It is currently 04/18/25 8:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next   Page 7 of 14   [ 350 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/03/17 3:20 pm • # 151 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Agreed, shift, but will it be enough to save their arses in 2018, esp. with Pence, the unelectable?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/06/17 8:14 am • # 152 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Makes me wonder if and how the WH cabal broke THIS rejection news to the DiC ~ this might explain some of his recent public "acting out" ~ :ey ~ Sooz

‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen’: Four top law firms refuse to represent Trump in Russia probe
Brad Reed / 06 Jun 2017 at 09:24 ET

Four top law firms turned down White House requests to represent President Donald Trump in the ongoing Russia probe — and many cited his infamous unwillingness to heed legal advice as a key reason.

Yahoo News’ Mike Isikoff reports that the White House recently reached out to some of America’s top lawyers to see if they would work for Trump on the Russia investigation, including Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly; Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis; and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell.

However, all of these lawyers turned the White House down, forcing the administration to rely on longtime Trump attorney Marc E. Kasowitz instead.

“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,'” said one of Isikoff’s sources, who is described as a “lawyer close to the White House.”

Another attorney tells Isikoff that Trump’s toxic political image at the moment made firms reluctant to be associated with him, as they feared association with Trump would hurt their efforts to recruit top talent to their firms.

“Do I want to be associated with this president and his policies?” the attorney said in explaining the firms’ concerns about working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/the-guy-wont-pay-and-he-wont-listen-four-top-law-firms-refuse-to-represent-trump-in-russia-probe/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/06/17 9:18 am • # 153 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Robert Mueller is covering all bases! ~ :st ~ Sooz

A-list mob prosecutor joins Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team
Brad Reed / 06 Jun 2017 at 10:35 ET

Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who’s now serving as the special counsel in the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, has put together a team of experienced prosecutors — including some who have experience going after organized crime.

Politico has talked with some veteran prosecutors who say that Mueller “has assembled a potent team with backgrounds handling everyone from politicians to mobsters and who know how to work potential witnesses if it helps them land bigger fish.”

Included on Mueller’s team are longtime law firm partner James Quarles, who got his start in Washington as an assistant prosecutor in the Watergate scandal; Andrew Weissmann, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud unit, who is best known for his work in prosecuting the Enron accounting scandal and for trying dozens of cases related to the notorious Genovese and Gambino crime families; and Jeannie Rhee, who previously worked at the Department of Justice while advising the White House and the attorney general on executive power and national-security issues.

“The more familiar you are with the important, hard cases that have come before you, the better you are at assessing the one in front of you,” explained Samuel Buell, an ex-federal prosecutor who helped Weissmann prosecute Enron executives. “In a matter of this importance— it’s going to have an almost unprecedented level of outside scrutiny for anything they do — it’s critical that Mueller would be prizing that kind of gray-beard energy.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/a-list-mob-prosecutor-joins-robert-muellers-russia-investigation-team/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/07/17 6:46 am • # 154 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
3 barnburners ~ once again, with public hearings scheduled for today and tomorrow, the timing of these is "interesting" ~ I'll post more on all 3 as soon as I get a cup of coffee in hand ~ :ey ~ Sooz

Axios 10 hrs ago
The 3 big Trump-Russia stories that emerged Tuesday night

Three big stories broke Tuesday night, all concerning President Trump and the Russia probe:

President Trump asked his top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, to push the FBI probe away from Michael Flynn, according to the Washington Post, which reports that following a March meeting, "Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo... then started complaining about the FBI investigation and Comey's handling of it." Read more.

Comey told Attorney General Jeff Sessions in February he did not want to be alone with President Trump because it was Sessions' role to protect the FBI from White House influence, current and former law enforcement officials told the NY Times. Read more.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions offered to resign as tensions with Trump rose over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia probe, ABC News reports. Read more.

https://www.axios.com/the-3-big-trump-russia-stories-that-came-out-tonight-2435235624.html


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/07/17 9:33 am • # 155 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Bruce Lindner wrote:
Bruce Lindner
2 hrs ·

There's your money quote, right there. But who's he to say? He was only the Director of National Intelligence until January.

“I am very concerned about the assault on our institutions coming from both an external source — read Russia — and an internal source, the president himself. Watergate pales really in my view compared to what we’re confronting now.” ~ James Clapper, to Australian Press

All we need is a modern day Alexander Butterfield, and we can put a bow on this thing. No Deep Throats required.

Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 7:52 am • # 156 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
This and the next post should be read together ~ Josh Marshall starts putting the pieces together ~ :ey ~ Sooz

TPM EDITOR'S BLOG
The WaPo Obstruction Blockbuster and the World of Hurt To Come
By Josh Marshall Published June 14, 2017 8:51 pm

After marveling at the lede of this new Washington Post bombshell – Mueller investigating Trump for obstruction of justice – I went back and read the whole piece again. You would think that news would be enough for a single piece. But when you read it all the way through the picture it paints is actually considerably more dire.

One key point is that Mueller did not start this obstruction investigation. According to the Post, that probe began “days after Comey was fired on May 9…” Mueller was appointed on May 17th. Reading the Post piece closely, I do not think it explicitly says that the probe began prior to the 17th. But the wording and logic of the piece strongly suggests that is the case.

One key point I draw from this is that it was clear to people at the DOJ and FBI almost from the beginning that this was a potential case of obstruction of justice. That makes me consider who then was in place to make such a decision. Once James Comey was fired, the acting Director of the FBI was Andrew McCabe, who remains in that role. If my surmise about the chronology is correct, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein remained in charge of the Russia probe. Thus I think he would have been acting in Attorney General Sessions’ stead to make the decision to authorize such a probe.

This last point isn’t crystal clear to me since this would not necessarily have been considered part of the Russia investigation. In any case, you do not begin such an investigation of a sitting President except at the very highest level. That decision apparently came quickly. We can note here that soon after Comey’s firing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein made statements suggesting that he may have been a witness to something that could be construed as a crime. If my memory serves, McCabe did as well. They are the two logical people to have signed off on an investigation at that point.

What were they going on?

Remember, President Trump gave his interview to Lester Holt two days after the firing on May 11th. It was in that interview that Trump said this: “[Rosenstein] had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

Reading through this article, contemplating that the President less than five months in office is already being investigated for obstruction of justice, what is so mind-boggling is that the case isn’t even really a he said, he said dispute. How do we know the President fired Comey because of the Russia investigation? He said so on national television! And he said something similar the day before, on May 10th, only this time in a private setting.

On May 19th, the Times reported a White House memorandum summarizing Sergei Lavrov’s meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. In that meeting President Trump said “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

This meeting was on May 10th, the day after Comey’s dismissal. The memorandum was likely written later that day. In other words, almost immediately after firing Comey, within the following two days, President Trump made at least two statements in which he essentially admitted or more like boasted about firing Comey with the specific goal of impeding or ending the Russia probe. There are various and highly significant complexities tied to the unique role of the President. He is the only person in the country who can, arguably, obstruct an investigation by exercising his statutory right to fire a members of the executive branch. But on its face, this is essentially admitting to obstruction.

It will be interesting to see whether either or both of these admissions played into the decision to launch a probe and precisely who authorized it. In any case, Robert Mueller has now subsumed it into his broader mandate and purview.

The additional detail about this part of the Russia investigation writ large is that Mueller appears to see this potential obstruction of justice as either including Trump’s requests to DNI Coats and NSA chief Rodgers or in some way evidenced by what he asked these two men to do. The article also says preliminary interviews suggest Mueller’s team is “actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.”

What does this mean?

