« Well, no one thought the Turks were subtle ... And I like Turks. | Main | A coupla things ... »

11 January 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Account Deleted

Stonevendor

This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trumpism", I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

This said, if Trump actually does go to war with Iran (rather than just threaten it) I will agree with your comparison re Bush and the neocons of his era.

Account Deleted

Minor correction: Nellie Ohr is the Ham radio enthusiast:

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/LicArchive/license.jsp?archive=Y&licKey=12382876

Publius Tacitus

Nice try Lee, but he still does not contradict his sworn testimony, i.e. UNVERIFIED. Not being able to discuss "details of the investigation" could have opened up questions about when the FBI first learned of the reports in the dossier. That would have raised even more uncomfortable questions about the FBIs conduct.

English Outsider

"I check in with this site from time to time because I find coverage of the Middle East that I will not find elsewhere. It has always been informative. But it is curious to find this remarkable devotion to Trumpism."

Right on the first point. Wrong on the second. To my occasional regret the dream of 2016 had and has few all-in adherents here.

The merits of what you term "Trumpism" are examined from time to time on the Colonel's site. The question of whether the Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump.

From my point of view - I'm English, as you might notice - the question of whether the UK Security Services helped play politics in a US presidential election is relevant whoever the target was. I like to think that our Security Services work as part of our defence forces, not as political hit men.

Fred

bks,

The Kremlin targeted "educated youth"? Which ones, the Bernie supporters who were going to be screwed by the rigged democratic primary? How did they do the targeting, by that $100K ad spend with Zuckerberg? Isn't he then also guilty by association or is he still the good billionaire? Which other US citizens maintain ties to rich businessmen from Axerbaijan? Which law does that violate?

Annem

Two small points:

When the MSM was all a-flutter with coverage of Simpson's testimony in the Capitol, I heard none of the TV hosts mention that it was the Clinton folks who hired Fusion. If that is not the case, please let me know.

In his testimony, Simpson supposedly said that Russia was just one country that research into Trump's business contacts were conducted, the others being the likes of South East Asia and Latin America. We have heard nothing about the outcome of that research.

Dr. Puck

It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely serious matter.

Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere are "piecing together?"

If Trump wanted to do so, he could have all this factual stuff published on the WH web site; yes? If he did so the counter-narrative would be instantly annihilated, right?

Terry

I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been one of them

What I find remarkable isn't Trumpism - but rather the blind emotional partisanship that drives far too many people and how willing so many people are to commit treason and tear apart constitutional law just to "win".

Greco

Good points.

Greco

Further to your points:

- November 2016: Clapper recommended that Rogers be fired. This was soon after Rogers' meeting with Trump.

- March 2017: Trump tweeted that Trump Tower had it's "wires tapped."

Sundance's theory is very interesting. Given the circumstances and the timeline of events, it seems plausible to say the least that Rogers tipped off Trump.

Anna

"But it is curious to find this remarkable devotion to Trumpism."
---You mean that the facts about the malfeasance of the US national security apparatus have pro-Trump bias? Do you check a party affiliation of a medical doctor before taking your child for important surgery? What makes you so sure that this discussion is an apologia for POTUS? -- This discussion is about the FBI/CIA brass -- Hayden, Morell, Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller and their opportunistic stuffers – that is, about the sorry state of the national security apparatus used for partisan ends. Inform yourself about Awan affair, for a starter.
"But with Trump we get someone who makes Bush and Cheney look reasonable and prudent."
-- Your are a propagandist and not a subtle one. After the pink pussies parades that have revived the stories of Lolita Express (in relation to such glorious names as Epstein, Dershowitz, and Clinton), the "progressives" should have become more careful by using the words "reasonable and prudent."

raven

Hahahah, that is hilarious.

TimmyB

Americans should be able to put their personal beliefs about Trump aside and realize that our country has a serious problem when one-sided opposition research containing little more than rumors is used as the basis for starting a FBI investigation on a presidential candidate during an election. This is especially true when, as we all know, the "news" of such an investigation would soon be leaked to the press.

Personally, I have a very low opinion of Trump and his policies. However, this whole "Russiagate" thing, from what evidence I've seen, is complete bullshit. To see that such obvious bullshit was used to start an FBI spying operation and witch hunts by both the press and a special prosecutor against Trump is outrageous. It is also a crime under our laws. If it can happen to Trump, it can happen to anyone.

One would think the great harm caused by allowing our government intelligence agencies to spy on political candidates and then leak both true and false information about those candidates to the press would be obvious. I hope the people who caused this outrage are prosecuted for the many crimes they committed.

Laura

And then...there is this: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/368671-russia-linked-hackers-targeting-us-senate

Flavius

Very, very well done. Andy McCarthy's and Publius Tacitus's combined work in clearing the political and MSM smoke from around this Beltway debacle alone is more than is needed to predicate a full criminal investigation.
In my opinion, another Special Counsel is neither needed nor desirable: a competent apolitical United States Attorney with a special Grand Jury and a couple of squads of FBI Agents brought in from some place like Chicago should be adequate to the job; or the American taxpayer has not been getting its money's worth. A not inconsiderable side benefit would be that our system of justice and the FBI might start to reclaim some of their reputation that is lying in tatters.
The only thing I would add is that I would integrate into the design of the case the multiple unmaskings and unfettered leaks. This case points directly towards the Obama White House and it is reasonable to suspect that it may include Obama himself.

Lee A. Arnold

Publius Tacitus: "...he still does not contradict his sworn testimony, i.e. UNVERIFIED. Not being able to discuss "details of the investigation" could have opened up questions about when the FBI first learned of the reports in the dossier. That would have raised even more uncomfortable questions about the FBIs conduct."

Comey says he cannot discuss details of the investigation in "an open setting". That MEANS it would have to be discussed in a closed-door session later.

Also, you keep inferring that the whole dossier was unverified. But in the June 2017 transcript Comey NEVER says that the ENTIRE dossier is "salacious and unverified".

Senator Collins asks Comey about Comey's Jan 6 meeting with Trump. Comey says 1. he told Trump about the dossier because the media told the FBI they were about to release it, and Comey didn't want the President to be caught unawares by a document already possessed by the in FBI. And Comey says 2. he told the President he was not under investigation because he didn't want the President to think the FBI had something hanging over him, J. Edgar Hoover-style.

In context of Comey's January meeting with Trump, the phrase "salacious and unverified" may only refer to the dossier material that mentions Trump. Because Comey had just told Burr in the same transcript that what was verified in the dossier would have to be discussed in closed door session. (Verified by the time of Comey's firing, which was in May.)

Here is the transcript of that answer to Collins:

"COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?
COMEY: That's correct.
COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?
COMEY: I didn't use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him. So the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I just talked to him about. It was very important because it was, first, true, and second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because, because we had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn't want to be keeping that from him. He needed to know this was being said. I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. So that's the context in which I said, sir, we're not personally investigating you."

Dr. George W. Oprisko

In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove
their commitment to the welfare of the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election.

I'm speaking of Sanders........

There was enough dirt on HRC to blackmail her into giving the nomination to Sanders.
There was enough dirt on DT to show him as the plaything of the Zionists/ Russians

They had both the Post and Times in their pockets, not to mention Fox and CNN.

Only Sanders had a domestic program which could put money into households and thus grow demand and the economy, and Sanders was/is a hawk.

They didn't. Their loyalty to HRC trumped the nation....

The question left un asked......... WHY??? What did they have to gain from HRC that no one else offered?

INDY

Richardstevenhack

Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh, are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the FBI's history of conducting illegal, criminal activities against various dissident groups in the US and covering up evidence of criminal activity by their own informants - including murder - and also covering up evidence of criminal activity by other law enforcement agencies such as the Bureau of Prisons.

The FBI IS a criminal enterprise.

Clueless Joe

There's one simple reason why any normal democracy-loving citizen should be very wary of the moves to undermine, oust or impeach Trump, just like he should've been wary of the moves to impeach Clinton or to claim Obama wasn't American-born.
If the Intelligence goons manage to land such a big hit that they can basically overthrow a (quite loathed by many) president, what's to stop them from doing it again in the future? Any Dem should be terrified by what's going on right now, because it should be obvious to them that the GOP would try to do the same to the next Democrat president.
There's a growing trend to contest under any pretense the results of legitimate democratic elections in the USA, and considering how things spiral out of control, one can't totally rule out that the next election might end up in the kind of troubles we've seen in Ukraine, Georgia and other countries where vast parts of the people considered the elections illegitimate enough to overthrow with mass (and at times quite violent) protests the freshly-elected leader.

MRW

Could not agree with Publius Tacitus more so than what he put out. Bravo.

Publius Tacitus said in reply to DC...

Richardstevenhack

And now we have this...

Mueller adds DOJ cybercrime prosecutor to his team
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/10/russia-special-counsel-mueller-adds-cybercrime-prosecutor-276499

Quote:

If any of Trump’s associates knew about and encouraged the hacking of Democrats' emails and computer servers, they could be charged under the statute.

In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller’s team was letting the original DOJ prosecutors retain the investigation of the actual cyber intrusions into the DNC and other targets.

End Quote

This is beyond ridiculous.

The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of "hacking"? Seriously?

Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks.

These two facts - along with the compromised FBI personnel involved in the Fusion GPS scandal - demonstrate that the FBI at the highest levels were involved in a criminal conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning the election.

This establishes that the entire "Russiagate" investigation is nothing but more of the same. The real scandal is that the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies are involved in a "soft coup" against an elected President.

Publius Tacitus

Dude,
You are desperate and blind. You are ignoring what Steele has now said under oath about his own work. In total contradiction to what he told David Corn in January 2017, Steele has reversed course and disavowed his work as based on solid, verified intelligence. The dossier is a piece of bullshit political propaganda bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. You obviously are a Trump hater because you fail to see or concede the highly dubious nature of the impetus for this collection of, to quote Comey, SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED reports.

Lee A. Arnold

Publius Tacitus: "In total contradiction to what he told David Corn"

Corn's article Oct. 2016 said that the dossier contained "allegations" that have not been confirmed nor denied.

The Buzzfeed leak in Jan. 2017 later stated that the contents of the dossier were "unverified" and "unconfirmed".

Steele told the London court in the May 2017 filing that the dossier was "raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications".

Where are the contradictions?

Publius Tacitus

I can keep smacking you around all day. Here's what Corn reported in January 2017 about his first conversations with Steele:
The former spy said he soon decided the information he was receiving was “sufficiently serious” for him to forward it to contacts he had at the FBI. He did this, he said, without permission from the American firm that had hired him. “This was an extraordinary situation,” he remarked.

The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was “shock and horror.” After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. But he said, “My track record as a professional is second to no one.”

When I spoke with the former spy, he appeared confident about his material—acknowledging these memos were works in progress—and genuinely concerned about the implications of the allegations. He came across as a serious and somber professional who was not eager to talk to a journalist or cause a public splash. He realized he was taking a risk, but he seemed duty bound to share information he deemed crucial. He noted that these allegations deserved a "substantial inquiry" within the FBI.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/spy-who-wrote-trump-russia-memos-it-was-hair-raising-stuff/
Of course, if you had actually read carefully what I wrote you would have known this.

bks

Sorry. Our overlords don't like the truth and have 86'ed my message. C'est la vie.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad