Director Comey fired

[JAD_333]

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

Thanks secret services for leaking this....

My first reaction as well. But it also could be a message or a warning.

[Wooglin]

Ah, some perspective.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley's accusation that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lied about President Trump and the Russia investigation — that Schumer said the president was under investigation after he, Schumer, had been specifically told by the FBI that Trump was not — is shedding new light on the events that led to the president's rising frustration over the Russia probe, the FBI, and Democrats who sought to make political hay out of Trump's troubles.

Start in January. As Inauguration Day approached, the Trump-Russia affair dominated media talk. The central question, then as now, was whether Trump or his associates colluded with the Russians to try to influence the 2016 election. And the root of the president's frustration was the same: he had been assured, by the highest levels of law enforcement, that he was not under investigation, while at the same time the impression grew — fed by officials who knew otherwise — that he was under investigation.

On Jan. 6, when Trump was president-elect, FBI Director James Comey met with him to tell him about the so-called Russia dossier, which, among other things, described alleged Trump sexual encounters in a Moscow hotel. (Comey later called the dossier "unverified.") Comey later noted that Trump did not ask whether he, Trump, was being investigated personally, but that Comey, on his own initiative, "offered that assurance."

On Jan. 27, Comey again told the president that he was not under investigation.

Fast forward to March. The Russia controversy had grown, not diminished. On March 9, Comey briefed the so-called Gang of Eight — Mitch McConnell, Schumer, Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi, plus the chair and ranking member of both House and Senate intelligence committees. On March 15, Comey briefed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and top committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein. Comey told them all that Trump was not under investigation.

So by March 15, all of the top leadership of Congress and the relevant committees had heard from the FBI director himself that Trump was not under FBI investigation.

On March 20, Comey made a bombshell announcement before the House Intelligence Committee:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

When a Democratic member of the committee asked Comey, "Was Donald Trump under investigation during the campaign?" Comey replied, "I'm not going to answer that." When the same member asked, "Is [Trump] under investigation now?" Comey said, "I'm not going to answer that."

Given all the breathless reporting of the previous months, a listener might reasonably infer that Trump was under investigation — a contention the leaders of Congress knew at the time to be false.

Some were upset at the impression Comey left. The same day Comey testified, March 20, Grassley tweeted, "FBI Dir Comey needs to be transparent + tell the public what he told me about whether he is or is not investigating @POTUS." And what Comey told Grassley, of course, was that Trump was not under investigation.

But then the next day, March 21, Schumer, who had been briefed by Comey on March 9 that the president was not under investigation, took to the floor of the Senate. He called on lawmakers to delay the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch until the Russia matter was resolved. Republicans held up former President Barack Obama's court choice for nearly a year, Schumer said, but "are now rushing to fill the seat for a president whose campaign is under investigation by the FBI."

Schumer appeared to be speaking carefully; he said Trump's campaign was under investigation. But then he became much less careful with his words. "You can bet if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI, the Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances," Schumer said.

"After all, they stopped the president who was not under investigation from filling a set with nearly a year left in his presidency," Schumer continued. "It is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court Justice with a lifetime appointment while this 'big gray cloud' of an FBI investigation hangs over the presidency."

Schumer's point was entirely clear: President Trump was under investigation. Of course, Comey told Schumer less than two weeks earlier that was not the case.

On March 30, Comey had another conversation with Trump in which, for a third time, he told Trump that Trump was not under FBI investigation. In the same conversation, as later described by Comey to the Senate, Comey told Trump that he had "briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump."

So by March 30, Trump knew that Comey had 1) told the president he was not under investigation; 2) told the House and Senate leadership that the president was not under investigation; and 3) told the president that he had told the House and Senate leadership that the president was not under investigation.

The only people who hadn't gotten the message were the American people. No one knew that better than Trump, who, by Comey's account, told Comey repeatedly, "We need to get that fact out."

But the fact did not get out. Instead, things got worse.

On May 3, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal went perhaps further than other Democrats in trying to push the idea that the president was under investigation.

"You have confirmed, I believe, that the FBI is investigating potential ties between Trump associates and the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, correct?" Blumenthal asked the director.

"Yes," said Comey.

"And have not, to my knowledge, ruled out anyone in the Trump campaign as potentially a target of that criminal investigation, correct?"

"Well, I haven't said anything publicly about who we've opened investigations on," replied Comey. "I briefed the chair and ranking on who those people are. And so I can't — I can't go beyond that in this setting."

