Steve ClemonsVerified account @SCClemons 5m5 minutes ago
Steve Clemons Retweeted Simon Maloy
As reported by CNN in June "House Benghazi report strategically leaked in apparent orchestrated blitz" http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/28/media/h ... zi-report/ …Steve Clemons added,
Simon MaloyVerified account @SimonMaloy
Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee leaked like a damn colander
seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:16 am wrote:first name out of the box during Schiff's opening remarks
Gen. Flynn....LIED..IS PRAISED BY TRUMP
Schiff: Russia Weaponized cyberwarfare Operations to damage Clinton. Did Americans assist Russian using Bribery, blackmail?
Schiff quoting from the Steele dossier!
Is it possible all this is a coincidence ...yes possible ....
Yep Conways husband DID represent a company charged with bribing Russian officials
kool maudit » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:50 am wrote:Is the 'Russia hack' thing only the DNC emails release or is there another part to it?
seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:36 am wrote:Comey says Russia/Trump campaign investigation has been going on since late July.Malcolm NanceVerified account @MalcolmNance 10s10 seconds ago
15. @AdamSchiffCA get Comey to admit There was a "cut out" (3rd party) operating between Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks. Who?
Rep. Himes: "Our new president will attack anyone." Hamilton cast, Streep, Australia. But not one: Putin.
seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:00 am wrote:
According to Trump, Comey is now investigating fake news. So shouldn't Trump fire him?
Republicans desperately push media leaks over Russian actual intelligence ops against USA.Comey
ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedMARCH 20, 2017, 10:45 AM EDT
Comey: "I've been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts."
The significance is all in the final clause. This is a continuing investigation - last issue is not resolved.
Comey drops the bombshell that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia and Devin Nunes immediately pivots to leaks.
. DIRNSA refutes Trump assertion. GCHQ claim false & illegal. Agreed Brit statement that it was "ridiculous & nonsense"
asks about Roger Stone adv awareness Wikileaks & Podesta emails. Comey refuses comment. That hints link to investigationJohn SchindlerVerified account @20committee 3m3 minutes ago
Comey just hinted, by omission, that IC+FBI have classified information about Roger Stone's collusion with Wikileaks & Moscow.
Whoopsie...John SchindlerVerified account @20committee 17h17 hours ago
I've tracked Russia's global disinformation network for 2 decades. Putin's lie machine now includes the White House.John SchindlerVerified account @20committee 17m17 minutes ago
Gowdy's just beclowning himself. We get it: leaks are bad. Very bad.
Forcing FBI dir to state AGAIN it's illegal.
Missing word: Russia.
Oh good. Trey Gowdy now questioning whether journalists can be prosecuted for reporting on classified information.Malcolm NanceVerified account
14. @TGowdySC now playing role of McCarthy by naming Dem admin pers to lay out case to investigate them. Wow! Moscows tool. #RussiaHearings
kool maudit » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:53 am wrote:Can you just quickly tell me if there is something else that Moscow is generally suspected to have done by people who are very outraged etc. by this?
Laura Rozen @lrozen 6m6 minutes ago
Comey: Mr. Putin would prefer candidate who liked him. Schiff: would they like to see more Brexits? comey: yes.
Caputo resigns from Trump campaign after tweet, says he's 'falling on his sword'
http://buffalonews.com/2016/06/20/caput ... ign-tweet/
Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 93ed158fdf
ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedMARCH 20, 2017, 1:32 PM EDT
It is worth remembering that with any other President, making up out of whole cloth false allegations of serious crimes on the part of his predecessor, would trigger at least talk of resignation.
In this case, most seem willing to move on since it's now been shown that the President was clearly lying.
Welp, That Was Interesting
ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedMARCH 6, 2017, 3:35 PM EDT
I've mentioned a few times that a big source on Felix Sater, his criminal background and his cooperation with the federal government is the memoir written by his longtime accomplice and coworker Salvatore Lauria. This is a book called The Scorpion and the Frog: High Times and High Crimes which was written by Lauria and a journalist named David S. Barry. I just talked to Barry about the book and Lauria and Sater. It was pretty fascinating.
