Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 18, 2017, 05:25:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory  (Read 16072 times)
mazrim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3095



« Reply #275 on: December 03, 2017, 06:33:40 AM »

They've been trying for awhile now to get info on the reason why he was demoted and were getting blocked.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-nunes-blows-up-threatens-contempt-after-fbi-stonewalls-house-on-russia-investigator-demoted-for-anti-trump-bias/article/2642387


"House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.

Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller's investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI's Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI's human resources office — an obvious demotion -- in July......"
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #276 on: December 03, 2017, 07:07:22 AM »

ABC News Suspends Brian Ross for 4 Weeks Without Pay: ‘Effective Immediately’
The Wrap ^
Posted on 12/2/2017, 5:58:15 PM by Snickering Hound

ABC News has announced that Brian Ross would be suspended for four weeks without pay “effective immediately.”

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience – these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday,” the network said in a statement on Saturday. “Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”

Ross came under considerable fire on Friday after he erroneously reported on live television that then-candidate Donald Trump had instructed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians.

(Excerpt) Read more at thewrap.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
polychronopolous
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16867

In Loving Memory of 240 aka Rob


« Reply #277 on: December 03, 2017, 11:45:07 AM »

You miss the point of the board.  It's designed to be an exchange of ideas, not some amorphous search for "truth."  

And you're overstating the ability to determine the truth.  There is a lot of gray, but there is also a lot of black and white.  For example, we know Senator Krusty the Clown took a picture pretending to (or actually) groping a woman.  And we know Congressman Joe Barton was cheating on his wife.  Plenty of other examples.

Hehe. Never gets old  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #278 on: December 04, 2017, 07:30:32 AM »

Bob Mueller ‘Has a Huge Conflict of Interest,’ Says Former Assistant FBI Director
breitbart ^ | DANIEL J. FLYNN
Posted on 12/4/2017, 10:12:08 AM by davikkm

The former assistant director of the FBI wonders who investigates the investigators in the wake of former Trump administration national security advisor Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI and agreeing to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. “Bob Mueller should have never been offered nor accepted the job as special counsel as he has a huge conflict of interest,” Jim Kallstrom tells Breitbart News. “He should have recused himself.”

Not only do observers describe Mueller and the man he recommended to replace him as FBI director, James Comey, as close or even best friends, but the special counsel pursues an investigation heavily involving the bureau he once led. How one maintains detachment in leading a team that includes numerous anti-Trump partisans in a probe involving one’s close friend and the former bureau for which Mueller served as director goes unexplained.

Other problems Kallstrom sees include the means by which investigators obtained information and what constituted probable cause to obtain it.

“The Obama administration apparently, had the advantage of using electronic surveillance, collecting information on the Trump campaign,” Kallstrom explains. “That collection, in my view, may be found to be unlawful.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ..
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #279 on: December 04, 2017, 09:01:38 AM »

lol at an exchange of ideas on getbig haha lol.

And the issues you point out are not political issues. They are domestic/marriage issues. Joe Barton cheating on his wife is not a political issue.



Yes they are political issues.  That's why Franken is in front of the Senate Ethics Committee and Barton is refusing to run for reelection. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #280 on: December 04, 2017, 09:10:42 AM »

Byron York: In Trump-Russia probe, was it all about the Logan Act?
by Byron York | Dec 3, 2017

The documents outlining Michael Flynn's guilty plea in the Trump-Russia investigation do not allege collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. They do, however, suggest that the Obama Justice Department was intensely interested in Flynn's discussions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about policy issues -- sanctions against Russia, a United Nations resolution on Israel -- during the presidential transition, when Barack Obama was still in the White House and Donald Trump was preparing to take office.

At the time, top Justice officials suspected Flynn of violating the Logan Act, the 218 year-old law under which no one has ever been prosecuted, that prohibits private citizens from acting on behalf of the United States in disputes with foreign governments. Starting in the summer of 2016 and intensifying in the transition period, the Logan Act, while mostly unknown to the general public, became a hot topic of conversation among some Democrats. A number of lawmakers, former officials, and commentators called on the Obama administration to investigate the Trump team for a possible Logan Act violations -- and to do it while Democrats still controlled the executive branch.

