Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[CID1990]

[GannonFan]

Comey's prepared statement for the hearings tomorrow has been published. And while it paints Trump as a kind of a weird dude (to no one's surprise) it does not appear to have any bombshells or smoking guns in it. Unless Comey veers dramatically away from what he's planning to say in the prepared statement, nothing new sounds like it's coming out tomorrow.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-ful ... d=47894256

Could be the same thing that happened today, though. The four different Intel chiefs were testifying today and, depending on which news site headline you were reading different things happened. CNN said they refused to answer questions if Trump directly pressured or told them to drop investigations into Russia, which the BBC said two of them would detail personal conversations but both agreed they did not feel pressure (sure there's some nuance between Trump pressuring them and whether they personally felt that pressure) and the NSA Director even went as far as to say...

in the three-plus years that I have been director of the national security agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate and to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so."

Democrats on the committee took that as a refusal to answer the question.

[GannonFan]

And in an odd turn of reporting, even Reuters takes a weird turn in interpreting something differently than Comey apparently remembers it. In Reuter's main story on the topic, they open with the paragraph:

Former FBI Director James Comey accused U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday of trying to get him to water down the bureau's investigation into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Whereas Comey's actual written statement doesn't read that way...

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls.

(bold has been added)

Why the different account of what Comey said and what he was accusing the President of versus Comey's actual statement?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN18Y0BJ
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-ful ... d=47894256

[CID1990]

And in an odd turn of reporting, even Reuters takes a weird turn in interpreting something differently than Comey apparently remembers it. In Reuter's main story on the topic, they open with the paragraph:

Former FBI Director James Comey accused U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday of trying to get him to water down the bureau's investigation into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Whereas Comey's actual written statement doesn't read that way...

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls.

(bold has been added)

Why the different account of what Comey said and what he was accusing the President of versus Comey's actual statement?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN18Y0BJ
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-ful ... d=47894256

Is there no limit to who Trump can drive insane?

First JSO

Now Reuters

[Skjellyfetti]

Comey's prepared statement for the hearings tomorrow has been published. And while it paints Trump as a kind of a weird dude (to no one's surprise) it does not appear to have any bombshells or smoking guns in it. Unless Comey veers dramatically away from what he's planning to say in the prepared statement, nothing new sounds like it's coming out tomorrow.

It doesn't have any bombshells because most of these meetings were already reported in the press. If the meetings hadn't already been reported on - this opening statement would be a bombshell of the highest order.

It does confirm the prior reporting by the WaPo and NYT. With those reports we just heard from people like BDK - "ho hum, the reporters didn't even see the memos. Fake News!"

[Skjellyfetti]

And, I also make sure that when I meet with law enforcement officials that I make sure to unequivocally state that I have not, under any circumstances, been recorded partying with Russian hookers.

[GannonFan]

Comey's prepared statement for the hearings tomorrow has been published. And while it paints Trump as a kind of a weird dude (to no one's surprise) it does not appear to have any bombshells or smoking guns in it. Unless Comey veers dramatically away from what he's planning to say in the prepared statement, nothing new sounds like it's coming out tomorrow.

It doesn't have any bombshells because most of these meetings were already reported in the press. If the meetings hadn't already been reported on - this opening statement would be a bombshell of the highest order.

It does confirm the prior reporting by the WaPo and NYT. With those reports we just heard from people like BDK - "ho hum, the reporters didn't even see the memos. Fake News!"

So it's only important because it confirms the leaks that have been out there? Comey doesn't accuse Trump of breaking any laws and he even himself repeats the Trump line that Trump himself has not been the target of the probes (so far). "Bombshell of the highest order"? How can it be of the "highest order" when Comey isn't accusing Trump of committing a crime? Wouldn't actually accusing him of committing a crime be of a higher order?

[Skjellyfetti]

And in an odd turn of reporting, even Reuters takes a weird turn in interpreting something differently than Comey apparently remembers it. In Reuter's main story on the topic, they open with the paragraph:

Former FBI Director James Comey accused U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday of trying to get him to water down the bureau's investigation into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Whereas Comey's actual written statement doesn't read that way...

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls.

(bold has been added)

Why the different account of what Comey said and what he was accusing the President of versus Comey's actual statement?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN18Y0BJ
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-ful ... d=47894256

Asking Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn IS trying to get him to water down the bureau's broader investigation. No?

Flynn is their clearest target now. Comey again confirms that they have Flynn lying to FBI investigators. Asking him to give up that would water down the broader investigation.

[GannonFan]

And, I also make sure that when I meet with law enforcement officials that I make sure to unequivocally state that I have not, under any circumstances, been recorded partying with Russian hookers.

