FBI: Russia DID interfere with US election ... now what?

[kenny]

Actually, my title is wrong, and should be, FBI confirms investigation.
Can't delete thread in new PS format, or edit a subject line.
Sorry. My bad!

If it is determined Russia DID interfere, do we hold a new election?

Uncharted waters here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39324587

 

[lovedogs]

This entire thing is freaking crazy. I doubt a new election would be held, but agreed that this is entirely uncharted.

EDITED to add: if anyone wants to watch something hilarious, view the clip of Comey being read a tweet from SCROTUS during the hearing, and him having to figure out WTF to say since SCROTUS is a liar. It was incredible.

 

[cmd2014]

Here's more.

http://time.com/4706721/comey-hearing-adam-schiff-transcript/

 

[bunnycat]

Here's more.

http://time.com/4706721/comey-hearing-adam-schiff-transcript/

spending some time digesting that. It was long but thorough, with plenty to think on.

 

[AGBF]

I do not think there was any doubt that Russia interfered in the US elections, so I do not think that that fact needed any confirmation. There was only doubt about whether the Trump team colluded with the Russians. Now Director Comey has, for the first time, publicly confirmed that the FBI is investigating a connection between the Trump team and Russia to see if a) the Trump campaign team collaborated on the Russian interference and b) whether any crimes were committed in that collusion if it occurred.

The reason that Director Comey's public confirmation is such a big deal is that the FBI does not investigate these matters lightly and there is an assumption that the FBI would not be going to these lengths had it not had a huge amount of evidence on which to launch an investigation.

The memo which the MI6 agent Christopher Steele had (the "dossier") spelled out that the Trump campaign was supposed to stop asserting that Russia should leave Ukraine and begin to complain about NATO to deflect attention from Russian aggression as a quid pro quo for Russian help in the election.. It was at exactly that time that The Republican platform was amended to delete the reference to Russia's aggression in Ukraine and Trump suddenly started to complain about NATO. So Trump did both these things laid out in the dossier exactly when Paul Manafort became his campaign manager. I saw the document held up on camera, highlighted in yellow. Paul Manafort received huge amounts of money from Russia. That is on the record. I do not believe in coincidences.

AGBF

 

[Matata]

I do not think there was any doubt that Russia interfered in the US elections, so I do not think that that fact needed any confirmation. There was only doubt about whether the Trump team colluded with the Russians. Now Director Comey has, for the first time, publicly confirmed that the FBI is investigating a connection between the Trump team and Russia to see if a) the Trump campaign team collaborated on the Russian interference and b) whether any crimes were committed in that collusion if it occurred.

The reason that Director Comey's public confirmation is such a big deal is that the FBI does not investigate these matters lightly and there is an assumption that the FBI would not be going to these lengths had it not had a huge amount of evidence on which to launch an investigation.

The memo which the MI6 agent Christopher Steele had (the "dossier") spelled out that the Trump campaign was supposed to stop asserting that Russia should leave Ukraine and begin to complain about NATO to deflect attention from Russian aggression as a quid pro quo for Russian help in the election.. It was at exactly that time that The Republican platform was amended to delete the reference to Russia's aggression in Ukraine and Trump suddenly started to complain about NATO. So Trump did both these things laid out in the dossier exactly when Paul Manafort became his campaign manager. I saw the document held up on camera, highlighted in yellow. Paul Manafort received huge amounts of money from Russia. That is on the record. I do not believe in coincidences.

AGBF

I hope you're correct. Comey blew his credibility when he released his statement re: Clinton's additional emails during the election. In that regard, he may have done more to sway the vote tweeter's way than any collusion between the tweeter camp and the Russians.

 

[AGBF]

I hope you're correct. Comey blew his credibility when he released his statement re: Clinton's additional emails during the election.

Keep your eye on Congressman Eric Swalwell, Matata. He is a very aware guy. He appears to have forgiven Comey, but he will never let up on the Russian debacle. I posted a link to his website once on Pricescope. (He posted a chart with links between Trump's cronies and Russia on it.) See this video clip from tonight.