At the same time, inside the Obama Justice Department, it appears the Logan Act became a paramount concern among some key officials in the critical weeks of December 2016 and January 2017. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case -- the reason FBI agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn in the Trump administration's early days. It was that interview, held on January 24, 2017, that ultimately led to Flynn's guilty plea.

In short, there's no doubt the Logan Act, a law dismissed as a joke or an archaic irrelevancy or simply unconstitutional by many legal experts, played a central role in the Obama administration's aggressive and enormously consequential investigation of its successor.

Democrats began accusing Trump of Logan Act violations in the summer of 2016, immediately after the Republican convention, when Trump sarcastically invited Russia to produce the 30,000-plus emails that Hillary Clinton deleted rather than turn over to investigators. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said during a July 27 news conference. "I think that you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press -- let's see if that happens, that'll be nice."

The next day, Tom Vilsack, Obama's Secretary of Agriculture and on Hillary Clinton's vice presidential short list, accused Trump of violating the Logan Act. "That's a no-no, you can't do that," Vilsack said. "That's not legal."

Following Vilsack was Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. "I believe it violates the Logan Act," McCaskill said, "and I think he should be investigated for that."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Trump's statement "a treasonous act." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said it "borders on treason."

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe weighed in the next day. "The Logan Act, which was enacted back in 1799 and fundamentally says that you cannot engage in negotiations with a foreign power," Tribe told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. "It hasn't been used, but that's because we haven't had very many Donald Trumps, thank God, in our history. I think he's violated that act."

On August 3, two more Democratic senators, Chris Coons and Sheldon Whitehouse, called for a hearing on Trump and the Logan Act. "Mr. Trump's comments implicate U.S. criminal laws prohibiting engagement with foreign governments that threaten the country's interests, including the Logan Act and the Espionage Act," they wrote.

On August 9, Democratic Reps. Patrick Murphy, Andre Carson, and Eric Swalwell called for a House hearing to examine whether Trump violated the Logan Act, among other statutes.

In September, Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the FBI's then-director, James Comey, whether the bureau was investigating Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act. Comey declined to answer.

At that same hearing, another Democrat, Rep. Ted Deutch, asked Comey about reports that sometime Trump foreign policy advisory board member Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016. "If an American citizen, Director Comey, conducted meetings with a Russian individual who has been sanctioned by the United States about potential weakening of U.S. sanctions policy, in violation of the Logan Act, would the FBI investigate?" Deutch asked.

"I don't think it's appropriate to answer that," Comey responded.

There wasn't much public discussion of the Logan Act in October and November, as the campaign reached its final weeks and the political world dealt with the shock of Trump's victory. The subject re-emerged in December as Democrats, stunned and angry, watched Trump prepare for the presidency -- and prepare to undo many of Obama's policies.

On December 8, Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman introduced the "One President at a Time Act of 2016." The bill would have amended the Logan Act to specify that a president-elect, or anyone acting on a president-elect's behalf, was specifically subject to its restrictions. The bill "just makes it explicitly clear that the president-elect is just like every other private citizen during the transition period," Huffmann told MSNBC's O'Donnell. "They can't go around purporting to conduct U.S. foreign policy."

On December 20, Reps. Conyers and Sheila Jackson Lee asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump for a possible violation of the Logan Act.

On December 22, former Obama State Department official Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that Trump's actions on a UN resolution concerning Israeli settlements implicated the Logan Act. "People have said to me today it crosses the line of the Logan Act," Sherman said. "We have one president at a time. And Donald Trump is really playing with fire."

On the day Sherman appeared, Michael Flynn spoke on the phone with Kislyak about that pending UN resolution concerning Israeli settlements. "Flynn informed the Russian ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution," said the "Statement of the Offense," the Mueller document released with Flynn's guilty plea. The next day, December 23, the two men spoke again and Kislyak informed Flynn that Russia would not do as the Trump team requested.

A few days later, on December 29, Flynn and Kislyak spoke again, according to the Mueller statement. This time the subject was the new sanctions Obama imposed on Russia in retaliation for election meddling. Flynn "requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. sanctions in a reciprocal manner."

Two days later, on December 31, Kislyak called Flynn to say that "Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to Flynn's request."

U.S. intelligence agencies recorded the calls; Kislyak was the subject of American monitoring, so a wiretap on him on these occasions picked up Flynn, too. It appears Obama administration officials immediately saw the Flynn-Kislyak conversations as a possible Logan Act violation. They knew, of course, that given the history of the law, a Logan Act prosecution was a virtual impossibility. They knew that many foreign policy experts would see such contacts between an incoming administration and a foreign power as an acceptable and normal course of business in a presidential transition. Nevertheless, approaching the Flynn-Kislyak talks in the context of a criminal violation -- the Logan Act -- gave the Obama team a pretense to target Flynn, and thus the new Trump administration.

A critical moment came two weeks later, on January 12, 2017, when the Washington Post's David Ignatius reported the Flynn-Kislyak calls. Ignatius said his source was a "senior U.S. government official." "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?" Ignatius asked. "The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about 'disputes' with the United States."

It was a stunning leak; the existence and content of U.S. spy intercepts are highly, highly classified. But the Obama administration let the information out.

Ignatius' report set off a new round of media discussion about the Logan Act. That led to more action on Capitol Hill. On the same day Ignatius' column appeared, Rep. Huffman, author of the "One President at a Time Act of 2016," joined 34 other House Democrats to urge Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Flynn violated the Logan Act. "Our national interests require that the Logan Act be enforced, especially during the delicate and potentially vulnerable period of a presidential transition," Huffman and his colleagues wrote.

The conversation only intensified in the following days. The Logan Act was central to that conversation -- in the media, and inside the Obama Justice Department.

On January 24, with the new administration in office just four days, FBI agents interviewed Flynn in the White House. They questioned him about the Kislyak calls, about sanctions, about the UN resolution. FBI officials had a transcript of the original conversations to check Flynn's answers against, and the criminal charge against him today stems from the discrepancy between his answers and the transcript. (One of the mysteries of the whole affair is why Flynn would lie about a conversation that he, as a former top intelligence official, should have known was being recorded.)

But why did the Justice Department, run by Obama holdover Sally Yates, decide to interrogate Flynn in the first place? The answer is the Logan Act.

"Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn's comments in the intercepted call to be 'highly significant' and 'potentially illegal,' according to an official familiar with her thinking," the Washington Post reported on February 13. "Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country."

In its version of the story, the New York Times reported that "Obama advisers" were concerned about the Flynn-Kislyak calls. "The Obama advisers grew suspicious that there had been a secret deal between the incoming [Trump] team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the Unites States," the paper reported. The paper added that the Obama advisers asked the FBI if Flynn and Kislyak had discussed a quid pro quo, only to learn the answer was no.

So even though there was no discussion of a quid pro quo, and even though, as reported in the Post account, Yates knew there was "little chance" of actually bringing a Logan Act prosecution against Flynn -- despite all that, Yates went ahead with the questioning of Flynn. And two days after that, Yates, along with an aide, went to the White House to tell counsel Don McGahn that there was a legal problem with the national security adviser.

Yates described the events in testimony before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on May 8, 2017. She told lawmakers that the Logan Act was the first concern she mentioned to McGahn.

"The first thing we did was to explain to Mr. McGahn that the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself," Yates said. That seems a clear reference to the Logan Act, although no one uttered the words "Logan Act" in the hearing at which Yates testified. "We took him [McGahn] through in a fair amount of detail of the underlying conduct, what Gen. Flynn had done."

Yates and the aide returned to the White House the next day, January 27, for another talk with McGahn. McGahn asked Yates "about the applicability of certain statutes, certain criminal statutes," Yates testified. That led Sen. Chris Coons -- he had called for an investigation of the Trump team for Logan Act violations months before -- to ask Yates what the applicable statutes would be.

"If I identified the statute, then that would be insight into what the conduct was," Yates answered. "And look, I'm not trying to be hyper-technical here. I'm trying to be really careful that I observe my responsibilities to protect classified information. And so I can't identify the statute."

While Yates became reticent in the witness chair, the public nevertheless knows from that "official familiar with her thinking" that Yates believed Flynn might have violated the Logan Act, a suspicion she shared with other Obama administration officials.


As for another concern that Yates said she had over the Flynn-Kislyak conversations -- the worry that Flynn's lie to Vice President Mike Pence (that sanctions were not discussed on the call) would open Flynn up to possible blackmail -- perhaps that is a legitimate concern, but why did it warrant FBI questioning of Flynn under the penalty of prosecution for making false statements? Certainly Yates could have warned the White House about that without interrogating Flynn at all.

Instead, it was the prospect of a Logan Act prosecution that led to the FBI interview, which then, when Flynn lied to investigators, led to his guilty plea on a false statements charge.

From today's perspective, nearly a year later, it has become apparent that, farfetched as it might seem, the Logan Act made it possible for the Obama administration to go after Trump. The ancient law that no one has ever been prosecuted for violating was the Obama administration's flimsy pretense for a criminal prosecution of the incoming Trump team.

And by the way, when it finally came time to charge Flynn with a crime, did prosecutors, armed with the transcripts of those Flynn-Kislyak conversations, choose to charge him with violating the Logan Act? Of course not. But for the Obama team, the law had already served its purpose, months earlier, to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-in-trump-russia-probe-was-it-all-about-the-logan-act/article/2642434
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #281 on: December 04, 2017, 09:12:37 AM »

Mark Levin Slams Media Gushing Over Mueller's 'Mickey Mouse Investigation,' Flynn Plea Deal
By Tim Graham | December 2, 2017

Chris Pandolfo at Conservative Review relayed that Mark Levin slammed the media on his national radio show Friday night for gushig all over special counsel Robert Mueller and his prodding former national security adviser Mike Flynn to plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI. But he noted Flynn was talking about contacts with Russians during the transition, which proves nothing about colluding before the election.

“[Special counsel Robert] Mueller’s investigation is a Mickey Mouse investigation, and he proved it yet again today, what a joke it is,” Levin said. “Has anybody been indicted for colluding to affect the outcome of the election?...There's nothing criminal, there's nothing illegal for an incoming administration to speak to other governments...It would be bizarre if such contacts weren't made."

Levin singled out CNN. "Of course, CNN right out of the box tried to confuse you because they didn't make it clear the timeline, what Flynn was alleged to have done, has confessed to have done, has nothing to do with the election. It didn't even happen during the course of the election!" He compared it to the Martha Stewart case, where the style guru was convicted of lying to investigators about a stock sale.

The radio star summarized that all they have is false-statement pleas, and failure-to-register pleas, charges a U.S. attorney's office could handle: "This so far is a crap investigation, with crap outcomes. [Mueller] was appointed, at least theoretically, to find collusion. Did he find collusion? He was appointed to find collusion related to what ... to the election! This is post-election! And it’s not even collusion!”

Levin says Mueller is Mickey Mouse, but to the media's he's Moses: "We have a rogue special counsel. Everything he burps up is being treated as Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, because that's what they want, the media."

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2017/12/02/levin-slams-media-gush-over-mickey-mouse-mueller
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #282 on: December 04, 2017, 09:18:10 AM »

What the Flynn Plea Means
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY   December 1, 2017

There’s less to the news than meets the eye.

Former Trump-administration national-security adviser Michael Flynn is expected to plead guilty today to lying to the FBI regarding his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Flynn, who is reportedly cooperating with the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, is pleading guilty in federal district court in Washington, D.C., to a one-count criminal information (which is filed by a prosecutor in cases when a defendant waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury).

The false-statement charge, brought under Section 1001 of the federal penal code, stems from Flynn’s conversation on December 29, 2016, with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. At the time, Flynn was slated to become the national-security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump. The conversation occurred on the same day that then-president Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. It is believed to have been recorded by the FBI because Kislyak, as an agent of a foreign power, was subject to monitoring under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Mueller has charged Flynn with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions. In being questioned by the agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

Thus, in all, four lies are specified in the one count. The potential sentence is zero to five years’ imprisonment. Assuming Flynn cooperates fully with Mueller’s investigators, there will be little, if any, jail time.

Obviously, it was wrong of Flynn to give the FBI false information; he could, after all, have simply refused to speak with the agents in the first place. That said, as I argued early this year, it remains unclear why the Obama Justice Department chose to investigate Flynn. There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. Plus, if the FBI had FISA recordings of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, there was no need to ask Flynn what the conversations entailed.

Flynn, an early backer of Donald Trump and a fierce critic of Obama’s national-security policies, was generally despised by Obama administration officials. Hence, there has always been cynical suspicion that the decision to interview him was driven by the expectation that he would provide the FBI with an account inconsistent with the recorded conversation — i.e., that Flynn was being set up for prosecution on a process crime.

While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true.

While initial reporting is portraying Flynn’s guilty plea as a major breakthrough in Mueller’s investigation of potential Trump-campaign collusion with the Russian regime, I suspect the opposite is true. Speculation that Flynn is now cooperating in Mueller’s investigation stirred in recent days due to reports that Flynn had pulled out of a joint defense agreement (or “common interest” arrangement) to share information with other subjects of the investigation. As an ethical matter, it is inappropriate for an attorney whose client is cooperating with the government (or having negotiations toward that end) to continue strategizing with, and having quasi-privileged communications with, other subjects of the investigation and their counsel.

Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation.

That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime. A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians — initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a “collusion” case arising out of Russia’s election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime — he’d be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

Understand: If Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador had evinced the existence of a quid pro quo collusion arrangement — that the Trump administration would ease or eliminate sanctions on Russia as a payback for Russia’s cyber-espionage against the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic party — it would have been completely appropriate, even urgently necessary, for the Obama Justice Department to investigate Flynn. But if that had happened, Mueller would not be permitting Flynn to settle the case with a single count of lying to FBI agents. Instead, we would be looking at a major conspiracy indictment, and Flynn would be made to plead to far more serious offenses if he wanted a deal — cooperation in exchange for sentencing leniency.

To the contrary, for all the furor, we have a small-potatoes plea in Flynn’s case — just as we did in Papadopoulos’s case, despite extensive “collusion” evidence. Meanwhile, the only major case Mueller has brought, against former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate, has nothing to do with the 2016 election. It is becoming increasingly palpable that, whatever “collusion” means, there was no actionable, conspiratorial complicity by the Trump campaign in the Kremlin’s machinations.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454269/michael-flynn-plea-no-breakthrough-russia-investigation
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #283 on: December 04, 2017, 02:27:59 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html


KABOOM!!!!! 

What a damn joke
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #284 on: December 04, 2017, 02:36:02 PM »


Scandalous, but I will be shocked if anyone is held accountable.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8516


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #285 on: December 04, 2017, 02:37:34 PM »


The important bit:

The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #286 on: December 04, 2017, 02:39:51 PM »

The important bit:

The shift from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for "gross negligence."


Yup 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #287 on: December 05, 2017, 05:22:25 AM »

ABC News President Torches Staff Over Botched Flynn-Russia Story, (tr)
Townhall.com ^ | Dec 04, 2017 | Matt Vespa
Posted on 12/5/2017, 12:08:38 AM by Oshkalaboomboom



ABC News’ Brian Ross stepped on a rake with that botched Flynn-Russia story—and there are whisperings that his future might not be bright at the network. It all began when Ross reported that Donald Trump had ordered Michael Flynn, the ex-national security adviser, to make contact with the Russians during the 2016 election. Well, as it turns out, the timeline was off. It was after Trump had won the election, so President-elect Trump ordered Flynn to make contact with the Russians per the usual actions of any transition team laying the groundwork for an incoming administration. After several hours, ABC issued a correction:

Correction: During a live Special Report, ABC News reported that a confidant of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump instructed him to contact Russian officials during the campaign. That source later clarified that during the campaign, Trump assigned Flynn and a small circle of other senior advisers to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots. It was shortly after the election, that President-elect Trump directed Flynn to contact Russian officials on topics that included working jointly against ISIS. Now, there’s audio of ABC News’ President James Goldston torching the news staff for allowing this shoddy story to get through and being reported on live television; Ross used a single, anonymous source for his report. Goldston noted how the whole news division, especially those in D.C., have to bear the brunt of this, how it makes everyone’ s job harder, and how it’s more important to be right than first. Yet, how this information was able to slip through the cracks is another issue altogether (via CNN):

During ABC News' morning editorial call Monday, audio of which was obtained by CNN, Goldston excoriated his staff for the error. "I don't think ever in my career have I felt more rage and disappointment and frustration that I felt through this weekend and through the last half of Friday," Goldston said. "I don't even know how many times we've talked about this, how many times we have talked about the need to get it right," he added. "That how we have to be right and not first. About how in this particular moment, with the stakes as high as these stakes are right now, we cannot afford to get it wrong." […] Goldston also said, "If it isn't obvious to everyone in this news division, we have taken a huge hit and we have made the job of every single person in this news division harder as a result. It's much, much harder. We have people in Washington who are going to bear the brunt of this today and in the days forward. Very, very, very, very unfortunate. Really, really angry about it." The ABC News chief said that Ross reported information that was "just plain wrong," and did so without anyone "having ever made a decision that we were going to go to air with that information." […] Goldston expressed additional frustration at the fact that it took more than seven hours for ABC News to clarify the story on ABC's "World News Tonight." Later, Friday evening, the network issued a full blown correction in a written statement. "The thing that compounded our mistake is that not only did we make a mistake, if we had then corrected ourselves right away, again -- we wouldn't be in this position. It would have been a very different story," he said. "But we ended up in the impossible situation where we had actually conflicting information that we said on air, which conflicted with the information that was online. And then it took us seven hours, eight hours to get our story straight. This is not acceptable. It's not acceptable. And we will all pay the price for a long time." […] "No one wants to work with him [Ross]," said one ABC News employee. "The future doesn't seem bright for him," added another. Goldston added that Ross would no longer be covering Trump either. He was recently given a four-week, no-pay suspension for this trip up. This isn’t the first time Ross has got a face full of buckshot for reporting shoddy leads. In 2012, after the tragic Aurora shooting, Ross reported that the shooter, James Holmes, might be a member of the Tea Party Movement. ABC News was forced to apologize for that story as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
Thin Lizzy
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8275


Donald J. Trump: Owning Liberal minds since 2016.


« Reply #288 on: December 05, 2017, 06:03:06 AM »

Idiot joy Behar was celebrating, jumping up-and-down like a moron on the view and then had to backtrack when the story turned out to be bullshit.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #289 on: December 05, 2017, 06:14:35 AM »

ABC News Is Reeling From Brian Ross’s Botched Report
buzzfeed ^
Posted on 12/4/2017, 8:24:51 PM

“Everyone is just in shock and very upset,” said one ABC News staffer after Ross got a major piece of news wrong about the FBI investigation.

(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
jude2
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Posts: 8121

Getbig!


« Reply #290 on: December 05, 2017, 07:56:34 PM »

Idiot joy Behar was celebrating, jumping up-and-down like a moron on the view and then had to backtrack when the story turned out to be bullshit.


I can't stand that women.  She was having a melt down about Trump saying you can grab a women by her pussy, but they had a pic of her grabbing Danny B, the Red head dude by the crotch.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #291 on: December 06, 2017, 09:54:37 AM »

Another One! Mueller Deputy Was Personal Attorney of Ben Rhodes, Represented Clinton Foundation
PJ Media ^ | 12/6/2017 | Debra Heine
Posted on 12/6/2017, 11:14:27 AM by RightGeek

On Fox News Tuesday night, Laura Ingraham reported that yet another one of Robert Mueller's deputies in his Russia investigation is compromised due to her track record as a blatant partisan.

Jeannie Rhee, who was hired by Mueller last summer to work on the probe, was the personal attorney of Ben Rhodes and also represented the Clinton Foundation, Ingraham revealed. "This information will put further pressure on Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller to resign."

Rhee is the third member of the Mueller team this week who has been shown to be brazenly partisan. Two other members of the team have been revealed as highly questionable hires in recent days as well — Peter Strzok, an anti-Trumper who helped exonerate Hillary Clinton, and Andrew Weissmann, an unscrupulous prosecutor who told outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates in an email that he was "proud" of her for defying President Trump's travel ban.

As bad as Strzok and Weissman are, Jeannie Rhee takes the cake.

She formerly worked in the Obama Justice Department as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, according to Fox News. Rhee was also the personal attorney for Ben "echo chamber" Rhodes, and the deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17529


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #292 on: December 07, 2017, 11:05:01 AM »

Top DOJ official demoted amid probe of contacts with Trump dossier firm
Fox News ^ | James Rossen
Posted on 12/7/2017, 12:57:17 PM by EVO X

EXCLUSIVE: A senior Justice Department official was demoted this week amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump “dossier,” the department confirmed to Fox News.

Until Wednesday morning, Bruce G. Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a program described by the department as “the centerpiece of the attorney general’s drug strategy.”

Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but has been stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of “Main Justice.”

Initially senior department officials could not provide the reason for Ohr’s demotion, but Fox News has learned that evidence collected by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., indicates that Ohr met during the 2016 campaign with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the “dossier.”

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8516


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #293 on: December 07, 2017, 01:48:51 PM »

Top DOJ official demoted amid probe of contacts with Trump dossier firm
Fox News ^ | James Rossen
Posted on 12/7/2017, 12:57:17 PM by EVO X

EXCLUSIVE: A senior Justice Department official was demoted this week amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump “dossier,” the department confirmed to Fox News.

Until Wednesday morning, Bruce G. Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a program described by the department as “the centerpiece of the attorney general’s drug strategy.”

Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but has been stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of “Main Justice.”

Initially senior department officials could not provide the reason for Ohr’s demotion, but Fox News has learned that evidence collected by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., indicates that Ohr met during the 2016 campaign with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the “dossier.”

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Another One! Mueller Deputy Was Personal Attorney of Ben Rhodes, Represented Clinton Foundation
PJ Media ^ | 12/6/2017 | Debra Heine
Posted on 12/6/2017, 11:14:27 AM by RightGeek

On Fox News Tuesday night, Laura Ingraham reported that yet another one of Robert Mueller's deputies in his Russia investigation is compromised due to her track record as a blatant partisan.

Jeannie Rhee, who was hired by Mueller last summer to work on the probe, was the personal attorney of Ben Rhodes and also represented the Clinton Foundation, Ingraham revealed. "This information will put further pressure on Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller to resign."

Rhee is the third member of the Mueller team this week who has been shown to be brazenly partisan. Two other members of the team have been revealed as highly questionable hires in recent days as well — Peter Strzok, an anti-Trumper who helped exonerate Hillary Clinton, and Andrew Weissmann, an unscrupulous prosecutor who told outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates in an email that he was "proud" of her for defying President Trump's travel ban.

As bad as Strzok and Weissman are, Jeannie Rhee takes the cake.

She formerly worked in the Obama Justice Department as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, according to Fox News. Rhee was also the personal attorney for Ben "echo chamber" Rhodes, and the deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

What a swamp. Let's see if these people will be investigated and if they have tainted any cases with bias they might have had, these cases will be re-evaluated.
Report to moderator   Logged
Coach is Back!
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 39056


Obama is a coke sniffing ball washing homo


WWW
« Reply #294 on: December 07, 2017, 02:35:12 PM »

Top Mueller investigator's Democratic ties raise new bias questions
Report to moderator   Logged
James
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Posts: 4437



« Reply #295 on: December 07, 2017, 03:20:59 PM »


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7A3QViXy-8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7A3QViXy-8</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8516


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #296 on: December 08, 2017, 03:20:59 PM »

More Clinton ties on Mueller team: One deputy attended Clinton party, another rep'd top aide

More Clinton connections have emerged for members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team, amid growing Republican complaints about potential bias inside the office created to lead an independent probe.

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller investigator Andrew Weissmann, a former partner at WilmerHale, attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party last November at the Javits Center in New York City. Fox News reported earlier this week that Weissmann in January also praised outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates, after she was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s travel ban.

Meanwhile, at least two Mueller investigators' past legal work for Clinton-tied figures is getting a second look as Republicans hunt for signs of bias.

Aaron Zebley, another former partner at WilmerHale and a former chief of staff to Mueller when he served as FBI director, represented Justin Cooper, a key figure in the Hillary Clinton email controversy.

Cooper is the longtime Bill Clinton aide responsible for helping set up the now-infamous private email server. Cooper later admitted to “two instances where he destroyed [Hillary] Clinton’s old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.”

Jeannie Rhee, another former partner at WilmerHale, represented ex-Obama National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering case, and Hillary Clinton herself in a lawsuit seeking access to her private emails.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/more-clinton-ties-on-mueller-team-one-deputy-attended-clinton-party-another-repd-top-aide.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!