Yabberz for AndroidDownload

FINALLY- A Fact Check Of Trump's Hundreds Of Attacks On The Russian Probe

49
Posts
1580
Points
16
Users

      Finally, there has been an assessment done of Trump's over 250 egregious attacks on the Federal investigation into the Russian's interference in the 2016 USA General Election.

      The question of whether the Donald was legally elected or not has hung around like a rain cloud ever since that election, and as a result Trump has made some wild and crude attempts to de-legitimize the special counsel's inquiry. For example, he has used the term"witch hunt" over 100 times, and he has insisted that the investigation is rigged, and that it is H.R. Clinton who should be investigated.

      As a result of Trump's attacks, and his increasingly bold assertions that the investigation should be stopped, he has finally been fact checked!

      The New York Times conducted an analysis of Trump's claims about the Russian Investigation, and they found more than 250 examples of exaggerated, misleading or flat-out false claims made by Trump.

      A graph of the falseness of his accusations shows that they have increased in frequency and lack of truth in triplicate since January 2018, and that since Helsinki, they have sky-rocketed. Because the graph does not copy well, it has not been included in this post.

      This is an exceptionally long report, so settle in for a read that may take some time.


      President Trump at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J. last week.CreditTom Brenner for The New York Times


      Truth-Testing Trump’s 250-Plus Attacks on the Russia Inquiry

      We assessed President Trump’s claims about Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and the ensuing federal investigation of his campaign.

      Doubting Russian interference

      Mr. Trump has consistently questioned the basic facts of the American intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid his campaign.

      “The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign.”

      Twitter post, March 20, 2017

      Mr. Trump has suggested at least 19 other times that Democrats fabricated concerns about Russian interference as an excuse for losing the election.

      False.

      Democrats sounded the alarm about Russian campaign interference months before the November 2016 election. So did Republicans.

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 16 | June 23 | May 26 | Feb. 20 | Repetitions in 2017: Dec. 28 | Dec. 15| Nov. 26 | Oct. 25 | Oct. 16 | Oct. 11 | Sept. 22 | Aug. 3| May 30 | May 11 | May 11|April 12 | Feb. 26 | Feb. 17 | Feb. 16)

      “Why did the DNC REFUSE to turn over its Server to the FBI, and still hasn’t? It’s all a big Dem scam and excuse for losing the election!”

      Twitter post, June 22, 2017

      Based on the findings of the private security firm CrowdStrike, the Democratic National Committee said in the summer of 2016 that it was hacked by Russian operatives. A month later, nearly 20,000 of the Democratic Party’s internal emails were released. The American intelligence community, in an October 2016 report, said Russians were behind the attack — a finding that was backed up by indictments issued in July against 12 Russian intelligence officers.

      Mr. Trump has pointed out at least 32 other times that the F.B.I. did not directly examine the D.N.C.’s servers. In doing so, he has suggested that the D.N.C. was not hacked during the 2016 campaign.

      This requires context- the F.B.I. never physically seized the servers from the D.N.C. headquarters. However, CrowdStrike provided forensics to federal investigators — which James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, has called an “appropriate substitute.”

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 17 | July 16 | July 14 | July 7 | July 1 | June 28 | June 7 | May 27 | May 20 | April 26 | April 21 | April 20 | April 18 | April 15 | Jan. 11 | Repetitions in 2017: Nov. 10 | Nov. 7 | Aug. 11 | Aug. 10 | July 25 | July 9 | July 7 | June 22 | June 22 | May 13 |May 7 | April 30 | April 28 | April 26 | April 21 | March 30 | March 3)

      “And I heard that they were trying, or people were trying, to hack into the R.N.C., too. The Republican National Committee. But we had much better defenses.”

      Interview with CBS News, June 14, 2018

      Mr. Trump has also blamed the D.N.C. for inadequately protecting itself from cyberattacks. He told “Face the Nation” that “the D.N.C. should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked” and compared it to the Republican National Committee.

      Largely true.

      The Times reported in December 2016 that Russian operatives did hack the R.N.C.’s systems. In January 2017, Mr. Comey said in congressional testimony that the hackers had penetrated old computer systems that were no longer used by the committee. But Mr. Comey said there was no evidence that the R.N.C.’s newer computer systems — or ones used by the Trump campaign — were hacked successfully.

      (Repetitions in 2017: April 28 | April 21 | Feb. 16)

      “What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the D.N.C.? Where are those servers?”

      News conference in Helsinki, Finland, with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, July 16, 2018

      Mr. Trump has referred five other times to Imran Awan, a Pakistani-American and former I.T. specialist who had worked part-time for several Democratic staffs in the House, including Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the D.N.C.’s former chairwoman. Mr. Awan was arrested last summer on unrelated charges of obtaining a fraudulent bank loan and pleaded guilty in July. Conservative media commentators have suggested that Mr. Awan may have stolen and leaked the Democratic National Committee’s emails, again implying that the Russian hacking never happened.

      This is misleading.

      Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has rejected this as a conspiracy theory.

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 17 | July 7 | June 7 | April 20 | Repetitions in 2017: Dec. 28)

      “If you don't catch a hacker, O.K., in the act, it's very hard to say who did the hacking. With that being said, I'll go along with Russia. Could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups.”

