Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Brian Peacock]

It's so obvious he was trying to play the 'big man' in that interview, and in his own mind that means gossiping like a contestant on a reality TV show.

[pErvinalia]

What crime? This:

"Mr. Trump Jr., we have some dirt on Hillary. We can release it now and have your dad become president. Or we can release it after the election to ruin her presidency. If we give it to you now, we expect payment later. Putin sends his regards."

Which, of course, didn't happen, since the lawyer wasn't representing the government, but was referred to as a "government lawyer" nobody is alleging that anything like that was said. Also, if a Russian government official said that, it would not be a crime. It's what Mr. Trump Jr. does that counts. Did he say "sure, give me the info and we'll pay you?"

However, if it's someone not representing the Russian government asking for payment for dirt, and being paid for dirt, is not a crime.

I already explained the deal. It's like the drug dealer in the alley and the second guy that hands you the drugs/dirt.

Hear the silence from 42 on this.

[Svartalf]

Trump condemns Sessions: 'I wouldn't have hired him' – audio

Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the Russia-Trump investigations is "extremely unfair to the President", says the President.

then why did he, and why hasn't he been fired yet?

[Forty Two]

Still No Collusion Evidence Michael Flynn at the White House in February (Reuters photo: Carlos Barria)

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 1, 2017 4:00 AM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

The latest ‘bombshell’ tells us more about media bias than about election meddling

So here’s the latest big “collusion” story that has been, er, broken by the Wall Street Journal. About ten days before he died in mid-May, an 81-year-old man who did not work for the Trump campaign told the Journal he had speculated that, but did not know whether, 33,000 of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails had been hacked from her homebrew server. The now-deceased man, “a longtime Republican opposition researcher” named Peter W. Smith, had theorized that the e-mails must have been stolen, “likely by Russian hackers.” But he had no idea if this was actually so, and he himself certainly had nothing to do with stealing them. Smith’s desire to obtain the hacked emails, if there were any, peaked around Labor Day 2016 — i.e., during the last weeks of the campaign. This was many months after the FBI had taken physical custody of Clinton’s homebrew server and other devices containing her e-mails. It was also two months after the Bureau’s then-director, James Comey, had told the country that the FBI had found no evidence that Clinton had been hacked . . . but that her carelessness about communications security, coupled with the proficiency of hackers in avoiding detection, meant her e-mails could well have been compromised throughout her years as secretary of state. In other words, Peter W. Smith was one of about 320 million people in the United States who figured that Clinton’s e-mails had been hacked — by Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, the NSA, the latest iteration of “Guccifer,” and maybe even that nerdy kid down at Starbucks with “Feel the Bern” stickers on his laptop. UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT Trump talks level playing field for American businesses 00:11 01:00 Besides having no relationship with Trump, Smith also had no relationship with the Russian regime. Besides not knowing whether the Clinton e-mails were actually hacked, he also had no idea whether the Kremlin or anyone close to Vladimir Putin had obtained the e-mails. In short, he wouldn’t have been able to tell you whether Trump and Putin were colluding with each other because he wasn’t colluding with either one of them. But — here comes the blockbuster info — Smith was colluding with Michael Flynn. Or at least he kinda, sorta was . . . except for, you know, the Journal’s grudging acknowledgement that, well, okay, Smith never actually told the paper that Flynn was involved in what the report calls “Smith’s operation.” Huh? If you’re confused, I’d ordinarily suggest that you go back and read the report a time or two. But life is short and rereading would not much clarify this spaghetti bowl hurled against the wall, in the hope that some of the Flynn sauce might stick. Flynn, of course, is the retired army general who became a top Trump campaign surrogate, and who, later and fleetingly, was President Trump’s national security adviser. As the press likes to say, Flynn was sacked over his contacts with Russia, which were the subject of an FBI investigation. What they unfailingly fail to add is that (a) Flynn was fired not because he had contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak but because he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the substance of them; (b) there was nothing inappropriate about Flynn’s having discussions with foreign counterparts during the Trump transition; (c) the FBI investigation targeted not Flynn but Kislyak, who, as an agent of a foreign power, was under FBI surveillance when he spoke with Flynn; and (d) therefore, the FBI recorded the Flynn-Kislyak communications and knew that Flynn had made no commitment to address Russian objections to sanctions imposed by President Obama (i.e., there was no quid pro quo for Russia’s purported contribution to Trump’s election). General Flynn is loathed by Obama, who fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency; by the Obama-era intelligence-agency chiefs, whom Flynn called out for politicizing intelligence reporting; and by the FBI, against whom Flynn supported an agent who was claiming sexual discrimination. The Obama Justice Department was giddy over the prospect of making a criminal case against Flynn: dispatching the FBI to interrogate him over the Kislyak conversations, and even weighing an indictment of Flynn under the Logan Act, an unconstitutional 18th-century law that bars Americans from free-lancing in foreign policy — a law that is never invoked, has never been successfully prosecuted, and would be especially ludicrous to apply to a transition official. Flynn, whose judgment leaves much to be desired, has made himself an easy target. Putting aside whether the FBI had a good reason to interrogate him as if he were a criminal suspect, he was reportedly no more candid with the agents than he was with Pence in recounting his Kislyak conversations. He also got grubby after leaving the military in 2014, starting a private intelligence agency that cashed in paydays from outfits tied to the unsavory regimes of Russia and Turkey. There are legal issues stemming from his apparent failures to register as a foreign agent and to disclose what he was paid. In addition, Flynn’s son became so notorious for trading in conspiracy theories that the Trump transition cut ties with him — imagine how out there you’d have to be to get booted from Trump World for incendiary tweeting! Thus, Flynn has provided Democrats and their media friends with plenty of help advancing the Trump-Russia narrative. The strategy has been transparent for months: Make Flynn radioactive, turn Flynn’s name into a synonym for “collusion,” and, presto, anyone Flynn touches becomes evidence that Trump “coordinated” with Putin to steal the election from Hillary — regardless of whether the anyone in question has anything to do with Trump or Russia. This week’s Journal report is the latest in this genre. In the interview ten days before his death, Smith claimed to know Flynn but did not implicate Flynn in his “operation.” And what exactly was this “operation”? Like many other people during the campaign stretch-run, Smith convinced himself that someone out there in the cyber-verse must have hacked Clinton’s e-mails. This calculation was based not on a belief that Trump was colluding with Russia, but on Clinton’s own recklessness in using a non-secure server system. The Journal does not see fit to remind readers that the 33,000 e-mails Smith was trying to dig up were the ones Clinton had tried to destroy, even though they contained records of government business (which it is a felony to destroy), contained at least some classified information (which it is a felony to mishandle), and had been requested by congressional committees (whose proceedings it is a felony to obstruct by destroying evidence). These penal inconveniences aside, there were also explosive political implications. Clinton had insisted that the e-mails in question were strictly of a personal nature, involving yoga routines, daughter Chelsea’s wedding, and the like. She maintained that she had turned over any and all government-related e-mails to the State Department. She had also laughably claimed that her homebrew server system was adequately secure. And there is every reason to believe many of these destroyed e-mails related to Clinton Foundation business — the Bill and Hill scheme to monetize their “public service” — which was liberally commingled with government business during Mrs. Clinton’s State Department tenure. Public disclosure of these e-mails, then, would have been very damaging, concretely demonstrating her dishonesty and unfitness.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... n-nonsense

