Intelligence Committees Hearings on Russian election interference / 45
Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:40 PM
Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:58 PM
On most questions from either camp most of the answers from FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers were "can't comment on that" in regard to classified info, ongoing investigations, and specific Trump associates who might be targets of investigation. The main issues revealed were that Comey admitted there was an ongoing criminal investigation of Russian influence and activity coupled with the 45 campaign involvement and that there was no evidence or factual basis for 45's accusatory tweeted statements about Obama supposedly wiretapping him or 45's Tower.
I am always amazed at the oily shininess of Trey Gowdy's nose and forehead. Perhaps he could serve as a valuable national resource in the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Or as a spokesman for STP or Pennzoil Synthetic Oil.
Edited by yadda yadda, 20 March 2017 - 06:05 PM.
Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:36 PM
Comey and Rogers both said they found no information about Trump's accusation that he was wiretapped which I think everyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Trump knew the second after Trump tweeted those lies. Of course, Trump is just digging himself deeper. He has said that he meant wiretapping broadly and really meant surveillance of any kind and then said that members of his campaign were under surveillance because of the Russia investigation and then he said that it wasn't any of the U.S. agencies that Obama got to wiretap him but a British one. He keeps changing his story and coming up with new lies to make his claim credible every time more proof comes out that he lied to the American people. This isn't even a typical lie that all politicians and Presidents tell. This was a staggering claim that a sitting President put a candidate for the office under surveillance during and after the campaign. If it had been true it would have been a massive scandal. Instead, it's a massive scandal because Trump lied and is now refusing to own up to it. Is this what we should expect every time a scandal hits Trump? He's just going to make up a lie and throw some innocent person under the bus? (Also, I realize there are those who don't like Obama and don't think he's "Innocent" but in regards to the specific claims Trump made about Obama he is innocent). He's also claiming that the Russian hacking scandal is just a big lie created by Democrats.
What I also found funny in a sad, tragic sort of way is that apparently the investigation into Russia hacking our election and the ties between Russia and Trump's campaign began during the campaign, but Comey said nothing about it. Yet he had no problem letting the world know that the FBI had a laptop from someone not really connected to Hillary that might possibly contain e-mails that might be related to the private server scandal right before the election.
It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job: it's a depression when you lose yours.
-- Harry S. Truman
Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:17 PM
Posted 23 March 2017 - 03:23 AM
These actions of a supposedly objective investigator ( Nunes) hand delivering classified information to the SUBJECT of an investigation seems a bit of an ethical conundrum and cast doubts on the innate bias and agenda of the committee chairman. Challenges to the actions of Nunes by Ranking Committee Member Schiff and Senator McCain have intensified and provided context for the creation of an independent Select Committee or Commission to take over and guide a non partisan investigation of these matters the FBI has laid out as proper and of relevance.
Interesting to note that Rep. Schiff also upgraded his assessment of evidence of potential 45 administration Russian collusion from " circumstantial" to beyond circumstantial. President 45's tiny hands caught inside a Russian cookie jar, perhaps? We can only hope and dream...
Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:08 PM
I heard someone say earlier this week, and we are having hearings on this guy's Supreme Court nominee…. why? Wouldn't the reasons to not hold, or to delay, hearings, with these clouds of suspicions, a lot more reasonable than the reasons given to stop Obama's nominee? I mean, this isn't a job that the nominee can get kicked onto of once s/he is confirmed, unlike say Cabinet picks and other positions a new President could replace at will.
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users