      Interview on “Face the Nation,” April 30, 2017

      On at least eight other occasions in his presidency, Mr. Trump suggested that Russia might not be the culprit. He has cited Moscow’s denial — or explicitly denied it himself — and offered other explanations for the hacking.

      False.

      The American intelligence community, the investigators with the Senate and House intelligence committees and technology companies have all concluded that Russia interfered in the election.

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 17 | July 16 | June 28 | March 6 | Repetitions in 2017: Nov. 11 | July 12 | July 6 | May 11)

      “Russia was against Trump in the 2016 Election”

      Twitter post, July 29, 2017

      Mr. Trump has repeatedly asserted that Mr. Putin’s government did not want him to win the American presidential election. He once claimed that Russia “spent a lot of money on fighting me” and another time asserted that Mr. Putin “wants Hillary.”

      False.

      Not only does this contradict various American intelligence reports, Mr. Putin himself said both before and after the November 2016 vote that he wanted Mr. Trump to win because of Mr. Trump’s desire to restore Russian-American relations.

      (Repetitions in 2018: Aug. 2 | July 24 | July 13 | Repetitions in 2017: Nov. 15 | Aug. 10 | July 12)

      Playing down contact with Russians

      The president has confronted reports of contacts between his campaign and influential Russian by playing down his ties to political aides or by shifting the blame to Democrats.

      Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, resigned for misleading White House officials about conversations with the Russian Ambassador.CreditBrendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

      “There’s nobody on the campaign that saw anybody from Russia.”

      Interview with The Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2017

      Mr. Trump has flat out denied, at least three times, that several people in the Trump campaign met with or spoke to people associated with Russia.

      False.

      Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed lifting sanctions with the Russian ambassador in December 2016, and resigned for misleading White House officials about those conversations. Mr. Trump’s son, son-in-law and former campaign chairman — Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort — met with a Russian lawyerwho had connections to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign. And two foreign policy advisers to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, met with people linked to the Kremlin before the 2016 vote. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was the first senator to endorse Mr. Trump and advised him during the campaign, met with the Russian ambassador at least twice in 2016.

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 16 | Repetitions in 2017: May 13)

      “They weren’t even a part, really — I mean, they were such a minor part — I hadn’t spoken to them.”

      News conference at the White House, Feb. 16, 2017

      Mr. Trump has also played down the roles of campaign aides who had met with people linked to the Kremlin.

      This is misleading.

      It is not clear how high Mr. Papadopoulos or Mr. Page ranked in the Trump campaign hierarchy. But it is implausible to suggest that Mr. Flynn, Mr. Manafort, Mr. Kushner and the junior Mr. Trump played “minor” parts in the campaign.

      (Repetitions: Oct. 31, 2017)

      “Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign.”

      News conference at the White House, June 15, 2018.

      False.

      Mr. Manafort was the Trump campaign chairman during the last stretch of the Republican primary campaign. He worked for the campaign for 144 days — not 49 days or three and a half months, as Mr. Trump alternately has claimed.

      (Repetitions in 2018: June 3 | Dec. 28 | Repetitions in 2017: Nov. 5 | Oct. 30).

      “Now there has been collusion between Hillary Clinton, the D.N.C., and the Russians.”

      Remarks to reporters at Camp David, Jan. 6, 2018

      The Washington Post first reported in October that the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid for opposition research that led to a dossier about Mr. Trump compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British spy. Mr. Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats of “colluding” with Russia. But it was a conservative website, The Washington Free Beacon, that first paid a research firm for the opposition research. It stopped when Mr. Trump won the nomination. The firm, Fusion GPS, was then paid by the Democrats for the research that became the dossier.

      This is misleading.

      Collusion, which is generally understood as secretive and often illicit collaboration, has no defined legal meaning. Mr. Steele did use Russian sources to compile his dossier, and reported his findings to the F.B.I. But there is no evidence anyone from the Clinton campaign met with Russian officials directly and conspired to manipulate the American election.

      (Repetitions in 2018: Aug. 14 | Aug. 9 | Aug. 6 | Aug. 6 | Aug. 3 | Aug. 1 | July 31 | July 29 | July 27 | July 7 | June 8 | June 2 | May 17 | April 28 | April 26 | March 25 | March 11 | Feb. 17 | Jan. 11 | Jan. 5 | Repetitions in 2017: Oct. 25)

      Supporters watched voter results on television at Mr. Trump’s election night event in New York in 2016.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times“Nobody asks John Podesta about the company that he has with his brother in Russia.”

      Interview with The Washington Examiner, April 26, 2017

      As evidence of Democratic collusion, Mr. Trump has said John D. Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, owned a company in Russia.

      False.

      Mr. Podesta does not own a company in Russia. The consulting firm that he and his brother, Tony Podesta, co-founded is based in Washington, not Russia. (The firm did, however, lobby on behalf of a Russian bank.)

      (Repetitions in 2018: April 28 | Feb. 17 | Repetitions in 2017: Aug. 3 | July 25 | July 22 | May 13 | April 30 | April 28 | April 26 | March 27)

      “We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country.”

      News conference at the White House, Feb. 16, 2017

      Mr. Trump has accused Mrs. Clinton of selling American uranium to Russia at least 16 other times, sometimes briefly referring to the issue simply as “Uranium One.”

      This is misleading.

      Uranium One is a uranium production company with holdings in the United States. Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state when the Obama administration allowed Russia’s nuclear agency to purchase the company. The State Department was one of nine agencies — as well as federal nuclear regulator and a state regulator — that had to sign off on the sale. There is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton was personally involved.

