Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[CID1990]

None of this matters. Mueller is on the case.

Yeah, I agree on this.

And, I'm fully on board the Mueller train. I trust his judgement on this even more than Comey's.

I also think it's fascinating that Comey volunteered that he was the one that passed on his memos to be printed in the press with the express intention of forcing the appointment of a special counsel. 3D chess. I also think he had a very good idea that Mueller, his mentor and the person who pushed for him to be FBI director, would be the pick. Comey is playing a long game and has a very good idea on where it's heading, imo. But, we'll see.

Here's something you can mark down:

Mueller isn't looking at the Trump campaign for collusion. He's already ruled it out. If he was looking at it, Comey wouldnt have been able to say half the things he said today.

Second- Flynn has no dirt on Trump. If he did, he would already have immunity, and THAT would be the story.

You're playing the "we'll see" game. I already see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I'm right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong

In his testimony former FBI director James Comey echoed a view that I alone have been expressing for several weeks, and that has been attacked by nearly every Democratic pundit.

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Now that even former Director Comey has acknowledged that the Constitution would permit the president to direct the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter, let us put the issue of obstruction of justice behind us once and for all and focus on the political, moral, and other non-criminal aspects of President Trump’s conduct.

Comey’s testimony was devastating with regard to President Trump’s credibility – at least as Comey sees it. He was also critical of President Trump’s failure to observe the recent tradition of FBI independence from presidential influence. These are issues worth discussing but they have been distorted by the insistence of Democratic pundits that Trump must have committed a crime because they disagree with what he did politically.

Director Comey’s testimony was thoughtful, coherent and balanced. He is obviously angry with President Trump, and his anger has influenced his assessment of the president and his actions. But even putting that aside, Comey has provided useful insights into the ongoing investigations.

I was disappointed to learn that Comey used a Columbia law professor as a go-between to provide information to the media. He should have has the courage to do it himself. Senators must insist that he disclose the name of his go-between so that they can subpoena his memos and perhaps subpoena the professor-friend to provide further information.

I write this short op-ed as Comey finishes his testimony. I think it is important to put to rest the notion that there was anything criminal about the president exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and to request – “hope” – that he let go the investigation of General Flynn. Just as the president would have had the constitutional power to pardon Flynn and thus end the criminal investigation of him, he certainly had the authority to request the director of the FBI to end his investigation of Flynn.

So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/ ... wrong.html

[CID1990]

Yeah, I'd be curious to know what exactly was wrong in the NYT report.

The whole thing? There were no undisclosed contacts?

Even though, we now know there were undisclosed contacts that have been confirmed that we didn't know about in February - Sessions and Kushner admit to this. Maybe it was the number of contacts?

I think it's probably the characterization of the contacts. He made a point that Kislyak is a diplomat. The NYT story refers to "intelligence officials." Reuters report of 18 "undisclosed contacts" doesn't refer to them as "intelligence officials" but, simply "Russian officials." It could be that a CIA or NSA official who deals with foreign intelligence looks at Kislyak in a different light than someone in the FBI who deals with counterintelligence.

I don't know, but would like to know more about it.

Heck I should have checked out the NYT's response before I replied to you.

It looks like you had already read it.

I wonder how many people on the editorial board sat in on THAT meeting? (I already know... ALL of them)

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/u ... ussia.html

This quote from the article says it all:

"Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Here's something you can mark down:

Mueller isn't looking at the Trump campaign for collusion. He's already ruled it out. If he was looking at it, Comey wouldnt have been able to say half the things he said today.

Fascinating. So, this will probably be wrapped up sooner rather than later if he's not even investigating collusion anymore.

That was his primary task as outlined by Rosenstein.

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

So, it took him 2 weeks or so to wrap that up. I wonder how many interviews he did in that time? Maybe he didn't need any!

Shouldn't be long before he closes this!

Under budget and ahead of schedule. Draft Mueller for President 2020!

You're playing the "we'll see" game. I already see.

How's your "we'll see" game going on Susan Rice?

[SDHornet]

Let's see...

...Comey admits to being a leak...

...and admits to only taking notes and developing a memo on Trump because Trump...

...and admitted that there was no investigation into Trump and Trump wanted him to get to the bottom of any possible Russian collusion from "his satellites"...

...but Comey didn't want to go public about not being an investigation into Trump...

...after publicly sticking up for hildacunt...

BDKKK called it...this whole thing was one big nothingburger. Donks left with a bunch of shit on their faces.

[93henfan]

...this whole thing was one big nothingburger. Donks left with a bunch of shit on their faces.

[BDKJMU]

Edit-deleted. Flaggy already posted.

[Skjellyfetti]

Already been posted, BDK.

And, there are plenty of scholars arguing both ways now. Another Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe for one.

It's up to Mueller and a Grand Jury. Not Dershowitz or Laurence Tribe.

[GannonFan]

Already been posted, BDK.

And, there are plenty of scholars arguing both ways now. Another Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe for one.

It's up to Mueller and a Grand Jury. Not Dershowitz or Laurence Tribe.

Well, it's really up to Mueller if he wants to pursue it that far. If he goes to a Grand Jury it's because he's already decided he's going to bring it to trial - a Grand Jury would just be a rubber stamp. And in the end it would be up to an actual jury. But like I said before, unless it's an absolute slam dunk there's no way Mueller would pursue that - he's not going to pursue an obstruction of justice charge that has a chance to lose in court. It's gotta be a sure thing.

The Dershowitz angle does bring up a theme that Dems have been having trouble with - Trump, for all of his repugnance, is still actually the President. You could see it when they got outraged over Trump telling the Russians some foreign intelligence and they said he was "leaking" intel reports. Of course, the President can't "leak" any information like that since ultimately, the President determines what intelligence is and isn't allowed to be shared and whom to share it with. But the Resistance is pretty much predicated on believing that he's not truly the President. It may still come to be that way, but it isn't yet.

[CID1990]

Here's something you can mark down:

Mueller isn't looking at the Trump campaign for collusion. He's already ruled it out. If he was looking at it, Comey wouldnt have been able to say half the things he said today.

Fascinating. So, this will probably be wrapped up sooner rather than later if he's not even investigating collusion anymore.

That was his primary task as outlined by Rosenstein.

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

So, it took him 2 weeks or so to wrap that up. I wonder how many interviews he did in that time? Maybe he didn't need any!

Shouldn't be long before he closes this!

Under budget and ahead of schedule. Draft Mueller for President 2020!

You're playing the "we'll see" game. I already see.

How's your "we'll see" game going on Susan Rice?

You aren't using common sense (again)

Comey couldn't talk - not a word - about the Russian investigation if collusion was on the table.

Susan Rice went pretty well considering I called it. She's likely off the hook, but that's only because there's no paper trail where she's required to justify her actions.

I seem to recall you not knowing how I could possibly know it was her that unmasked Flynn.

[Skjellyfetti]

Comey couldn't talk - not a word - about the Russian investigation if collusion was on the table.

Well, he met with Mueller to discuss what he could and could not discuss. Mueller told him what he could and could not discuss.

He doesn't discuss the investigation much at all and declines to comment on it many times.

Spoiler: show

BURR: At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

COMEY: I think all I can say, Senator, is it’s a — the special counsel’s investigation is very important

HEINRICH: What would be the risks particularly for a transition, someone not actually in the office of the president yet, to setting up unauthorized channels with a hostile foreign government, especially if they were to evade our own American intelligence services?

COMEY: I’m not going to comment on whether that happened in an open setting.

KING: With regard to the question of him being under personal — personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way?

COMEY: I obviously can’t — I can’t comment either way. I can’t talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was the head of the FBI. And obviously it’s — it’s Director Mueller’s — Bob Mueller’s responsibility now, so I just — I don’t know.

COTTON: Let’s turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here: Russia’s hacking into those e-mails and releasing them, and the allegations of collusion. Do you believe Donald Trump colluded with Russia?

COMEY: That’s a question I don’t think I should answer in an open setting. As I said, that — we didn’t — that (ph) when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that’s a question that’ll be answered by the investigation, I think.

HARRIS: I have a series of questions to ask you, and — and they’re going to start with, are you aware of any meetings between the Trump administration officials and Russian officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the White House?