Here’s one guess. We know that President Trump has a number of close friends who he calls frequently to shoot the shit, rant or just unwind. Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy seems to be one of these. There appear to be plenty more. We can see that Trump was far from discreet in sharing his thinking and motivation about firing Comey. He literally said it in a nationally televised TV interview and in a conversation with the Russian foreign minister. We also know that he spent the previous weekend at his Bedminster golf club stewing in his anger at Comey and finally deciding it was time to fire him. Given all this, it seems close to impossible that Trump didn’t stream of consciousness with many of his sundry associates and toadies about what he was planning to do and why.

Those people are all now witnesses.

The one additional part of the WaPo article is broad and vague but in its own way represents the most peril for the President and his entourage. At one point the article reads: “Mueller is overseeing a host of investigations involving people who are or were in Trump’s orbit, people familiar with the probe said. The investigation is examining possible contacts with Russian operatives as well as any suspicious financial activity related to those individuals.” Earlier in the piece, there’s this: “Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.”

The seeming multiplicity of investigations speaks for itself. But it is the repeated reference to “financial crimes” or “suspicious financial activity” that grabs my attention.

Experts will tell you that “financial crimes” can often mean technical infractions, ways of structuring or organizing movements of money, failures to disclose, certain actions that are prima facie evidence of efforts to conceal, etc. This doesn’t mean these are just ‘technicalities’ in the colloquial sense. They are rather infractions the nature of which may be hard for a layperson to understand but which often end up snaring defendants when other crimes are too difficult to prove. But here’s the thing about the Trump world. I don’t have subpoena power. And we’ve yet to assign a reporting crew to the Trump entourage beat full time. But even with my own limited reporting, it is quite clear to me that there are numerous people in Trump’s entourage (or ‘crew’, if you will) including Trump himself whose history and ways of doing business would not survive first contact with real legal scrutiny. It sounds like Mueller sees all of that within his purview, in all likelihood because the far-flung business deealings of Trump and his top associates are the membrane across which collusion and quid pro quos could have been conducted.

As I said, a basic perusal of business in the Trump world makes clear that serious legal scrutiny would turn up no end of problems. Just consider what was from a financial perspective, a tiny island in the Trump archipelago of mischief, The Trump Foundation which David Fahrenthold did so much with. Almost every rock Fahrenthold overturned exposed some self-dealing, at least legal violations and often real wrongdoing and as much as anything a wild level of sloppiness and indifference to doing business like even semi-honest people. From one perspective it’s hard to say Trump knowingly broke the law with the Foundation since the whole conduct of the Foundation seemed to be carried on as though none of the relevant laws even existed. Again, the Foundation was just a sideline for Trump. It’s not where he made his big money and ran off from his biggest obligations. That’s how they do business.

If Mueller is taking a serious prosecutor’s lens to Trump’s financial world and the financial worlds of Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn and numerous others, there’s going to be a world of hurt for a lot of people. And that is if no meaningful level of 2016 election collusion even happened.

And I don’t think that’s true.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-wapo-obstruction-blockbuster-and-the-world-of-hurt-to-come


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 8:06 am • # 157 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Personally, I see no holes in Josh Marshall's thinking ... altho there is often a BIG difference between theory vs fact ~ the pace is definitely picking up ~ :eek ~ a few "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

TPM EDITOR'S BLOG
The Russia Probe Is a Vast Lava Flow Moving Toward Trump
By Josh Marshall Published June 15, 2017 12:27 pm

[Above], 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.)

Quote:
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 …

Quote:
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-russia-probe-is-a-vast-lava-flow-moving-toward-trump


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 8:08 am • # 158 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Dollars to doughnuts that Trump himself is now under investigation.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 8:24 am • # 159 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar576 wrote:
Dollars to doughnuts that Trump himself is now under investigation.

The WaPo report live-linked above bluntly confirmed he IS under investigation ... which explains the DiC's newest Twitter mania ~ as is almost always the case, the DiC is [thankfully] his own worst enemy ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 9:22 am • # 160 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I see in the news this morning that Chuck Grassley and his Judicial Committee have joined the circus with their own investigation. This is beginning to rival Benghazigate. Can we start calling him "Crooked Grabem" now and chanting "Jail him".


