Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: James Comey Thread

  1. #1
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Exclamation James Comey Thread



    You know what's going on. Your take on it?

    Earlier this morning German media were speaking of a second Watergate Also bearing in mind things are determined by the mid-term elections and who will be the new person in charge of the FBI.

  2. #2
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still find it hard to believe that Trump's statement said that Comey had been terminated...not that his term in office had been terminated, but that James Comey had been terminated.

    Trump's behaviour is indeed very similar to Nixon's during Watergate, who sacked the special prosecutor (Archibald Cox) investigating the case. It is difficult to imagine Trump doing an act so terrible that I could not have expected it.

  3. #3
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  4. #4
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Trump is such a slimeball. I hate that guy.

  5. #5
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And he is also a lying sack of shit.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, so Comey was investigating Hillary's e-mails and she and the Democrats were all up in his arm, and Trump was praising him, and now Trump hates the guy and fires him, and the Democrats are praising him...

    I guess he fired Comey to send a message to the FBI to stop with the investigation on the "Russian connections/allegations". There's no evidence of such a thing and it doesn't seem like Comey was close to "finding out", but it seems like he did this for PR reasons. And being involved with Russia is a bad thing, because Russia is an "enemy"...? This whole thing is just bizarre, when Hillary and even Obama were talking about improving ties and "resetting" the relation with Russia. And now Russia is suddenly the boogeyman. And what for? Everything is just political.

  7. #7
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *The Apprentice goes to Washington*

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Defending Trump at times is quite difficult, he's borderline retarded and makes some incredibly horrible decisions. I'd prefer someone else as president but we are stuck with him. I'd still prefer him to reptile Hillary. In this particular circumstance though, I'm not sure why the media is complaining. It was just a week ago where the media was bitching about how Comey needed to be fired. Trump fires him and suddenly the media is attacking him for it bitching about how it's Nixon-like. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that the majority of the population is crazy, and can't quite figure out what the fuck they want. Perhaps lithium should be added to the water supply or something, because people are really losing their minds.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To be honest, Trump is doing what the liberals should have been doing all along: Rebuilding the economy by bringing back the power to the middle/working class (attempting to, anyway), stopping the wars all over the world, stopping confrontations with Russia & China, stopping the takeover of neo-conservatives. But now that Trump is doing it, the liberals are all up in their arms and opposing whatever Trump is doing (and the conservative are supporting whatever Trump is doing). It just goes to show that who says something is more important than what they're saying.

  11. #11
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    To be honest, Trump is doing what the liberals should have been doing all along: Rebuilding the economy by bringing back the power to the middle/working class (attempting to, anyway), stopping the wars all over the world, stopping confrontations with Russia & China, stopping the takeover of neo-conservatives. But now that Trump is doing it, the liberals are all up in their arms and opposing whatever Trump is doing (and the conservative are supporting whatever Trump is doing). It just goes to show that who says something is more important than what they're saying.
    Where do you think this is going, potentially?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    Where do you think this is going, potentially?
    I don't know, probably nowhere good... It doesn't seem like anybody is going to be solving the economic problems anytime soon. Nor anyone will be able to stop the "war machinery".

    I have read that "both written documents and changes in US war doctrine that indicate that Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia and China".

    Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff has concluded that Washington in pursuit of global hegemony is implementing an anti-ballistic missile system that Washington believes can prevent a Russian nuclear response to a US pre-emptive attack. http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-...n-nuclear.html

    Careful studies have convinced the Russians that Washington is investing in and arranging components that have no other function than to devastate Russia and cripple the country’s retaliatory capability. In short, Washington is preparing to launch a nuclear war. https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-mi...russia-strike/

    The US believes that it can attack those countries coming unscathed, because it believes that it can destroy Russia so badly before they can retaliate. So if you thought that a potential war with North Korea was bad... then this is far worse.

    Russia and China have both come to the same conclusion that it can no longer trust Washington, and that they're preparing an attack against them.

    Assad has said that Trump is now a "puppet"... he's probably right:

    Trump pursues “no own policies” but only executes the decisions made by the “intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms manufacturers, oil companies, and financial institutions,” the Syrian leader said in an exclusive interview with TeleSUR.

    The Syrian president also said that it is “a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American president’s foreign policy” as “he might say something” but what he really does depends on “what these [US military and business] institutions dictate to him.”
    https://www.rt.com/usa/386395-trump-us-puppet-assad/

  13. #13
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    I don't know, probably nowhere good... It doesn't seem like anybody is going to be solving the economic problems anytime soon. Nor anyone will be able to stop the "war machinery".

    I have read that "both written documents and changes in US war doctrine that indicate that Washington is preparing a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia and China".

    Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff has concluded that Washington in pursuit of global hegemony is implementing an anti-ballistic missile system that Washington believes can prevent a Russian nuclear response to a US pre-emptive attack. http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-...n-nuclear.html

    Careful studies have convinced the Russians that Washington is investing in and arranging components that have no other function than to devastate Russia and cripple the country’s retaliatory capability. In short, Washington is preparing to launch a nuclear war. https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-mi...russia-strike/

    The US believes that it can attack those countries coming unscathed, because it believes that it can destroy Russia so badly before they can retaliate. So if you thought that a potential war with North Korea was bad... then this is far worse.

    Russia and China have both come to the same conclusion that it can no longer trust Washington, and that they're preparing an attack against them.

    Assad has said that Trump is now a "puppet"... he's probably right:



    https://www.rt.com/usa/386395-trump-us-puppet-assad/
    Then we're stuck with @Raver's prediction/scenarios again. Is there any way war can be averted?

  14. #14
    Syynth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Deseret
    TIM
    INTj-Ti
    Posts
    117
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Russia Today is a propaganda network funded by the Russian Government; it shouldn't be considered a serious source.

    No country, except perhaps North Korea, is dumb enough to start a nuclear war.
    SP/SX
    5w4

  15. #15
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syynth View Post
    Russia Today is a propaganda network funded by the Russian Government; it shouldn't be considered a serious source.

    No country, except perhaps North Korea, is dumb enough to start a nuclear war.
    Lmaoooo whoops there we go, propaganda alert What are the odds of them doing that?

  16. #16
    Syynth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Deseret
    TIM
    INTj-Ti
    Posts
    117
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    Lmaoooo whoops there we go, propaganda alert What are the odds of them doing that?
    I should specify that North Korea wouldn't start a nuclear war, but they could start a war using a nuclear weapon. However I don't see this being a realistic possibility now that they have lost the support of China.
    SP/SX
    5w4

  17. #17
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syynth View Post
    I should specify that North Korea wouldn't start a nuclear war, but they could start a war using a nuclear weapon. However I don't see this being a realistic possibility now that they have lost the support of China.
    Yep

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syynth View Post
    Russia Today is a propaganda network funded by the Russian Government; it shouldn't be considered a serious source.

    No country, except perhaps North Korea, is dumb enough to start a nuclear war.
    Well of course it's propaganda, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's a bit of nugget of truth in it. CNN is as much of propaganda as RT. Again, this is about who says it rather than what is being said. If this was written on CNN or Reuters... then you would believe it.

    And no, even North Korea isn't dumb enough to start a nuclear war - since it means that they would be wiped out by the US (besides, North Korea doesn't quite have the technology yet to put nuclear weapons on a missile). North Korea is not crazy enough to become itself be completely annihilated. North Korea has never invaded any country in 64 years since the Korean war in 1950-1953. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. The US, however, has invaded many countries since 9/11.

    The US is currently putting many missile bases near Russian borders, as well as anti-ballistic missile sites that are pointed at Russia, China and North Korea.

    All these things are well documented and they're not even controversial. The US military strategists openly talks of "full-spectrum dominance", where it believes that the US has the God-given right to rule the entire world. The US believes that it should be the only superpower in the world, and Russia and China should have no place in it, even though it's inevitable that Russia and China would rise up as rival superpowers in the near future. I mean look at Karl Rove's infamous quote, the brain behind the Bush-Cheney administration: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

    Unfortunately, people don't realize that it's the US that has gone "crazy". And why should you be surprised? If you have been paying attention, then the US has already invaded many countries and started illegal wars since 9/11. And do you really still believe that the US is not "crazy" enough to start more wars? If the people won't make this whole thing stop... then it will just keep on marching on.

    The fact is... all this erratic behavior of the US is being taken as threats and confrontations by Russia and China. They're not going to be trust those who are pointing missiles at them and threatening wars against them. This will just create more instability in the region.

  19. #19
    Syynth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Deseret
    TIM
    INTj-Ti
    Posts
    117
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    even though it's inevitable that Russia and China would rise up as rival superpowers in the near future.
    Russia isn't going to be a superpower any time soon. The only reason Russia has any political and economic power is because Germany is dependent on it for its energy needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    And do you really still believe that the US is not "crazy" enough to start more wars?
    With the Russians or Chinese? Of course they aren't that crazy.
    SP/SX
    5w4

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syynth View Post
    With the Russians or Chinese? Of course they aren't that crazy.
    Well, then you should read up on all sorts of crazy things that the US is doing to provoke Russia and China. Even Hillary proposed a "No-Fly Zone" in Syria, which would shoot down even Russian airplanes that passed through it, which could spark a war. Look at how the CIA installed a neo-Nazi government via a coup in Ukraine (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s...kraine/5371554), so that Russia had to annex Crimea (the people in Crimea were vulnerable to anti-Russian forces). Look at how the US comes up with all sorts of excuses to put more missile bases near Russian borders, as stated above. Look at how the US is convincing all its allies to "contain China" (both militarily and financially) and vilify Russia, just like how they convinced everyone to drag them into "War on Terror" in the Middle East. And now, Trump is creating all sorts of nonsense with North Korea.

    The point is... the US is playing a dangerous game, which could intentionally or unintentionally spark a fire and ignite a flame that could get larger and larger. You can't contain China or Russia, neither of those countries are having it, and yet the US thinks that it should be the only superpower in the world.

  21. #21

  22. #22
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Colbert had this in the video as well and said it's the only fun fact they have #burn

  23. #23
    Syynth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Deseret
    TIM
    INTj-Ti
    Posts
    117
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    The point is... the US is playing a dangerous game, which could intentionally or unintentionally spark a fire and ignite a flame that could get larger and larger. You can't contain China or Russia, neither of those countries are having it, and yet the US thinks that it should be the only superpower in the world.
    It is a dangerous game. It does look like a reenactment of the Cold War containment policy. But unlike the 1960s, the United States, China, and Russia are all economically dependent on each other. The wealthy elite in each country all want the same thing: a stable environment to conduct business, and I don't believe that they will allow their respective governments to jeopardize that. Will there be shady proxy wars? Sure. Military posturing? Of course. But an all out war between these countries isn't going to happen.
    SP/SX
    5w4

  24. #24
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    containment is a natural reaction to beta

    once they sort themselves out, containment will no longer be necessary (both China and Russia have been moving in a positive direction, albeit not perfectly linearly, but on the whole they're becoming more democratic in light of the last century)

    the only real risk is they turn into an unstoppable monster and try to aggressively expand, but pre-emption is generally unethical and the chances of that are lower than them either self destructing or joining the rest of the world in gamma/delta

    beta loves drawing people into conflict because it allows them to provoke a disproportionate response then control the surrounding narrative to seize the moral high ground and add legitimacy to their would-be hierarchy (see: NK), thus capturing the popular imagination and building an army. the best thing to do is ignore them (their narratives, not their real actions, of course). NK getting nuclear weapons of course unbalances that, but the trick is to never let the spectre of the thing act as a successful provocation but rather measure out the response each and every time so as to not legitimate any possible narrative of "US imperialism" or whatever. even if NK did get a nuclear weapon the only thing their provocations up until this point have proven is they can't be trusted with one, which basically undoes their legitimacy and their claims and makes it chinas problem in the worlds eyes, but there's really a lot less of a problem here than it seems, because even if they got one, even if they used one, as long as the US did everything it could to contain, NK cannot achieve its goals, because it cannot seize the narrative and thus world support, rather it becomes clear its a "beta problem" between NK and China

    NK has been successfully outplayed at every turn and soon the only recourse they'll have left is to go full Eliot roger and murder suicide the korean penisula, but hopefully someone goes jaime lannister before it gets to that. even if it does happen history will judge the US and SK as having done the right thing and it will be an object lesson in how communist dictatorships are evil. not even Russia or China want that, so once again its their problem. their only hope to make it the US's problem is to somehow shake their confidence in their own policy of containment, which has always been a beta tactic, perhaps which is why they love Trump and see now their moment has come because Trump could easily make a patsy in all this, and I think it is no coincidence NK has ramped up lately, not for Trump's benefit, as perhaps Russia and China would like to sell it to him, but for their own long term benefit in getting Trump to do something rash and relieve them of the impending responsibility for NK

    Trumps own psychological vulnerability to beta Ni could make a self fulfilling prophesy in regard to NK, whereby acting on the groundless provocations he substantiates them and is drawn into a conflict for which the overall narrative can later be molded to suit beta interests over those of the united states. Trumps role is just to be a useful idiot and act accordingly to get the ball rolling, because if he fails to act and if the US stays the course as it has in the past NK is actually the deathknell of beta global ambition. if Trump does start a global conflict then it could be a huge rallying call for beta worldwide and revitalize the old school elements of Russia and China that are currently on the way out. NK is just the "sacrificial lamb" of beta quadra that is totally doomed either way but it just depends on how they will be used. either as fuel to revitalize Russia/China or as an object lesson in the futility and evil of beta governance

    Trump thinks he knows whats going on but he's just a tool as are a large swath of the American people who believe in his simplistic narratives. something much larger is playing out on the broader scale and Comey is just a small part of that. for what its worth, I served as an officer for a year in Korea on the DMZ

    all Trump's follower's talk of 4d chess is, as always, highly ironic, in light of this

    I feel like gamma will absolutely squash this though--there's a reason US is top dog and has been and will continue to be. Obama knew this, which is why he's handled everything with equanimity. Once Trump is exposed (not for the above but) for his petty misconduct (because that's only what the average person can understand), this will work against beta once again, because their problem has always been they're not in fact fighting with individuals only, but with reality (i.e.: the uselessness of molding their policy on contra-obama or whatever, viewing absolutely everything through the superficial lens of personal relations) itself
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-21-2017 at 02:45 AM.

  25. #25
    Nanooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Russia has an official doctrine of "de-escalatory nuclear strike," so I find it hard to accept Russia Today's claim that an anti-ballistic missile shield is therefore proof that the US wants to nuke Russia because unexplained reasons. http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-ca...-de-escalation Also, the Pentagon's wargames have consistently shown that without some sort of reinforcement in the Baltic Sea they'd be able to overrun Europe inside 40 hours should they choose to go beyond basic (but brazen) espionage. This seems like a likely reason for the option of a defense shield in Poland. Based on national interest alone, you're seeing a return to containment policies. I hope they don't escalate further than that, and any growth in the military-industrial complex's power carries risks for our democracy, but to paint the specific Russia situation as "good Russia vs. bad America" or in any terms other than realpolitik is silly.

    Anyway, it is overwhelmingly likely that the hacks to the DNC's email server were conducted by Russia and that Guccifer 2.0 is an FSB cut-out, just based on his pattern of hacks suspiciously lining up with Russia's geopolitical interests and Russia being where the data was traced to. The best argument against it has been "it looks too sloppy for intel," but that's relying on the idea that they're not playing chicken. Considering their record of flying military jets right off the US coast (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/04/2...jets-military/), they've demonstrably done that plenty already. Putin's pulled the OJ Simpson "if I did it, then..." response several times. Trump has also admitted, on NBC News in front of a national audience, that "the Russia thing" was one consideration in his firing of Comey. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation also http://www.latimes.com/politics/wash...htmlstory.html)

    What we know so far is that Kushner set up a back-channel with Russia's representatives that he cared deeply about being intelligence wiretap-free (why?), Flynn had a similar back-channel and was established to be open to blackmail, Erik Prince met with Russian representatives (and UAE ones) to discuss Iran policy even before the election, close friend and Commerce pick Wilbur Ross just happened to be Vice President of the Cypriot offshore bank where Russian oligarchs stash their money. So yeah, it looks bad for him.

    For motive: the Orbis dossier looks pretty dodgy to me and is from a notoriously unscrupulous firm, I wouldn't trust it at all and thankfully most Trump critics have distanced themselves from it. The record of Trump's close ties with Russian banks on various projects, combined with his repeated bankruptcies, makes financial blackmail a possibility though. Even absent that, common political interest is clearly there. We know Trump has promised to lift Russia's sanctions, which Putin certainly has interest in. Less talked about on the left since it makes rioting lefties look bad too, it's also in Russia's national interest to have a President who destabilizes the US, and I don't think it's a coincidence that #Calexit gets such favorable coverage on RT or that the movement's leader is a political consultant in Moscow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_J._Marinelli I think they only care about Trump insofar as he'll lift the sanctions, they'll turn on a dime once that's done since then whatever ratfucks the US is good for them.

    Re Ukraine: the idea that Poroshenko's government is Neo-Nazi doesn't hold much water either. Ukraine contains a far-right party, as does every other European country. This far-right party happens to be part of the ruling coalition in Ukraine, much like Vladimir Zhirinovsky's own far-right party and the Duginist far-right wing of the big-tent United Russia (the majority party) in Ukraine's rival. Where Svoboda has a few top Ukrainian generals in support of it, Dugin was employed as an adviser by former Duma Chair and current SVR (foreign intel) Director Sergei Naryshkin, and his magnum opus is used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy. In terms of fascist influence then, it seems like a wash at best. Eastern Europe as a whole has a problem with tremendous amounts of far-right sentiment, leaders will use this to their advantage. The realities of geopolitics are a lot more complicated than the simplistic narratives you'll get from any country's mouthpiece.
    Last edited by Nanooka; 06-05-2017 at 10:29 PM.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, there's no evidence that the Russian government was involved in any kind of hacking. I mean, this whole "Russian hacking" isn't anything new anymore and it seems like it has also been spread to Europe. It is true that Putin favors Le Pen, and it was all reported in the media that the Russian hackers targeted Macron in the elections, but the French cybersecurity agency came out and said that there's no trace of Russian hacking. Also in Germany, there were some reports in the media about "Russian hacking", but Germany's intelligence community ended up debunking those.

    I think it would be pretty ridiculous for Russia, or any other country to be able sway the election results via hacking of the "the most powerful nation in the world". So I think Putin himself said it the best during an NBC's interview: "Amazing you created sensation out of nothing to fight president" - I mean that's exactly what it is. Democrats of all people are politicizing the vilification of Russia, and making things out of thin air just to oppose Trump. I mean I'm no fan of Trump either, but come on, don't just make things up in order to oppose him.

    So it is pretty amazing that the Democrats of all people are going back to Cold War level of animosity towards Russia:



    As for Europe, do they particularly care about the "Russian threat"?



    I mean this whole scapegoating of Russia isn't anything new, it's just that the Cold War mentality hasn't ended even after when the Soviet collapsed decades ago. And those people who had the jobs when the defense spendings increased during the Cold War - well, they still need to keep their jobs. So the machine just keep on going, even though they are no longer needed.

    I think this whole thing has been well documented, and people like Dan Kovalik, who is a human rights, labor rights lawyer and peace activist, has written a book about it. He's no fan of either Russia or Trump, so you can't say that he is "biased", unless you call him an "anti-American" or something.



    As for Comey... well, the exact reason for him firing isn't clear, but it seems to have more to do with the fact that Trump has a personal beef with him more than anything. I mean your guesses are as good as mine. Trump used to praise Comey, and the Democrats used to wanted him be fired. Now they have turned 180 degrees and saying the exact opposite. I don't believe there's any coherency to this, since it has all been politicized.

  27. #27
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^^^^Agreed

  28. #28
    Nanooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We'll see. There's no smoking gun yet, but the web of connections and "suspicious coincidences" is very strong. More than enough to warrant the current investigation, then with what they find we can see how far this goes.

    I don't see how the European public caring or not about the threat is relevant to Comey's investigation though. I also don't think wanting an investigation on this is at all weird, whether Democrats or Republicans. Whether a party has been generally more dovish for the last few decades says nothing about how okay they are with foreign espionage to influence election results in their country. In fact, I could turn that around and question why so many people who argued vehemently that Snowden's leaks are in the national interest (agreed) are now calling for the prosecution of those in the White House leaking about Russiagate, like the awesomely named Reality Winner. It seems to me like both impact the American public, and therefore we have the right to know about both.
    Last edited by Nanooka; 06-06-2017 at 08:53 PM.

  29. #29
    SongOfSapphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Comey's statement:


    Statement for the Record
    Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

    James B. Comey

    June 8, 2017

    Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee.

    Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today

    to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on

    subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail

    from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I

    have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.

    January 6 Briefing

    I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference

    room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence

    Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the

    findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the

    election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the PresidentElect

    to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information

    assembled during the assessment.

    The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the

    incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious

    and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to

    publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of

    the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the

    extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt

    any such effort with a defensive briefing.

    The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion

    of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material

    implicated the FBI's counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would

    do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although

    we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI's leadership and I were

    concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came

    into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence

    investigation of his personal conduct.

    2

    It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are

    different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The

    Bureau's goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical

    and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United

    States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those

    efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted

    for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves

    hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves

    "turning" the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the

    behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On

    occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

    Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence

    investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to

    be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops

    reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign

    power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will "open an

    investigation" on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about

    the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

    In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI's

    leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that

    we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open

    counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances

    warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on PresidentElect

    Trump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the

    question, I offered that assurance.

    I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect

    in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle

    outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written

    records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my

    practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I

    spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) --

    once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly,

    for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I

    memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with

    President Trump in four months -- three in person and six on the phone.

    January 27 Dinner

    The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the

    Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and

    3

    invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but

    decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It

    was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I

    assumed there would be others.

    It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the

    center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the

    room to serve food and drinks.

    The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI

    Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier

    conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to.

    He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during

    the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

    My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this

    was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part,

    an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship.

    That concerned me greatly, given the FBI's traditionally independent status in the

    executive branch.

    I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my tenyear

    term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that

    I was not "reliable" in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count

    on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody's side politically

    and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in

    his best interest as the President.

    A few moments later, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty."

    I didn't move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the

    awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The

    conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our

    dinner.

    At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the

    Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox:

    Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because "problems" come

    from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those

    boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in

    the institutions and their work.

    Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job,

    saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things

    4

    about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, "I need

    loyalty." I replied, "You will always get honesty from me." He paused and then

    said, "That's what I want, honest loyalty." I paused, and then said, "You will get

    that from me." As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is

    possible we understood the phrase "honest loyalty" differently, but I decided it

    wouldn't be productive to push it further. The term -- honest loyalty -- had helped

    end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he

    should expect.

    During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had

    briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his

    disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering

    ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied

    that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we

    were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very

    difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to

    think about it.

    As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a

    detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the

    senior leadership team of the FBI.

    February 14 Oval Office Meeting

    On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism

    briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in

    a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The

    Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National CounterTerrorism

    Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I

    were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting

    between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a

    few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs.

    The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and

    telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the

    participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my

    chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me.

    The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and

    exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he

    wanted to speak with me.

    When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the

    President began by saying, "I want to talk about Mike Flynn." Flynn had resigned

    5

    the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn't done anything

    wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had

    misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn,

    which he did not then specify.

    The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with

    leaks of classified information -- a concern I shared and still share. After he had

    spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door

    by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him.

    The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly.

    The door closed.

    The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a

    good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done

    anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President.

    He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn

    go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good

    guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a

    colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my

    term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."

    The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and

    left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group

    of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

    I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about

    Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the

    President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection

    with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in

    December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader

    investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I

    took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn's departure and the

    controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very

    concerning, given the FBI's role as an independent investigative agency.

    The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect

    the investigative team with the President's request, which we did not intend to

    abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there

    was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little

    sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely

    recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two

    weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting

    capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role.

    6

    After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to

    figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The

    investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team

    members -- or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them -- aware of the

    President's request.

    Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to

    pass along the President's concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore

    the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the

    President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened -- him being asked to

    leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind -- was

    inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons

    discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI's potential

    investigation of General Flynn.

    March 30 Phone Call

    On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He

    described the Russia investigation as "a cloud" that was impairing his ability to act

    on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been

    involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded

    when in Russia. He asked what we could do to "lift the cloud." I responded that

    we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be

    great benefit, if we didn't find anything, to our having done the work well. He

    agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

    Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about

    Russia the previous week -- at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed,

    confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the

    Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in

    Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the

    confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the

    investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on

    exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those

    Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump.

    I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, "We need

    to get that fact out." (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department

    of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an

    open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because

    it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)

    The President went on to say that if there were some "satellite" associates

    of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he

    7

    hadn't done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we

    weren't investigating him.

    In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director

    Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn't brought up "the McCabe thing" because I had

    said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and

    had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe's wife) campaign

    money. Although I didn't understand why the President was bringing this up, I

    repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

    He finished by stressing "the cloud" that was interfering with his ability to

    make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he

    wasn't being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we

    would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.

    Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney

    General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russiarelated

    matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I

    would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President

    called me again two weeks later.

    April 11 Phone Call

    On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had

    done about his request that I "get out" that he is not personally under investigation.

    I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I

    had not heard back. He replied that "the cloud" was getting in the way of his

    ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to

    the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be

    handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to

    make the request, which was the traditional channel.

    He said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to

    you, very loyal; we had that thing you know." I did not reply or ask him what he

    meant by "that thing." I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White

    House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what

    he would do and the call ended.

    That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.





    http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politi...inkId=38460468
    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

  30. #30
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  31. #31

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A few moments later, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty."
    Another one of Trump's obsession with "loyalty"...

  32. #32
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Another one of Trump's obsession with "loyalty"...
    *Colbert conspiracy voice* Trump, secretly a gay cp6w7?

    He said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know."

  33. #33
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,183
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Unsurprisingly,


  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it seems like the result of the Comey hearing was at best mixed, and at worst, there was nothing new or substantial.

    Here's Journalist Max Blumenthal and Special Agent for the FBI from 1981 to 2004, Coleen Rowley talking about it:

    Comey Hearing: Little New, More Doubt About "RussiaGate"

    Max Blumenthal: Well, the phrase that kept echoing in my head was Walter Mondale on Reagan's economic plan, "Where's the beef?" I want to know why Washington practically shut down and people were hanging out in bars playing drinking games for this testimony, when we didn't really learn anything new. We learned that the investigation really focused on Michael Flynn. Only the Russian aspect of that investigation was even remotely discussed. While Flynn does possibly face investigation for not being forthright about his Turkey lobbying contract, we learned that Trump said in private what he also said in public, which is that he wants the investigators, the FBI, to lay off Flynn.

    We learned that there was no investigation of Trump and that Trump pressured Comey to say so publicly. I don't understand why there was no leak of the fact that there was no investigation of Trump, and finally we learned that Trump, according to Comey, was fine with the investigation proceeding. Then, there's the other aspect that you see thousands of retweets about from mainstream Beltway journalists which is that the Muller investigation will look into whether Trump obstructed justice. Comey mentioned that it might do that, but it's not clear that Trump is even under investigation for obstruction of justice, so beyond that, then we have just the allegation that Russia definitely hacked into the DNC server.

    The big reveal there, which confirmed testimony that Comey gave earlier this year, is that the FBI, James Comey, the whole bureau, never had any access to the DNC server to investigate whether Russian hackers did indeed do that. This was kind of brushed over by not only the press, but by the Senate Republicans. There's a lot to say about that, but I really don't see why there's so much focus on this when there's so little beef there.
    Coleen Rowley: Another contradiction was when Comey testified that he had told Sessions that he was afraid to be alone with Trump. The story now is that on January 6th, it was purposely set up that Comey would be alone with Trump in order to brief him on what today he only called the "salacious memo." He called it the "salacious information." Now, that actually has to refer to the Steele dossier, and if you think about it, and actually Comey even testified, "Well, I didn't want to be seen as J. Edgar Hoover." What is he referring to? He's referring to the fact that Hoover used sex related blackmail, even on people like Martin Luther King.

    So, when this January 6th meeting occurs between ... Alone, by the way, at the end of it, it's alone with Comey and Trump, he tells him what they have on him, and not only does he tell them the sex related dossier, but he says, "It's going to be leaked to the press right away. That's why we're telling you." If you put yourself into Trump's position, or going back to when this happened to Martin Luther King Jr's position, you can see where Trump is obviously alarmed. Now, Comey testifies that's why he decides to keep memos. I mean, again, the contradiction, there's another contradiction here which is that when Comey and Muller have been through everything in the Bush administration after 9/11, where a form of martial law was instituted through John [inaudible 00:09:30] memos, and they learned of this, they learned about torture tactics, they learned about warrantless monitoring and all of the other highly illegal things that were taking place, it never occurred to James Comey that he should document things in a memo then.

    But now when he's briefing Trump on an unverified, salacious piece of information that he says is going to leak to the media right away, then he knows he has to document it. I mean, if I had been in the room, I would have asked a few questions about this because Comey is using ... Maybe he's unwitting too, in a way. Maybe he's not even realizing that he has been used to some extent for these purposes, but he's also a part of a whole ambiance here, where there is a lot of leaking, probably a lot of it is the same way Comey leaks, second hand, third hand, so that they are not the direct contacts with the media. I think there were a lot of questions that could have been asked that weren't, and I totally agree that this is media hyperventilation, and the public has never learned, other than through this one report that they put out in January. All that really focused on was Russian media.

    It focused on the fact that Russian media is propaganda, and that it, the media itself influenced the election. There was absolutely little or no proof shown, no evidence shown of any real hacking into the DNC, no proof or evidence of that.
    So to my understanding... and this is nothing new in the world of politics, is what's happening is that the FBI, the bureaucrats, like Comey are basically threatening Trump with: "You do what we say, or else we'll blackmail you with leaking stuff that you don't want to the media, and your presidency will be over". And the media gets rewarded with juicy leaks and scandals from the FBI and the bureaucrats that they would otherwise have no access to. I mean this is nothing new, and this is typically how the bureaucrats take control of the government and the media. So obviously Trump doesn't want that, so he fired Comey. It's probably not so much to do with the fact that there is much ACTUAL collusion with Russia (there is no evidence, etc), but this whole stuff will be on the media, anyway, whether it's true or not. And Trump obviously wants that stuff out of the way.

    So the media is all "Well, the Russia has won! They have planted Trump to cause chaos in our country! (next to the "terrorists")". And I'm just like, holy shit... you are literally doing this to yourself. Basically the media is causing all this hullabaloo over much ado about nothing. I mean again, this stuff is nothing really new but probably more common in more developing countries. So I think that America is unfortunately receding into a more developing country state of mind.

    If the Americans want to blame something... then they should be blaming the neoliberals who overtook the economy, the neoconservatives and the militarists for bankrupting the country with military interventions after militarist interventions all over the world since 9/11.

    But instead, even more unbelievable stuff happens... Instead of getting mad at them, the liberals are now completely lining up with the neoconservative agenda of making more and more hypothetical enemies. Russia is the problem! China is the problem! They're our enemies! Holy shit... no wonder then, that the rest of the world may be finally getting fed up with America. America, the "most powerful nation in the world" has gone completely "crazy", there's just so much chaos and confusion and their allies can no longer rely on them. Europe certainly doesn't want to be dragged into more wars with them. No wonder then, that Merkel is now saying "We can no longer rely on US...".

  35. #35
    Nanooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Seattle area
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There was very little substantial from it, any smoking gun will come from the investigation itself. I'd be particularly curious of the financial end, considering the shady business surrounding Russian mafiya-connected Felix Sater's financing of Trump SoHo, Trump Phoenix, a few other Trump projects. Considering one of the top advisers Mueller picked for the investigation is an expert on fraud and the mafiya, I suspect that's where he's going with this as well. The Putin regime is pretty close to the head of the Russian mafiya in the US, Semion Mogilevich, and has paved a "don of dons" position for him through taking down his opposition. I've always held Russia's interest in Trump is likely an alliance of convenience and their first and foremost interest is in Soviet-style collapse of their rival, rather than Trump being in charge per se. But based on the Sater situation and the large number of suspicious Bank of Cyprus (where Russian oligarchs stash their money) connections in Trump's inner circle, it would make sense if there's financial blackmail as leverage to ensure the oil sanctions are lifted as well.

    With regard to what there was in the hearing: Comey did state under oath that Trump tried to quash his investigation, which adds further fuel to the obstruction of justice charge. He also asked for a closed session, without the media present, when asked what the investigation has found thus far on collusion.

    Merkel's comments on being unable to rely on the US actually referred specifically to the Trump administration, though. It was said in reaction to the G7 talks, which she described as "six against one," that one being the American leader at the negotiating table.
    Last edited by Nanooka; 06-11-2017 at 04:32 AM.

  36. #36
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,228
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    "I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go."
    -- Trump, according to Comey

    "I will tell you I didn't say that. And there'd be nothing wrong if I did, according to everybody that i've read today."
    -- Trump


    Roland B. Hedley Jr. Retweeted
    Roland B. Hedley Jr. @RealRBHJr

    So wrong for Speaker to imply @POTUS "new" to honesty, propriety, lawfulness, democracy. Don't help, Paul!






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •