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

[E B]

Burr and Warner are having a joint press conference right now.

Warner just said that in the key swing states, Russia had over 1,000 internet trolls generating fake news. This is what the President is currently calling "a hoax" and "fake news," btw. Anything to do with Russia interfering.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hi,
I think EP is the right of the executive branch and all Pres use it if they feel it is to their advantage.
This time however they found they could not exercise EP, and while they did not respond, Mr. Nunes cancelled the meeting to stall the testimony. While, I doubt it is anything incriminating it looks bad for the Pres. in that he did not fire Flynn for several weeks. It brings it out in the open.

I did see a credible interview with Roger Stone who has volunteered to come to the committee and answer all questions. He requested an open meeting so that everyone could hear it.

Nunes has been part of the cover-up. His behavior is unprecedented.

Annette

As a rational, thinking person, I could see Nunes - aside from his stated reasons for needing to cancel (other 2 witnesses unavailability) - being that he may have wanted to afford time for Yates' attorney to receive a response to his letter to the WH (re: invoking EP). That letter gave EOD Monday as a deadline and the hearing (now for one person) was the next morning ... that's of course assuming Nunes knew about Yates' lawyer's letter to the WH, which I do not know IF he knew about it or not. But if it were me, to bring that many people together for a hearing, I would want to get as much 'testimony bang' for my scheduling buck as possible.

People with 'witch-hunt' motives will likely opine otherwise, though, I'm sure.

 

[Tekate]

I posted the 'pointer' earlier; the WH ignored it because they didn't care if she testified or not ... in other words, have at it, Sally!

And of course the DOJ expressed concerns about possible exec-privilege - they are the attorneys for the administration; they advise on such matters. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. That'd be like a divorce attorney not suggesting to their client to consider claiming half their spouses retirement plan.

So DOJ met with Yates' lawyer, didn't see an issue, but said 'check with the WH' who has the final say.

When you look at the letters chronologically, it is all quite logical and common sense.

more to you I guess than me.. truth is we don't know if the White House was going to try and limit Ms Yates testimony because Nunes cancelled the meeting. As it stands now, we will all hear what she has to say unless the White House tries to limit her testimony in some way, and if so, we will know about it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._to_block_sally_yates_from_testifying_on.html

 

[Tekate]

As a rational, thinking person, I could see Nunes - aside from his stated reasons for needing to cancel (other 2 witnesses unavailability) - being that he may have wanted to afford time for Yates' attorney to receive a response to his letter to the WH (re: invoking EP). That letter gave EOD Monday as a deadline and the hearing (now for one person) was the next morning ... that's of course assuming Nunes knew about Yates' lawyer's letter to the WH, which I do not know IF he knew about it or not. But if it were me, to bring that many people together for a hearing, I would want to get as much 'testimony bang' for my scheduling buck as possible.

People with 'witch-hunt' motives will likely opine otherwise, though, I'm sure.[/QUOTE]

If this were Clinton would you think the same? It's all suspicious to me until we hear the testimony, we have all seen witch hunts on Clinton a la Benghazi.

 

[the_mother_thing]

If this were Clinton would you think the same? It's all suspicious to me until we hear the testimony, we have all seen witch hunts on Clinton a la Benghazi.

When there is a common sense, rational, reasonable likelihood or explanation for something, yes; I would certainly give that person - anyone - the benefit of the doubt.

However, there is no common sense, rational, reasonable likelihood that someone in the role of Secy of State - who has oversight & responsibility for embassy security, access to intelligence (even from home thanks to her home-brew server that she as a lawyer, gov't employee and former First Lady reasonably should have known was a 'no-no'), would under-secure an embassy in a political/militarily/terrorist hot bed, not advise denying a military response, and/or believe for a second that such an ambush-style attack like that would occur on an embassy over an internet video that NOBODY heard about until the admin blamed it for the attack on the talk show circuit the next day.

It is because I KNOW HRC is no dummy that I believe her claims of innocence about her actions with regard to both incidents are 100%, absolute, steaming BS. And if I am wrong, and she is a dummy, then she had no business being SoS, much less prez.

 

[E B]

Breaking: Nunes' secret sources were WH officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

 

[Tekate]

Have you read the senate report on Benghazi? They didn't find anything wrong with what she did or Panetta did nor did the family of Ambassador Stevens.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/boehner-and-benghazi/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...amily-dont-blame-hillary-clinton-for-benghazi

Since I know Trump IS a dummy I believe easily that he could be involved in, or sanctioned and worked with Russia.

