^So, certainly probability that enough evidence can be produced to indict. But I'm inclined, at the moment, to even entertain the idea that the probability it happened (that is, that Trump directed or aware of it). I mean, I think it happened for sure, I'm just not sure that Trump himself was involved.

Regarding the surrogates/staffers/members, logically I'm with you here. But the fact that the FBI has no CI investigation open on Trump himself (according to Comey) is a strong indication to me that they didn't have anything (even with the Steele Dossier).

Now, it's entirely possible that something like that would be considered so serious that even Comey would either a) not be involved/aware or b) actually deny (lie) about it in testimony. I honestly find it hard to believe he would and I also find it hard to believe that he would not be aware of it.

So based on that, it really does seem that Trump himself was not aware/involved.

6/9/2017 12:49:49 PM

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Comey say there was no investigation of Trump at the time of their interactions? There very well could be one now. If you think Trump was involved (I do), it will only take the FBI offering one of the underlings lesser charges to roll on Trump. At that point all of his lies will explode in his face. It might not result in conviction, but it will be enough to impeach.

6/9/2017 1:02:08 PM

Or the FBI will just hand out immunity like candy and have zero prosecutions, just as they did with the Clinton investigation.

6/9/2017 1:35:00 PM

^^So I think I finally deciphered what McCain was trying to ask. Here is my paraphrase along with Comey's responses (paraphrased).

McCain
"You said there was no case to investigate Hillary over the emails. In the context of the investigation into Russian hacking and possible collusion, how did you determine that the Hillary campaign should NOT be investigated while simultaneously saying the Trump campaign SHOULD be investigated"

Comey
"There was zero evidence to warrant investigation into Hillary's campaign and a mountain of evidence that warranted investigation into the Trump campaign. As for the email investigation, we did not have a case that we could take to court and win in prosecution."

It was an incredibly stupid question to ask but at least I think I know what he was trying to get at.

Also, Trey Gowdy is a fucking tool.

[Edited on June 9, 2017 at 1:59 PM. Reason : a]

6/9/2017 1:58:39 PM

^^Thanks for that insightful contribution

6/9/2017 2:01:14 PM

What did Gowdy do?

^Triggered

6/9/2017 2:56:59 PM

I'm being a bit rough on Gowdy (probably because of his demeanor), maybe he serves his purpose by asking the questions on leaking. He is just so damned militant about it, it's as if the rest of the subject matter has already been determined in his head to be nonsense.

But after thinking about it, if he's the one guy on there that focuses on leaks, I guess that's reasonable. They should be considered, after all.

[Edited on June 9, 2017 at 8:48 PM. Reason : a]

6/9/2017 8:48:42 PM

The leaks are the only crime known to have occurred; they deserve to be the focus of the investigation. Comey lied about the justification for his leaks, claiming a leak published on the 11th was in response to a Trump tweet on the 1wth.

Congress was told over a month ago that Trump was not being investigated, but that doesn't get leaked. That's extremely telling.

6/10/2017 10:51:28 AM

Quote :

"The leaks are the only crime known to have occurred; they deserve to be the focus of the investigation. Comey lied about the justification for his leaks, claiming a leak published on the 11th was in response to a Trump tweet on the 1wth. Congress was told over a month ago that Trump was not being investigated, but that doesn't get leaked. That's extremely telling."

The leaks are the only crime known to the public to have occurred (that is, the existence of classified material in news reports proves leaks occurred). That does NOT mean they are the only crime known to have occurred to the FBI. So, no, they do NOT deserve to be the FOCUS of the investigation. They do deserve, however, to be considered as part of the investigation. Although it would actually make more sense to be investigated separately. But I can compromise and accept them being part of this invesgitation.

Again, Comey's "leak" is not a leak. He gave someone his personal notes that he himself took and that were not ever classified. So stop calling it a leak. You're implying it is the equivalent of that Winner girl leaking that NSA document.

Regarding your final point, you're presuming all of the previous leaks came from Congress to begin with. It is almost blatantly obvious they did not. Second, Trump (and Congress) were told that there was not an individual CI investigation opened on President Trump. There IS a series of investigations open on the Trump campaign, which in case it isn't obvious based on the name, centers on President Trump. At the very least he is an incidental aspect of this.

Finally, generally speaking, this bullshit about "there's no evidence, stop the investigation" has got to stop. Just because the FBI or NSA haven't leaked the actual "evidence" that may exist doesn't mean it isn't in their possession. BOTH sides need to shut the fuck up and let this investigation proceed to completion.

And to be clear, it is painfully obvious that the leaks which DID occur were designed to bring us to this point where there is at the least a special counsel (if not an outright independent commission). This very obviously would not have happened without the press reporting putting enough pressure both on Congress AND on President Trump (who couldn't put his Blackberry down), causing him to behave in a manner bringing us to this point. So let's not pretend it's character assassination. It's career professionals highly concerned that Congress would behave the way it always has (partisan) and highly concerned our president would lie and cover up (which he has).

Once this special counsel shit is over with we can all move on, irrespective of the outcome.

[Edited on June 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM. Reason : a]

6/10/2017 11:22:30 AM

Quote :

"Regarding your final point, you're presuming all of the previous leaks came from Congress to begin with."

you missed the point entirely. Congress has known for a month that nothing pointed at Trump, which means that intelligence communities (the source of the leaks) have known for longer than that. Regardless of who is performing the leaks, it shows that the intent of the leaks to paint a media narrative of Trump that doesn't line up with the actual facts of the case. The media had to immediately redirect their focus from collusion with Russia to obstruction of justice this week because Comey shit all over their narrative.

Trump made it perfectly clear in his letter firing Comey that he was fired because he wouldn't admit to the American public that Trump wasn't under investigation. Comey admitted that he had no reason to doubt Trump in his claim that he was fired over his handling of the Russia investigation - particularly his unwillingness to clear his name publicly. It's why Trump is claiming vindication in Comey publicly admitting to Trump not being under investigation on the stand this week. There's no way you can possibly stretch that into an obstruction charge.

It's been entertaining to watch the media stumble between Trump not even being able to collude with his own staff yet being perfectly capable of colluding with the Russians to rig an election. After the Comey testimony this week though, it's obvious that this is a political witch hunt and needs to be wrapped up with a quickness. If anything, Comey's testimony points towards further investigation into Loretta Lynch and James Comey.

6/10/2017 2:35:40 PM

Quote :

" Congress has known for a month that nothing pointed at Trump, which means that intelligence communities (the source of the leaks) have known for longer than that. "

That is NOT what has been said. Not at all. What was said was that there is not a CI investigation specific to Donald Trump. That is all that's been said. Not a single person who actually is involved has said "nothing points at Trump."

And, "Congress" hasn't known. The individuals on the intelligence committees have. And they do not typically leak. The leaks are coming from intelligence professionals.

The intent of the leaks is to paint one and only one narrative - this matter is serious, involves people at the highest levels of our government and warrants an investigation that is not subject to political affiliation. Notice how the leaks have dramatically dropped off (ignore Winner, not sure what her deal is) since the special counsel was named.

Quote :

"The media had to immediately redirect their focus from collusion with Russia to obstruction of justice this week because Comey shit all over their narrative. "

The media is reporting based on the information they have at any one time. All Comey did was say, once again, that there was no CI investigation specific to Donald Trump open. There ARE ongoing CI investigations into many of his associates and there ARE investigations ongoing into his campaign (which includes him by default, at the very least, as an incidental aspect).

Quote :

"Trump made it perfectly clear in his letter firing Comey that he was fired because he wouldn't admit to the American public that Trump wasn't under investigation. "

That is not true.

Quote :

"Comey admitted that he had no reason to doubt Trump in his claim that he was fired over his handling of the Russia investigation - particularly his unwillingness to clear his name publicly. It's why Trump is claiming vindication in Comey publicly admitting to Trump not being under investigation on the stand this week. There's no way you can possibly stretch that into an obstruction charge."

Comey said he took Trump at his word. That's not the same as saying "there is no reason to doubt him." He even followed up immediately by saying "I guess Trump could be lying," given the fact that Trump is a pathological liar. As for "stretching" into obstruction, that's for the FBI to determine, not you, not myself and certainly not the media.

Quote :

"It's been entertaining to watch the media stumble between Trump not even being able to collude with his own staff yet being perfectly capable of colluding with the Russians to rig an election. "

Who is claiming this? This is something that has baffled me about Trump supporters. I can't find a single article that says the election was rigged. Every single article mentions the fact that Russian intelligence intended to influence the election. That is NOT the same as rigging. From an influence standpoint, it's no different than running political ads in an attempt to INFLUENCE the voters. No one has claimed collusion either. What HAS been claimed is that there are investigations exploring whether collusion happened or not. I think you're confusing opinion-section reporting versus front-page reporting.

I absolutely agree on investigating Loretta Lynch, though see zero reason to investigate Comey.

Should be clear, I'm not yelling here. I'm using capitalized words to emphasize key points.

[Edited on June 10, 2017 at 3:06 PM. Reason : oops]

6/10/2017 2:55:32 PM

investigate Lynch for what?

handing over the investigation of the Clinton emails to the FBI?

6/10/2017 3:36:07 PM

^For working to prevent the investigation from going anywhere. I've seen enough reporting (and Comey's explanations) that it could warrant an investigation.

6/10/2017 3:48:19 PM

If publicly releasing thousands of emails and a dozen congressional hearings is making sure the investigation goes nowhere, resulting in the FBI making 2 public conferences on the issue to likely cost Hillary the presidency, then lets hope the Trump investigation also goes nowhere.

6/10/2017 4:27:22 PM

Quote :

"Congress has known for a month that nothing pointed at Trump, which means that intelligence communities (the source of the leaks) have known for longer than that."

Where do you come up with this shit?

6/10/2017 6:12:41 PM

So apparently there was even another meeting between Sessions and Kislyak and it's been reported that there is an intercept of Kislyak's report on the conversation. I wonder if that intercept is the part Comey couldn't talk about in open session

Testimony starts at 12:30

6/13/2017 12:21:31 PM

^can you link to that? is this a 4th meeting now or are you referring to the 3rd?

6/13/2017 12:32:56 PM

According to CSPAN, they're starting Sessions stuff is at 2:15.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?429875-1/attorney-general-sessions-set-respond-comey-testimony

6/13/2017 12:43:57 PM

so what's the over/under on how many times Sessions has to plead the fifth or invoke executive privilege?

I'll throw out 15x and say OVER.

6/13/2017 1:16:26 PM

Considering his excitement at testifying publicly after Comey's thing, I expect him to simply lie the entire time to discredit Comey, at Trump's behest.

6/13/2017 1:19:46 PM

^

6/13/2017 2:08:49 PM

Here we go.

6/13/2017 2:47:05 PM

Lmao at this scare-mongering at the end of Sessions opening

Runaway crime!!!! Overdoses!!!!! I'm here to help........durrrrrrrr

6/13/2017 3:10:36 PM

I thought he was McCaining for a second. The fuck was he bringing up drug overdoses for???

And he already can't answer questions directly.

Burr - Did you attend as a member of the campaign or the Senate?

Sessions - I, uh, I went as an interested person.

.....

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 3:13 PM. Reason : a]

6/13/2017 3:12:11 PM

Quote :

"so what's the over/under on how many times Sessions has to plead the fifth or invoke executive privilege? I'll throw out 15x and say OVER."

Sessions definitely took the under on that one. I'm not sure if he was trying to explain what executive privilege was or if he was just stating that congress could fuck off for thinking the executive branch answered to them.

6/13/2017 3:27:29 PM

What he was saying was "I'm not going to talk about my conversations with Trump but not because I'm claiming executive privilege, because I'm choosing not to. Only the President can claim executive privilege.

6/13/2017 3:31:18 PM

^^,^yea, this limbo of not having a legal reason to not answer, but none the less not answering, is dangerous


I'm also loving "I can't recall if I met with Kislyak at the Mayflower". Bullshit.

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 3:33 PM. Reason : Arrows]

6/13/2017 3:31:58 PM

Sessions is throwing up JCE style strawmen. Has denied personally being involved in collusion three or four times. I've literally not seen one rumor that ever intimated that he colluded.

6/13/2017 3:40:12 PM

His answer to Feinstein's question on the Comey firing is hysterical.

6/13/2017 3:40:27 PM

I was in a meeting for all of this, did anything major come out?

6/13/2017 3:43:03 PM

^not yet


Rubio getting in pretty well on this Feb 14 meeting with Trump and Comey.



This old shit "can't recall" anything. And, honestly, that's kinda believable.

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 3:47 PM. Reason : Ugh old people]

6/13/2017 3:45:44 PM

HE MAD NOW

6/13/2017 3:53:49 PM

Sen. Collins reminds me of the mouse from The Mouse and The Motorcycle.

6/13/2017 3:56:15 PM

So, basically, Sessions is refusing to answer questions to help Trump without forcing him to claim executive privilege which would make him look like he's hiding things. Simply amazing.

6/13/2017 4:15:30 PM

This is weird. It's clear he was directed not to answer questions but the WH didn't want the optics of invoking privilege.

Sessions just looks like a weak stonewaller now.

6/13/2017 4:18:43 PM

Yeah, that's what I'm taking away from this.

"Only the president can use executive privilege but I don't know if the president will use executive privilege so I won't answer that question because the president may use executive privilege. Also, I'm not stonewalling."

6/13/2017 4:19:34 PM

Wait, it looks like a direct quote but did the sitting AG of the country just say he has never once asked for a briefing about the potential Russian hacking and only knows about it from newspapers?

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 4:27 PM. Reason : He went SIX WEEKS before refusing]

6/13/2017 4:26:06 PM

^i think Sessions misunderstood. He took it to meant after recusal, he seems to only be half listening to half the questions.

Also fuck Tom Cotton. I can not wait until Mueller nails these dirty fucks.

6/13/2017 4:35:38 PM

Quote :

" I can not wait until Mueller nails these dirty fucks. finds nothing noteworthy happened."

6/13/2017 4:39:19 PM

How about this: "I can't wait until the investigation uncovers the truth, irrespective of what that truth is."

6/13/2017 4:41:27 PM

^^lol, it's funny that trump supporters just somehow know that nothing shady happened, but if the EXACT same situation were happening with a democratic administration, they'd be frothing and raving even harder than most of the libs they're now criticizing.

RAH RAH RAH!! GO TEAM, GO!!!! HE'S OUR MAN!!

6/13/2017 5:10:51 PM

^I think a lot of the opposition to this has to do with Hillary never answering for the email situation and the shadiness that surrounded it with respect to Lynch, etc.

I also think it's even tied to the frustrations around Bill escaping impeachment as well. Somehow the Clintons always get away.

It's unfortunate, because rather than focusing on the procedures and laws themselves, it simply just turns into "well we can't prosecute this guy because that guy did it and he didn't get in trouble." I think that drives a significant portion of the Trump defense in this case and it utterly infuriates me.

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM. Reason : a]

6/13/2017 5:21:03 PM

The Clinton's "got away" with what exactly? Perjury and mishandling classified information? Those are bullshit charges that you turn to when you either can't find evidence of underlying wrongdoing or the underlying conduct isn't actually illegal (like getting a blowjob from an intern). And yes, if the only thing the Democrats nail Trump on is obstruction of justice, that is also a bullshit charge that means there was nothing to the Russia/Trump collusion accusations.

6/13/2017 5:34:18 PM

Perjury is a felony, so that's not a bullshit charge, especially considering it may very well end up being the bulk of anything brought against any of the current crowd. If you claim bullshit regarding Bill Clinton who 100% objectively committed perjury then you forfeit your right to complain if it's not used now.

Mishandling classified information isn't a joke either.

As for obstruction, it's not a bullshit charge either. I'm not sure how you are viewing this in such a manner. I guess involuntary manslaugher is a bullshit charge too that only gets used when they can't prove intent?

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 5:38 PM. Reason : a]

6/13/2017 5:36:57 PM

Yes, charges that come out of political witch hunts where no evidence of underlying criminal conduct is found are bullshit, in every single case including this one. This ain't a fucking murder trial man, there's no dead body and no justice to be had other than political.

6/13/2017 5:45:54 PM

I see so, we should let people lie to their hearts' content. I love that counter argument.

"There's nothing there."

"Then why are you lying about it?"

"Because it's a witch hunt."

"So why are you lying?"

6/13/2017 5:47:35 PM

In Bill's perjury case, there literally was nothing there, he was lying about something that wasn't illegal. If the only thing Trump and co. are guilty of is chatting with Russians about hookers and vodka, then I also don't really care, even if he did try to silence the investigation. Now, I don't think that's the case, but if the only thing the Democrats get is Trump on the stand saying "well that depends on what the definition of 'hope' is" than this entire thing was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

6/13/2017 6:00:38 PM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mK_HmEFxCpI

Please watch all 7 mins of this exchange and then tell me if Sessions isn't trying to evade the fuck out of saying......anything?

"I don't recall.........at this moment" **creepyelfgrin**

The hell was that(just after 3 min mark)???? I'm way past ready to watch Sen. Harris open her can of whoop ass all the way up.

6/13/2017 6:25:58 PM

Quote :

"In Bill's perjury case, there literally was nothing there, he was lying about something that wasn't illegal."

I'll say again - why lie?

Quote :

"If the only thing Trump and co. are guilty of is chatting with Russians about hookers and vodka, then I also don't really care, even if he did try to silence the investigation. "

I'm glad the law doesn't depend on whether you or any other individual American is interested enough to "care" about wrongdoing. And if they were only guilty of talking about hookers and vodka, there's no reason to lie about it.

Lying is a direct indication that someone did something they knew was wrong subsequently don't want to pay the price for it. It's simple as that. If you're okay with Bill Clinton lying under oath about an affair in the White House (which, BTW, is something that has direct national security implications with respect to blackmail) simply because it was a personal matter then I question your judgement on pretty much any single other thing you'd opine on. Same goes with the Trump campaign situation. Have they committed espionage against the United States? Maybe not. But they are lying about many things and that indicates something else has occurred. Investigating it is not a waste of time or money at all. You know what is? Jailing people for non-violent drug offenses. You know what else is? Spending 1/3 of your time golfing while enriching yourself on the government's tab. And on and on.

6/13/2017 6:33:41 PM

And if you really think that lying, under oath or not, about getting a blowjob was actually serious matter that warranted impeachment, then I'll be much less nice than you: you're a fucking dumbass.

Wait, did you seriously just wonder why a husband would lie about cheating on his wife? Ok, nevermind, I was nicer than you.

[Edited on June 13, 2017 at 6:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2017 6:43:16 PM