Understand: None of that is Russia’s fault, or Trump’s, or Flynn’s, or Flynn Jr.’s, or Smith’s. It was solely the fault of Hillary Clinton. She was a five-alarm disaster of a candidate. That’s why she lost. Starting around Labor Day, Smith undertook to locate these e-mails. The team he assembled included technology experts, lawyers, and — because he suspected Russian hackers (as did everyone else on the planet) — a Europe-based investigator fluent in Russian. Scouring the hacker community, Smith said he located five groups that claimed to possess the e-mails, including two that “he determined were Russians.” I know you’ll shocked to hear this, but Smith apparently identified none of these hacker groups in his Journal interview. And it all came to . . . what? Nothing. Smith claimed that he was offered sample e-mail batches by the five hacker groups. The e-mails, however, did not appear to be authentic, so he didn’t dare leak them. Indeed, assuming these samples really existed, nobody has leaked them — not Smith, not WikiLeaks, and not the five hacker groups themselves. To summarize: Smith had no proof of Trump–Russia collusion, no proof the Clinton e-mails were hacked, no proof that any e-mails any hackers claimed to possess were the real thing, and no proof that the hackers — assuming they really were hackers — were tied to the Kremlin. So why is this a story? Because, while Smith did not tell the Journal that Flynn was involved in his “project,” he apparently told other people that he was “talking to Flynn.” He “implied” to other people that Flynn, Flynn’s son, and Flynn’s private intel firm were interested in Hillary’s e-mails. And why wouldn’t Flynn have been interested? Other than the media, who wasn’t interested? Trump himself certainly was. The Journal reminds readers of the late July 2016 press conference at which the then-candidate stated, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That quip, we all remember, ignited media hysteria about how Trump was encouraging foreign interference in American presidential politics (in a way that the tens of millions of foreign dollars that poured into Clinton Foundation coffers somehow did not). All this sound and fury turns out to be throat-clearing. The juicy news in the Journal’s report is not about Smith; it stems from yet another leak of classified information. According to “U.S. investigators” involved in the Russia probe (i.e., the Mueller investigation), there are intelligence reports that “describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain e-mails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.” Who are these investigators? The Journal doesn’t tell us — the actual crime of leaking classified intelligence being of less interest than the non-crime of “collusion.” The purported Russian hackers are not identified either. Nor is Flynn’s “intermediary” — the Journal cannot say whether the leak is accurate, whether there really was an intermediary, or whether Smith could have been the intermediary. There is, moreover, no indication that any supposed Russian hacker actually made any effort to obtain the Clinton e-mails, much less that Flynn — let alone Trump — had any knowledge of or involvement in such an effort. Quick: somebody start writing up the articles of impeachment! As the press strains to keep the collusion narrative alive, three things emerge. First, there plainly was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian regime to meddle in the election. If there had been, it would be unnecessary to trace attenuated, unconsummated arrangements between obscure partisans, anonymous hackers, and nameless intermediaries. There would have been no need for Trump to use a press conference to express hope that Putin would find the missing e-mails. There would have been no need for Flynn and Jared Kushner (Trump’s son-in-law and adviser) to try to set up a back channel to the Kremlin weeks after the November election. If there were anything to the “collusion” tale, the Trump and Putin circles would have had all this covered during the campaign. Second, there are crimes in these media reports, but the media seems decidedly indifferent about them: Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail follies and the leaking of classified information by government officials. Finally, there is a quite astonishing variance in the standards of proof applied by Democrats and their media allies. On the one hand, we have damning evidence that Clinton destroyed government files and mishandled classified information. On the other, there is a dearth of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Now riddle me this: Who got a complete pass, and who is the earth being scorched to nail?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... n-nonsense

[Tero]

Er, Podesta's emails were hacked. Hillary's emails were safe in Anthony Weiner's condom.

[Sean Hayden]

surreal

[Tero]

Trump: I don't get money from Russia, and I proved it by providing a letter from a lawyer, a guy I pay and who just resigned, saying I don't...

At the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado on Thursday, Thomas Bossert, the president's homeland security adviser, said there was no question that Russia had meddled in the 2016 election in comments reported by USA Today.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes," Bossert said when asked if he backed the conclusion from U.S. intelligence agencies. He added that more should be done to "punish" Russia and other groups for interfering in the election process.

"Not one bad actor is paying for their actions,'' Bossert said.


President Trump's CIA Director Mike Pompeo joined Bossert, asserting that Russia had involved itself in several U.S. elections.
"Of course,'' Pompeo said Thursday when asked if Russia interfered. "And the one before that, and the one before that. "(Russia) has no intention of backing off.''

The remarks from two of President Trump's top intelligence officials are a major break from Trump's own public comments.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... e-election

[Tero]

Trump...Russia...Sessions...Mueller...bla...bla bla.
Fox Repsonse: what about Hillary?
https://twitter.com/Im_TheAntiTrump/sta ... 1068883968

[Brian Peacock]

Jeff Sessions discussed Donald Trump’s White House bid with the Russian ambassador to Washington in 2016, according to reported US intelligence intercepts which contradict the US attorney general’s assurances that the campaign was not discussed...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... _clipboard

Liar.

[pErvinalia]

It's a house full of outright liars and liars by omission. What a sorry state US politics has hit.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Jeff Sessions discussed Donald Trump’s White House bid with the Russian ambassador to Washington in 2016, according to reported US intelligence intercepts which contradict the US attorney general’s assurances that the campaign was not discussed...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... _clipboard

Liar.

Surely you get it by now; it's been explained to all and sundry here repeatedly. Since this article refers to anonymous sources, it's meaningless. Just more smoke. I mean, who in the hell are "unnamed US official" and "unnamed former official"? If we don't know their names, it's unreasonable to believe anything they say. Rather, we can doubt that the supposed "intelligence intercepts" even exist. People are just trying to traduce poor Jefferson Beauregard III, that's all this is.

[Animavore]

[Tero]

Every Trump underling talked to Russia:

Washington Post: Sessions discussed Trump campaign with Russian ambassador, per intel intercepts
CNN - ‎9 hours ago‎
Washington (CNN) Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak to discuss Trump campaign matters during the 2016 presidential election, according to US intelligence intercepts, The Washington Post reports.

[Sean Hayden]

Christ, soon you guys will be chanting 'lock him up!'.



I'm done with the Democrats. -bleh

[Tero]

Lock him up, the colluded confused fake president.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/22/politics/ ... index.html