIL THE LEAKERS."

Was it good investigative journalism when they claimed that a Vermont utility and the electric grid had been hacked by the Russians?

As good as Fox News' Seth Rich murder mystery coverage.

[Skjellyfetti]

The negotiations with Iran over the nuke deal was a confusing mess of back channel negotiations with unlikely interlocutors- but a good example of why it is sometimes done this way, especially in the case of an adversary with whom public talks could be politically uncomfy

Yeah, as I said before - back channels have probably been used by every modern president.

But, Iran negotiations involving the State Department and other government agencies isn't the same.

Imagine if Obama was making clandestine trips to the Russian embassy to negotiate the nuke deal without other government agencies knowing. That would be fucking YUGE.

Now, there's been nothing that says Kushner did go to Russian embassy to use their communication equipment - only that he wanted to. I'm just saying this doesn't sound like a normal diplomatic back channel.

[GannonFan]

Imagine if Obama was making clandestine trips to the Russian embassy to negotiate the nuke deal without other government agencies knowing. That would be **** YUGE.

Would it be news? Sure it would. Would it have been illegal? Absolutely not.

[Skjellyfetti]

I didn't claim it was proof of illegality. Just that it raises pretty serious questions for Kushner to answer. I'm sure he has perfectly reasonable explanations for everything.

Why would you want a line of communication with Russia outside of the watch of the US IC using the Russian IC.

Why secretly meet with sanctioned Kremlin-owned bank that has previously been caught running a spy ring in NYC?
- WH argues it was part of establishing diplomatic channels, Gorkov says it was strictly business. Why different stories?

And, why leave these meetings off your SF 86 forms? These were hardly minor meetings - and, as someone with no prior foreign policy experience... it's hard to imagine these meetings wouldn't have left an impression.

Why leave over a BILLION dollars in loans off of financial disclosures?

[GannonFan]

I didn't claim it was proof of illegality. Just that it raises pretty serious questions for Kushner to answer. I'm sure he has perfectly reasonable explanations for everything.

Why would you want a line of communication with Russia outside of the watch of the US IC using the Russian IC.

Why secretly meet with sanctioned Kremlin-owned bank that has previously been caught running a spy ring in NYC?
- WH argues it was part of establishing diplomatic channels, Gorkov says it was strictly business. Why different stories?

And, why leave these meetings off your SF 86 forms? These were hardly minor meetings - and, as someone with no prior foreign policy experience... it's hard to imagine these meetings wouldn't have left an impression.

Why leave over a BILLION dollars in loans off of financial disclosures?

But you did call it illegal, right here:

No, there is nothing illegal or even improper about having a diplomatic back channel.

A back channel to circumvent US intelligence and government agencies is.

So which do you believe, your earlier quote or your later one?

[Skjellyfetti]

Illegal or improper.

Much closer to illegal when it is a son-in-law advisor and not the President, but I'm no lawyer.

And, we haven't even heard that he used the Russian embassy to communicate. But, the intercepts add to a long list of questions. No?

[GannonFan]

Illegal or improper.

Much closer to illegal when it is a son-in-law advisor and not the President, but I'm no lawyer.

And, we haven't even heard that he used the Russian embassy to communicate. But, the intercepts add to a long list of questions. No?

Certainly there are questions, and plenty of them. Claiming illegality is a different matter altogether. Improper and Illegal are decidedly different.

[Skjellyfetti]

I know. That's why I said illegal or improper.

[Skjellyfetti]

Flynn's deadline to respond to Senate subpoena is today.

Subpoenas still going out.

President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has received and rejected a request for documents as part of Congress’s ongoing investigation into Russia’s election meddling and contacts with the Trump campaign.

Cohen, a longtime attorney for the Trump Organization, remains a personal lawyer for Trump. He served as a cable television surrogate for the Republican during the presidential campaign.

The House intelligence committee’s request for information from Cohen came as the investigators continued to scrutinize members of Trump’s inner circle.

The president’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has received subpoenas from the Senate intelligence committee regarding his Russian contacts and his business records. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, said last week that a subpoena from the House panel was likely.

“I declined the invitation to participate as the request was poorly phrased, overly broad and not capable of being answered,” Cohen told The Associated Press. “I find it irresponsible and improper that the request sent to me was leaked by those working on the committee.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... acd1968c65

[Skjellyfetti]

Former Trump surrogate Boris Epshteyn is on a list of people that the House Intelligence Committee wants to hear from as part of its probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and ties between the Russian government and Trump associates.

"Like many others, Mr. Epshteyn has received a broad, preliminary request for information from the House Intelligence Committee," Epshteyn's counsel told CBS News. "This is a voluntary request. Mr. Epshteyn has not been subpoenaed nor do we anticipate that he will be.

We have reached out to the Committee wth several follow up questions and we are awaiting their response in order to better understand what information they are seeking and whether Mr. Epshteyn is able to reasonably provide it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawye ... hear-from/

[Skjellyfetti]

Adding some firepower to this hoax investigation.

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller is bolstering his team of investigators probing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, adding a top Justice Department official overseeing active investigations into corporate fraud and foreign bribery, according to people familiar with the matter.

