Democrats & Liberals Archives

Trump Fires Comey On Way to Firing Self

Trump seems to think that Richard Nixon’s biggest mistakes are his roadmap to victory. Infamy is more like it. The most supreme conflict of interest any President can put themselves in is with the execution and enforcement of the law itself, and Trump has manifested that conflict of interest today.

You might not like the FBI investigating your favorite people, your party and everything. But that is part of the price of living within the rule of law. Yes, I thought the whole thing with Clinton was overblown. and Republicans thought Clinton had committed crimes!

Which one of us is right? Well, it is very possible that neither of us are. That is the short answer as to why we don't want to politicize law enforcement, have the President interfering in the matter. It's why the President doesn't generally have the authority to order wiretaps, contrary to President Trump's assertions. Why? Because then a defense lawyer could come along and allege that the President put his thumb on the scales of justice.

If we want to do more than pretend like we live under the rule of law, then our leaders must be accountable to that law, and part of that is that you leave alone those who are investigating you and your administration. You let it run its course, because the moment you start interfering, you look like you have a conflict of interest. And maybe, it's because you do.

And by the way: now is not the right time for Trump to be welcoming the Russian Foreign Minister for a visit. It might look a little suspicious.

It's possible that what I suspect is right. It's possible that what Trump voters believe went on is right. Let's be really, really charitable, and pretend for the sake of argument that Trump voters are completely right.

Well, in that case, Trump's committed a massive blunder, an unforced error of massive proportions. From this point on, most Democrats and Liberals, and even many Republicans will believe that Trump has something to hide, that his motivations in firing Comey were worse than political, that they were in fact criminal, an attempt to avoid or help others avoid prosecution.

You look at Watergate... What do these major figures have in common? Ehrlichman, Colson, Dean, Haldeman, La Rue? What do they have in common? They were all convicted of Obstruction of Justice. So was Scooter Libby, back during the Bush Administration. During the Reagan Administration, specifically the Iran-Contra affair, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted for the crime, and National Security Adviser John Poindexter was convicted.

Let's ask a pointed question: if the intended effect of this firing was to interfere with the investigation, or even just a petty reaction to it, what does that mean about our sitting President?

Republicans were livid about President Clinton's perjury, and honestly, I found it shameful. It was a self-inflicted injury, and it handed his enemies all the ammunition they needed to bring him the closest any President Since Nixon or Andrew Johnson has been to being removed from office. So, how do they think this plays out, if it turns out in the investigation that there's nothing to charge his people with?

Clinton's issues with her private server are another example of a politician self-inflicting a wound in the process of trying to escape both press scrutiny, and the reach of her political opponents. Without it, Clinton would have had a much smoother election. But Trump... Trump and his people hadn't gone too far in the election before they inflicted their own wounds on themselves.

So much of this runaround, and what is it getting us?

You can pretend you don't want to know. But you should. Because if you have any inkling of common sense, you know that this system is built to hold politicians accountable to voters, to extract a heavy price when they fail to follow the law. I've seen some high profile names go down in flames over scandals. I voted for a ticket with John Edwards as the running mate! I liked Anthony Weiner when he was this firebrand. There are quite a number of politicians and people I trusted, including Clinton, who I later learned lied to me. It's a sad thing, a disillusioning thing to confront. But you know what? To quote the master thespian Anthony Hopkins from Legends of the Fall, "SCREW'EM!!!" Screw Edwards and his cheating and thieving! Screw Anthony Weiner for his inability to keep his digital unit in his pants. Screw Chaka Fattah, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jim Traficant, screw them all!

I don't need to defend these dirtbags to protect my party! In fact, the very idea is that I should protect it by kicking their rear ends OUT of power! While I can't always find the ideal person to represent me, and I have gotten my share of headaches from this, I genuinely want the people who represent me to be the best I can get. I'm not going to blame the conservative media for them. I'm not going to pretend my party isn't full of corruptible human beings, just like the other one. I'm not going to get so defensive about my party that I don't learn when to let go.

Because, quite frankly, if we can't let go, then we bring the legacy of corruption forward into the future. But here's the things, and I know it's what people are going to bring up when I say all that I've said: haven't I defended my people to the hilt, when I was confronted with accusations about them?

Honestly, I have. It's a natural partisan impulse. I am a partisan, for what it's worth. But I like to think that the partisan part of me is secondary, that I recognize that what's good for my party, what's convenient for my party is secondary to what's good for my nation, what serves good and right in my nation.

I don't want to be the sad SOB who has to pretend his party is the salvation of the country, who has to pretend that he's in an ideological war for the survival of the Republic, when in reality he's just ashamed to admit he misjudged his leaders and his party so badly.

But I also don't want to be one of those chicken[feed] pathetic sorts who just instantly buys whatever the other side accuses.

So how do I thread this needle?

Well, one helpful thing is that the so-called liberal, mainstream media is quite willing to publish negative stories about Democrats, to scandal monger as much as any other segment. They won't insult my intelligence by trying to claim it's all a liberal plot when in reality, yes, this guy stole campaign funds trying to cover up the fact he was sleeping around on his wife, who was dying of cancer. When the definitive evidence comes out that Anthony Weiner was sexting others than his wife, I pretty much just shut down any idea I had of Breitbart getting creative with media once again. When investigations indicated that politicians broke the law, I didn't waste time looking for plots against them.

I accepted that they let me down. Which means, I'm all too happy to drop them. I don't want to be a sucker, dropping people and echoing allegations just because somebody passionately insists it must be the case. I see all kinds of think, ridiculous, and even insane BS coming from the right, and I just don't want to encourage that crap, or give it credit unless credit is due.

The Republicans, unfortunately, have fallen under the spell of the idea that they should defend their movement, their party, and their leaders at all costs, and they've forgotten how to cut their losses, how to accept that their leaders are fallible human beings who can betray them. It doesn't matter what kind of wave from whatever faction you get, Tea Party, Icewater party, Kool-Aid Party, you will always have the chronic temptations of power ready to take even the best of your leaders and corrupt them.

These people, they know that because of the way the Right Wing Media works, they can get away with extraordinary acts of corruption, stuff that our Parents and grandparents' generations would have nailed them to the wall for. When you coddle politicians like that, you don't protect the best of you, you shelter and nurture the worst.

Trump's behavior destroyed the Presidency of the only President in American history to resign. He's gone after the people who have been investigating him. and even under the most charitable of interpretations, he's edging close to giving his enemies the grounds for his impeachment. That is, if he hasn't already crossed that line.

We need a special prosecutor, or somebody of some kind who can do an independent investigation, so that people on my side, and on your side can get the facts we need to know to judge for ourselves what happened here. We need somebody who can call the balls and strikes, and not have to cater to the whims of the man under investigation. I mean, really, can the President actually ask the FBI whether he's under investigation and get a straight answer if the answer is yes?

The question Republicans need to ask themselves is whether their short term or even long term political goals are worth shredding the consensus that makes our constitutional government possible. One the imperatives of the investigation into the hacking is to determine to what extent our government may have been corrupted by the consequences of that action, and the campaign it was part of. The point of that is restoring trust in the meaning of the elections we hold. If Republicans gut that, they gut respect for their officeholders, their victories, even the integrity of the Republic itself.

That sounds like a pretty poor return on investment for keeping around a Used Car Salesman like Trump. He was never going to make America great again. He was always out for himself, and it's time for Republican voters to return the favor, and take this moment to insist to their politicians and their people that this matter be cleared up, and that the motives behind the firing of FBI Director Comey be cleared up, too. Because quite frankly, Comey's successor will likely be no better respected than Archibald Cox's successor was. Those wondering why Bork got Borked should recall that Bork was the man who said yes to Nixon when the two people before him had the sense to say no.

Oh, a few more notes, before I finish. If you recall, who was it who brought down Nixon and others in Watergate? Deep Throat. Who was he? I turns out he was Mark Felt, deputy director of the FBI.

You just sacked the director of the FBI. You thought you had a leak problem before? Now you've got Comey's supporters angry. Now you've got even conservatives within the bureau questioning how things are going. Everybody who was investigating this mess... now they're doubly motivated. This was a slap to the face, no preface, no dignified exit, no warning to the brass. It stinks of a kind of political arrogance that an administration that came in under an incredible cloud of suspicion, and without majority support cannot afford.

And guess what? This is exactly the kind of galvanizing incident that helped destroy Nixon. It displays a contempt for the rule of law, for the independence of law enforcement investigations from political interference.

The Republicans need to pull their heads out of the sand, or any other place they might have it stashed. This is likely the worst constitutional crisis we've seen in generations, and it's one more people on the Right should have seen coming, and more importantly, avoided at all costs.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2017 9:23 PM
Comments
Comment #415959

Bravo, Stephen, bravo.

Whatever happened with Russia goes far beyond party. It is in everyone’s best interest to get to the bottom of that. And if it goes through the current administration? So be it.

This is too important

Posted by: Donna at May 10, 2017 1:28 PM
Comment #415965

I respect Mr. Daugherty’s right to speculate. I expect him to respect the facts.

President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jess Sessions.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/fbi-director-james-b-comeys-termination-letters-from-the-white-house-attorney-general/2430/

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 4:09 PM
Comment #415967

Don’t listen to what Trumps says. Watch what Trump does.

Since entering office, he has fired an Acting AG. He ordered all the District Attorneys to resign, and has not replaced a single one. Not one. The fired DA’s include one investigating HHS Secretary Price for Inside Trading.

The AG, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from matters involving the Russian investigation after lying under oath, both aloud and in writing, about his involvement with the Russians. Despite his recusal, AG Sessions recommended the firing of Director Comey- the man heading the organization investigating cooperation between the Trump Campaign and the Russians- and is now hiring a replacement for Comey. So much for recusal. Sessions is literally going to replace the person responsible for investigating him and Trump with a person of his own choosing.

Comey’s firing comes days after the Director requested additional resources for the investigation.

Yesterday, subpoenas were issued for witnesses involving Flynn.

Today, Trump met with the Russian Foreign Minister. Russian media was allowed to attend. American media was barred.

Think about that one for a moment. Let it sink in.

And things are so bad, this one is practically passing under the radar:

“•The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested information about President Donald Trump and his top aides from a financial intelligence unit in the Treasury Department.
•The agency, known as FinCEN, imposed a $10 million civil penalty on Trump Taj Mahal in 2015 for multiple violations of money-laundering laws.”

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/russia-probe-senate-requests-documents-from-money-laundering-watchdog-agency.html

The Senate Intel Committee wants to find out if that money laundering involves the Russians.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 4:13 PM
Comment #415968

So, now those on the left don’t think Comey should resign or be fired?
And because President Trump fired Comey, that means he is hiding something criminal and this “is likely the worst constitutional crisis we’ve seen in generations?”
And it all is probably because of the Russian investigation?
And, even though the Russians supposedly didn’t want Hillary to be President, and Comey supposedly “ended her hopes of the presidency,” that connection is not part of the conspiracy?

As for the rest:
Republicans are bad, democrats are good. You supposedly hold your reps accountable, Republicans don’t. You don’t disregard facts and vote for a terrible candidate because she agree’s with your politics, Republicans do.
And somehow leaking personal emails supposedly changed the outcome of the election and means our government may have been corrupted.
We know the talking-points quite well by now, Stephen.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2017 4:21 PM
Comment #415969

We wonder if phx8 bothered to read the charges leveled by the deputy attorney general. He and Stephen are busy spinning webs of misinformation and speculation while ignoring the actual fact.

A memo from the US deputy attorney general explained that FBI Director James Comey was fired because the FBI’s reputation and credibility had “suffered substantial damage” after Comey “usurp[ed] the Attorney General’s authority” and announced that an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails should be closed without prosecution.

In a memo to Sessions, Rosenstein laid out the reasoning for firing Comey.

Rosenstein said that over the past year, “the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage” that has “affected the entire Department of Justice.”

“I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken,” Rosenstein said. “Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.”

He pointed to Comey’s July announcement of the FBI’s view that “no charges are appropriate” in the Justice Department’s investigation into then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state.

The deputy attorney general said Comey was “wrong to usurp the attorney general’s authority” by going public with the FBI’s recommendation.

“It is not the function of the director to make such an announcement,” Rosenstein wrote. “At most, the director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.”

Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that Lynch’s tarmac meeting with President Bill Clinton in late June caused him to worry that Department of Justice leadership “could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-was-james-comey-fired-trump-2017-5

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #415970

Royal, weren’t the libs all up in arms because Trump didn’t follow the recommendations of Attorney General Yates? But now they are upset because he is following the recommendations of the Attorney General?

LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2017 4:29 PM
Comment #415971

Well you’re right kctim. It seems their hair is always on fire about something. If not politics, then over who gets to sit on which public toilet or who gets the privilege of paying for some promiscuous woman’s abortion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 4:41 PM
Comment #415972

No one is defending what Comey did to Hillary Clinton. It might even have been appropriate for Trump to fire Comey on his first day in office, or after investigations into the current administration are concluded. The problem is that Comey is being fired in the midst of a current investigation.

FBI Directors serve for 10 years. Their term is that long in order to insulate them from politics. Director Comey did a poor job of remaining politically insulated with his treatment of Hillary Clinton. He, along with Russian influence, literally cost her the election. If Comey deserved to be fired on that basis, it should have been Obama’s call, or perhaps Trump as soon as he took office. Obviously, both decided against it.

