Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Election

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:11 pm

brainpanhandler » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:55 pm wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:17 pm wrote:John McCain's line of question was insane.


More like senile. He said "Mr. Comey" when he meant to refer to Trump in one question. He also said, "In the minds of this member...." He's not all there. Strange that his handlers would allow him to expose himself like that, but maybe he was just having a bad day. Trump and McCain should get together for dinner. They could have a nice word salad, with a side of KFC.


I vote for both, insane and senile.

I also agree he's long past his prime and I'm surprised no one close to him has convinced him to retire. I didn't miss his claim of plurality, either.

It was interesting the former prosecutor tried to establish doubt as to Trump's motives vis a vis Comey and what he was alluding to before condemning him for exercising poor judgement for not immediately reporting the incident to his superior. Of course, he couldn't. Trump's interactions with Comey could have prompted an investigation if staff felt it necessary. As we now most clearly see, Trump will surely fall and that through his very own actions.

The Russian thing will proly wind up with a slew of RICO warrants for his crew, with cases lasting perhaps for years.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:15 pm

I think Ivanka hid her father's phone. Trump's silence is historic. Maybe he had a stroke?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600daily

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby norton ash » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:22 pm

The line this morning was they had him tied to a chair.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:43 pm

Trump’s Lawyer’s Tale
Image
Marc Kasowitz personal attorney of President Donald Trump makes a statement following the congressional testimony of former FBI Director James Comey at the National Press Club in Washington, Thursday, June 8, 2017. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
By JOSH MARSHALL Published JUNE 8, 2017 3:16 PM

We just heard Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, give his response to James Comey’s testimony. I think it confirms what I wrote yesterday: that President Trump was making a big mistake bringing in his bully lawyer from New York who he uses to ambush business partners and discredit women with accusations to try to handle a big federal investigation. Kasowitz is another version of Michael Cohen, only with a real legal practice. There’s nothing like this kind of investigation. Neither he nor Trump have any experience grappling with anyone like this. It’s not surprising and it may be wise for Trump not to get a DC establishment lawyer. But those folks have experience this Kasowitz quite clearly doesn’t.

There were some things Comey said that were advantageous to the President. He said that during his time at FBI, President Trump himself was never the subject of an investigation. He confirmed President Trump’s claim that Comey assured him three times of that fact.

But Kasowitz did something quite odd. He denied that President Trump had ever asked Comey for his “loyalty”, a dubious denial giving the relative credibility of the two men. But then he doubled down on the proposition that people who work in Trump’s administration very much do owe him loyalty.

Here are his words …

The President also never told Mr. Comey, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty” in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, it is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.

“Loyalty” can mean a lot of things. And those “serving in an administration” can be interpreted different ways. But this sounds very much like Trump and Kasowitz think that everyone currently serving in the executive branch, including career employees, owes President Trump personal loyalty. That seems to be the only reasonable interpretation. I think Trump does believe that. But that’s not our system.

Next he goes on to accuse Comey of “leaking” what he calls “privileged communications” with President Trump.

Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting. Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to “prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated.

There’s a lot of misdirection, obfuscation and mean words here. But this sounds like someone trying to make an executive privilege argument without knowing how executive privilege works. Or perhaps it sounds like someone who knows how executive privilege works and is trying to pretend it applies here. There are two ways to interpret Comey’s actions – one that he wanted to retaliate for being fired or two that he believed the DOJ leadership was compromised and sought to release information that would lead to the appointment of a special counsel. (I see no real reason to choose between the explanations.)

I have no doubt that Comey’s political enemies will use this admission to attack his character. But as a legal matter, this isn’t how it works. Comey can tell people what he wants. From the beginning, Trump and his team have conflated leaks which people have every legal right to do (they can also be fired for it) with classified leaks, which are illegal. Trump and Kasowitz come out of a world of pervasive NDAs and attorney-client privilege and want to think that people who work in the executive branch have that kind of obligation to the President Trump. They don’t.

This kind of stuff works if you’re trying to keep the money of people you fleeced at Trump University or intimidate assault accusers. But this kind of lawyering can get you into a lot of trouble in this kind of investigation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-lawyers-tale
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:02 pm

James Comey’s Big Message: Donald Trump Can’t Be Trusted
At a historic hearing, the former FBI chief casts the president as a liar who engaged in improper conduct.
DAVID CORNJUN. 8, 2017 1:25 PM

Here is the bombshell: a former FBI director has said publicly and under oath that the current president of the United States cannot be trusted.

This is unprecedented and highly troubling. Though James Comey, whom President Donald Trump fired in May, had the day before disclosed his prepared testimony chronicling his disturbing interactions with Trump, his dramatic and much-anticipated appearance Thursday morning before the Senate intelligence committee reinforced and expanded the damning indictment Comey presented in his statement. He noted that he believed that Trump had privately directed him to drop the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn that was part of the FBI’s ongoing Russia probe. He also testified that he saw Trump’s statements to him about the Russia investigation as an order to quash the probe. And he accused the president and the White House of lying.

In his prepared testimony, Comey recounted in just-the-facts manner a series of private communications with Trump, during which the president asked Comey to pledge him loyalty, to go easy on Flynn, to “lift the cloud” created by the Russia investigation, and to publicly state that Trump was not personally under investigation. Before the intelligence committee, which is mounting its own probe of the Trump-Russia scandal, Comey detailed how these discussions worried him and other senior FBI officials.

Republicans on the committee tried to protect Trump by highlighting how Trump had asked Comey to help Flynn, noting the president had said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go.” Expressing hope, they noted, is not a command. Yet Comey swatted that away, saying he was shocked by the request and interpreted Trump’s statement as an instruction. “I took it as a direction,” Comey testified, adding, “I didn’t obey.” This was solid testimony that the president was trying to block an FBI investigation of a close associate. Whether or not that qualifies as obstruction of justice—Comey told the senators that special counsel Robert Mueller will be reviewing this question—it is a serious charge. Moreover, Comey’s account directly contradicts Trump’s assertion that he did not ask Comey to let Flynn off the hook. Unless Comey is making up this tale, Trump has been caught in a bold lie.

Comey repeatedly indicated that he feared Trump was a dishonest man who had no allegiance to the rule of law or ethical conduct. He essentially said that he believed Trump was trying to enlist him as a loyal member of his crew and undermine his standing as an independent actor. Asked why he wrote memos about his meetings with Trump, Comey was blunt: he was concerned Trump “might lie about the nature of our meetings.” And in a stunning admission, Comey recalled that after Trump suggested in a tweet that he had secret tapes of his conversations with with the then-FBI director, Comey directed a close friend (a Columbia University Law professor) to leak to the New York Times a Comey memo detailing the meeting in which Trump asked him to end the Flynn probe. Comey explained he hoped this leak would lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Ponder that for a moment: a former FBI chief was so worried about the conduct of a president, he took steps designed to create an independently overseen investigation of the president’s associates and political campaign.