Well, the comment you refer to happened in the March 30th phone call, as per Comey's recollection. Also in Comey's recollection was the Comey had been given the job in the January 6th briefing, his first with Trump, of telling Trump about the unverified (I believe still to this day) dossier on Trump that supposedly made reference to quite salacious activities. I assumed that included hookers. As to how you would react to an unverified dossier on you referencing your time with Russian hookers I leave to you to decide.

[GannonFan]

And in an odd turn of reporting, even Reuters takes a weird turn in interpreting something differently than Comey apparently remembers it. In Reuter's main story on the topic, they open with the paragraph:



Whereas Comey's actual written statement doesn't read that way...

(bold has been added)

Why the different account of what Comey said and what he was accusing the President of versus Comey's actual statement?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN18Y0BJ
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-ful ... d=47894256

Asking Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn IS trying to get him to water down the bureau's broader investigation. No?

Flynn is their clearest target now. Comey again confirms that they have Flynn lying to FBI investigators. Asking him to give up that would water down the broader investigation.

Not according to Comey. Comey actually said, and I'll use his words with my bold:

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn’s departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls.

Again, the actual event that got Flynn fired, at the time, was having a conversation with the Russian ambassador in December (so after the election but before Trump took office) and then not disclosing this conversation, especially not disclosing it to the VP-elect, Pence. Comey certainly states he may have misinterpreted it, but he makes it a point to clearly state that it was directly about this lack of disclosure of the December conversation with the ambassador as it related to Flynn, not about the broader investigation nor about the election campaign. Again, Comey may say something different tomorrow, and Flynn may be into a lot more trouble than that (and he is), but Comey is clearly saying that he did not feel Trump asked him to water down or stop the investigation into Russia's interference with the election. If he his, feel free to show where he makes that claim.

[GannonFan]

And in an odd turn of reporting, even Reuters takes a weird turn in interpreting something differently than Comey apparently remembers it. In Reuter's main story on the topic, they open with the paragraph:



Whereas Comey's actual written statement doesn't read that way...

(bold has been added)

Why the different account of what Comey said and what he was accusing the President of versus Comey's actual statement?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN18Y0BJ
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-ful ... d=47894256

Is there no limit to who Trump can drive insane?

First JSO

Now Reuters

When a guy is so clearly out of the norm as Trump is he's bound to have that effect.

[Skjellyfetti]

So it's only important because it confirms the leaks that have been out there?

It's having the former FBI director testifying under oath. It's not just confirming it.

Comey doesn't accuse Trump of breaking any laws and he even himself repeats the Trump line that Trump himself has not been the target of the probes (so far).

I'm sure Comey will go into more detail about it tomorrow - but, Comey doesn't "accuse him of breaking any laws" because that's not why he's there and he's not the prosecutor. He's a witness and he is simply presenting facts and leaving it up to others to judge.

He also lays out at the very beginning of his statement the difference between a counter intelligence investigation and a criminal investigation. They were conducting a counterintelligence investigation.

"Bombshell of the highest order"? How can it be of the "highest order" when Comey isn't accusing Trump of committing a crime? Wouldn't actually accusing him of committing a crime be of a higher order?

It establishes a case for obstruction of justice by the President of the United States. He doesn't have to accuse him of the crime - and, again, I really doubt he does that tomorrow. It's not why he's testifying. He's presenting facts. And, the facts certainly lay out a case for obstruction.

Asking everyone in the room to leave before talking to Comey alone. Sessions is initially reluctant and then is pressed to leave. And, once the room is cleared asking Comey directly to let the Flynn case go certainly smells of consciousness of guilt.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not saying Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. But, it certainly garners serious investigation. This is the first clear evidence, other than anonymously sourced reports, to establish evidence for that case. It's a huge deal.

[Skjellyfetti]

And, I also make sure that when I meet with law enforcement officials that I make sure to unequivocally state that I have not, under any circumstances, been recorded partying with Russian hookers.

Well, the comment you refer to happened in the March 30th phone call, as per Comey's recollection. Also in Comey's recollection was the Comey had been given the job in the January 6th briefing, his first with Trump, of telling Trump about the unverified (I believe still to this day) dossier on Trump that supposedly made reference to quite salacious activities. I assumed that included hookers. As to how you would react to an unverified dossier on you referencing your time with Russian hookers I leave to you to decide.

It was a joke. Relax. I don't think the piss tape is likely real.

[GannonFan]

And, I also make sure that when I meet with law enforcement officials that I make sure to unequivocally state that I have not, under any circumstances, been recorded partying with Russian hookers.

But yes, it was eye opening to read the phrase "Russian hookers" in the prepared statement. I actually had to read it over again to make sure it said what I thought it said.

