Althouse: "Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel."

May 8, 2017

"Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel."

Tweeted Trump this morning.

309 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 309 of 309

jr565 said...: THe whole flynn incident was always a bullshit scandal. From day one.
Here's the article in the NYT that breaks down the whole scandal and also shows how it was manufactured from day one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/flynn-is-said-to-have-talked-to-russians-about-sanctions-before-trump-took-office.html
Let break it down> Flynn is said to have to Russians abotu sanctions before Trump took office.
Right off the bat, this is a misleading title. Which the NYT actaully shows if you read the rest of the article.

But we can stipulate that Flynn had a coversation with the Russian diplomat. Flynn doesn't deny conversation. He denies having a convesration where he promised to lift sanctions.

"Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials."
He had a discussion where he discussed american sanctions. Well what does that mean? This is the exact issue. What does "having a discussion about sanctions actually mean" does it mean having an actual discussion about lifting sanctions where you make a promise to do so? or does it simpy mean a discussion where sanctions may have been brought up in passing, but no discussion about sanctions actually took place. Do you see how, depending on what a discusion about sanctions means, Flynn may or may not have had a discussion about them.

I certainly know that Flynn had a conversation with Russia bout areas of possible cooperation> trump had been saying we needed a better relationship with Russia to deal with Syria. This is not newsworthy. And Obama officials similarly most likely had the same conversation when Obama was incoming and Bush was outgoing. The whole Russian reset was predicated on us having a new relationship with Russia where we'd discuss areas where we could cooperate. This is what Kerry was doing in Russia when he was trying to work out a Syrian deal in mid 2016. This has been the game plan of obama for the entirety of his presidency. And his backers actaully bragged about his real politics when it came to Russia. Until it was suddenly bad to be associated with Russia, which occured as soon as Hillary got in trouble during election. (cont); 5/8/17, 5:13 PM
Chuck said...: Matthew Sablan said...
Eh. After today, it is clear Clapper and Yates leaked like a sieve to undermine Trump. Whether they leaked classified information, we'll never know most likely.

What, you say?

Do you mean to tell me that President Trump's insightful, incisive question/suggestion didn't carry the day?; 5/8/17, 5:13 PM
harrogate said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/8/17, 5:18 PM
John henry said...: Blogger Chuck said...

Curiel was born in the U.S. A natural-born U.S. citizen. At the time of his birth, both of his Mexican-heritage parents had taken U.S. citizenship. Renouncing their Mexican citizenship.

And you know this how? No questions about him being a natural born US citizen.

Do you have a link to information about his parents having renounced their Mexican citizenship?

I am not saying that they didn't. I am saying that I went looking back when this was an issue and could find no info one way or the other.

One is supposed to formally renounce all other citizenship when taking US citizenship. In the past Mexico did not let a citizen renounce their citizenship but since I don't know when they took US citizenship, I don't know whether that applied at the time.

The US does not require renunciation if the country doesn't permit it. In some cases, even if the country permits it. Jorge Ramos, born in Mexico in 1958, was naturalized in the US in 2008 without giving up his Mexican citizenship

But I’ve never ceased to be Mexican. I have two passports, and I vote in elections in both countries. I’m deeply proud of this privileged duality. The best thing about America is its embrace of diversity.

https://www.jorgeramos.com/en/30-years-as-an-american/

So a link, please, Chuck. Or you know no more than about whether Curiel is/was a Mexican citizen than I do.

Put up or shut up.

John Henry; 5/8/17, 5:21 PM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "Judge Curiel was for a time a member of La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which has no policy connection with the political activist group, the National Association of La Raza"

LOL

And the Palestinian Authority has no connection to Hamas. The PA says so!
And the Russians have no connection to those "local defense forces" in the Ukraine. Putin says so!
And the Soviets had no connection to all those "fraternal" organizations. The Soviets said so!

Poor Chuck, he's clearly a bit "tense" right now as the hearings did not go well for him and his lefty pals.

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Fuck off, Drago."

Do you kiss your Rachel Maddow blow up doll with that mouth?; 5/8/17, 5:26 PM
jr565 said...: "Throughout the discussions, the message Mr. Flynn conveyed to the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak — that the Obama administration was Moscow’s adversary and that relations with Russia would change under Mr. Trump — was unambiguous and highly inappropriate, the officials said."
I dont see how this is in any way controversial. by this point Russia WAS Obama's adversary. Once it was established that they "hacked the election" they were in fact evil incarnate, and in fact Obama imposed last minute sanctiosn the day after this converation. But go back a few years, when Obama was mocking Romney for saying Russia was our #1 geopolitical foe. Was Russia our adversary THEN? No. What changed was That Hillary got smacked around because Wikilleaks released damaging info.And democrats needed a diversion. Suddenly they forgot all about the endiless resets.

here's where the manufactured crisis comes into play:
"The accounts of the conversations raise the prospect that Mr. Flynn violated a law against private citizens’ engaging in diplomacy, and directly contradict statements made by Trump advisers." THis is about the Logan Act. The democrats trotted this ludicrous argument out hwen the Flynn issue hit, because this is the basis on which The Russians could blackmail Flynn. YOu see, he was a civilian at the time an the logan act makes it illegal for a civilian to engage in political activity with Foreign govt. Becuase Flynn did so, he was now open to blackmail by the Russians and was "compromised" But this whole premise is BS. A) no one has been charged with violating the Logan act Since Logan himself. And b) he wasn't a civilian. He was the national security advisor to the incoming administration. As such it was perfectly reasonable for him to have converastions with Russia about potential policy. So, its only a controversy if we accept the premise that he violated the Logan Act. But he didnt.
If he didn't he is allowed to have a conversation about sancyions or cooperation with Russia without it triggering the whole natioanl intelligence agency coming down on him for being an "enemy agent"
ANd here's where the whole controvery unravels:
"The officials said that Mr. Flynn had never made explicit promises of sanctions relief, but that he had appeared to leave the impression it would be possible."
So,its already established that Flynn, as NSA COULD have such a conversation> But did he? As per the NYT NO. He never promised them anything.there is a perception that he implied or left an impression that it could be possible, but what does that even mean?

People who have read the transcript say the conversation went like this "Kislya asked about a bunch of topic and at one point brought up sanctions. Flynn merely said "we haven't oficially taken power as of yet so have not had time to discuss any policies on this issue. We'll get back to you" or something to that effect. (cont); 5/8/17, 5:27 PM
Drago said...: You have to understand, for "lifelong republicans" like Chuck, a day like today is enough to put you off your cream of wheat and cause you to lurch about for any handy dem fall-back talking point to salve your psychic wounds.

Recall how joyous Chuckie was regarding the fake russian "dossier"? Now Chuckie has to eat that and the collusion.

It's not going to be a pretty next few months.; 5/8/17, 5:32 PM
Drago said...: Inga is probably face down in a bucket of wine by now.; 5/8/17, 5:33 PM
John henry said...: Drago,

Note that Chuck said "no policy connection" not "no connection"

I have no idea what he thinks he means by "no policy connection" but by saying that he is stating that there was a connection between them.

But that doesn't worry me half as much as his potential dual citizenship. I could not find an answer at the time. I am hoping Chuck will provide one now.

John Henry; 5/8/17, 5:34 PM
Chuck said...: John Henry, your idiotic quest to find a way to make Trump at least a little bit right in the "Mexican judge" nonsense is answered here:

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/06/lawsplainer-when-must-federal-judges-recuse-themselves-anyway/

Some other idiot, not you, tried to make the same case. By all means, read all the comments.

But Geezus, I have never felt like such a doofus, stooping to an effort to engage Trumpkins in any sort of intelligent conversation.

What you are saying is that a judge whose parents are of Mexican heritage, but who were naturalized Americans for years, and who was born in the U.S. and went to college and law school and who practiced law in the U.S., and whose passport is a U.S. passport, and who doesn't have a Mexican passport, and who would likely not be eligible for a Mexican passport even if he wanted one, is still, "a Mexican judge."

Geezus.; 5/8/17, 5:36 PM
John henry said...: I have no idea what he thinks he means

Chuck, apologies. I had been assuming you identified as a male and used male pronouns.

If this is not correct, please let us know what pronouns you prefer to identify as.

John Henry; 5/8/17, 5:36 PM
jr565 said...: (cont) is that IMPLYING that sanctions COULD be lifted? Perhaps, but if he doesnt outright say that sanctiosn will be lifted, then how are we all saying he had a conversation about lifting sanctions with Rusian diplomat? Clearly the actual transcript will shed light on this whole scenario. However, if Flynn said "I dont recall having a converation about lifting sanctions it would totally be in keeping with the the unnamed official said the conversation was about (as mentioned in NYT article) Therefore, Flynn didn't LIE.

" Despite Mr. Flynn’s earlier denials, his spokesman told the Post that “while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”
AGAIN, totally in keeping with the idea that Flynn didnt think there was a conversation about lifting sanctiosn because from his perspective he never had that conversation. if it came up in conversation but he doesnt commit one way or the other, is it a conversation about the thing brought up? From his perspective, NO.

"Days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, Vice President-elect Mike Pence also denied that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. He said he had personally spoken to Mr. Flynn, who assured him that the conversation was an informal chat that began with Mr. Flynn extending Christmas wishes.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Mr. Pence said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

Again, it depends on what having a conversation about sanctions entails. From flynn's perspective HE DIDNT have a conversation about sanctions because no discussion of lifting sanctions was ever discussed. But was it brougth up in in conversation? He may not even remember. as in, 'he didnt have a conversation about sanctions, but he isn't certain that the topic of sanctions ever came up IN PASSING. Its not a lie if he is characterizing a conversation differently.

When Pence said: "“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Mr. Pence said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.” he may have been taking Pence literally. As in, Pence didnt describe it as a converastion about sanctions (because it wasn't) but neglected to say sanctions were brought up in passing, and that such points WERE informal and brushed off. But because Flynn neglected to mention those brushed off comments, he assumed that no discussion in any way occured about sanctions. Even though, as I stated, no conversation DID take place about sanctions.

Flynn then got hoisted on his own petard not becuase he was caught LYING, but because he wasnt' precise enough in his characterization of events. Even though he is basically telling the total truth. AT that point, the Trump adminstration felt it easier to just dump Flynn rather than have to parse words in public. But that's what happened.; 5/8/17, 5:40 PM
John henry said...: Could you point to what you are seeing in the Popehat post about Curiel's citizenship?

I see how his being of Mexican ethnicity cannot be questioned and have always agreed wholeheartedly with that.

I see nothing that even addresses his potential Mexican citizenship.

Other than some discussion in the comments that "yes he is" "No he's not" "yes he is" no he's not" ad nauseum.; 5/8/17, 5:46 PM
jr565 said...: (cont)
Also from NYT: "Some officials regarded the conversation as a potential violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the American government, according to one current and one former American official familiar with the case." Which officials? People like Sally Yates? Did they use this POTENTIAL VIOLATION as justification to unmask Flynn? Was he ever charged with violating Logan Act? Of course not, that was a pretext to start the witch hunt.

"Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser."
Ah, so the NYT admits that Flynn would likely never be charged with anything here, because there is no real there there.

"But, at the very least, openly engaging in policy discussions with a foreign government during a presidential transition is a remarkable breach of protocol. The norm has been for the president-elect’s team to respect the sitting president, and to limit discussions with foreign governments to pleasantries. Any policy discussions, even with allies, would ordinarily be kept as vague as possible."
But the NYT itself says that Flynn DID keep it vague. since he never agreed to lifting sanctions. ANd all this over a breach of protocol? he should be unmaksed FOR THAT?

“It’s largely shunned, period. But one cannot rule it out with an ally like the U.K.,” said Derek Chollet, who was part of the Obama transition in 2008 and then served in senior roles at the State Department, White House and Pentagon."
Thus acknowledge that the Obama adminstratyion did in fact do the same during THEIR transitition period. Only it was ok when THEY did it because they were talking with an ALLY. Plenty of administrations discussed diplomacy in between transition periods. Henry Kissinger is known for this very thing. And Obama told Russia he'd have more flexibility after he won an election. Granted, he was president at time, but he was telegraphing relatoship with Russia should he resume office. Then again, We had a reset with Russia ANYWAY since Obama ignored Bush's previous policies with Russia in the first place.

"“But it’s way out of bounds when the said country is an adversary, and one that has been judged to have meddled in the election,” he added. “It’s just hard to imagine anyone having a substantive discussion with an adversary, particularly if it’s about trying to be reassuring.”
This may have been because the democrats went into full Russian scare mode after wikileaks dropped its bomb, and Russia, through Kislyak was merelely trying to guage what relationship would be like under new administration. Since Flynn was the incoming NSA, he was the guy to speak to about such things.; 5/8/17, 5:49 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Chuckie,

"I know a good bit about perjury traps."

But you have no idea why someone would like to get Yates on the record, under oath.

Alrighty, then.

And regarding that judge: only somebody who has not the slightest knowledge of Spanish gets off the hook for joining something called "La Raza...". But then, I'm not comfortable with someone of that level of cluelessness being any kind of judge, not even in municipal court hearing traffic cases.; 5/8/17, 5:55 PM
jr565 said...: "Yates caught Michael Flynn, and she went to CIA Director John Brennan and DCI Director James Clapper, asking them to support her complaint that Flynn was subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL for violating THE LOGAN ACT. When they failed to support her nutty complaint, Yates leaked the information to journalists."
YES! Excactly! We saw the democrats trot out the Logan Act argument way back in the begining of the scandal> The NYT article I mentioned points out the Logan Act TWICE. This is what the democrats were doing at the time. The initial scandal wasn't about lying to VP or even discussion about sanctions. it was "Flynn was still a civilian, and therefore violated logan act. and because he did he was now open to Russian blackmail. and because he was, his info needed to be leaked to NYT, and it needed to be shown that Trump was WARNED about the enemy from within.
THe Logan Act portion eventually fell apart because it was tenuous to begin with. But that was the whole basis for this innocuous conversation being a scandal in the first place. and if it wasn't proven that Flynn was "compromised" there would be no justification for unmaksing him and siccing the intel community on him. not to mention leaking the info to the times which insinuated he did somehthing wrong.

This was always a BS controversy. From day one.; 5/8/17, 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/8/17, 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: "Inga is probably face down in a bucket of wine by now."

Drago, you truly live in an alternate reality. Today's hearing was not good for the Trump Administration. You keep pushing the idea that they said there was no collusion. They said no such thing. Clapper was not privy to the FBI investigation.

"On March 5, Clapper was interviewed by NBC News' Chuck Todd on Meet the Press and asked if there was any evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. "Not to my knowledge," Clapper replied. Since then, Trump and his champions have cited Clapper to say there is no there there with the Russia story. Trump on March 20 tweeted, "James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia. The story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!" White House press secretary Sean Spicer has repeatedly deployed this Clapper statement to insist there was no collusion.

At Monday's hearing, Clapper pulled this rug out from under the White House and its comrades. He noted that it was standard policy for the FBI not to share with him details about ongoing counterintelligence investigations. And he said he had not been aware of the FBI's investigation of contacts between Trump associates and Russia that FBI director James Comey revealed weeks ago at a House intelligence committee hearing. Consequently, when Clapper told Todd that he was not familiar with any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, he was speaking accurately. But he essentially told the Senate subcommittee that he was not in a position to know for certain. This piece of spin should now be buried. Trump can no longer hide behind this one Clapper statement.

Clapper also dropped another piece of information disquieting for the Trump camp. Last month, the Guardian reported that British intelligence in late 2015 collected intelligence on suspicious interactions between Trump associates and known or suspected Russian agents and passed this information to to the United States "as part of a routine exchange of information." Asked about this report, Clapper said it was "accurate." He added, "The specifics are quite sensitive." This may well have been the first public confirmation from an intelligence community leader that US intelligence agencies have possessed secret information about ties between Trump's circle and Moscow. (Comey testified that the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of links between Trump associates and Russian began in late July 2016.)"; 5/8/17, 6:08 PM
Francisco D said...: Chuck begged: "Please don't insult my intelligence."

Where should I start?

Chuckles, you are a phony, a dupe and a lying vulgarian. Insulting your intelligence is the least offensive thing someone can do one this web-site.

Get some help for your metal health problems. Maybe there are other problems. Look into Viagra.; 5/8/17, 6:08 PM
jr565 said...: And here's NPR admitting that there was nothing criminal in what Flynn said:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing
Official transcripts of Flynns calls dont show criminal wrongdoing? Then why did Sally Yates get into such an uproar about how he was "compromised"?
If you read this article it TOO mentions the Logan Act

"A current U.S. intelligence official tells NPR's Mary Louise Kelly that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the transcripts of former national security adviser Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, although the official noted that doesn't rule out the possibility of illegal actions.

The official also says that there are recordings as well as transcripts of the calls, and that the transcripts don't suggest Flynn was acting under orders in his conversations."

"Depending on the content of the conversations, Flynn could have violated a law called the Logan Act, which bars a private individual from conducting foreign policy without the permission of the U.S. government. For instance, if Flynn told the ambassador the Trump administration would drop the sanctions, that would have been illegal." HE wasnt a private individual. he was the NSA to an incoming President. And if he told russians he woudl drop sanctions it would be illegal. ASSUMING HE WAS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. Which again, he wasnt. He was speaking in the capacity of being the NSA to Trump. ANd as I already showed, according to the NYT he never said he would lift sanctions. THerefore, even if he was a private citizen, he wouldn't have violated logan act since he never offered to lift sanctions.

The Logan Act is no longer even being discussed in relationship to Flynn, because it was always a ridiculous charge. But it shows where the democrats were coming from when they began pushing this non existent scandal.; 5/8/17, 6:10 PM
Paco Wové said...: Harrogate said...

Classic intimidation.

And yet Ann Althouse, whom I hear has considerable legal training, says you're wrong. Any response?; 5/8/17, 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Didn't you watch the hearing Drago? How could you have missed this?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/opinions/yates-was-headliner-but-clapper-stole-the-show-kayyem/

"First, Clapper made clear he was not a talking point.

For several weeks, the White House and many of its supporters have used Clapper's statement in previous testimony -- that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- to argue that there, in fact, was no evidence of collusion. That original statement by Clapper, however, was tempered today with a major concession: he told the subcommittee that he did not even know of the FBI investigation that FBI Director James Comey disclosed, publicly, on March 10, into whether there was collusion to influence the election.; 5/8/17, 6:16 PM
Birkel said...: @ Inga, so called

I concede James Clapper is a real boy, not a talking point.; 5/8/17, 6:37 PM
Original Mike said...: CNN headline: "yates-was-headliner-but-clapper-stole-the-show-kayyem/"

Yee Gods. I listened to the entire hearing. There was no show, there was no stealing. It was a yawnfest.; 5/8/17, 6:45 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The absurdity here is that every incoming administration does exactly what Flynn and Trump are accused of doing, and it is good that they do. We no longer live in a time when we have weeks or months in order to make a transition. Rather, we have minutes really, though, formally, it is a couple hours, when both the outgoing and incoming President are at the inauguration, and house contents are switched out. But you can be sure that everyone knows precisely when the Nuclear codes are switched, down to the minute. The rule of thumb has to be that any national security subject has to be discussible with officials of other countries, but that firm commitments to make changes to policy shouldn't be made (except maybe that we will be a better ally under the new Administration, etc) until the new President is actually and formally in charge. As a country, we can't afford, from a national security point of view, there not to have been at least some building of rapport between the US and enemies with nuclear arsenals like Russia and China, before a new President takes charge.

If Ms Yates actually mentioned the Logan Act to her bosses in regards to Gen Flynn, without any recorded quid pro quo conversation with the Russian ambassador, she was either pretty dumb and naive, or a total partisan tool. We know she that was the latter in refusing to obey President Trump, so the former is really the only question. Who would ever prosecute someone in an incoming Administration for a Logan Act violation? A holdover from the previous Administration like her? Someone working for the new (real) AG? Just ain't gonna happen. Which is why the whole concept of blackmail by the Russians for a Logan Act violation is so ludicrous.

Oh, and no doubt Flynn knew that his conversations with the Russian ambassador were being recorded. I have little doubt that there has been a standing FISA warrant for the Russian ambassadors' phones since FISA was enacted 40 years ago, with that being one of the primary objects of the legislation (that the phones of known enemy agents be intercepted without the need to show a crime or criminal intent under the Wiretap Act - and their ambassador is inevitably their best known agent, and, thus ALWAYS surveiled).; 5/8/17, 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Clapper shot down Trump's favorite piece of fake news today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/08/sally-yates-testimony-michael-flynn-key-moments-238123

Clapper was not aware of the FBI's investigation into Trump

Clapper told lawmakers that he was unaware the FBI had launched an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials last summer.

He noted “the unique position of the FBI” between intelligence and law enforcement. “As a consequence, I was not aware of the counterintelligence investigation Director Comey first referred to during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20th, and that comports with my public statements.”

Subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) used his time to ask how Clapper couldn’t have known about the investigation if he approved the intelligence community’s January assessment on Russian meddling, wondering if the reason is because the inquiry wasn’t “mature enough.”

“That’s a possibility,” Clapper replied. He speculated that another reason the investigation didn’t reach him is the evidence gathered to that point wasn’t conclusive enough.; 5/8/17, 6:48 PM
Original Mike said...: What did Flynn DO Inga? I watched the whole hearing and I don't have a clue.; 5/8/17, 6:54 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Funny thing Inga, after that briefing by Comey Schiff decided to STFU about any secret evidence. Because Comey showed the Committee his cards and he ain't got squat. That's why DiFi is so glum admitting to Wolfie Blitzer she's got nothing. Nothing!; 5/8/17, 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: OM,
Why are you so poorly informed?

First off Flynn didn't reveal that he took payment from the Russians:

"Former national security adviser Michael Flynn did not disclose payments for a 2015 speech in Moscow in his application to renew his security clearance in 2016, the leaders of the House Oversight Committee told reporters Tuesday.

The omission likely broke the law, the lawmakers said.

“As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey or anybody else,” Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said. “And it appears as if he did take that money. It was inappropriate. And there are repercussions for the violation of law.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the panel’s top Democrat, noted that knowingly falsifying or concealing information on a security clearance application form, called an SF-86, is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/lawmakers-flynn-did-not-disclose-russia-payments-in-security-clearance-application-237576; 5/8/17, 6:59 PM
Original Mike said...: "First off Flynn didn't reveal that he took payment from the Russians:...The omission likely broke the law, the lawmakers said."

Fine. Prosecute him. Surely that's not what Yates was referring to today each time she said "What Flynn did."; 5/8/17, 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Blitzer asked Feinstein about collusion, but first he said she didnt have to provide him with any classified information. She wasn't about to reveal what she knew.

Blitzer asking Feinstein about collusion.

See for yourself.; 5/8/17, 7:06 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Let me add to my last FISA comment. Everyone involved knows how everyone plays the surveillance game - if the other side can intercept your telephone calls, they should be assumed to be doing so, because the most likely are. Someone like the Russian ambassador to the US will have both insecure and secure means of communication available at pretty much all the time. They use secure communications to communicate when the don't want everyone else knowing the contents of their conversations, and insecure means when they don't. Or when, as here, secure means of conversation are not (yet) available. (No doubt, the sitting US President likely has secure means for communicating with other national leaders, including enemies, as they have had since at least JFK). this is,

BTW, one of the reasons that Crooked Hillary's continued use of her unsecured Blackberries when Sec of State was so egregious, was that she had to have known that the minute she left CONUS, her calls would be intercepted on a routine basis, all around the world, by agents of other countries, including allies, but, in particular, by enemies. Everyone does it, everyone knows that everyone does it, and has been going on for decades. The absurdity is that she didn't care, putting her personal convenience above national security on a routine basis (which, of course, is also apparently why so many of her emails, some apparently containing classified information, were on the computer used by Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner to sext young girls).; 5/8/17, 7:07 PM
Original Mike said...: Inga, you don't want people watching that clip. It shows you to be a fool.; 5/8/17, 7:07 PM
Original Mike said...: "The absurdity is that she didn't care, putting her personal convenience above national security on a routine basis ..."

Nothing better demonstrates Hillary's sense of entitlement than her email scandal.; 5/8/17, 7:10 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "You keep pushing the idea that they said there was no collusion"

I never said that THEY said there was no collusion.

I AM saying and I HAVE BEEN saying that it is clear there is no collusion based on the dems actions and talking points as well as how the principles involved are conducting themselves.

Feinstein was trying to clue you idiots in last week that there is no collusion (since she is a senior member of the key committees and she has not been shown any evidence for that).

Further, it is now "out" that we have had multiple intelligence agencies in the US AND foreign agencies surveilling the Trump team and nothing, not one iota of collusion evidence, has been made available to any member of any committee.

Finally, it's clear that the Trump team members are happy to come up and testify under oath, whereas Susan Rice and others? Not so much.

That's why the goalposts are moving and the dems now want to "get Flynn" for a speech he made in Moscow (that he briefed the intelligence agencies on both BEFORE and AFTER) at the behest of RT!

That's what the left has now!

Hilarious.

If it's illegal to take money from RT, who is going to prosecute the Washington Post since they publish a paid insert from RT EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK.

LOL; 5/8/17, 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: OM, I really have to wonder if you people weren't listening during the hearing.

"Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified on Monday that she told the White House that Michael Flynn was compromised and vulnerable to Russian blackmail — 18 days before the White House finally asked Flynn to resign from his post as National Security Adviser.

In January, Yates said, the Department of Justice became concerned about a series of incorrect statements from top Trump administration officials regarding Flynn’s contact with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Due to incidental collection, the DOJ had evidence that these statements were false — meaning that either top officials were lying to the American public, or Flynn was lying to the officials.

Yates testified:
“We explained to him it was a whole lot more than that and went back over the same concerns that we had raised with them the prior day, the concern first about the underlying conduct itself — that he had lied to the Vice President and others, that the American public had been misled — and then importantly that every time this lie was repeated — and the misrepresentations were getting more and more specific as they were coming out — every time that happened, it increased the compromise. And to state the obvious you don’t want your National Security Adviser compromised with the Russians.”"; 5/8/17, 7:11 PM
Drago said...: Original Mike: "Inga, you don't want people watching that clip. It shows you to be a fool"

Poor Inga.

Bless her heart.; 5/8/17, 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: OM,
You're the fool if you think that Feinstein would reveal classified info. Here I thought you were fairly intelligent.; 5/8/17, 7:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Drago, we all know you to be a manic blow hard, bless your heart.; 5/8/17, 7:13 PM
Drago said...: Inga: ""Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified on Monday that she told the White House that Michael Flynn was compromised and vulnerable to Russian blackmail — 18 days before the White House finally asked Flynn to resign from his post as National Security Adviser."

LOL

Inga unwittingly keeps making our case for us! She doesn't even realize it.; 5/8/17, 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Drago, you don't have a case. You have talking points.; 5/8/17, 7:15 PM
n.n said...: After holding several baby trials, some more, some less successful, the Left is still hunting for babies.; 5/8/17, 7:15 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "OM, You're the fool if you think that Feinstein would reveal classified info"

LOL

Yep, that "collusion" "evidence" will be popping out any day now! Swearsies!; 5/8/17, 7:15 PM
readering said...: Trump tweets about "old news" from Yates. From the guy who still hands out voting maps of November 2016.; 5/8/17, 7:17 PM
Original Mike said...: "Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified on Monday that she told the White House that Michael Flynn was compromised and vulnerable to Russian blackmail "

HOW? In order to be vulnerable to blackmail he had to have done something blackmailable. What. Did. He. Do?; 5/8/17, 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Trump is their leader. And they follow...pathetic for people who should know better.; 5/8/17, 7:18 PM
Original Mike said...: Inga, Feinstein did not say there was classified info she could not talk about. You really can't have that much trouble understanding simple English.; 5/8/17, 7:18 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Drago, you don't have a case. You have talking points."

You appear confused.

The ones making the accusation, your pals, are required to make a case.

And they can't.

Per Yates, Don McGahns question was perfect: Why does the Justice dept care about communications between Trump staff members? He could see it was all BS right then and there.

The entire collusion meme has collapsed into the "Flynn was potentially blackmailable!" meme, which, naturally leads to the obvious question: If he was so blackmailable, was he actually, you know, blackmailed?

You'd think someone might have thought to present that evidence in closed session for either the House or Senate committees or both.

But alas, another dry hole.

tsk tsk.; 5/8/17, 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: OM,

Jesus. Are you trying to sound stupid? Yates said several times she couldn't reveal classified information.; 5/8/17, 7:20 PM
Drago said...: readering: "Trump tweets about "old news" from Yates."

readering "cleverly" avoids addressing whether or not Yates "news" was old.

Spoiler: Her CYA fake news is "old". It's the very same hashed over stuff the dems trot out again each week for the last 6 months attempting to create a fire from fake smoke.

You could see Graham was a bit amused by the flailing questioning by the dems.; 5/8/17, 7:21 PM
Original Mike said...: Inga, your link goes to the Blitzer interview of Feinstein.; 5/8/17, 7:23 PM
Anonymous said...: OM,

I didn't say Feinstein said anything about not revealing classified info. It was BLITZER who gave her that out. Didn't you listen? You are incapeable of reading between the lines? I'm done wasting my time on you.; 5/8/17, 7:23 PM
Drago said...: OM: "HOW? In order to be vulnerable to blackmail he had to have done something blackmailable. What. Did. He. Do?"

Per the line of questioning, the dems have moved the goalposts to the 'flynn was not upfront with VP Pence" and THAT made him "blackmailable".

It's pretty clear that this is the ONLY fallback for the dems to provide justification for their domestics spying (which was already proven against some congress people as well as members of the media (Rosen at Fox and 2 AP reporters)).

The dems are going to ride this story hard 'cuz its the only horse they've got.; 5/8/17, 7:24 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "You are incapeable of reading between the lines?"

Inga is picking up on the secret communications "between the lines". Well played super-sleuth!

That's almost as impressive as "lifelong republican" Chucks mind-reading!

Almost.; 5/8/17, 7:25 PM
Original Mike said...: "You are incapeable of reading between the lines?"

That's priceless.; 5/8/17, 7:27 PM
Drago said...: Original Mike, you have to understand, it's what Blitzer DOESN'T ask and what Blitzer DOESN'T say and how Blitzer DOESN'T look that reveals the real truthy truth.

Inga understands what is not asked, she hears what is not said and she sees what is not there to devine The Truth!; 5/8/17, 7:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone with half a brain would KNOW that Feinstein would not reveal to any reporter a CONCLUSION of the investigations, especially one as important as collusion. She was being cagey, are you folks really so desperate to hear that this is all just a bad dream? Sad.; 5/8/17, 7:32 PM
Drago said...: Inga: " She was being cagey, are you folks really so desperate to hear that this is all just a bad dream? Sad."

Yet somehow everyone on the left already "knows" that Trump and his staff are guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

LOL

But yes, we are the desperate ones!

We ought to start a pool to see who can guess by what dates different lefties start peeling off back into reality land. Of course, there will always be the Ingas/"lifelong republicans" who will never let go of the conspiracy, so we should probably just leave them out of the betting.; 5/8/17, 7:35 PM
Drago said...: And remember, the original charge by the dems was that the Trump team COLLUDED with the Russians during the election to throw the election to Trump with some sort of quid pro quo implied.

We sure don't hear much about that anymore, do we?

That hilariously fake "dossier"? Not exactly making the rounds much either.

One by one the thin reeds by which the remaining sanity of the lefties/"lifelong republicans" hangs disappears.; 5/8/17, 7:37 PM
Original Mike said...: "Anyone with half a brain would KNOW that Feinstein would not reveal to any reporter a CONCLUSION of the investigations, especially one as important as collusion."

You are arguing that because she didn't talk about it, that's proof it exists.

"She was being cagey, are you folks really so desperate to hear that this is all just a bad dream? Sad."

A bad dream? It's comedy gold.; 5/8/17, 7:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Poor Drago,
You're not hearing about it because it's classified and no one is leaking anymore, duh.; 5/8/17, 7:40 PM
Original Mike said...: Inga, how do you know about it?; 5/8/17, 7:46 PM
Francisco D said...: Is Chuck Meade's alter ego?

Just a question based on deleted responses.; 5/8/17, 7:51 PM
Drago said...: Inga: Poor Drago,You're not hearing about it because it's classified and no one is leaking anymore, duh"

Lol

See? "It" is right there and "it" is happening but no one knows about "it" because it is super classified...except Inga through DiFis secret eyelash batting code!; 5/8/17, 7:52 PM
Francisco D said...: Two posts deleted on this thread. None of them were vulgar, like Chuckles, or idiotic like Inga's.

I smell a rat.; 5/8/17, 7:59 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Inga knows about classified info that is not being leaked? Well, damn, that's impressive. Does she have her own high level government contacts, who are apparently leaking info to her so she can tell us about it at Althouse?

I guess this is the place to come for breaking news.; 5/8/17, 8:04 PM
Francisco D said...: Larry,

CanI get a word in without you deleting my posts?; 5/8/17, 8:04 PM
jr565 said...: Inga, democrats even asked Yates about Flynn's getting paid by turkey and she specifically said she has no knowledge of thst, and thats not what she was alarmed by. So, you can't use thst as the reason Yates used to hold Flynn accountable. What ELSE do u have? Doesn't it have to do with the Logan act? That's why the democrats were initially in an uproar.
What person in modern times has ever been found guilty of violating the Logan act? It's a complete non issue.; 5/8/17, 8:07 PM
jr565 said...: Inga, if there were actually proof of collusion don't you think it would have been leaked already? Mike Flynn Actually did nothing wrong. Yet it took all of five seconds to have his conversation. Leaked to the times and the democrats to start in with the conspiracy I theories about Logan act violations. Not to mention people in govt leaking to the times about potential collusion between trump officials and Russian spies.; 5/8/17, 8:11 PM
Chuck said...: What the fuck is your point, John Henry? I don't have much interest in playing games.
What is the basis for calling Judge Curiel a "Mexican judge"?

He is a U.S. citizen. He's been a U.S. citizen his whole life. He's never held Mexican citizenship. His parents are naturalized U.S. citizens and at least one of them (perhaps both) have been U.S. citizens for all of the judge's lifetime.

I want to know what is the substantive basis for defending Trump's "Mexican judge" comment.

I sure would like the Althouse take on it as well but I won't hold my breath.; 5/8/17, 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "Inga, if there were actually proof of collusion don't you think it would have been leaked already?"

No.; 5/8/17, 8:13 PM
Original Mike said...: So I ask again, Inga. How do you know about it?; 5/8/17, 8:16 PM
Drago said...: Jr565: "What person in modern times has ever been found guilty of violating the Logan act? It's a complete non issue."

No one has ever been prosecuted for Logan Act Violations.

But it's only been since 1799, and as the juice box "journolistos" at Vox might say: dude, that's like over a hundred years ago!

So, this is what the Dems have: the Logan Act (LOL) and Flynn was not completely honest with Pence!

And that is after spending 6 months calling Trump a traitor all to cover up the obambis domestic spying.

#Sad!; 5/8/17, 8:16 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Are you defending his attempt to intimidate her?; 5/8/17, 8:16 PM
Original Mike said...: "So, this is what the Dems have: the Logan Act (LOL) and Flynn was not completely honest with Pence!"

AND, the secret information. Don't forget about the secret information.; 5/8/17, 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: OM,
If I told you I'd have to kill you.🕵🏻‍♀️🔪; 5/8/17, 8:22 PM
Drago said...: Quite frankly, I'm not sure any administration has the will power to not abuse these types of intelligence capabilities.

I don't think everyone would attempt to deflect exposure by such a pathetic 'our opponents are Traitors' ploy, but we will get to that in due course.

Reauthorization of these capabilities comes up very shortly and that is going to be an interesting set of hearings in both the house and Senate side.

Again, it's becoming more and more clear why Mike Rogers felt compelled to head in over to Trump Tower in late November last year to meet with the Trump which led to Dems calling for his head.; 5/8/17, 8:23 PM
Francisco D said...: Ah,

I see that you have reinstated some of my posts.

I do not appreciate the manipulation.

Bye!; 5/8/17, 8:24 PM
jr565 said...: Chuck wrote: "judge Curiel was for a time a member of La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which has no policy connection with the political activist group, the National Association of La Raza." HE was part of an all hispanic law firm and dealt with immigration issues for Mexicans. How his his ethnicity completely irrelevant?; 5/8/17, 8:25 PM
jr565 said...: inga wrote:
"Inga, if there were actually proof of collusion don't you think it would have been leaked already?"

No.

then you're saying democrats literally have no basis to make a claim that there was any collusion. Since all the reporting that came out in january when this first broke said their was no evidence, all the players who would have this information have said "We have no knowledge" and the FBI has said no comment. Where then are democrats getting their information from?; 5/8/17, 8:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Hasta la vista Francisco!; 5/8/17, 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: "then you're saying democrats literally have no basis to make a claim that there was any collusion. Since all the reporting that came out in january when this first broke said their was no evidence, all the players who would have this information have said "We have no knowledge" and the FBI has said no comment."

No.; 5/8/17, 8:30 PM
Original Mike said...: "Since all the reporting that came out in january when this first broke said their was no evidence, all the players who would have this information have said "We have no knowledge" and the FBI has said no comment."

What more do you need, man? Read between the lines.; 5/8/17, 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: OM,
The "underlying conduct" by Flynn will one day be unclassified. Try to be patient.; 5/8/17, 8:34 PM
Chuck said...: jr565 said...
Chuck wrote: "judge Curiel was for a time a member of La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which has no policy connection with the political activist group, the National Association of La Raza." HE was part of an all hispanic law firm and dealt with immigration issues for Mexicans. How his his ethnicity completely irrelevant?

First, do you want to take you best shot at defending the "Mexican judge" comment? That was where this started. And it hasn't much advanced past that.

Next, if you are suggesting that there were legal grounds for a forced recusal of Judge Curiel, then I am wondering why Trump's own lawyers never filed that motion?

I would say to you, that a judge's ethnicity, standing alone, is virtually NEVER grounds for recusal and I challenge to try to argue the opposite side of that proposition. If what you said had any merit, Justice Clarence Thomas could never hear a civil rights case concerning racial discrimination. Would we think that female judges could never hear a gender discrimination claim? Justice Ginsburg was an ACLU lawyer many years ago. Must she recuse herself from any case in which the ACLU is a party? Answer: No.

What part of this do you want to argue?; 5/8/17, 8:43 PM
jr565 said...: Chuck here is the website for La Raza Lawyers of California
http://larazalawyers.net
It says "The Latino Bar Association of California.

"La Raza Lawyers of California is an independent unincorporated association of Lawyers organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California and serve as a statewide network for local affiliate La Raza Lawyers Groups. We meet quarterly at various locations around the state and represent 16 different local organizations with over 2,000 attorneys. We are affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association."

sounds like the fact that they are latino has some bearing on why they are part of this particular organization, yes?
What are its goals?
"
Purpose and Goals
The purpose and goal of this Association is to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state and the professional interests of the membership."

So, its an association of ALL HISPANICS who serve the needs of the hispanic community> yet we we are supposed to assume that ethnicity has no bearing on his impartiality?

He was also associated with other law associations ALL tied to hispanic issues. But his ethnicity has NOTHING to do with his goals as a lawyer.

He is linked to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers association who award scholarships to Mexican immigrants. Not sure if they are even legal.
http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-Raza-Dinnner-Program-2014-FINAL.pdf

He is linked to the HBNA (hispanic National Bar Association) which called for a direct boycott of Trump businesses http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df9a27c10b6d6ba38ba001440&id=f8a4a02241&e=cd8fc1ccd9%0A

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with awarding scholarships to Mexicans or even being part of a hispanic lawyers association.
But CLEARLY the fact that he is hispanic is tied to his advocacy. CLEARLY.; 5/8/17, 8:46 PM
jr565 said...: Chuck,
the argument is whether Curiel is an unbiased judge. And whether trump should assume he is unbiased. Based on his history as a judge who's career seems based around his ethnicity and who's causes all revolve around helping the hispanic community I would say no. Its quite reasonable to assume that such a judge might have an axe to grind.; 5/8/17, 8:48 PM
jr565 said...: (cont) and the same is true for any judge/lawyer that is considered a civil rights atty that is tied to a specific interest group and who's career has been built around protecting the interests of that interest group. Your tie to that advocate group defines your bias. And its not unreasonable to assume as much.; 5/8/17, 8:50 PM
Chuck said...: jr655 you aren't making a legal argument. You aren't even getting close. You are making a barroom argument, where what you feel as a free-thinking American about what seems right and proper to you in your gut is what counts.

And that is bullshit.

The question is whether Trump had any good basis to insult the judge and the federal judiciary as a "Mexican judge", and whether there existed any good reason that would compromise Judge Curiel as a matter of federal law and judicial ethics.

I am telling you; apart from Trump's own personal grandstanding, Trump's lawyers (he used the silk stocking firm of O'Melveny & Myers) never thought that there was any basis for a recusal. They never filed a motion. Do you get it? Trump's own lawyers did not think that there was a basis for recusal. That ends the argument.

Now, you might not like the trial judge whom you drew via the blind draw. That happens in U.S. District Courts and state circuit courts and trial courts all across the nation, every weekday. We trial lawyers have to deal with that all the time. Literally, all the time. You don't get to force a recusal just because you don't like the possibility of prejudice or bias, based on something like ethnicity or past associations.

You really are getting nowhere in this argument.; 5/8/17, 9:04 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "The "underlying conduct" by Flynn will one day be unclassified. Try to be patient."

-- According to every source, both on and off the record, his conduct was... completely fine. He lost his job because he told Pence something wrong/lied to him.; 5/8/17, 9:07 PM
John henry said...: There is no doubt in my mind that 2-3 years ago Chucko would have been assuring us that Ted Cruz couldn't possibly be a Canadian citizen. Citing all the same reasons and blog commenters that he cites for Curiel not being Mexican.

Right Chucko? Cruz couldn't possibly have been Canadian, could he?

John Henry; 5/8/17, 9:08 PM
John henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/8/17, 9:15 PM
Chuck said...: Sport, I am not interested in playing games with you. Ted Cruz's citizenship isn't an issue here. I never took a position on that.

Anyway, Ted Cruz had dual citizenship, and then renounced his Canadian citizenship. All of it being a matter of record.

Are you saying that Judge Curiel had dual citizenship? Because he didn't.; 5/8/17, 9:22 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "OM, The "underlying conduct" by Flynn will one day be unclassified. Try to be patient."

Lol

It's all been leaked and there is no "there" there. Which is why Flynn is perfectly willing to testify under oath at any time. Just like Page, Manafort, et al.

Susan Rice? Well, she became real shy real quick.

Not to worry. Subpoenas will be on the way shortly which will afford her the opportunity to plead the 5th; 5/8/17, 9:38 PM
Original Mike said...: "According to every source, both on and off the record, his conduct was... completely fine."

Well there you go. What more do you need?; 5/8/17, 9:39 PM
Original Mike said...: "Try to be patient."

Oh, I'm patient. I am not privy to the secret information, but I have a feeling this whole line of inquiry will turn out poorly for the Obama Administration. No hurry. I can wait.; 5/8/17, 9:41 PM
Drago said...: Judge Curiel is that "impeccable" judge who "accidently" released sealed documents in the Trump case to the public that Hillary's campaign immediately seized upon after which "impeccable" Judge Curiel "noticed" his mistake and had the records "resealed".

Impeccably resealed, naturally.; 5/8/17, 9:46 PM
Original Mike said...: "Subpoenas will be on the way shortly which will afford her the opportunity to plead the 5th."

And THAT will really seal Trump's fate. Between the lines, man. Between the lines.; 5/8/17, 9:48 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Sally Yates Testifies She Has Never Been Questioned By FBI About Intelligence Leaks to Media

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/08/sally-yates-testifies-she-has-never-been-questioned-by-fbi-about-intelligence-leaks-to-media/comment-page-1/#comments; 5/8/17, 9:48 PM
Chuck said...: Drago said...
Judge Curiel is that "impeccable" judge who "accidently" released sealed documents in the Trump case to the public that Hillary's campaign immediately seized upon after which "impeccable" Judge Curiel "noticed" his mistake and had the records "resealed".

Impeccably resealed, naturally.

You're sounding like you picked up this story from some alt-right website that had no doubt that it proved Judge Curiel's intent to screw Trump.

For the readers here who are interested in the truth, which is almost always more interesting than an ideological myth, the accidental release of information was the release, per a regular discovery order, of Trump University records that had not yet been redacted. (It is almost never the job of a federal district court judge to do discovery redactions. They are customarily done by private firms and their e-discovery reviewers, overseen by federal magistrates and/or special masters. It was clearly unintentional; only about 400 pages out of several hundred thousand at issue in discovery; and only was a matter of portions of documents to be redacted, with the rest being subject to regular discovery and disclosure. The Trumpkins were looking for a reason to criticize Judge Curiel. Again, if it had been a serious matter and grounds for Curiel's recusal, O'Melveny & Myers (the leading litigation firm west of the Rockies) didn't see it as the basis for a motion.; 5/8/17, 10:26 PM
Drago said...: "lifelong republican" Chuck: "The Trumpkins were looking for a reason to criticize Judge Curiel. Again, if it had been a serious matter and grounds for Curiel's recusal, O'Melveny & Myers (the leading litigation firm west of the Rockies) didn't see it as the basis for a motion."

No one's arguing it was cause for recusal.

It was just a very useful "accident" that occurred in the heat of a campaign and tied in immediately and seamlessly into Hillary's campaign rhetoric.

Lots of leaks seem to help the Dems that way. Which is precisely why you, a supposed "lifelong republican" defend them at every turn.

Your defense of La Raza fan boy Curiel is almost as passionate as your defense of Stolen Valor bum Blumenthal.; 5/8/17, 10:42 PM
Birkel said...: @ Chuck, so called fopdoodle

I enjoy reading your comments as you try diligently to tell other adults what the terms of their thinking must be. Resist, we must. Bigly.

Try this on for size: Other adults disagree with your assumptions. And nothing you type will change that.

If I were the opposing divorce attorney I imagine your habit of mansplaining would be useful.; 5/8/17, 11:11 PM
jr565 said...: Chuck wrote:
jr655 you aren't making a legal argument. You aren't even getting close. You are making a barroom argument, where what you feel as a free-thinking American about what seems right and proper to you in your gut is what counts.

And that is bullshit.

I'm making a TRUTHFUL argument. A judge who represents hispanic interests, surrounds himself with other hispanics, and is part of only hispanic interest groups has a bias. and his race/ethnicity therefore is relevant. BY DESIGN. after all, he was the one who made representing hispanic interests be the rationale for his legal career. I'm not saying he's wrong to do so. Only you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't be a civil rights atty that represents one interest but then not have people assume that that interest might dictate how you will rule. it was Curiel himself that made his own race relevant. And this would be true if it was a lawyer/judge who was gay and always represented gay interests, or a pro life judge/lawyer who always represents pro life causes That interest is relevant and its totally reasonable to assume that it is.; 5/9/17, 12:37 AM
jr565 said...: "Lots of leaks seem to help the Dems that way. Which is precisely why you, a supposed "lifelong republican" defend them at every turn." Is chuck still saying he's a Republican? that's pretty funny.; 5/9/17, 12:38 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The talking point that I keep hearing, is that the supposed blackmail that Yates was worried about was the alleged Logan Act violation. The theory seems to have been that Flynn talking to the Russians about sanctions was a violation, and the Russians could hold that over him, and blackmail him with that violation. Only way I can see their theory making even a little sense. Otherwise, it doesn't. After all what is wrong with members of a transition team talking to other countries to see what is on their minds, so that they can hit the ground runnng when the new President is sworn in? Just makes sense, which is why it is done routinely. What they never quite got their head around though was the timing - any Logan Act prosecution would have to be by the Administration that Flynn had been working on behalf of, not one staffed by Democratic party operatives, intent on taking down Republicans. By then, both Yates, and her boss, former AG Lynch would be long gone from the DoJ.

My guess though is that the theory/meme was initially that the Trump people were working with the Russians to hack the election in order to beat Crooked Hillary, and that you the Russians were doing it to get leverage over Trump himself. Which was pretty weak to start with (if, for no other reason than Trump doesn't seem to be the type who is easily blackmailed). When that flamed out for lack of evidence, the Logan Act accusations were the modified hangout. The backup position. Plan D, after plans A, B, and D had all flamed out.; 5/9/17, 1:49 AM
jim said...: Trump's cited Twitter vomitus may not be intimidation, but it's sure political malpractice in the first degree. That his own staff were/are not so much a sieve as a wide-open funnel was old news well before Election Day.

Watch for worsening symptoms of dementia.

Funny - in a sick way - that the precedent cited at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was the Plame outing. Certain folks seem strangely eager to throw over their own country's safety if a score needs settling.; 5/9/17, 2:23 AM
Birkel said...: @ jim

Are you practicing medicine without a license?; 5/9/17, 6:48 AM
Unknown said...: Attention to all,Attention to all.Are you a business man singer soccer play
trying to be grand and famous in life or trying to secure your wealth and
position in the society and get money within 3 days .
whatsApp +2347052744530
.join Illuminati now to have Money, powers, fame,protection, cure to all
illness and wealth become your title in just three days. If interested to
join the illuminati brotherhood and sisters with our headquarters at Nigeria and USA
and Africa through African initiation for success in life do and become
billionaires any were you are through online initiation.For more info
whatsApp us through this initiation contact Number:
+2347052744530
For your on-line initiation.
No matter where you are. No distance can affect the work of our baphomet
WhatsApp +2347052744530
Email:worldmoneyilluminati669@gmail.com
and say yes to your dreams.Hail lucifer..
..............??; 5/9/17, 9:09 AM
jr565 said...: Bruce Hayden wrote:
The talking point that I keep hearing, is that the supposed blackmail that Yates was worried about was the alleged Logan Act violation.

Exactly. What was the reasoning behind the argument that he was "compromised" BUT that he violated the Logan Act. If he didnt, then he's just an incoming NSA speaking to someone from another country who wanst some idea as to how their country will be viewed by incoming administration. Further, once the dems went all in on the Russians are the hackers, they tried to ensure that the relaitionship was totally soured and the dems even seemed to want to put us on war footing with Russia. I'm sure Russia might have wanted to get assurances from incoming adminsitration that they weren't about to be attacked and to let them know they were not responsible for the hacks (even if this was untrue). Is anyone surprised that Russia might view the rhetoric against them by the dems as confrontational?; 5/9/17, 10:07 AM