The official, Andrew Weissmann, is the most senior government official to join Mueller, the former Federal Bureau of Investigation director who became special counsel on May 17, said two people, who asked not to be named discussing a personnel matter that hasn’t been made public. Mueller recently brought on Peter Carr, a veteran spokesman for the Justice Department, to deal with the news media. He also hired at least two lawyers from his former law firm, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

As the head of the Justice Department’s fraud section in the Obama administration, Weissmann’s specialties have included corporate wrongdoing and foreign corruption. He has overseen investigations into Volkswagen AG over diesel-cheating, global banks over market manipulation and Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras over corrupt payments. He also started a pilot program that offered companies incentives to self-report possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials.

Weissmann previously worked for Mueller as the FBI’s general counsel from 2011 to 2013. He also has experience with special investigations, having worked on and later managed the Enron task force during the George W. Bush administration.

Weissmann’s move leaves another senior leadership post open at the Justice Department, which still awaits appointments from Trump to lead its criminal and civil divisions. Weissmann was brought on in 2015 to run the fraud section under Leslie Caldwell, assistant attorney general for the criminal division during the Obama administration, whom he previously worked with on the Enron task force.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... probe-team

[Skjellyfetti]

Like clockwork.

Kremlin aid threatens retaliation for Dec 16 sanctions imposed on Russia
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705 ... ficulties/

By the end of the day:
Trump administration moves to return Russian compounds in New York and Maryland
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... cd9ee60015

[Ivytalk]

God, Analjelly, you are out-JSOing JSO. Perpetuating your own tripe. Keeping threads alive with endless links, quoting of self, etc.

[Skjellyfetti]

I made two posts in this thread today (now three)! The horror!

Feel free to ignore, snowflake.

[Pwns]

Keep the faith, jelly! The smoking gun is just around the corner!

[Ivytalk]

Keep the faith, jelly! The smoking gun is just around the corner!

I think his spouse is the Kremlin connection.

[Skjellyfetti]

Keep the faith, jelly! The smoking gun is just around the corner!

The "smoking gun" in Watergate was Nixon trying to squash FBI investigation. We're not that far off. I think Mueller has enough on obstruction if all of the stories are true: Comey's memos, DNI and NSA asked to try to squash it, etc.

For the collusion/conspiracy/RICO stuff - I don't think we'll know until Mueller is done. That's gonna be awhile.

I think his spouse is the Kremlin connection.

Has to be a suspect at the very least. Mother-in-law is visiting for the next month as well.

[Ivytalk]

Keep the faith, jelly! The smoking gun is just around the corner!

The "smoking gun" in Watergate was Nixon trying to squash FBI investigation. We're not that far off. I think Mueller has enough on obstruction if all of the stories are true: Comey's memos, DNI and NSA asked to try to squash it, etc.

For the collusion/conspiracy/RICO stuff - I don't think we'll know until Mueller is done. That's gonna be awhile.

I think his spouse is the Kremlin connection.

Has to be a suspect at the very least. Mother-in-law is visiting for the next month as well.

That explains why your posts are up!

Can't you ship her back to Minsk?

[Ibanez]

The "smoking gun" in Watergate was Nixon trying to squash FBI investigation. We're not that far off. I think Mueller has enough on obstruction if all of the stories are true: Comey's memos, DNI and NSA asked to try to squash it, etc.

For the collusion/conspiracy/RICO stuff - I don't think we'll know until Mueller is done. That's gonna be awhile.



Has to be a suspect at the very least. Mother-in-law is visiting for the next month as well.

That explains why your posts are up!

Can't you ship her back to Minsk?

I once took an erotic trip from Milan to Minsk with a woman named Rochelle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

"......The Justice Department has gotten a warrant from the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — also known as the FISA court — to conduct electronic surveillance on a group of journalists who’ve been the recipient of leaked information, the source said.

The journalists are not the target, according to my source — and I say, thank goodness for that. Instead, the Trump administration is looking for the leaker. Who could it be?

Some in the administration are focusing on a retired, high-ranking military officer who held important posts in the intelligence service, according to the source.

The possibly high-ranking leaker was getting some of his information from people inside the White House who were holdovers from the Obama administration, the source said.

Those White House leakers — said to be three people — have either already been fired or will soon be, the source claims.

And these cases, I’m told, have been turned over to the Justice Department for possible prosecution."
http://nypost.com/2017/05/31/the-govern ... d-leakers/

[Skjellyfetti]

I doubt that story is true.

But, if true, is John Crudele going to be under surveillance for reporting a classified FISA court warrant?

[Skjellyfetti]

How the Trump administration’s secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short

In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.

Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.

These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.

“There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions,” said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several “panicky” calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, “Please, my God, can’t you stop this?”

Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies — including Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to urge them to move quickly to pass legislation that would “codify” the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President Trump to remove them.

Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama’s assistant secretary of state for human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions — and possibly arrange a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin — as part of an effort to achieve a “grand bargain” with Moscow. “It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Malinowski, who only days before he left office announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.

The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration’s policy moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early day of the new administration.

It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals that began circulating right after the inauguration.

Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling “deeply uncomfortable,” said one source, who asked not to be identified.

These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions — effectively locking them in place — before Trump could lift them

The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. “Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief,” Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without “verifiable progress” by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, “we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world,” added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: “I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.”)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-admini ... 01145.html