We discussed the deal that Lauria and Sater allegedly made with the federal government to try to purchase stinger missiles from Osama bin Laden - missiles the CIA was the ultimate source of and which the CIA wanted back. This was not long before 9/11. The deal fell apart. According to the book Lauria and Barry co-wrote, after 9/11 the federal government got a lot more interested in what Lauria and Sater might have to offer, not surprisingly. That was at the start of roughly eight more years in which Sater worked simultaneously both as an FBI informant and - for most of the time - a key business associate of Donald Trump's. Here's a backgrounder on Sater. This post also goes into details about his background and his business relationship with the President.
Sater remains a very interesting person for Trump to have been in business with.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wel ... nteresting
FBI’s Trump-Russia probe knocks White House on its heels
Trump’s team scrambles to contain fallout as Comey confirms investigation and debunks wiretapping claim.
By SHANE GOLDMACHER and MATTHEW NUSSBAUM 03/20/17 01:43 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The White House was knocked on the defensive Monday ahead of its biggest week yet on Capitol Hill as F.B.I. Director James Comey confirmed the existence of an active investigation into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election, including whether there was any coordination with now-President Donald Trump’s team.
The dramatic revelation, made at a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee, dragged the Trump administration yet again back into uncomfortable territory just as they had hoped to highlight the smooth rollout of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, who began his confirmation hearings across the Capitol on Monday.
In another blow to Trump, Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers also publicly refuted his unsubstantiated claims on Twitter that President Barack Obama had ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower phones. The leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had said last week that Trump’s allegations were untrue.
“I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI,” Comey said.
The White House scrambled to contain the fallout, deploying two simultaneous war rooms, according to two people familiar with the arrangement, one in the Executive Office Building to monitor the Comey hearing and another satellite war room in the Senate offices to keep tabs on Gorsuch.
But any hopes in the West Wing for a split-screen day were dashed with the revelation of an active probe into campaign associates of the president. At the White House, televisions in the press offices played the Comey hearing as it ran live on all the cable networks.
“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counter-intelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey said, “And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.”
Comey said the probe will “include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”
Comey himself tried not to overstate the investigation, and caused a laugh when pushed if talk of Trump’s ties to Russia was a form a “McCarthyism.”
“I try very hard not to engage in any ‘isms’ of any kind, including McCarthyism,” he said.
He also revealed that the FBI launched its investigation into possible ties between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials back in July – a detail that enraged allies of Hillary Clinton, considering Comey chose to confirm the existence of the probe into her email arrangement, but not the one into Trump’s campaign.
“Nothing has changed. Senior Obama intelligence officials have gone on record to confirm there is NO EVIDENCE of Trump-Russia collusion and there is NO EVIDENCE of a Trump-Russia scandal,” a White House spokesperson said in an email. “Obama's CIA director said so. Obama's Director of National Intelligence said so. We take them at their word.”
In addition to Gorsuch’s confirmation, the House is pushing for a floor vote Thursday on the plan of Speaker Paul Ryan and the White House to repeal and replace Obamacare. White House press secretary Sean Spicer was set to answer questions later Monday, and Trump will travel to Kentucky for a rally.
Trump’s war room teams, meanwhile, offered a preview of what is likely to come as they cherry-picked elements from Comey and Rogers to make it seem as if Russia hadn’t meddled in the election.
“The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process,” Trump tweeted a clip of the testimony from the official @POTUS account.
That is not accurate, or at the least is misleading. Comey and Rogers testified that Russia had not altered vote tallies, though acknowledged they could not judge whether the Russian efforts had any influence on voters.
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Trump himself began the pushback before the hearings even began, with a burst of morning tweets attacking the media, Clinton, polls and the Democratic Party. “The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!” Trump tweeted.
Republicans on the Hill followed that lead, aggressively questioning how classified information had leaked while giving lighter treatment to the existence of the FBI investigation and its implications for the president.