 

[ruby59]

I will say it again because it bears resistance.

Forward thinkers - dummy, m*ron, you throw around very offensive words.

 

[soxfan]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

 

[lovedogs]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

oh god I just saw this and I'm losing it. No one has taken him up on the offer. Which means that he either has nothing (which would be horrifying), or they don't need him to make their case. I'm praying hard for option 2.

 

[monarch64]

Just came here to post that about Mike Flynn/immunity!!! holy shit.

 

[soxfan]

I'm not getting my hopes up....

 

[E B]

Immunity.

I-eeeeeeenteresting.

 

[AnnaH]

I just pasted the conclusion of the article. I think the entire article is worth a read and is not all that lengthy. Highly critical of Democrats but also critical of Republicans.

Russia is a hostile regime whose intelligence operations — from cyber to propaganda to political assassination to promotion of rogue regimes and factions — are formidable. Many of us were warning against Putin while George Bush was gazing into his eyes for a “sense of his soul,” the Bush administration was imagining Russia as a “strategic partner,” Hillary Clinton was resetting our path to cozy relations, Barack Obama was appeasing Putin in desperation to keep the perilous Iran nuclear deal on track, and Donald Trump was “bromancing” the dictator. So if Democrats have suddenly decided the Kremlin is a malign force, we should welcome them and fight the urge to ask, “What took you so long?” Russia did not “hack our election.” But Russia is our “number-one geopolitical foe” — to quote Mitt Romney’s bull’s-eye assessment, the object of such media-Democrat scorn. Putin’s anti-American operations in the run-up to the election — which were directed, according to our intelligence agencies, against both political parties — should be a matter of serious concern to all Americans, as should Russian machinations in the Obama years, the Bush years, in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Yet, rather than encourage a responsible evaluation of what we’re up against, Democrats and their media allies are promoting a fraud: If you take the Russian threat seriously, it means Russia stole the election and, ergo, that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. Since that is not what happened, Republicans — who should be pushing Trump toward a harder line against Moscow — will be constrained to refute the Democrats’ allegations. The Democrats will demonize Trump, while Trump sympathizers sound like Putin’s defense lawyers. In the Kremlin, they’ll be smiling.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump

 

[lovedogs]

I just pasted the conclusion of the article. I think the entire article is worth a read and is not all that lengthy. Highly critical of Democrats but also critical of Republicans.

Russia is a hostile regime whose intelligence operations — from cyber to propaganda to political assassination to promotion of rogue regimes and factions — are formidable. Many of us were warning against Putin while George Bush was gazing into his eyes for a “sense of his soul,” the Bush administration was imagining Russia as a “strategic partner,” Hillary Clinton was resetting our path to cozy relations, Barack Obama was appeasing Putin in desperation to keep the perilous Iran nuclear deal on track, and Donald Trump was “bromancing” the dictator. So if Democrats have suddenly decided the Kremlin is a malign force, we should welcome them and fight the urge to ask, “What took you so long?” Russia did not “hack our election.” But Russia is our “number-one geopolitical foe” — to quote Mitt Romney’s bull’s-eye assessment, the object of such media-Democrat scorn. Putin’s anti-American operations in the run-up to the election — which were directed, according to our intelligence agencies, against both political parties — should be a matter of serious concern to all Americans, as should Russian machinations in the Obama years, the Bush years, in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Yet, rather than encourage a responsible evaluation of what we’re up against, Democrats and their media allies are promoting a fraud: If you take the Russian threat seriously, it means Russia stole the election and, ergo, that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. Since that is not what happened, Republicans — who should be pushing Trump toward a harder line against Moscow — will be constrained to refute the Democrats’ allegations. The Democrats will demonize Trump, while Trump sympathizers sound like Putin’s defense lawyers. In the Kremlin, they’ll be smiling.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump

Unfortunately, this isn't news. It's one person's opinion, and an opinion that flies in the face of what the FBI and other committees are investigating. If this guy thinks that the Russia stuff is just something that Dems started to care about "because HRC lost", he hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Tekate]

The magazine is the National Review a mag not known at all for positive stories about democrats or HRC. This man is a noted conservative. This is his opinion and probably that of the NR, not surprising. The length of breadth of the interference and hacking of the DNC is breathtaking and to me makes the interference quite a bit more negative for Clinton. Who knows what we would have read about DT and the squabbles inside the RNC if we'd had access to those files also. I think American's had high hopes back in the 80s that Russia and the US could become allies.. not so unfortunately.

