The Russians and the 2016 Election PT III

GRR Spartan wrote:This is one instance where I can legitimately say "I told you so!"

Way back in August or early September I wrote what some here classified as a rant on why, as distastful as it was, Hillary Clinton should get your votes because while she was less than perfect she had submitted tax returns for over 2 decades and Trump had Manefort who was too cozy to Russian power brokers.

We're not halfway through February and it turns out the Trump campaign was lying about relationships with Russia.  

The sorry thing is we are now left hoping that at least 5-7 GOP US Senators have the political will to stop Trump in his tracks rather than succumb to the sirens song to using his Russian backed Presidency to sign off on a GOP agenda.  

Right now they are dealng with the devil who knows no loyalty except to himself, his children and his businesses that are run by his children.

LooseGoose wrote:

steveschneider wrote:In the third and final act of this story, a potential scandal that not even the orange one will be able to piss away.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?_r=0

And there's this -

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

This will go down as one of the biggest scandals in our nations history.

Or one of the largest piles of bullshit. Which way are you wagering?

So when does the other shoe drop? Who’s going to break the story proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the president of the United States is so deeply connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the White House has become a Muscovite colony in all but name?

Time to use some common sense—it’s not going to happen, there is no story. The narrative that Donald Trump is effectively Putin’s prison wife is an information operation orchestrated by Democratic hands, many of whom served in the Obama administration, sectors of the intelligence community, and much of the American press. The purpose of the campaign is to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by continuing to hit on themes drawn from the narrative that Russia “hacked” the election and stole it away from Clinton.

The narrative is contorted because it’s not journalism. It’s a story that could only make sense in a profoundly corrupted public sphere, one in which, for instance, Graydon Carter is celebrated for speaking truth to power with an editor’s letter critical of Trump in a magazine that has no other ontological ground in the universe except to celebrate power.

Oh, sure, there are regular hints that there’s still more to come on Trump and his staff’s ties to Russia—the big one is about to hit. But the steady sound of drip-drip-drip is the telltale sign of a political campaign, where items are leaked bit by bit to paralyze the target. Journalists, on the other hand, have to get their story out there as quickly, and as fully, as possible because they’re always worried the competition is going to beat them to it.

No, if Trump really was in bed with the Russians, the story would already be out there, and I’m pretty sure it would have had a Wayne Barrett byline.

GRR Spartan wrote:Now President Trump wants to criminally prosecute reporters whose stories are based unnamed sources if the reporters don't reveal the leakers so they can be prosecuted.  Both right out f the authoritarian hand book..

New York Times reporter James Risen slammed Attorney General Eric Holder in a series of tweets Tuesday evening, calling the Obama administration “The greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

“Eric Holder has been the nation's top censorship officer, not the top law enforcement officer,” Risen tweeted. “Eric Holder has done the bidding of the intelligence community and the White House to damage press freedom in the United States.”

Risen was tweeting in response to a speech Holder gave earlier on Tuesday at the National Press Club, where he defended the administration’s record on prosecuting leakers, saying they could have prosecuted far more than they actually did.

“We have tried to be appropriately sensitive in bringing those cases that warranted prosecution,” Holder said. “We have turned away, I mean, turned away substantially greater number of cases that were presented to us where prosecution was sought.”

For seven years, Risen mounted a legal battle against government demands that he identify his confidential sources for parts of a 2006 book in which he detailed a CIA plan to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. The Supreme Court declined his request to take up the case, which left Risen with virtually no protection against being forced to identify his sources, although he vowed he would never do so. As a result, Risen became the latest face of First Amendment rights and reporter’s privilege in the United States.

Late last year, Holder dropped the demand that Risen reveal his sources. In January, former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling was found guilty on nine felony counts for the leak.

“Eric Holder has sent a message to dictators around the world that it is okay to crack down on the press and jail journalists,” Risen tweeted on Tuesday. “Eric Holder leaves behind a wrecked First Amendment.”

“Eric Holder managed to destroy any semblance of a reporter’s privilege in the United States,” he continued. “This is Eric Holder's true legacy on press freedom: ‘There is no First Amendment ‘reporter's privilege.’ From DOJ brief in my case.”

LooseGoose wrote:Oh and BTW did you know the Obama administration prosecuted more leakers than ALL other Presidents combined?

Keep tooting your horn and ignoring history.   You didn't care then, you're a hypocrite for caring now.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Now President Trump wants to criminally prosecute reporters whose stories are based unnamed sources if the reporters don't reveal the leakers so they can be prosecuted.  Both right out f the authoritarian hand book..

Talk to me some more.....about your posts from a few years ago?   Oh that's right you agreed with that President.

New York Times reporter James Risen slammed Attorney General Eric Holder in a series of tweets Tuesday evening, calling the Obama administration “The greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

“Eric Holder has been the nation's top censorship officer, not the top law enforcement officer,” Risen tweeted. “Eric Holder has done the bidding of the intelligence community and the White House to damage press freedom in the United States.”

Risen was tweeting in response to a speech Holder gave earlier on Tuesday at the National Press Club, where he defended the administration’s record on prosecuting leakers, saying they could have prosecuted far more than they actually did.

“We have tried to be appropriately sensitive in bringing those cases that warranted prosecution,” Holder said. “We have turned away, I mean, turned away substantially greater number of cases that were presented to us where prosecution was sought.”

For seven years, Risen mounted a legal battle against government demands that he identify his confidential sources for parts of a 2006 book in which he detailed a CIA plan to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. The Supreme Court declined his request to take up the case, which left Risen with virtually no protection against being forced to identify his sources, although he vowed he would never do so. As a result, Risen became the latest face of First Amendment rights and reporter’s privilege in the United States.

Late last year, Holder dropped the demand that Risen reveal his sources. In January, former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling was found guilty on nine felony counts for the leak.

“Eric Holder has sent a message to dictators around the world that it is okay to crack down on the press and jail journalists,” Risen tweeted on Tuesday. “Eric Holder leaves behind a wrecked First Amendment.”

“Eric Holder managed to destroy any semblance of a reporter’s privilege in the United States,” he continued. “This is Eric Holder's true legacy on press freedom: ‘There is no First Amendment ‘reporter's privilege.’ From DOJ brief in my case.”

Risen: Obama administration is greatest enemy of press freedom

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Oh and BTW did you know the Obama administration prosecuted more leakers than ALL other Presidents combined?

Keep tooting your horn and ignoring history.   You didn't care then, you're a hypocrite for caring now.

Yeah but Obama...

GRR Spartan wrote:Did President Obama ever have a staff member approach the FBI to back off on an investigation?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/carter-page-russia-trip-trump-corey-lewandowski-235784

Another nothingburger, eh Comrade Goose?

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/carter-page-russia-trip-trump-corey-lewandowski-235784

Another nothingburger, eh Comrade Goose?

Talk to me when you have some evidence, right now you're at or below Trump twitter level.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/carter-page-russia-trip-trump-corey-lewandowski-235784

Another nothingburger, eh Comrade Goose?

Talk to me when you have some evidence, right now you're at or below Enquirer level.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on Meet the Press this past weekend to discuss the Trump-Russia scandal. Chuck Todd asked: Were there improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that…
CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.
Todd pressed him to elaborate.
CHUCK TODD: If [evidence of collusion] existed, it would have been in this report?
JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.

This is the former Director of National Intelligence telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government, the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is.

LooseGoose wrote:From the noted RightWingRag™ Rolling Stone.....a warning.

Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on Meet the Press this past weekend to discuss the Trump-Russia scandal. Chuck Todd asked: Were there improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that…
CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.
Todd pressed him to elaborate.
CHUCK TODD: If [evidence of collusion] existed, it would have been in this report?
JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.

This is the former Director of National Intelligence telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government, the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is.

Ali Watkins of BuzzFeed talked to staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee on their review of the information so far. A month into its sweeping investigation into the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine the US election, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to answer all those questions — publicly, coherently, and fast. As the days tick by, they’re less and less sure they’ll be able to.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

LooseGoose wrote:

Ali Watkins of BuzzFeed talked to staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee on their review of the information so far. A month into its sweeping investigation into the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine the US election, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to answer all those questions — publicly, coherently, and fast. As the days tick by, they’re less and less sure they’ll be able to.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

LooseGoose wrote:

Ali Watkins of BuzzFeed talked to staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee on their review of the information so far. A month into its sweeping investigation into the Kremlin’s efforts to undermine the US election, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to answer all those questions — publicly, coherently, and fast. As the days tick by, they’re less and less sure they’ll be able to.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

Hillary Clinton’s team members met with the Russian ambassador during the election as well as Donald Trump’s, the Kremlin spokesman has alleged, as he set out to dismiss the “hysteria” surrounding Mr Trump’s links to Russia.

The house intelligence committee will hold its first session on Russia on March 20, with the heads of the FBI, national security agency and CIA expected to appear, plus previous intelligence chiefs.

But Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that America was “self-humiliating” in insisting that Russia hacked its election.

LooseGoose wrote:Hillary Clinton's team met with Russian ambassador, says Kremlin spokesman, as he warns against 'hysteria'

Hillary Clinton’s team members met with the Russian ambassador during the election as well as Donald Trump’s, the Kremlin spokesman has alleged, as he set out to dismiss the “hysteria” surrounding Mr Trump’s links to Russia.

The house intelligence committee will hold its first session on Russia on March 20, with the heads of the FBI, national security agency and CIA expected to appear, plus previous intelligence chiefs.

But Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that America was “self-humiliating” in insisting that Russia hacked its election.

LooseGoose wrote:Hillary Clinton's team met with Russian ambassador, says Kremlin spokesman, as he warns against 'hysteria'

Hillary Clinton’s team members met with the Russian ambassador during the election as well as Donald Trump’s, the Kremlin spokesman has alleged, as he set out to dismiss the “hysteria” surrounding Mr Trump’s links to Russia.

The house intelligence committee will hold its first session on Russia on March 20, with the heads of the FBI, national security agency and CIA expected to appear, plus previous intelligence chiefs.

But Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that America was “self-humiliating” in insisting that Russia hacked its election.

DWags wrote:From Gooses' article:

But earlier this month Foreign Policy reported that no one from the former secretary of state's campaign met with Mr Kislyak or any other Russian official. The magazine also reported that all the other candidates kept the embassy "at arm's length".

And supporters of Mrs Clinton would point out that the problem did not come from meeting the ambassador, but rather failing to disclose it.

I dont' get it:  "yes, we met, we met with many ambassador's, it's the right thing to do when you are running for president and they're such an entity world wide."

If they ask what was talked about, I'd have no problem with them saying, "you know, that's none of your business, you'll be apprised of it when we deem it's safe and necessary to tell you about it, if you don't like it, run for president and win".

DWags wrote:From Gooses' article:

But earlier this month Foreign Policy reported that no one from the former secretary of state's campaign met with Mr Kislyak or any other Russian official. The magazine also reported that all the other candidates kept the embassy "at arm's length".

And supporters of Mrs Clinton would point out that the problem did not come from meeting the ambassador, but rather failing to disclose it.

I dont' get it: "yes, we met, we met with many ambassador's, it's the right thing to do when you are running for president and they're such an entity world wide."

If they ask what was talked about, I'd have no problem with them saying, "you know, that's none of your business, you'll be apprised of it when we deem it's safe and necessary to tell you about it, if you don't like it, run for president and win".

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:From Gooses' article:

But earlier this month Foreign Policy reported that no one from the former secretary of state's campaign met with Mr Kislyak or any other Russian official. The magazine also reported that all the other candidates kept the embassy "at arm's length".

And supporters of Mrs Clinton would point out that the problem did not come from meeting the ambassador, but rather failing to disclose it.

I dont' get it:  "yes, we met, we met with many ambassador's, it's the right thing to do when you are running for president and they're such an entity world wide."

If they ask what was talked about, I'd have no problem with them saying, "you know, that's none of your business, you'll be apprised of it when we deem it's safe and necessary to tell you about it, if you don't like it, run for president and win".

Link to an article where the Clinton campaign "disclosed" that they were meeting with the damned Russkies?