I expect all those zeroes @BooMan will be repealed?
Comey testified the NY Times article of Feb. 14th was bogus!
○ Comey Debunks NYT Report About Trump Campaign Having Repeated Contacts With Russians
Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence | CNBC-Reuters |
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials .
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.
However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
« click for more info
FILE - In this Jan. 28, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump accompanied by, from second from left, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Vice President Mike Pence, White House press secretary Sean Spicer and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn speaks on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
Front page article here @BooMan in comments here and here.
[Update-1] Sessions Hearing: ‘No Collusion with Russians’
○ Sessions: Suggestion I was involved in collusion with Russians is a ‘detestable lie’ | WaPo |
Conservative News Service.
Comey’s quoted statement hardly “debunks” anything. “In the main” is a vague sort-of-denial that admits some parts are true and avoids saying which parts.
Yep. CNS has a reputation for being unreliable and biased. The link to the CNS article is useful only insofar as it gives insight into how the right-wing sites are spinning Comey’s testimony.
○ Transcript and Video Comey Testimony
NYT has looked at that reporting and they’re saying “not sure which aspect Comey had a problem with, but we double checked it and nope, nothing was wrong here.”
But even if it was wrong, I’m not sure how you’re vindicated at all. Vindicated about what? Have you made any specific claims? Man Oui, you’re really invested in this narrative just to hold the line. Pride getting hurt just a tad?
Trump claimed he was vindicated as well by Comey’s testimony. Odd.
Oui writes:
“I expect all those zeroes @BooMan will be repealed?”
Don’t hold your breath, Oui. This site is square in the middle of the whole Russiagate hustle. They think that it will somehow help the Dems.
Short term? It or it may not.
Long-term?
Only the health of the country as a whole will help anybody. Neither Trump nor the bi-party center (My new word…neocentrists.) have a clue about how to do that.
Back to neolib/neocon failure or onward towards Trumpian disaster.
What a choice!!!
Later…
AG
Opinions over @ET
So, the FBI didn’t open a counterintelligence investigation? So, it hasn’t already been testified to that Trump associates had contacts with the Russians in that time period and sought to conceal those contacts?
What is debunked here?
NYT’s claim of an FBI investigation. Unless “investigation” was used in the loosest possible way.
○ Comey Disputes New York Times Article About Russia Investigation | NY Times |
Wrong.
The investigation has been confirmed six ways to Sunday. There are sitting Grand Juries. Comey has confirmed it. The White House has acknowledged it. Comey actually referred to it repeatedly just yesterday.
There were FISA warrants issued as far back as a year ago. Carter Page, Manafort and Flynn have been under surveillance. All of them have known contacts with Russians that have been reported on independent of any classified information.
If there’s even a nugget of refutal in what Comey said it would be in defining what it means to refer to Russian “intelligence” versus just Russians officials and oligarchs.
From NPR “James Comey Testimony”
Trump is not (or was not) the subject of an FBI investigation
Comey said that as of his dismissal on May 9, Trump was not personally under investigation. But he also testified that another member of the FBI’s leadership team believed that Trump’s conduct “will fall within the scope” of the Russia investigation and was therefore “reluctant” to assure the president that he was not personally under investigation.
Note: an unamed “other” “believes” “will”
NPR not the neolib Press lynch mob.
Now for some unsubstantiated opinion of my own. This whole Russia hurrah is designed to cover up the atrocious policy moving through Congress without nary a word of opposition from Democrats. Americans will wake up one morning soon to find not that Trump was a russian agent, but that their is no EPA, Civil servant retirement and health care has been stripped, SS has been gutted, the EPA emasculated and any bigot can cite “religious objections” to any law.
Duopoly? Bill Clinton’s administration was full of Goldman-sachs’ people, Hillary’s campaign was full of them and Trump’s administration has 8 or 9 top people who were (are?) G-S executives. Might as well mark our currency “IN G-S WE TRUST”
I know you’re not shocked that the FBI counterintelligence unit didn’t want to open a file on the Republican nominee for president during his campaign.