Trump was aided by Russian influence, deep influence, and who knows what else, we have to see what comes out of these shows happening in DC.. but if he's connected, I feel the election was illegal and should be negated and we should have the opportunity to vote again.

I just pasted the conclusion of the article. I think the entire article is worth a read and is not all that lengthy. Highly critical of Democrats but also critical of Republicans.

Russia is a hostile regime whose intelligence operations — from cyber to propaganda to political assassination to promotion of rogue regimes and factions — are formidable. Many of us were warning against Putin while George Bush was gazing into his eyes for a “sense of his soul,” the Bush administration was imagining Russia as a “strategic partner,” Hillary Clinton was resetting our path to cozy relations, Barack Obama was appeasing Putin in desperation to keep the perilous Iran nuclear deal on track, and Donald Trump was “bromancing” the dictator. So if Democrats have suddenly decided the Kremlin is a malign force, we should welcome them and fight the urge to ask, “What took you so long?” Russia did not “hack our election.” But Russia is our “number-one geopolitical foe” — to quote Mitt Romney’s bull’s-eye assessment, the object of such media-Democrat scorn. Putin’s anti-American operations in the run-up to the election — which were directed, according to our intelligence agencies, against both political parties — should be a matter of serious concern to all Americans, as should Russian machinations in the Obama years, the Bush years, in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Yet, rather than encourage a responsible evaluation of what we’re up against, Democrats and their media allies are promoting a fraud: If you take the Russian threat seriously, it means Russia stole the election and, ergo, that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president. Since that is not what happened, Republicans — who should be pushing Trump toward a harder line against Moscow — will be constrained to refute the Democrats’ allegations. The Democrats will demonize Trump, while Trump sympathizers sound like Putin’s defense lawyers. In the Kremlin, they’ll be smiling.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...residential-election-republicans-donald-trump

 

[AnnaH]

I posted an article with commentary. So what? There are plenty of facts stated, not simply opinion. I can't say 100% that every fact is clearly stated, but certainly I know most are as I remember the events. National Review is a respected source.
Different points of view often lead to different conclusions, but which of the facts presented are in dispute?
Just as I don't believe Clinton killed Vince Foster or Obama is. Muslim, I don't believe Trump is controlled by Putin. Investigate--fine, but until I see proof, I'll be skeptical.

 

[t-c]

I posted an article with commentary. So what? There are plenty of facts stated, not simply opinion. I can't say 100% that every fact is clearly stated, but certainly I know most are as I remember the events. National Review is a respected source.
Different points of view often lead to different conclusions, but which of the facts presented are in dispute?
Just as I don't believe Clinton killed Vince Foster or Obama is. Muslim, I don't believe Trump is controlled by Putin. Investigate--fine, but until I see proof, I'll be skeptical.

The biggest issue with this article is the fact that no Democrat in power is actually coming out to say that the election was illegitimate. And the reason for that is because it opens a whole can of worms that this country had never dealt with. Think about it: if the investigation takes one or two years and concludes that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, would we roll back all appointments, policies, rulings, judgments, etc... as if the Trump administration never took place? And who would we put in office? How long would their tenure be? No one, with the exception of some who have not considered how complicated the situation would be (kinda like Trump with healthcare), would want to deal with the squirming mess until it looks to be inevitable. Right now, the thing to do is investigate.

The problem with Trump and his supporters when it comes to the investigation is that they want the to focus to be on the surveillance and leaking to the exclusion of everything else. They keep bringing up the "leaking" and "4th amendment rights" while hardly paying any attention to the Russian meddling (a fact) and possible collusion. They should ALL be investigated.

