Russiagate

[billvon 3,109]

ryoder

Flynn to take the 5th amendment: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/334518-flynn-to-decline-senate-subpoena-invoke-fifth-amendment-report

"I am no fan of Bill Cosby but never-the-less some free advice - if you are innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!"

[rushmc 23]

billvon

***Flynn to take the 5th amendment: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/334518-flynn-to-decline-senate-subpoena-invoke-fifth-amendment-report

"I am no fan of Bill Cosby but never-the-less some free advice - if you are innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!"

B*******! Any good lawyer will tell you to keep your mouth shut. Scooter Libby was innocent as hell but he kept talking. Finally they found one place he couldn't remember what he said to the other and it would even being a minor thing they threw him in jail for it. I guess we know why you're not a lawyer!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,594]

rushmc

B*******! ...... I guess we know why you're not a lawyer!

Why who is not a lawyer?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,109]

>>"I am no fan of Bill Cosby but never-the-less some free advice - if you are
>>innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!"

>B*******! Any good lawyer will tell you to keep your mouth shut. . . . I guess we
>know why you're not a lawyer!

That was Trump, not me. Some other opinions from Trump:

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?"

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

And what about Flynn himself? "When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime."

Eagerly awaiting your spin on these.

[kallend 2,146]

So how do you explain hiring Flynn after both the acting AG and the outgoing president strongly advised against it? Stupidity, arrogance, or collusion?

And www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/michael-flynn-fifth-amendment-russia-senate.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Stumpy 284]

billvon

That was Trump, not me.

That's gotta sting

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[ryoder 1,590]

Stumpy

***
That was Trump, not me.

That's gotta sting

Oh, that was great!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

And the best part is that Billvon just proved that Marc knows more about the law, than the Orange Buffoon.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 3,109]

More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation. From WaPo:

========================
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

By Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima
May 22 at 6:23 PM

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.
=================================

[yoink 321]

billvon

[] according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president./[]

It's more hearsay evidence but shouldn't be held as fact until the memos are actually out.

I'm a little suspicious of all the anonymous sources of late.

If you think your boss, the sitting president, is doing something that you don't agree with so strongly that you're willing to leak information about it then I think you should have the balls to either resign or to attach your name to information you leak so that you can be questioned about it in the light of day.

This cloak and dagger shit needs to stop.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation. From WaPo:

========================
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

By Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima
May 22 at 6:23 PM

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.
=================================

Another shark jumped.

BTW Who is THIS source?

The media nose ring you've guys have has got has got to hurt by now doesn't it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

rushmc

Another shark jumped.

I'm not usually a fan of using gifs as a full reply, but this one says it all.

https://media.tenor.co/images/8649bfdb2397853fcf21de96b7c24772/tenor.gif

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

yoink

***
[] according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president./[]

It's more hearsay evidence but shouldn't be held as fact until the memos are actually out.

I'm a little suspicious of all the anonymous sources of late.

If you think your boss, the sitting president, is doing something that you don't agree with so strongly that you're willing to leak information about it then I think you should have the balls to either resign or to attach your name to information you leak so that you can be questioned about it in the light of day.

This cloak and dagger shit needs to stop.

Why should career government employees throw their jobs away because the sitting president is (among other things) committing criminal acts?

This is "whistleblowing" at it's height. In a perfect world, they would be able to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.

Trump is clearly losing it. He's in so far over his head that it's pretty much a matter of time before his whole administration falls apart. Anybody's guess how it will end.

But when he's committing criminal acts (obstruction of justice), he should know full well that there are going to be people who don't like that and will make those things public.

I'm not a big fan of the anonymity, but Trump has a long history of retaliation against anyone who he feels has wronged him.

I'd much rather see the anonymous sources make accusations that can be later proven or disproven than have the stuff stay secret.

Think about when he told the Russians the classified stuff.
Started off as anonymous sources in the WaPo. Later confirmed by Trump himself.

These anonymous sources seem to be fairly accurate.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,146]

rushmc

***More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation. From WaPo:

========================
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

By Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima
May 22 at 6:23 PM

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.
=================================

Another shark jumped.

BTW Who is THIS source?

The media nose ring you've guys have has got has got to hurt by now doesn't it?

So how do you explain hiring Flynn after both the acting AG and the outgoing president strongly advised against it? Stupidity, arrogance, or collusion?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

wolfriverjoe

be later proven or disproven than have the stuff stay secret.

Think about when he told the Russians the classified stuff.
Started off as anonymous sources in the WaPo. Later confirmed by Trump himself.

These anonymous sources seem to be fairly accurate.

And just today in Israel he confirmed that the source was Israel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 1,172]

wolfriverjoe

******
[] according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president./[]

It's more hearsay evidence but shouldn't be held as fact until the memos are actually out.

I'm a little suspicious of all the anonymous sources of late.

If you think your boss, the sitting president, is doing something that you don't agree with so strongly that you're willing to leak information about it then I think you should have the balls to either resign or to attach your name to information you leak so that you can be questioned about it in the light of day.

This cloak and dagger shit needs to stop.

Why should career government employees throw their jobs away because the sitting president is (among other things) committing criminal acts?

This is "whistleblowing" at it's height. In a perfect world, they would be able to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.

Trump is clearly losing it. He's in so far over his head that it's pretty much a matter of time before his whole administration falls apart. Anybody's guess how it will end.

But when he's committing criminal acts (obstruction of justice), he should know full well that there are going to be people who don't like that and will make those things public.

I'm not a big fan of the anonymity, but Trump has a long history of retaliation against anyone who he feels has wronged him.

I'd much rather see the anonymous sources make accusations that can be later proven or disproven than have the stuff stay secret.

Think about when he told the Russians the classified stuff.
Started off as anonymous sources in the WaPo. Later confirmed by Trump himself.

These anonymous sources seem to be fairly accurate.

Absolutely agree. Plus the fact trump would get another chance to put someone in the position where loyalty to trump is more important than a constitution, protecting national interests and the integrity of the state.

Perhaps if there was a whistle-blower law and reward(s) for disclosing crimes to investigators. It wouldn't be an issue.

[Phil1111 1,172]

billvon

More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation. From WaPo:

========================
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

By Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima
May 22 at 6:23 PM

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.
=================================

Absolute proof of a guilty mind.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[billvon 3,109]

Quote

Another shark jumped.
BTW Who is THIS source?
The media nose ring you've guys have has got has got to hurt by now doesn't it?

Two counts of practicing metaphor without a license and one count of denial. A pretty standard RushMC post.

[yoink 321]

wolfriverjoe

Why should career government employees throw their jobs away because the sitting president is (among other things) committing criminal acts?

This is "whistleblowing" at it's height. In a perfect world, they would be able to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.

The internet is a perfect example of what happens when you give people perfect anonymity - some of them inevitably use it to become assholes and settle scores. This may not be the case here but it might be and we have to take that into account.
The approval society currently has for anonymous leaks in general worries me - I think it can very easily be abused and will inevitably lead to a decline in the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information it's providing.

In this case for example I don't know these sources. I don't know if they're a janitor, a remnant of Obama's staff or Mike Pence himself - and it matters. That information is one of the yardsticks by which we gauge the likely accuracy of the information and what actions should be taken as a result of it.

It also bothers me that these 'whistleblowers' seem to go straight to media outlets rather than a legitimate avenue such as the Senate or FBI if they think a crime has been committed. That choice also makes me more skeptical.


All that said, if one anonymous leak says Trump is setting fire to babies in the oval office it should be given only dubious credibility. If 30 anonymous sources say the same thing it's probably time to start paying attention... Trump's definitely getting there.


I'm not saying anonymous leaks are the devil. Just that they seem to instantly be given complete credibility at the moment - Look at the way Bill phrased his post:
"More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation"

Those are powerful words.

But it's not evidence. Not yet. It's not been proven as fact.

I don't think that easy leap from anonymous accusation to evidence is a healthy position for society.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

Quote

Another shark jumped.
BTW Who is THIS source?
The media nose ring you've guys have has got has got to hurt by now doesn't it?

Two counts of practicing metaphor without a license and one count of denial. A pretty standard RushMC post.

Another question left unanswered by Bill

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[EvilGenius 0]

Wait, what?! You mean that wasn't a rhetorical question....seriously?

[Phil1111 1,172]

yoink

***

Why should career government employees throw their jobs away because the sitting president is (among other things) committing criminal acts?

This is "whistleblowing" at it's height. In a perfect world, they would be able to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.

The internet is a perfect example of what happens when you give people perfect anonymity - some of them inevitably use it to become assholes and settle scores. This may not be the case here but it might be and we have to take that into account.
The approval society currently has for anonymous leaks in general worries me - I think it can very easily be abused and will inevitably lead to a decline in the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information it's providing.

In this case for example I don't know these sources. I don't know if they're a janitor, a remnant of Obama's staff or Mike Pence himself - and it matters. That information is one of the yardsticks by which we gauge the likely accuracy of the information and what actions should be taken as a result of it.

It also bothers me that these 'whistleblowers' seem to go straight to media outlets rather than a legitimate avenue such as the Senate or FBI if they think a crime has been committed. That choice also makes me more skeptical.


All that said, if one anonymous leak says Trump is setting fire to babies in the oval office it should be given only dubious credibility. If 30 anonymous sources say the same thing it's probably time to start paying attention... Trump's definitely getting there.


I'm not saying anonymous leaks are the devil. Just that they seem to instantly be given complete credibility at the moment - Look at the way Bill phrased his post:
"More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation"

Those are powerful words.

But it's not evidence. Not yet. It's not been proven as fact.

I don't think that easy leap from anonymous accusation to evidence is a healthy position for society.

The current outlets for these leaks are consistently the NY Times and Washington Post. They are undoubtedly from the same sources. The statements and stories, to date, have always been accurate.

Thats known because again and again. trump denies, then others in his administration deny. Then they admit. The same stories and the same facts. Why would a inside source go to congress. The committees are led by republicans. Where the story can be covered up. The purpose these public disclosures serve in the short term is to paint clearly. The faces of truth and lies across the political spectrum.

FBI, well they will get to the bottom of the story sooner or later. Did I say later. A FBI investigation could take a couple years. What if the participants in the coverup take the fifth? What if they and trump continue to obstruct the FBI investigation. trump just told the ethics office that he doesn't have to disclose the names of lobbyists in his administration.

No, I disagree, pressure on the republican congress is the only mechanism to deal with trump. When constituents pressure congress, pressure republicans. trump will be delivered to his proper place in US political history.

NY Times, Washington Post, good job. Carry on.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Phil1111

******

Why should career government employees throw their jobs away because the sitting president is (among other things) committing criminal acts?

This is "whistleblowing" at it's height. In a perfect world, they would be able to do so publicly, without fear of retribution.

The internet is a perfect example of what happens when you give people perfect anonymity - some of them inevitably use it to become assholes and settle scores. This may not be the case here but it might be and we have to take that into account.
The approval society currently has for anonymous leaks in general worries me - I think it can very easily be abused and will inevitably lead to a decline in the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information it's providing.

In this case for example I don't know these sources. I don't know if they're a janitor, a remnant of Obama's staff or Mike Pence himself - and it matters. That information is one of the yardsticks by which we gauge the likely accuracy of the information and what actions should be taken as a result of it.

It also bothers me that these 'whistleblowers' seem to go straight to media outlets rather than a legitimate avenue such as the Senate or FBI if they think a crime has been committed. That choice also makes me more skeptical.


All that said, if one anonymous leak says Trump is setting fire to babies in the oval office it should be given only dubious credibility. If 30 anonymous sources say the same thing it's probably time to start paying attention... Trump's definitely getting there.


I'm not saying anonymous leaks are the devil. Just that they seem to instantly be given complete credibility at the moment - Look at the way Bill phrased his post:
"More evidence that Trump was actively trying to obstruct an investigation"

Those are powerful words.

But it's not evidence. Not yet. It's not been proven as fact.

I don't think that easy leap from anonymous accusation to evidence is a healthy position for society.

The current outlets for these leaks are consistently the NY Times and Washington Post. They are undoubtedly from the same sources. The statements and stories, to date, have always been accurate.

Thats known because again and again. trump denies, then others in his administration deny. Then they admit. The same stories and the same facts. Why would a inside source go to congress. The committees are led by republicans. Where the story can be covered up. The purpose these public disclosures serve in the short term is to paint clearly. The faces of truth and lies across the political spectrum.

FBI, well they will get to the bottom of the story sooner or later. Did I say later. A FBI investigation could take a couple years. What if the participants in the coverup take the fifth? What if they and trump continue to obstruct the FBI investigation. trump just told the ethics office that he doesn't have to disclose the names of lobbyists in his administration.

No, I disagree, pressure on the republican congress is the only mechanism to deal with trump. When constituents pressure congress, pressure republicans. trump will be delivered to his proper place in US political history.

NY Times, Washington Post, good job. Carry on.

Well, Phil111 beat me to it.

His answer is pretty much what I would have said.

I fully agree that those 'anonymous sources' need to be treated with skepticism.

BUT...

I'm pretty sure the NYT & WaPo know this. They know who the sources really are and can better judge their veracity.

They know that they need to make sure the story is correct. They have a reasonably good rep for doing this.

There's also the simple fact that these sources seem to be correct.
So far anyway.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DJL 235]

Quote

Well, Phil111 beat me to it.

His answer is pretty much what I would have said.

I fully agree that those 'anonymous sources' need to be treated with skepticism.

BUT...

I'm pretty sure the NYT & WaPo know this. They know who the sources really are and can better judge their veracity.

They know that they need to make sure the story is correct. They have a reasonably good rep for doing this.

There's also the simple fact that these sources seem to be correct.
So far anyway.

We may have the fake new glut and Trump himself to thank for journalism gaining a resurgence in credibility. I think the American public reached its threshold for sensationalist news stories and has finally become skeptical enough. In addition news sources know that if they print BS then Trump will stand in front of them and call them "fake news" from the White House podium.

This is still an "if" every time a news leak comes out and hopefully NYT and WP are using reliable sources.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 235]

"Describing a previously undisclosed high-level conversation between Washington and Moscow, John Brennan testified that in a phone conversation with the head of Russia’s domestic spy service he said that “American voters would be outraged by any Russian attempt to interfere in the election." "

Although apparently some would take Russia's side of the ordeal.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher