SO Trump asked the Heads of FBI, DNI and NSA to Squash Flynn Investigation -Ya Right Nothing to Hide~

[Jonathan]

Um, maybe to save time the question should be who
Trump DID NOT pressure to squash the Flynn/Russia
investigation?

It appears he asked almost everyone.

And the NSA, DNI, acting FBI, Det AG ALL refused
to answer the key questions.

None of them gave any legal justification for not
answering, they just declined.

They all had the same rehearsed song.
They all said they didn't feel pressured
to quash the Flynn/Russia investigation
but when asked what the President said
to them, they all said the same thing.

"I'm not going to tell you".

That's contempt of Congress and puts them
all at risk of being charged with conspiring
to cover up a crime.

This is a massive cover up of obstruction of
justice by Trump, and we'll probably have
to wait until the Special Council puts them
in front of a Grand Jury where they have
to answer or else...go to jail.

[Jonathan]

Watergate “Smoking Gun” tape

Nixon Oval Office meeting with H.R. Haldeman "Smoking Gun"
Conversation June 23, 1972 Full Transcript


Haldeman introduced the topic as follows:

... the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back to the—in the,
the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because
Gray doesn’t exactly know how to control them, and they
have...their investigation is now leading into some
productive areas...and it goes in some directions we
don’t want it to go.


After explaining how the money from CRP was traced to the
burglars, Haldeman explained to Nixon the cover-up plan
:
“the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters [CIA]
call Pat Gray [FBI] and just say, ‘Stay the hell out of this
... this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go
any further on it.’”

President Nixon approved the plan, and after he was given
more information about the involvement of his campaign
in the break-in, he told Haldeman: “All right, fine, I
understand it all. We won’t second-guess Mitchell and
the rest.”

Returning to the use of the CIA to obstruct the FBI, he
instructed Haldeman: “You call them in. Good. Good deal.
Play it tough. That’s the way they play it and that’s
the way we are going to play it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#.E2.80.9CSmoking_Gun.E2.80.9D_tape



The Washington Post

The nation’s top intelligence official told associates in
March that President Trump asked him if he could intervene
with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau
to back off its focus on former national security adviser
Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.

On March 22, less than a week after being confirmed by the
Senate, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats
attended a briefing at the White House together with
officials from several government agencies. As the
briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to
leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director
Mike Pompeo.

The president then started complaining about the FBI
investigation and Comey’s handling of it, said officials
familiar with the account Coats gave to associates.

After the encounter, Coats discussed the conversation
with other officials and decided that intervening with
Comey as Trump had suggested would be inappropriate,
according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity
to discuss sensitive internal matters.
http://wapo.st/2rX1vVp




Trump to FBI Head Comey...


“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to
letting Flynn go,” Comey said Trump told him. Comey added
that Trump called Flynn “a good guy” and said “I hope you
can let this go.”

Comey said he “understood the President to be requesting
that we drop any investigation of Flynn.”


Trump asked Comey what he could do to “lift the cloud”
of the Russia investigation.

“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,” Comey said Trump told
him during a Jan. 27 dinner. “I didn’t move, speak, or
change my facial expression in any way during the awkward
silence that followed,” Comey wrote. “We simply looked
at each other in silence.”



Comey told Sessions “to prevent any future direction
communication between the President and me.” “I told the AG
that what had just happened – him being asked to leave
while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained
behind – was inappropriate and should never happen,”
he recalled telling Sessions face to face. “He did not
reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention
that the President broached the FBI’s potential
investigation of General Flynn.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/07/james-comey-statement-trump-russia-highlights-239254





Slam dunk obstruction of justice.


s

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Um, maybe to save time the question should be who
>Trump DID NOT pressure to squash the Flynn/Russia
>investigation?
>
>It appears he asked almost everyone.
>

It appears he asked no one at all. Expressing a hope is not asking
anyone to do anything.

>
>And the NSA, DNI, acting FBI, Det AG ALL refused
>to answer the key questions.
>
>None of them gave any legal justification for not
>answering, they just declined.
>
>They all had the same rehearsed song.
>They all said they didn't feel pressured
>to quash the Flynn/Russia investigation
>but when asked what the President said
>to them, they all said the same thing.
>
>"I'm not going to tell you".
>
>That's contempt of Congress and puts them
>all at risk of being charged with conspiring
>to cover up a crime.
>

What would that crime be? If they didn't feel pressured, there is no
obstruction.