And really, as of right now, the surveillance is considered legal. As for the leaking of the Flynn information, would it really be in our country's best interest for Michael Flynn to be the National Security Adviser -- someone who clearly had issues with full disclosure? He not only held back the fact that he spoke with the Russian ambassador, but also that he was a paid agent representing Turkey's interest. As late as Friday we found out that he did not disclose $150K in income from speaking engagements to Russian organizations among others. Even if all his activities are innocent and above board, why wasn't he completely honest about them as he was required to be? And now his lawyer claims that Flynn "can tell [enough] stories" about the Russian meddling that it would be worth giving him immunity. So, how was our country damaged by forcing him out, exactly? It seems to me that McMaster is a more than adequate replacement for Flynn. So is the leaker perhaps a whistleblower (a term many Republcans invoke for the White House staffers who gave Nunes intelligence)?

In the meantime, all our intelligence agencies agree that the Russians meddled in the election and that they are meddling in the upcoming European elections. And that there is continuing efforts to "hack" information from those in position of power (see Rubio's comments during the Senate intelligence hearing). But look at Trump's tweets and Spicer's briefings and various Republican talking points. See the disconnect?

 

[AGBF]

"Dwindling Odds of Coincidence" by Charles M.Blow

This article (an opinion piece) which skewers The Trump administration is the most depressing essay for thinking people that I have read in a while. After making a superb case for the increasing odds that there was collusion between The Trump campaign and the Russians, Blow concludes:

"Polls continue to find a strong appetite for the ultimate remedy: Trump’s impeachment. You would get no resistance from me if it ever came to that. But I also understand the order of succession and that, too, gives me pause.

It moves from the zealot Mike Pence, to the weasel Paul Ryan, to anti-abortion crusader Orrin Hatch, to Rex 'Russian Order of Friendship' Tillerson, to the former Hollywood producer Steven Mnuchin, who had to apologize last week for plugging 'The Lego Batman Movie,' for which he was an executive producer.

The list goes on and on."

Link...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

AGBF

 

[redwood66]

Aw my favorite guy Deb! Thanks for the link. I must be under my 10 free articles a month so I was able to read it. He admits there is no there there "yet," but that his journalistic instincts should prevail. It was a good read considering the source. Unlike dear Charles, I have more faith in the ability for American to survive a Trump presidency because we have survived before. I want the Russian thing to be investigated and then over one way or another but I probably will not get that wish too soon. At least my main reason for wanting a Repub in the Oval Office is going to happen this week per McConnell.

I found the comments interesting too.


Edit - I had my very first Gallup call on Saturday. Maybe because I have not had an actual landline for years is the reason I was never called before? I don't know how they decide who to call. It was interesting and across a myriad of issues all political and work force related.

 

[AnnaH]

Actually, Rep. Lewis, I believe, from Ga. stated that Trump is illegitimate and was supported by others. Certainly, Democrats have questioned Trump's legitimacy in various ways. Politics.
Both sides of the aisle are more focused on investigating the other side. Not just a Republican problem. Again, politics.
Flynn is gone, and I don't miss him.
You ask if I see a disconnect. Not sure, but I guess you think I have a disconnect. If that's your point, then the answer is no.
I agree that there must be investigation of what the Russians did and are doing and whether or not Trump was involved. Presently, I believe there are at least three investigations. Trump has been investigated for maybe close to a year with nothing to show for it.
While not a Trump fan, I find it hard to believe that he's in cahoots with Putin. If he is, then he will be gone and rightfully so.
tc, the author criticized both Democrats and Republicans. Are you comfortable with the previous administration's dealings with Russia? Do you find the Democrat's motives in all of this so pure?

 

[AnnaH]

Deb, the author of the opinion piece you posted stated that there are many Trump/Russian connections. There are also many Clinton/Russian connections. I don't think Trump is a Putin puppet or that Clinton would have been either. There might have been some financial collusion between Clinton and Russia, however. We will never know.

 

[redwood66]

Moved to proper thread.

 

[AnnaH]

IF anything comes of this, Rice may be the fall guy. She's the one they sent out to the Sunday news shows with the Benghazi video lie.

 

[redwood66]

AnnaH I put this in the surveillance thread.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...trump-intel-surveillance.229815/#post-4147713

 

[ruby59]

AnnaH I put this in the surveillance thread.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...trump-intel-surveillance.229815/#post-4147713

This should have its own thread. There used to be a daily Trumpet announcement, each one was a separate thread. And you were called a net nanny if you did not like it.

So I find it strange that there is now an outcry to combine them.

But I am glad the truth is finally coming out.