"Have you ruled out anyone in the campaign that you can disclose?"

"I don't feel comfortable answering that, senator because I think it puts me on a slope to talking about who we're investigating," replied Comey.

"Have you — have you ruled out the president of the United States?"

"I don't — I don't want people to over-interpret this answer," said Comey. "I'm not going to comment on anyone in particular, because that puts me down a slope of — because if I say no to that, then I have to answer succeeding questions. So what we've done is brief the chair and ranking on who the U.S. persons are that we've opened investigations on. And that's — that's as far as we're going to go, at this point."

"But as a former prosecutor, you know that when there's an investigation into several potentially culpable individuals, the evidence from those individuals and the investigation can lead to others, correct?"

"Correct," said Comey. "We're always open-minded about — and we follow the evidence wherever it takes us."

"So potentially," Blumenthal continued, "the president of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian interference in our election, correct?"

"I just worry — I don't want to answer that — that seems to be unfair speculation," said Comey. "We will follow the evidence, we'll try and find as much as we can and we'll follow the evidence wherever it leads."

Given everything else that has been said about the Russia matter, would a reasonable listener come away with the impression that the president was under investigation? Probably so. And just for emphasis, the next day Blumenthal appeared on the cable news program Trump loves to hate, "Morning Joe," to press his case.

A few days later, on May 9, Trump, frustrated with the two-faced nature of the investigation, fired Comey. In his firing letter, Trump said that Comey had assured him on three separate occasions that he, Trump, was not under investigation — an assertion met with great skepticism in the reporting of the firing.

Two days later, on May 11, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a business meeting. At that meeting a clearly unhappy Grassley discussed the question of whether Trump was under FBI investigation. Remember, at that time, the public did not know the truth. But Grassley did.

"Mr. Comey testified before the Judiciary Committee last week," Grassley began. "Sen. Blumenthal asked him whether the FBI had ruled anyone out as a potential target of the investigation of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. In response, Mr. Comey stated: 'Well, I haven't said anything publicly about who we've opened investigations on. I briefed the chair and ranking on who those people are.'"

"Mr. Comey did brief Ranking Member Feinstein and me on who the targets of the various investigations are," Grassley continued:

It would not be appropriate for me to reveal those details before the professionals conducting the investigations are ready. So I will not answer any questions about who are targets of the ongoing Russia investigations. But I will say this: Shortly after Director Comey briefed us, I tweeted that he should be transparent. I said he should tell the public what he told Senator Feinstein and me about whether the FBI is or is not investigating the president. On Tuesday, the president's letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the president's statement.

Feinstein agreed that what Grassley had said was "accurate."

Neither Grassley nor Feinstein, bound by the restriction that the briefing from Comey was secret, could come out and say that Comey had told them Trump was not under investigation. So they danced around the topic.

That was May 11. It wasn't until June 8, when Comey, by that time a private citizen, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he admitted Trump was never under investigation — and that, just as Trump said, Comey had assured the president three times that he wasn't under investigation.

Comey's admission seemed to make Grassley more frustrated. For all those weeks and months, while speculation about a Trump investigation raged in the press, Comey knew the truth, and told top members of Congress the truth, and yet in public, a misimpression was allowed to grow.

And so last Wednesday, Grassley took to the Senate floor to address the issue again. His target was Comey, but also Schumer. Back in March, the minority leader knew the truth — he had been told by the director of the FBI himself — but fed the fire by publicly saying Trump was under investigation. Grassley denounced "media hysteria" set off by remarks like Schumer's.

"I have to note something else here," Grassley said:

Mr. Comey didn't just tell the president, Sen. Feinstein, and me that the president was not under investigation. He also had told the Gang of Eight. Of course, the Gang of Eight includes the Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Schumer. But even after Mr. Comey told the Gang of Eight that the president was not under investigation, the minority leader told the media he was. That helped feed the media hysteria. The minority leader even tried to say that the Senate shouldn't vote on the Supreme Court nomination because the president was under investigation. And the whole time, he knew it wasn't true.

Those were pretty strong words between senators.

Now, Grassley said, there is still baseless speculation about the Russia case. Grassley called for it to stop. Of course, it won't. But even if it somehow did stop, a lot of damage has already been done.

[Double Edge]

so basically after failing miserably with the "russian collusion" BS, the left now turn the another conspiracy called "justice obstruction". jeez, and we have to endure this BS for another half year?

lol yep. But another half year is optimistic, special counsels take years. So people can still hope for an impeachment. Tough business that, Clinton only got impeached by the house. Didn't get past the senate and completed his term. So lets make every day this administration is in office hell. They have to run the country, still fill vacancies, deal with contingencies and keep an eye on the rear mirror.

[astralis]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...eeting-clinton

We are past the point of innocent explanations on Trump and Russia

Imagine if the Clintons had done what the Trumps did on Russia.

Updated by Ezra Klein@ezraklein Jul 11, 2017, 9:00am EDT

Imagine the names were different.

Imagine Chelsea Clinton had taken Bill Clinton and campaign chair John Podesta to a meeting set up by a Chinese government intermediary who claimed to have damaging information about Donald Trump’s tax returns and said over email they were willing to share the information in a bid to defeat Trump.

Imagine this information came out mere weeks after stories revealing a major Democratic funder, acting on the behest of prospective National Security Adviser Susan Rice, had been trying to work with Chinese hackers to steal copies of Trump’s tax returns.

Imagine, during all of this, that Hillary Clinton herself had gotten on a stage and begged the Chinese government to release Trump’s tax returns. “China, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the tax returns,” Clinton said in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Imagine that these stories were not isolated. They came alongside dozens of strange meetings between Clinton campaign aides and Chinese staffers — contacts left off security clearance forms and “forgotten” during sworn congressional testimony — and were buttressed by Clinton herself lurching toward a strangely pro-China policy and an unusual, and repeatedly articulated, affection for China’s leader.

And imagine that, in a crucial stretch of the campaign, hackers backed by the Chinese government really did break into the Trump family’s systems and release a bevy of damaging financial documents in a successful effort to elect Clinton.

To simply write this story out is to strain credulity. It reads like a bad spy novel or a fevered conspiracy. Can you imagine what Fox News would be saying? What Rush Limbaugh would be saying? How deafening the calls for impeachment and investigation would be?

But this is where we are. The best defense of Trump’s associates, at this point, is they were too dumb to know what they’re doing — a defense that doesn’t work when it includes experienced international operators like campaign manager Paul Manafort and ex-Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn. Donald Trump Jr.’s own defense of himself is that he attempted to collude with Russian agents but they didn’t have any useful information and so he didn’t. This is, as my colleague Zack Beauchamp notes, no defense at all — even if it is true, Trump Jr. may well have committed a crime.

What’s more, we know for a fact that the Russian hacking of Democratic files happened, that it was successful, and that Trump has stubbornly resisted efforts to admit or investigate Russia’s intervention into the campaign while repeatedly praising Putin. We also know Trump has, since taking office, undermined the NATO alliance while cozying up to Vladimir Putin — the two of them joked about their shared dislike for the American media at the G20 last week and pledged to work together on cybersecurity.

This isn’t just smoke. We can see the damage done by the fire. We are watching our president pal around with the suspected arsonists. And so we are past the point where innocent explanations on Trump and Russia remain credible. Consider the context of Trump Jr.’s meeting:

The most important fact about Trump Jr.’s meeting is that Manafort and Kushner were there. Absent their involvement, this may have just been Trump Jr. entertaining himself. But Manafort and Kushner were Trump’s campaign manager and key consigliere, respectively. They were busy. They didn’t take meetings without knowing what they were about. Their presence suggests the Trump campaign was keenly interested in this kind of collusion, though we don’t yet know whether it actually happened.

It was only days after Trump Jr.’s meeting that Trump himself publicly asked Russian hackers to find and release Clinton’s missing emails. Under criticism, Trump played the comments off as a joke, but it seems plausible that there was a theory floating around the campaign that Russian hackers had breached Clinton’s files and could reveal information that would devastate her campaign.

Currently, the White House is saying Trump only learned of his son’s meeting in the past few days. So the going defense of the president is this: His son, his son-in-law, and his campaign manager met with Russian operatives to try to obtain dirt on Clinton — potentially both committing a crime and giving the Russians leverage over the candidate — and no one bothered to ask Trump whether this was a good idea. As with many of Trumpworld’s excuses, it’s hard to know if it’s more damning if it’s true or if it’s false.

Remember that all this took place in June 2016 when Trump was considered a serious underdog to win the race. The risk of colluding with a foreign power — if that risk was even understood and appreciated by Trump’s team — might well have seemed worth it to have a chance at winning the election. A gamble that looks insane in retrospect might have looked reasonable at the time, particularly if its consequences weren’t fully understood or expected.

It is always worth asking how people involved in clear wrongdoing might have seemed like the hero of the story to themselves. Trump and his family bought into the most fevered conspiracies about the emails Clinton withheld from the State Department as personal, and they likely believed that there was information crucial to American interests lurking in those documents. If they had obtained the emails and proven Clinton dangerously unfit to lead, or revealed that foreign powers had more information or leverage over American policymaking than we knew, they would have done the country a great service, or at least it’s easy to believe how they would see it that way. Recall former CIA Director John Brennan’s comment: "Frequently individuals who go along a treasonous path do not even realize they are on that path until it gets to be a bit too late.”

“If The New York Times knows all this, imagine what Bob Mueller knows,” writes Axios’s Mike Allen. It is, for the Trump administration, a scary thought. But also remember: Obstruction of justice is a strange and somewhat vague crime that relies heavily on intent to undermine an investigation. Trump’s intent looks quite different if it turns out he was trying to protect his beloved son and son-in-law from investigation than if he was just annoyed by James Comey’s reticence.

How hard is Vladimir Putin laughing at us right now? One theory of Russia’s involvement in the election is they never expected to elect Trump — they just wanted to sow doubt in America’s institutions and its leaders. Look how easily and wildly they succeeded.

[snapper]

To make matters worse the son, who appears to as stupid as his Father, has just released (on twitter naturally) the conversations he had with Goldstone, the promoter who set up his/Manafort/Kushner's meeting with this Muscovite Lady lawyers. This makes it clear that the information this Lady (Natalia Veselnitskaya) has on Mrs Clinton originates from the Muscovite Government; she is described as a "Government attorney". The son of course is - in theory - a private citizen (or is supposed to be) but when he attends a meeting offering such information from a foreign power two of the top people employed in the Trump campaign it is clear they were attempting at least to "collude" and that is treason.

Nor can I honestly believe that the son 'forgot' this, that the elder idiot only heard a couple of days ago or that the meeting was 'adoption'. Putin banned US citizens from adopting Muscovite orphans in retaliation for the Magnitsy Act - which this Natalyia Lady had been actively trying to get rid of for some time so the deal was - repeal the Magnitsy act (or perhaps other sanctions would do) and we let you have the dirt on your opponents campaign - which they did.

[zraver]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...eeting-clinton

We are past the point of innocent explanations on Trump and Russia

Imagine if the Clintons had done what the Trumps did on Russia.

You mean like they did with Ukraine? That wasn't sitting in on a meeting, it was actual campaign impact collusion. Then of course there is the half million dollar speech in Moscow, Podestas links and investments to a Russian bank, Obama's sidebar hot mike message to Putin via Medvev....

[snapper]

You mean like they did with Ukraine? That wasn't sitting in on a meeting, it was actual campaign impact collusion.

The only information relevant to the US election that came from Ukraine was about Manafort the payments to whom were being investigated in Ukraine before he joined the Trump campaign. There were articles that appeared in the Ukrainian press detailing the investigations into the Yanukovych Government in which Manafort was mentioned before he became important in US political terms. Presumably some Democrat researcher looking into Manafort's Ukrainian (and Muscovite) connections came across these rather obscure mentions of investigations - mostly into Yanukovych's corruption - in Ukraine. Ukraine did not approach the Democratic Party and offer information and no person (or supposed "Government attorney") was sent to get a deal in return 'dirt' on Manafort as Ukraine is not under US sanctions so does not have the same incentive. As far as I it (though of course I was not there) understand staff at the Embassy merely confirmed the information when asked regarding Manafort that had already been put in the public sphere. It was basically confirming that Manafort's name had come up during the Yanukovych investigations. Not entirely the same...

[surfgun]

And how much uranium was sold to Russia by someone not named Trump?

The former Director is in legal peril for his ill advised leaking.

[bfng3569]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...eeting-clinton



How hard is Vladimir Putin laughing at us right now? One theory of Russia’s involvement in the election is they never expected to elect Trump — they just wanted to sow doubt in America’s institutions and its leaders. Look how easily and wildly they succeeded.

this last paragraph to me is the most telling of how dysfunctional and partisan politics have become, particularly from the left.

Does anyone here not picture Putin and his cronies sipping some vodka and laughing their collective ass's off when they sit there and watch CNN or MSNBC or the like? I mean it has to be like the comedy channel for them.

the dem's and the main stream media have done more to damage the political process and to undermine faith in our government and our elections than Putin could ever have dreamed possible while at the same time elevating the perception of Moscow's ability to interfere, interject and influence the West to mythical like status.

Repub's under Obama may have been horribly inept and childish with their blatant attempt to obstruct his polices, but Dems take it to a entirely new level with their blatant attempts to take down Trump, both domestically and globally.

They aren't just obstructing his policies, they are trying to destroy his presidency. And as much as they think their attempt to do so is just about Trump, it has much broader effect and meaning.

let this sink in: They aren't just trying to destroy his policies or him personally, they are trying to destroy a presidency.

They are trying, in effect, a coup.

And the main stream media is actively participating.

People can hate on Trump all they want, his lack of tact, his twitter feed, what ever.

But what the Dem's and the left are doing to this country, and the precedent they are setting, is far far worse than anything Trump could do.

[astralis]

surfgun,

And how much uranium was sold to Russia by someone not named Trump?

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/

The former Director is in legal peril for his ill advised leaking.

no he's not, otherwise there would have been a case against it already.

anyhow, back to the Trump Jr e-mails: whatever happens, this will be all great grind for the Mueller investigation. especially now that Jr has said that now that he thinks reallll hard about it, he might have met with other Russians too, lol.

[astralis]

bfng,

They aren't just obstructing his policies, they are trying to destroy his presidency.

lol, you mean by pointing out all the various doings the Trump campaign had with the Russians? pro-tip: if the campaign didn't want the media to look into its connections with the Russians, then maybe they shouldn't have hired people with connections to the Russians.

and btw, i'm curious as to how Dems are 'obstructing his policies' when REPUBLICANS CONTROL CONGRESS.

[tbm3fan]

They aren't just obstructing his policies, they are trying to destroy his presidency.

Wasn't that a Steven Colbert line? Funny as hell about the world's biggest bag of old hot air the last 40 years.

[snapper]

the dem's and the main stream media have done more to damage the political process and to undermine faith in our government and our elections than Putin could ever have dreamed possible while at the same time elevating the perception of Moscow's ability to interfere, interject and influence the West to mythical like status.

No Moscow planned to engineer this - precisely this; a dunce President with no idea of foreign affairs or intelligence operations in their pocket if need be. The fool never understood their games from the start and by the time he did it was too late. He is compromised goods and if he was not actively colluding he would have the honour to resign.

My guess was that this Veselnitskaya outreach was perhaps a 'test' to see if the Trump campaign would bite. When they did others contacts and agreements were made; thus the other meetings and the start of the 'reveals' of the hacked DNC emails the next month. By the time the Trump lot realised what they got themselves into it was too late; thus all the denials - which are now worthless. He is compromised even if he did not willing collude with a hostile power which aims the largest nuclear arsenal in the world at you. Best bet is to get rid of the lot asap.

[zraver]

surfgun,



http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/



no he's not, otherwise there would have been a case against it already.

anyhow, back to the Trump Jr e-mails: whatever happens, this will be all great grind for the Mueller investigation. especially now that Jr has said that now that he thinks reallll hard about it, he might have met with other Russians too, lol.

Having a meeting, even receiving information pro bono is legal the source doesnt matter. The only ones working with forgien governments to affect a US election were the Dems.

[astralis]

z,

Having a meeting, even receiving information pro bono is legal the source doesnt matter.

sure...we'll see if the FBI agrees with this assessment or not. they're not running an investigation into the HRC campaign and the Ukrainians or whatever Hannity is spewing now. my guess is that what Trump Jr did would be a violation of campaign finance law, but by itself would not be enough to justify arrest/jail time.

in any case, considering how the Trump campaign has always disavowed any connection with Russia, it's sort of hard to believe this statement now considering Jr's response to an e-mail regarding a Russian purporting to have derogatory HRC information sourced from the Russian government. as i said, all grist for the Mueller investigation to dig deeper and tie things together.

consider Kushner's attempt to set up back-channel communications with Russia.

consider Manafort's connections with Russia.

consider Mike Flynn's lying about contacts with Russia.

even ..stranger... is why none of them came forward to actively volunteer this information, if all of this was so innocent. each time it's dug up, we go through a round of denials and excuses before said person admitted to what they did. oh, Jr was there to collect Russian information regarding the HRC campaign and NOT talk about adoption like he originally said? i'm shocked, shocked i tell you.