Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump-Russia Investigation
Hard to imagine that Jared had discussions with the Russians, he doesn't ever talk.
Reply
Thanks given by:
The most difficult task for the FBI right now is finding a Trump associate with no connections to Russia.
Reply
Thanks given by:
Former NSA analyst and counterintelligence officer John Schindler claims that the NSA has evidence that the Trump admin colluded with Russia.

In his town hall talk, Rogers reportedly admitted that President Trump asked him to discredit the FBI and James Comey, which the admiral flatly refused to do. As Rogers explained, he informed the commander in chief, “I know you won’t like it, but I have to tell what I have seen”—a probable reference to specific intelligence establishing collusion between the Kremlin and Team Trump.

Rogers then added that such SIGINT exists, and it is damning. He stated, “There is no question that we [meaning NSA] have evidence of election involvement and questionable contacts with the Russians.” Although Rogers did not cite the specific intelligence he was referring to, agency officials with direct knowledge have informed me that DIRNSA was obviously referring to a series of SIGINT reports from 2016 based on intercepts of communications between known Russian intelligence officials and key members of Trump’s campaign, in which they discussed methods of damaging Hillary Clinton.

NSA employees walked out of the town hall impressed by the director’s forthright discussion of his interactions with the Trump administration, particularly with how Rogers insisted that he had no desire to “politicize” the situation beyond what the president has already done. America’s spies are unaccustomed to playing partisan politics as Trump has apparently asked them to do, and it appears that the White House’s ham-fisted effort to get NSA to attack the FBI and its credibility was a serious mistake.

http://observer.com/2017/05/mike-rogers-...th-russia/
Reply
Thanks given by:
The most amazing thing is how blatant Trump is being about this.  He is not sending a third or fourth party to subtly float the idea or test the waters. He is just personally asking these people point blank to help him in the investigation. Like what the hell? It has to be the most idiotic attempt at coercion ever. It would be like if Nixon just said "**** it. I'mma break into the Watergate myself!".


I seriously do not understand how Trump is not already being impeached for obstruction of justice.


(I mean, I do understand, republicans don't want too, but holy shit is it getting dumb)
Reply
Thanks given by: divit , lewis94
(2017-05-26, 01:02 PM)Andrew Wrote: I seriously do not understand how Trump is not already being impeached for obstruction of justice.


(I mean, I do understand, republicans don't want too, but holy shit is it getting dumb)

I don't agree with this at all. The longer this drags out and the closer to elections any bomb shells come out, the more it damages the Republicans. If there is definitely something damaging, removing Trump puts Pence in the Whitehouse and one thing that he does for the party is bring out the Evangelicals to vote.

Trump was never a Republican, he bullied his way into the party and not many will lose sleep when he leaves
Reply
Thanks given by:
Things take time to investigate

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/n...linton.usa
January 16, 1998
Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approves the Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

October 5, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.


That's 10 months, if there's stuff on Trump and/or his staff, they want everything and everybody.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2017-05-26, 02:22 PM)WTTM Wrote:
(2017-05-26, 01:02 PM)Andrew Wrote: I seriously do not understand how Trump is not already being impeached for obstruction of justice.


(I mean, I do understand, republicans don't want too, but holy shit is it getting dumb)

I don't agree with this at all. The longer this drags out and the closer to elections any bomb shells come out, the more it damages the Republicans. If there is definitely something damaging, removing Trump puts Pence in the Whitehouse and one thing that he does for the party is bring out the Evangelicals to vote.

Trump was never a Republican, he bullied his way into the party and not many will lose sleep when he leaves

True.   But they are very worried about alienating a good chunk of their base.   

It will have to seem like the poor little Repubs had no other option.
Mostly Harmless
Reply
Thanks given by:
(2017-05-26, 03:01 PM)nicky Wrote:
(2017-05-26, 02:22 PM)WTTM Wrote:
(2017-05-26, 01:02 PM)Andrew Wrote: I seriously do not understand how Trump is not already being impeached for obstruction of justice.


(I mean, I do understand, republicans don't want too, but holy shit is it getting dumb)

I don't agree with this at all. The longer this drags out and the closer to elections any bomb shells come out, the more it damages the Republicans. If there is definitely something damaging, removing Trump puts Pence in the Whitehouse and one thing that he does for the party is bring out the Evangelicals to vote.

Trump was never a Republican, he bullied his way into the party and not many will lose sleep when he leaves

True.   But they are very worried about alienating a good chunk of their base.   

It will have to seem like the poor little Repubs had no other option.

I doubt many in the MAGA block is very pro Russia, if they can prove wrong doing most will move on.
Besides what else are they going to do vote for a Dem.
Reply
Thanks given by:
Impeaching Trump would be admitting that the other side was right. The republicans would rather have 4 years of chaos, ineptitude and borderline treason than admit that.

Or (conspiracy theory time) they will impeach him closer to the end of his term so they can run someone else.
Reply
Thanks given by:
I think Kushner should be considered more than just a person of interest now.


Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Donald Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, then President-elect Trump's son-in-law and confidant, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser.

The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.
Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate - a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.

Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials said.

The White House declined to comment. Robert Kelner, a lawyer for Flynn, declined to comment. The Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...story.html
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)