Rep. Trey Gowdy seemed to suggest journalists should be prosecuted for printing classified information. He implored Comey to say leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times were being investigated. (Comey declined.)
Meanwhile, Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign need more examination regarding Russia ties. And Republican Rep. Mike Conaway tried to cast doubt on the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russian interference aimed to help Trump.
The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Adam Schiff, tried to keep the focus on the newly confirmed FBI probe.
“If the Trump campaign, or anybody associated with it, aided or abetted the Russians, it would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of our democracy in history,” Schiff said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/f ... ing-236265
Rory » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:56 am wrote:https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/19/nyts-tinfoil-hat-conspiracy-theory/
Excelent article by Parry, deconstructing the hysterical, McCarthite myths behind the retarded RUSSIA loons such as Louise MenschSaturday, the Times devoted most of its op-ed page to the Times’ favorite conspiracy theory, that Trump is Vladimir Putin’s “Manchurian candidate” though evidence continues to be lacking.
The op-ed package combined a “What to Ask About Russian Hacking” article by Louise Mensch, a former Conservative member of the British Parliament who now works for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, and a connect-the-dots graphic that when filled out shows the Kremlin sitting atop the White House. But the featured article actually revealed how flimsy and wacky the Times’ conspiracy theory is.
Usually, an investigation doesn’t begin until there is specific evidence of a crime. For instance, the investigative articles that I have written over the years have always had information from insiders about how the misconduct had occurred before a single word was published.
In the early 1990s, for the investigation that I conducted for PBS “Frontline” into the so-called “October Surprise” case – whether Ronald Reagan’s campaign colluded with Iranians and others to sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages in 1980 – we had some two dozen people providing information about those contacts from multiple perspectives – including from the U.S., Iran, Israel and Europe – before we aired the allegations.
We didn’t base our documentary on the suspicious circumstance that the Iranians held back the hostages until after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated President on Jan. 20, 1981, or on the point that Iran and the Republicans had motives to sandbag Carter. We didn’t casually throw out the names of a bunch of people who might have committed treason.
When we broadcast the documentary in April 1991, there was a strong evidentiary case of the Reagan’s campaign guilt – and even then we were highly circumspect in how we presented the story.
Ultimately, the 1980 “October Surprise” case came down to whether you believed the Republican denials or the two dozen or so witnesses who described how this operation was carried out with the help of the Israeli government, French intelligence, and former and current CIA officers – along with former CIA Director George H.W. Bush and future CIA Director William Casey.
In the end, Official Washington was never willing to accept that the beloved Ronald Reagan could have done something as dastardly as conspire with Iranians to delay the release of 52 American hostages. It didn’t matter what the evidence was or that Reagan quickly approved arms shipments to Iran via Israel in 1981, a prequel to the later Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal of 1985-86.
No Direct Evidence
By contrast, what the current “Russia Owns Trump” allegations are completely lacking is an insider who describes any nefarious collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to arrange the Kremlin’s help in defeating Hillary Clinton and electing Donald Trump.
What we do have is President Barack Obama’s outgoing intelligence chiefs putting out evidence-free “assessments” that Russia was responsible for the “hacking” and the publicizing of two batches of Democratic emails, one from the Democratic National Committee and one from Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.
The DNC emails revealed that top Democratic Party officials had violated their duty to remain neutral during the primaries and instead tilted the playing field in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Podesta emails exposed the contents of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.
When published by WikiLeaks last year, the emails embarrassed the Clinton campaign but were not regarded as a major factor in her defeat, which she blamed primarily on FBI Director James Comey’s decision to briefly reopen the investigation into whether she endangered national security by using a private email server while Secretary of State.
However, after the shock of Donald Trump’s election, Clinton supporters looked for reasons to block Trump’s inauguration or to set the stage for his impeachment. That was when Obama’s intelligence chiefs began circulating claims that Russia was behind the leaking of the Democratic emails as part of a scheme to put their favored candidate, Trump, in the White House.
The New York Times and other mainstream news outlets, which were strongly hostile to Trump, seized on the allegations, making them front-page news for the past several months despite the paucity of actual evidence that any collusion occurred or that the Russians were even the ones who obtained and distributed the emails.
WikiLeaks denied getting the material from the Russians, suggesting instead that two different American insiders were the sources.
A Witch Hunt?
How thin the Russia-Trump case is becomes evident in reading the Times’ op-ed by Louise Mensch. After introducing herself as someone who has “followed the Russian hacking story closely,” she lists 25 people by name, including various Trump advisers as well as Internet moguls Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel, who should be hauled before the House Intelligence Committee for interrogation along with unnamed executives of several corporations and banks.
“There are many more who need to be called but these would be a first step,” Mensch wrote. In reviewing Mensch’s long article, it’s unclear if she’s proposing only a “fishing expedition” or would prefer a full-fledged “witch hunt.”
At one point earlier in this process, I wrote an article warning that the “investigation” could become something of a “did-you-talk-to-a-Russian” inquisition. Some readers probably felt I was going too far, but that now appears to be exactly what is happening.
Many of Mensch’s suggestions pertain to people associated with the Trump campaign who game speeches in Moscow or otherwise communicated with Russians. It appears any contact with a Russian, any discussion of disagreements between the U.S. and Russia, or any political comment that in any way echoes what some Russian may have said becomes “evidence” of collusion and treason.
The extremism of Mensch’s tendentious article is further illustrated by her suggestion that Trump should be impeached if there is any truth to his widely discredited tweet that Obama had ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower. She wrote:
“If … the president tweeted real news, he revealed the existence of intercepts that cover members of his team in a continuing investigation. That would be obstruction of justice, potentially an impeachable offense.”
Most of us who have reported on Trump’s bizarre “tapp” tweet have criticized him for making a serious charge without evidence (as well as his poor spelling), but Mensch seems to believe that the more serious offense would be if Trump somehow were telling the truth. She wants any truth-telling on this issue to be grounds for Trump’s impeachment, even though he may have been referring, in part, to her November article reporting on the FISA warrant that supposedly granted permission for members of Trump’s team to be put under electronic surveillance.
A Tinfoil Hat
To dramatize her arguments further, Mensch then demonstrates a thorough lack of knowledge about recent American history. She claims, “Never in American history has a president been suspected of collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.”
Whatever you want to think about the 1980 October Surprise case – and there is substantial evidence that it was real – it definitely constituted an example in American history when a president was “suspected of collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.”
Another case in 1968, which now even The New York Times grudgingly accepts, involved Richard Nixon colluding with the South Vietnamese government to torpedo President Lyndon Johnson’s Paris peace talks to assure Nixon’s election. Although South Vietnam was then an ally, the allegations about Nixon also included outreach to North Vietnam, although Hanoi ended up sending a delegation to Paris while Saigon did not.
Yet, what is perhaps most shocking about Mensch’s op-ed and its prominent placement by the Times is that the story has all the elements of a “tinfoil-hat” conspiracy. It’s the sort of wild-eyed smearing of American citizens that the Times would normally deride as an offensive fantasy that would be mentioned only to mock the conspiracists.
But the Times is now so deep into its campaign to demonize Russia and to destroy Trump that all normal journalistic standards have long ago been tossed out the window.
While there are many valid reasons to protest Trump and his policies, this descent into a New McCarthyism is both grotesque (because it impugns the patriotism of Americans without evidence, only breathless questions) and dangerous (because it escalates the New Cold War with Russia, a confrontation that could stumble into a nuclear holocaust).
At such moments, supposedly serious newspapers like The New York Times should show extraordinary caution and care, not a reckless disregard for truth and fairness. But no one in Official Washington seems willing to play the role of attorney Joseph Welch when he finally stood up to Sen. Joe McCarthy with the famous question, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Adam Khan Retweeted Adam Khan
Key takeaway from the thread: Hillary was standing between Putin and $1.2 trillion.
https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/ ... 7613469697
Users browsing this forum: norton ash and 22 guests