Link...https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ml...eighs-in-on-james-comeys-testimony/vp-BBysUvA

Deb

 

[mochiko42]

The US obviously is very experienced in spotting what this type of external meddling looks like, since the US has a long history of being involved in the elections and governments of dozens of other countries over the years. I am not condoning Russian interference in the US elections, but it is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out, since this time the roles have been reversed.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

 

[redwood66]

The US obviously is very experienced in spotting what this type of external meddling looks like, since the US has a long history of being involved in the elections and governments of dozens of other countries over the years. I am not condoning Russian interference in the US elections, but it is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out, since this time the roles have been reversed.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

Thanks for this link. Interference is highly inappropriate by any government into the election process of another country, no matter how small. Our president (no matter who) should not be weighing in on a particular choice of leader for another country. I thought that Obama's statement before the Brexit vote that the UK would move to the back of the queue for trade was extremely inappropriate and actually a threat on their economy if the outcome was not what he wanted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

 

[bunnycat]

I'll include this here since it is related to the Russia investigation. Russian money laundering ring headquartered at Trump Tower:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story-fbi-wiretap-russians-trump-tower/story?id=46266198

This was several years ago this happened, and legal action was taken, though the main person who was wanted is still at large (and, hmmmm...seen with Trump)

 

[AGBF]

I hope you're correct. Comey blew his credibility when he released his statement re: Clinton's additional emails during the election. In that regard, he may have done more to sway the vote tweeter's way than any collusion between the tweeter camp and the Russians.

A lot happened today to make me sanguine about the prospects for an independent investigation of the Trump-Russian connection. Today brought an uproar to Capitol Hill. Excerpted from "The New York Times".

"House Democrats Ask Devin Nunes to Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Top House Democrats on Monday called on the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to recuse himself from the panel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election, thrusting the entire inquiry into jeopardy amid what they described as mounting evidence he was too close to President Trump.

The calls by Representatives Adam B. Schiff of California, the committee’s top Democrat, and Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, came after revelations that the committee’s chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, had met on the White House grounds with a source who showed him secret American intelligence reports. The next day he revealed Mr. Trump or his closest associates may have been 'incidentally' swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

Mr. Schiff suggested that Mr. Nunes, who served on the Trump transition team, was simply too close to the White House to run an independent and thorough inquiry.

'The public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman,' Mr. Schiff said on Monday evening."

AGBF

 

[lovedogs]

A lot happened today to make me sanguine about the prospects for an independent investigation of the Trump-Russian connection. Today brought an uproar to Capitol Hill. Excerpted from "The New York Times".

"House Democrats Ask Devin Nunes to Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Top House Democrats on Monday called on the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to recuse himself from the panel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election, thrusting the entire inquiry into jeopardy amid what they described as mounting evidence he was too close to President Trump.

The calls by Representatives Adam B. Schiff of California, the committee’s top Democrat, and Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, came after revelations that the committee’s chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, had met on the White House grounds with a source who showed him secret American intelligence reports. The next day he revealed Mr. Trump or his closest associates may have been 'incidentally' swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

Mr. Schiff suggested that Mr. Nunes, who served on the Trump transition team, was simply too close to the White House to run an independent and thorough inquiry.

'The public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman,' Mr. Schiff said on Monday evening."

AGBF

Yup, this story has been moving pretty fast lately! I don't understand how Nunes is still even on the committee.

 

[ruby59]

Yes, how dare Nunes speak the truth if it might sully Wonderboy.

That hot mike Obama was caught on was very telling, indeed.

 

[VapidLapid]

still, unless Elizabeth Warren is going to be president, it ultimately seems like a choice between sock-puppet heads

long term thinking I mean

It IS GOOD to take out the unaplologetically ubercorrupt

 

[iLander]

Today, Dick Cheney said that he saw the Russian interference as "an act of war". Never thought I'd agree with Cheney.

 

[lovedogs]

Today, Dick Cheney said that he saw the Russian interference as "an act of war". Never thought I'd agree with Cheney.

Right?!?! Strange times, indeed!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Actually, my title is wrong, and should be, FBI confirms investigation.
Can't delete thread in new PS format, or edit a subject line.
Sorry. My bad!

If it is determined Russia DID interfere, do we hold a new election?

Uncharted waters here.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39324587

No, HRC become our new Prez. by default...

 

[E B]

More super innocent behavior that an innocent administration would exhibit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ec57_story.html?tid=ss&utm_term=.e8dea43464c3

 

[E B]

Yates’s attorney then sent a letter Friday to McGahn, the White House lawyer, saying that any claim of privilege “has been waived as a result of the multiple public comments of current senior White House officials describing the January 2017 communications. Nevertheless, I am advising the White House of Ms. Yates’ intention to provide information.’’