The problem is that is it now May, and there is an ongoing counter-espionage investigation. According to news reports, it now turns out the decision to fire Comey was made on the day he requested more resources from the Deputy AG for the Russia investigation. As soon as Comey requested more resources, Rosenstein was directed to draft reasons to fire Comey based on events of last year. Last year. Events that Trump, at the time, cheered on at every turn.

Whatever one may think of Comey, this is a transparent attempt to impede an investigation, and replace its head with someone less likely to pursue it.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 5:11 PM
Comment #415973

phx8 wrote; “The problem is that Comey is being fired in the midst of a current investigation.”

No, Comey “WAS” the problem. He has proven that he is not capable of carrying out his sworn duty. Read what the deputy attorney general wrote.

He writes; “ongoing counter-espionage investigation”. Really? espionage? Who is suspected of what?

He writes; “he requested more resources from the Deputy AG for the Russia investigation.”

Fake news Pal. Already been denied by those who actually know.

He writes; “Rosenstein was directed to draft reasons to fire Comey…”

He writes; “this is a transparent attempt to impede an investigation,…”

Pure USDA Prime Bullshit. You may choose to deny the reasons given by Rosenstein. However, that doesn’t give you credibility phx8.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 5:29 PM
Comment #415974

Sarah Isgur Flores, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said “the idea that he asked for more funding” for the Russia investigation was “totally false.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 5:33 PM
Comment #415975

Stephen Daugherty, I see where you get your verbosity when I read your first link to CNN’s litany of speculation.

Here’s a quote that struck me as an accurate depiction of the current political discussion;

but Democrats ridiculed that notion, raising parallels to Watergate-era firings and suggested Comey was getting too close to the White House with the Russia probe.

Do you notice there’s no revelation of any fact, just ridicule and suggestion and reference to the past, like you’re some kind of Time Police!

I had to ask, who’s making these assertions?

Here’s who CNN considers to be real people;

people familiar with the situation.

I want to know this guy named Source. Here’s a Freudian Slip if I’ve ever seen one;

that is what we are told by our sources, myself, my colleague Renee Marsh, …

Is she saying the three of them have one source, (no) or are they saying they are each other’s sources?

A source with knowledge of discussions inside the White House told CNN’s Dana Bash that the thinking was that because Democrats were saying precisely what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a letter explaining the grounds for Comey’s dismissal, there would be no backlash.

There will be no backlash, Stephen Daugherty. Cock Socket’s audience cheered Comey’s firing, until he corrected them. The rest of us on both sides know Comey’s not suited for the job. I can’t accept his excusing Hillbilly’s faults and then issuing a warning that anyone else would be held to a different standard. Your side thinks he influenced the election.

I had no idea Comey was Russian!

What was not thought through, apparently, was an explanation of why Comey was fired now, at a time when critics would immediately conclude it was because of the Russia probe.
“Were these investigations getting too close to home for the President?” Schumer asked.

Who’s making these assertions, Stephen Daugherty? They aren’t questions simply because they end in a question mark. Why can’t a Democratic state a fact, instead of asking a question?

CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was not buying the idea that Comey was sacked over the Clinton investigation, saying it was “absurd.”

SO WHAT!? Who cares what he thinks. He’s not paid to think. He’s paid to report the facts.

But then… Stephen Daugherty, your link’s article from CNN ends with this;

After taking office, Trump met with Comey at the White House. He offered a cryptic remark to the FBI chief. “Oh, here’s Jim,” Trump said in January. “He’s become more famous than me.”

Would you like to speculate on why this particular bit of information ended up as a closing in your linked article? What is this author at CNN really trying to say here, if anything? Perhaps he’s promoting some other late night talk show host who hasn’t got the gutter mentality needed to be a “Good Liberal” these days, I don’t know. Why did he include something that happened in January at the end of an article about current events? I’m sure the book you just published (the one I can’t get myself to read) won’t address these questions. Maybe it did! I don’t know. If it did, I’m sure I missed it, because your buddies at CNN gave me my fill of bullshit for today.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 10, 2017 5:47 PM
Comment #415976

WW,
I have read the Deputy AG’s letter. Do you really think Trump fired Comey because of the way Comey treated Hillary Clinton? Can you say that without laughing?

It is utterly implausible. No one believes it. No one. Since then, the administration has come out with several alternate explanations. No one is buying them either. The purpose of the Rosenstein letter was to fire Comey in a way that was obstensibly unrelated to the Russian investigation, thereby allowing Sessions to name Comey’s successor.

Today Trump posed for a picture with the Russian Ambassador.

Seriously.

He really did.

https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+russian+ambassador&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch

Sorry for the Russian sourcing. No American media was allowed at the event- Russian media only!

You are correct that DOJ denied Director Comey’s request for additional resources ever occurred. Multiple sources report it did occur. We will have that confirmed by hearings in the near future.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 6:06 PM
Comment #415977

“Can you say that without laughing?”

I can’t believe phx8 read the letter without laughing. It was about Comey overstepping his legitimate official duties.

The DAG wrote; “the FBI director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 6:15 PM
Comment #415978

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/10/15615654/comey-firing-revealed-real-news-propaganda

No one believes Comey was fired because of the way he treated Hillary Clinton. No one. Absolutely no one. Not one person.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 6:21 PM
Comment #415979

Here’s your big chance. Just let those of us on WB know that you believe Trump & Sessions, and that Comey was fired for the way he treated Hillary Clinton last year. Or because morale was low at the FBI, so they were going to summarily improve it by firing the Director with no warning-not even the courtesy of a phone call, or in-person interview. Or whatever ridiculous reason you want.

Everyone knows what happened here. Trump and Sessions wanted to impede the Russian investigation. They did NOT want to see any additional resources devoted to it.

So… Just come out and say you believe Trump & Sessions, and which of the various revolving reasons you choose to believe. The rationalizing lies change by the hour, so be quick like a bunny!

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 6:34 PM
Comment #415980

phx8, He was fired because he thought he was the A.G. Not because of Hillary but because of his actions in thinking he was the Boss.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 10, 2017 6:36 PM
Comment #415981

phx8, There are congressional investigations going on besides the FBI. Please explain how Trump and Sessions can impede those investigations without making them look like Democrats?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 10, 2017 6:40 PM
Comment #415982

Royal Flush-
Yes, I should take Trump’s letters at face value, especially since everything in those letters was pulled together on that very day.

I’m not a sucker, don’t treat me like one.

I really don’t buy this sudden outrage by the Right over how the e-mail case was handled especially since Trump and all the other folks in your party were chanting “lock her up” the whole time. A person has to be pretty stupid, or pretty partisan to buy that line of horse manure. You are using the past week’s embarrassment over the e-mails on Huma Abedin’s laptop, the same e-mails you guys were crowing would prove Hillary guilty of deleting critical e-mails, as a pretext to fire Comey.

The cynicism would be breathtaking were it not for the continuous stream of lies, paranoid rejection of mainstream news in favor of fringe, partisan propaganda outlets. Yes, Comey did damage to the FBI, but he did damage by letting your people bully him into having to explain his refusal to prosecute their political opponent.

The request is not fake news, it’s been reported by other sources, including, actually, your own sources before they clarified their position. Why the clarification?

Because if Comey was asking for more resources, then Trump’s actions look more like obstruction of justice. And that would just be too bad. Your own spokesperson said that Trump directed his people to put their opinion in writing.

That’s what this is all about. You Republicans did not vet your candidate, and he did not properly vet his people, and both facts add up to a significant threat to our national security. You let the Russians win a cyberwar against us so you could win an election, and you folks are going to pay the price for that, one way or another.

kctim-
Comey was never well-loved on the left, but we at least avoided the appearance that we were running from his investigation. He could have dismissed Comey long before there was an investigation, hired his own man. But he chose to wait until a full blown, accelerating investigation was underway. Clinton endured, and was exonerated of the worst accusations. Trump snapped, and he’s just landed his foot right in the trap that caught Nixon: the belief that he should be above the law.

Republicans are bad, democrats are good. You supposedly hold your reps accountable, Republicans don’t. You don’t disregard facts and vote for a terrible candidate because she agree’s with your politics, Republicans do.

Oh cry me a river. I can’t criticize you? It seems like any time something bad happens involving a Republican, you jump to say the liberal media is out to get them. At this point, Trump says that anything negative about him is false news, and people like you drink that up, lap it up, and blast the rest of us for believing lies.

But have you noticed that your lies have begun to cross paths, that what you alleged in November has become markedly different than what you say now in May? Does this inconsistency of rooting for Clinton in the e-mail case you were certain would send her to prison eat at you at all?

I find it insulting that you folks don’t even remember how much of a contradiction you’ve wound yourself in. I try my best to keep my facts straight and consistent over time, only changing when new information demands it. Your people seem to say whatever it is that is convenient at the time. you claim to have strong principles, but you end up reversing like a bootlegger doing a car stunt when your former position become untenable, or God help you, Trump breaks another promise.

And no, it wasn’t just leaked e-mails, it was focused, coordinated misinformation attacks, aimed at guess who? People like you. People who would buy any dark and nasty thing that somebody told them without questioning, without running the facts back to real sources. You claim we’re befuddled by fake news, but your people ate that stuff up during the election, and the Russians were feeding it to you.

That’s what’s really pathetic. Republicans used to be strong, loyal patriots, but they’ve chased their antagonism against us, against our leaders all the way over to being the uncritical consumers of our enemy’s propaganda. Convinced they could not be subverted, convinced they were the saviors of our national integrity, Republicans have developed a false sense of security that’s made them eminently exploitable by our enemies. How else are Republicans cheering the Syrian Government right up to the point they see children gasping their last in the streets? How else are they cheering Putin, denying his involvement, even as the whole intelligence establishment has fallen strongly behind that conclusion?

All too many conservatives these days believe that their authorities tell them, even to the point of disbelieving their fellow American in favor of the propaganda of despots and rivals to our power.

Weary Willie-
What Trump has done, if it was motivated by the urge to interfere with the investigation, is a crime. It is similar to attempts by Nixon to do much the same, halt an investigation he was infuriated with.

Do you favor the rule of force or the rule of law? The rule of law demands that a President not interfere with investigations, even if they may lead to his doorstep. That’s not Time Police, that’s harkening back to the last time a President was this arrogant or foolish to so dramatically interfere with an investigation. It’s rare, because most Presidents don’t want to end up resigning or being impeached in shame.

A source with knowledge of discussions inside the White House told CNN’s Dana Bash that the thinking was that because Democrats were saying precisely what Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a letter explaining the grounds for Comey’s dismissal, there would be no backlash.

That source tells me that Trump’s people were morons. You don’t have to be an Ace Reporter to pick up on the fact that Trump and his people were itching to get out of the way of the FBI investigation, irritated (or afraid) that it wasn’t going to go away. Comey may not have been the ideal, but Democrats were willing to accept his continued tenure, so long as it meant the person they feared sold us out to the Russians didn’t choose his successor.

We’re not stupid. We’re not suffering from amnesia about the past year’s events. You all made your beliefs perfectly clear, and that is much of what informs our cynicism regarding your pretexts for firing Comey.

It doesn’t take a slide rule and a calculator to figure out the angle of this obnoxiously obvious man. He’s bloody obvious about the whole thing.

And that’s the trouble. You might be cheering this bold political move, but what you’re cheering is a violation of the law, and a violation of his oath to the Constitution, to the execution of that law. He has betrayed his promise to the people.

But you’re so addicted to the politics that you will endure the violence done to our constitution to get that next fix of feeling superior, feeling like a winner. Well, guess what? Some things can’t be undone. Among them? Obstructing justice. Lying to investigators. Lying on forms for security clearances. Accepting help and coordination from the Russians, in a cyberwar against your own nation. What is it, violating our sovereignty to save it? Protecting our nation by participating in it’s subversion? The GOP Has lost its way, and deserves whatever it gets next in the way of punishment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2017 6:46 PM
Comment #415983

Poor phx8, he just can’t believe the DAG told the truth in his letter. Normally I would expect phx8 to follow his usual route and be critical of the messenger Deputy Rosenstein. Perhaps he isn’t because Rosenstein was overwhelmingly confirmed to be the next deputy attorney general, after a Senate vote that was 94-6.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 6:49 PM
Comment #415984

Good Grief Stephen, you are confused in your very first sentence by writing; “Yes, I should take Trump’s letters at face value…”

I did not print a word of President Trump’s letter. I did print the letter from DAG Rosenstein. Perhaps you are not a “sucker”…just reading and comprehension challenged.

Since you can’t even be honest in your first sentence; I will not bother to read the rest of your crap.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 6:55 PM
Comment #415985

RF,
So let’s keep it short. Do you believe that Comey was fired because of what was said in the letter? A simple yes or no.

KAP,
Congressional investigations are very different from an FBI criminal investigation. They can be slowed or even stopped by the Committee Chair, as we saw with the House Intel Committee and Congressman Nunes, or they can be denied resources and staffing. That is what we have been seeing with the GOP House & Senate Committees.

