Mueller closing in on Trump in Russian probe

You know nothing about the 1st Amendment and our history.

 

You know nothing about me. What I said is a fact.

 

I know what you said. What you said is not fact.

Not even close.

 

I said:

The first step is to discredit the free press. Without the free press, there is no democracy. Trump and his cohorts know that.

The second step is to discredit the FBI, a proud organization dedicated to protecting our democratic form of government and the U.S. Constitution.

You wish to discredit agencies of the federal government and remove the leadership, euphemistically known as the establishment. Thank you for helping me prove my point, much appreciated.

As usual, you are wrong. For balance I watch both networks on a daily basis. Every day CNN provides conservative commentators, some are former and present Republican strategists. CNN routinely interviews members of the White House staff and Republican lawmakers.

True, Fox has Juan Williams and a handful of liberal commentators. But they are overwhelmed by conservative pundits and commentators. With the likes of Hannity, Pirro, Carlson, Banderas, Boothe, and others Fox is sometimes trumpeted as the Trump Network. Smith is an obvious liberal commentator and he detests Trump. Baier and Hume make a pretense of being unbiased, but their subject matter, leading questions, and what they don't cover gives them away. I love Chris Wallace. Arguably, he is the best in the business. Unfortunately, he only has a one-hour show a week. Krauthammer also is very good.

 

I do like Chris Wallace. He is a true Journalist. Of course Hannity does not pretend to be a journalist nor does he pretend to be a Republican. Judge Piro has a very interesting perspective....after all, she has been a judge. I'll stick with her.

 

Said no intellectually honest person, ever.

 

Soros was born in 1930. He was fifteen when the Nazi regime collapsed.

Pirro is an attack dog. She is a joke, actually. She will invite a Democrat on her show, but then she will relentlessly interrupt the guest. She allows her far right guests to speak without interrupting them. That is her "interesting perspective."

 

Seasoned with wisdom which is completely absent from the "peer oriented left" which is typical of most "collectives".
It seems you prefer the "passive aggressive" type attack dogs like Mueller or Comey.
Soros learned a lot as a fifteen year old intern.

 

Trump consistently wants it both ways. While thinking he is pleasing everyone, he doesn't realize he is making a fool of himself. He proved it again recently.

When reporters asked if he would talk to special counsel Robert Mueller, he said, "I am looking forward to it, actually. Here is the story: There has been no collusion whatsoever. There is no obstruction whatsoever. And I am looking forward to it."

"I would do it under oath. I would do it," he said, later adding, "I would do it under oath, yeah."

Yay, let's get if done. Mueller wants to talk to the President. The President wants to talk to Mueller. Wow, let's do it.

Hold on, wait for it, here comes the caveat. Remember I said he wants it both ways.

He then said his interview would be "subject to my lawyers."

That effectively cancels out his earlier statements about being eager to talk to Mueller.

Does he think Americans are stupid? It is easy to see right through his double talk. He wants to appear to be innocent and wanting to talk to Mueller, but, oh, that is subject to his lawyers' decision.

His lawyer Ty Cobb said, "While Mr. Trump was speaking hurriedly before departing for Davos, he remains committed to continued complete cooperation with the OSC and is looking forward to speaking with Mr. Mueller."

And, oh, by the way, Cobb added that the arrangements are still being worked out between Mueller's team and the President's personal lawyers.

That is code for nothing has been settled yet, and Trump has a big mouth.

The oath business is a non sequitur. When people are questioned by the FBI, they are not given an oath. That is for trials or testimony before a grand jury or a Congressional committee. Trump threw out that nonsense as another dig at Clinton.

"She didn't do it under oath, but I would do it under oath and you know she didn't do it under oath," he said. "Oh, I would do it under oath."

Trump is obsessed with Hillary Clinton. It is almost like paranoia.

 

Anyone....literally anyone would be a fool to sit before a prosecutor without a lawyer,Lawyers and prosecitors specialize in catching even the most honest person existing in a lie. That is why special prosecutors are so desired by loser politicians.

 

In the Be Careful What You Wish For Department, Andrew McCabe suddenly left the FBI today.

For months, in both statements and tweets, Trump has been urging that McCabe be fired. He now has his wish. It appears as though FBI directer Chris Wray announced to McCabe that he was putting his team together and McCabe was not on it. That is code for Presidential hostility and McCabe was not welcome. As a deputy director, there was no place for McCabe to go except out the door.

In other words, McCabe left as a direct result of Presidential pressure. He joins a long list of people involved in the Russian investigation and have been fired or "retired." This list would include Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, senior campaign advisor Rick Gates, acting A.G. Sally Yates, Trump's senior advisor Steve Bannon, Trump's NSA Mike Flynn, FBI director James Comey, ethics lawyer James Schultz, legal spokesman Mark Corallo, FBI chief of staff James Rybicki, and the FBI's top lawyer James Baker.

With respect to the charge of obstruction of justice, Trump himself has added to that evidence with his statements and tweets. When it comes to that charge,the key witness is Donald J. Trump.

 

As I understand it, if Trump agrees to an interview with the FBI, his lawyers can be present. An oath is not necessary. If he lies to the FBI, he is in big trouble.

However, if he refuses to be interviewed, then he can be subpoenaed and be forced to testify before a grand jury without his lawyers being present. That is what happened to Clinton.

 

You mean the day after his boss was briefed on the memo?

 

Maybe the "Memo" will be released tonight.

 

'cept there is no "blue dress".

 

WASHINGTON — The House Intelligence Committee voted along party lines Monday to to make public a classified memo about some of the government's most sensitive secrets, prompting Democrats to accuse the Republican majority of playing politics with national security to protect President Donald Trump.

Republicans have said the Republican-written memo examines how the FBI eavesdrops on suspects in national security investigations. They say it shows corruption in the FBI that is "worse than Watergate," proving that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is based on a fraud.

Democrats say the memo is a grossly distorted attack on the Mueller probe, designed to "brainwash" people into erroneous conclusions, in the words of Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a member of the committee.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters that Republicans voted to release the memo but voted against making the Democratic analysis of it public, at least for now.

Trump has up to five days to object to the memo's release, but he could green light it at any time, Trump administration officials told NBC News.

Whether the memo shows wrongdoing by the FBI or not, legal experts say the release of such classified surveillance details would be extraordinary on two counts: It could spill extremely sensitive secrets, and it could undermine the secrecy of a pending criminal investigation.

"It's astonishing," said Orin Kerr, a former prosecutor who is now a law professor at the University of Southern California. "The idea of revealing the contents of a classified briefing to a judge — that can reveal lots of information other than what people are interested in. It would set a very dangerous precedent."

"They wanted to make a political statement," he (Schiff) told Chris Hayes. "They wanted to do what they could to derail the Mueller investigation. At the end of the day, it was more important to them to circle the wagons around the president than it was to support the men and women of the FBI, support an objective pursuit of the truth in the investigation by Mueller and by our committee."

Above are excerpts from the article. The entire article can be read here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ed-nunes-memo-about-fbi-eavesdropping-n842311

Now the real fun begins because Trump and a small number of Republicans are doing all they can to destroy our country from within.

Thank you, Mr. Putin. You chose your man well.

 

Trump administration says no need for new Russia sanctions despite CIA warning of 2018 election meddling

The Trump administration on Monday evening stopped short of imposing fresh sanctions on Russia as punishment for its election meddling, providing further ammunition for critics who say the White House colluded with the Kremlin.

The announcement came soon after the director of the CIA warned that Russia would interfere in this year’s mid-term elections.

Last year Democrats and Republicans passed a bill authorizing the administration to use sanctions to both punish Moscow and to prevent future meddling.

 

Under an obscure committee rule to make the classified memo public, which has never been invoked in the panel's 40-plus-year history, the President now has five days following a vote to decide whether to allow the public release to move forward or to object to it.

Is that their out? I find it very difficult to believe that a small group of Republican congressmen would attack the FBI. Loyalty to Trump is one thing, but this going way too far and its basis is extremely weak. It involves a FISA warrant for an obscure character named Carter Page. It also involves text messages by two FBI agents who are long gone. It is also a direct attack on Trump's own DOJ.

But, with all the hype, the committee had to release it.

I have an equally hard time believing that men like Kelly, Mattis, and Tillerson would go along with this. I respect those men.

Maybe that is their out. In the spirit of transparency, the committee voted to release it. Then, with some gobbledygook, meaningless, political rhetoric, it will be explained by a spokesperson that the President decided not to release it.

We'll see.

 

Trump still thinks Russian meddling in our election is a Democratic hoax. He won't admit the Russians did it.

 

You forgot one thing:

Everything/
Trump/
touches/
turns/
to/
****/

 

Yeah, I keep wondering what kind of hold Trump has on certain people. Is it just party loyalty? He is an erratic, incompetent, paranoid leader who often is his own worst enemy. Apparently, some very influential people feel party loyalty supersedes loyalty to country. The Nunes memo attacking the FBI, hoping to discredit the Mueller investigation, is an indication of this.

 

You don't even know what is in the Memo.

 

Trump has decided he will not impose additional sanctions on Russia, despite Congress passing a law authorizing the President to do so. Congress voted almost unanimously to pass the bill last year that punished Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 US election and aggression in east Ukraine. Trump, who wants warmer ties with Putin and had opposed the legislation as it worked its way through Congress, signed it reluctantly in August, branding the bill “seriously flawed."

In a ludicrous attempt to cover for the President, the state department argued the sanctions were working without the sanctions.

The new sanctions would have required the US Treasury Department to penalize foreign governments and companies doing business with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert insisted Russia’s defense industry was already suffering, with foreign countries abandoning purchases worth “several billion dollars” from the Kremlin.

Citing long time frames associated with major defense deals, Ms Nauert said it was better to wait to impose those sanctions. Why?

“From that perspective, if the law is working, sanctions on specific entities or individuals will not need to be imposed because the legislation is, in fact, serving as a deterrent,” she said in a statement.

In other words, the state department is saying that a half victory is perfectly okay when a full victory is within our grasp.

I told you, it was a vain attempt to protect Trump. This makes as much sense as everything else Trump has done.

The truth is, he doesn't want to piss off Putin. The truth is, he acts very much like a Putin puppet.

 

The highlighted is a simple lie. There are already sanctions.