COMEY: That’s not a — even if I remember clearly, that’s a not a question I can answer in an open setting.

HARRIS: Are you aware of any efforts by Trump campaign officials or associates of the campaign to hide their communications with Russian officials through encrypted communications or other means?

COMEY: I have to give you same answer, Senator.

HARRIS: Sure.

In the course of the FBI’s investigation, did you ever come across anything that suggested that communications, records, documents or other evidence had been destroyed?

COMEY: I think I’ve got to give you the same answer, because it — it would touch investigative matters.

HARRIS: And are you aware of any efforts or potential efforts to conceal communications between campaign officials and Russian officials?

COMEY: I think I have to give you the same answer, Senator.

But, again. If you're correct and Mueller is completely done with the collusion question - surely it wouldn't take much longer to wrap it up, correct? Why is he still hiring prosecutors for his team just this week?
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ump-239163

Mueller is meeting with Burr and Warner next week. If he's wrapped up the collusion investigation, I guess we'll see a different tone from them... especially Burr afterwards, right?

Susan Rice went pretty well considering I called it. She's likely off the hook, but that's only because there's no paper trail where she's required to justify her actions.

I seem to recall you not knowing how I could possibly know it was her that unmasked Flynn.

Not really. After you explained your reasoning I said:

It's possible it came from a cabinet member. But, it would have had to be approved by the FBI or NSA as relevant to the investigation, no?

If the White House forced the NSA to unmask someone's name, against their wishes or against standard procedures... then it is certainly a scandal. But, I'm not seeing any smoke here. Are you?

If the NSA only unmasked names relevant to the FBI investigation according to standard procedures... what is the scandal?

Any smoke at all, Cid?



You and 93 called this fake news... but, there hasn't been much outcry among Republicans on the intelligence committee about unmasking issue after viewing relevant documents. Why?

A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres ... ns-n747406

[CID1990]

Comey couldn't talk - not a word - about the Russian investigation if collusion was on the table.

Well, he met with Mueller to discuss what he could and could not discuss. Mueller told him what he could and could not discuss.

He doesn't discuss the investigation much at all and declines to comment on it many times.

Spoiler: show

BURR: At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

COMEY: I think all I can say, Senator, is it’s a — the special counsel’s investigation is very important

HEINRICH: What would be the risks particularly for a transition, someone not actually in the office of the president yet, to setting up unauthorized channels with a hostile foreign government, especially if they were to evade our own American intelligence services?

COMEY: I’m not going to comment on whether that happened in an open setting.

KING: With regard to the question of him being under personal — personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way?

COMEY: I obviously can’t — I can’t comment either way. I can’t talk in an open setting about the investigation as it was when I was the head of the FBI. And obviously it’s — it’s Director Mueller’s — Bob Mueller’s responsibility now, so I just — I don’t know.

COTTON: Let’s turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here: Russia’s hacking into those e-mails and releasing them, and the allegations of collusion. Do you believe Donald Trump colluded with Russia?

COMEY: That’s a question I don’t think I should answer in an open setting. As I said, that — we didn’t — that (ph) when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that’s a question that’ll be answered by the investigation, I think.

HARRIS: I have a series of questions to ask you, and — and they’re going to start with, are you aware of any meetings between the Trump administration officials and Russian officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the White House?

COMEY: That’s not a — even if I remember clearly, that’s a not a question I can answer in an open setting.

HARRIS: Are you aware of any efforts by Trump campaign officials or associates of the campaign to hide their communications with Russian officials through encrypted communications or other means?

COMEY: I have to give you same answer, Senator.

HARRIS: Sure.

In the course of the FBI’s investigation, did you ever come across anything that suggested that communications, records, documents or other evidence had been destroyed?

COMEY: I think I’ve got to give you the same answer, because it — it would touch investigative matters.

HARRIS: And are you aware of any efforts or potential efforts to conceal communications between campaign officials and Russian officials?

COMEY: I think I have to give you the same answer, Senator.