What they did instead was open a file on his campaign manager, the man who would become his National Security Adviser, and some of his friends, campaign workers, and advisers.
In some worlds, maybe yours, this is exculpatory.
But it’s like a situation where you’re the CEO of a company suspected of trading with the enemy during wartime and your entire operation is under scrutiny and surveillance but you yourself don’t have a manila folder at FBI headquarters with your name on it.
Spy/counterspy.
Bunk/debunk.
How does one “debunk” things that have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
And where is that proof, Booman?
In the testimony of people who have been previously quite thoroughly proven to be serial liars?
Show me the proof, Booman!
Show me the proof.
I would love to see proof that Trump and all of his allies were bought and sold agents of Russian attempts to tear down this system one electoral brick at a time.
I would be equally happy to see real proof that HRC’s forces actively conspired…in an unlawful manner…to block Sanders’ candidacy.
As has been commented upon fairly widely so far today, Corbyn’s “unexpected” rise to power in the UK parallels Sanders’s candidacy…up to a point.
Up to the point where Corbyn was not illegally blocked from a fair attempt at that candidacy by the Labour Party. Not effectviely, anyway.
In a parallel universe…one where Sanders beat HRC in the primaries and went on to beat whomever was nominated by the Ratpubs in the election…I would bet that it would be Sanders who was under attack (under whatever pretexts) by the neocentrists instead of Trump.
It’s all hustle, Booman.
All of it.
Truth?
It’s what’s for dinner in a postfactual world.
Eat lightly, and beware of poisons.
There may be a recall coming soon.
Watch.
AG
P.S. “Postfactual”
A mind experiment here:
Trump has hinted at “tapes” of his Comey meeting(s).
Suppose he produces them and they support his story.
What guarantees are there that they have not been altered?
Digitally speaking, one can do absolute miracles with recorded information.
Who ya gonna believe?
It all comes down to that.
Who do you trust?
The old TV quiz show.
By the time the scene is over, the point has already been lost.
Eat that pudding at your own mortal risk, Booman.
It’s all artificial.
Number one, Corbyn didn’t “rise to power.” His party just lost an election and will serve in the minority. He lost less badly than expected, which isn’t even as good as Hillary who lost by a tiny amount and actually pulled more votes.
“Unexpected” for the Blairites who were trying to deep six his prospects.
#1 – May/Tories called a snap election because they expected a landslide win.
#2 – For nearly two years the entire UK media and the Blair (aka neoliberal) wing of the Labour party has been trashing Corbyn as …. (fill in the blank because there aren’t many negative adjectives that weren’t unused).
#3 – SNP screwed up big time. Unlike England, voter participation in Scotland was down. Perhaps if the UK general elections were six months instead of sixty days, Corbyn would have worked Scotland.
Care to wager on who remains in office the longest: PM May or POTUS Trump?
Corbyn ran a good campaign. May did not.
But I’m impatient with people making too much of it.
Corbyn got more votes than expected but Labour is still in the minority. Clinton won the popular vote and so clearly did some things right. But she’s not the president. Trump is the president.
They’re in basically the same boat, with the only difference that one was expected to win and one was expected to do much worse.
Both lead or led parties that are in deep shit, and neither of them can point to their programs or campaigns as recipes for victory.
Well, you’ll be very impatient with me then. And lots of Brits too, judging from UK media reports (scanning Guardian and Independent UK) which have PM May on the defensive and on the ropes as she struggles to hold onto her leadership position. Public griping about her from her own party (granted, only a few at this point) as well as Labour/Corbyn calling for her to step down.
In the same boat as Clinton? Shirley you jest. Once HC lost the EC, she was done. Not even much of a chance of coming back in 3 yrs for another try. And even if the Donald is impeached, convicted, and frog-marched into fed court over some possible money laundering scheme w/Russkie mafia, his replacement would still be a Gooper and the Dems would still be a fairly weak minority party in Congress.