>
>This is a massive cover up of obstruction of
>justice by Trump, and we'll probably have
>to wait until the Special Council puts them
>in front of a Grand Jury where they have
>to answer or else...go to jail.
>

Ah, and once again with the JonthyFacts (tm). Isn't it funny how the
"he never told Trump he was not being investigated" that you were
shouting about a day or two ago turned out to not be true? Does it
even register with you when your raving blows up on you or do you just
advance to the next delusion?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[None of the Above]

Sure thing, Jon Boi. Keep grating your carrot while dreaming that
dream.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonthy doesn't seem to understand what a Grand Jury is, who can
convene one, or what its powers are. He also fails to understand the
principle of Executive Privilege, whereby conversations between the
President and members of his Administration are, well, PRIVILEGED and
their contents cannot be forced to be revealed. Comey, who is no
longer a member of the Executive Branch of government, is one thing.
Currently serving members are quite another.

I think Jonthy is MOST upset that his prediction about the
Intelligence Community 'getting' Trump because they were offended some
things he's said about them just didn't come true. Like almost all of
Jonthy's 'predictions' it deflated with a quiet whimper.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

[Rudy Canoza]

Executive privilege has to be invoked - and formally - by the president,
ferdie. It wasn't. Those boys just decided on their own to clam up.
You also seem to be unaware - again - that the president could have
invoked executive privilege to keep Comey from testifying about his
conversations with President Shitbag during the time that Comey was FBI
director.

You are so badly unaware. Why is that?

[Jonathan]

You need to do at least some homework before
uttering your nonsense.


Summary of U.S. Special Prosecutor Rules

Stage Three: "Special Counsel" f 1999-Present

(f) Power and Authority

"CFR 600.6 provides that the SC shall exercise within the
scope of his jurisdiction the full power and independent
authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial
functions of any United States Attorney."
http://www.lecs-center.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230%3Aon-special-prosecutors-usa&catid=44%3Aevents&lang=en

He also fails to understand the
> principle of Executive Privilege, whereby conversations between the
> President and members of his Administration are, well, PRIVILEGED and
> their contents cannot be forced to be revealed.

That's all bullshit Fred Executive Privilege only applies
under very narrow circumstances none of which apply
to these conversations.


"However, legal analysts say it doesn't matter whether
or not Trump will invoke executive privilege over Comey,
because the action wouldn't hold up under scrutiny
regardless."

http://www.businessinsider.com/can-trump-invoke-executive-privilege-to-keep-comey-from-testifying-2017-6


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/us/politics/comey-testimony-executive-privilege-trump.html

Comey, who is no
> longer a member of the Executive Branch of government, is one thing.
> Currently serving members are quite another.
>
> I think Jonthy is MOST upset that his prediction about the
> Intelligence Community 'getting' Trump because they were offended some
> things he's said about them just didn't come true. Like almost all of
> Jonthy's 'predictions' it deflated with a quiet whimper.
>

And today we find out our AG had a third secret meeting
with Kislyak that he just seemed to forget to mention.

Funny about that.

Sessions will be forced out of office before long, please
note for three days now the Trump administration has refused
to say they have confidence in Sessions after being
repeatedly asked.

And all these meetings where Trump insists on being
alone with Comey just happen to be meetings where
Trump tries to get Comey to stop the investigations.

And just days after Comey met with Trump but didn't
give Trump the answer he wanted, didn't play ball, Trump
fired him.

This is just so obviously obstruction, when the democrats
take back the house impeachment will be #1 on their
agenda.

Can't wait.




>

[Daryl]

For Nixon, there was enough to get the impeachment started but there
wasn't nearly enough to get the Senate to find him guilty. But the
press and others pushed him over the edge and he no longer was deemed to
be able to govern. The Military sat down just before he resigned. He
went nutz.

Now, what happens with Trump who is already bat shit crazy?




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Fred J. McCall]

And it doesn't have to be invoked until it has to be, dickbreath.
Since they were let by without being forced to answer it didn't need
to be. No doubt Congress prefers it that way.

>
>Those boys just decided on their own to clam up.
>You also seem to be unaware - again - that the president could have
>invoked executive privilege to keep Comey from testifying about his
>conversations with President Shitbag during the time that Comey was FBI
>director.
>

He could have, but in that case he would have probably lost, since
Comey isn't a current member of the Administration. Can you really be
this ignorant about the actual purpose of Executive Privilege?

>
>You are so badly unaware. Why is that?
>

My guess is that it's because you're stupid.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jonthy keeps asserting one thing as if it means something different.

Note that a United States Attorney does NOT have the power to empanel
a Grand Jury, so a special prosecutor doesn't, either. First case of
Jonthy trying to 'prove' something by citing unrelated bullshit.
Speaking of someone who should have done some homework before uttering
nonsense....

>
>> He also fails to understand the
>> principle of Executive Privilege, whereby conversations between the
>> President and members of his Administration are, well, PRIVILEGED and
>> their contents cannot be forced to be revealed.
>>
>
>That's all bullshit Fred Executive Privilege only applies
>under very narrow circumstances none of which apply
>to these conversations.
>

Actually that's not true.

>
>"However, legal analysts say it doesn't matter whether
>or not Trump will invoke executive privilege over Comey,
>because the action wouldn't hold up under scrutiny
>regardless."
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/can-trump-invoke-executive-privilege-to-keep-comey-from-testifying-2017-6
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/us/politics/comey-testimony-executive-privilege-trump.html
>

We're not talking about Comey, though, Jonthy. Did you even bother to
read what I wrote immediately below? Another case of Jonthy trotting
out dogshit and wanting to claim it's dessert. Speaking of someone
who should have done some homework before uttering nonsense....

>> Comey, who is no
>> longer a member of the Executive Branch of government, is one thing.
>> Currently serving members are quite another.
>>
>> I think Jonthy is MOST upset that his prediction about the
>> Intelligence Community 'getting' Trump because they were offended some
>> things he's said about them just didn't come true. Like almost all of
>> Jonthy's 'predictions' it deflated with a quiet whimper.
>>

<snip usual JonthySpew of JonthyFacts>

[jonathan]

Christ Fred you're as dumb as a box of rocks.
As this page says this is justice 101 and
you've failed again.


OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

U.S. Attorneys » Justice 101
Charging

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators
and the information he gathers from talking with the
individuals involved, he decides whether to present
the case to the grand jury.....

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

[Fred J. McCall]

Thanks for the admission that you have once again been caught out
saying something stupid and untrue, Jonthy.

>
>OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
>
>U.S. Attorneys » Justice 101
>Charging
>
>After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators
>and the information he gathers from talking with the
>individuals involved, he decides whether to present
>the case to the grand jury.....
>
>https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging
>

And which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who established it where
and for what purpose? Come on, boy. You can do it.

[Jonathan]

What? Can't you read the entry level explanation
above about how the justice system works Fred?

It says, you f'ed up sprout of a gonad, that first
they gather evidence, questions those involved
THEN panels a Grand Jury if justified.

The special council investigation has barely had
time to hire their staff, select their office
furniture and hook up their flippin' computers.

I mean chrissakes Fred.


For instance, from yesterday...and this new
hire is a heavy weight expert on the law.


Top criminal law expert joins special counsel
Robert Mueller’s Russia probe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-criminal-law-expert-joins-special-counsel-robert-muellers-russia-probe/2017/06/09/daafb86e-4d45-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.8f43499aace7









s

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/9/2017 4:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> And which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who established it where
>> and for what purpose? Come on, boy. You can do it.
>>
>
>What? Can't you read the entry level explanation
>above about how the justice system works Fred?
>

I know how it works, Jonthy. I'm trying to lead you to it.

>
>It says, you f'ed up sprout of a gonad, that first
>they gather evidence, questions those involved
>THEN panels a Grand Jury if justified.
>

But no US attorney has the authority to empanel a grand jury, so
according to what you've posted so far neither does the special
prosecutor. Would you like to try actually responding to the
questions, cuntquat? Which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who

established it where and for what purpose?

>

>The special council investigation has barely had
>time to hire their staff, select their office
>furniture and hook up their flippin' computers.
>
>I mean chrissakes Fred.
>
>For instance, from yesterday...and this new
>hire is a heavy weight expert on the law.
>
>Top criminal law expert joins special counsel
>Robert Mueller’s Russia probe
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-criminal-law-expert-joins-special-counsel-robert-muellers-russia-probe/2017/06/09/daafb86e-4d45-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.8f43499aace7
>

Gee, a part time consultant to help keep him from fucking up. I'm
impressed.

Let's go over what we know so far from Comey's testimony, Jonthy.