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 7 | July 1 | June 7 | Feb. 17 | Repetitions in 2017: Nov. 1 | Oct. 29| Oct. 25 | Oct. 19 | Aug. 3 | July 25 | July 22 | July 19 | April 30 | March 28 | March 27 | Feb. 16)

      “Collusion is not a crime”— Twitter post, July 31, 2017

      This is Mr. Trump’s latest defense.

      This is misleading.

      Mr. Trump is playing a semantics game. “Collusion” is not a crime in the federal code of criminal procedure, but a potential conspiracy between a campaign and a foreign government that violates American election laws is indeed illegal.

      Claiming a political setup

      Mr. Trump has asserted that he and his campaign are the victims in the Russia investigation.

      “The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?”— Twitter post, June 23, 2017

      Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed that President Barack Obama did not act — sometimes by adding: “because he thought Crooked Hillary Clinton would win” — to sow doubts about the independence of those who accuse Russia of election interference.

      False.

      The Obama administration warned Russian officials against interfering before the election in August, September and October, and imposed sanctions in December 2016.

      (Repetitions in 2018: July 17 | July 17 | July 15 | July 14 | June 15 | May 27 | March 5 | Feb. 24 | Feb. 21 | Feb. 19 | Repetitions in 2017: July 19 | July 6 | June 26 | June 26 | June 25 | June 22)

      Mr. Trump accused President Barack Obama of wiretapping his campaign at Trump Tower.CreditAl Drago/The New York Times

      “Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory.”— Twitter post, March 4, 2017

      False.

      In four subsequent interviews between March and April 2017, Mr. Trump corrected himself to say he had been under surveillance, generally, by the Obama administration — but not by a telephone wiretap.

      He also claimed to have learned of the surveillance from The New York Times and accused The Times of removing the word “wiretap” from the article’s headline.

      False.

      The Times did not report that Mr. Obama ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump’s phone conversations, nor did the headline ever change.

      (Repetitions in 2018: June 25 | Repetitions in 2017: April 17 | April 12 | April 2 | March 23 | March 17 | March 15 | March 4 | March 4 | March 4)

      “Wow, @FoxNews just reporting big news. Source: ‘Official behind unmasking is high up. Known Intel official is responsible. Some unmasked ... not associated with Russia. Trump team spied on before he was nominated.’”— Twitter posts, April 1, 2017

      Mr. Trump repeatedly claimed that the Obama administration “spied on” the Trump campaign in referring to the process of “unmasking.” When Americans’ communications are swept up in surveillance of foreigners, their names are normally obscured to protect their privacy. Only authorized national security officials can ask to have the identities of Americans “unmasked.”

      This requires context.

      Mr. Trump is correct that Trump campaign officials were caught up in surveillance of foreign targets and their identities were unmasked — a request made by Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. Mr. Trump then accused Ms. Rice of committing a crime.

      But that was not unlawful or unusual. The National Security Agency revealed almost 2,000 American identities in 2016, and more than 2,200 in 2015, according to a statistical report. Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the agency’s former director, said in congressional testimony last June that the N.S.A. approves requests only if revealing the names of Americans will help the official understand intelligence better, “not so you can use that knowledge indiscriminately.”

      (Repetitions in 2017: Sept. 14 | June 23 | June 22 | June 1 | May 11 | May 4 | April 5 | April 3)

      “Disproven and paid for by Democrats ‘Dossier used to spy on Trump Campaign. Did FBI use Intel tool to influence the Election?’ ”

      Twitter post, Jan. 11, 2018

      Mr. Trump first made this claim in January and has repeated it at least 11 other times. It refers to accusations that the Justice Department used unverified information from Mr. Steele’s dossier in its court application to put Mr. Page under surveillance.

      This is misleading.

      The F.B.I. cited information from Mr. Steele’s dossier, but also other information in its application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The initial application was filed in October 2016, after Mr. Page had left the Trump campaign.

      (Repetitions: Aug. 14 | Aug. 12 | Aug. 9 | Aug. 1 | July 23 | July 22 | May 20 | March 26 | Feb. 3 | Feb. 2 | Jan. 11)

      .

      THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION “was based on fraudulent activities and a Fake Dossier paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC.”— Twitter post, March 17, 2018

      Mr. Trump has claimed repeatedly that the special counsel investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III was opened because of the information in Mr. Steele’s dossier.

      False.

      Republicans who hold the majority vote on the House Intelligence Committee have confirmed that the investigation was the result of Mr. Papadopoulos telling an Australian ambassador in May 2016 that the Russians had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.

      (Repetitions: Aug. 9 | Aug. 1 | July 29 | July 29 | July 23 | May 21 | May 1 | April 28)

      “So you have all these investigators; they’re Democrats. In all fairness, Bob Mueller worked for Obama for eight years.”

      Remarks to reporters at the White House, May 4, 2018

      Mr. Trump has described the special counsel investigation as “rigged,”given the political affiliations of the people on the team. He’s referred to them as “13 Angry Democrats” since May, and increased the count to 17 in late July.

      This needs context.

      A spokesman for the special counsel’s office confirmed the names of 17 investigators on Mr. Mueller’s legal team in May. An additional prosecutor, Uzo Asonye, was later brought on to help in the case against Mr. Manafort, raising the number on the team to 18.

      Fourteen of the 18 have donated to Democratic candidates in the past or self-identify as Democrats — including Mr. Asonye, who donated to Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

      But Mr. Trump ignores the fact that the political affiliations of the other four are unknown. Mr. Mueller himself is a registered Republican, and he was appointed as F.B.I. director by President George W. Bush in 2001.

      It is worth noting that four other prosecutors have been named in notices of appearances in certain cases initially brought by the special counsel. The Washington Post has reported that they have not joined Mr. Mueller’s team, but may take on those cases after the special counsel investigation ends.

      (Repetitions: Aug. 14 | Aug. 9 | Aug. 5 | Aug 1 | Jul 29 | July 27 | July 21 | July 21 | July 16 | July 10 | July 7 | June 28 | June 28 | June 25 | June 20 | June 17 | June 15 | June 15 | June 7| June 7| June 7 | June 4 | May 29 | May 29 | May 27 | May 26 | May 26 | May 20 | May 7 | May 5 | April 26 | April 11 | April 9 | March 18)

      “Problem is that the acting head of the FBI & the person in charge of the Hillary investigation, Andrew McCabe, got $700,000 from H for wife!”— Twitter post, July 25, 2017

      As evidence of the “scam” against his campaign, Mr. Trump has cited the links between Andrew G. McCabe, the former F.B.I. deputy director, and Mrs. Clinton at least seven other times.

      This needs context.

      Mr. McCabe’s wife ran for a seat in the Virginia State Senate in 2015, and accepted nearly $500,000 in contributions from Common Good VA. That political action committee is run by Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, a longtime fund-raiser and friend of Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton did not donate to the campaign.

      Mr. McCabe became the F.B.I.’s deputy director in February 2016 — and began overseeing the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server — nearly three months after his wife lost her race.

      (Repetitions in 2018: May 20 | April 28 | April 15 | Jan. 24 | Repetitions in 2017: Dec. 25 | July 25)

      Mr. Trump also has noted several times, accurately, that it was a Clinton ally — not Mrs. Clinton herself — who donated to Ms. McCabe’s campaign.

      “SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!”

      Twitter post, May 23, 2018

      The claim that the Obama administration planted a spy inside the Trump campaign first emerged in Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts in mid-May; he repeated it at least 13 times by early June. It refers to reports that an F.B.I. informant had contacted Trump campaign aides.

      This requires context.

      As The Times has reported:

      In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign.

      Mr. Trump also falsely claimed that James R. Clapper Jr., the Obama administration’s director of national intelligence, “admitted” to spying on his campaign. Mr. Clapper said the exact opposite.

      (Repetitions: June 5 | June 5 | May 28 | May 26 | May 24 | May 23 | May 23 | May 23 | May 23 | May 22 | May 20 | May 17)

      “Take a look at the horrible statements that Peter Strzok, the chief investigator, said.”

      Remarks to reporters at the White House, June 15, 2018

      True.

      In August 2016, Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. counterintelligence agent, made disparaging remarks about Mr. Trump in texts sent to Lisa Page, a former F.B.I. lawyer. The Justice Department’s inspector general said in a June report that the texts “cast a cloud” over the F.B.I.’s handling of the investigation and its credibility. But the report did not find political bias that directly affected the investigation.

      Mr. Strzok was fired on Aug. 13 for violating bureau policies.

      (Repetitions: Aug. 14 | Aug. 1 | July 18 | July 11 | June 17 | June 16 | June 15 | June 15 | April 28 | April 26 |

      “The Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast.”— Twitter post, June 1, 2018

      True, but ...

      The special counsel’s investigation reported expenditures of about $16.7 million from May 17, 2017, to March 31, 2018 — so Mr. Trump’s estimate is reasonable. But there is an important caveat: About $9 million was in indirect costs that the Justice Department would have spent regardless of the investigation.

      (Repetitions: June 28 | June 2 | May 20)


      Declaring vindication

      According to Mr. Trump, officials and even certain developments in the Russia investigation have absolved his campaign of wrongdoing.

      The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, right, speaks with Adam Schiff, the ranking member, about Russian interference in the 2016 election.CreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

      “James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia. This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!”— Twitter post, March 20, 2017

      Mr. Trump has repeatedly said the following people have cleared his campaign of wrongdoing: Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Jeh Johnson, the former Department of Homeland Security secretary, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

      This is misleading.

      These officials have said they personally had not seen evidence or proof of collusion, but did not rule it out.

      (Repetitions in 2018: Jan. 10 | Repetitions in 2017: Dec. 28 | Nov. 11 | June 22 | May 8 | March 20)

      “This memo totally vindicates ‘Trump’ in probe.”— Twitter post, Feb. 3, 2018

      Republicans on House Intelligence Committee released a memo accusing the Justice Department of monitoring Mr. Page without disclosing who paid for Mr. Steele’s dossier. Mr. Trump claimed that the memo proved his campaign did not collude with Russia. He also later said his innocence was verified by a Democratic memo that responded to some of the Republican claims.

      False.

      Neither memo explicitly clears Mr. Trump of collusion.

      “We’re very happy with the decision by the House Intelligence Committee, saying there’s absolutely no collusion with respect to Russia.”— Remarks to reporters at the White House, March 13, 2018

      True, but ...

      Republicans on the committee said in March that they had found no evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia; a report they released in April concluded the same. But in their own report, Democrats disputed the Republicans’ findings, saying that Republicans absolved the Trump campaign without doing due diligence.

      (Repetitions: July 5 | April 28 | April 27 | April 27 | April 26 | April 18 | April 9)

      “James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION.”— Twitter post, April 19, 2018

      False.

      Memos written by Mr. Comey, and released in April, do not mention collusion. That is not the same as clearing anyone of collusion, nor obstruction of justice, which is one of the issues being examined by the special counsel investigation.

      “It is a very unfair situation, but the I.G. report totally exonerates me.”

      Interview with Fox & Friends, June 15, 2018

      False.

      The Justice Department’s inspector general released an internal report in June that criticized Mr. Comey and other F.B.I. agents for their handling of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails. But the report did not examine or issue conclusions about the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

      ..........

      Linda Qiu is a fact-check reporter, based in Washington. She came to the Times in 2017 from the fact-checking service PolitiFact. @ylindaqiu

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/fact-check-trump-russia-election-interference-.html

      more less
      Pundit Post

      Trump's Enemies List

      21
      Posts
      680
      Points
      12
      Users

          Trump's Enemies List


          James Comey, Sally Yates, John Brennan -- screenshots

          What do these people have in common?

          John Brennan – 25 years in the CIA. Director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, 2003-2004. Director of Central Intelligence, 2013-2017.

          James Clapper – 32 years in the Air Force, retired as a three-star general with three Legions of Merit, two Bronze Stars, and two Air Medals. Flew 73 combat support missions over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, 1991-1995. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, 2007-2010. Director of National Intelligence, 2010-2017.

          Michael Hayden – 41 years in the Air Force, retired as a four-star general with three Defense Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, one Legion of Merit, and one Bronze Star. Director National Security Agency, 1999-2005. Deputy Director National Intelligence, 2005-2006. Director of Central Intelligence Agency, 2006-2009.

          Susan Rice – Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1997-2001. United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 2009-2013. White House National Security Adviser, 2013-2017.

          James Comey – United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 2002-2003. Deputy Attorney General, 2003-2005. Director Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013-2017.

          Sally Yates – United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, 2010-2015. Deputy Attorney General, 2015-2017. Acting Attorney General, 2017.

          Andrew McCabe – 22 years in the FBI. Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016-2018. Acting Director FBI, 2017.

          Peter Strzok – 22 years in the FBI. Deputy Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division. Section Chief, Counterespionage Section.

          Lisa Page – FBI attorney serving under FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey.

          Bruce G. Ohr – Former Associate Deputy Attorney General. Former Director Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.

          They are all potential witnesses.

          more less
          Pundit Post

          What Havoc A Few Hacked Emails Create - GOP Fundraiser Broidy Under Fire

          34
          Posts
          1000
          Points
          17
          Users

              A few months ago a few emails came to light during the moment when it was discovered that the lead GOP money man shelled out a cool 1.6 million to pay off a Playboy model. One thing we immediately learned about the investment banker was that he is terrible at negotiating settlements with "experienced" women and that he was equally incompetent at selecting legal representation when he engaged Michael Cohen as his bagman.

              We also learned of a possible source of his income when it came out that

              "The Journal reported in March that, according to a draft contract, Broidy and his wife, Robin Rosenzweig, were seeking $75 million from Malaysian businessman Jho Low if federal prosecutors dropped their investigation into a Malaysian state investment fund." - Washington Post 17 August 2018


              Now you cannot help but wonder if he would have asked for less if he had gotten off as cheap as, say, the President. Though, to be fair, it is very likely that Broidy could afford it while Trump is almost certainly broke.


              The beleaguered Broidy has made the usual claims...my enemies stole the documents (the ones that incriminate him, just for the record), everybody is out to get me, I never asked anybody for a dime...except for the suckers who threw there hard-earned cash into the garbage burn that is the Trump Presidency...


              Influence peddling? Please say it is not true...then again, tell us everything you know. I am sure that Jared used to take your calls.

              GeoffreyS Jade Barrett, Chairman SANE60

              #TheResistance #indivisible #resist


              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-fundra...

              more less
              Pundit Post

              Take The Advice From A Guy Who Has Seen It All Before - Dean Says Get Out!

              11
              Posts
              360
              Points
              12
              Users
                  Memo To Trump’s White House Staff: FYI. Very few people who worked at Nixon’s White House later included that fact on their resumes. It doesn’t do much for a career to be on the wrong side of history, nor to have worked for the worst president in American history. 10.7K people are talking about this

                  So a man who both did the dirty work and paid the price tells you to get out of the way as Despot Donnie unravels. Who knows what November brings? Maybe early Christmas presents as some of the Offal Office staffmembers find themselves cooling their heels (maybe even at State expense) while waiting for the latest best-seller they have written to be reprinted. So what if Omarosa got there first, there are plenty of dollars to be acquired from the rational Americans. Heck, even the WN set of Trump Deplorables might buy a bunch as kindling for their next cross burning.



                  Geoffrey S Jade Barrett, Chairman SANE60

                  #TheResistance #indivisible #resist

                  more less
                  Pundit Post

                  Opinion: The Extraordinary Bias Of The Judge In The Manafort Trial

                  59
                  Posts
                  1855
                  Points
                  22
                  Users

                      The judge in the Manafort trial, T.S. Ellis III, has had a number of journalists complain about his prejudicial treatment of the prosecution as they have tried to do their jobs in the Manafort case.

                      Judge Ellis, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987, has challenged Robert Mueller's intentions, thus he has earned Trump's praise.

                      Throughout Manafort's trial, this judge, according to those in the free press, (even FOX on occassion) has shown extreme bias.

                      Nancy Gertner, a retired U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts who is now a lecturer at Harvard Law School, has given us her opinion of Judge Ellis' prejudicial court behavior in the following article.



                      A sketch of Judge T.S. Ellis III. (Handout/Reuters)
                      .

                      It is not unusual for judges to intervene in court proceedings from time to time — to direct the lawyers to move the case along or to admonish them that evidence is repetitive. The judge's role is to act not as a "mere moderator," as the Supreme Court noted in Herron v. Southern Pacific in 1931, but as the "governor of the trial" responsible for assuring the proper conduct of all participants.

                      The performance of U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III in the trial of Paul Manafort on bank fraud and tax evasion charges has been decidedly unusual.

                      During the trial, Ellis intervened regularly, and mainly against one side: the prosecution. The judge's interruptions occurred in the presence of the jury and on matters of substance, not courtroom conduct. He disparaged the prosecution's evidence, misstated its legal theories, even implied that prosecutors had disobeyed his orders when they had not.

                      Under the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges, a judge is supposed to be fair and impartial, as well as "patient, dignified, respectful and courteous" to those in his courtroom. The rule's concern is as much about the appearance of justice as its reality. If the judge violates that rule and a defendant is convicted, there may be a trial remedy — an appeal.

                      But there will be no appeal available to address Ellis's anti-prosecution bias if Manafort is acquitted by the jurors, who began deliberating on Thursday. The prohibition against double jeopardy precludes it. And if President Trump's former campaign chairman is convicted despite Ellis's interventions, the judge's hostility toward the prosecution will have been irrelevant.

                      Image result for Pictures of paul manafort

                      For now, we have only the extraordinary evidence of Ellis's conduct during the 12-day trial. The judge continually interrupted the prosecution's questioning of witnesses, prompting lead prosecutor Greg Andres to pointedly note: "Your honor stops us and asks us to move on." Ellis pressed the prosecution to rush through testimony about important financial documents. He made critical comments about prosecution evidence and strategy — all in front of the jury.

                      Ellis also questioned the relevance of Manafort's work as a political consultant for Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine, for which he was paid tens of millions of dollars from 2010 to 2014. But if Manafort didn't disclose some payments because he was not registered in the United States as a foreign agent, it would provide a motive to hide the amounts from the U.S. government — just what the trial was about. Ellis chided prosecutors for eliciting testimony about Manafort's lavish lifestyle, but that kind of testimony is also a classic element in a tax-evasion case. That your cars, boats, condos and clothing suggest you made much more income than you reported would surely be relevant.

                      After prosecutor Uzo Asonye questioned a bank employee about Manafort's failed attempt to obtain a $5.5 million construction loan on a Brooklyn brownstone, the judge — unprompted by a defense objection — declared: "You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted." The comment strongly implied to jurors that the prosecution was wasting their time. But an attempt to defraud was part of the conspiracy count in the indictment; false representation to secure a loan, successful or not, is itself a crime.

                      Despite appearances, Ellis doesn't think he is infallible. He admitted on Aug. 9, "I may have made a mistake" the day before when he berated prosecutors for allowing the government's tax expert witness to sit in the courtroom during other testimony. Earlier in the trial, prosecutors had explicitly sought and obtained Ellis's permission for the tax expert to be present while other witnesses testified.

                      The Manafort trial is the most prominent case to emerge so far from the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. Clearly worried about its outcome, prosecutors went so far as to urge Ellis to tell the jury, in his instructions before they began deliberating, not to let his commentary affect their decision-making. Ellis essentially did just that on Wednesday.

                      It may well have been too little too late. The potential for judges to influence juries is so great that courts often caution jurors against reading too much into a judge's subtle nonverbal behaviors, a nod of the head, a smile or a frown. Jurors do it anyway. Legal scholars study whether judges' conduct on the bench influences juries — and reliably find that it does. The research typically concerns a judge's anti-defendant bias. Defendants have all the protections of a trial — the high standard of proof, the presumption of innocence, the evidentiary rules designed to protect them. What will be the impact of Ellis's anti-government bias, which was not nonverbal and hardly subtle? Hard to tell. We know next to nothing about this jury. Seeking to expedite matters, Ellis impaneled the Manafort jury in a single day.

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-extraordinary-bias-of-the-judge-in-the-manafort-trial/2018/08/16/aca48040-a16c-11e8-83d2-70203b8d7b44_story.html?utm_term=.78d0ea6b0f4e

                      more less
                      Pundit Post

                      And The Winner Is..............Denmark

                      48
                      Posts
                      1275
                      Points
                      17
                      Users

                          Oh Fox News, don't you understand that the world according to you is not the world we live in?

                          Clearly unaware that people in Denmark understand and in many cases speak English as a second language Trish Regan of Fox News thought she'd compare Denmark with Venezuela know because of.......Socialism.

                          In the game of 'Socialism is bad' we often hear the right say, no we hear the right scream ''VENEZUELA'' then come all the bogeymen stories of eating rats and going through bins for more food and all the rest....

                          Sadly the uncomfortable truth for these greedy capitalists is that the idea of 'paying more tax' is the stuff that starts revolutions and the over throw of Kings etc...

                          So sit back and enjoy all the horrors of Socialism and the truly detrimental effects of a socialist society that outperforms the US at almost every indicator.


                          ......Hey Fox.....We'll always have Venezuela.....as we sat chewing on roasted rat with a side of bin salad and a glass of out finest urine..........bemoaning socialism.

                          more less
                          Pundit Post
                          61
                          Posts
                          1680
                          Points
                          18
                          Users


                              Within this garbage heap of an administration, there are those who would pay off anyone who dares to share an unflattering word about Donald Trump and his merry, political minions, who go out of their way to breed disharmony and disunity in our country. Lara Trump appears to be one of those, and Omerosa Manigault Newman has the tapes to prove that Lara offered her approximately $15,000 a month of hush money. Shame on Lara, but I bet she was taught well from none one other than the affair-denying, porn-star and Playboy payoff king, Donald Trump himself.

                              The secrets, lies, and scandals of the Trump family have been held tightly and mostly buried by the power of their connections and wealth. However, every once in a while, we are afforded a small sampling of what is actually the truth about their collective character, as is this case when Lara's recorded voice is heard offering Omerosa a salary to make Trump's administration appear "everything, everybody positive."

                              Making this administration "positive" by offering hush money in order to avoid a person telling the truth about them is despicable enough, but offering donor money from Trump's often racist supporters to shut up a dissenter amongst them is even worse. Of course, the legality of this act is also quite questionable.

                              Kudos to Omerosa for finally doing what is right and coming clean about what kind of person Donald Trump has been and continues to be. In the past, she has not earned much of my admiration while she sided with Trump and denied his true nature, but now she is standing up, albeit to cash on a book, but at least she offers us a glimpse into his words and deeds. Let's hope she has a lot of tapes to buttress her claims and add legitimacy to her words.

                              Go, Omerosa!

                              Lara Trump offers Omarosa a $180K salary to rejoin campaign in new recording

                              • By MERIDITH MCGRAW
                              Aug 16, 2018, 2:15 PM ET


                              ABCNews.com

                              Omarosa Manigault Newman, former reality television villain and White House official, released her latest secret recording –- this time, a conversation with Lara Trump about joining the Trump campaign.

                              In the conversation, which Manigault Newman said was made in the days after she was fired from the White House, the president’s campaign aide and daughter-in-law offered Manigault Newman $15,000 per month to have a public role in the campaign. The tape aligns with what Manigault Newman wrote about in her new tell-all memoir, “Unhinged.”

                              In the book she writes that the Trump campaign contract would have required her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, but she refused.

                              In an interview with MSNBC, Manigault Newman said she saw the offer as hush money.

                              “Absolutely,” Manigault Newman said.

                              On the recording, which has not been independently verified by ABC News, the younger Trump appears to suggest campaign concerns about Manigault Newman disparaging her former employers.

                              "It sounds a little like, obviously, that there are some things you've got in the back pocket to pull out. Clearly, if you come on board the campaign, like, we can't have, we got to," she continues.

                              Manigault Newman interrupts her to respond, "Oh, God no."

                              “Everything, everybody positive, right?” Trump added.

                              Trump goes on, on the recording, to say that the money offered to Manigault Newman is public.

                              “All the money that we raise and that pays salaries is directly from donors, small-dollar donors for the most part," Trump said on the tape.

                              "So, I know you, you were making 179 at the White House," she said, referring to Manigault Newman's $179,000 annual salary. "And I think we can work something out where we keep you right along those lines."

                              "Specifically, let me see, I haven't even added up the numbers," Trump continued. "But we were talking about, like, 15K a month. Let me see what that adds up to. Times 12. Yeah. So that’s $180,000. Does that sound like, uh, a fair deal for you?”

                              The former reality star shared four excerpts from a recorded conversation with Trump's daughter-in-law on MSNBC. The network said that their producers listened to the tape in its entirety to verify the context of the conversation.

                              Lara Trump responded in a statement calling the latest "bombshell tape" a "fraud."

                              “From the beginning of my father-in-law’s campaign, Omarosa was welcomed into our family as a trusted friend and confidant. On the Women for Trump tour, including Omarosa, we formed a sisterhood bond that is unlike any I have experienced in my life. We toured together, laughed together, and worked really hard towards a common goal. We never would have imagined that one of our own was secretly recording all of our private conversations," Trump said.

                              "When Omarosa was fired by the White House Chief of Staff in December of 2017, my entire family was concerned for her because we had no idea about the basis of her dismissal. We still wanted her on our team because we cared so much about her personally. That’s why I reached out to offer her a position with the 2020 Trump Campaign before we knew anything about the gross violations of ethics and integrity during her White House tenure. Another one of Omarosa’s ‘bombshell’ tapes is a fraud. The discussions about a position with the campaign took place in numerous phone calls over the course of several weeks. Woman to woman, I shared a connection with Omarosa as a friend and a campaign sister, and I am absolutely shocked and saddened by her betrayal and violation on a deeply personal level."

                              "I hope it’s all worth it for you, Omarosa, because some things you just can’t put a price on,” Trump added.

                              It’s the latest incendiary audio to drop in Manigault Newman’s weeklong publicity tour for her tell-all book about life on the Trump campaign and in the West Wing, “Unhinged.”

                              The roll out of Manigault Newman’s book and some of her critical and unverified observations appear to have rattled the president. He called her a “crazed, crying lowlife” and a “dog” in a tweet.

                              On Tuesday morning, the Trump campaign filed an arbitration case against Manigault Newman in New York saying she violated her non-disclosure agreement.

                              In a statement, a senior Trump campaign official confirmed to ABC News that “Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has filed an arbitration against Manigault-Newman with the American Arbitration Association in New York City, for breach of her 2016 confidentiality agreement with the Trump Campaign."

                              "President Trump is well known for giving people opportunities to advance in their careers and lives over the decades, but wrong is wrong, and a direct violation of an agreement must be addressed and the violator must be held accountable,” the statement said.

                              “Wacky Omarosa already has a fully signed Non-Disclosure Agreement!” the president declared in a tweet earlier this week.

                              The television-savvy Manigault Newman took a page straight out of Trump’s producer playbook and teased “plenty” of tapes to come.

                              “There are things that I am going to save to share when the time is right,” Manigault Newman said Wednesday on MSNBC.

                              “What does Donald Trump have to hide?” Manigault Newman said.

                              Her media blitz began on Sunday, when she appeared on “Meet the Press” and played a recording of a private conversation she had with Chief of Staff John Kelly in the Situation Room -- what it supposed to be the most secure area of the entire White House. Kelly was firing Manigault Newman, and she wanted to record the conversation to protect herself.

                              “You have to have your own back, because otherwise you’ll look back and see 17 knives in your back,” Manigault Newman said.

                              Some White House aides are concerned about just how many tapes Manigault Newman has – and what kinds of conversations she recorded.

                              “She terrified me,” a senior White House official told ABC News.

                              https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lara-trump-offers-...

                              more less
                              Pundit Post
                              23
                              Posts
                              400
                              Points
                              10
                              Users

                                  Perhaps because so many Americans have decided that the Republicans are not only going down the wrong path, but are also making life more miserable for everyone but the rich, they just decided to shrug and say "que serra, serra" whatever will be will be, and just leave their message for the mid terms blank?

                                  "Planet POV" thinks so, and gives us the following, which is obviously satire, but may be too close to reality for Republican's comfort.


                                  The midterm elections take place in just 83 days and the threat of a Blue Wave, a nationwide Democratic victory over Republicans, seems quite likely.

                                  Democrats have a wide variety of issues to run on in addition to putting a Congressional check on the deranged destructiveness of Donald “The Dog” Trump. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions from losing their health care, going after the corruption of those in Trump’s administration and blocking Trump from declaring Vladimir Putin’s birthday a national holiday.

                                  Meanwhile, Republican politicians have been cowed by Trump’s takeover of the GOP and have no issues to run on in the General Election other than how sugary sweet Trump’s gaseous emissions are.

                                  After struggling to come up with a convincing argument for re-electing Republicans who have given up all Congressional power to Trump, Ronna Romney McDaniel, Chair of the GOP and majority stockholder in Kool-Aid, has declared that Republicans should just embrace who they’ve become and hope it rallies their base on election day.

                                  “The Republican Party will run on a unifying theme to assure voters that we will continue down the glorious Trump path we’re on,” McDaniel stated, leaning on a small cage with a 4 year old Latino boy in it.

                                  “Our campaign theme for the upcoming November elections will be, ‘We Got Nothing’. Not only will this illustrate that we have no plans to disrupt the will of The President, we believe that this theme will also connect with farmers going bankrupt because of tariffs, the poor who are losing their safety nets and Christians who have abandoned all morality and principles to continue supporting Donald Trump. I think we can all raise our voices together as one with the same universal message…’We Got Nothing.'” McDaniel beamed.

                                  Image result for nothing Trump cartoons

                                  In addition to offering the benefits of nothing to voters, McDaniel added that Republican politicians will all use “Trumplespeak”, Trump’s approach to presenting the opposites of truth as truths, to reach voters.

                                  “We will educate voters that learning more about candidates will dumb them down, that the way to put more money in the pockets of 99% of Americans is to put it in the pockets of the 1% and that only by having each other as common enemies, can we all truly agree on something and get along,” McDaniels said as she proudly drooled from both sides of her mouth.

                                  Interestingly, in order to promote their platform of offering nothing, McDaniels claimed the GOP was seeking to raise a record amount of contributions for an off year election.

                                  “The less something makes sense, the more sensible it actually is,” McDaniels insisted as sparks and smoke began emitting from her ears. Technicians quickly hustled her away and all that was heard from McDaniels was a weary sigh and the words, “Not again.”

                                  http://planetpov.com/2018/08/16/republicans-decide-on-we-got-nothing-as-their-2018-campaign-theme/

                                  more less
                                  Pundit Post

                                  Yabberz Search

                                  Topics Found

                                  Members

                                  Posts

                                  Load More Posts
                                  Hi There,

                                  Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

                                  Do you have an email group that shares news items?

                                  It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

                                  This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home
                                  0

                                      Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                                      Click to confirm you want to see post

                                      more less

                                      Posts
                                      Points
                                      Users
                                          more less
                                          Block User
                                          This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock this user, visit the blocked user tab found on your about me profile page. Click confirm block to complete.
                                          loading...
                                          Last Heard: a minute ago
                                          Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                          Followers: 100
                                          Points: 100,000