[Hong Wu]

I haven't seen any discussion or rebuttal of the Washington Times article anywhere yet, not that I've looked really hard... but I really feel as if that article brought up a good point and the dead silence it has been met with is interesting.

Recently: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/30/poli ... index.html

(CNN)Porn star Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, withdrew his motion to participate in the court battle involving the FBI raid of President Donald Trump's attorney's hotel and office Wednesday after a federal judge warned him he would have to "stop your publicity tour."

Avenatti, who practices law in California, had requested to be admitted into the New York proceedings, but was met with fierce objection from the attorney for Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time lawyer, who cited Avenatti's frequent television appearances, public statements about Cohen's guilt and his release of Cohen's personal financial information.

Amazing how blatantly this guy, who is apparently not being paid by his client, prefers to litigate these things in the media instead of in the courts when he's given the choice.

[Sivad]

I googled Clapper . In fact I had never heard of the guy.

How is that possible?

[Hong Wu]

Jimjam, isn't it weird that you have never heard of James Clapper but think you know what's going on in the Russian collusion investigation? It's kind of, you know, high level stuff.

[jimjam]

Jimjam, isn't it weird that you have never heard of James Clapper but think you know what's going on in the Russian collusion investigation? It's kind of, you know, high level stuff.

I hardly know what's going on with the Russia thing other that it happened to some degree. In addition to being confirmed by 3 American agencies it has been confirmed by European intelligence. I don't think it will be linked to Trump though. But, I suspect, that only Mueller knows anything

[jimjam]

:lol: How is that possible?

I unfortunately have a medical reason. I have had seizures which causes the short term memory to be shot to hell ...............

[blackjack21]

I hardly know what's going on with the Russia thing other that it happened to some degree. In addition to being confirmed by 3 American agencies it has been confirmed by European intelligence.

...and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The Europeans said so too.

I don't think it will be linked to Trump though.

They're caught dead to rights now. Even Nunes and Gowdy are trying to put the fire out now, because they knew that the FBI had an informant within the campaign and didn't tell Trump. In other words, it was an establishment hit job and it looks like maybe Nunes and Gowdy had a crisis of conscience when they realized that the deep state was going to use this to effect a coup d'etat; yet, they knew it was going on beforehand. They're all guilty. Democrats AND Republicans.

This is an absolutely amazing article of what's going down now as the Republicans try to put out the fire of Trump's new term "Spygate." It is bigger than Watergate, because it looks like both parties were involved in trying to undermine the incoming Trump administration.

Yes, the FBI Was Investigating the Trump Campaign When It Spied

Well, well, well. The bipartisan Beltway establishment has apparently had its fill of this “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative — the same narrative the same establishment has lustily peddled for nearly two years. ... Now that this ploy has blown up on the Justice Department and the FBI, these agencies — the ones that went out of their way, and outside their guidelines, to announce to the world that the Trump campaign was under investigation — want you to know the president and his campaign were not investigated at all, no siree.
...
And so, to douse the controversy with cold water, dutifully stepping forward in fine bipartisan fettle are the Obama administration’s top intelligence official and two influential Capitol Hill Republicans who evidently pay little attention to major testimony before their own committees.

Former National Intelligence director James Clapper was first to the scene of the blaze. Clapper concedes that, well, yes, the FBI did run an informant — “spy” is such an icky word — at Trump campaign officials; but you must understand that this was merely to investigate Russia. Cross his heart, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. No, no, no. Indeed, they only used an informant because — bet you didn’t know this — doing so is the most benign, least intrusive mode of conducting an investigation.

Me? I’m thinking the tens of thousands of convicts serving lengthy sentences due to the penetration of their schemes by informants would beg to differ. (Mr. Gambino, I assure you, this was just for you own good . . .)

Then there are Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), General Clapper’s fellow fire extinguishers.

Rubio is a member in good standing of that Washington pillar, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has had about as much interest in scrutinizing the highly irregular actions of intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the Clinton and Russia probes as Gowdy’s Benghazi committee had in revisiting Republican ardor for Obama’s unprovoked war on Moammar Qaddafi. (That would be: roughly zero interest.)

Rubio told ABC News that he has seen “no evidence” that the FBI was gathering information about the Trump campaign. Rather, agents “were investigating individuals with a history of links to Russia that were concerning.” The senator elaborated that “when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that.”

Gee, senator, when you were carefully perusing the evidence of what the FBI was doing, did you ever sneak a peek at what the FBI said it was doing?
...
First, to repeat, the question raised by the FBI’s use of an informant is whether the bureau was investigating the Trump campaign. We’ll come momentarily to the closely connected question of whether Trump can be airbrushed out of his own campaign — I suspect the impossibility of this feat is why Gowdy is resistant to discussing the Trump campaign at all.
...
Moreover, even if we stick to the criminal-investigation sense of “target,” Gowdy knows it is misleading to emphasize that Trump is not one. Just a few short weeks ago, Gowdy was heard pooh-poohing as “meaningless” media reporting that Trump had been advised he was not a “target” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe (which is the current iteration of the Russia investigation). As the congressman quite correctly pointed out, if Trump is a subject of the investigation — another criminal-law term of art, denoting a person whose conduct is under scrutiny, but who may or may not be indicted — it should be of little comfort that he is not a “target”; depending on how the evidence shakes out, a subject can become a target in the blink of an eye.

So, apart from the fact that Gowdy is dodging the question about whether the Trump campaign was being investigated, his digression about “targets” is gibberish.
...
Second, if Gowdy has been paying attention, he must know that, precisely because the Trump campaign was under investigation, top FBI officials had qualms of conscience over Comey’s plan to give Trump a misleading assurance that he personally was not under investigation. If this has slipped Gowdy mind, perhaps Rubio could lend him the transcript of Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee — in particular, a section Rubio seems not to remember, either.
...
It is easy to understand why Obama officials needed to discuss withholding information from Trump. They knew that the Trump campaign — not just some individuals tangentially connected to the campaign — was the subject of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe. Indeed, we now know that Obama’s Justice Department had already commenced FISA surveillance on Trump campaign figures, and that it was preparing to return to the FISA court to seek renewal of the surveillance warrants. We also know that at least one informant was still deployed. And we know that the FBI withheld information about the investigation from the congressional “Gang of Eight” during quarterly briefings from July 2106 through early March 2017. (See Comey testimony March 20, 2017, questioning by Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.).) Director Comey said Congress’s most trusted leaders were not apprised of the investigation because “it was a matter of such sensitivity.” Putting aside that the need to alert Congress to sensitive matters is exactly why there is a Gang of Eight, the palpable reason why the matter was deemed too “sensitive” for disclosure was that it involved the incumbent administration’s investigation of the opposition campaign.

There may be a very good reason that Paul Ryan is stepping down from the Speaker of the House and going home to spend more time with his family...

It is a major investigative step to seek surveillance warrants from the FISA court. Unlike using an informant, for which no court authorization is necessary, applications for FISA surveillance require approvals at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the FBI. After going through that elaborate process, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI presented to the court the dossier’s allegations that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to undermine the 2016 election.

If that was their position under oath before a secret United States court, why would anyone conceivably believe that it was not their position when they ran an informant at members of the campaign they were investigating?

The media hoping that Spygate is a 4-5 day story is obviously not the case. This thing is blowing wide open. It is clear as day that the Obama administration created this whole thing, and Mueller was the insurance policy to hamstring the Trump presidency. They never had anything, but they were going to try to fuck up his presidency anyway. It's out of the bag and they're trying to put it back in. Isn't going to work.

[jimjam]

This from Donald's #1 propaganda outlet regarding America's latest gate:

"President Trump has also claimed the feds spied on his campaign with an informant," Fox News host Shepard Smith said. "The president calls it Spygate. Fox News can confirm it is not. Fox News knows of no evidence to support the president’s claim. Lawmakers from both parties say using an informant to investigate is not spying. It’s part of the normal investigative process.”

Even a nitwit can see that this is just a croc of shit cooked up by Rudi and Donald to deflect from Donald's many issues. Donald demonstrates once again one of the paramount features of his reign: simple things for simple minds. what's next? a photo of Obama punking Hillary in the ass published in Donald's favorite newspaper, the National Enquirer?

[Zamuel]

First look:

New internet accounts are Russian ops By Tim Johnson - June 01, 2018 09:10 AM

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article212299529.html

A new Russian influence operation has surfaced that mirrors some of the activity of an internet firm that the FBI says was deeply involved in efforts to sway the 2016 U.S. elections, a cybersecurity firm says.

A website called usareally.com appeared on the internet May 17 and called on Americans to rally in front of the White House June 14 to celebrate President Donald Trump’s birthday, which is also Flag Day.

FireEye, a Milpitas, Calif., cybersecurity company, said Thursday that USA Really is a Russian-operated website that carries content designed to foment racial division, harden feelings over immigration, gun control and police brutality, and undermine social cohesion. (See the URL for full story.)

Mr. Mueller rides again …

Zam

[Hong Wu]

The fact that celebrating flag day in front of the White House when it also happens to be the President's birthday could be seriously described as "designed to foment racial divisions" is appalling in of itself.

[One Degree]

First look:


Mr. Mueller rides again …

Zam

Really? When did it become illegal for Russia to have websites? Anyone who can see something on the internet as interfering in internal affairs is admitting insanity. It is an international medium.

[Zamuel]

Really? When did it become illegal for Russia to have websites? Anyone who can see something on the internet as interfering in internal affairs is admitting insanity. It is an international medium.

Which is of course why all those Russians are now under indictment … Duh …



Zam

[One Degree]

Which is of course why all those Russians are now under indictment … Duh …



Zam

That makes no sense. Do Russians have the right to put things on the internet the same as Americans?

[Zamuel]

That makes no sense. Do Russians have the right to put things on the internet the same as Americans?

MR. Mueller seems to think not …

Zam

[Hong Wu]

Do they even have the real names of the Russians under indictment and how do they intend to get jurisdiction over Russians? Unless Americans or people who can be extradited are indicted it's a show.

[jimjam]

Trump's lawyers have told Mueller that their man does not have to answer any of Mueller's questions due to "executive privilege". In other words, Donald, unlike you or I, is above the law. It apparently took them 20 pages to say that Donald ain't talking. This is obviously a good move by Donald's defenders. I suspect that they are concerned that Donald, while he is spouting the usual nonsense about the size of his inauguration parade, may say something dumb and incriminating.

According to Donald's lawyers he need not answer any questions for a number of reasons and these three are my favorites:

“Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance.”
He need not talk because his job is "sacred"??

and

“Having him testify demeans the office of the president before the world.”
I would say that Donald certainly needs no help here.

and

They argued that the president holds a special position in the government and is busy running the country, making it difficult for him to prepare and sit for an interview.
or He's busy .....

Due to the amateurishness and chaotic performances of Trump and his aids earlier in the soap opera, an investigation into Russia's role in American elections has changed directions and morphed into a much more dangerous event for both Donald and America.

as an aside, my noxious political writing style was essentially formed by a muckraking publication that had a run from 1912 to 1928 called "Jim Jam Jems ....a volley of truth"

[Atlantis]

“Ensuring that the office remains sacred

Holy pussy-grabber.

[Albert]

[annatar1914]

Trump's lawyers have told Mueller that their man does not have to answer any of Mueller's questions due to "executive privilege". In other words, Donald, unlike you or I, is above the law. It apparently took them 20 pages to say that Donald ain't talking. This is obviously a good move by Donald's defenders. I suspect that they are concerned that Donald, while he is spouting the usual nonsense about the size of his inauguration parade, may say something dumb and incriminating.

According to Donald's lawyers he need not answer any questions for a number of reasons and these three are my favorites:

“Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance.”
He need not talk because his job is "sacred"??

and

“Having him testify demeans the office of the president before the world.”
I would say that Donald certainly needs no help here.

and

They argued that the president holds a special position in the government and is busy running the country, making it difficult for him to prepare and sit for an interview.
or He's busy .....

Due to the amateurishness and chaotic performances of Trump and his aids earlier in the soap opera, an investigation into Russia's role in American elections has changed directions and morphed into a much more dangerous event for both Donald and America.

as an aside, my noxious political writing style was essentially formed by a muckraking publication that had a run from 1912 to 1928 called "Jim Jam Jems ....a volley of truth"

Carl Schmidt; ''Sovereign is he who decides the exception''. All Nations have a Sovereign who decides when the Constitution (all Nations have written or unwritten Constitutions) in order to be defended, must be abrogated. President Trump has this power within the US Constitution. It remains to be seen whether he uses it, or takes another tack against his enemies. He or the Liberals will carry on until he is dead or in prison, or they are the ones six feet under or in prison. There is a psychotic break from reality happening to Liberals worldwide, a cognitive dissonance of persons out of touch with reality, and they are playing with a fire they cannot control, nor even understand. Liberals are like the Bourbons of the ''Ancien Regime'', they ''remember nothing and they forget nothing'', working on unstable passions and disordered intellect, fighting in a fog against enemies they hate with a white hot hatred but cannot beat because they don't fit their preconceived notions and biases.

Destined for the scrap heap of history.

[jimjam]

Carl Schmidt; ''Sovereign is he who decides the exception''. All Nations have a Sovereign who decides when the Constitution (all Nations have written or unwritten Constitutions) in order to be defended, must be abrogated. President Trump has this power within the US Constitution. It remains to be seen whether he uses it, or takes another tack against his enemies. He or the Liberals will carry on until he is dead or in prison, or they are the ones six feet under or in prison. There is a psychotic break from reality happening to Liberals worldwide, a cognitive dissonance of persons out of touch with reality, and they are playing with a fire they cannot control, nor even understand. Liberals are like the Bourbons of the ''Ancien Regime'', they ''remember nothing and they forget nothing'', working on unstable passions and disordered intellect, fighting in a fog against enemies they hate with a white hot hatred but cannot beat because they don't fit their preconceived notions and biases.

Destined for the scrap heap of history.

W.T.F. is a "liberal" ….. a "conservative"? This simplistic two dimensional take on history is a just the latest version of that ages old saw: "divide and conquer". That life would be so simple as to capture the swirling tides and backwaters of history with two words defies extrospection ………….

Personally, I consider myself neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal" ………. I am ………...

[annatar1914]

W.T.F. is a "liberal" ….. a "conservative"?

Within the context of the modern Bourgeoisie system, there isn't much difference, a ''conservative'' is just yesterday's Liberal. As something of an idiosyncratic observer outside this divide philosophically and politically (a kind of variant of national bolshevism is what I espouse), a ''Liberal'' is a supporter of the overall amalgam of representative democracy and economic neo-liberal capitalism.

I know where this is going, so temporary surface phenomena like the latest identity politics fad is not all that important from a meta-historical view.

This simplistic two dimensional take on history is a just the latest version of that ages old saw: "divide and conquer". That life would be so simple as to capture the swirling tides and backwaters of history with two words defies extrospection ………….

Indeed, as I try to explain. There is no difference, really.