Comey also challenged—indirectly but fiercely—Trump’s spin on the Russia scandal. He noted there was absolutely no question about the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow had intervened in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. “That is about as unfake as you can possibly get,” he commented. A foreign government, he remarked, “tried to shape the way we think, we vote, we act. That is a big deal. And people need to recognize that.” Comey said that not once after taking office did Trump ask him about Russia’s intervention in the election or what could be done to prevent a reoccurrence. (That is a severe dereliction of duty for a commander in chief.) Pointing to Trump’s own statements, Comey testified he believed Trump fired him because of the Russia investigation.

This was a powerful appearance. Republicans looking to protect Trump could not mount much of a defense. None of them criticized Comey. A few asked why he he didn’t stand up to Trump during any one of these improper communications. (Comey explained he was too shocked.) They encouraged Comey to say repeatedly that despite Trump’s attempted interventions, the Russia and Flynn investigations were not impeded. Some focused on Comey’s stated concerns about how former Attorney General Loretta Lynch handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) remarked that if Trump only tried once to get Comey to call off the hounds on Flynn, this was merely a “light touch.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) pressed Comey on whether he believed Trump colluded with Russia, looking for a “no.” Comey replied, ‘That’s a question that would be answered by the investigation.” Several Republicans asked Comey to debunk a New York Times article reporting Trump campaign associates had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence—and he did.

Yet the overarching message of the historic hearing was undeniable: a former FBI director had credibly undermined the integrity of the president. Citing the Russia investigation, Comey compared Trump to Henry II, who was said to have declared of Thomas Beckett, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” He accused the president and the White House of outright lying when they claimed the FBI was in chaos to justify his firing.

At the start of the hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), the chairman of the committee, said that it would be important for the American public to also “hear the president’s description of events.” Some form of that is now imperative. With Comey’s public appearance, the committee, the House intelligence committee, and special counsel Robert Mueller each have testimony casting Trump as a liar and a Nixonesque scoundrel who attempted to abuse his power. While they each investigate Moscow’s covert political warfare against the United States and interactions between Trump associates and Russia, they also have the task of probing Trump’s efforts to rig the FBI investigation and his firing of the official who would not play ball.

As vital as the Russia investigations remain, Comey’s testimony addresses a more fundamental question: is the US government in the hands of a deceitful and devious man?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... mp-russia/

Schiff: ‘Hard To Overstate The Significance’ Of Comey Testimony

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, speaks after a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 6, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Alex Brandon/AP
By MATT SHUHAM Published JUNE 8, 2017 4:38 PM

The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday that it was “hard to overstate the significance” of fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose committee is leading its own investigation into Russian election meddling, wrote in a statement responding to Comey’s testimony that it “constitutes evidence of an intention to interfere or potentially obstruct at least a portion of the Russia investigation, if not more.”

Read Schiff’s full statement below:

“Today, former FBI Director James Comey testified that the President of the United States demanded his loyalty, and directed him to drop a criminal investigation into his former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn. Director Comey further testified that he believes President Trump ultimately fired him in order to alter the course of the FBI’s Russia investigation. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this testimony.

“These discussions and others took place in one-on-one telephone conversions and meetings initiated by the President, or after the President cleared the room of other people. Director Comey wrote memoranda about his conversations with President Trump because he was worried that the President and his Administration would misrepresent them.

“In my view, this testimony constitutes evidence of an intention to interfere or potentially obstruct at least a portion of the Russia investigation, if not more. It will be important for Congress to obtain evidence to corroborate this testimony — the memoranda, certainly, as well as any tapes, if they exist. We should also interview those around Director Comey at the time of these contacts, to get their contemporaneous impressions of his conversations with the President and to supplement his testimony. Finally, we cannot accept the refusal of Directors Rogers and Coats to answer questions about whether they were asked to intervene with Comey on the Flynn case or any related matter. Similarly, we will need to ask Director Pompeo the same questions. These additional steps are vital to determining the ultimate significance of the President’s actions.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... -testimony


Experts Say Comey’s Testimony Gives Building Blocks For Obstruction Case

Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Thursday, June 8, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Alex Brandon/AP
By MARK SHERMAN Published JUNE 8, 2017 6:28 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — If prosecutors want the building blocks for a claim that President Donald Trump interfered with a federal investigation, legal experts say fired FBI Director James Comey has handed those over.

They say he did it by recounting details of interactions that could show the president intended to obstruct justice.

Comey this week has recounted conversations with Trump in which the president said he hoped Comey would let go of the FBI’s investigation of a former national security adviser. That’s coupled with Comey’s statement Thursday to a Senate panel that he believes Trump fired him in May to alter the bureau’s investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 election.

But proving obstruction of justice is difficult even in ordinary circumstances. Moreover, political and other legal factors decidedly weigh in Trump’s favor.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/exper ... bstruction


NBC: Kushner To Meet With Senate Intelligence Committee Staffers In June

By ESME CRIBB Published JUNE 8, 2017 6:49 PM

Senior White House aide Jared Kushner is scheduled to meet in June with Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, NBC News reported late Thursday.

NBC News’ Kasie Hunt cited two unnamed sources who said the meeting is set for mid-June but did not name a specific date.

According to Hunt, the meeting is a first step toward Kushner providing documents to the panel and answering its questions.

Follow
Bradd Jaffy ✔ @BraddJaffy
NBC News: Jared Kushner will meet with Senate Intelligence Committee staffers mid-month, two sources tell NBC's @kasie Hunt
5:35 PM - 8 Jun 2017
661 661 Retweets 1,017 1,017 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Follow
Kasie Hunt ✔ @kasie
BREAKING ON NBC: Jared Kushner will meet with Senate Intel staff mid-month, 1st step in agmt to also provide docs & take senator qs
5:40 PM - 8 Jun 2017
638 638 Retweets 995 995 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The Washington Post reported in May that Kushner, who is President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, spoke in December to Russia’s ambassador to the United States about setting up a communications backchannel between Trump’s transition team and Moscow.

Reuters reported the same day that on his application for a security clearance, Kushner failed to disclose at least three contacts he had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

Kushner’s meetings with a Russian banker are also under scrutiny, according to a report by the New York Times, and the congressional committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election — including the Senate Intelligence Committee — reportedly want to question Kushner about whether he sought Russian financing for his family’s Manhattan tower from the banker.

Trump said in May that he had “total confidence” in Kushner, but appeared to joke in June that he was less than pleased with Kushner’s increased visibility.

“Jared’s actually become much more famous than me,” Trump said, to laughter. “I’m a little bit upset about that.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/n ... ttee-staff
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby Grizzly » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:47 pm

Image
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:50 pm

The NYT stands by their story ...there's a problem with the definition of a word

Watch out Beauregard you in big trouble.....they are coming for you

Image
Sessions Mystery: How Did Comey Know AG Would Have To Recuse Himself?
Sipa USA via AP
By ALLEGRA KIRKLAND Published JUNE 8, 2017 11:57 AM

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ oversight of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election had become “problematic” before he voluntarily recused himself, fired FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

The tantalizingly vague statement, based on facts Comey said he could not discuss in an open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested that FBI leadership knew weeks before Sessions’ recusal that he would have to step down.


As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) noted, Comey first made this assertion in his seven-page-long written testimony, which was released a day before his blockbuster in-person appearance. In that prepared statement, Comey said he immediately briefed his FBI leadership team after President Donald Trump requested he drop the investigation into Trump’s freshly ousted national security adviser, Michael Flynn, in a one-on-one White House meeting on Feb. 14. The officials agreed not to notify Sessions because they expected he “would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations,” per Comey’s prepared statement.

“What was it about the attorney general’s own interactions with the Russians or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the FBI to make this decision?” Wyden asked.

“Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons,” Comey said. “We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting, that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic and so we were—we were convinced and in fact, I think we had already heard that the career people [at the Justice Department] were recommending that he recuse himself, that he was not going to be in contact with Russia related matters much longer.”

“That turned out to be the case,” he added.

Sessions recused himself two weeks after that Feb. 14 conversation between Trump and Comey, after the Washington Post reported that he failed to disclose two conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during the campaign. Sessions had voluntarily offered during his own confirmation hearings that he “did not have communications with the Russians.”

After the Washington Post broke the news that Sessions twice met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the attorney general’s spokesperson confirmed the encounters, saying they occurred in his capacity as a then-senator from Alabama rather than as a prominent Trump campaign surrogate.

The attorney general announced his recusal from both the Russia probe and any “matters that deal with the Trump campaign” hours later.

“My staff recommended recusal,” Sessions said in a March 2 news conference. “I believe those recommendations are right and just.”

During that announcement, Sessions declined to confirm that there was an investigation into Trump’s associates and Russia. He also said he did not “believe” he had met with any Russian officials other than Kislyak.

Trump is reportedly still seething at Sessions over that recusal, which he believes ultimately led to the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the sprawling Russia investigation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/comey-t ... estigation
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:54 pm

Image



Comey Wanted To Get Memos In Press To Spur Special Counsel Appointment (VIDEO)

Andrew Harnik/AP
By CAITLIN MACNEAL Published JUNE 8, 2017 11:42 AM

James Comey on Thursday testified that he orchestrated the leak of a memo documenting President Donald Trump’s request that he drop the FBI probe into Michael Flynn in hopes that the news would prompt the appointment of a special counsel to oversee the sprawling federal probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Comey shared the revelation with the Senate Intelligence Committee when asked if he shared his memos with anyone outside of the Justice Department. He said that he was motivated to leak the memos after Trump tweeted that Comey should hope there weren’t “tapes” of their conversations.


“The President tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there’s not tapes,” Comey said. “I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation, there might be a tape. And my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square.”

“And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” he continued. “I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel, and so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”

Comey did not reveal the name of the friend who contacted a reporter about the memos, but did say that the individual was a professor at Columbia Law School.

Watch the exchange:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgvpSQSzt2M
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... memo-press


King Tells Comey: Trump Dinner ‘One Of The All Time Great Excuses’ For Skipping A Date (VIDEO)

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, asks a question during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, June 7, 2017. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Susan Walsh/AP
By MATT SHUHAM Published JUNE 8, 2017 11:49 AM
Fired FBI Director Jim Comey and Sen. Angus King (I-ME) drew laughter when discussing the circumstance of Comey’s one-on-one dinner with Trump.

“Did you in any way initiate that dinner?” King asked.

“No he called me at my desk at lunchtime and asked me, was I free for dinner that night?” Comey replied, detailing the logistics of his date with the President.

“And then he said how about 6:30? I said whatever works for you, sir,” Comey recalled of the phone conversation with Trump. “Then I hung up and had to call my wife and break a date with her. I was supposed to take her out to dinner that night.”

“That’s one of the all time great excuses for breaking it,” King said, to laughter.

“In retrospect,” Comey replied. “I love spending time with my wife. I wish I had dinner with her that night.”

“That’s one question I’m not going to follow up,” King said.

Watch below:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xxJZ2YmEZI

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/k ... st-excuses


Comey: Flynn Was Under Investigation For Potentially Misleading FBI (VIDEO)

Andrew Harnik/AP
By MATT SHUHAM Published JUNE 8, 2017 12:16 PM
Fired FBI Director James Comey confirmed that ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was under investigation for potentially misleading investigators.

When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) first asked about Flynn, Comey noted “I don’t think I can talk about that in an open setting. And again, I’ve been out of government now about a month so I also don’t want to talk about things when it’s now somebody else’s responsibility but maybe in the classified setting we can talk more about that.”

Still, Cotton continued to ask about Flynn.

“You stated earlier that there was an open investigation of Mr. Flynn in the FBI,” Cotton said. “Did you or any FBI agent ever sense that Mr. Flynn attempted to deceive you or made false statements to an FBI agent?”

“I don’t want to go too far,” Comey said after pausing. “That was the subject of the criminal inquiry.”

“Did you ever come close to closing the investigation on Mr. Flynn?” Cotton asked.

“I don’t think I can talk about that in open setting either,” Comey said.

Watch below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exmBQcRml3I
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... eading-fbi



James Comey confirms he knew from the start that Jeff Sessions was going down
By Bill Palmer
Updated: 12:09 pm EDT Thu Jun 8, 2017 | 0
Home » Politics

During the course of former FBI Director James Comey’s written testimony released yesterday and his live testimony taking place today, he’s now stated twice that he didn’t share certain details with Attorney General Jeff Sessions early on because he expected Sessions would end up recusing himself. When asked why, he stated that he couldn’t answer in an open hearing because some of it is classified.

This sets up a remarkable new premise in which not only does Comey think Sessions is going down in this scandal, he’s known from the start that Sessions was going down. Moreover, this goes beyond the mere fact that Sessions lied under oath about his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, as there are also classified reasons for why Comey knew Sessions would have to recuse himself – which ostensibly still must remain secret because they’re still being investigated.

It’s also notable that Comey and his team believed Sessions would recuse himself early on, suggesting that the evidence of his wrongdoing was so overwhelming that it wouldn’t take long to begin surfacing.


Further, this strongly points to Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating Jeff Sessions as part of his Trump-Russia probe, as has already been suggested over the past week in the media.
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/ja ... ions/3373/



JAMES COMEY’S REMARKABLE STORY ABOUT DONALD TRUMP
By Jeffrey Toobin 07:39 A.M.

Based on James Comey’s opening statement for his planned testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Trump appears to be guilty of obstruction of justice.
PHOTOGRAPH BY ERIC THAYER / GETTY

President Trump appears to be guilty of obstruction of justice. That’s the only rational conclusion to be reached if James Comey’s opening statement for his planned testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Thursday, is to be believed. The lurch of the Trump Presidency from one crisis to the next scandal produces a kind of bombshell-induced numbness, but that should not prevent us from appreciating the magnitude of Comey’s statement.

The statement, alongside other established facts, doesn’t just lay out evidence; it tells a story. In this tale, the President knows how much power he possesses and dangles it before those who serve him. The F.B.I. director was in the middle of a ten-year term, which was designed to give him some insulation from political pressure, but there was a catch: Trump could still fire him. And Trump clearly knew it, as he repeatedly demanded Comey’s personal loyalty. An early conversation, on January 27th, over dinner in the Green Room of the White House, set the tone: Comey was to answer to Trump, or the F.B.I. director would be gone. As Comey put it, he saw that Trump was trying to set up a “patronage relationship.”

Soon enough, Trump called on Comey’s loyalty. The President was worried about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, and he wanted a premature exoneration from Comey. The director hedged, clearly uncomfortable with the demand, but finally told Trump, in rather convoluted ways, that he was not a subject of the investigation—at least not yet.

But the Russia probe continued to worry the President, and soon he had more demands. The climax of Comey’s statement is his cinematic recounting of a meeting with the President in the Oval Office on February 14, 2017. The drama begins after the meeting, when the President instructs the other officials present, including Vice-President Mike Pence, to leave the room. Trump even takes the extraordinary step of asking the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who was Comey’s boss, to go, in order to allow the President to speak with the director alone. Trump then shoos Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, out of the Oval Office, too. (When Reince Priebus, the chief of staff, looks in, a while later, Trump also asks him to stay out of the conversation.) This insistence on a one-on-one meeting suggests what prosecutors like to call “consciousness of guilt.” All these high-ranking officials had clearance to hear anything that Trump might want to say to the director, so the fact that the President wanted them out of earshot would seem to indicate that he knew that what he was telling Comey was wrong—that it was, indeed, an obstruction of justice.

When the two men were alone, Comey writes, Trump asked him to help out the just-fired national-security adviser, Michael Flynn. In Trump’s typical scattershot fashion, he started talking about Flynn, but segued to the subject of leaks, before getting back on topic. In the key passage of Comey’s statement, he writes:

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice-President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.”

This part of Comey’s testimony, if it’s accurate, is a smoking gun. The President is instructing his subordinate to stop an F.B.I. investigation of Trump’s close associate.

Comey told the F.B.I. leadership team about Trump’s outrageously improper request, but he did something more, too. When Comey went to see his direct boss, Sessions, he made an urgent request:

I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened—him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind—was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply.

The language is uncharacteristic for the lawyerly F.B.I. director: he implored his boss to put a stop to the President’s meddling. But Sessions, a more loyal soldier, said nothing.

The most important piece of evidence in the obstruction case against Trump is actually never mentioned in Comey’s opening statement. That evidence is what occurred on May 9th. Comey had not acceded to the President’s request that he cease the investigation of Flynn and the connection to Russia, and he paid the price with his job. Later, Trump all but confessed that he had rid himself of this meddlesome director because of Russia. He told NBC’s Lester Holt, “When I decided to just do it”—to fire Comey—“I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.’ “ The day after the firing, the President boasted to the visiting Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, saying, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

There is, of course, much more to know about this story. Did Trump use other government officials to try to stymie the Russia investigation? During an Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, senators pressed Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, about their contacts with Trump on the issue; they refused to answer. They may eventually tell what they know—as, surely, will others. But the story is now complete in its outline, if not its details, and Trump’s culpability is clear to anyone who cares to look.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... oto%20(176)&CNDID=49918597&spMailingID=11215167&spUserID=MTk3MzU5NzY1MTYwS0&spJobID=1180700028&spReportId=MTE4MDcwMDAyOAS2
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby kelley » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:33 pm

this is more bullshit soap opera reality show kayfabe whatever whatever distracting dissembling bullshit? or is it

i honestly just can't can't tell any longer

but the actual 'story' as always must be elsewhere

i guess

strip those assets boys and keep that tape running

take two

and

action
kelley
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:18 am

Image





One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

But several former American intelligence and law enforcement officials have said that other American agencies have a broader definition, especially when it comes to Russia.


Comey Disputes New York Times Article About Russia Investigation
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZOJUNE 8, 2017

James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testified Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. During the hearing, he disputed a New York Times article about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials: “in the main, it was not true.” Credit Al Drago/The New York Times
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on Thursday disputed an article that appeared in February in The New York Times about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials.

Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”

The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of F.B.I. and congressional investigations. Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.

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.




One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

But several former American intelligence and law enforcement officials have said that other American agencies have a broader definition, especially when it comes to Russia. They said that President Vladimir V. Putin uses an extensive network of government officials and private citizens with deep links to Russian spy services who supplement the intelligence apparatus and report back to the Kremlin. At least some of the contacts, they said, involved Russians who fit into this category.

In testimony last month before the House Intelligence Committee, John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, said he became concerned last year about direct attempts by the Russian government to recruit members of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,” he told lawmakers. “And it raised questions in my mind again whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”

Based on his answers to one Republican senator on Thursday, it also seemed that Mr. Comey may have disagreed with The Times’s description of the evidence for such contacts. The Times article said that American authorities had relied on “phone records and intercepted calls” to amass evidence of the contacts between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians. But Mr. Comey offered no elaboration on this point.

Subsequent reporting by The Times and other news outlets has revealed that, last year, American investigators also received information from human intelligence sources and foreign spy services.

The Feb. 14 story said that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump advisers and Russia’s campaign to disrupt last year’s presidential election, a fact that officials have since said publicly. The F.B.I. declined to address Mr. Comey’s comments about the article.

Since that article was published, there have been revelations in The Times and other news outlets reporting that Mr. Trump’s advisers were in contact with Russian intelligence.