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 9:35 am • # 161 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
KERPLUNK ... another piece dropping into place ~ :ey ~ some "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Trump, looking for a foe to attack, confirms he’s under investigation
06/16/17 11:00 AM—Updated 06/16/17 11:06 AM
By Steve Benen

Donald Trump has been so consumed by the threat posed by the Russia scandal that, according to a Politico report, the president has been known to inject, “I’m not under investigation,” without prompting, into various conversations with associates and allies.

Of course, that’s not going to happen anymore. For only the third time in the history of the country, the American president is the subject of a federal criminal investigation – a fact Trump confirmed in a tweet this morning.

Quote:
“I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt”

As presidential tweets go, this one’s a real doozy, and it’s worth unpacking because the details will have real consequences.

Trump isn’t referring to Robert Mueller, who’s overseeing the investigation into the broader scandal, but rather to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whom Mueller technically answers to in the Justice Department’s hierarchy because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in matters related to this controversy.

There was already some discussion about whether Rosenstein would also have to recuse himself – he may be a witness to the president’s alleged crimes – and Trump admonishing Rosenstein in public probably makes the DOJ official’s recusal more likely.

Indeed, while White House officials reportedly talked Trump out of firing Mueller, it’s suddenly easy to imagine the president showing the deputy AG the door, sooner rather than later.

Making matters worse, Trump’s tweet isn’t altogether true, either. According to the president’s own version of events, as articulated in a nationally televised interview, Trump was going to fire then-FBI Director James Comey regardless of what Rosenstein said. It’s a little late to argue the opposite now.

What’s more, whether the president realizes this or not, he’s being investigated for obstruction of justice – and while that includes the Comey firing, the controversy is broader than this one action.

Stepping back, though, it’s hard not to notice that the president is generally at his most satisfied when he’s attacking a foe: Hillary Clinton, news organizations and journalists, Democrats, U.S. allies who’ve bothered him in some way, etc. Trump seems to operate from the assumption that if you’re not hitting someone, then someone is hitting you, so it’s best to remain on the offensive at all times.

But with this presidency in crisis, due almost entirely to his own misguided actions, Trump is like a blindfolded child at a birthday party, eager to hit the pinata, but unsure where to swing the bat. The Republican is desperate to find a foe, and this morning he decided it’s Rod Rosenstein. By dinner, he’s likely to start complaining about some new perceived enemy.

This isn’t especially healthy, but the president can’t seem to help himself.

Postscript: Rosenstein sent out a very strange press statement last night, urging Americans to be skeptical of reports based on anonymous sources. No one seems to know why he issued the statement, but with Trump targeting him on Twitter this morning, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn Rosenstein released this at the instruction of the West Wing.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-looking-foe-attack-confirms-hes-under-investigation


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 10:27 am • # 162 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
sooz06 wrote:
oskar576 wrote:
Dollars to doughnuts that Trump himself is now under investigation.

The WaPo report live-linked above bluntly confirmed he IS under investigation ... which explains the DiC's newest Twitter mania ~ as is almost always the case, the DiC is [thankfully] his own worst enemy ~

Sooz


It was only a matter of time. I'd not be surprised if there were other matters that are investigated, such as conflicts of interest.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 3:31 pm • # 163 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
It's my understanding that there are no limits to what/who Robert Mueller can choose to investigate ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 4:01 pm • # 164 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
You know it's getting bad when the lawyers hire lawyers....... :lol

Donald Trump’s personal lawyer hires a lawyer amid obstruction investigation

U.S. President Donald Trump‘s personal lawyer has retained a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer to represent him in the various government probes connected to Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

Attorney Steve Ryan told the Associated Press Friday that Michael Cohen plans on co-operating “in all governmental inquiries.”