It slows them, but the media and the IC keep fighting back, and ultimately all these attempts to delay just drag the process out, and keep the story in the headlines, for the slow drip drip drip of rolling disclosures.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 7:17 PM
Comment #415986

Like I said phx8 it would make them look like Democrats with all the stonewalling they have done in the last few years.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 10, 2017 7:20 PM
Comment #415987

Simple Yes. I believe the Deputy Attorney General wrote what he believed to be true.

Your turn phx8.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 7:20 PM
Comment #415988

Yes phx8 he was fired because he overstepped his bounds.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 10, 2017 7:21 PM
Comment #415989

For those who understand politics, as practiced by the Democrats, the underlying reason they are compelled to follow the Russian Rabbit down the bottomless hole is simple.

They lost so many elections with their flawed “social/liberalism” philosophy that they must conjure up grist for the media mill to supposedly prevent voters from watching President Trump clearing the swamp.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 10, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #415990
Do you really think Trump fired Comey because of the way Comey treated Hillary Clinton? Can you say that without laughing?

Do you really think the shit you make up in your head really matters to someone like me?

Comey should have been fired the day he said Hillbilly was above reproach.

He was done then, not now.

You guys are crying because our, yes OUR, president is draining the swamp that allows people like Comey to get up in front of America and say Hillbilly doesn’t deserve judgment, but the rest of us do. And Clapper can lie, and Hillbilly can feign ignorance or ineptitude and still think she can lead.

How gullible must the left be to believe they can benefit from such deception, hubris, and outright disdain for common sense?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 10, 2017 9:22 PM
Comment #415991

Story moving fast…
Turns out the day after Director Comey requested additional resources from the Deputy AG, he briefed lawmakers that he was making that request. Multiple sources confirming it, including Senator Durbin. As of tonight, the DOJ still claims that Comey never made such a request. That will not go well for the DOJ.

Articles in the NYT & WSJ… White House leaking like a sieve. The FBI too.

Apparently the investigation into Trump heated up, and Director Comey requested weekly briefs become daily briefs. Requested more resources.

Multiple sources saying the call for firing Comey came from Trump, not the brand new Deputy AG Rosenstein. That will come out if Rosenstein ever takes the stand. The idea that the firing originated with anyone other than Trump was patently ridiculous.

The claim in the letter that Comey informed Trump three times that Trump was not being investigated was an obvious lie. Comey would not inform Trump one way or the other. But that is a small lie.

And from the photos, people are noticing that Trump allowed the Russian media into the Oval Office with all of their own equipment! Talk about a security nightmare!

Flynn refused to voluntarily provide the Senate Intelligence Committee documents. Subpoenas flying. Let’s see if Flynn takes the 5th. He’s in a tough position, because his failure to register as a foreign agent until two years after the fact means he’s dead meat unless he cooperates. But a five year prison sentence for failing to register in time might be preferable to the time he would do if he provides those documents.

RF & WW,
You both seem to believe Trump is ‘draining the swamp.’ Ok. I don’t even know how to question what that means. It must involve some separate universe of alternate facts.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 11:11 PM
Comment #415992

With the firing of Director Comey we seem to be looking at a clear cut case of Obstruction of Justice.

Posted by: phx8 at May 10, 2017 11:12 PM
Comment #415993

Phx8, you really need to stay away from the grocery store tabloids.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 10, 2017 11:42 PM
Comment #415994

By all means, phx8, please remain as clueless as you were before the election.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 10, 2017 11:58 PM
Comment #416019
Story moving fast…

That tends to happen when people report whatever they hear without checking it out, using logical rational, have an agenda and want a specific outcome regardless of facts. That’s what our ‘news media’ has become. Of course, apparently questioning the US News Media Complex gets you labelled as Russian Propagandists these days, the era of the New McCarthyism.

All that the current media is these days are blogs and vlogs, full of opinion, unsourced second hand reports, unwillingness to get the other side to find flaws in those reports, agenda driven crap.

Don’t listen to what Trumps says. Watch what Trump does.

And then speculate based on your desired outcome and how it might serve to fit your already pre-defined narrative.

Since entering office, he has fired an Acting AG.

Last I checked the President can fire who he wants whenever he wants. Even Comey has agreed to this fact. I defended Clinton when accused of mass firings during TravelGate, which I’m sure you did as well, but now you have a problem with him firing people?

The reason you have a problem with him firing is you want excuses for if/when all the investigations turn out to be full of nothing, bust and blubber. If Comey had come out and said “We investigated and found nothing” you would then claim that he was siding with Trump once again like he did when he caused him to get elected, blah blah blah, etc. There is no win with progressives because they’ve already written the narrative they want and any indication that it might not fit exactly with what reality is will be explained away as a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’.

It’s not like we haven’t seen this game before. Clinton was found to have lied during questioning in a sexual harassment lawsuit and the left STILL defend him to this day because it doesn’t fit their narrative. It’s a fact, indisputable, but still somehow the result of a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’.

Today, Trump met with the Russian Foreign Minister. Russian media was allowed to attend. American media was barred.

Just like Obama did for years, bar the US media because there is this thing called ‘pool media’ that all US media have access to for their stories/reports/pictures. The Russian agencies do not have access to that pool so they were allowed in to take pictures of THEIR officials during this meeting.

Learn about how things work, not how you think a story will fit your preconceived narratives for a minute…

The Senate Intel Committee wants to find out if that money laundering involves the Russians.

“according to a committee aide who spoke on condition of anonymity”

*sigh*

“Trump’s ownership in the Taj Mahal was sharply reduced in 2009 when he resigned as chairman of the company owning the Atlantic City casino after it was reorganized in a bankruptcy.”

“Trump Taj Mahal admitted to having “willfully violated” reporting and record-keeping requirements under the federal Bank Secrecy Act from 2010 to 2012.”

You should really read your own articles…

Constantly throwing out accusations that turn out to be BS over and over again doesn’t really help your side at all in this.

If there is any evidence of any wrongdoing, I want to see it. Until then, all the speculations, accusations that turn out to be BS, hyperbole, idiocy and nonsense surrounding this are all just that, a lot of partisan bullshit.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2017 4:17 AM
Comment #416036

Oh Stephen Stephen Stephen.
Leftists may have not been running from this investigation, but they sure as he11 were when they were screaming about losing confidence in him, calling for his resignation, questioning his patriotism, and demanding he be fired.

Clinton wasn’t exonerated of anything. As Comey stated, the investigation clearly showed wrongdoing and that she was at fault. That you blindly dismiss those facts on some ridiculous claim of intent, speaks volumes about the validity of your argument.

You can criticize me until the cows come home if you wish. But if you continue to ignore facts, it’s doesn’t really mean much, does it.
My comment wasn’t about you saying something bad about a Republican, it was mocking your constant harping of those same boring talking points and the hypocrisy behind them.

I don’t drink up lies, I prioritize their importance and call people on them when needed. And you aren’t being ‘blasted’ for believing lies, Stephen, you are being ‘blasted’ for trying to pass off your partisan based assumptions as facts.

“But have you noticed that your lies have begun to cross paths, that what you alleged in November has become markedly different than what you say now in May?”

Really? You do realize that I wasn’t one to shout ‘lock her up’ don’t you?
But please feel free to give me an actual example of something I alleged in Nov. and how it differs from today.

“I try my best to keep my facts straight and consistent over time, only changing when new information demands it.”

Hate to tell you this my friend, but lately your ‘facts’ are based on nothing but politically biased opinion and assumption.

“you claim to have strong principles, but you end up reversing like a bootlegger doing a car stunt when your former position become untenable”

Again, feel free to name one principle or position that I have reversed on.

“And no, it wasn’t just leaked e-mails, it was focused, coordinated misinformation attacks, aimed at guess who?”

So now you guys admit leaked personal emails didn’t affect the election outcome, and are now going with just the ‘fake news’ BS? Ok.
Do you think that you could perhaps explain a few things then? Like exactly what “dark and nasty thing” do I buy without questioning? And exactly what are the “Russians” guilty of feeding?

“That’s what’s really pathetic. Republicans used to be strong, loyal patriots”

They still are, and the left still denigrates them as flag loving nationalists who wrongly believe that America is exceptional.
What’s pathetic, is your belief that they are unpatriotic because they won’t take your opinions and assumptions as facts. That you accuse them of favoring propaganda simply because they don’t buy your propaganda.

What’s truly pathetic, Stephen, is that just a year or so ago, the left was disbelieving their fellow American in favor of propaganda, and they are continuing it today with their displays of anger, hatred, destruction and violence towards those fellow Americans who dare disagree with them.

Posted by: kctim at May 11, 2017 9:17 AM
Comment #416037

According to the latest Quinnipiac Poll, Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 36%. When respondents were asked what one word came to mind in regard to Trump, the three most common responses, in order of popularity, were “idiot,” “incompetent,” and “liar.”

According to White House sources, Deputy AG Rosenstein Rosenstein threatened to resign over the story that he was the driving force behind Comey’s firing. Trump wanted to fire Comey, and ordered Rosenstein to draft it.

This lie about Rosenstein being the driving force behind firing Comey was an obvious lie, but still, it is important to call it out.

Rhinehold,
It wasn’t me who asked for documentation from the Treasury Financial Crimes unit, in regards to the $10 million fine for money laundering at the Taj Mahal. The request came from the Senate Intelligence Committee. They are looking for connections between Trump and money laundering for the Russians. In general, casinos are perfect places to launder money.

There are two main thrusts of investigation- collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia for the 2016 election, and money laundering. Flynn is already receiving subpoenas.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2017 10:17 AM
Comment #416038

According to the latest Quinnipiac Poll, Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 36%. When respondents were asked what one word came to mind in regard to Trump, the three most common responses, in order of popularity, were “idiot,” “incompetent,” and “liar.”

According to White House sources, Deputy AG Rosenstein Rosenstein threatened to resign over the story that he was the driving force behind Comey’s firing. Trump wanted to fire Comey, and ordered Rosenstein to draft it.

This lie about Rosenstein being the driving force behind firing Comey was an obvious lie, but still, it is important to call it out.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2017 10:19 AM
Comment #416041

Rhinehold,
It wasn’t me who asked for documentation from the Treasury Financial Crimes unit, in regards to the $10 million fine for money laundering at the Taj Mahal. The request came from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2017 10:20 AM
Comment #416042

Well phx8 the acting FBI director just debunked your “Obstruction of Justice” comment. The Russian investigation will still go on no matter what according to him.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 11, 2017 12:07 PM
Comment #416043

Regarding “draining the swamp” phx8 wrote; ” It must involve some separate universe of alternate facts.”

It is from the universe that keeps electing Republicans and Conservatives to county, state, and national elective offices in much greater numbers than Democrats.

President Trump has drained the swamp of many bureaucratic regulations that profited only the few at great cost to the many. Now that Comey is gone, the FBI will not be hampered by a political fence-sitter who gave all the reason to call for charges against Hillary Clinton but then declined to do so.

I hope that the new Director of the FBI reviews the investigation of Hillary Clinton and concludes that there is sufficient reason to recommend the DOJ bring criminal charges against her, as well as Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 11, 2017 1:12 PM
Comment #416044

The Director of the FBI has no authority to act as prosecutor, judge and jury and Comey was correctly discharged.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 11, 2017 2:38 PM
Comment #416045

Shit just got real.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2017 2:59 PM
Comment #416046

Warren, please tell us why the FBI executing a search warrant is so NEWSWORTHY.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 11, 2017 3:26 PM
Comment #416048

My apologies for jumping the gun on that one.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 11, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #416049

No problem Warren…just wondering.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 11, 2017 4:26 PM
Comment #416052

KAP,
Trump fired an FBI Director leading an investigation involving him. That risks a charge of obstruction. For example, Comey wanted additional resources, but his temporary replacement, McCabe, said he thought there were already enough resources. Comey may have known about something McCabe did not, or viewed one part of the investigation as more important than another part. It can be interference. It can be obstruction. Sessions was supposed to recuse himself from all things involving the Russian investigation, so he is at risk too.

So Trump fired the FBI Director leading an investigation into Russian meddling, and the next day met the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in the Oval Office. Only the Russian media was allowed to attend. That is so ridiculously bad, it can only be attributed to gross incompetence.

Meanwhile, we can all ignore everything Pence, Spicer, Huckabee, and others said about the reasons for firing Director Comey. They were all lies. Trump threw them all under the bus in an interview today with Lester Holt, claiming it was all his idea because Comey was a grandstander and showboat. Trump then repeated his claim that Comey had assured him he was not being investigated. Remember when Bill Clinton boarded a plane to visit AG Lynch? This is worse, that is, if Trump is telling the truth. But I think we all know Trump is lying again.

Idiot.
Incompetent.
Liar.

We could be looking at this kind of chaotic incompetence for years.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2017 5:46 PM
Comment #416053

phx8, We all know Trump has a lot to learn about the politics of D. C. He is crude and unpredictable which is something D.C. needs to get them on their toes. As far as your “SKY IS FALLING” BS. We lived through Bush, Obama and a few others that questionable, I think we will live through Trump. Like I said stay out of the Grocery Store tabloids. They are making you look silly.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 11, 2017 6:03 PM
Comment #416054

Royal Flush-
I’m not confused at all, good man. I expect politicians to present a favorable presentation of their policy.

Turns out the letters were fig leaves, offered to cover Trump’s… well, exposure here. He’s now saying he wanted to do this before those letters, which guts the notion that this was a recommendation he simply followed.

