So I don't have the time or patience to parse through this entire thing, and I encourage you to read it carefully and try to figure out what the Washington Post is trying to pump up or minimize, who's lying or stretching the truth, and whether the underlying story in the document has any element of truth to it. Why did 3 of the 4 key characters named in the document flatly deny everything and one refused to speak?*
If everyone always thought the document was unreliable,** why is it being held up now as having had an effect on Comey's decision to go public in July? There's an idea that he was afraid that the Russians would be able to dump this story after Lynch took a position, undercutting her authority. But why did it help for Comey to go public first? The story could still have been dumped on him, undercutting his authority (though it wasn't).
It seems that Comey just knew about a (fake?) story that the Russians could dump if and when they wanted. What exactly was he afraid of and why are we hearing about it now? And how do I know the story wasn't true? It sounds like something that could have happened... in which case, why tell us about it? What's the motivation to leak a story about a fake story if everyone always thought it was fake? Is it that the story is true and they're trying to get out ahead of it with some sort of reason why we should perceive it as fake?
We're told that several of the "people familiar with the Russian document" — anonymous people who aren't supposed to talk about it — are — in the words of the Washington Post — "concerned that revealing details now about the document could be perceived as an effort to justify Trump’s decision to fire Comey." So, there's a document that might help Trump, but they want to make sure that it's only used to — to what? — help Comey? Why are they revealing it when they're not supposed to? We're told these people support Comey, but then shouldn't it be clear how this document explains why Comey did what he did last July? It's certainly not clear. It seems to have had more to do with protecting Loretta Lynch and helping the Clinton campaign, and I don't know who it helps now. If it doesn't help the people you want to help, why are you leaking?
The more labyrinthine it feels, the more I lean toward accepting the story that Debbie Wasserman Shultz really did write that email. And in the current manner of doing political analysis — when it's aimed against Trump — I could say let Wasserman Shultz prove she didn't do that.
And this really puzzled me:
While it was conducting the Clinton email investigation, the FBI did not interview anyone mentioned in the Russian document about its claims.Why not?! We're supposed to believe that the document had a big effect and 3 of the 4 people named in it would flatly deny what it said, but they were never asked? Why not? Either it's just a crap document that no one ever believed or it needed to be checked out. The only other option seems to be that they didn't want to know whether it was true. Why not?
I feel as though I have to try to unravel the WaPo report because I cannot trust WaPo to do anything other than to try to hurt Donald Trump.*** I have to take it apart and put it back together in some guess at what might be a straight story.
_____________________
* The document says that there is email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz (then DNC chair) to Leonard Benardo (of George Soros's Open Society Foundations) saying that Loretta Lynch had assured Amanda Renteria (a senior Clinton campaign staffer) that — as WaPo puts it — "the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter." Wasserman Schultz, Leonard Benardo, Amanda Renteria all deny, and Loretta Lynch won't talk about it. And yet we are told that Lynch did meet with FBI officials, and that she told them — in what was not a formal interview — "I don’t know this person [Renteria] and have never communicated with her." If that is correct, why wouldn't she acknowledge as much when WaPo tried to talk to her for this article?
** I'm assuming that there is a document and that it's from the Russians, but that's just what the Washington Post tells me its unnamed sources are telling them.
*** I'm thinking about what I heard Bob Woodward say this morning on C-SPAN:
“There is this kind of sense of too many people writing things like—when is the impeachment coming, how long will it last, will he make it through the summer, and so forth. No, there may be stuff that comes out, but it has to be hard evidence. I worry for the business and I worry for the perception of the business by people, not to just Trump supporters, but people that see that kind of smugness that they are talking about.”
Posts
158 comments:
I have to take it apart and put it back together in some guess at what might be a straight story.
Welcome to the world of reading Pravda.
WaPo won't let me read it and I am not about to subscribe.
I have a little more faith in the analysis by Jerry Pournelle.
Comey is a political creature, which he describes well. He had never been an agent and think that should be a requirement for the FBI Director.
He is a politician and one that has always operated from the shadows. He has never run for office, like 90% of the Swamp creatures.
"WaPo won't let me read it and I am not about to subscribe."
Oh, yeah. That problem. What's the point of leaking if you're going to contain it within a paywall?
Someone should leak the whole article, since they're leaking, but sorry, I won't be the one to do it.
It's a bureaucratic rehabilitation effort from the FBI, saying "I know we did some half-assed stuff leading up to the election last year, but now that Comey's gone it's all behind us."
Here, CBS kind of appropriated and re-presented the whole thing.
"WaPo won't let me read it and I am not about to subscribe."
Just google it while browsing in private/incognito mode.
And it extends the narrative that dark subversive Russian forces affected our election.
This is a fairly easy version to read and understand.
Fake Russian Intel on Lynch- Clinton Collusion Peompted Comey Investigation into Hillary's emails.
"A dubious Russian intelligence document that purported to show coordination between Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Justice Department, and prompted former FBI Director James Comey to disclose the bureau’s investigation into Clinton’s emails, was “bad intelligence” and “possibly even fake,” the Washington Post reports.
The document itself claimed to describe an email conversation between former DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and an official with the George-Soros founded organization Open Society Foundation. It did not include an actual transcript of the conversation.
Per the document, Wasserman Schultz admitted former AG Lynch contacted Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria, indicating she would not push too far on into the investigation of Clinton’s emails. The revelation of that since-debunked document led Comey to reveal the existence of an FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails.
But, according to Lynch, she never met Renteria.
“Just so you know, I don’t know this person and have never communicated with her,’’ Lynch told FBI officials, the Post reports.
Schultz similarly pushed back on the notion of a conversation between herself and an official with Open Society, identified as Benardo.
“Not only do I not know him, I’ve never heard of him,’ Schultz said. “I don’t know who this is. There’s no truth to this whatsoever. I have never sent an email remotely like what you’re describing.’’"
This Washington Post story tells me that the democrats are now panicking. With Comey no longer there to protect them leakers are trying to get ahead of the damging info soon to come.
"prompted"
Why is the Althouse trying to understand fake news?
A lot of people are terminally confused at this point, is what I get from this.
Probably because old lies have to be justified through several changes of circumstances.
In this case I think Comey is
a. trying to bolster his reputation with Democrats by blaming whatever acts of his that offended them on mysterious documents issued by the bogeyman of the moment. This all wasn't his fault, you see, it was that ^(%^&%&* report. And the Russians.
b. and that the report by Rosenstein justifying his dismissal is all wrong, because it doesn't take into account that pesky report.
Anyway, if the FBI was fooled by a made-up tale circulating privately about a possible piece of USG political corruption - thats the failure of the FBI. There is always a sea of rumors and false reports drifting in to intelligence agencies.
It's not hard to read at all: Trump, election, FBI, Russians.
That's the story. You can skip all the details. Especially the verbs.
“Just so you know, I don’t know this person
People telling the truth say, "I don't know this person"
People lying start the sentence with filler.
And then there is Deep Plunger, Seth Rich, who will testify posthumously exposing the coverup at the DNC and presumably the "Deep State". There are more witnesses and documents to be recovered from Water Closet. Perhaps including Obama et al's global (Africa, Asia, and Europe) elective wars, forced immigration reform, and efforts to influence the election in America, Israel, etc. Perhaps hush money paid to the Russians following the elective war in Serbia, the unsuccessful regime change in Syria, and the Western-backed coup in Ukraine.
I saw the article and had a similar reaction: tl;dr.
Thanks for doing that. It seems to be another piece of fake news.
I keep saying the same thing but it bears repeating. Its been almost 7 months since Trump was elected and almost a year since the FBI supposedly started its investigation of Trump-Russia.
YET...
We still don't have one piece of hard evidence showing Trump or anyone close to him did anything criminal. All we've gotten is Comey and the MSM hinting, insinuating, and implying there was something bad the needs to investigated but they can't tell us *specifically*, what-who-where. Now we have a special counsel that will start doing the same thing.
What makes it even more absurd, is we know that if *anything* showed Trump had colluded with Russia, it would've been leaked during the election or in the last seven months.
It'll be interesting what Mr. Comey says, assuming he's willing to say anything.
Another explanation is that the opposition to Trump is trying to claim that this is the substance of how the Russians interfered in the election, by sending the FBI a letter, that fooled Comey into embarrassing Hilary, hence they hacked the election.
There aren't any other sorts of Russian interference anyone can come up with, it seems, so this will have to do.
What makes it ever more crazy is:
No one can say what "Collusion with Russia" means. They use all these vague, general, scary sounding words but never say what *specifically* Trump might have did or why it was criminal.
But that seems to be yesterdays news. Now, its whether Trump was trying to cover up for a crime no one can identify.
@Michael K, thanks for the link to Pournelle. Same guy who wrote Lucifer's Hammer?
I think the article is cumbersome because they are trying to pack too many false assumptions, dishonest assertions, masked inferences etc into the piece.
If they were reporting honestly, their points would be clear and concise.
It's why I no longer read the papers, there was a time when you could read between the lines, Pravda-like. But now the newspapers have moved from "a story based on true events" to raw fiction.
And I prefer stompy robots and lots of sex in my fiction.
OK - so now I can get back on-topic since the CBS site talks about the same document. Here's a paragraph:
"Comey's fear, according to official who talked to the Post, was that the document would leak, which could call into question the Bureau's impartiality in the case. The possibility of such a leak factored in to his decision to publicly announce the end of the Clinton investigation without discussing it with the Department of Justice."
I read this 3 times and still don't know why this document would motivate Comey to do what he did.
DWS sent the email to Soros in order to keep the money flowing to Hillary. Assuming, of course, there is an email.
Institutional rehabilitation is the FBI’s motive for pushing the story; extending the Russian coup narrative is the Post’s motive for publishing it.
Reciprocity is the key to every relationship, as Captain Dudley Smith reminds us in the great LA Confidential.
"Assuming, of course, there is an email."
That's what the Pakistanis have. She is worried that a copy is on that laptop the DC cops have,
And the adverbs and the nouns.
Anne: I know you are retired but you are still wasting time reading the WAPO. let's have some dog pics.
Bottom Line is we're going to have to wait for Mr. Comey to come before the Senate and actually answer questions about what the hell he's been doing for almost a year.
We need to stop hearing from his "Friends" or his Dad or his buddy who used to be at the CIA.
Of course, one reason for visiting with the Special Counsel is to give Comey cover in the Senate hearing. "Sorry, Senator I can't answer that question. That matter is before the Special Prosecutor".
When Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post back in 2013, I strongly considered subscribing the moment I heard the news. After all, I reasoned, Bezos had done a great job with Amazon and I assumed he would restore fairness and objectivity to the Post, qualities it was sorely lacking, as demonstrated by the paper's day after day publication of stories in the run up to the 2012 election claiming that Mitt Romney of all people had been a terrible bully in his younger days. Milquetoast Mitt, bully extraordinaire. Despite my strong inclination to subscribe, I decided to wait and see if Bezos would indeed bring the improvements to the paper I was sure he would.
Well. In consideration of how far off the deep end the Post has gone in its obsessive and frankly insane zeal to bring down the current President, I'm really happy I didn't pull out my wallet and subscribe all those years ago. It would have been money down a rat hole, literally. And Bezos should be ashamed.
Yes, same Pournelle, also longtime columnist at much-missed Byte magazine.
I think we might have a titanic scandal brewing in DC that will take out a lot of Democrats.
I can't explain the panic any other way.
But that piece on Comey is not exclusive to Pournelle. It's been on various right-wing sites the day before, Freerepublic IIRC.
"They use all these vague scary words but never specify-"
That's deliberate. Before I ditched social media, I noticed how easily manipulated the left was by this tactic.
Remember the hoax studies that were all gobbly gook generated by computers? Same concept.
Use a bunch of loaded words, unsupported assertions and analysis devoid of any facts. When the dust settles all the proles will have a vague recollection that Trump was associated with something dark and sinister. And that "feeling" will color all future beliefs.
The quickest way to get yourself banned from a liberal site is to ask them to be specific. You are harshing their narratives, narratives that keep their fantasy reality from crashing into the sea.
Micheal, what panic are you seeing? I'm in DC and have noticed it too, but I want to confirm my suspicions.
"I think we might have a titanic scandal brewing in DC that will take out a lot of Democrats.
I can't explain the panic any other way."
Another "scandal" that will take out Democrats? What happened to the Unmasking Scandal? A nothingburger.
And FYI, it's not Democrats that are in a "panic". Every single day they are getting closer to the bottom of the Trump Russia scandal and that one will rock America. Haven't you been watching any of the hearings?
PDA if you are swallowing the Russian Hacked Our Election swill, please do not get snarky about conspiracy theories until we have replaced last night's Irony Meters.
Thank you for your cooperation
I can see deadline pressure as a plausible excuse for writing this article, but what's the point of publishing it? It doesn't really cover the FBI in glory, and paints Comey as a political animal: so what?
This can't be the first time the FBI has had to deal with Russian documents of dubious provenance.
PSA not... oh bother it all
And we're going to need more words for Irony.
Wasserman Schultz Threatened Police Chief For Gathering Evidence On Her IT Staffer’s Alleged Crimes
iShe is scared
. And yet we are told that Lynch did meet with FBI officials, and that she told them — in what was not a formal interview — "I don’t know this person [Renteria] and have never communicated with her."
For anyone who's read Shattered, the idea that AG Lynch (a Democrat from NYC, like HRC) did not know someone as high up in the Clinton cabal as Renteria strains credulity.
No email exchanges? Well, maybe. But didn't know her? Sorry, nuh-uh.
I think the Democrats started this "Russian influence" shitstorm thinking they'd emerge on the other side smelling like roses. That ain't gonna happen.
I agree with the theory they are trying to get out ahead of some very ugly stuff that is expected to come to light.
"I think the Democrats started this "Russian influence" shitstorm thinking they'd emerge on the other side smelling like roses. That ain't gonna happen."
Oh good grief, another conspiracy theory in the making...
@Inga,
No, Inga. You've been the, one pushing the "Russian angle" conspiracy theory here, in spite of the fact that not one document has been publicly produced, not one member of the intelligence agencies has spoken on the record in support of the theory, & hell, even fucking Maxine Waters had to finally admit she's seen no evidence.
You've been the one gleeful that underneath this pile of unicorn poo you're going to find a unicorn, & Pres. Trump will be impeached because of it.
All I'm saying is because of all the rocks that'll get overturned in this snipe hunt, things will turn up that'll embarrass Democrats over & above the fact that the Russian influence accusations will come to nothing. That's not exactly conspiratorial.
We'll Inga, his analysis has held up - you certainly haven't been smelling like a rose lately. There is a reek of desperation about you.
The Pournelle piece was interesting. I'd seen a lot of the underlying stuff, but had never seen it strung together like that. The assumption is that Trump got to Comey's records ("tapes") and there was something of value on them. That could be huge. Tie it together with the Wasserman Schultz email/IT story, which I think is what the WP story is trying to get out in front of, and the stench is getting pretty Rich (pun intended). It looks like the Clinton bodies didn't get enough dirt scraped over them.
The 'Russians did it' story is starting to fall apart and the rats are going to start scurrying for the doors pretty soon. Very interesting times. Teapot Dome is going to look like a shoplifting case if this is all true. I still can't figure out why the media is so invested in bringing Trump down considering the apparent risk they are taking.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we start to deceive.
"Use a bunch of loaded words, unsupported assertions and analysis devoid of any facts."
Exactly. And then repeat, and repeat, and repeat. Beat the drum enough times and people will start dancing to any tune you play.
You know have Republicans like Ryan responding to questions about whether they "agree with Trump that Comey is nuts" - except Trump has never called Comey "nuts". The WaPo says he did - but they have no proof except an unverified summary leaked by an unknown person. But its been repeated so many times, even Ryan seems to believe it.
"All I'm saying is because of all the rocks that'll get overturned in this snipe hunt, things will turn up that'll embarrass Democrats over & above the fact that the Russian influence accusations will come to nothing. That's not exactly conspiratorial."
We'll see.
What I want to know is how and why, after his stint at Lockheed, Comey suddenly is put on the management board of a hedge fund or cutting edge money management fund in Connecticut? What were his qualifications or skills for such?
From there he goes to Columbia Law School, and then onto the board of HSBC which has just com off of being fined, but nobody criminally prosecuted. Who is moving him around like that?
Potential answer: this is classic Clinton stuff. They run their loyalists through various i-banks (Rahm Emmanuel) or Fannie Mae (Jamie Gorelick, and Franklin Raines) for a few years to pick up some money as either payoff or incentive (e.g. Jamie Gorelick $25M from short stint at Fannie, and Franklin Raines $90M), then they get cycled back to other tasks or positions.
"The 'Russians did it' story is starting to fall apart and the rats are going to start scurrying for the doors pretty soon. Very interesting times. Teapot Dome is going to look like a shoplifting case if this is all true. I still can't figure out why the media is so invested in bringing Trump down considering the apparent risk they are taking."
Funny how we perceive things. From what I've been observing the Trump Russia thing is tightening up. Everyday it looks worse for Trump. The House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday was especially interesting. Did no one here watch it?
Teapot Dome was small potatoes compared to all the normal dealing in Washington of the last 20 years. It was also crude and simple. Modern corruption, of the large scale variety, is sophisticated and systematic.
Also consider that what got Albert Fall (Secretary of the Interior) into trouble was evidence of enrichment in office. This is, it seems, rather typical these days. Even more typical is enrichment shortly after leaving office.
If someone were to actively hunt officials and politicians for such behavior they would have no end of targets.
@Inga,
Funny how we perceive things. From what I've been observing the Trump Russia thing is tightening up. Everyday it looks worse for Trump. The House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday was especially interesting. Did no one here watch it?
Well, they did they produce any evidence that they'd liek to make public?
Inga, it's not even clear that if the Trump campaign & the Russians took turns sucking each other's dicks that they broke any laws. It isn't just me who thinks this.
Comey was a Clinton "loyalist"? Seriously? His comments just before the election helped her lose the election. He was no loyalist of Clinton. He was acting on this fake Russian document that indicated there was collusion between Clinton and Lynch, when he made that public comment about Clinton being put back under investigation just days before the election. And the investigation turned up absolutely nothing.
Did no one here watch it?
Yes, what we saw was the CIA saying there was contact, but admitting that contact was not illegal. So the CIA punts it to the FBI.
And the FBI opens an investigation. But, Inga, it was not a criminal investigation, right? You do know that, I presume. It was an counter-espionage investigation - meaning that they always look at what Russians are doing what. The FBI, not the CIA, are the main counter-espionage agency in the U.S.
I am not sure that anyone has stated that it is now a criminal investigation.
If you think it is, Inga, perhaps you would help us all out by citing to U.S.C, by chapter and section, what statutes are implicated in the matter. 'Cause I can't think of any, and I don't know anyone that has cited any such thing.
Or in other words, you can't have a criminal investigation without a crime. (We'll you can have one, but it is either political or a waste of time and taxpayers' money.)
So this is fake, but everything abt Trump is God's honest truth. You would think that some of the pure hearted FBI leakers- while this was still not 'discredited- would have leaked it to save the republic from Hillary. Just like all the current leaks
"His comments just before the election helped her lose the election.
What?!?
I thought it was the Russians.
" I'm in DC and have noticed it too, but I want to confirm my suspicions."
First, the Pakistanis got away Scott free. Why ? Why were the Democrats paying them so much money ?
DWS is threatening the DC police chief if he won't give her back a laptop without looking at what's in it.
What's the deal with the Seth Rich thing ? Why did the retired detective say he had evidence and then backtrack?
What about the story from the surgery resident who operated on Rich ?
I've operated on thousands of gunshot wounds and his story sound about right except for what happened in ICU.
It feels like something is moving under the carpet.
It was interesting to hear John Brennan speak of "treason and treasonous acts" in the House Intelligence Committee Hearing on Tuesday. I was shocked to hear him use those words.
See, that is the difference between you and me, Inga.
You are shocked by the mere mention of some words.
I, on the other hand, am only shocked by people in positions of trust being convicted by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by a jury of the accused person's peers.
"And the FBI opens an investigation. But, Inga, it was not a criminal investigation, right? You do know that, I presume. It was an counter-espionage investigation - meaning that they always look at what Russians are doing what. The FBI, not the CIA, are the main counter-espionage agency in the U.S."
It was started as a counter intelligence investigation, you are aware it's now a criminal investigation?
But then again, we have already established that you are an elitist who has no time or patience for the processes and outcomes of a democracy.
Is it? What crime are they investigating? Please help us by citing to the statute.
Yes the Russians are guilty, GUILTY! I tell you of exposing the DNC conspiring against Bernie and worst still exposing Hillary's criminal acts. Those dirty Russians, how dare they collude with the Orange Cheeto to rob, ROB us Democrats of our rightful place. Did I get the Inga's here beliefs wrong?
Considering what Comey did to Martha Stewart, Karma would have him doing a similar stretch for basically doing the same thing Martha Stewart went to jail for.
It was interesting to hear John Brennan speak of "treason and treasonous acts" in the House Intelligence Committee Hearing on Tuesday. I was shocked to hear him use those words."
So he was talking about Hillary......
Is it? What crime are they investigating? Please help us by citing to the statute.
That is classified, sorry. That's why I was shocked to her Brennan talking about Treasonous Acts and Treason. I guess you'll have to ask Special Counsel Mueller. And yes it was openly stated by Senator Lindsey Graham that it is now a criminal investigation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/robert-mueller-takes-russia-case-as-criminal-inves/
"The Justice Department’s look at Russian meddling in the presidential election has turned from a counterintelligence investigation into a criminal probe, leading senators said Thursday as they emerged from a secret briefing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
“The biggest legal change seems to be that Mr. Mueller is going to proceed forward with the idea of a criminal investigation versus a counterintelligence investigation,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, told reporters after the briefing."
"That is classified, sorry."
Oh, Good! That means we'll probably know by Friday.
If it wasn't classified, it would take a month or so to get out.
Oh, so the person that Trump's administration appointed as a special prosecutor is going to presume it is a criminal investigation.
Which means that the FBI's investigation wasn't, don't you see.
The only people left who believe what they read in Post are those who are desperate to believe, and those who restrict their attention to the sports scores. The rest of us gave up on that paper a while ago.
Charlie Eklund said...
Well. In consideration of how far off the deep end the Post has gone in its obsessive and frankly insane zeal to bring down the current President, I'm really happy I didn't pull out my wallet and subscribe all those years ago. It would have been money down a rat hole, literally. And Bezos should be ashamed.
5/24/17, 7:57 PM
Bezos bought his very own blog that came with ad revenue and prestige.
Amazon Cloud's biggest customers are the intelligence agencies.
Draw your own conclusions
In the absence of any evidence on any Russia-Trump collusion after months of leaky whining, the real collusion here, as many have noted, is between fed officials, Dems, and the MSM. And (apologies for repetition), that is more damaging than anything in this saga: it demonstrates to our adversaries that the Dem/lib/media establishment will do anything to defeat their domestic opponents, truth and country be damned. As buwaya has said before, we have become a banana republic.
I realize the thread has moved on, but: "I worry for the business and I worry for the perception of the business by people" Sorry, Bob: the MSM is in the business of being a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Spare us the crocodile tears. Fight back harder: expose the leakers. Clean up your side of the swamp.
While it was conducting the Clinton email investigation, the FBI did not interview anyone mentioned in the Russian document about its claims.
Nice catch, Professor. Gotta say a whole lot of the FBI's, shall we say, investigative technique in this matter has seemed odd. I'm not in law enforcement but when they disclosed that the official FEDERAL AGENT interview(s) of Hillary Herself were not in any way recorded...that just seemed a little weird. I mean it seems like half the time the Feds "get" anybody for anything (anybody big) it actually boils down to lying to a federal official...and you'd think they'd make sure they had some kind of a record of what specifically was said in an official interview just to ensure honest answers by making that sort of a charge possible. But, you know, that didn't happen.
Just curious, but do you think FBI folks'll record any interviews that have with officials in the Trump admin? I got a funny feeling...
"Oh, so the person that Trump's administration appointed as a special prosecutor is going to presume it is a criminal investigation.
Which means that the FBI's investigation wasn't, don't you see."
As I said the FBI started this as a counterintelligence investigation, which is now a criminal investigation which may indicate that whatever was discovered in the FBI investigation elevated it to a criminal investigation, because treason ( if that is the crime) or whatever was being investigated happens to be illegal. You do know that Special Prosecutor Mueller will still be working with the FBI.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/special-counsel-will-take-over-fbi-russia-campaign-interference-investigation-n761271
"Bowing to public and Congressional pressure, Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Bob Mueller on Wednesday to be a special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, Justice Department officials said.
Mueller will take command of the prosecutors and FBI agents who are working on the far reaching Russia investigation, which spans multiple FBI field offices on both coasts."
I feel as Althouse does. "I feel as though I have to try to unravel the WaPo report because I cannot trust WaPo to do anything other than to try to hurt Donald Trump.***" So this (below) is my explanation. But really the whole DC group is decadent and engaged in petty manoeuvers we'll never understand because they aren't related to reality anymore.
Russian Disinformation Is Behind the Trump Investigation?
Say that this document about DWS was piece of Russian disinformation. a lie circulated by the Russians. If the document came out in the news, Lynch or Comey could say: "There is this Russian tactic called disinformation whereby the Russians feed us false documents to disrupt our system. They used to print up fake documents. But now they have an IT way to do disinformation which goes as follows: The Russians know we have penetrated their security but we don't know they know it. So they circulate false documents on their supposedly secure computer systems which we have bugged, and we believe the false documents they have circulated because we don't know that they do know that we know what they are saying. Russians are great at chess."
"And," Lynch/Comey continues, "this Lynch-Wasserman Schulz document is an example of that kind of disinformation. So don't believe it."
OK. Russians do disinformation using the internet. Be aware. Ignore DWS memo.
But then Lynch/Comey realize that the deplorables might apply this awareness to the Trump Russian investigation. Deplorables might say: "You, Lynch/Comey, are saying Trump was talking to the Russians because you, as FBI, read documents the Russians circulated. But what if the Russians knew the FBI had hacked into a certain system and knew that FBI would read documents on that system and believe them? What if the Russians knew that the US did not know that the Russians knew? And so, knowing this, the Russians inserted those documents about Trump's alleged Russian connection which Lunch/Comey read AND BELIEVED. Then the Trump investigation is based on Russian disinformation and the Russian hacked the election in that they fed the FBI false documents which the FBI believed and which FBI leakers have given to the newspapers in an effort to damage Trump. You were hacked and so I don't accept your investigation or your conclusions."
That would have been the consequence of Comey explaining that the Russians were attempting to feed disinformation in the case of DWS. Deplorables like me would saying - "DWS is innocent? And how about Trump? You got info off Russian computers, didn't you? When it was DWS you knew it was disinformation. When it was Trump you believed Russian disinformation garbage because you hate Trump so much that necessary critical faculties were suspended." (God knows, it's obvious that gullibility is a way of life in DC now whenever Trump is the topic.)
So Comey doesn't want to draw attention to disinformation. So he, not Lynch, must suppress the Hillary investigation so that if the memo surfaces it can be said: Well, Comey cleared Hillary, not Lynch. So they did it that way. Then the Russians ... enough.
Likely-fake documents of foreign origin and designed to influence voters...those are a problem now? Funny how no one has used the word "dossier" yet. I guess I can be the first.
Inga, you said "We'll see".
I agree. We will.
Hence the panic.
I thought this was fascinating. "Useful idiot" comes to mind.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article152136047.html
"As the investigation into whether President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 presidential election has gained traction, some have speculated Trump might have worked with the Russians without knowing it.
Former CIA Director John O. Brennan seemed to lend credence to that theory when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. Brennan said publicly for the first time that he became concerned last year that Russians were trying to work with the Trump campaign to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. He added that individuals Russia contacted could have been helping “wittingly or unwittingly.”
“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,” Brennan said.
Later on in his testimony, Brennan provided a longer explanation on how someone could be working with Russia without knowing it, saying he had seen it “manifest in many different of our counterintelligence cases.”
“They have been able to get people – including inside of CIA – to become treasonous, and frequently, individuals who go along that treasonous path do not even realize they’re along that path until it gets to be a bit too late,” Brennan explained. “And that’s why my radar goes up early when I see certain things that I know what the Russians are trying to do, and I don’t know whether or not the targets of their efforts are as mindful of the Russian intentions as they need to be.”
A separate but related incident demonstrated the possibility that Trump could have worked with the Russians due to negligence rather than intentionally."
My read is that Comey worried that even thought he and others thought the document a fake Russian inspired effort, he did't want to be seen as ignoring it and so announced the second Clinton email investigation into an exaggerated amount of emails.Now in hindsight, and with no collaboration from the people cited in the document, it looks like an overreaction on Comey's part--embarrassing.
Probably too late but I just thought if this.
If WaPo is saying Comey latched on to a document others knew to be fake. And his use of this suspect document to put himself in the hero position.
Doesn't this just confirm Trump's view that Comey is a grandstander and drama queen?
"Funny how we perceive things. From what I've been observing the Trump Russia thing is tightening up. Everyday it looks worse for Trump. The House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday was especially interesting. Did no one here watch it?"
It is human nature that our bias lead our reason down different paths. I did watch snippets of the hearing. Besides the loaded and leading questions all I heard was no evidence of collusion. Did I miss the big moment?
Enter Ritmo.
Ah so now the theory is Trump campaign was in unwittingly collusion with the Russians.
In other words, there is no evidence of actual collusion.
Got ya.
"It is human nature that our bias lead our reason down different paths. I did watch snippets of the hearing. Besides the loaded and leading questions all I heard was no evidence of collusion. Did I miss the big moment?"
The question about collusion was asked several times and every time the ansewer was that it was classified and could not be discussed in an open session.
Paul Ryan said today he doesn't agree that Comey is a "nut job".
OK then, Good Job!
"Ah so now the theory is Trump campaign was in unwittingly collusion with the Russians.
In other words, there is no evidence of actual collusion.
Got ya."
Wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It would still be a crime if they broke a law. Collusion with the Russians may be treason. Read the Brennan testimony. He alludes to it.
The flock will return.
Ignorance of the law allowed Hillary to skate, per Comey.
@Inga,
President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Since we have no proof Trump ever said that, it may very well be that Trump doesn't think Comey's a nut job either.
Inga, get a grip! Why do you think the leds in these stories, like the one I just quoted above contain absolutely no sources? They contain no sources because they are by & large complete fabrications. If a fraction of the incredibly stupid & outrageous things Trump is supposed to have done actually had some documentation & sources behind them, things would be looking very different now.
Ya notice how everyone thought that Trump would go visit foreign nations & start WWIII? Ya notice how Trump seems to do fairly well with foreign leaders, who end pretty much saying the same thing: "Hey, this guy's certainly no more of an asshole than Obama was...probably less, actually"? You know why that is? Because the American media doesn't get to control the narrative in foreign countries, that's why.
Clinton campaign and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.
How did intentionally get in their, but negligence get left out? Oh yeah, the clear cut distinction between "extreme carelessness" not criminal, and "gross negligence" criminal.
"Inga, get a grip! Why do you think the leds in these stories, like the one I just quoted above contain absolutely no sources? They contain no sources because they are by & large complete fabrications. If a fraction of the incredibly stupid & outrageous things Trump is supposed to have done actually had some documentation & sources behind them, things would be looking very different now."
YH, relax. I don't know if Trump said it. If there is a recording or transcript of the meeting, we'll eventually find out. I merely said Paul Ryan said he didn't think Trump was a "nut job". Don't get so excited.
Maybe it is the Inga of old and she thinks Trump is Scott Walker. I have to respect her unreliable narrator technique.
I guess as long it remains classified there is still hope then. Meanwhile the Dem's problems just keep piling up. I hope the home team wins.
Too many ifs, ands, and but, but, but, buts. I'm thinking the WaPo deserves 10 (TEN) Pinnochios for this one.
"Meanwhile the Dem's problems just keep piling up."
What problems?
I would give them one Pinocchio for leaving out "or through negligence."
The document itself claimed to describe an email conversation between former DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and an official with the George-Soros founded organization Open Society Foundation.
If fake, then fake but accurate.
The left went on a baby hunt and all they succeeded to do was expose a witch...
Next time, there will be a trial, and you will abort the baby. Keep hope alive.
It's clear that they think this document is radioactive. Talk about a constitutional crisis.
@Inga,
f there is a recording or transcript of the meeting, we'll eventually find out. I merely said Paul Ryan said he didn't think Trump was a "nut job". Don't get so excited.
No, there was nothing innocent about Ryan getting asked that question. The question was framed as being a quote from Trump, & there is absolutely no evidence that Trump ever said those words. Here's what a google search turns up.
No, this is disgusting. They asked the Speaker of the House if he agrees with a derogatory statement about the ex-FBI director that has been attributed to the President with absolutely no proof. That's an abomination of journalism.
If I was Ryan I would have told the reporter to go fuck himself up the nose with a rifle cleaning kit. But, that probably explains why I'm not Speaker of the House.
It also seems like they are worried that it might be authentic, probably because it's all open secrets in their circles.
"It's clear that they think this document is radioactive. Talk about a constitutional crisis."
I seriously doubt it. It doesn't reflect well on Comey for not knowing immediately it was a fake and then basing a new investigation into Clinton on it, then actually saying he was opening up another investigation into Hilary publicly days before the election. That was bad. Trump didn't do the worst thing to fire him IF this was why he did it. But if Trump fired Comey to stop any investigation of him, he's in trouble.
More of a corrupt official, who abetted other corrupt officials who refused to go after parties like hsbc that he had ties to
Likely-fake documents of foreign origin and designed to influence voters...those are a problem now? Funny how no one has used the word "dossier" yet. I guess I can be the first.
5/24/17, 9:26 PM
If I go to 4chan, or reddit, and download some joke some kids put up there, then print it out on my inkjet, I have created a "document"
That is about how serious this seems to be. FBI and CIA not always the genius they seem to be in the movies.
This is not a new story.
There is a bit more detail in here, but not much.
Sure, there are still ambiguities. Sure, folks will leverage off of this piece re Comey's upcoming congressional testimony. As planned.
You're welcome. And, my door's always open when y'all need help doin' some figuring.
Inga said
Funny how we perceive things. From what I've been observing the Trump Russia thing is tightening up. Everyday it looks worse for Trump. The House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday was especially interesting. Did no one here watch it?
Yes I did watch it. I heard Brennen say that the Obama administration was actively spying on a political campaign. With no evidence of wrong doing. I also heard that while Russia was supposed to have been attempting to turn the Trump staffers into useful tools.(because absolutely no one predicted Trump had a prayer of being elected) Not a single communication between the Russians and the campaign of Clinton's wife took place, because, shutup.
Yawn.
I have two new rules.
1. If Russian-Trump collusion article has anonymous sources, ignore article.
2. Until someone is indicted for Russian-Trump collusion ignore all discussions.
I keep seeing the word "meddling" in regard to "the Russians" and the 2016 presidential election. I don't think that this word is used by accident, "meddling" merely means to be involved improperly in another person's affairs. I suspect the MSM uses it because it can mean anything they want it to mean, and they are trying to describe a thing without knowing what it is (but they know what they want it to be). They have no evidence, so instead they use a term which could mean anything from openly disapproving of a candidate to stuffing ballot boxes. By this measure, hasn't the United States been meddling in the elections of Russia (and other countries) since the collapse of the USSR?
Use of the word "meddling" in this context is intellectually lazy. I want more precision. What are the Russians accused of doing and what is the evidence that the accusation is true? What is the evidence that justifies and investigation?
It does go a bit into the weeds:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/aim4truth.org/2017/03/29/6438/amp/
But if Trump fired Comey to stop any investigation of him, he's in trouble.
Howzabout this? "If Trump fired Comey because he thought it would stop an investigation of him, he's an idiot."
Hillary's insecure handling of classified communications was under investigation because she did not follow protocols meant to insure the integrity of these communications.
What is Trump (the person, not the campaign, not his associates) being investigated for?
If you can't come up with a succinct answer, there is no investigation of Trump. You are fishing and hoping. BTW, investigating Russian government interference in the 2016 election is investigating the Russian government, not Trump.
Lost in all the jazz-frazz about the Russians are the following questions:
(1) What, precisely, did the Russians do to convince the he DNC staff to ignore best cyber security practices?
(2) What, precisely, did the Russians do to convince Hillary to campaign in unwinable red states instead of shoring up Wisconsin and the rest to f her "Blue Wall"?
(3) Why would the Russians hack into the DNC but not the RNC? We're the Republicans smarter at cyber security? Or too smart to put embarrassing info into Emails? Or perhaps they were to honest to actually have embarrassing information in the first place?
I read the Pournelle analysis.
I agree with Pournelle that the firing of Comey was handled very well. It would be wonderful if Trump had the goods on Comey, if Comey was actually foolish enough to leave damaging evidence in his office. Arrogance sometimes leads to carelessness. Comey was doing very well up until the firing.
I have often wondered why the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting took place. I ask myself what type of conversation was necessary that couldn’t have taken place over the phone or through emails. Perhaps phone conversations and emails were too risky.
Or could it be that something tangible needed to be exchanged, something physical, maybe an object(s). Paper documents? A thumb drive? A hard drive? Files? Tapes?
Then I think: Maybe the meeting was meant to be discovered and reported to provide an excuse for Lynch to “remove” herself from the case. And it did give her a free pass on the Clinton mess, at least to the MSM/Democrats. Lynch was saved from making messy decisions.
Most of the “damning” evidence presented by Comey against Hillary was already either public knowledge or was strongly suspected. As such, I doubt it affected the election much if at all. And Comey had to guard against possible(probable?) leaks of the same “evidence” from within the FBI itself.
Comey accomplished three things with the presser. He exonerated Hillary, who he expected to win the election. He ingratiated himself with Lynch, who would be his boss, at least for awhile, after Hillary won. And he disarmed possible future leaks of the evidence from disgruntled FBI workers.
I also agree with commentors who sense desperation from the varied ranks of the anti-Trumpers. You can smell the fear, the consternation and the frustration. They are beginning to realize that they aren’t going to be able to get rid of Trump.
It's more than bogus, the whole dossier was put into play by a Russian sanctions busting fmr?? Svr officer akmetchin they hired fusion who hired Steele who loosed up the farmer's sources, the more ridiculous the better.
"Wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It would still be a crime if they broke a law."
A leftist said this. After Hillary skated on the pretense that she was ignorant of the laws regarding classified information. Without irony.
"Collusion with the Russians may be treason."
Ted Kennedy could not be reached for comment.
Oh, and by the way? It's only treason if you're aiding and abetting an avowed foreign enemy. We are not currently in such a state with Russia (as Obama mockingly assured everyone in the 2012 debates). We *were* in conflict with Russia when Kennedy attempted to collude with the Russians to bring down Reagan. We have documentary proof that Kennedy did this. And no leftist has ever given a damn.
Inga said...
This is a fairly easy version to read and understand.
Fake Russian Intel on Lynch- Clinton Collusion Peompted Comey Investigation into Hillary's emails.
"A dubious Russian intelligence document that purported to show coordination between Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Justice Department, and prompted former FBI Director James Comey to disclose the bureau’s investigation into Clinton’s emails, was “bad intelligence” and “possibly even fake,”
I'm still trying to figure out “bad intelligence” and “possibly even fake,”. If it's NOT FAKE, it's good intelligence. If it's only possibly, not PROBABLY fake, then it's PROBABLY good intelligence. Possibly and probably are not used interchangeably by people dealing in intelligence matters.
“bad intelligence” and “possibly even fake,” contradicts itself.
A couple services that bypass paywalls and clean up the cached documents while providing a shortened URL... They work with NYT, WSJ, weeklystandard as well as WP....
For the WP article:
archive.is
http://archive.is/w43O2
outline.com - new favorite?
https://outline.com/6EC5Uq
Ms. Althouse,
I read the article earlier today, and my reaction was quite similar to yours. However, do I really need to remind people of what happened in the days prior to Comey's press conference on July 5th, 2016? Do I really have to do that? I will, in a second comment describe what I think about the purported e-mail and why it is being reported today (yesterday, now).
There is one detail about the various comments reported by WaPo that doesn't quite ring true to my ear- Lynch denying that she knows Amanda Renteria. I know who Ms. Renteria is- I didn't have to look it up, I recognized the name instantly and knew exactly who the article was talking about. Now, am I more of a political animal than Ms. Lynch? Now, perhaps, Ms. Lynch means that she doesn't know her personally- that they have never communicated with one another, ever- but does actually know who she is. A clarification would be nice, and it might explain why Ms. Lynch was unwilling to discuss this with WaPo.
"Collusion may be treason"
What about supporting a coup against duly elected President? Is that treason?;
Inga, do you really not see all the double standards you have been working under? It's not a trap, I'm genuinely curious if you are even slightly aware of being untethered from any guiding principles.
I don't think this e-mail was ever sent by Ms. Schultz- it is the sort of thing you would think they would be smart enough to not put in an e-mail. I do think it is likely that the FBI had this "intelligence", but I don't believe for a second that it is what motivated Comey to give the press conference. Comey gave the press conference when it became public that Lynch had the secret meeting the President Bill Clinton in Arizona. I think no one at the FBI took that "intelligence" document seriously because if they had, they all failed to do their jobs afterwards by not following up on it vigorously. However, after the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton, that document probably was seen in a slightly different light, but I think even if it didn't exist, Comey still gives that press conference simply due to that illicit meeting.
I think the leak occurred because it is an attempt to make it look like Comey was duped by planted Russian intelligence, but it is a really, really tough sell since it makes him look really prone to being a dupe. I think you can tell by the writing that the authors were aware of this and sought to minimize the "Comey is an idiot" impact by burying it as much as possible.
So, I don't think this is fake news at all- the original e-mail may or may not be fake, but you would think this is a matter that should be investigated. It is a bit of a coincidence that this comes up just as Ms. Schultz was in the news today threatening the Capitol Police for not returning a laptop that is part of an active criminal investigation of hers and others IT staff. I would keep on eye on this story, because it could well have been leaked today as a way of making it "old news, move on" in the future.
Ok, read the article, and my interpretation is that there was a (probably- because we now have the real DNC emails, thanks to the late Seth Rich and WikiLeaks) fake email that said, essentially, that AG Lynch had done a deal with the Clintons to exonerate Crooked Hillary for her illegal email server, and, (probably intentionally) not mentioned, the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation crime syndicate. The obvious quid pro quo was Lynch keeping her AG job in the new Clinton Administration, but could, maybe, have just been for the usual wad of cash. In any case, the claim seems to have been that the (probably) fake email would look credible when the probe into Crooked's email server didn't go anywhere, and would bring attention to the FBI's attempts to whitewash her, at a critical point in the campaign (going into the conventions). If the email were to drop. So, Comey needed to get out front of that, and did his thing about laying out the evidence showing that she had committed numerous felonies, then deliberately misstated the law, in order to explain non-prosecution. It didn't matter that the email was fake - it looked credible, and that was what was worrying Comey.
The problem with what the WaPo was trying to say, and dance around, was that there very definitely appears to have been a conspiracy at the top of the DoJ and FBI to whitewash Crooked Hillary and both her illegal email server and family slush fund/foundation. She was dirty. Everyone (except maybe Inga) knows it. But they can't admit it. But the article makes no sense without the underlying attempt to protect Clinton from paying for her crimes - no crimes means no reason to cover it up. Crimes and whitewash that they can't actually admit - esp with the fired Comey at the center of it. And that is the other part of this - that Comey appears to be dirty, but they need his reputation intact to continue their Russian attacks on Trump - which is probably the real purpose here (I.e. "Poor Comey, forced by a fake Russian email to courageous protect Clinton and her reputation, at the cost of his own", etc).
@Yancey - I don't think that the real danger to their narrative is that Comey is a dope, but rather, that Comey was not the shining knight of integrity that everyone keeps claiming he is. Far better to be a dope in this situation, than to having been bought and paid for.
Which brings up an interesting point. Why does everyone keep saying that Comey is some paragon of integrity, a straight shooter, etc? His past sure doesn't give that impression. He was a showboating federal prosecutor when in the SDNY, willing to send people with limited criminal culpability to prison in order to make headlines. (Far less culpability than shown by Crooked Hillary or the bank that hired him later). Then a couple of highly paid corporate gigs where he played insider ball to make his employer a lot of money in one case, and in the other, keep all the execs out of prison, despite numerous fairly obvious felonies having been committed by them and their bank.
Gospace,
That is a problem throughout the article. Because of what wasn't done with the information, I lean strongly to the position that the intelligence was complete fakery, and almost surely not planted by Russians. In fact, I will just assume everyone involved already knew this and it is why no one acted on the information, which if it had actually been true would have been hard evidence of obstruction by the AG herself, and obstruction by anyone who took it seriously and did nothing about it. This is supported by the WaPo story itself which mentioned that the source to the FBI had basically never provided corroborated intelligence- a good reason to not take it seriously.
Finally, I will note that the article also points out that the anonymous supporters of Comey who today are saying this intelligence influenced Comey's decision never mentioned it until today- they had previously stated that Comey acted after the tarmac meeting- something I do believe.
Bruce,
Yes, it does make Comey look far less ethical.
It is a real problem, isn't it- here Comey and the FBI have this intelligence claiming that Lynch had assured the Clinton Campaign that the investigation wouldn't "go too far", but the investigation is being done by these very same FBI employees. Surely, they know where their investigation is going, and if it really isn't meant to "go too far" on the orders of Lynch then they and Comey are actively being hindered and already have corroboration of the essentials of the intelligence which is direct and irrefutable obstruction. If the intelligence is false, then the AG isn't putting pressure on them to take it easy on Clinton, they already know this, so the document doesn't really influence how you handle the end-stage of the investigation. This is why the WaPo article goes overboard in trying to demonstrate that Comey was afraid of the intelligence from a purely political perspective, but this makes literally no sense since all Comey had to do was simply pass the final report to Lynch and let her make her decision- it is her reputation on the line if the e-mail becomes public.
And, in the end, it appears Comey's supporters leaked it anyway which completely undermines the narrative they are trying to sell with this story.
Prompted by Hayden's comments above, I reread the article, and I also noticed that it appears that Wasserman-Schultz claims to not know Ms. Renteria, also- that is almost surely a flat out lie- I don't think such non-knowledge is even possible given that Ms. Schultz was a long-time Clinton supporter and head of the DNC until last Summer.
I will reiterate Dr K's suggestion that you read Dr Pournelle's article: Recovery. Opinion/analysis on Comey and draining the swamp; A note on Education. What it does is to tie together a lot of public information into a very plausible story of corruption and intrigue at the highest levels of out government, with a plot worthy of being made into a novel or film. Comey was bought. Crooked Hillary lived up to Trump's name for her, and everything else revolves around getting her elected despite that, and, when that failed, to protect those who crossed the line to help her, and, weaken the Presidency of the guy who beat her. As I said, plausible, and, if true, quite scary.
And the twist that could really make it work as either a suspense novel or movie is the untimely death of Seth Rich, several days after he apparently dumped all those DNC emails to WikiLeaks, possibly after discovering how they cheated to give the nomination to Clinton, and not Sanders, whom he apparently supported. It wasn't the Russians there, but apparently a dissatisfied Berniebot, who very well may have died for his efforts. Or, the explanation maybe benign, as well as the explanation why the cops involved apparently had their body cams turned off (contrary to dept policy), as well as the explanation of why all of the video surveillance cameras in the vicinity at the time were also either turned off or broken. Etc. enough coincidences that it is beginning to stink like a conspiracy. And maybe that is all it is - another Clinton related death conspiracy theory. Or maybe not. What ch is why it would fit well as n a book or movie.
One of the interesting observations in Pournelle's article is that there may have been sound reasons why Coney was fired the way he was. When he was fired, he was 3,000 miles away. What that meant was that the DoJ could march into his office and seize anything that wasn't nailed down, including his computer, notes, etc. and deliver them to the AG. Almost surgical - the sort of strike that SEALs and the like are famed for executing. While maintaining operational security (from the FBI - the agency that is implicated in the reverse FISA targeting of Trump people). Trump's Tweat about Comey having recordings may have been his message that the DoJ now has all of Comey's notes and other potential blackmail material. Comey may have copies elsewhere, but the Trump people now have the primary copies.
It should be interesting. I should note that the Town Pump in town here has decent popcorn, for a good price, and I expect to consume a bit of it over the next bit, as this all continues to unfold.
An addition that I was going to add to the previous point, but got sidetracked with the thought of popcorn.
Comey is apparently an inveterate note taker. A lot of good attornies are. Loved picking up their files, because it was so much easier to get up to speed when the files are well documented. Don't think that he was that brilliant of a lawyer, but appears to be decently meticulous. I don't think that he actually had any recordings of Trump lying around his office when it was raided by the DoJ. I cannot believe that he would be that dumb. That is the sort of thing that could get him sent to prison. Instead, my bet is that he just is very good at wring down what happened at meetings as soon as he can. I know attorneys who do just that. And, yes, it is common practice in law enforcement. Write it down while it is still fresh in your head, because, for most of us, our memories are not that sharp on the specifics months, if not years, later. And, I think that there have been a number of the people he worked with saying this about him over the last several weeks. The problem with note takers like Comey is that note taking is habitual for them, which can mean that they can, and probably do, inadvertently take notes when they shouldn't. Plus, of course, he may have been bought and paid for, but a little insurance that those on the other side of the (implied) deals stay honest with him. Don't turn on him and use him as a scapegoat, etc. Something the first Director of the FBI made famous - his blackmail files. Which is to say that AG Sessions presumably now has the former FBI Director's blackmail files. As I said before- should be interesting. Pass the popcorn.
Should have added this - that raid by the DoJ of Comey's office may have turned him from the blackmailer into the blackmailed. Interesting thought.
Talking blackmail, the DNC, DWS, etc, I just ran across this: House IT Aides Fear Suspects In Hill Breach Are Blackmailing Members With Their Own Data, and in a related story: Wasserman Schultz Threatened Police Chief For Gathering Evidence On Her IT Staffer’s Alleged Crimes. Apparently, DWS brought these three Pakistani relatives into DC and gave them Congressional IT work. They were apparently caught stealing computer equipment and data, and making $4 million over the last decade, much of it in no-show jobs. Other companies trying to get the contracts away from them, by bidding far less, have hit brick walls, so the assumption is that the fix was in. And that the Members of Congress using their services were being blackmailed by the Pakistanis with the data they had found on the computer systems they were maintaining. And then, we find DWS threatening the head of the Capital Police with his budget if his dept didn't return a laptop from her office that was seized in their investigation of the Pakistanis. As with everyone else here, I do wonder what she is so worried about getting into the wrong (which probably means Republican) hands. And, of course, why she would so visibly trying to protect them from this investigation. Do they have something on her? Wouldn't be surprising - she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, and the WikiLeaks dump of DNC emails (that may have gotten Seth Rich killed) showed her to be pkenty venal and corrupt.
I encourage you to read it carefully and try to figure out what the Washington Post is trying to pump up or minimize,
Hard to stay a believing liberal when the scales fall from your eyes regarding the elite media.
Money graf from Bruce Hayden, as Insty would say:
But the article makes no sense without the underlying attempt to protect Clinton from paying for her crimes - no crimes means no reason to cover it up. Crimes and whitewash that they can't actually admit - esp with the fired Comey at the center of it. And that is the other part of this - that Comey appears to be dirty, but they need his reputation intact to continue their Russian attacks on Trump - which is probably the real purpose here (I.e. "Poor Comey, forced by a fake Russian email to courageous protect Clinton and her reputation, at the cost of his own", etc).
Which is why, in my opinion, the tell is leaving out "negligence" as a possible crime, even though the law clear that "gross negligence" with classified information is a crime, and not clear at all that "extreme carelessness" with same is not:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues Intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." - Comes
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - Inga
Ha ha ha, what a world what a world!
What is the legitimate purpose of trying to prove Trump colluded with the Russians to beat Hillary? We know the political purpose is to cripple Trump politically or to force him to resign. But that is not a legitimate purpose, unless you are a Democrat or one of the remaining GOP never-Trumpers.
With all the nonsensical conspiracy theories swirling around here today it probably makes sense to take a look at what happened to last week's conspiracy theory de jour.
Fox News Retracts Seth Rich Story That Stirred Controversy
"Citing unnamed sources, Fox News’s website published an article last week suggesting that Mr. Rich’s death was in retaliation for his sharing D.N.C. emails with WikiLeaks.
No evidence to support that theory has emerged. Mr. Rich’s family, believing he was murdered during a failed robbery, has called for retractions from news organizations that promoted the story; on Tuesday, Fox News agreed.
“The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting,” the network said in a statement. “The article was found not to meet those standards, and has since been removed.”"
"No evidence to support that theory has emerged."
Imagine, ARM, if the WaPo, NY Times, and all the networks were as forthright as Fox in retracting stories that had no evidence backing them up!
I think CNN stands behind its Steele Dossier story by saying that their original story said Buzzfeed had reported the Steele Dossier as fact, and by God, CNN was going to stand by that bit of reporting!
Don't let the troll derail the thread.
An Israeli attorney once told me he advises all his clients that if they are standing in a bank with a sack of money in the left hand and a pistol in the right hand when the cops burst through the door to say, "I'm not here."
This entire charade has been a case of "I'm not here."
It is a fairly safe assumption that EVERYONE was trying to influence the election: from the Russians to the Israelis to the EU to the Pakistanis to the Chinese to President Obama. That's the way of the world when there is a Free Election. It's not like the US is Snow White and has never ever attempted to sway the electorate of another democracy.
This article is not an example of disinformation or the fog of war. It's bullshit pure and simple. There is no clarity at all and one should not expect any if only by the affiliations of Karoun Demirjirian (see, http://karoun.org/about-karoun/).
What we have, in the entire history of this noise, is another case of Shrodinger's Cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat): Russian collusion maybe yes maybe no; Hillary breaking the law maybe yes maybe no; Obama using his Office maybe yes maybe no.
There is no way to know if the cat is alive or dead until the box is open.
Since the official election of President is through the College of Electors (which went for Trump), of the myriads of possible parties trying to manipulate the outcome of the election for electors by popular vote in each of the fifty states, there is only ONE scenario that could possibly be treasonous and very definitely criminal, and that would be if the President of the United States was using The Office to cover a few high crimes and misdemeanors.
Is it entirely unlikely (as in astronomically LOW probability) that the former President of the United States was not involved?
"I'm not here," says the O'man.
And, he is no longer in US territory.
Nope. We do have a constitutional crisis; but, it is not with the current occupant. It's with the former and we all know it.
"I'm not here."
Virtually Unknown said...
troll
Calling someone a troll for pointing out the obvious is a classic form of trolling. You are a troll I am a a reasonable commenter.
The problem with note takers like Comey is that note taking is habitual for them, which can mean that they can, and probably do, inadvertently take notes when they shouldn't.
Might there also be another type of problem in this instance? I’m assuming that the content of private conversations between Comey and the POTUS are classified. If so, where would Comey get the notes of his conversations with Trump?
Not from the FBI; as an ex-employee Comey has no standing with the FBI and no longer has access to FBI documents. Trump and Sessions now have whatever was in Comey’s office – so it couldn’t come from there.
Was Comey keeping notes of his private conversations with the POTUS in his residence? Is it legal to keep such material in an unsecured location? Even if Comey does have notes(of which I would doubt the authenticity) he may not be able to use them without revealing that he broke some law on the handling of classified material.
Here's an interview conducted by the BBC with an ex-CIA “senior official” now teaching at Georgetown that touches on what may be just one of Comey’s problems.
Yes, when I read the article, I also ended up shaking my head in confusion. I am oh so tired of anonymous, and thus unaccountable, sources. I don't trust these sources nor do I any longer trust the reporters who cite them time and time again. They may well all be former Obama administration officials and/or life long donors to the Democratic Party and its candidates - not an objective brain cell among them.
Wasserman Shultz, former Head of the DNC, had to report to Soros.
Wasserman Shultz is currently trying to hold off the story of her head IT guys who just ran back to their home of Pakistan. They are being investigated by the FBI as the leakers of the DNC emails.
What? They must be Russian-Pakistanis.
There is so much muck spewing out of Washington, New York, LA, and any other media center that I feel like it's best to simply no longer read rags like WaPo. I have to take a shower after reading them. Just cannot do it. I get their email blasts and can barely get through the breathless teaser. They have a story. They present it and re-present it a dozen different ways to keep the story going. Follow the template. It's like they're making omelettes. You can have it anyway you want it, but you're going to get an omelette and in the end it's going to look like this.
It is a fairly safe assumption that EVERYONE was trying to influence the election: from the Russians to the Israelis to the EU to the Pakistanis to the Chinese to President Obama. That's the way of the world when there is a Free Election. It's not like the US is Snow White and has never ever attempted to sway the electorate of another democracy.
I haven't been following very closely, so I'll stand corrected if any of my impressions are shown to be wrong- but the commenters quote above is the filter through which I see these matters.
And so far, what's come into focus includes evidence of "meddling" in the elections by:
1. The DNC and HRC campaign, during the primaries. This was not illegal because the primaries can basically be conducted however the hell the parties want to conduct them, but it's an interesting way for the "Democratic" party to select their candidate.
2. The CIA and perhaps other intel organizations which by Brennan's admission began surveillance on members of Trump's campaign. We're to believe this was necessary because of suspicions that Russians were trying to recruit these people, but we're not supposed to question either the validity of that claim (why did the agencies not consider that this might have been disinformation by the Russians, just as they claim the DWS email was?) nor are we to wonder about the implications of using surveillance against the administration's opponents and what safeguards were in place to make sure it wasn't politically motivated. If we do start wondering, we wonder why this seemingly evolved into a fishing expedition when no evidence was forthcoming, and why, instead of following safeguards that had been put into place like protecting identities of US citizens who were inadvertently tapped, and the practice of firewalling certain things within agencies to help prevent leaks, the Obama administration instead ramped up the number of requests for unmasking identities of US citizens and removed the firewall for agencies to share this information,
3. The person or organization that hired Christopher Steele to create the dossier on Trump and associates, and the Obama administration and FBI for using shoddy unvetted allegations as a pretext for granting FISA requests.
But so far, no evidence supporting the central claim of this investigation of collusion between Trump and the Russians. Am I missing anything?
"But so far, no evidence supporting the central claim of this investigation of collusion between Trump and the Russians. Am I missing anything?"
Fuck you! Get out. Really? Boy, I'm tellin ya that there are a whole lot of usual suspects out there that have a lot invested in this. I mean their sun rises and falls on this shit.
Are you sure?
I've been saying for years now - the bigger story IS THE HACK PRESS.
Corrupt Democrat party- Soros- Democrat Media Industrial Complex - all your corruption and mob in one shit show compartment.
The FBI got taken in by this AND the golden dossier. I'm starting to think Top Men might be involved.
The FBI got taken in by this AND the golden dossier. I'm starting to think Top Men might be involved.
When corrupt police (there are some, that's not to disparage all) plant weapons or drugs, they are not "taken in" by the false evidence. They're using it for a purpose.
"Comey was a Clinton "loyalist"? Seriously? His comments just before the election helped her lose the election. He was no loyalist of Clinton. He was acting on this fake Russian document that indicated there was collusion between Clinton and Lynch, when he made that public comment about Clinton being put back under investigation just days before the election. And the investigation turned up absolutely nothing."
-- Comey "exonerated" her, remember? That was the line that the left tried to take, up until it turned out that the investigation turned up that Abedin and Clinton lied about handing over everything. Any other person who lied about providing documents to a federal investigator would have been in a lot of trouble. Luckily, his investigation turned up nothing -- except perjury and more secret/classified documents where they oughtn't have been. But, hey. No one went to jail, so it doesn't matter.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
-- Actually, it IS an excuse. If your name is Clinton.
"(3) Why would the Russians hack into the DNC but not the RNC? We're the Republicans smarter at cyber security?"
-- They tried, but failed. I believe we learned this during the hearings at one point that Republicans detected intrusion and fishing attempts.
Nice for WaPo to let us know that those who think the document is phony rely on the fact that it is "based on multiple levels of hearsay."
Will that standard now apply across the board? Y'know, like when the MSM breathlessly reports that an unnamed someone in the FBI tells a reporter over the phone that Comey wrote a memo in which he reports that Trump expressed the hope that Flynn not be charged? Or when an unnamed someone in the FBI reports that Comey told him that Trump asked him for a loyalty pledge?
I guess I can start erasing a lot of the past month's "news."
Lets not forget how Comey got the fake Russian dossier.
It was hand delivered to him by one Senator John McCain.
How did McCain get it?
"The people familiar with the Russian document spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss its contents. No one familiar with it asked The Post to withhold details about its origins to safeguard the source."
And yet the Post does not reveal the "source." That is confusing because there are two "sources." The "source" which created the document (Russian according to the Post) and the "source" which gave the document to the FBI.
Is it fair to assume that identity of the the latter "source" would lend the document credibility? Could that latter "source" have been the NSA? The CIA?
"(3) Why would the Russians hack into the DNC but not the RNC? We're the Republicans smarter at cyber security?"4
Maybe the RNC was better at this. Trump, for example , had apparently having to fight hackers for years. We may never know, since the DNC refused to let the FBI see their allegedly hacked servers. Of course then, the WikiLeaks people have always contended that they got the DNC emails from someone on the inside, and there is some evidence that that was the late Seth Rich, possibly murdered a couple days after he download added the DNC Emails there. He was apparently (supposedly) a dissatisfied Berniebot, upset about how the DNC treated Sanders. We don't really know who hacked the DNC, because we don't really know if they were really hacked, esp when they refused to cooperate with the FBI.
To all who are confused by this story -- which is how Comey is helped by this phoney-baloney email in which DWS assured a Clinton confidant that Lynch would make sure the email investigation didn't go too far? -- so is everyone else. Even Hormone Joe and his panel are perplexed. Their explanation meanders and eventually sputters and then Hormone Joe ends the segment using his scolding, deep-voice, intoning, "It's context, context, context" and "Trump, Russia, Collusion!" Drip, drip, drip! All these drips! They're filling a bucket! (The amusing clip from Hormone Joe is at the end of the comment.)
@MichaelK, Tshanks78 and numerous other commenters are so right. This memo about the email is the tip of the iceberg and things are about to explode. The "oh so phony baloney" DWS document was about to get "leaked" by the good guys, and WaPo, NYT, et al., had to get ahead of the story. After painful circumlocutions, the nonsensical story emerges: Putin manipulated the hapless (but wonderful, eminently qualified and competent) Comey into publicly excoriating and then exonerating Hillary because (despite no interviews w/the principals) he believed a Russian-planted "fake" document about the email -- even though most everyone in the IC arena had long before dismissed it as rubbish.
Got that? It makes no sense because it makes no sense.
Panic in the streets is right, @Michael K! And thanks for the great Pournelle link. Indeed there is far more to come. We can expect more and more documents will be leaked (by the White Hats) that are entirely plausible (like Lynch's tight grip on the email investigation) versus that inane "golden shower" dossier that Comey had the audacity to finance w/taxpayer money and use as a springboard for the "RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION!" (Also noteworthy: Lynch never denied she was making sure the HRC email investigation wouldn't go too far -- she merely denied saying it Renteria).
@FullMoon published a link about the Awan Brothers' thefts, hacking, etc. of numerous Democratic congressional representatives. This story has been reported by right-leaning websites for some time. But DWS does NOT want the Capitol Police to investigate these Awan Brothers, and she refused to let the FBI take control of the DNC's server after the so-called "hacking." In fact, one of those Awan brothers is STILL on the payroll -- she's turned him into an "advisor." And oddly, they were paid 3-4X a regular IT staffer's salary and got top-security clearance almost immediately. Yesterday she threatened the chief of the Capitol P.D. with "consequences" for continuing to hold the compromised computers. Yet the MSM flat-out refuses and continues to refuse to report on this. Computers of 20+ Democratic congressional representatives were stolen and we hear NOTHING from the media -- perhaps because they publish only fake news and these things are true.
@Grackle's link re the whereabouts of this alleged Comey memo re his conversations w/Trump about Flynn is also excellent. If it's not on the FBI's secure server, then it is on Comey's home computer -- which is a violation of the law. OR there's no such memo.
But what fun it is watching the left try to explain away how their new-found hero Comey fell prey to a fake Russian dis-information document and fell for it so hard that he felt compelled to hold a press conference excoriating Hillary's conduct but exonerating her on culpability. Here's that Hormone Joe clip:
https://youtu.be/UBXQqC6jw3o
Post a Comment