 

[E B]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.63fe8e675825

 

[Arkteia]

I guess, "now what?" will be "nothing" for today. It will be dragging on, hanging over someone's head like the sword of Damocles, and if the situation becomes unbearable, it will fall. Otherwise, nothing.

I did not expect the result of this election to be what it is, not at all, but maybe for the DNC, it should go down into political history as the example of how not to conduct one. Root-cause analysis needs to be done, and very seriously so. Before any possible intervention of Russia, the GOP candidate was nominated in his party, that is interesting in itself and a symptom of a wider discontent and mistrust of our political elites by the working masses. (I am not commenting on the net result, though). And the Democratic party ended up being split.

In Russia, the outcome of election was clearly welcomed, but there is one interesting fact that people here forget. It was not only about Trump. Historically, Russia always had better relationships with the GOP in power. It started with the SU. Truman - "cold war" was coined, Eisenhower - more or less neutral, JFK - close to WWIII, Nixon - first summit, Carter - Afghanistan invasion by the USSR and blocking the Olympics, Reagan - tons of summits, Bush Sr - the same, no love lost between Clinton and Yeltsin, Bush Jr. - jogging with Putin in Moscow. I assume that subconsciously or consciously, it is taken into account by the Russian ruling system and that any GOP candidate would have been a more welcomed choice for Russia than Clinton. (Except for McCain).

P.S. I never saw any anti-americanism in Russia, and I was visiting it for many years, and then one summer I came, and it was clearly there. What happened during that time? I would have never guessed it, but read somewhere. Russia wanted to become the NATO member, and its application was rejected. I think all hostility started from that point, it was very obvious just from random people's remarks.

 

[AGBF]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.63fe8e675825

This is a great contribution, E B. Thank you for posting the link. Prince and DeVos (I meant Betsy, but I could have meant any one of 'em) certainly spent a lot of dough trying to get Trump into office...they did and their all their kinfolk did. I assume they are on the same page as Trump. Blackwater is a name that will live in infamy.

 

[t-c]

Actually, Rep. Lewis, I believe, from Ga. stated that Trump is illegitimate and was supported by others. Certainly, Democrats have questioned Trump's legitimacy in various ways. Politics.

Of course politics. I mean how often was Obama's legitimacy questioned? Many Republicans even claimed that he wasn't American -- based on nothing. Most mainstream Democrats are still just calling for an investigation. Sure, they're hoping they find something with the investigation, but they're keeping it civil for now.

Both sides of the aisle are more focused on investigating the other side. Not just a Republican problem. Again, politics.

Okay, we know what the Trump campaign investigation is about -- there is enough material to support an FBI investigation. But what did the Democrats supposedly do that requires investigating -- it would be nice to have something more than Trump's unsubstantiated accusations on twitter.

Flynn is gone, and I don't miss him.

Trump's indignant tweets suggests Flynn would have remained as National Security Advisor had he not been exposed.

You ask if I see a disconnect. Not sure, but I guess you think I have a disconnect. If that's your point, then the answer is no.

I'm not implying anything about you. I try to argue the facts and not get personal. I'm mostly interested in folks having the correct information (not alternative facts). If they interpret it differently from me, that's fine.

I agree that there must be investigation of what the Russians did and are doing and whether or not Trump was involved. Presently, I believe there are at least three investigations. Trump has been investigated for maybe close to a year with nothing to show for it.

I wouldn't expect much this quickly. Kenneth Starr took 4 years to investigate Whitewater, and after all the smoke, he concluded that there was no fire. Same could happen with Trump.

tc, the author criticized both Democrats and Republicans. Are you comfortable with the previous administration's dealings with Russia?

What dealings are you talking about exactly?

Do you find the Democrat's motives in all of this so pure?

I've made no claim on the purity of their motive. I applaud that they are erring towards investigations and openness, but I can see that the Democrats hope they find something actionable against Trump. What they want to do with it I'm not so sure -- like I said before, a recall would be a can of worms, impeaching him would bring uber social conservative Mike Pence to the Presidency, which might not benefit the Democratic Party as seems easier to run against the Trump craziness. Would it affect Republicans? I don't know. Republican support is so hardened that I doubt anything would shake them (as Trump said, he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue, shoot someone, and not lose voters).

But what exactly are the Republican's motives? Do you know? Would they really stop or not conduct an investigation on possible collusion to protect Trump? to protect themselves? What the hell was Devin Nunes thinking?