MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Mrhat39
New Member
Mrhat
By now, any sentient being who is capable of rational thought about the U.S. president (a category that admittedly excludes his more fervent fans) must grasp the likelihood that there was a quid pro quo between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin: Russian President Vladimir Putin would help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election, and in return Trump would lift sanctions on Russia.
The fact that Trump hasn’t made good on his end of the presumed bargain shouldn’t be any surprise: A long line of business partners and wives have discovered how worthless his commitments are. In fairness, however, Trump’s failure to follow through in this instance wasn’t necessarily because he didn’t want to; it was because the Russian meddling became public and therefore made it politically impossible for Trump to help out his Russian pal even if he had been inclined do so.
Trump’s failure to deliver doesn’t change the probability that this corrupt bargain existed. No other hypothesis can account for the copious links that have emerged between the Trump campaign and the Russians. As CNN notes, “At least 12 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition. There were at least 19 face-to-face interactions with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures. There were at least 51 communications — meetings, phone calls, email exchanges and more.”
If the Trumpites and the Putinites weren’t communicating about how to subvert Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign, what were they talking about? Their favorite brands of vodka? And if there was an innocent explanation for all of these contacts, why is it that everyone in the Trump campaign, from the president on down, has lied and lied and lied about them? Those are the damning questions that no Trump defender can answer.
Swiper
Banned
Report: FBI Agent Yanked from Mueller Probe Changed Hillary Clinton Email Description from ‘Grossly Negligent’ to ‘Extremely Careless’
Former FBI investigator Peter Strzok, who was pulled from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team after it was revealed he exchanged text messages mocking President Trump, was reportedly behind the decision to change then-FBI Director James Comey’s description of Hillary Clinton’s email use from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
CNN reported Monday that Peter Strzok not only led the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state but was also partly behind the change in Comey’s draft language to the “extremely careless” phrase which was seen as a damning indictment of Clinton’s behavior—even though Comey decided not to recommend charges when he made the announcement in July 2016.
Clinton, then in the midst of a bruising presidential campaign fight against then-candidate Trump, was perhaps fortunate to escape without a charge recommendation. However, the phrase “extremely careless” was featured in most news reports on her email usage, and rang in the ears of voters all the way to Election Day.
Yet, the phrase “grossly negligent” would have almost certainly been more powerful, and also carries connotations of criminal activity. CNN notes that federal law has criminal penalties for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified material.
Many opponents of Clinton, including President Trump, have implied or stated outright that they believe Clinton got away without being charged due to her status as a high-profile Democratic politician.
While CNN reports that the drafting process was a “team effort”, the fact that Strzok—who has demonstrated anti-Trump bias in his private messages—was involved is only likely to fuel such suspicions.
CNN also reports that Strzok was the official who, as one of the FBI’s top experts on Russia, was the man who signed the document opening a probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Also on Monday, the Sean Hannity Radio Show published an exclusive report by Circa’s Sara Carter on the bureau’s interviews of former national security advisor Michael Flynn—who last week pled guilty to lying to the FBI during those interviews. According to Carter, Strzok was one of two agents who interviewed Flynn in January at the White House.
President Trump has seized on the revelations about Strzok’s texting as evidence of allegedly biased behavior, tweeting on Monday morning: “Now it all starts to make sense!”
FBI Agent Yanked from Mueller Probe Changed Hillary Clinton Email Description from ‘Grossly Negligent’ to ‘Extremely Careless’
Former FBI investigator Peter Strzok, who was pulled from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team after it was revealed he exchanged text messages mocking President Trump, was reportedly behind the decision to change then-FBI Director James Comey’s description of Hillary Clinton’s email use from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
CNN reported Monday that Peter Strzok not only led the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state but was also partly behind the change in Comey’s draft language to the “extremely careless” phrase which was seen as a damning indictment of Clinton’s behavior—even though Comey decided not to recommend charges when he made the announcement in July 2016.
Clinton, then in the midst of a bruising presidential campaign fight against then-candidate Trump, was perhaps fortunate to escape without a charge recommendation. However, the phrase “extremely careless” was featured in most news reports on her email usage, and rang in the ears of voters all the way to Election Day.
Yet, the phrase “grossly negligent” would have almost certainly been more powerful, and also carries connotations of criminal activity. CNN notes that federal law has criminal penalties for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified material.
Many opponents of Clinton, including President Trump, have implied or stated outright that they believe Clinton got away without being charged due to her status as a high-profile Democratic politician.
While CNN reports that the drafting process was a “team effort”, the fact that Strzok—who has demonstrated anti-Trump bias in his private messages—was involved is only likely to fuel such suspicions.
CNN also reports that Strzok was the official who, as one of the FBI’s top experts on Russia, was the man who signed the document opening a probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Also on Monday, the Sean Hannity Radio Show published an exclusive report by Circa’s Sara Carter on the bureau’s interviews of former national security advisor Michael Flynn—who last week pled guilty to lying to the FBI during those interviews. According to Carter, Strzok was one of two agents who interviewed Flynn in January at the White House.
President Trump has seized on the revelations about Strzok’s texting as evidence of allegedly biased behavior, tweeting on Monday morning: “Now it all starts to make sense!”
FBI Agent Yanked from Mueller Probe Changed Hillary Clinton Email Description from ‘Grossly Negligent’ to ‘Extremely Careless’
[Tuesday, May 9, 2017]
On Tuesday, during lunch at my desk, I watched a CNN roundtable which, though pretty hard on General Flynn, professed to be baffled as to what happened after Sally Yates went to the White House Counsel to warn that Flynn had been lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador and that the Russians were aware of this. Why did it take seventeen days before Flynn was fired? Didn’t the president take these warnings seriously? Shouldn’t he have been more concerned about such serious charges concerning Flynn’s vulnerability to Russian blackmail? Or, as the Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/08/why-did-trump-ignore-obama-and-sally-yates-about-michael-flynn-because-they-were-losers-apparently/ (put it this morning), “How the White House could have failed to heed Yates’s damning warnings about Flynn is particularly puzzling…”
But once we reflect on what most certainly is the answer to this question, the question itself looks a little absurd and one feels a good deal of sympathy for General Flynn.
Putting to one side the much more serious issue of collaboration with Russia to manipulate the election, and the allegations of an extensive effort to cover up that collaboration, it seems pretty clear what happened. President-elect Trump instructed General Flynn to tell Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak not to be too upset about President Obama’s new sanctions against Russia because he—Trump—planned to reverse them. It is inconceivable that Flynn did this on his own. The reason he denied having this discussion with the Russian ambassador is because the president-elect instructed him to do so. It was only when the Washington Post article appeared exposing this deception that Trump was forced to act. He didn’t see any problem with undermining Obama’s policy—after all Trump would be president in a few weeks. (Who knows whether he also told Flynn to mislead the vice-president elect so that Pence could credibly—and deniably—mislead the press and the public?)
Of course Trump wasn’t moved by Yates’s warning; he knew Flynn couldn’t be blackmailed with the threat to disclose his actions to his boss because there was nothing to expose. What Trump was worried about was exposure of his own role; and that’s why he fired Flynn with fulsome praise and the relatively-honest observation that had he known of Flynn’s contacts he would have authorized his actions.
Washington (CNN)New revelations about Michael Flynn's lies to the FBI are laying bare Vice President Mike Pence's in-the-dark strategy when it comes to Russia's election meddling, raising new questions about whether he could have been left in the dark as he has argued for nearly a year.
Advisers have long insisted that Pence was unaware Flynn spoke to then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak about a new set of US sanctions on the day they were announced last December.
But court filings unsealed last week, paired with new details about President Donald Trump's own knowledge of events, indicate a wide circle of advisers were aware that Flynn raised the issue when he spoke by phone to Moscow's envoy -- even as Pence reportedly remained in the dark.
The new questions raised by special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation signal what could be a pivotal moment in Pence's careful calibration of trying to keep a safe distance from the Russia probe even while maintaining his credibility for being left out of the loop by the West Wing.
Here’s the rub: As we explain in a new report from the Presidential Investigation Education Project, a joint effort of the American Constitution Society and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, https://www.citizensforethics.org/trump-cant-easily-remove-mueller-happens-tries. The risks to the president of doing so are prohibitive, and if he went ahead and tried, Mueller’s firing could likely be challenged successfully in court.
It is also likely that the investigation (or aspects of it) would survive Mueller’s termination.
The Justice Department regulations that govern Mueller’s appointment are clear: Only the attorney general can fire the special counsel. Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation of matters relating to the Trump campaign, the authority to appoint, monitor and (if appropriate) dismiss Mueller is wielded by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The regulations also state that the special counsel can only be removed for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies.” We believe that Rosenstein, who decided a special counsel was needed and appointed Mueller, would not fire Mueller absent very good cause.
And let us be very clear: There is absolutely no basis for arguing that there is any cause to fire Mueller under this standard. The attempts by the White House and its allies to conjure up “http://wapo.st/2qb2spa?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.294d873e8c75 (conflicts)” and suggest that the investigation has exceeded its scope are way off base. Indeed, as we point out, Mueller, or perhaps a member of his staff, is likely to be able to challenge a termination as a violation of the regulation, especially if the termination were accompanied by a defamatory statement about the special counsel.
Nor does the president have inherent authority to fire the special counsel. This bogus argument is based on the “unitary executive” theory, which posits that the president wields all discretionary executive power and so has unchecked power to direct lower-level executive officers — including Mueller.
The Supreme Court rejected this theory when it upheld congressional limits on the president’s ability to remove an independent counsel, the precursor to the special counsel. To the extent that the president instructs Sessions or Rosenstein to withdraw the special counsel regulations, there may be procedural obstacles, including the possibility that such action would require notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Even if the White House could navigate these obstacles and find a way to fire Mueller in a manner that complied with existing law, the president would still have reason not to: Firing Mueller would compound the president’s criminal exposure for obstructing justice and could easily trigger a premature end to his presidency.
Senorman
Well-known Member
Probably a few. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about "sexual relations with that woman" by the house, which was republican controlled. The house republicans are doing nothing to hold Trump accountable for his many impeachable offenses.
CdnGuy
New Member
Yes NK should have been dealt with long ago. What a shame is... the problem has been left with an "angry retard" too deal with it!
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump was just 11 minutes into his presidency when his choice for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, texted a former business partner to say an ambitious U.S. collaboration with Russia to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East was "good to go," according to a new whistleblower account.
As Trump delivered his inaugural address, says the unnamed whistleblower, Flynn directed Alex Copson, managing director of ACU Strategic Partners, to inform their business partners "to put things in place."
The whistleblower also says that Flynn assured Copson that U.S. sanctions on Russia that could block the nuclear project would be "ripped up" once Trump was inside the White House.
The account from the anonymous whistleblower http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/2017-12-06.EEC%20to%20Gowdy.pdffrom the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to his Republican counterpart asking that the panel subpoena Flynn, Copson, the White House and others involved in the alleged plan.
Spooby
Member
This is as accurate as it gets..
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
Can anyone tell me what my blood work means? Low ferritin high RBC- Latest: Spaceman Spiff
-
-
My dream physique. Realistic? Sustainable? What will it take?- Latest: biggerben69