1) As Trump said, Comey told him multiple times that there was no FBI
investigation that involved Trump himself.

2) Comey agreed that Flynn was "a good guy".

3) Comey testified that he was pressured to drop the CLINTON
investigation, too, to the point of being directed to not refer to it
as an investigation.

4) There was no evidence of collusion between the Russians and any
member of the Trump campaign.

5) Comey was so disgruntled over being fired that he deliberately
leaked selective information to the press to try to manipulate the
system into naming a Special Prosecutor.

Wow, you must be so disappointed after all your hype about how his
testimony would destroy Trump. Once again your TDS delusions have
blown up in your face.

[David E. Powell]

I could make the joke that I know Trump is not a Russian Agent, because if he was, more highly placed Leftists would have voted for him.

But, instead, I will look into WikiLeaks. Who they are, what they do, and how they operate.

WikiLeaks are know for putting stuff out that is pretty damaging to U.S. Interests, Sources and Methods. Their justification, according to them, is letting the American people know these things. They may or may not be tight with certain other governments, including Russia. I think Jonathan and some others who are not big fans of the President are still with me at this point.

Now, let's look at the area of how they operate, because that part is a big part of our discussion.

WikiLeaks gets called a "bunch of hackers" a lot. However, let's look at their biggest Info Leaks, prior to the 2016 Campaign.

One had the Edward Snowden case, leaking NSA information, and the Private Manning case, leaking U.S. Army information.

Here's the thing. Neither Ed Snowden or Bradley/Private/Chelsea/Whatever it is this Week Manning were hackers. Hackers hack into computers and networks from outside of the system. They used or abused existing clearances and access to their information systems to steal information and "Walk it out the front door" to contacts outside of their organizations. In their cases, contacts at WikiLeaks.

A person who does that is not a Hacker. That person is a Mole.

Given that history, I would give high probability to WikiLeaks cultivating or turning a mole, or several moles, in the other organizations that they have leaked data on. In this case, the Democratic National Committee.

If they did use a mole, or several moles, that would directly contradict the "Russian Hacking" narrative. Because it would not be hacking at all, and the Russians could protest innocence if none of their folks or assets were directly involved in the "chain" of the leaks, or leaks.

Why isn't anyone asking if WikiLeaks used a mole? Wouldn't the people who were compromised be the ones asking this the loudest? I would be. Not to mention, what about most of the U.S. Media? Wouldn't they want to know, too? I mean, Snowden, Manning, the Pentagon Papers dude, they all got quite a bit of ink in their day. That Mark Felt fellow, too, A.K.A. "Deep Throat." The Press had no problem looking into those examples of leakers or "moles."

WikiLeaks has even stated on multiple occasions that they have used Moles in this case, and not hacks.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/15/wikileaks-source-the-emails-came-from-inside-the-dnc-not-russia/

<http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/15/wikileaks-source-the-emails-came-from-inside-the-dnc-not-russia/>

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html>

www.kim.com

<www.kim.com>

"I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak.
I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.
Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful.
I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics."

[Jonathan]

On 6/10/2017 10:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2017 4:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>
>>> And which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who established it where
>>> and for what purpose? Come on, boy. You can do it.
>>>
>>
>> What? Can't you read the entry level explanation
>> above about how the justice system works Fred?
>>
>
> I know how it works, Jonthy. I'm trying to lead you to it.
>
>>
>> It says, you f'ed up sprout of a gonad, that first
>> they gather evidence, questions those involved
>> THEN panels a Grand Jury if justified.
>>
>
> But no US attorney has the authority to empanel a grand jury, so
> according to what you've posted so far neither does the special
> prosecutor.

You pick the oddest things to argue over.
The Special Council can do just about
anything he needs or wants to do.



LOS ANGELES TIMES
What if Mueller finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing?

"He can seek an indictment before the grand jury and
prosecute the case in federal court."
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-special-prosecutors-2017-htmlstory.html

> Would you like to try actually responding to the
> questions, cuntquat? Which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who
> established it where and for what purpose?
>

You idiot, gathering the evidence and witnesses
comes first, the SC isn't even close to that.
Are you stupid of something?

>>
>> The special council investigation has barely had
>> time to hire their staff, select their office
>> furniture and hook up their flippin' computers.
>>
>> I mean chrissakes Fred.
>>
>> For instance, from yesterday...and this new
>> hire is a heavy weight expert on the law.
>>
>> Top criminal law expert joins special counsel
>> Robert Mueller’s Russia probe
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-criminal-law-expert-joins-special-counsel-robert-muellers-russia-probe/2017/06/09/daafb86e-4d45-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.8f43499aace7
>>
>
> Gee, a part time consultant to help keep him from fucking up. I'm
> impressed.
>

He's considered one of the most respected...CRIMINAL LAW
experts in the nation.

Hint: ...criminal...law.

> Let's go over what we know so far from Comey's testimony, Jonthy.
>
> 1) As Trump said, Comey told him multiple times that there was no FBI
> investigation that involved Trump himself.
>

Ya back in January or March, but since he fired
Comey you can bet the President is being
investigated NOW.

Big time, did you listen to Comey's testimony?

The republicans barely defended Trump and the
republican controlled committee just gave
the White House less than two weeks to
turn over any tapes if they exist and
all other materials related to those
conversations between the two.

And no one in their right minds would
believe Trump over Comey considering
the unending string of lies and bullshit
that comes out of Trump's mouth on
a daily basis. Combined with Comey
documenting every conversation as
they happened which courts see as
important evidence.

But of course a true believer like you
believes anything Trump says.

> 2) Comey agreed that Flynn was "a good guy".
>

Comey said he was so stunned by what the president
said he couldn't think of anything else to say.

> 3) Comey testified that he was pressured to drop the CLINTON
> investigation, too, to the point of being directed to not refer to it
> as an investigation.
>

Irrelevant

> 4) There was no evidence of collusion between the Russians and any
> member of the Trump campaign.
>

...Yet.

Claiming he's been vindicated during such early stages
of the investigations is just plain ignorance.

Moeller is on it, and we won't find out until
Flynn is forced to testify. That could takes months
to play out.

> 5) Comey was so disgruntled over being fired that he deliberately
> leaked selective information to the press to try to manipulate the
> system into naming a Special Prosecutor.
>

Big deal, that leak isn't illegal. But it wasn't
a good idea for Comey to do it that way.
He should have just gave it out openly in a
press conference.

> Wow, you must be so disappointed after all your hype about how his
> testimony would destroy Trump. Once again your TDS delusions have
> blown up in your face.
>
>

Comey stated he believed Trump was directing him
to stop the investigation, that's a crime Fred.
It's an abuse of power which is the basis
for obstruction charges.

And we've yet to find out what Trump said to Coates
when Trump tried to get him to help squash the
investigation.

You have no idea how fast the walls are closing in
around Trump, you're clueless that Trump is burying
himself every time he opens his mouth.

Yesterday Trump said he'd gladly testify under oath.
That's insane to state that, Trump's lawyer must
have put his fist through a wall when Trump
said that.

It's not even clear a president can be forced to
testify under oath Fred, his lawyer could have
stalled the investigation for months just over
that one issue, but Trump blew that away with
his big fat mouth.

If Trump is eventually shown to have colluded
with the Russians to undermine our democracy
he'll be seen by history as being WORSE than
Benedict Arnold.

It would be unforgivable if he had his staff
coordinate with the Russians, and all Trump
has done only shows he's desperately hiding
something.

And it all revolves around Russian loving Flynn.


Wake up and smell the roses.



s

[Fred J. McCall]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/10/2017 10:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/9/2017 4:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who established it where
>>>> and for what purpose? Come on, boy. You can do it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What? Can't you read the entry level explanation
>>> above about how the justice system works Fred?
>>>
>>
>> I know how it works, Jonthy. I'm trying to lead you to it.
>>
>>>
>>> It says, you f'ed up sprout of a gonad, that first
>>> they gather evidence, questions those involved
>>> THEN panels a Grand Jury if justified.
>>>
>>
>> But no US attorney has the authority to empanel a grand jury, so
>> according to what you've posted so far neither does the special
>> prosecutor.
>>
>
>You pick the oddest things to argue over.
>The Special Council can do just about
>anything he needs or wants to do.
>

Well, no, he cannot. As you yourself have pointed out he has the
powers "of any other US attorney". No US attorney can empanel a grand
jury. Therefore the Special Council cannot empanel a grand jury,
either.

>
>LOS ANGELES TIMES
>What if Mueller finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing?
>
>"He can seek an indictment before the grand jury and
>prosecute the case in federal court."
>http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-special-prosecutors-2017-htmlstory.html
>

They say "the grand jury". Who established it, when, and for what
purpose? Again you avoid the question.

>
>>
>> Would you like to try actually responding to the
>> questions, cuntquat? Which grand jury would that be, Jonthy? Who
>> established it where and for what purpose?
>>
>
>You idiot, gathering the evidence and witnesses
>comes first, the SC isn't even close to that.
>Are you stupid of something?
>

Address the questions. Are you stupid or something?

>
>>>
>>> The special council investigation has barely had
>>> time to hire their staff, select their office
>>> furniture and hook up their flippin' computers.
>>>
>>> I mean chrissakes Fred.
>>>
>>> For instance, from yesterday...and this new
>>> hire is a heavy weight expert on the law.
>>>
>>> Top criminal law expert joins special counsel
>>> Robert Mueller’s Russia probe
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-criminal-law-expert-joins-special-counsel-robert-muellers-russia-probe/2017/06/09/daafb86e-4d45-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.8f43499aace7
>>>
>>
>> Gee, a part time consultant to help keep him from fucking up. I'm
>> impressed.
>>
>
>He's considered one of the most respected...CRIMINAL LAW
>experts in the nation.
>
>Hint: ...criminal...law.
>

He's a part time consultant.

Hint: ... part time ...

>
>>
>> Let's go over what we know so far from Comey's testimony, Jonthy.
>>
>> 1) As Trump said, Comey told him multiple times that there was no FBI
>> investigation that involved Trump himself.
>>
>
>Ya back in January or March, but since he fired
>Comey you can bet the President is being
>investigated NOW.
>

Can I? Can you name the investigation that is empowered with that
scope?

>
>Big time, did you listen to Comey's testimony?
>
>The republicans barely defended Trump
>

Doesn't sound like he needed any defending, given Comey's testimony.

>
>and the
>republican controlled committee just gave
>the White House less than two weeks to
>turn over any tapes if they exist and
>all other materials related to those
>conversations between the two.
>

Which, of course, they cannot compel him to do.

>
>And no one in their right minds would
>believe Trump over Comey considering
>the unending string of lies and bullshit
>that comes out of Trump's mouth on
>a daily basis. Combined with Comey
>documenting every conversation as
>they happened which courts see as
>important evidence.
>

And there's your problem, Jonthy. For you, someone must be suffering
from Trump Derangement Syndrome to be "in their right mind".

>
>But of course a true believer like you
>believes anything Trump says.
>

Uh, we're talking about what COMEY said, Jonthy. I believe much of
what he's said so far. You're in denial because he didn't say what
your delusions said he should have.

>
>>
>> 2) Comey agreed that Flynn was "a good guy".
>>
>
>Comey said he was so stunned by what the president
>said he couldn't think of anything else to say.
>

He didn't HAVE to say anything. So, did he say it or not?

>
>>
>> 3) Comey testified that he was pressured to drop the CLINTON
>> investigation, too, to the point of being directed to not refer to it
>> as an investigation.
>>
>
>Irrelevant
>

Sorry, but it's not. Goes to credibility and motivations of the
witness. Why no 'leaks' about that when it occurred?

>
>>
>> 4) There was no evidence of collusion between the Russians and any
>> member of the Trump campaign.
>>
>
>...Yet.
>

You know the meaning of the word "was", do you not?

>
>Claiming he's been vindicated during such early stages
>of the investigations is just plain ignorance.
>

So you don't like what Comey had to say because it doesn't accord with
your previous delusional claims.

>
>Moeller is on it, and we won't find out until
>Flynn is forced to testify. That could takes months
>to play out.
>

It's always just down the road for you, isn't it? And when it doesn't
happen, why, it's just down the road...

>
>>
>> 5) Comey was so disgruntled over being fired that he deliberately
>> leaked selective information to the press to try to manipulate the
>> system into naming a Special Prosecutor.
>>
>
>Big deal, that leak isn't illegal. But it wasn't
>a good idea for Comey to do it that way.
>He should have just gave it out openly in a
>press conference.
>

No one said it was 'illegal', although that could be argued. You miss
the point. HE DID IT THE WAY HE DID TO MANIPULATE THE SYSTEM. He
wouldn't have gotten a Special Prosecutor assigned if he'd just put it
out in a press conference. That would have left him looking like what
he is; a disgruntled ex-employee who likes to be the center of
attention.

>
>>
>> Wow, you must be so disappointed after all your hype about how his
>> testimony would destroy Trump. Once again your TDS delusions have
>> blown up in your face.
>>
>
>Comey stated he believed Trump was directing him
>to stop the investigation, that's a crime Fred.
>

Actually it isn't, since Trump wasn't the target of any part of the
investigation. So, are we going to drag in Lynch and Obama and try
them for obstruction on the Hillary stuff?

>
>It's an abuse of power which is the basis
>for obstruction charges.
>

Nope, because Trump wasn't a target of the investigation.

>
>And we've yet to find out what Trump said to Coates
>when Trump tried to get him to help squash the
>investigation.
>

Coats has said he never felt any pressure to do anything.

>
>You have no idea how fast the walls are closing in
>around Trump, you're clueless that Trump is burying
>himself every time he opens his mouth.
>

You keep saying "how fast" it's all happening but every step of the
way you are still saying "any time now".

<snip TDS tirade>

Jonthy, you still haven't learned to wait for events before you start
raving about them?

[Jonathan]

During one of the Congressional hearings, the DNI I think was asked
what's the difference between the leaks coming through Julian Assange
and MSM.

He said the MSM usually contacts the govt agency involved and checks
to see if the leak would expose sources, methods or endanger life etc
first, and if the agency said it would they won't print the leak.

But he said Assange doesn't do that, he releases everything whether
it endangers lives or not, and only leaks what hurts America or
our allies, never Russia.

So Assange is irresponsible and biased against America.

But in general leaks are an American tradition, if the govt is
hiding something they shouldn't be hiding, or acting illegally
sometimes leaks are the only way of stopping it.

For instance Snowden started a very useful debate over the whole
issue of mass surveillance, and if he didn't flee and instead
took his lumps, he'd probably only serve a couple years in
jail, the govt probably would want to avoid a high profile
trial over issues they don't want exposed and offer a
plea bargain.

He could be free by now and a 'rock star' of civil
disobedience making millions on the lecture circuit
and book tours.

If Snowden would have stood his ground and defended
his principles, who knows, a jury just might have
acquitted him.

But as far as why Assange gets so much leaked material
what I read happened is when Wikileaks first hit the scene
dozens of copy cat sites sprang up quickly. But many
if not most were run by intelligence agencies
trying to trick the leakers and catch them.

So no one knows which sites they can trust to leak their
stuff to except for Assange, they trust him not to be
an undercover agent. So he gets the lions share of
the juicy leaks.

[Jonathan]

Box of rocks for brains.

[Fred J. McCall]

Apparently so, when you have to avoid answering even simple questions.

[David E. Powell]

I hear what you are saying. However, there is no provision in the Constitutional precedent of Government relations with the field of Journalism, saying that the Journalist or their organization must pass some criteria to become considered Pro-America. I could argue that "The Nation" and "Mother Jones" don't always take a "Pro-America" line on some things, but that doesn't negate their right to publish. (I think one of them exposed the Ford Motor Company on the Pinto car controversy many moons ago, and both really criticize the government.)

> But in general leaks are an American tradition, if the govt is
> hiding something they shouldn't be hiding, or acting illegally
> sometimes leaks are the only way of stopping it.
>
> For instance Snowden started a very useful debate over the whole
> issue of mass surveillance, and if he didn't flee and instead
> took his lumps, he'd probably only serve a couple years in
> jail, the govt probably would want to avoid a high profile
> trial over issues they don't want exposed and offer a
> plea bargain.

Or, maybe not. The issue remains that he ran, and he blew a lot of ongoing operations.

> He could be free by now and a 'rock star' of civil
> disobedience making millions on the lecture circuit
> and book tours.
>
> If Snowden would have stood his ground and defended
> his principles, who knows, a jury just might have
> acquitted him.
>
> But as far as why Assange gets so much leaked material
> what I read happened is when Wikileaks first hit the scene
> dozens of copy cat sites sprang up quickly. But many
> if not most were run by intelligence agencies
> trying to trick the leakers and catch them.

Which is pretty fascinating, and makes one wonder.

If the idea of leaks as a big threat is out there, why isn't the U.S. Media or the U.S. Government interested in investigating that possibility regarding the Democratic National Convention?

Particularly with a recently murdered individual having been discussed as a possible leaker by people affiliated with the organization which published the story?

It seems no one in a high position within the media or the government are asking about the potential for leaks at all. If they are at the point of creating false websites as traps for potential leakers, why not investigate possible past leakers?