I have very good reading comprehension. I’m also old enough and experienced enough to know when I’m being lied to.

As for your record numbers? Look, buddy, you promised people a ****load of things, and your alternative facts aren’t sufficient to satisfy them. And guess what? If your FBI director sends you that recommendation for the indictment you want, and your AG decides to prosecute, you will lose.

Republicans and conservatives these days have a bad habit of insisting on charging people with crimes before they even have the details to back things up. It makes for a lot of rhetoric, and very little follow through in terms of actual convictions. Our system is not built on political kangaroo courts, its built in large part to prevent them, to limit the uses of our courts to prosecutions of actual crimes, with evidence of that crime needing to paint a picture that no reasonable doubt can enter into.

Reasonable doubt doesn’t seem to be in your vocabulary because you doubt nothing you think you know. If somebody tells you that Clinton committed a crime, then no matter what the law says, no matter what evidence says, you believe she’s guilty. You start from belief and then try to beat that result out of the system.

It’s a good way to drive yourselves nuts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2017 6:04 PM
Comment #416055

I don’t think the Republicans get anything about the seriousness of any crisis or problem they’re in these days. To complement the opioid epidemic in the real world, there’s a opioid epidemic in the Right Wing media, a perpetual minimization of critical problems that the party faces, in favor of a woozily perpetual maintenance of good feelings.

You get people on an opioid, they start doing things they really shouldn’t be doing, because they can’t tell they’re hurting themselves. They’re numb to their injury, to the harm they’ve done themselves.

This latest flap over Comey is a great example. Just listen to Trump officials saying they’d like the Russia investigation to end, now that Comey is gone. Just hear Trump saying, “I was the guy who came up with the notion that Comey needed to go,” rather than being smart enough to accept the fig-leaf of recommendations, written day of the firing.

Who thought this wouldn’t detonate a whole bag of dog**** all over the Trump Administration’s agenda? Who seriously thought that axing a frigging FBI Director, even with the pretexts they cooked up, would go over as anything more than a political power play… and with the facts adding up as they are now, as an obstruction of justice?

The Republicans, pure geniuses that they are, have come to the conclusion that what they did wrong in every other scandal before was letting the investigations proceed in an open and unimpeded way, that what they really should do is stonewall any accountability or oversight that could potentially embarrass them.

They think this is helping them. It’s not. It’s causing them further injury as more and more people lose heart in the promise that the Trump Administration is draining the swamp. They are pushing legislation so unpopular, it’s support is deeper underwater than Trump’s last bankruptcy.

And why, so they can win an abstract legislative victory, say to their most loyal constituents that they’re not a complete waste of space?

It’s time to break out of the shell of partisanship and realize that the GOP is riding a flaming barge of garbage into the abyss. There are no ideal resolutions left, only more and less painful reckonings. Sometimes you need to feel the pain to know you earned it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 11, 2017 6:21 PM
Comment #416057

My Buddies, phx8 and Stephen, provide more speculation. We just wish they could be a little more original. By the time they read it and repeat it here, it’s gone around the world twenty times.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 11, 2017 6:25 PM
Comment #416060

I think both Stephen and phx8 have spent to much time in Grocery store tabloids, R.F.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 11, 2017 6:50 PM
Comment #416061

Look back in this thread. Look at what I wrote, what you wrote, and what came about in the following days.

I called it right.

And by the way, those low poll numbers are important. With Trump so far underwater, the GOP legislators will be reluctant to go to the mat for him. And you’d better believe Trump watches the polls. It will tempt him to do something desperate. 36% approval and trending down is crippling.

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2017 7:49 PM
Comment #416062

Phx8, The only thing you wrote is a bunch of conspiracy theories nothing more. When you have facts and substantial facts then tell us about it. So far all there is, is an investigation into whether there was Russian influence in the investigation nothing more. As far as Flynn goes nothing has been proven there either. Stay out of the grocery store tabloids check your facts before you make yourself look foolish.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 11, 2017 8:09 PM
Comment #416065
It wasn’t me who asked for documentation

No, it was you who suggested it meant something.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2017 9:14 PM
Comment #416066

Rhinehold,

Yeah, you kind of pretended this didn’t happen…

It means something.

“The Senate panel has requested information about President Donald Trump and his top aides from a financial intelligence unit in the Treasury Department that imposed a $10 million civil penalty on Trump Taj Mahal in 2015 for multiple violations of money-laundering laws.

The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to see any information relevant to its Russia investigation the Treasury agency has gathered, including evidence that might include possible money laundering, according to a committee aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. Also at issue: to what extent, if at all, people close to Vladimir Putin have invested in Trump’s real estate empire.”

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/russia-probe-senate-requests-documents-from-money-laundering-watchdog-agency.html

Posted by: phx8 at May 11, 2017 10:15 PM
Comment #416067

It means nothing unless they find something. Which they most likely won’t. At least nothing out of the ordinary. You act as if there have been sanctions against Russia for the past 8 years… Obama was warming relations with Russia, as was Bush before. It wasn’t until Ukraine (a revolution the US helped start) that those feelings changed.

Wake me when someone, anyone, anywhere finds a single piece of evidence.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 11, 2017 10:38 PM
Comment #416076

Just when you thought the whole thing with Trump and Comey could not be any more bizarre, Trump tweets:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

So… After sending Pence, Spicer, and Sanders out to tell lies, Trump undercuts them and tells a version of events that destroys their credibility.

Ok.

Trump fires the head of the FBI while it is investigating his campaign for collusion with the Russians.

Um…

The day after firing, he meets with the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister in the Oval Office. Only Russian media attends. No American media allowed.

Er…

Trump tries to blame the firing on the new Deputy AG, who then threatens to quit. Trump changes the story, despite what it says in the firing letter and says, nah, it was me behind the firing all along.

Wait. Wait a minute…

And now Trump threatens the fired Director with tapes of conversations. Trump claims the Director told him three times Trump was not under investigation. He has tapes?

But… but…

Posted by: phx8 at May 12, 2017 9:54 AM
Comment #416079

phx8’s mind is running amok. He takes a simple statement by Trump,
“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”,

and turns it into,

“And now Trump threatens the fired Director with tapes of conversations.”

phx8 lives in his own little world. How can he possibly construe Trumps statement to believe he said he had tapes?

“He has tapes?”

Maybe phx8 is on to something! It would be something to have proof Comey is leaking details of private conversations he had with Trump to the press. Why would he need an investigation carried out by people who could be responsible for leaks when he can identify the culprit using a couple hundred dollar dinner engagement?

Good job, phx8. You’ve pointed out how Trump could be the most efficient person to ever hold the job. Instead of spending millions of dollars on an investigation, he spends a couple hundred on dinner to achieve the same results!

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 12, 2017 11:01 AM
Comment #416080

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

So… there are no “tapes”?

In yesterday’s interview with Lester Holt, Trump publicly accused Comey of unethical behavior, and he is now warning Comey, in case Comey engages in more unethical behavior and “starts leaking to the press.” Trump claims Comey asked for the dinner because he wanted to keep his job, and then let Trump know he was not under investigation.

Everyone expects Comey to present his version of events, especially after the reasons cited in the letter were contradicted by Trump in the interview.

Trump is also threatening to cancel the Daily Press Briefing. Maybe that would be a good idea. After all the lies told from the White House Podium this week, none of Trump’s people- Spicer, Sanders, Conway, Pence- have any credibility. Why those people told those lies is open to question. Did Trump tell them to lie? Did someone else? Did they make up those lies on their own? In any event, it might be better to just cut off communications between the White House and Americans. Perhaps we would all be better off.

Posted by: phx8 at May 12, 2017 11:25 AM
Comment #416081

Phx8, If Coney wants to give his version it’s is his call. But all your speculation without substantial FACTS is just that speculation nothing more. Most people would wait on the investigations to wind down and present their findings before jumping to conclusions, but I guess that is not your style.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 12, 2017 12:06 PM
Comment #416082

Rhinehold-
It’s not the questioning of what the media says. Liberals constantly do that. It’s the use of this ridiculous, poorly founded cry of “fake news.” It’s people labeling it the New McCarthyism when we got good evidence of an attack. It’s the echoing of pro-Russian talking points that are suspiciously opposite of what Republicans were saying earlier.

I saw this one tweet responding to a caricature of Trump talking about the mispelled reset button Clinton offered the Russians. Blows my mind. What Trump did during election is ten times worse, especially given the combination of Putin’s illegal invasions and the attack on the computer systems of most Western Powers. Yet Trump is trying to be friendly, even to the point of letting the Russians and their photographers into the Oval Office, while locking our media out.

Does that mean anything to you? Nixon wouldn’t have done that. As bad as his relationship with the media was, he wasn’t a Russia apologist.

Trump says a lot of stuff. That’s what he excels and exhales at, the hot air pouring from him so fast you could inflate a balloon and take a trip on it. Just look at his staff trying to keep pace with what story he’s telling. Did he fire Comey on the advice of his AG and DAG? Or did he tell them what he wanted to do ahead of time? First WH story was the former, but Trump threw that in the trash by claiming the second in an interview.

The reason you have a problem with him firing is you want excuses for if/when all the investigations turn out to be full of nothing, bust and blubber. If Comey had come out and said “We investigated and found nothing” you would then claim that he was siding with Trump once again like he did when he caused him to get elected, blah blah blah, etc. There is no win with progressives because they’ve already written the narrative they want and any indication that it might not fit exactly with what reality is will be explained away as a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’.

You want to present yourself as objective, but instead you’re just telegraphing all over the place that it’s going to be a big nothing burger.

That’s a possibility. But it’s not one I’m going to accept without an investigation that tells me that the facts offered are verified. I want a good, objective reason for conceding that theory’s truth. I don’t want to be the kind of sucker who accepts loaded sophistry at face value.

As for Clinton? Look, for the longest time, I denied that he committed infidelity with Monica Lewinsky. That was the narrative I bought into. Turns out, he did commit it. I still don’t like it to this day, but I’ve made my peace with it. I think he deserved the disgrace he got for lying. He lied to me, and millions of other supporters.

Part of it was his admission. But another part was the Mainstream Media verifying things. Another still, the independent investigation. But I’m not out there saying that somehow the Right Wing Conspiracy threatened him with something to force him to confess. I’m not asserting, despite all the evidence and testimony, that Clinton is innocent.

When it turned out that Hillary had classified material in her e-mail? Disappointment, to be sure, but I’m not clinging to the notion that it all must have been planted by Chaffetz, or something like that.

Long story short, I’m willing to admit the reality of ugly facts about my people, the folks I take the side of.

Meanwhile, even with several officials forced to reveal undisclosed meetings with Russia, even with tons of forensics indicating Russia’s involvement, Republicans are still stonewalling. Still absolutely denying. “Nothing burger!” you cry. I wish I could agree. I wish my current President wasn’t potentially compromised by one of our biggest international adversaries.

However, I don’t have that peace of mind, and without an investigation complete, saying I shouldn’t worry any further, I won’t let myself relax.

We have gone pretty far past the point where we can just say that this was some casual set of coincidences, and Comey’s firing only makes things seem that much more fishy.

If there is any evidence of any wrongdoing, I want to see it. Until then, all the speculations, accusations that turn out to be BS, hyperbole, idiocy and nonsense surrounding this are all just that, a lot of partisan bullshit.

No, they are what they are. If they are bull****, they’re bull**** whether they’re investigated or not. If they’re true, the same relationship holds. Your formulation is highly defensive, highly partisan, little better or more insightful for you than my denials of the Clintons’ behavior was for me.

On the subject of Ukraine, we didn’t interfere when people decided they wanted a different ruler than the Putinista who was in charge. So, what is Putin’s response? Violate the Ukraine’s sovereignty himself. Annex land. Start civil conflict along the border.

Who decided that this was going to be their response? Putin. And really, we were falling out with him long before that point.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2017 1:01 PM
Comment #416083

kctim-
Comey explained in great detail how the Republican’s favorite charges were untenable. I basically take my explanation for why Hillary wasn’t charged for the deletion of e-mails from his rather detailed one. He also indicated the facts of how extensive the leakage of classified information was, how minimal it was. There was wrongdoing- what he called sloppiness- but no case for prosecution. You’re looking at it as if the truth had to be black or white, pure or criminal, but in truth, her behavior could have fallen at any number of places along the spectrum, and he judged it to close to reasonable doubt in the critical areas to merit the Republicans favorite charges.

Hate to tell you this my friend, but lately your ‘facts’ are based on nothing but politically biased opinion and assumption.

Yes, please, offer the blanket argument as if it isn’t just the kind of crap you’re accusing me of. I can back up what I say with transcripts and other sources.

But please, hate on. Please, continue to rage at us as traitors while your people turn a blind eye to an attack on western democracy. You know, what your folks once claimed to be the best guardians of?

Richard Kapitan-
You should look at the tabloids. If they held true, Trump would be a conquering hero! Funny thing, though, how he always have a secret plan which he will only share with a nationally published tabloid weekly!

Phx8, The only thing you wrote is a bunch of conspiracy theories nothing more.

Right. Nothing but undisclosed meetings, evidence of tailored, targeted misinformation attacks, intrusions traced back to Russian-affiliated groups- and that’s just public knowledge. The truth can be any number of things, but I’d like a bit more information than the ignorance you’re comfortable in embracing.