Corbyn by contrast stands poised to possibly take over as PM if the Tories can’t make politically suitable arrangements with the RWNJ DUP ( a party as stupid as the sound of the acronym suggests) or have such arrangement agreed to by Parliament this week. There’s a very real possibility of another election having to be called by the end of this year/early next.
A dicey situation unfolding, and some of us néophytes to Brit elections are just trying to understand the various moving parts and how things could transpire. Some are comparing it to 1974 and Tory Ted Heath barely hanging on after a snap election only to be forced to step down a few months after winning a very narrow election victory. I suspect May will follow a similar course.
This indy site explains and clarifies:
Corbyn: “I can still be Prime Minister. This is still on. Absolutely.”
How? Because May has to present her legislative programme to Parliament via the Queen’s speech on 19 June. MPs then have six days to debate it before voting on it on 27 June. If it gets voted down, it will effectively constitute a vote of no confidence in May’s minority government.
And Corbyn thinks there may be enough opposition in Parliament – including on the government’s backbenches – to vote the government down:
“We will – obviously – amend the Queen’s Speech. There’s a possibility of voting it down it and we’re going to push that all the way.”
If the government is voted down, the Queen would then invite Corbyn to try to form a government. And he is ready to put forward his own Queen’s speech. If that was voted through, Corbyn would become Prime Minister. If it was also voted down, it would trigger another general election – and that would be bad news for the Conservatives.
Re party unity: Labour seems to be rallying around Corbyn after his very strong showing. The Tories, otoh, look to be far more the party in disarray.
Party programs? Probably Labour’s fairly clean and crisp progressive platform suited the anti-austerity/neoliberalism mood of the public, especially the youth.
Today a post-election poll out by the Daily Mail (which had polled accurately before the election) now shows a public preference for Labour at 6 points ahead of the Tories — an 8 point increase just in the last 3 days. Probably owing to a mix of Corbyn’s fine campaign and leadership as well as Labour’s platform.
Duncan explains for those in need or a primer:
>>His party just lost an election
his party gained 32 seats. another loss as bad as that one makes him PM.
Brent Bozell’s news service? Brent Bozell, the nephew of William Buckley?
This is the objective standard now? Along with Pat Robertson’s Christian News Service?
Time to stop trying to ferret out the truth behind the multiple information wars.
No one has come forward with the Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why of this situation and when they have they’ve been promptly arrested.
Meanwhile the sickest and most counterproductive narrative is starting: Pelosi 2018. Yep, dad and brother had great clean records as mayors of Baltimore. As clean as their contemporary, Richard J. Daley. Are we back to longing for competent graft?
Truthfully? To a very real extent, yes.
Competent graft for all the bullshit and evil it was and is, at least made the trains run on time and left us debating actual policies instead of struggling from one Republican made crisis after the other concerning the existence and ability to perform even the simplest and most basic functions of government!
“Made the trains run on time” That was what they said about Mussolini.
You realize that the “and” in that sentence isn’t optional under the rules of the English language if you want to actually comprehend what is being said. That “and” explicitly implies that both things must be there for any conditionals based on the sentence to apply.
As well “Made the trains run on time.” has been said about leaders before and after Mussolini. It’s a fairly common euphemism that has been used on every ‘successful’ leader since it’s entrance into the common language.
That you are now trying to bring exclusivity of the phrase to Mussolini in a transparently bad attempt to cast me as a fascist only makes you as sad and pathetic person trying to score cheap point and failing at even that.
So…your immediate aspirations lie no further than a combination of “the return of competent graft” and “us”…whomever you might mean by that pronoun…”debating actual policies instead of struggling from one Republican made crisis after the other concerning the existence and ability to perform even the simplest and most basic functions of government!”
Oh.
And where did that “debate” get us, exactly?
Ever deeper into the muck of the post-assassination years’ Permanent Government/Deep State/Corporate-Owned-and-Operated Fix System.
You really think that this is all a Republican-created morass!!!???
Oh.
Nevermind.
Yore friend…
Emily Litella
If you would like to enter a persuasive claim that Pelosi has committed graft, you’re welcome to do so.
Otherwise, this is a belligerent smear which does direct damage to the possibility that we can achieve the changes in policy and politics you claim to want. It’s beneath your usual standard.
Pelosi is the House Minority Leader. She is executing this role very well right now, making sure to deny Trump and Ryan any votes or meaningful rhetorical support from anyone in her conference. She will be in this role entering the 2018 election. You offer no real reason that this role should be taken from her.
What you are doing is setting up a rhetorical claim similar to what happened in 2016, when many progressives looked at the spectre of a disgusting racist/sexist/demagogue with fascistic desires becoming President and decided “Yes, I would like to take that risk because Democratic Party voters and leaders didn’t do what I petulantly demanded they do in the primary.“
Clinton would have been a far, far, far, far, far better President than Trump in general and in every single particular.
Given where we are today, anyone who didn’t enthusiastically work to organize support for Clinton during the general election campaign has a lot of nerve to claim the right that their judgement should be trusted moving forward.
Given the real damage that is about to be done to our household once Trumpcare makes its way through reconciliation, I lost sympathy a long time ago. That’s not to mention the other damage being done to the environment our kids and grandkids will inherit, the prospect of cutting into Medicaid, Medicare, SSDI (which will affect us directly), and so on as the occupant in the White House and family use their position as yet another money making venture.
We can win the fight against Trumpcare. Take all opportunities to exhibit and organize opposition to the ACHA, in whatever horrible form the Senate is working on, details being leaked in drips and drabs.
We’re definitely doing our part in our own social media circles, and in whatever ways we can locally. Our local Democratic Party organization will be devoting this month’s meeting on AHCA. Let’s say we’re locked and loaded. I don’t want to take an AHCA defeat as something that is in the bag. One of those hope for the best but prepare for the worst things.
As it is material to the claim you entered against Pelosi, it’s important to also note that Pelosi would be, and in fact was, a far, far, far, far, far better Speaker than Ryan in general and in every policy particular.
Former Director of National Intelligence Clapper , confirmed under oath, that allied intelligence agencies had passed surveillance of Trump associates and campaign officials with Russian officials in 2015 and 2016. Due to the nature of segregation of information between US foreign intelligence agencies and FBI domestic law enforcement activities; not surprising that Clapper doesn’t know what Comey knows, and Comey doesn’t know what Clapper knows…. except what they read in the papers.
Ridge
—excerpt——-
Senate Judiciary Committee- May 8
FEINSTEIN: The Guardian has reported that Britain’s intelligence service first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between Trump advisers and Russian intelligence agents. This information was passed on to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. Is this accurate?
YATES: I — I can’t answer that.
FEINSTEIN: General Clapper, is that accurate?
CLAPPER: Yes, it is and it’s also quite sensitive.
FEINSTEIN: OK. Let me ask you this.
CLAPPER: The specifics are — are — are quite sensitive
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.cfa8d958dee7
Information is the gold of the law enforcement and intelligence community. Yes the "Patriot" Act was supposed to break down barriers; FBI and CIA liaisons in each other groups but seems to really apply to anti-terrorist activities.
Clapper was dealing with an foreign "espionage" case. Whose investigation outcome may differ from that of the FBI’s. The FBI counterintelligence branch may not strive for convictions but that is the goal of the Dept of Justice. And they cannot speak about ongoing criminal investigations.
Plus, these counter public hand offs may be a screen for what the Special Prosecutor is really after. I expect a slew of grand jury testimonies, indictments and deals. Everytime they have those closed sessions, the Congressmen and women come out looking stunned. I think there is so much dirt on Trump and Family that nothing will surprise. And Mueller could be the one to bring it all out.
R
As an aside- the creation of the Director of National Intelligence was another off shoot of the "Patriot" Act environment. The idea was a department and head to filter all info from the various agencies and co-ordinate their activities to prevent another 9/11.
Of course those objectives was the goal of the reorganization under the 1947 National Security Act after WWII and the failures of Pearl Harbor. Under that law, the Director of Central Intelligence (Head of the newly created CIA)was to act in that role. But now, as then, each older and new agency protected their prerogatives and fiefdoms that the over all coordination has failed. The only real control possible, which was denied the DCI and now DNI, is control of those 17 (*named*) agency’s budgets. And each agency has their own lobbying effort and champions in Congress. Just another layer of bureaucracy.
R
—–
The Named Agencies. Who knows what "off the books" organizations exist. A practice as old as the nation. FDR in particular liked having his Ivy League and Old Money pals setting up little "offices" to do intelligence.
https://www.intelligencecareers.gov/icmembers.html
Oui, never a good idea to rely on what people like Comey (and most DC politicians, high level appointees, and assorted other high level mucky mucks) say. Between their outright lies and hedging they don’t reveal the truth about much of anything.
Personally, I don’t care if there’s a FBI “matter” wrt Trump and Russia. I merely view the claims Putin/Russia interference in the US election as ludicrous considering that there is no evidence that even such an attempt was made, much less how it was effected in MI, PA, and WI or anywhere else. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.
We do know quite a lot about how elections can be rigged and outcomes changed. (Florida 2000 for example, not that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party were too exercised about that.) And the power of media during a campaign. 2016 was a change election year; one party offered more of the same with a dreadful candidate and the other offered a ridiculous candidate that lied his way to promises about stupid stuff. One candidate came up short.
You were predicting the “…dreadful candidate…” would win the election. You predicted that outcome all the way to Election Day. You frequently predicted that there would be a substantial margin of victory. Not much integrity being exhibited here, and quite a bit of attempted revisionist history.
A number of highly destructive actions and events which were unique to the 2016 general election campaign took place, and were instrumental in creating the outcome which none of us predicted. Yet you demand we exclude examining anything outside your intense HILLARY AND THE DNC ARE ENTIRELY TO BLAME belief.
There’s a whole world of substantiated information, and a loooooong list of circumstantial evidence, which you are highly determined to ignore. I don’t know why you are determined to destroy your credibility here, but you sure are taking a wrecking ball to your name. You don’t appear to be persuading anyone with your stuff.
Predicting someone will win doesn’t mean that the predictor wants that result.
I predict that the nutjob Strange will become US Senator from Alabama. That doesn’t mean the I want that outcome.
For the record, I didn’t project a substantial margin of victory for HRC. You seem to have me confused with someone else here on that point. My projections were FL and NC for DT which put him at 260 EC and I (like everybody else on the freaking planet), couldn’t see where he could get another ten EC votes.
“Dreadful” because with a billion dollar campaign fund and 90% of the media in her court she couldn’t put away a clown of a candidate.
I always look at the publicly available evidence — and that includes evaluating the quality of the evidence — to assess an extraordinary claim in real time. It’s how I rejected the WMD, 9/11 “truther,” swiftboat, Wen Ho Lee, Benghazi (as it related to HRC), birther, etc. claims. I don’t do “belief.” If this so-called “substantiated information and a ….” were what the rightwing and GOP had dredged up against a Democrat, you would dismiss it as the garbage it is. On the order of Reagan’s “freedom fighters” in Nicaragua or any of the various claims about the USSR in Africa and Central/South America that were routinely dredged up by our so-called intelligence agencies.
Don’t blame me because you are furious about the election outcome. Blame all the banksters that over the decades gave DT a pass instead of bankrupting the guy. Blame team Clinton for salivating over the prospect of a “pied piper” general election opponent (and Bill Clinton for encouraging DT to run and the MSM for going easy on DT during the primaries). Blame HRC for hiding her SOS email communications, calling DT supporters deplorables, and all her other bad judgments over the decades.
The net negative ratings for the two candidates were at historical highs. In anything resembling a fair democracy, neither would have been the nominee. But in our little patch of earth, voters picked their poison.
○ FBI Director McCabe Subject Of Three Separate Federal Inquiries Into Alleged Misconduct: Report
○ Newark FBI counterterror, agent Robyn Gritz and 9/11 warning | Muckraker |