A special counsel is probing the 2016 presidential election and whether there were any contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3534692/donal ... stigation/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/16/17 6:58 pm • # 165 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Quote:
Attorney Steve Ryan told the Associated Press Friday that Michael Cohen plans on co-operating “in all governmental inquiries.”


IOW, "Screw Donald, I'm saving my own arse".


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/17/17 6:42 am • # 166 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
sooz06 wrote:
‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen’: Four top law firms refuse to represent Trump in Russia probe


It's well known that the law firms he has used in the past always insist that at least two members of the firm be present in any meeting with Trump. He's notorious for lying changing his story about what was actually said and agreed during the meeting.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/17/17 10:02 am • # 167 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Today's awful "truism" ~ apparently almost all WH staff has been advised to retain personal counsel ~ :eek ~ Sooz

Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/21/17 5:40 pm • # 168 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
From my Facebook feed ~ THIS is exactly why the whole "Russia investigation" will be ongoing for the foreseeable future ~ :ey ~ Sooz

Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/24/17 12:36 pm • # 169 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
No question that they're setting the groundwork for shutting the entire investigation down ...

Quote:
New House Oversight Chairman Kills Off Committee's Russia Investigation

Trey Gowdy Chaired the 29-Month Long Benghazi Investigation Against Hillary Clinton


The incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Oversight hasn't officially taken over and yet he has just announced he will disband the investigation into Russia's illegal intervention into the U.S. election, including any possible collusion between Donald Trump and his team, and Russia, and even any elements of obstruction of justice. Politico first reported the news Friday afternoon.

For two and a half years ...

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... estigation


Quote:
'The Whole Thing Is Ridiculous': On 'Fox & Friends' Trump Lays Groundwork to Have Mueller Fired (Video)

President Repeatedly Says He'll 'Have to See' if Mueller Should Go


President Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to have Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired, or to discredit him so successfully he will be seen as biased and damaged, forcing him to resign.

Trump, who says he is under investigation for obstruction of justice by Mueller, claimed the highly-respected prosecutor ...

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... re_mueller


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 06/24/17 3:16 pm • # 170 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I'm not so sure that Trey Gowdy's proclamation to not pursue the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Russia's actions is "bad" ~ Gowdy has proven himself to be a partisan puppet ~ but he also said he thinks the House Intelligence [yes, I know those 2 words should never be used together ~ :ey] and the House Judiciary Committees were better suited to this kind of investigation ~

Since I don't believe anything said by Gowdy [or virtually any GOP/TPer], we should start a pool on when Gowdy changes his mind and jumps back into the fray ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 06/25/17 6:25 am • # 171 
sooz06 wrote:
I'm not so sure that Trey Gowdy's proclamation to not pursue the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Russia's actions is "bad" ~ Gowdy has proven himself to be a partisan puppet ~ but he also said he thinks the House Intelligence [yes, I know those 2 words should never be used together ~ :ey] and the House Judiciary Committees were better suited to this kind of investigation ~

Since I don't believe anything said by Gowdy [or virtually any GOP/TPer], we should start a pool on when Gowdy changes his mind and jumps back into the fray ~

Sooz


He'll jump back in when his ass is on the line.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/05/17 7:18 am • # 172 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The unraveling has definitely begun ~ it's slow-going, but it will continue to pick up speed ~ :ey ~ some "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Russia scandal takes an alarming turn for Trump World
07/05/17 09:00 AM
By Steve Benen

[Video, The Rachel Maddow Show, 6/30/17, 9:45 PM ET, "Bannon, Conway named in GOP activist hacker recruitment doc: WSJ", accessible via the end link.]

On Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal published an important piece on Donald Trump’s Russia scandal, noting that a longtime Republican operative, Peter Smith, assembled a team that set out to obtain Hillary Clinton emails. To that end, Smith and his cohorts reached out to people they believed to be Russian hackers, affiliated with Russia’s government, because Smith and his cohorts thought these hackers may have stolen the materials.

The point, as we discussed last week, was to then use the stolen documents in the United States, exploiting materials from Russia to affect the American election. In other words, we’re talking about a group of folks who, in a rather literal sense, tried to collude with Russia as part of the country’s attack on our election.

Just as importantly, while Smith wasn’t officially part of Trump’s presidential campaign, he did tell multiple people on multiple occasions that this project was coordinated with Michael Flynn – who at the time was a senior adviser to Trump, and who went on to become the White House National Security Advisor in the Trump administration.

Over the holiday weekend, the Wall Street Journal moved the ball forward with some additional details.

Quote:
A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort.

The activist, Peter W. Smith, named the officials in a section of the document marked “Trump Campaign.” The document was dated Sept. 7, 2016…. Officials identified in the document include Steve Bannon, now chief strategist for President Donald Trump; Kellyanne Conway, former campaign manager and now White House counselor; Sam Clovis, a policy adviser to the Trump campaign and now a senior adviser at the Agriculture Department; and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who was a campaign adviser and briefly was national security adviser in the Trump administration.

So, we’re talking about some of the first real evidence of collusion between a Republican in the U.S. and Russians hoping to help put Donald Trump in power. These new reports are shining light on who this Republican was working with – and the possibility of this man, Smith, working as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and the foreign adversary that attacked the American election.

Indeed, according to Smith, who died in April, he was in communications with top members of Trump’s campaign team while he trying to collude with Russian agents obtain Clinton emails.

What’s more, Lawfare published a provocative piece late on Friday night from security consultant Matt Tait, who described having worked briefly with Smith on his Clinton-email endeavor. “[I]t was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well,” Tait wrote. “Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign.”

His piece added, “The combination of Smith’s deep knowledge of the inner workings of the campaign, this document naming him in the ‘Trump campaign’ group, and the multiple references to needing to avoid campaign reporting suggested to me that the group was formed with the blessing of the Trump campaign.”

As for the high-profile names Smith referenced as his contacts in Trump World, Tait wrote, “My perception … was that the inclusion of Trump campaign officials on this document was not merely a name-dropping exercise. This document was about establishing a company to conduct opposition research on behalf of the campaign, but operating at a distance so as to avoid campaign reporting.”

Trump and his allies wanted Clinton’s deleted emails. The GOP candidate wasn’t shy on this point, declaring at a press conference last summer, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re about to find the 30,000 [Clinton] emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That will be next.”

To that end, a Republican financier went to work trying to find those emails, talking to Russian agents, and telling people he hoped to serve as intermediary between Russian contacts and people he knew on Team Trump.

In recent months, those watching this scandal progress haven’t just wondered about possible collusion and cooperation between the Trump campaign and Moscow. We’ve also asked related questions such as, what would that collusion look like? In what form? Through what mechanisms?

A possible answer is coming into focus.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/russia-scandal-takes-alarming-turn-trump-world#break


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/07/17 7:12 am • # 173 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Interesting and thought-provoking read ~ I need to think on this more before commenting further ~ Sooz

United States Of Paranoia: Why The Specter Of Russian Meddling Won’t Go Away
By Sam Thielman Published July 3, 2017 6:00 am

As experts try to determine the depth of foreign espionage operations during the 2016 race, everything is starting to look like a cyberattack—and that’s by design.

For months on Twitter, in digital news and on cable TV, self-appointed pundits have been jumping at the shadows of the Russian hacking attacks on several components of the 2016 election. Experts say that paranoia is not merely a devastatingly effective side effect, but often the entire point of an intelligence operation: It causes the public to fear the erosion of democracy and paralyzes investigators who could repair problems like America’s elderly and unsophisticated voting machines, since every new revelation seems to reveal further cracks in the system.

Bloomberg has reported that 39 states’ election systems were subject to hacking attacks, including the previously confirmed theft of information from voter rolls in Illinois. Department of Homeland Security officials have said that 21 states were targeted, but the agency refuses to investigate. Given those reports, paranoia feels almost prudent.

The cyberattacks have damaged confidence in American democracy and shifted focus to finger-pointing at a time when repairing voting infrastructure could not be more urgent, said computer scientist J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan.

“NSA put those pieces together in April 2017 [according to an agency report leaked by The Intercept],” Halderman tells TPM. “There are still components of this that, within the intelligence community, are only now being able to be understood. That’s alarming. We need the election system to give us evidence that the election has been won before it’s certified.”

Lack of trust can destroy the courage to do anything except read conspiracy theories on the internet and despair, Halderman said. “The doubt at some point becomes the story, because it becomes an indication that the system isn’t doing its job.”

Toni Gidwani, formerly the leader of analyst teams at the Defense Intelligence Agency and now director of research operations at ThreatConnect, said the attacks during the 2016 U.S. elections are consistent with the modus operandi of Russian intelligence services as they operate throughout Europe. Despair is often their goal, she said.

“It’s a valid objective to just inject doubt into the integrity of the system,” Gidwani told TPM. “Just by showing that these machines are vulnerable even if you don’t change a single vote, may create doubt that the system is valid.”

Worsened public confidence in government, she said, is a consistent objective in intelligence operations, especially from Russia. “It’s a much lower bar to achieve than concretely affecting the outcome [of the vote].”

It would be shocking, espionage expert Mark Galeotti told TPM, if Russian hacking teams weren’t scanning U.S. election systems for vulnerabilities.

“Spies’ jobs are to hoover up all the information they can,” said Galeotti, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations with a specialization in Russian security, and author of the upcoming “Vory: The Story of the Russian Mafia” from Yale University Press. “Let’s not pretend that the NSA isn’t trying to get into any Russian system it can, or any German, French or British system for that matter. It’s the nature of intelligence.”

In fact, even the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other party operatives wasn’t completely beyond the pale–it was their distribution that crossed a red line, he argued.

“Russian cyberwarfare that we’ve seen so far has not really been cyberwarfare,” Galeotti said. “It’s phishing a few email addresses. None of this is really mission-critical stuff.”

In the disinformation campaign waged by Russia during the 2016 election, Galeotti sees the hand of both the GRU–likely the sponsor of the much discussed Fancy Bear hacking team–and its competitive sister agency, the FSB, which conducted operations through a less-discussed group called Cozy Bear. The GRU trained a disciplined internal team of hackers, he explained, while the FSB, more prone to risk-taking, acquired talented freelancers with threats, bribes, or some combination of the two, among them the recently arrested team behind the Yahoo hack.

“As I understand it, it wasn’t the GRU that said, ‘Let’s leak this,’ it was the FSB,” Galeotti said, referring to the stolen emails. The more cautious GRU acquired the emails, but “it was the FSB that pitched the idea of using it for a political operation, and there’s no question that it had sanction from the top,” he told TPM.

The resulting chaos means that much–too much–is now read as evidence of foreign intervention and subversion, even day-to-day information collection operations. Many experts in the field believe the problem is not that foreign powers are putting their puppets into office through stealing elections, but that election systems are low-hanging information fruit.

“I think the Russians have stumbled – probably accidentally, and not because they’re that much cleverer – onto the new kind of warfare, which is not kinetic,” said Galeotti.

“We are in this half-war-half-peace situation, which is very unlike the Cold War,” he continued. “Are we at war with the Russians, a non-shooting, non-kinetic political war? The Russians clearly think so, but the intelligence community has not been given permission to respond in kind.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/why-everything-looks-like-a-cyberattack-now


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/07/17 9:06 am • # 174 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The Russian meddling isn't the biggest problem, IMO. The complicity of USians is.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 07/08/17 9:10 am • # 175 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Maddow had this review of her coverage of Michael Flynn on her show the other night.

there is so much smoke there i can't imagine this administration NOT being in serious trouble.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next   Page 7 of 14   [ 350 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 153 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.