As for Flynn? You don’t ask for immunity if you’re confident you haven’t broken the law.

Royal Flush-
The sad thing about sticking with the facts is that you will tend to repeat a lot about what others say, especially if you’re reporting old news. But then news is new, and only freshness affords us greater variety of information.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2017 1:22 PM
Comment #416087

Stephen, I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing. If there is any factual evidence, besides your left wing talking points please let us know. All I have seen out of you and phx8 is leftist BULLS**T. If you 2 have any factual evidence of any collusion please let us know.

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 12, 2017 1:33 PM
Comment #416088

Sorry for the multiple post kept getting error message when posting

Posted by: Richard Kapitan at May 12, 2017 1:35 PM
Comment #416093

The left will bombard the airwaves with their talking points until they accidentally come across some tidbit of information they can use to claim moral superiority.

That’s exactly why Flynn was smart to ask for immunity. Who in their right mind would go into a meat grinder with Democratics without some sort of insurance?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 12, 2017 3:17 PM
Comment #416094

I find this very interesting and believe a case could be made that there is a significant linkage between these two statistics (jobs and illegal border crossings).

Number of people collecting unemployment checks hits 17-year low, jobless claims show

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/number-of-people-collecting-unemployment-checks-hits-17-year-low-jobless-claims-show-2017-04-20

There has been a 76 percent drop in illegal border crossings into the US since President Donald Trump took office – and this before plans for “the wall” have been finalized.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201705111053481370-illegal-border-crossing-declines-trump/

More good news…


Merkel Bends the Knee to Trump’s NATO Spending Demands

NY Times: Steel Industry Is On The Rebound Under Trump

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/12/ny-times-steel-industry-is-on-the-rebound-under-trump/

I posted these few “good news” items as I believe many are weary of the constant drumbeat of Russian interference in American elections coming from the Left.

The strategy is simple. The Left, with near total support of the MSM, want Americans to focus on unproven charges of Russian interference in US elections and attempts to link the president with some illegal act.

Consequently, all the good news resulting from the Trump administration gets buried.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 3:24 PM
Comment #416095

I find this very interesting and believe a case could be made that there is a significant linkage between these two statistics (jobs and illegal border crossings).

Number of people collecting unemployment checks hits 17-year low, jobless claims show

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/number-of-people-collecting-unemployment-checks-hits-17-year-low-jobless-claims-show-2017-04-20

There has been a 76 percent drop in illegal border crossings into the US since President Donald Trump took office – and this before plans for “the wall” have been finalized.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201705111053481370-illegal-border-crossing-declines-trump/

More good news…


Merkel Bends the Knee to Trump’s NATO Spending Demands

I posted these few “good news” items as I believe many are weary of the constant drumbeat of Russian interference in American elections coming from the Left.

The strategy is simple. The Left, with near total support of the MSM, want Americans to focus on unproven charges of Russian interference in US elections and attempts to link the president with some illegal act.

Consequently, all the good news resulting from the Trump administration gets buried.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 3:24 PM
Comment #416096

Here’s one more “good news” item that I couldn’t post with the others due to WB restrictions on links.

NY Times: Steel Industry Is On The Rebound Under Trump

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/12/ny-times-steel-industry-is-on-the-rebound-under-trump/

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 3:26 PM
Comment #416097
It’s not the questioning of what the media says. Liberals constantly do that.

*Cough* BULLSHIT *Cough*

the attack on the computer systems of most Western Powers

Which have yet to be proven. At all. No shred of actual evidence. Talk about your ‘fake news’. There is an accusation of this occurring based off of a CrowdStrike report, which any tech person reading would eyeroll and facepalm at. FBI was not allowed to investigate the actual equipment and no forensics has been done by anyone other than CrowdStrike.

Yet Trump is trying to be friendly, even to the point of letting the Russians and their photographers into the Oval Office, while locking our media out.

You mean like Obama did FOR YEARS and defended to the hilt by progressives? The hypocrisy is so think it’s downright suffocating…

he wasn’t a Russia apologist
Nor was he looking for a renewed war with a superpower for financial gain. The progressives have gone apeshit over Putin since Ukraine because the Clinton machine helped start that revolution there in order to threaten Russia over oil… So when the Republicans do things with oil based motives, that’s terrible but when Democrats do it, that’s just fine?

This rewriting of history that has created this near hysteria and new McCarthyism of all things Russian would be funny if it weren’t a dangerous game that was being played. Hillary Clinton said life on TV during a debate that if Russia hacked the US, she would respond MILITARILY. Do you not see the march to war coming from your side? The hysteria that is taking hold? You wonder how the Republicans could go along with such behavior in 2002-2003 and yet we see it play out on your side and you can’t recognize it at all.

You want to present yourself as objective, but instead you’re just telegraphing all over the place that it’s going to be a big nothing burger.

Because that’s where Occam’s Razor leads me to at this point. If there were *ANYTHING* concrete, we’d already know about it most likely. When I see people making accusation after accusation after accusation and none of them ever being substantiated, names put to charges, gossip being the new version of journalism… It all smacks of a bunch of smoke with no fire.

I have no problem admitting to be wrong at all, give me some proof and I’ll switch on a dime. I’ll carve Trump is a crook on my cock. But you aren’t going to convince me of anything with speculation, innuendo, supposition and gossip.

If I see ‘unnamed sources’ or ‘unnamed aids’ or whatever new phrase they are coming up with I think I may just make a drinking game out of it… It’s gotten that ridiculous.

But it’s not one I’m going to accept without an investigation that tells me that the facts offered are verified

When the accused is a Democrat, you are innocent until proven guilty. When the accused is a Republican, you are guilty until proven innocent. That’s the realty you don’t want to admit to yourself. It’s the mindset that ‘we’re good and they are evil’. You believe that your side is fighting for Truth and Justice while the other side is just racist assholes in it for the money and their own ego.

On the subject of Ukraine, we didn’t interfere when people decided they wanted a different ruler than the Putinista who was in charge.

WHAT? We didn’t ‘interfere’? FFS we INSTIGATED THE DAMNED THING. Hillary’s powergroup were caught red handed…

Even Kusinich knows this… no one wants to talk about it though because… why make Hillary look bad when she was supposed to be the new appointed president?

“What I’d do is not have USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy working with U.S. taxpayers’ money to knock off an elected government in Ukraine, which is what they did. I wouldn’t try to force the people of Ukraine into a deal with NATO against their interest or into a deal with the European Union, which is against their economic interest.” - Dennis Kusinich

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2017 4:28 PM
Comment #416098

Stephen,
I didn’t care then, nor do I care now, about the Republican’s ‘favorite charges.’ I tried (probably failed a time or two) to not make assumptions of her skirting over watch, what was in her deleted emails, or her server possibly being hacked.
She constantly lied and classified information was found on her personal server. She is responsible for that and did not deserve to be President. The country did not deserve her.

The amount of classified information found on her unsecured server is irrelevant, as is her intent. Intent comes into play in determining punishment, not absolving one of any punishment.
And it was only Comey’s judgement and willingness to ignore precedent, that claims there is no case for prosecution of her actions.

“I can back up what I say with transcripts and other sources.”

No, you can’t. At this point all you can do is offer partisan opinions and assumptions of what you think and want those transcripts and words to mean.

“But please, hate on.”

Sigh. There is no hate here, Stephen. We simply disagree on the direction of the country and I am passionate about our country and its Constitution. Yes, I can be a passionate a-hole at times, but I have no hate for any of you guys.
Those anti American unconstitutional antifa type p*ussies though, that’s another story. You guys need to disown them.

“turn a blind eye to an attack on western democracy.”

There has been no “attack on western democracy.” Voting machines weren’t hacked. No results were altered. Our voting process was and still is, intact.
And honestly, even if another country did run some BS ads about our candidates, I seriously doubt average Americans are going to call that an attack.

IF Trump or somebody cheated, it will be found out and the proper actions will be taken.

“You know, what your folks once claimed to be the best guardians of?”

Still do. That’s why we don’t riot, destroy public property and commit acts of violence when our candidates lose, and why the military is full of right-wingers.

Posted by: kctim at May 12, 2017 4:39 PM
Comment #416101

“But you aren’t going to convince me of anything with speculation, innuendo, supposition and gossip.”

Totally agree Rhinehold.

Hysteria, overblown hooey part of the fake news cycle

“But then, as the heavy breathing subsides and the adrenaline rush gives way to factual, concrete reporting, the most damning charges fall away.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, said he and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, had recently met with Mr. Comey and came away with the clear impression that, in fact, Mr. Trump is not a target of any investigation by the FBI.

“Sen. Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the president’s statement,” he said.

And in a stunning display of nonpartisanship, Mrs. Feinstein agreed.

Well, OK. But the White House should have handled it better.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/anatomy-of-fake-news/

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 4:47 PM
Comment #416102
As for Flynn? You don’t ask for immunity if you’re confident you haven’t broken the law.

So… Much… Bullshit.

Do you know what type of immunity was being discussed? There are two different kinds at play here… Prosecutorial and Procedural. He asked for Procedural, meaning that nothing he said could be used against him if he violated some rule during questioning and is almost ALWYAS asked for by anyone testifying before congress. The other is Prosecutorial, which he didn’t ask for, meaning you can’t be indicted by law enforcement for any violation of laws.

You would think that a news reporter, looking to get the truth out, would have actually looked this up before posting their gossip pieces news stories about this, but that rush to get the hits and take down someone you don’t like is just higher priority …

This is why you CANNOT trust the news media these days, you have to go out and look for the facts yourself. Because the ideas of ‘Journalism’ are over. People like to compare Trump to Nixon a lot this week, but Nixon had a press that was only using anonymous sources if they could be verified by other people and who was respected because they had journalistic integrity…

Trump doesn’t have any of that. Stephen mentioned Trump talking to a weekly tabloid… As opposed to a DAILY tabloid like the NY Times, WaPo or CNN? They have become as bad, if not worse, than MSNBC and Fox FFS. That’s how bad it has become.

BTW, on top of all of that, the report was ‘Flynn seeks immunity’ when he never did… This is what was in the letter his lawyer sent to the committee that was used as the basis for the report.

Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.

This is the procedural immunity, not the prosecutorial immunity, the protection from ‘unfair’ prosecution. Those are two different things.

This is just *ONE* example of the nonsense that is passing for journalism in today’s climate. Everyone is so unhinged (new buzz word apparently) and off their rocker that NO ONE is questioning any bit of gossip they hear and sensationalized headlines designed to grab views are taking as fact without anyone actually ever looking into the truth…

This whole thing makes me want to puke.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2017 4:53 PM
Comment #416104

This whole thing makes me want to puke.
Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2017 4:53 PM

Me too.

Perhaps now, the Lefty’s on WB will understand why I sometimes refer to them as “brain dead”.

Desperation makes them susceptible to “fake news” as they grab for anything to ease their political pain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 4:59 PM
Comment #416105

Richard Kapitan-
Do me a favor and don’t insult my intelligence by saying I’m just throwing talking points without refuting the facts I’m promoting. I know the last thing you want is a substantive debate, but we don’t share that preference.

Weary Willie

Flynn only needs to ask for immunity because he will be admitting in public to some kind of behavior that he could be held criminally liable for. Otherwise, nobody could put him through the meatgrinder. He’s not some kind of snowflake who would melt at the least turn of our attention!

Royal Flush-
Okay, first one is easy: Thanks Obama! Most of that 17 year low comes from gains made under Obama. So, quit trying to hijack the good press to suit a guy barely a few months into his first term.

Yes, illegal border crossings have declined. Problem is, legitimate tourism and immigration has also declined. America’s being turned into a shut-in by Trump’s paranoia. Stagnation and decline is what comes of this kind of mentality.

Third one? It’s all based on hype, on promises. If Trump doesn’t deliver, then the renaissance would be short-lived. Also, though, Trump is benefiting from a general increase in manufacturing that started under Obama. Though most new jobs are in other sectors, Obama’s administration reversed that decline.

Fourth one? Jesus. Once again, it refers to Merkel adhering to a 2014 agreement. In other words, “Thanks Obama!” once again!

Again, Trump inherits the wealth he acts like he earned himself.

You posted these to distract. To take the discussion off topic. The trick is, you want this to all get swept under the rug. You see it as a political threat, and that’s the only kind you care about, because politics has become the lens through which everything is seen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2017 5:14 PM
Comment #416106

Stephen, I really don’t care who gets credit for good news. I celebrate when America and her citizens enjoy freedom and prosperity.

You act like a chicken as you scratch and peck around your Liberal, manure filled, barnyards for bad shit to hang on Republicans/Conservatives, and Trump supporters in hopes of finding some way to ease your political pain.

Frankly Scarlet…I don’t give a damn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 5:24 PM
Comment #416109

“Fourth one? Jesus. Once again, it refers to Merkel adhering to a 2014 agreement. In other words, “Thanks Obama!” once again!”

Stephen, what a silly twit comment. Why would a three year old statement by Merkel make news today?

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 5:30 PM
Comment #416110

Stephen, Talking points is all you are throwing out. We have no FACTS yet just talking points. The only FACTS we have are the boners Trump is committing about his firing of Comey anything else is pure SPECULATION, even with Flynn it is just SPECULATION.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at May 12, 2017 5:33 PM
Comment #416112

Rhinehold-
Quit saying “NO PROOF!” You don’t have the evidence to say there’s no proof, because evidence has been provided. Rejected by folks like you, but nonetheless, provided.