But, again. If you're correct and Mueller is completely done with the collusion question - surely it wouldn't take much longer to wrap it up, correct? Why is he still hiring prosecutors for his team just this week?
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ump-239163

Mueller is meeting with Burr and Warner next week. If he's wrapped up the collusion investigation, I guess we'll see a different tone from them... especially Burr afterwards, right?

Susan Rice went pretty well considering I called it. She's likely off the hook, but that's only because there's no paper trail where she's required to justify her actions.

I seem to recall you not knowing how I could possibly know it was her that unmasked Flynn.

Not really. After you explained your reasoning I said:

It's possible it came from a cabinet member. But, it would have had to be approved by the FBI or NSA as relevant to the investigation, no?

If the White House forced the NSA to unmask someone's name, against their wishes or against standard procedures... then it is certainly a scandal. But, I'm not seeing any smoke here. Are you?

If the NSA only unmasked names relevant to the FBI investigation according to standard procedures... what is the scandal?

Any smoke at all, Cid?



You and 93 called this fake news... but, there hasn't been much outcry among Republicans on the intelligence committee about unmasking issue after viewing relevant documents. Why?

A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres ... ns-n747406

You're sounding awfully triggered SK

If you want to move the goalposts go right ahead - but I haven't called anything fake news - and I've acknowledged later that Rice is almost certainly going to get a pass because she can argue wide authority to unmask USCs

I correctly predicted that it was her that unmasked Flynn - something you questioned at the time. And I concluded it was Rice because I use common sense and I know how it works

I'm now concluding collusion is off the table and Flynn has nothing for the same reasons - you should try common sense and I can fill in the inside baseball for you

[Ibanez]

Let's see...

...Comey admits to being a leak...

...and admits to only taking notes and developing a memo on Trump because Trump...

...and admitted that there was no investigation into Trump and Trump wanted him to get to the bottom of any possible Russian collusion from "his satellites"...

...but Comey didn't want to go public about not being an investigation into Trump...

...after publicly sticking up for hildacunt...

BDKKK called it...this whole thing was one big nothingburger. Donks left with a bunch of shit on their faces.

I get the sense that Trump is more of a puppet than anything else.

[CAA Flagship]

Let's see...

...Comey admits to being a leak...

...and admits to only taking notes and developing a memo on Trump because Trump...

...and admitted that there was no investigation into Trump and Trump wanted him to get to the bottom of any possible Russian collusion from "his satellites"...

...but Comey didn't want to go public about not being an investigation into Trump...

...after publicly sticking up for hildacunt...

BDKKK called it...this whole thing was one big nothingburger. Donks left with a bunch of shit on their faces.

I get the sense that Trump is more of a puppet than anything else.

What?? How so??

[Ibanez]

I get the sense that Trump is more of a puppet than anything else.

What?? How so??

I just get that feeling. Trump seems like a complete idiot, unaware of how government works and his policies just seem to be co-opted from the Tea Party and far right nutjobs - like Bannon.

[CAA Flagship]

What?? How so??

I just get that feeling. Trump seems like a complete idiot, unaware of how government works and his policies just seem to be co-opted from the Tea Party and far right nutjobs - like Bannon.

Maybe. But maybe not. It's possible he did exactly what he wanted to do (let Comey know that he hoped that Flynn would be left alone) knowing full well that it's perfectly legal because he has the authority to cease any investigation for any reason and/or can pardon anyone. Maybe this was a way to let Comey hang himself. This turned out to be an evaluation of Comey as much as anything else. Look at all the people Monday-morning-quarterbacking his decisions over the last year. This just did not turn out well for Comey, and in many minds it justifies the firing. Trump just won. Crazy like a fox?



Yeah, I feel dirty now. Time for a shower.

[SDHornet]

I just get that feeling. Trump seems like a complete idiot, unaware of how government works and his policies just seem to be co-opted from the Tea Party and far right nutjobs - like Bannon.

Maybe. But maybe not. It's possible he did exactly what he wanted to do (let Comey know that he hoped that Flynn would be left alone) knowing full well that it's perfectly legal because he has the authority to cease any investigation for any reason and/or can pardon anyone. Maybe this was a way to let Comey hang himself. This turned out to be an evaluation of Comey as much as anything else. Look at all the people Monday-morning-quarterbacking his decisions over the last year. This just did not turn out well for Comey, and in many minds it justifies the firing. Trump just won. Crazy like a fox?



Yeah, I feel dirty now. Time for a shower.

This. Also heard on the radio that Comey's timeline of when he decided to leak doesn't add up...i.e. the leak to the NYT occurred before his firing.

The whole "Trump colluding with Russia" narative just blew up in the donks faces...whoops...

[Skjellyfetti]

This. Also heard on the radio that Comey's timeline of when he decided to leak doesn't add up...i.e. the leak to the NYT occurred before his firing.

Comey was fired May 9.

Trump tweeted about tapes of their conversations on May 12

Comey memo story published May 16.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/p ... ation.html

If there's a theory he leaked the memo prior to May 9... I sure haven't seen any evidence.

And if Comey so demonstrably lied under oath... It's an easy perjury case.

[SDHornet]

This. Also heard on the radio that Comey's timeline of when he decided to leak doesn't add up...i.e. the leak to the NYT occurred before his firing.

Comey was fired May 9.

Trump tweeted about tapes of their conversations on May 12

Comey memo story published May 16.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/p ... ation.html

If there's a theory he leaked the memo prior to May 9... I sure haven't seen any evidence.

Irregardless Comey acted with Trump like he did with no others and tried to play it off as Trump being the odd one and it turns out nothing is there. Go figure.

[kalm]

Comey was fired May 9.

Trump tweeted about tapes of their conversations on May 12

Comey memo story published May 16.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/p ... ation.html

If there's a theory he leaked the memo prior to May 9... I sure haven't seen any evidence.

Irregardless Comey acted with Trump like he did with no others and tried to play it off as Trump being the odd one and it turns out nothing is there. Go figure.

CID will not like this post one bit.

[CAA Flagship]

This. Also heard on the radio that Comey's timeline of when he decided to leak doesn't add up...i.e. the leak to the NYT occurred before his firing.

Comey was fired May 9.

Trump tweeted about tapes of their conversations on May 12

Comey memo story published May 16.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/p ... ation.html

If there's a theory he leaked the memo prior to May 9... I sure haven't seen any evidence.

And if Comey so demonstrably lied under oath... It's an easy perjury case.

But the contents of the memo was in the NYT on May 11.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/p ... .html?_r=0

[CID1990]

Irregardless Comey acted with Trump like he did with no others and tried to play it off as Trump being the odd one and it turns out nothing is there. Go figure.

CID will not like this post one bit.

It's like fingernails on a chalkboard I tell you

[SDHornet]

Irregardless Comey acted with Trump like he did with no others and tried to play it off as Trump being the odd one and it turns out nothing is there. Go figure.

CID will not like this post one bit.

[Skjellyfetti]

Mueller still hiring prosecutors. This is closer to the beginning of Mueller's investigation than the end.

One of the federal government’s top criminal law specialists is joining the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III centered on possible coordination between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials.

Justice Department deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is the department’s go-to lawyer on criminal justice cases and is highly respected by Democrats and Republicans because of his encyclopedic knowledge of criminal law.

Dreeben will work part time for Mueller, according to Justice officials, while he continues to oversee the department’s criminal appellate cases.

Former and current Justice Department officials say that Mueller’s recruitment of Dreeben shows how serious he is about the investigation and signals complexities in the probe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 7cf055f92c

[BDKJMU]

Mueller still hiring prosecutors. This is closer to the beginning of Mueller's investigation than the end.

One of the federal government’s top criminal law specialists is joining the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III centered on possible coordination between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials.

Justice Department deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is the department’s go-to lawyer on criminal justice cases and is highly respected by Democrats and Republicans because of his encyclopedic knowledge of criminal law.

Dreeben will work part time for Mueller, according to Justice officials, while he continues to oversee the department’s criminal appellate cases.

Former and current Justice Department officials say that Mueller’s recruitment of Dreeben shows how serious he is about the investigation and signals complexities in the probe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 7cf055f92c

Mueller was named going on a month ago (May 17) and FBI investigation has been going on a year now (last July)...