That same day, Nunes, the panel’s chairman, said he would not go forward with the public hearing that was to feature Yates’s testimony.

Ahh. There it is.

 

[E B]

Yes, how dare Nunes speak the truth if it might sully Wonderboy.

That hot mike Obama was caught on was very telling, indeed.

Speak what truth? He himself has said that what he was given by an "intel source" (at the White House, lol) doesn't back up Trump's claims whatsoever.

 

[lovedogs]

Yates’s attorney then sent a letter Friday to McGahn, the White House lawyer, saying that any claim of privilege “has been waived as a result of the multiple public comments of current senior White House officials describing the January 2017 communications. Nevertheless, I am advising the White House of Ms. Yates’ intention to provide information.’’

That same day, Nunes, the panel’s chairman, said he would not go forward with the public hearing that was to feature Yates’s testimony.

Ahh. There it is.

This is an INSANE development. Love how transparent the administration is about attempting to cover their tracks. I hope the FBI is just laughing at them. I swear cartoon criminals are better at this than SCROTUS and his cronies.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Fast & Furious is the most recent precedent that comes to mind regarding the use of executive privilege.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...re-privileged/1?csp=breakingnews#.WNqGDJH3afA

More historical examples of its use: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

[House Cat]

Fast & Furious is the most recent precedent that comes to mind regarding the use of executive privilege.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...re-privileged/1?csp=breakingnews#.WNqGDJH3afA

More historical examples of its use: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

In this instance, this administration should want to be as transparent as possible.

ETA: I am unable to access your first link.

 

[the_mother_thing]

In this instance, this administration should want to be as transparent as possible.

ETA: I am unable to access your first link.

I don't think ANY administration really wants to be transparent, but I believe we the people should demand that they ALL are.

That said, Spicer JUST said the Post article on the WH denying Yates' testimony is 100% false, that they did not apply executive privilege precluding her from testifying, and encouraged her to do so. He offered a timeline of dates and documentation backing this up.

 

[lovedogs]

Just going to leave these here. Spicer is a liar and a buffoon, so his words mean approximately nothing to me at this point. I'm far more inclined to believe multiple news sources rather than Spicey.

http://time.com/4715101/trump-sally-yates-block-testify-congress-russia/
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...se-nunes-blocked-ex-acting-ag-from-testifying
http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...house-stopped-yates-1490717683-htmlstory.html

 

[House Cat]

I don't think ANY administration really wants to be transparent, but I believe we the people should demand that they ALL are.

That said, Spicer JUST said the Post article on the WH denying Yates' testimony is 100% false, that they did not apply executive privilege precluding her from testifying, and encouraged her to do so. He offered a timeline of dates and documentation backing this up.

When it comes to matters of refuting controversial matters involving the president, I will NEVER believe Spicer. He's earned my mistrust!

 

[AGBF]

I don't think ANY administration really wants to be transparent, but I believe we the people should demand that they ALL are.

I agree with the above. I think it is simply common sense.

That said, Spicer JUST said the Post article on the WH denying Yates' testimony is 100% false, that they did not apply executive privilege precluding her from testifying, and encouraged her to do so. He offered a timeline of dates and documentation backing this up.

I am not sure that I buy this. The White House lies like a rug . "The Washington Post" is reliable and The White House is not.

 

[E B]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...s-was-blocked-from-testifying-on-russia/2390/

 

[the_mother_thing]

Spicer said they read Yates' attorney's letter published by WaPo, indicating that she would testify if no response is received from the WH by yesterday. Spicer said the WH had no problem with her testifying, so they didn't respond to her attorney's letter. He also denied any request from the WH to the committee to alter the meeting format or date.

Is there any actual evidence showing the WH did invoke EP, or that they asked the committee to change the hearing format & date? I've seen none except the article from WaPo and other outlets citing the same WaPo story, which provides no evidence. Kind of seems like yet another BS news story aimed at slamming the Trump admin without evidence ... aka SSDD.

My pom-poms remain on standby.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Just going to leave these here. Spicer is a liar and a buffoon, so his words mean approximately nothing to me at this point. I'm far more inclined to believe multiple news sources rather than Spicey.

http://time.com/4715101/trump-sally-yates-block-testify-congress-russia/
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...se-nunes-blocked-ex-acting-ag-from-testifying
http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...house-stopped-yates-1490717683-htmlstory.html

All three cite the same WaPo story, which provided no evidence of an attempt to block her from testifying.

Did ya'll read the letters?