I don’t want your declaration that’s something’s false, I want a decent explanation of why. RF’s article on the Steel industry above notes that, yes, Steel Industry people are very optimistic about Trump. However, it notes that it’s more about what they hope will happen- Trump taking it to the Chinese, putting buy-American provisions into law, this, than and the other, than what Trump has already done.

A psychological effect, in other words. Easy come, easy go. If Trump doesn’t do as promised, which would cause few people to have cardiac arrest from the shock, that optimism might be tempered. I also offered, to refute his claims, important facts about policies and trends that preceded Trump’s administration by years. I didn’t just go “FAKE NEWS” and leave it at that. I find that kind of approach a bit insulting. I want to know why something’s wrong, if you’re challenging my sense of what’s right.

I like to be careful with facts, because I have a tendency to believe things without much grey area. That means I either have to learn that grey area, that it’s unfortunately part of the bargain, or I have to figure out what’s actually known.

You can say what you want about what Democrats did. In fact, it would be nice if you showed us a comparable incident to what Trump did with the Russians in the oval office. At least Trump had the decency, unlike so many of his subordinates, to openly admit that he was meeting with the Russians. Some how, though, he’s surprised that photos of him with the Russians got out, after having posed for photographs with people obviously carrying the equipment. How does that work?

As for Crowdstrike? The Democrats pretty much said they cooperated with what the FBI asked of them, and that they did not ask for further information. We have plenty of documentation, articles, about other hacks and attacks, plenty of evidence they occured.

Do I want a war with Russia? God no. But if they’re attacking our infrastructure and the integrity of our elections, I don’t want to sit around with a thumb up my rear end waiting for it to get worse! The first step to dealing with such a weakness is to acknowledge it exists! Trump doesn’t seem to want to do that. Because it steals his thunder? Possible. Because he was part of the conspiracy? Also possible especially given the appearance of profound turnarounds in policy.

You throw around terms like “McCarthyism” in a way I think does deep disrespect to the crime upon our culture that McCarthyism was. I mean, it’s especially rich since one of Trump’s mentors was famous McCarthy henchman Roy Cohn. The kind of belligerent, lock-them-up, guilty if you’re not a right-thinker (emphasis on right) politics Trump won on is closer to that red-scare bull**** than anything the Democrats have done.

And really, you’re appalled at unnamed sources? What do you think the whole DNC hack thing was? Or the propaganda pushed out and targeted by the Trump Campaign’s deliberate or accidental silent partners? You talk about fake news, but the Conservative blogosphere and social media environment was saturated with it, stuff you could legitmately investigate information on and disprove.

And really, cut the Whataboutism about the Ukraine. We backed the play of the people who no longer wanted to be ruled by the people who just shot down demonstrators. Putin alone is responsible for panicking at the fall of Yanukovych’s government and committing a breach of international law. And by the way, why am I supposed to care what Dennis Kucinich thinks here?

kctim-
In my experience, people don’t tend to operate systems with full, hermetically sealed sterility. It’s a matter of percentages, a matter of how the information is sent.

I think they could tell if it was the deliberate purpose of an e-mail to distribute classified information. Information, though, often leaks out the seams, the degree telling you just how sloppy, how bad the people are at keeping secrets.

They found evidence that basically said this: out of tens of thousands of e-mails, a few hundred contained classified information, either in the text, or somewhere down the chain. However, their investigation also said that they were scrupulous about taking information they knew was classified, and only distributing it through proper channels.

So, they deserved a slap on the hand, administrative punishments, you could say, but they were already out. It was a political embarrassment, and the revival of the spectre of it, disastrous.

As for the rest? They’re not stupid. To hack the machines would be a major enterprise, beyond the scope of what they could conceal. It was a lot easier to take our wonderful western social media, and corrupt our little media bubbles. It’s no less an attack on our democracy for that, and it should be taken seriously. The quality of our information, the origin of the material we’re getting needs to be known. If people are drowning in russia-cooked propaganda, the voting machines might as well be hacked.

I don’t want them ****ing involved. I don’t want him ruining our Democracy as he destroys ours. I take offense to it as a patriot and as a young man who saw in his childhood the kind of crap this Putin guy seems nostalgic for. He needs a good elbow in his face and a warning to mind his own business, and Trump seems mysteriously inclined to do neither. In fact, he’s doing the opposite at a time when it makes better sense to throw the elbow!

It should be galling to you that Obama was tougher with this tyrant than the Right wingers who think he’s a milquetoast. It should be disturbing that they’re trying to involve themselves. I’ve made a decision of what my priorities are. My country comes first, not my party. If it comes out that there was corruption on the left, that Bernie or others were part of it, so be it. The corruption must be fully and honestly confronted.

Oh, by the way, I have no love for the Antifa. Mirroring tactics and hardline intolerance doesn’t make you better than the bad people, it just makes you their shadow, their reflection.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2017 5:50 PM
Comment #416113

Royal Flush-
Don’t give me that, “I don’t care who gets credit.”

You were trying to give Trump credit, make him look good. Problem is, you took the predigested talking points at face value. A command of your own facts, and an effort to look up things for yourself can go a long way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 12, 2017 5:52 PM
Comment #416114

“I’ve made a decision of what my priorities are. My country comes first, not my party.”

Congrats Stephen…it took some time but welcome to our fraternity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 6:05 PM
Comment #416115

Don’t give me that, “I don’t care who gets credit.”

Listen Pal Stephen, I will give you what ever I wish. I back up my facts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 12, 2017 6:06 PM
Comment #416119

Stephen, your post is so full of holes this may take a while…

Quit saying “NO PROOF!” You don’t have the evidence to say there’s no proof, because evidence has been provided. Rejected by folks like you, but nonetheless, provided.

I have rejected nothing other than the findings of CrowdStrike which were, as they admit, their OPINION only. You say that the facts have been presented but when I ask for them on here, I get crickets and people pointing to reports that say ‘we believe… we conclude…’. Those aren’t facts, those are opinions.

In fact, CrowdStrike’s understanding of hacker culture is abysmal really. They called the hacks ‘sophisticated’. Apparently too sophicticated for regular hackers to have conducted. That’s just hogwash, in fact we find out just today that NSA hacking tools have been in the hands of hackers for some time…

https://news.bitcoin.com/nsas-leaked-malware-weaponized-criminals-wendy-mcelroy/

Do you really think they haven’t been out there for sale?

They expect us to believe that the hacks were ‘so sophisticated that they aren’t available to private hackers’ and then say that the hackers were so sloppy to leave clues to who they are? Including not hiding their IP addresses? The more RATIONAL conclusion from the report is that someone is framing Russia by using Russian IP address proxies, but no one asks this obvious question do they? Too many people speaking as authoritative on the subject without any kind of actual knowledge on how hackers go about their business.

The other obvious question no one is asking of the CrowdStrike report is why they believe that all the hacks that they’ve attributed to the group they say are Russian are even the same group. They do know that tools and instruction manuals for these hacks are available and being sold, yeah? So yeah, lots of hacks are going to look similar or even identical, that doesn’t mean they are the same people or group ffs. It’s like everyone is losing their minds and not asking the obvious questions.

In fact, it would be nice if you showed us a comparable incident to what Trump did with the Russians in the oval office.

*boggle* Are you really not aware that for some time the Obama White House wasn’t blocking US journalists into photo ops?

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2013/12/13/media-miffed-at-white-house-access

Some how, though, he’s surprised that photos of him with the Russians got out, after having posed for photographs with people obviously carrying the equipment. How does that work?

He was upset that photos of the Ambassador got out. Like Obama, Trump employed the practice of blocking photgrapher’s access and providing only official White House photos of these meetings. They allowed the Russian photo group to come along so their media could have pictures as well, but the agreement was probably not for the Ambassador photos. That was why he was upset, not because photos were released, but the ones that weren’t agreed to.

And no I don’t defend it, but I didn’t defend it when Obama did it for years and angered many of his media supporters. But I’m not going to ignore one’s actions and then condemn the other, that’s just silly.

The Democrats pretty much said they cooperated with what the FBI asked of them, and that they did not ask for further information.

Uh, huh?

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3155002/security/fbi-dispute-with-dnc-over-hacked-servers-may-fuel-doubt-on-russia-role.html

the agency never directly examined the DNC servers that were breached.

Instead, the FBI had to rely on forensic evidence provided by third-party cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which the DNC hired to mitigate the breach.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed,” the agency said on Thursday in a statement.

“The FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton at the time (over her private email server),” he said. “So it’s totally possible the DNC didn’t want them involved at any stage of the investigation because of that.”

So no, no one but CrowdStrike has actually looked at the servers. The only information that the FBI or other agencies have about the attacks come from CrowdStrike’s report.

We have plenty of documentation, articles, about other hacks and attacks, plenty of evidence they occured.

And we have zero documentation and articles that contain actual EVIDENCE of who the people who committed the hacks were. A single group? Multiple groups? A bunch of lone hackers? State sponsored? We don’t know. All we know is that CrowdStrike thinks they are Russian because ‘the motives seem to make sense that it might be them’.

You throw around terms like “McCarthyism” in a way I think does deep disrespect to the crime upon our culture that McCarthyism was.

You may think that, but I do not. The damage that this accusation of ‘Russian Propaganda’ and the silly ‘list’ of Russian propagandists is doing irreparable harm to this country right now. Social media sites are now determining what is ‘fake and what isn’t’ based on what criteria? It’s astonishing to me that this is happening in this day and age. People are being silenced because their view disagrees with ‘the establishment’.

The unclassified report on the hacking was full of a lot of accusation and assumptions but very little substance. But one thing that they did which chilled me to the bone was to give the reasons that RT was a ‘propaganda’ organization. The list was:

“RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging “information wars” against the Syrian Government “

“RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability”

“In an earlier example of RT’s messaging in support of the Russian Government, during the Georgia-Russia military conflict the channel accused Georgians of killing civilians and organizing a genocide of the Ossetian people. “

Don’t dare voice opposition of US actions, you might be a Russian Operative! Do you want me to explain how many times I’ve been accused of being a Russian apologist? How many times I’ve been accused of being a Russian agent? Of those reasons being why I get blocked on certain social media sites?

In fact, the ‘safe space’ culture is pushing further into mainstream. There’s a new social application now that allows for private servers to federate with each other. Whole servers are getting blocked BECAUSE they are ‘Free speech servers’. Free speech itself is under attack in this country. And you don’t think this is a concern?

But if they’re attacking our infrastructure and the integrity of our elections, I don’t want to sit around with a thumb up my rear end waiting for it to get worse!

OMG How do you think the rest of the freaking world thinks about the US after we’ve been doing the same, even worse, for DECADES. The reason Putin has a personal grudge with Hillary was because SHE used the State Department and US Funds to try to keep him from getting elected.

Now we want to be all noble about this? I’m pretty sure that particular ship has sailed…

you’re appalled at unnamed sources? What do you think the whole DNC hack thing was? Or the propaganda pushed out and targeted by the Trump Campaign’s deliberate or accidental silent partners? You talk about fake news, but the Conservative blogosphere and social media environment was saturated with it, stuff you could legitmately investigate information on and disprove.

Everything that WikiLeaks has released has turned out to be 100% true. Because they provide EVIDENCE.

When you run story after story of ‘unknown sources’ saying ‘I heard this…’ or ‘This is how it was…’ but never, once, providing a single bit of collaborating evidence AND never giving the source’s name so we can ask them if what you said they said is accurate (I’ve seen way too many examples of sources saying one thing and having it twisted by the reporter) then you have nothing but gossip and innuendo. Nothing but TABLOID news.

And yes, the right is full of it to. I could give tons of examples, but we’re not talking about that now, are we? Is your argument going to change from we’re better than them to we’re just like them now? After this high and mighty diatribe you’ve been going on about how the left QUESTIONS the news? Give me a freaking break, we have DEM leaders accusing the president of treason, wanting him impeached before he even took office, believing every report that comes out… you should my twitter feed, it’s one of the most sad excuses for ‘journalism’ that I’ve seen in my 50 years.

cut the Whataboutism about the Ukraine. We backed the play of the people who no longer wanted to be ruled by the people who just shot down demonstrators.

OMFG the people who shot the demonstrators were outside actors! (read:cia) Are you not even cognizant of that? You’re going to love Oliver Stone’s new project…

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/05/us-coup-in-ukraine-oliver-stones-documentary/

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2017 7:19 PM
Comment #416120

You call a phone call that was released with Nuland planning a coup and multiple eye-witness reports of the people who shot protestors being non-Russian/Ukranian as ‘whataboutism’?

And you say you QUESTION the media? It’s like I wonder sometimes if you re-read what you write before you post it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2017 7:28 PM
Comment #416121

And let’s not forget that we have 3 people (Gucifer 2.0 who claimed responsibility for the DNC hack, Assange who posted information given to him with DNC info and Craig Murray who says he was the one who met the person with the information that was then given to Assange) all saying that Russia had nothing to do with it. You can feel free to ignore Gucifer 2.0, I wouldn’t trust them either. And even if you reject Assange because you don’t trust him or like him, that’s ok… but what’s your beef with Murray?