[GannonFan]

Well, the comment you refer to happened in the March 30th phone call, as per Comey's recollection. Also in Comey's recollection was the Comey had been given the job in the January 6th briefing, his first with Trump, of telling Trump about the unverified (I believe still to this day) dossier on Trump that supposedly made reference to quite salacious activities. I assumed that included hookers. As to how you would react to an unverified dossier on you referencing your time with Russian hookers I leave to you to decide.

It was a joke. Relax. I don't think the piss tape is likely real.

Eh, I'm neutral on it - who knows what these guys could be doing. I never would've believed that parties like Berlusconi threw existed until they reported on it. I'm sure there's plenty of weird stuff out there and it's not like Trump presents himself as the paragon of normalcy. Either way, though, it's completely unproven so until there's a chance for it to be proven, it probably shouldn't have even come up.

[Ibanez]

Comey looks like hell....


Funny...didn't Obama tell us in 2012 that Russia wasn't a problem?

[CID1990]

Comey looks like hell....


Funny...didn't Obama tell us in 2012 that Russia wasn't a problem?

He also said the oceans stopped rising in 2008

[houndawg]

Comey looks like hell....


Funny...didn't Obama tell us in 2012 that Russia wasn't a problem?

His eyes look labial

[Skjellyfetti]

So, Trump tweets about the possibility of tapes of their conversations.

Comey instructs friend to relay the memo to the press believing it would lead to the appointment of a special counsel.




Comey also says he is sure Mueller is looking at obstruction of justice. They met to discuss the investigation and his testimony beforehand.

[CAA Flagship]

Hey Skjelly,

What is your interpretation of the term "lift the cloud".
I have my own thoughts, but curious to hear yours.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, I have a feeling that you think it means "media coverage" and, if so, I would agree that's a part of it.

It's also the Congressional investigations and FBI investigations, imo. And, I thought Comey testified to that effect as well. If there were no investigations, there would not be near the media swirl there currently is. If there was no media attention, I don't think Trump would feel he was under a cloud.

[CAA Flagship]

Well, I have a feeling that you think it means "media coverage" and, if so, I would agree that's a part of it.

It's also the Congressional investigations and FBI investigations, imo. And, I thought Comey testified to that effect as well. If there were no investigations, there would not be near the media swirl there currently is. If there was no media attention, I don't think Trump would feel he was under a cloud.

Yeah, I think it can be construed that "the cloud" is all of the above. And I think it could be that we was stating that he simply looked forward to the investigations coming to a close, so that his agenda could get on the front burner.

The only other thing is the Trump comment on Flynn. I think he is awfully lucky he used the words "I hope". I won't give him credit for carefully choosing those words. But that will likely be enough to save his skin.
Kamala Harris had an interesting statement. Something to the effect of what the intent is of a robber holding a gun to your head and saying "I hope you give me your wallet". That's a bit of a stretch since Trump didn't display the "gun".

[Ibanez]

Well, I have a feeling that you think it means "media coverage" and, if so, I would agree that's a part of it.

It's also the Congressional investigations and FBI investigations, imo. And, I thought Comey testified to that effect as well. If there were no investigations, there would not be near the media swirl there currently is. If there was no media attention, I don't think Trump would feel he was under a cloud.

Yeah, I think it can be construed that "the cloud" is all of the above. And I think it could be that we was stating that he simply looked forward to the investigations coming to a close, so that his agenda could get on the front burner.

The only other thing is the Trump comment on Flynn. I think he is awfully lucky he used the words "I hope". I won't give him credit for carefully choosing those words. But that will likely be enough to save his skin.
Kamala Harris had an interesting statement. Something to the effect of what the intent is of a robber holding a gun to your head and saying "I hope you give me your wallet". That's a bit of a stretch since Trump didn't display the "gun".

Of course Trump had a 'gun'. He's POTUS and he had the Oval Office cleared. He's POUTS.

[Skjellyfetti]

The only other thing is the Trump comment on Flynn. I think he is awfully lucky he used the words "I hope". I won't give him credit for carefully choosing those words. But that will likely be enough to save his skin.
Kamala Harris had an interesting statement. Something to the effect of what the intent is of a robber holding a gun to your head and saying "I hope you give me your wallet". That's a bit of a stretch since Trump didn't display the "gun".

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer - but, I don't think that single conversation would be enough to convict someone of obstruction of justice. There's too much haziness and interpretation possible with what he said.

But, there are also the conversations with Rogers and Coats (and, Mueller will be looking into that, I'm sure.).

The other is the conversation with Lavrov in the Oval Office where he said "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." That will also be looked at by Mueller.

There's also the fact that he fired Comey and publicly stated he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he made the decision.

Comey testified today that he is sure Mueller is looking at obstruction of justice. The Comey conversation will be a piece... but, only a piece of that investigation, imo.

[CAA Flagship]

Of course Trump had a 'gun'. He's POTUS and he had the Oval Office cleared. He's POUTS.

*He's POTUS

*He POUTS