Last year, for example, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the communications of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. Law enforcement officials believed the Russian government was trying to recruit Mr. Page as a foreign agent.

A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met with at least one suspected intelligence officer during two trips he took to Russia last year, although it is unclear whether Mr. Page knew about the identity or the motivations of the Russian.

Mr. Page has repeatedly declined to say whom he met and spoke with during one of the trips, to Moscow last summer. He has described them only as “mostly scholars.”

During the transition, Jared Kushner, a senior aide, met privately with the head of a Russian bank with deep ties to Russian intelligence, seeking a direct line of communication to the Kremlin. The banker, Sergey N. Gorkov, is a graduate of Russia’s spy school.

Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Trump adviser, exchanged Twitter messages last year with Guccifer 2.0, an online persona that authorities say was a front for Russian intelligence officials.

During the hearing, Mr. Comey said there were inaccuracies in many articles about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, a problem he attributed in part to anonymous sources discussing classified information.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/p ... ipad-share


Image


Michael Cohen, Trump and the Russian Connection

Kathy Willens/AP
By JOSH MARSHALL Published JUNE 9, 2017 2:26 PM

There’s a very interesting article published this morning about Michael Cohen in Buzzfeed. Like many articles on Cohen, Trump, Russia and related matters, it’s a bit of a jigsaw piece. There’s a lot of information the full import of which is hard to make sense of without knowing a lot of other information about broader story.

Let’s review a few points.

Michael Cohen seems a lot like another Trump loudmouth lawyer. But he’s actually quite a bit more. Cohen first came to Trump’s attention and interest because of his access to capital from Ukraine and Russia and as well as from emigres from those countries. That brought Cohen – who you might have thought hadn’t the slightest connection to or even a clue about the countries of the former Soviet Union – into the Trump Organization. Cohen is also a very, very wealthy man in his own right. He has extensive real estate holdings in the New York City area – not just apartment units but entire buildings. He is also a major player in the New York City taxi business and appears to have made his first money there. Again, his business partners are emigres from Russia and Ukraine. Without saying specifically what business role Cohen has had in these area of commerce, they are ‘industries’ that are notorious for bringing money from unstable or kleptocratic parts of the world to places where it can be safely stowed.

Cohen also has family from Ukraine and his own business interests there. Cohen is married to a Ukrainian immigrant and his brother Bryan is too. They set up an ethanol business in Ukraine with family about a decade ago – just before Cohen entered the Trump Organization.

Cohen was also the intermediary who met with mafia-linked Trump business partner, Felix Sater and a Ukraine parliamentarian, Andrii Artemenko at the Loews Regency hotel in Manhattan in the first days of the Trump presidency. They were there to discuss Ukraine. Artemenko gave Cohen a sealed packet of documents to hand deliver to Michael Flynn, then still Trump’s National Security Advisor. Cohen did so, though he later claimed that he didn’t.

The dossier purportedly contained a ‘peace plan’ and documents detailing bad acts by the current leadership of the government of Ukraine. (We still do not know what was in that dossier or what became of it, though there is now ample evidence that at just this time members of the Trump entourage were trying to establish secure channels of communication to Russia.) After the meeting was first reported in The New York Times, Artemenko told Ukrainian press that he’d been discussing Ukraine with Cohen since early 2016 or possibly as early as late 2015 and indeed had known Cohen for years since back when Cohen and his family set up the ethanol business in Ukraine (roughly a decade ago).

This is more or less the story as we currently knew it in advance of this new article. Here are some of the new details.

It turns out that back in 2006, Michael Cohen and brother Bryan Cohen were chosen by Bryan Cohen’s father-in-law, Alex Oronov, to seek American investors for an ethanol business that Oronov co-owned with Viktor Topolov, a politician and mid-level Ukraine oligarch with extensive ties to the Ukraine and Russian criminal underworlds. Topolov also seems to have had a one or two steps removed relationship with Russian underworld kingpin Semion Mogilevich, one of the most wanted men in the world. Buzzfeed refers to Oronov as Topolov’s “long-time business partner.” It’s not clear to me if this ethanol business is the same as the one Cohen reportedly set up with family in Ukraine at around the same time (that effort has some footprint in US corporate filings) or not. My best guess is that they are both part of the same larger effort. But I’m not certain about the precise relation. The Cohen brothers brought in Morgan Stanley and others for the pitch. But none of the Americans were interested and the enterprise seems to have been funded from sources inside Ukraine.

Who is Alex Oronov? Again, he’s Bryan Cohen’s father-in-law. He is also the one who reportedly arranged the Cohen, Sater, Artemenko meeting in early February of this year. Oronov died in March, after a long illness, according to Bryan Cohen.

That’s not the only connection. Buzzfeed also reports that Artemenko is a “close associate” of Topolov. Artemenko replaced Topolov as the head of a Ukraine football team, CSKA Kiev, in 1999. Topolov and Artemenko were allegedly both involved in using the football team to launder money. Artemenko spent two years in custody tied to that scheme, although all charges were eventually dismissed because of political pressure.

The Cohen brothers trying to bring in American investors makes sense. From my own reporting, I know that around this time Michael Cohen and/or Bryan Cohen show up as the registrants of various corporate entities in the US: International Ethanol of Ukraine Ltd., Ukrainian Capital Growth Fund, Ukrainian Partners, UKRethanol, et al.

Remember, Artemenko says that he’d been talking to Michael Cohen about a peace plan for Ukraine since early 2016. Specifically, he said he’d been discussing his plans for peace in Ukraine with Cohen and Sater since “the time of the primaries, when no one believed that Trump would even be nominated.” Ukraine of course is at the center of what had been the current deep freeze in relations between Moscow and Washington and they are root of the sanctions regime Russia is now keen to get lifted. Artemenko says he’d known Cohen and Oronov for since Cohen was in Ukraine circa 2006 setting up the family ethanol business. Until now, as far as I know, we’ve never had any way of knowing whether that was true or even plausible. Given the relationships connecting Topolov, Artemenko, Oronov and Cohen, his claim now seems very plausible. That being accurate lends more credence to his claim to have opened a Ukraine peace channel with Water and Cohen back into early 2016 or perhaps as far back as late 2015 – when “the time of the primaries” means is not entirely clear.

Needless to say there are a lot of bits of information stitched together here. But the essentials are pretty firm. A Ukrainian with reputed ties to organized crime who claims, with some evidence to have known Cohen and his brother’s father-in-law for a decade, says he started a discussion about bringing peace to Ukrainian and ending sanctions with Cohen and Trump business associate Sater early in the presidential campaign. We know that Cohen and Artemenko were closely connected and quite likely worked on the same business projects. Later is another emigre from Russia convicted for crimes tied to the criminal underworld and with a father who is reputedly part of the Mogilevich crime organization. He also played a key role in Trump building projects which relied on funding from the countries of the former Soviet Union, the best example is Trump Soho.