And no, this doesn’t prove that they weren’t involved, but it does give reason to question the ‘official story’ that has yet to provide any hard evidence to the assertions made.

Again, if you have actual hard evidence, toss the link in here. Shut me up! It’s easy and it’s all I’ve been asking for for months, that someone, anyone, provide me any actual evidence. But to this date, none has come. Which is the most telling of all… that the people who believe this to be proven can’t even provide what caused them to believe it, other than they ‘read it on the NY Times’… or ‘well, Obama said…’

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 12, 2017 7:34 PM
Comment #416128

Royal Flush-
First, let me say that I found it galling when you talked about “I don’t care who gets credit.” You were explicitly saying we were drumming up all that stuff to make sure Trump didn’t. That meant it was incumbent on you to check to see that the improvements could substantially and materially be attributed to Trump.

Otherwise, there wouldn’t be much point to complaining that the media had ignored achievements, if they weren’t his, or resulted more from what people think and believe, than actual, material policy (which is to say, they might have experienced the same surge in confidence under Obama, if they had simply psyched themselves into it)

In such a claim, I’d be looking for a place where we could see the leverage of the President’s power, of his agenda, being applied. Obama famously made huge investments in green energy, and the connection to the surge in installations and industries is demonstrable. We also have the trendlines over Obama’s administration, including a reversal in the decline of manufacturing jobs. Can’t point out the slivers of improvement on one side of the Trump/Obama divide, and then ignore the upwards slope on the other side leading to it. Just doesn’t follow logically.

As for the fraternity? I have my doubts at this point. It seems like Republicans are more interested in keeping Trump in office and defending his image than they are in finding out the Truth. So do me a favor here: ask yourself whether it’s good for your party if it continues to stonewall, but despite its efforts, a huge and ugly truth comes out anyways?

Rhinehold-
Data was sent to servers used by the Russians in similar attacks on the German Parliament network. It’s not just IP addresses, it’s little things like what character set they use (most western hackers don’t type in Cyrillic characters), or what kind of software they use.

But also, look, A guy can change out plates on a car, get a forged license, get a dead kid’s birth certificate and get a social security number from that. People can forge paintings. Does that mean the evidence in the Art Thief’s possession MUST be false? No. It’s just a convenient excuse to believe it’s false unless you can prove the forgery.

You want to believe it’s false, so you’re summoning all this evidence you says puts holes in the theory it’s true. Most of it, though, just says, “it’s possible to fake that evidence.”

Let me get this clear with you: are you saying the DNC hack never happened? Or are you saying that the DNC Hack could have been somebody else, but not having access deprived the FBI of information they needed to properly identify the hacker?

Let’s take that one. Who would have done it, the CIA?

Why? As even one fairly paranoid fellow put it:

There are plausible conspiracy theories. They’re few and far between. It is not plausible that the CIA hacked the DNC in order to pin it on the Russians so as to help Hillary Clinton during the election. That’s ridiculous. Why wouldn’t they just, you know, avoid dumping all the DNC documents in the first place? If the Wikileaks damaged Hillary Clinton, why would the CIA pursue dump them in an attempt to help her?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49902/the-russian-emigre-leading-the-fight-to-protect-america/

You’re jumping to believe something, but not thinking it all the way through. People tend to get very imaginative with these things, and they go in all kinds of different directions, when often deliberate efforts, for the sake of efficiency, don’t take so many twists and turns. Or, they get very focused on one thing, and forget that often in reality, many things are at work.

You’re also using social connections to verify and dispute things that should be judged on the facts instead.

RT should be taken for what it is, just as I expect people take the VOA for what it is: a propaganda outlet. It’ll dress it up in snazzy visuals, a lot of sophisticated sounding language, and report some things that are true. But it is the media operation of a regime that has well documented problems with a free press, with staying within its own borders, with keeping its hands off of our ally’s elections. To think it just goes off and does its own thing is naïve. It serves Putin’s purpose.

I question things, but I try to question things in an organized fashion, not just thrashing about in skepticism, but basing my questions on what I know.

What I know is that before his government fell, President Yanukovych employed Paul Manafort as part of his political operations. He was also an ally of Vladimir Putin’s. He accepted money from the Party of Regions, Yanukovych’s party. That means, millions. When Yanukovych’s government fell, Putin annexed Crimea and put Eastern Ukraine into a state of civil war. Both were base violations of international law, and went beyond mere influence of an election. Our reaction against this was strong. With a Western allied government in power, there was no point to leaving them out to dry. This was a bipartisan response.

Only now, it isn’t. Because the very same guy who was part of a Putin Loyalist’s political operation all of a sudden pops up as the new head of this upstart GOP candidate’s political operation. He’s supposed to register as a foreign agent now, but hasn’t yet. His influence seems to have extended to revisions of the party platform that favor Putin’s position that he should be allowed the appeasement of keeping the disputed territory he now claims.

And then this hack against Trump’s opponent, done supposedly by a guy who Roger Stone, a Trump friend, was conversing with by a messaging app. Called Guccifer 2.0, a reference to the Romanian Hacker who password-guessed his way into discovering Hillary was using a private server.

Not only is email information and donor information harvested, but we get these floods of misinformation, true “fake news” flooding in. That was a big part of it, really. They just needed to push the margins, to disrupt us, make us feel paranoid about everything. Your unskeptical distrust becomes their weapon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html?_r=0

They did it between more than just Democrats and Republicans. They purposefully amplified distrust among the Democrats, part of the point of the DNC hack to begin with.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/russians-used-bernie-bros-as-unwitting-agents-in-disinformation-campaign-senate-intel-witness/

As for Murray? Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, which happens to be a country now very cozy with Putin. Hmmm. And he says, it must be a disgruntled employee.

So you’re saying the DNC hack report is false? Yeah. Somehow, this disgruntled employee got access to Everybody’s e-mail account.

Finally, let me say this: the person who doesn’t tell you anything that is untrue can still lie to you. All they have to do is be selective in just the right way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2017 10:53 AM
Comment #416134

“That meant it was incumbent on you to check to see that the improvements could substantially and materially be attributed to Trump.”

Another silly twit comment from Stephen. All of us on WB have long agreed that the current president in the oval office gets the credit or discredit (rightly or wrongly) for whatever happens during their term. Remember all the credit that Bill Clinton received from changes made by Reagan? Remember all the discredit Bush received from the Obama administration?

President Trump gets the credit for the tremendous drop in illegal border crossings and for the increase in jobs and steel production.

“My country comes first, not my party.” Stephen wrote this and I welcomed him into our fraternity. It now appears he wants no part of our fraternity so he is banned. He is back to party first. What a twit.


Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2017 2:19 PM
Comment #416135

“That meant it was incumbent on you to check to see that the improvements could substantially and materially be attributed to Trump.”

Another silly twit comment from Stephen. All of us on WB have long agreed that the current president in the oval office gets the credit or discredit (rightly or wrongly) for whatever happens during their term. Remember all the credit that Bill Clinton received from changes made by Reagan? Remember all the discredit Bush received from the Obama administration?

President Trump gets the credit for the tremendous drop in illegal border crossings and for the increase in jobs and steel production.

“My country comes first, not my party.” Stephen wrote this and I welcomed him into our fraternity. It now appears he wants no part of our fraternity so he is banned. He is back to party first. What a twit.


Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2017 2:19 PM
Comment #416136

“That meant it was incumbent on you to check to see that the improvements could substantially and materially be attributed to Trump.”

All of us on WB have long agreed that the current president in the oval office gets the credit or discredit (rightly or wrongly) for whatever happens during their term. Remember all the credit that Bill Clinton received from changes made by Reagan? Remember all the discredit Bush received from the Obama administration?

President Trump gets the credit for the tremendous drop in illegal border crossings and for the increase in jobs and steel production.

“My country comes first, not my party.” Stephen wrote this and I welcomed him into our fraternity. It now appears he wants no part of our fraternity so he is banned. He is back to party first.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2017 2:20 PM
Comment #416137

“That meant it was incumbent on you to check to see that the improvements could substantially and materially be attributed to Trump.”

All of us on WB have long agreed that the current president in the oval office gets the credit or discredit (rightly or wrongly) for whatever happens during their term. Remember all the credit that Bill Clinton received from changes made by Reagan? Remember all the discredit Bush received from the Obama administration?

President Trump gets the credit for the tremendous drop in illegal border crossings and for the increase in jobs and steel production.

“My country comes first, not my party.” Stephen wrote this and I welcomed him into our fraternity. It now appears he wants no part of our fraternity so he is banned. He is back to party first.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 13, 2017 2:21 PM
Comment #416163

Here is the bottom line

President Trump can fire the FBI director for any reason, at any time, for any reason

Those are the facts and are not to be questioned.

Posted by: tom humes at May 13, 2017 7:25 PM
Comment #416185

tom humes-
The President can fire the director of the FBI for many reasons. Not among them is to get in the way of a criminal investigation. That is a fact, and not to be questioned.

Royal Flush-
I don’t circle the wagons. If evidence develops of wrongdoing from credible sources, I’ll sadly take them at face value.

I give credit according to the developments of policy. Bush’s policy led to the Great Recession. Clinton’s policies also helped, though to a lesser extent. It’s a fallacy of logic to say that a person is responsible for outcomes simply because they’re the current officeholder.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2017 2:06 PM
Comment #416200

SD

You are implying a criminal investigation. You of course are in error. There is no criminal investigation of the president.

Posted by: tom humes at May 14, 2017 6:46 PM
Comment #416215

Stephen,

In my experience with actually handling and controlling classified information, the vulnerabilities you mention are exactly why there are such stringent handling procedures, and proper punishment to ensure them.
To allow some to ignore those procedures and go without any punishment only damages the integrity of the system and puts our classified information at great risk.

Conspiracy theories have been around long before 2016 and are no where near being equal to the actual hacking and altering of results.
There is no proof that this supposed ‘Russia-cooked propaganda’ was any different, or had any more impact, than it has had in the past.
Hillary was an absolutely terrible candidate. She had way too much baggage, she attacked just about every wedge issue from the progressive side, and she banked on women and minorities who did not provide the support she expected.

President Obama wasn’t ‘tougher’ with Putin. It was very clear that Putin did not respect or fear Obama at all, and some world leaders criticized how Obama was handling the situation.

“Oh, by the way, I have no love for the Antifa.”

That is why I said you guys need to disown them, Stephen. Dismissing, ignoring and excusing their actions only hurts the democratic party, and is ten times worse than the ‘you’re just as bad’ BS you are trying to use as deflection.

Posted by: kctim at May 15, 2017 10:45 AM
Comment #416252

tom humes-
I never said it had to be an investigation into HIM. It doesn’t matter whether he’s interfering with one into a staff-member, a family member, a Congresscritter, or anybody else for that matter. We do know there’s a criminal investigation going on into members of the Trump Campaign. If he was trying to hold that back, it doesn’t matter whether he shared in their wrongdoing or not, it’s obstruction.

kctim-
I’ve repeatedly disowned them, but apparently when folks on the right say a certain set of people need to disown or denounce other people, they don’t take yes for an answer. The question is, can you disown that man in the White House who just sent the intelligence community into damage control over the secrets he just gave away to the Russians?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2017 8:19 PM
Comment #416281
Data was sent to servers used by the Russians in similar attacks on the German Parliament network. It’s not just IP addresses, it’s little things like what character set they use (most western hackers don’t type in Cyrillic characters), or what kind of software they use.

Crowdstrike has already gotten caught with their pants down on making these assertions. The original report was recently changed as they insinuated that Fancy Bear was hacking the Ukranian apps during the fighting there. Only it turns out, not to be true at all.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/crowdstrike-revises-russian-hack-into-ukrainian-artillery/

As for ‘type of code used’, I’ve explained this to you already. Most of this code is already known *and shared/sold* in the hacking circles. Having a few Cyrillic characters in hacking code is not an indicator of anything other than at some time someone who uses Cyrillic characters modified some code. Not necessarily the final user, may have been years previous. This goes to a fatal misunderstanding of the hacking community and how this code is utilized.

Here is the evidence:

* The code is the same as previously used in attacks we identified as Russian in origin. No details on why those were Russian or why they think that no one could have the same code, we are just supposed to believe it. (and we have already found that one of their attributions was wrong).

* There are a few Cyrillic characters in the code. Because we all know that hackers never trade or sell code, steal code from each other, etc. Get them from the NSA for example. None of that ever happens so obviously this is proof of ‘something’.

* The majority of activity took place between 9AM and 5PM Russian time. Of course, hackers are notorious for working 9-5, never working off hours at all…

And… well, that’s it. Oh yeah, and ‘well, it seems like it is something that they would have done’, coming from an former Russian ex-pat who doesn’t look kindly on his country of birth.

Yep, that sells it for me!

You want to believe it’s false, so you’re summoning all this evidence you says puts holes in the theory it’s true.

And again, I have nothing invested in it being true or false, I don’t care. I didn’t vote for Trump and don’t support him, I didn’t support Hillary and don’t support her. I’m the one looking at this as ‘show me the proof and let’s talk’. I’m not about to take the word of someone without proof, sorry, as much as you want me to do so, it’s not going to happen.

There Is No Evidence. Period. That anyone in Russia committed any hacking, let alone directed by Russian Intelligence. Crowdstrike has made the assertion because, to them, it makes sense that they would. That’s ALL THEY HAVE.

They originally said it was because the same code was used on the Ukranian location apps being hacked (which they attributed to Russia) so this must be them too. Only that fell apart under scrutiny, so the link is completely missing. How he’s trying to sell the link through other means. All of it is meaningless because the proof is based on an assertion that is also not proven. And btw, there is even an assertion by the Ukranian army that NO HACKING EVER TOOK PLACE. How was he tying the DNC hack to a hack that may have never happened? What’s really going on here?

In fact, the more I read, the more evidence is piling up that pro-Ukranian forces, who have been trying to get the US and Russia into a war for 50 years, and are part of the fighting going on in Ukraine, are more likely to be behind the original attacks than this.

Crowdstrike asserted that the code was ‘sophisticated and unknown’ until someone searched the known code bases and found it having been there for some time. And the fact that the code in the previous report was amateurish at best takes focus AWAY from Russia more than it puts on them.

I question things, but I try to question things in an organized fashion, not just thrashing about in skepticism, but basing my questions on what I know.

And I’ve asked you and everyone else to present me with THE EVIDENCE and to date no one has been able to do so. You say you question things, but only when they are against your side. If they are pointing to an alternate political position, you are more than happy to believe anything the establishment says. Many people are these days.

The idea of journalism is dead in the US. Period. All we have now are unnamed sources and gossip being fed to us as news. “staff members are hiding in the offices” This is news? No, this is gossip, worse it is unattributed gossip, just like nearly every single report from the NY Times and WaPo the past 6 months. It’s getting tiring because I want to know who is making the charge. Are they someone I should trust? Are they telling the reporter something that the reporter is sensationalizing for readership and to fulfill a political agenda? There is no questioning of anything and no way to even find out if the stories have any merit, we are supposed to ‘just believe’. Sorry, that’s not how this game works for me. I want to see the evidence. Until I do, it is not proven.

Coupled on top of that that the information presented to WikiLeaks has been reported by 3 people who KNOW who the leaker of the information is, that it wasn’t Russia but was in fact an internal whistleblower. There are theories about who, but until we get evidence about that, they are just theories. But Assange and Murray have not been shown to be wrong so while that doesn’t PROVE their story, it sure does put a kink of suspicion into the official story, doesn’t it?

And he says, it must be a disgruntled employee

No, Murray says he MET the leaker. Not that it ‘must be a disgruntled employee’, that he actually sat and talked to him. This shows me how much you are actually paying attention and ‘questioning it’…

RT should be taken for what it is, just as I expect people take the VOA for what it is: a propaganda outlet.

You don’t think NY Times, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, CBS or MSNBC are any different do you? They are all propaganda outlets for some partisan viewpoint. Objectivity is not present at any of those media sources. If you think there is, you are being delusional.

It used to be this way all throughout the country. Newspapers were titled ‘The Richmond Republican’ or the ‘Des Moines Democrat’. Only then, they ADMITTED their bias. Then several decades ago, real journalism developed, the idea of objective reporting of the news, unnamed sources needing several confirmations from other sources, not reporting until you had the FACTS… But those were short lived, it wasn’t long before the news media companies drifted back to their old ways because they were dying and it helps pay the bills more.

What I know is that before his government fell, President Yanukovych employed Paul Manafort as part of his political operations. He was also an ally of Vladimir Putin’s. He accepted money from the Party of Regions, Yanukovych’s party. That means, millions. When Yanukovych’s government fell, Putin annexed Crimea and put Eastern Ukraine into a state of civil war. Both were base violations of international law, and went beyond mere influence of an election. Our reaction against this was strong. With a Western allied government in power, there was no point to leaving them out to dry. This was a bipartisan response.

And you say you question what you are told… That’s funny Stephen. Because that’s not how things actually went down. Russia did not ‘annex’ Crimea ffs.

This is one of the only actual reporting done on the issue… On the ground. Finding agreed to by Kiev.

In late 2014, I personally did the only invasive passport and weapons checks that I know of during the Ukrainian civil war. I spent days looking for the Russian army every major publication said were attacking Ukraine. The keyword  Cyber Security industry leader Alperovitch used is “evidently.” Crowdstrike noted that in late 2014, there were 10,000 Russian forces in the region.

When I did the passport and weapons check, it was under the condition there would be no telephone calls. We went where I wanted to go. We stopped when I said to stop. I checked the documents and the weapons with no obstacles. The weapons check was important because Ukraine was stating that Russia was giving Donbass modern weapons at the time. Each weapon is stamped with a manufacture date. The results are in the articles above.

The government in Kiev agreed with my findings throughout 2014 and 2015. There were and are no Russian troops fighting in Donbass regardless of what Mr. Alperovitch asserts. There are some Russian volunteers which I have covered in detail.

Based on my findings which the CIA would call hard evidence, almost all the fighters had Ukrainian passports. There are volunteers from other countries. In Debaltsevo today, I would question Alperovitch’s  assertion of Russian troops based on the fact the passports will be Ukrainian and reflect my earlier findings. There is no possibly, could be, might be, about it.

The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren’t on it, the former Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have been in deep trouble.

And here’s the thing I agree with here that I’ll ask you. Do you REALLY think if Russia had ‘annexed’ Crimea, there would be fighting there? Wouldn’t it have been over in a day? Does that really make sense to you?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/crowdstrikes-russian-hacking-story-fell-apart-say-hello-fancy-bear-2.html

The author goes on to suggest that ‘Fancy Bear’ in 2015 that Alperovitch identified as ‘Russian Military’ was actually the OUN(b). I’m not sure I buy that just yet, there’s still a lot of investigating to do, but it is clear that there is way more to this story than you have bothered to look into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army

These were not the revolutionaries who were part of the coup, this is a group who has been fighting to start a war between Russia and the US for years. And they are looking like they are succeeding from what I’m seeing.

Oh, and hey, they sided with the Nazis and helped exterminate Jews in Ukraine… Awesome group!

The OUN pursued a policy of infiltrating the German police in order to obtain weapons and training for its fighters. In this role they helped the Germans to implement the Final Solution. Although most Jews were actually killed by Germans, the OUN police working for them played a crucial supporting role in the liquidation of 200,000 Jews in Volhynia in the second half of 1942

Another funny assertion by Alpervitch, he suggests that Russia attacked our electrical grid. Now, if that had happened, do you think we would have sent Russia a strongly worded letter? None of this adds up when you really dig deep into it. And when you dig deep into who the ONB has ties to and who Alpervitch has ties to.

You like to ‘connect the dots’ on involvement and motive as you have tried to do with Paul Manafort, Trump, etc. Are you looking into Alpervitch just as hard? I suspect not.

Let’s take that one. Who would have done it, the CIA?

Anyone with a little money to buy some code and a little knowledge. So… pretty much could be anyone. Could be an insider who was buying code to collect information to show how much the DNC had screwed Bernie. Could have been someone from Anonymous just taking the piss. I mean, how hard is it to hack someone when their password is ‘password’ ffs?

“For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?”

This was NOT a sophisticated hack like Alpervitch is claiming. Sorry, but it’s not and he’s been CAUGHT being wrong about this just in the past six months. They guy has ties to the Obama/Clinton White House that’s sure, the Esquire article shows that. But he has other links as well when you trace back a bit too…

Show me you are willing to ‘question thing’s Stephen, go look into this yourself.

Personally, I don’t know who it was, what their motive was or much of anything else because there is NO FREAKING EVIDENCE presented to us to make that determination. We are just supposed to believe when even the ICs can’t say with certainty who did it. Have they issued warrants? Are they going to go after them like they have Snowden? What are their names?

Please, take a logical look at this whole thing and see how it has spiraled out of ‘could be’ to ‘we think’ to ‘it’s fact’ without any evidence at all other than one person’s assessment based on data we now know is flawed…

And then this hack against Trump’s opponent, done supposedly by a guy who Roger Stone, a Trump friend, was conversing with by a messaging app. Called Guccifer 2.0, a reference to the Romanian Hacker who password-guessed his way into discovering Hillary was using a private server.

OMFG Stephen… ‘conversing with by a messaging app’. You mean Stone TWEETED something and Gucifer 2.0 tweeted back saying ‘great job’… The left has gone crazy as this means they coordinated something… have they ever even once used twitter? I tweeted something to Wil Wheaton’s wife tonight, does that mean that we know each other and are ‘corresponding’? I tweeted something to Ed Bott and got told to go fuck myself (He was happy about going to watch that wretched Maddow and I told him I was surprised he watched her considering how much she’s been wrong and her blatant anti-Semitism). It’s fun tweeting to the celebrities who are all in on the left, btw, because they are APOPLECTIC and just believing anything that they can get their hands on that Trump is an evil Nazi bastard who has already destroyed our democracy and we are now a property of Russia… *facepalm* Of course, when CNN panels are saying the same thing and Meeka on Morning Joe (reading from a teleprompter) says it as well, and they don’t question what they are being told… Well, they aren’t all the brightest in the bunch. And don’t get me started on Maxine Waters…

I think Trump has been a middling president who creates most of his own problems but is beset with gossipers from his own staff running to the NY Times and WaPo every day with ‘all the dirt’ which is never fact checked that we can see (all anonymous sources). He’s fighting an uphill battle which is bad because if the media just left him alone he would muck it up himself pretty badly. All the media is doing is getting a lot of people riled up and a lot of other people just no longer relying on them for news and backing Trump even harder. Pitting us against each other, fighting over the ‘very soul of the country’ which is rich. Because neither side has the soul of the country in mind at the moment. It’s all about winning…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 16, 2017 3:00 AM
Comment #416310

Rhinehold-
People make mistakes. Like Presidents who give away Code Word classified information without thought to the consequences.

Some mistakes, though, don’t take so much stupidity and malice, and the people correct the information themselves.

It’s a very sophisticated ad-hominem argument. Rather than prove a pattern of inaccurate information, you highlight a single incident, then generalize it.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

You talk about the EVIDENCE, we give you EVIDENCE, you say “That’s not EVIDENCE.” Where’s the f***ing goalpost pal?

I don’t weigh things by whether they’re for or against the establishment. I weigh things by corroborating evidence. I listen to experts (important that they be plural, because an expert by him or herself can be wrong.) I want the evidence I’m going to be moving forward on to be strong.

You are ALWAYS asking who you can trust, and you always come to the same conclusion: that the people who THINK like you are objective.

THEY ARE NOT. NOBODY IS. The question is, how many of those stories can be traced back to something more objective. That’s how you check an anonymous source. That’s how you get past BS, especially when true information is use to promote a false story.

You trust Wikileaks implicitly, but why should you? Is it in their interest to be revealed,basically, as a potentially partisan shill for authoritarian regimes and their intelligence operations? You worry about everybody else’s biases. What do you know of Assanges, or Murray’s?

I only have Murray’s word for meeting this disgruntled employee. His word. Why should I value it?

When I broke off from watching FOXNews during the beginning of the Iraq war, it was for a simple reason: they repeatedly said they had found WMD, and repeatedly retracted those reports from view, without even an explanation. I felt like I was being manipulated, like somebody was acting more the cheerleader than a reliable source of information.

I see that pattern all across the Conservative media, a willingness to plunge on with faulty facts despite clear warning being available to them. That is a bias I don’t see you admitting, and why should you? Loyalty is how you judge bias. But bias is, at its base, a phenomena of faulty information, faulty thinking.

Your friend, George Eliason… He likely isn’t who he says he is, for example.

So when Global Research publishes an article asking whether the incident at the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant was a “catastrophe,” there is a palpable credibility gap. And when its author, claiming to be an American in Ukraine named “George Eliason,” states that he “was contacted through a second party after the officially reported incident that a radiation spike was observed in Crimea,” something is off. Eliason identifies the source of some more “leaked documents” he cites as an “Anonymous-style cyber militia,” linking to the Facebook page of a group of Russian and East Ukrainian hackers who call themselves the “Novorossiya cyber riot.” As for those documents, Eliason must have contacted the cyber-militia directly, because they haven’t made any public posts online since December.

All of this was unusual enough to warrant further investigation into George Eliason’s online identity. A search for his name online turns up social media accounts on Twitter and VK, a popular social media website in Russia. The clunky phrasing of his English posts, especially in comparison to their pristine Russian, suggests that their author is a native Russian speaker. The only personally identifying information displayed on his VK profile asserts that at some point he attended the Middlesex School outside of Boston. When I asked if they had any record of him, Middlesex said they had none whatsoever.

You’re treating his word as gospel, and he doesn’t exist. Second cousin to Harvey the Rabbit. I mean, if you think about it for a second, what western journalist could go to an active Warzone like that, dwell among folks that are likely anti-west, thanks to their position in the civil war, and Aggressively, invasively ask them all for their passports? If he was real, why would he be offered such unfettered access? How would he know where to go, even? Wouldn’t these people be hiding out from the Ukrainian government, paranoid about spies?

As for Stone? His connection with Guccifer 2.0 becomes a lot less innocuous when you realize he was tweeting and sending messages about new dumps of DNC information ahead of their release.

Depending on what he said to that hacker, he could have been coordinating with a hacker many people believe to be a front for the Russian intelligence operation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 16, 2017 2:47 PM
Post a comment