As regular readers know, I’ve always thought this meeting was a big deal – a bigger deal than most people seem to think, even though it got a lot of attention back in February. We keep getting more information confirming what makes it seem like a big deal. As I wrote a few days ago, the meeting takes on a new significance knowing as we now do that the Trump inner circle was trying to find secure modes of communication with people in Russia at this time. Few things are as secure as hand delivered packets of paper documents. From the Buzzfeed article we now have more information confirmed Artemenko’s perhaps injudicious comments about a longterm relationship with Cohen. If we were are looking for channels between the Trump Organization and people in the former Soviet Union in which a collusion may have occurred, it’s not Putin having a secret meeting with Trump at a safe house in New Jersey. It’s far more likely in settings like this. We have dossiers of physical documents, apparently a longterm discussion of the core issue on which the Kremlin wants relief from the US, what has been in the past – through Cohen and Sater – a channel of money from the countries of the former Soviet Union to Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. It seems hard to imagine that the FBI’s/Special Counsel’s Russia probe is not looking at this or, if they’re not now, soon will be.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/mic ... connection
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:35 am

Iamwhomiam » Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:11 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:55 pm wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:17 pm wrote:John McCain's line of question was insane.


More like senile. He said "Mr. Comey" when he meant to refer to Trump in one question. He also said, "In the minds of this member...." He's not all there. Strange that his handlers would allow him to expose himself like that, but maybe he was just having a bad day. Trump and McCain should get together for dinner. They could have a nice word salad, with a side of KFC.


I vote for both, insane and senile.

I also agree he's long past his prime and I'm surprised no one close to him has convinced him to retire. I didn't miss his claim of plurality, either.

It was interesting the former prosecutor tried to establish doubt as to Trump's motives vis a vis Comey and what he was alluding to before condemning him for exercising poor judgement for not immediately reporting the incident to his superior. Of course, he couldn't. Trump's interactions with Comey could have prompted an investigation if staff felt it necessary. As we now most clearly see, Trump will surely fall and that through his very own actions.

The Russian thing will proly wind up with a slew of RICO warrants for his crew, with cases lasting perhaps for years.



Sen. John McCain's \<] bizarre exchange with James Comey

June 8, 2017 12:41 PM EDT - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked former FBI director James Comey a series of questions at a Senate Intelligence Hearing, but appeared to be confused about FBI investigations, on June 8 at the Capitol. (Reuters)

(Video of McCain's interaction with Comey)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/sen-john-mccains-bizarre-exchange-with-james-comey/2017/06/08/bb19f12c-4c69-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_video.html


Norton - "The line this morning was they had him tied to a chair."

:whisper: :lol:
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:13 pm

oh Beauregard you just can't stop lying can you.....even under oath :D


Report: Sessions Dined With Lobbyist For Russian Corps, Omitted It In Testimony

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sworn-in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, prior to testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about his role in the firing of James Comey, his Russian contacts during the campaign and his decision to recuse from an investigation into possible ties between Moscow and associates of President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Alex Brandon/AP
By ALICE OLLSTEIN Published JUNE 15, 2017 3:19 PM

Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee under oath this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was asked whether he had “any contacts with any representative, including any American lobbyist or agent of any Russian company” during the 2016 campaign. Sessions, one of Trump’s earliest supporters, answered: “I don’t believe so.”

On Thursday, an American lobbyist for several major Russian interests, including a state-run energy company and a private equity firm with the state-run Alfa bank, told the Guardian that Sessions in fact hosted him at two dinners during the presidential campaign. The dinners occurred around the time time that the American public learned of Russian efforts to influence the presidential election.

Richard Burt, a former U.S. ambassador to Germany who now lobbies on behalf a pipeline company owned by the Russian energy giant Gazprom, said he attended events with Sessions at least twice last year, and his ties to the Trump campaign were reported as early as last October. Burt made hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2016 alone lobbying Congress to exempt a proposed natural gas pipeline from U.S. sanctions, which would allow more Russian gas to flow to European markets—a key geopolitical goal of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Burt also serves on the board of the Center for the National Interest, a Russia-friendly D.C. think tank that hosted Trump’s foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel last April. Politico reported that Burt helped shape the address Trump delivered at that event, which Sessions attended as the chairman of the Trump campaign’s national security committee.

This is not the first time Sessions has failed, under oath, to recall a meeting with a Russian official or ally.

During his confirmation hearing in January, Sessions said without being directly asked: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.” He also replied with a blanket “no” to the committee’s written question: “Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election?”

The Justice Department later admitted this was not true, that he met twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/session ... ting-trump




Lobbyist for Russian interests says he attended dinners hosted by Sessions
Richard Burt contradicts Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he didn’t believe he had contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests during Trump’s campaign

Jeff Sessions is sworn in before testifying before the Senate in Washington DC Tuesday.

Stephanie Kirchgaessner
Thursday 15 June 2017 11.32 EDT Last modified on Thursday 15 June 2017 13.29 EDT
An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

Analysis 'Nervous' Jeff Sessions' attempt at Trump-like bravado falls flat
Analysis: In his Senate testimony on Russia, the attorney general’s default position was ‘can’t recall’ and vagueness was the order of the day

Sessions testified under oath on Tuesday that he did not believe he had any contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests over the course of Trump’s campaign. But Richard Burt, a former ambassador to Germany during the Reagan administration, who has represented Russian interests in Washington, told the Guardian that he could confirm previous media reports that stated he had contacts with Sessions at the time.

“I did attend two dinners with groups of former Republican foreign policy officials and Senator Sessions,” Burt said.

Asked whether Sessions was unfamiliar with Burt’s role as a lobbyist for Russian interests – a fact that is disclosed in public records – or had any reason to be confused about the issue, Burt told the Guardian that he did not know.

Several media reports published before Trump’s election in November noted that Burt advised then candidate Trump on his first major foreign policy speech, a role that brought him into contact with Sessions personally.

Burt, who previously served on the advisory board of Alfa Capital Partners, a private equity fund where Russia’s Alfa Bank was an investor and last year was lobbying on behalf of a pipeline company that is now controlled by Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy conglomerate, first told Politico in October that he had been invited to two dinners that were hosted by Sessions last summer, at the height of the presidential campaign.

Sessions, a former senator for Alabama who was chairman of the Trump campaign’s national security committee, reportedly invited Burt so that he could discuss issues of national security and foreign policy.

When John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona who is a frequent critic of Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin, asked Sessions in a hearing this week before the Senate intelligence committee about whether the attorney general had ever had “any contacts with any representative, including any American lobbyist or agent of any Russian company” during the 2016 campaign, Sessions said he did not.

“I don’t believe so,” Sessions said.

Other outlets, including the New Yorker magazine and Reuters, also reported last year that Burt had contributed his views to Trump’s speech. When NPR interviewed Burt in May 2016 about the talk, he said he was “asked to provide a draft for that speech, and parts of that draft survived into the final [version]”.

The speech, delivered on 27 April 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel, was attended by Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and is now at the heart of new questions about Sessions’ personal dealings with Russian officials. Sessions recused himself from oversight of the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in March after it emerged that he held two undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador last year.

In his explosive testimony before Congress earlier this month, former FBI director James Comey, who was fired by Trump, suggested that he had known that Sessions would eventually have to recuse himself from the Russia probe, but declined to explain the details in public.

Questions directed at Sessions by lawmakers days later – after they had privately been briefed by Comey – suggested it related to a third alleged encounter with Kislyak that had not been disclosed, this time at the Mayflower Hotel speech. In his confirmation hearing, Sessions had told lawmakers under oath that he had never had communication with Russian officials.


Jeff Sessions: Russia collusion accusation an ‘appalling and detestable lie’
This week, in the latest hearing, Sessions said he may have “possibly” had an “encounter” with the Russian ambassador during a reception at the Mayflower, but could not recall any specific conversations.

The speech was hosted by the Center for the National Interest, a Washington thinktank. Burt sits on the group’s board of directors.


While Burt has not played a central role in the FBI and congressional investigation, Sessions’ response about his dealings with American lobbyists – which appears to contradict previous reports that Burt and Sessions communicated during the campaign – could invite more scrutiny of the attorney general’s testimony.

It is also possible that Sessions was not fully aware of Burt’s lobbying history, although Burt’s affiliation with Russian interests is fairly well known in Washington circles.

The former ambassador is managing director of the Europe and Eurasia practice at McLarty Associates. In that role, he’s served as a lobbyist for the New European Pipeline AG, the company behind Nord Stream II. At the time the work started, Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil company, owned a 50% stake, but it now owns the entire entity. The pipeline, which is seen as making Europe more dependent on Russian energy exports, was opposed by the Obama administration.

Burt also serves on the board of Deutsche Bank’s closed-end fund group, according to his online biography.

The former ambassador and lobbyist appears to have recently sought to downplay his role in helping Trump to formulate the Mayflower speech, telling the Daily Beast earlier this year that he had transmitted his counsel through a third party intermediary.

In the speech, Trump said an “easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible” and that “common sense says this cycle of hostility must end”.

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

Asked about Burt and the exchange between McCain and Sessions, Carter Page, another former foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign and a central figure in the Russia investigation, said he found “the entire line of questioning to be near the pinnacle of witch hunt tactics”.

“In the grand scheme of things, the severe civil rights abuses by Clinton-Obama-Comey regime carried out against myself and other supporters of the Trump campaign in their illegal attempts to influence the 2016 election will help clarify how irrelevant all these petty side-questions are,” he said.

Page added that he was writing a book on his experience and that he was “still in discussions” with publishers.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... are_btn_tw




The Russia Probe Is a Vast Lava Flow Moving Toward Trump

President Donald Trump speaks on the phone with Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull in the Oval Office of the White House, Saturday, Jan. 28, 2017 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Alex Brandon/AP
By JOSH MARSHALL Published JUNE 15, 2017 12:27 PM
23265Views
Below, I wrote about yesterday’s WaPo blockbuster which confirmed what seemed likely: that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether President Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey and taking other actions with the aim of ending or diverting the Russia probe. Two other articles came out yesterday evening – one in the Times and another in the Journal – which added a few more details.

The pieces mainly follow and rehash the WaPo piece. But let me focus on a couple points.

First, the Journal article has one passage that jumped out at me. (Ledgett is NSA Chief Rogers former deputy.)

While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. During the call, the president questioned the veracity of the intelligence community’s judgment that Russia had interfered with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russian officials, they said.

We know from numerous public statements that the President is either skeptical of Russia’s role in the 2016 election or refuses to credit the evidence for it or the US intelligence community’s judgment about it. We know this. But for the President to push back against this judgment in a confidential phone call with the chief of the nation’s signals intelligence agency strikes me as a different thing. I do not see this and I doubt investigators see this as a narrowly legal issue. But the President saying ‘I don’t believe that’ or ‘That’s not true’ cannot help at some level, intentional or not, send the message: change your answer, change what you think the evidence says.

I think we can understand that even if President Trump is totally innocent he would resist the Russia connection premise simply because it throws the legitimacy of his election into some question. We should need no convincing that pride and status and accomplishment means everything to Trump. This undercuts what he must see as his life’s greatest accomplishment. So doubting this or even undercutting it publicly does not necessarily imply guilt. But I cannot imagine that hearing the President push this argument privately with his spy chiefs comes off as highly disturbing and troubling. Again, here I do not mean this in a narrowly legal sense but, for his spy chiefs, just a sense of “What is the President up to?” “What’s the root of this resistance?” How can they not wonder?

The Times mainly follows the Post. But it gets interesting in the last two grafs …

While Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has not said what exactly prompted him to appoint Mr. Mueller, his decision came after The New York Times published details about an Oval Office meeting Mr. Comey had with the president at the White House in February. During the meeting, the president brought up Mr. Flynn and told Mr. Comey, “I hope you can let this go,” according to the memo. Mr. Comey told the Senate that he viewed that as a clear directive from the president to drop the investigation.

A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates. The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payments, probably by routing them through offshore banking centers.

In the first graf, it suggests Rosenstein may have felt required to appoint a Special Counsel when he learned from the Times reporting about the ‘Flynn ask’ conversation on February 14th in the Oval Office. Remember that this is the article based on Comey’s leaked memo and Comey said that he leaked the memo to spur this result. Is this how it happened? I don’t have any definitive conclusion about this. The piece in question was published on May 16th. Mueller was appointed on May 17th. I would be curious to hear from people with relevant DOJ or legal knowledge. Because I am not sure about this. But Mueller taking this on was a major life commitment. I’m skeptical that Rosenstein could have made it happen from scratch in less than 24 hours. Not impossible. Maybe totally more doable than I imagine. But it sounds off to me.

Remember the timeline. Comey is fired on May 9th. Trump tells Lavrov he fired the “nutjob” and relieved the “pressure” on May 10th. Trump told Lester Holt on national TV on May 11th that he fired Comey because of Russia. It seems hard to figure to me that these didn’t play a big role in Rosenstein’s decision. It would be instructive and helpful to know what pushed Rosenstein over the line.

But let’s look at that last graf from the Times. Mueller and his investigators believe that the payoff for Russia collusion would be found in money laundering channels. Me too! That makes perfect sense. What’s interesting here is what is that these investigators appear to be taking it as a given that there is money laundering by Trump associates. The question is whether it’s vanilla money laundering or part of election tampering collusion.

I grant I’m making some significant assumptions here. Perhaps this is simply the way the reporters crafted the sentences and we can’t draw any inferences. But I doubt it. As I’ve noted a few times, I’ve crafted a Trump-specific version of the old Army adage: Few members of the Trump crew could survive first contact with real legal scrutiny. You can’t read up on these guys and not realize this. This paragraph doesn’t prove anything. But it certainly suggests to me what I would have expected, which is that investigators have quite quickly found illicit financial transactions (or prima facie evidence of the same) by those in Trump’s inner circle or those he hooked up with during the campaign. The question now is whether those transactions were part of collusion with Russia. Either way, they become a tool to break people with information about Trump and make them cooperate. Those are crimes either way.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the ... ward-trump
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:04 pm

Just want to share this Facebook post from Larisa Alexandrovna that really puts things in perspective. We'll see if she is right:

We are watching one hell of a chess game (well, checkers on Trump's side) and finally, the refusal of McCabe, Rogers and Coats to answer Congressional questions makes total sense now.

Mueller move: Have Comey/FBI hand over notes to team Mueller, not Congress - so POTUS does not know exactly what is in them = rattle the target.

Trump move: Start war on Mueller via surrogates. Has his idiot attorney attempt to discredit Comey using total horseshit claims.

Mueller move: order Rogers, McCabe and Coats to refuse to provide testimony to Congress (making sure Trump is not informed by friends in the GOP).

Trump's move: Arrest first leaker, sending warning shot across to anyone leaking. Attempt to tie leaker to Obama holdovers in gov (implicating Comey and the FBI as riddled with deep state enemies).

Now comes the brilliant, silent dance that is the Mueller move.

Mueller move: Says nothing. Starts hiring very specific kind of team members with very specific experience: money laundering, Eastern European organized crime, CI, Supreme Court super attorney, DOJ/FBI experience involving impeachment (Watergate and Whitewater). That means that Mueller is anticipating that Trump will fire him and Mueller will take this to the Supreme Court (hence the SCOTUS super lawyer). That means that Mueller is looking at Kushner, Ivanka, the Trump boys and Michael Cohen for money laundering for the Russian mob (hence the money laundering/Eastern European organized crime expert). That means that Mueller is looking at Flynn, Manafort and Page for possible collusion with Russia (hence the FBI famed CI expert).

Trump move: Floats firing Mueller to see reaction. Sends Sessions in to testify. Intensifies war on Mueller. (you can see the Mueller anticipated this move, hence the hiring of SCOTUS super attorney).

Trump move: Panic. Starts making sure stories are published in friendly outlets reporting that some of team Mueller players donated to Dems (BTW, Mueller is a Republican and Trump just hired a Democrat to his team). Starts making sure that people emphasize that Mueller is biased because of friendship with Comey.

Mueller move: Brief Senate Intel Chair (Burr) and ranking member (Warner) today.

Trump move: White House starts leaking that Trump was talked out of firing Mueller.

Someone/Team Mueller move: Makes public that POTUS under investigation.

Basically, Mueller is saying, go ahead, fire me. I call your bluff. I am ready to take this to the SCOTUS. Go for it. And I predict, that Trump will do just that, walking straight into the trap. By trying to fire Mueller (via Rod R) it will cause massive resignations, including Rod R. Mueller can refuse to leave and take this to court - which he has already planned for. Precedent is on his side because of Watergate rulings. Most importantly, GOP is forced to walk straight into a choice they don't want to have to make: impeachment.

Mark my words. Trump will demand that Rod R fire Mueller (only he can do it). Rod R will refuse and likely resign. Trump will go down the list of DOJ career people until someone in the chain agrees (like Bork). Mueller will refuse and take it to court. Trump is that incapable of controlling himself. He may have well not been in the loop in terms of what the three traitors were doing (Flynn, Manafort and Page), but there is no question about his laundering money for the Russian mob. That is what he is trying to cover up. The Senate has just closed the door to sanctions. So now Trump's owners - who are particularly capable of taking out anyone in the world with an array of weapons, including radioactive tea - are not pleased. He has been a dick to far too many people to have any real friends. He is isolated and trusts no one - I doubt even precious Kushner. He will panic, because the safest place for Trump now is inside the White House - at least until he can find a way to pay back the Russian mob. So he will do whatever it takes to buy time. Firing Mueller will buy him time - the process will take a while (court). And right now, that is all (I think), Trump is interested in - buying time to pay off the mob by selling policies, because he has a lot less money than anyone knows.

I give it a week. Maybe two at the most. But Trump is likely now already setting the process in motion. He is probably now calling Rod R to complain. Mark. My. Words.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:01 pm

I like Larisa. I think she is one of the most intelligent commentators within the large section of the U.S. liberal intelligentsia who have totally lost their shit over the Putin-Trump angle. One of the great examples of herd action, it has been. Not funny given the stakes. Here's a flat-out gangster who can be brought down 41 different ways and also can be defeated epically just on the politics (should have been!), and they've coalesced around what I think is both the most regressive and dumbest possible hope for Trump removal. I will not be happy about it when she is disappointed, as she very likely will be within the short frame, though I'll make no probabilistic predictions for more than a few months. For now I'm far more in tune with this guy:

JUNE 15, 2017
Red Alert: Russian Focus Might Save Trump’s Hide
by CHRIS FLOYD
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15 ... umps-hide/
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:06 pm

Today his thumbs have been busy again. Starting 12 hours ago, would have been 7 am (it's 7 pm as I post).

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
More
Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
40,397 replies 27,966 retweets 75,099 likes
Reply 40K Retweet 28K Like 75K

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
More
Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?
31,945 replies 19,197 retweets 60,439 likes
Reply 32K Retweet 19K Like 60K

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 11h11 hours ago
More
You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA
55,116 replies 28,691 retweets 95,261 likes
Reply 55K Retweet 29K Like 95K

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 12h12 hours ago
More
They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice
44,486 replies 34,763 retweets 113,860 likes
Reply 44K Retweet 35K Like 114K
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests