[US and Russia] Trump's ties and wiretap lies - Trump is the leaker!

So It Goes

Discuss the ongoing story of Trump campaign, transition team, and admin connections to Russia and Russian hacking of the 2016 election.

Discussion of Trump's wild wiretapping claims against Obama are on topic here.

Top current story:


Senate Intelligence Committee to start Russia probe interviews next week

The Senate Intelligence Committee will begin as soon as Monday privately interviewing 20 people in its ongoing investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 election as well as potential ties to the Trump campaign, its leaders said Wednesday.

Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said that “if there’s relevance” to those and other interviews that he and Vice Chairman Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) anticipate scheduling, “they will eventually be part of a public hearing.”

The two leaders stood side by side to update reporters about their investigation in a rare joint news conference Wednesday on Capitol Hill, called just as the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation appeared to be grinding to a halt.

Burr and Warner refused to comment on the political discord that has stymied the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation since its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), went to the White House grounds last week without telling his committee colleagues to meet with a secret source. He said he viewed documents that may show that President Trump or members of his transition team were improperly identified in reports regarding surveillance of foreign targets.

Democrats have accused Nunes of coordinating with the White House to distract attention from the investigation into potential ties between the Trump team and Russian officials, and they called for him to recuse himself from the Russia investigation or step down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-lawmaker-senate-should-take-lead-on-congresss-russia-investigation/2017/03/29/c31d0fb0-1485-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html

Old thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/209074/us-and-russia-talk-about-trump-connections-to-russia-here#latest

38thDoe

How is the senate intelligence committee able to work together?

Viskod

Not having a member of Trumps transition team in charge of it probably helps.

Santa Claustrophobia

The senate is basically like an exclusive boys* club. There is a kind of mentality that they are the superior politicians where only, maybe, the president is higher. The six-year terms entrench them more and there are also rules about fundraising that don't apply to the other side of congress.

A sort of House of Lords to the House of Commons. Which is why sometimes there is talk about removing the direct vote law and return it to appointment-only.


*Gender be damned.

jothki

Some of them won't even be up for reelection until two or more years after Trump is (hopefully) gone. They have no need to tie themselves to him.

Kana

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-director-james-comey-russian-tampering-election-576417

FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek.

Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice.

The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”

The op-ed would not have mentioned whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s campaign workers or others close to him for links to the Russians’ interference in the election, a second source with knowledge of the request tells Newsweek. Comey would likely have tried to publish the op-ed in The New York Times, and it would have included much of the same information as the bombshell declassified intelligence report released January 6, which said Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the presidential election, the source said.

I would rather assume that one of these two sources is James Comey or a close aide, but it's apparently backed by a second source. And it does jive with the Obama administration's general slow response to the Russian hacking for fear of looking like they politicized it.

Even if you don't buy it, that this story is getting leaked communicates something by itself.

Spoit

That they're trying to pass the blame on Obama?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

38thDoe

Would separating a state like that not require 3/4 majority vote of all states and both houses?

joshofalltrades

Nobody is seceding

Goumindong

Oghulk wrote: »

Farage is now in California working on a Calexit.

The fuck?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

38thDoe

joshofalltrades wrote: »

Nobody is seceding

Yeah it's a weird term because they are trying to split the state into two states.

joshofalltrades

38thDoe wrote: »

joshofalltrades wrote: »

Nobody is seceding

Yeah it's a weird term because they are trying to split the state into two states.

That is another thing that's not happening

Polaritie

joshofalltrades wrote: »

38thDoe wrote: »

joshofalltrades wrote: »

Nobody is seceding

Yeah it's a weird term because they are trying to split the state into two states.

That is another thing that's not happening

Yeah. Technically, there's a provision for it in the constitution.

Ain't gonna happen though.

Paladin

Kana wrote: »

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-director-james-comey-russian-tampering-election-576417

FBI Director James Comey attempted to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, but Obama administration officials blocked him from doing so, two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Newsweek.

Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July.

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” says a source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson and the national security adviser Susan Rice.

The other national security officials didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies, the source says. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”

The op-ed would not have mentioned whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s campaign workers or others close to him for links to the Russians’ interference in the election, a second source with knowledge of the request tells Newsweek. Comey would likely have tried to publish the op-ed in The New York Times, and it would have included much of the same information as the bombshell declassified intelligence report released January 6, which said Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the presidential election, the source said.

I would rather assume that one of these two sources is James Comey or a close aide, but it's apparently backed by a second source. And it does jive with the Obama administration's general slow response to the Russian hacking for fear of looking like they politicized it.

Even if you don't buy it, that this story is getting leaked communicates something by itself.

The only thing that makes sense is that this stuff is a real foreign policy bomb and the emails thing was completely domestic, and they didn't want the hassle of pissing off Russia.

dispatch.o

The state of Jefferson thing has been around since i was a child. It's not actually (or wasn't) rooted in as much crazy as has recently been implied. Though now it's double plus ridiculous, it's mostly been about the areas of the state that are ignored being tired of having no self governance.

It's also wrong, but not for the same reasons as CalExit. Having one of the largest economies in the world jettison from the United States is something I'm sure Russia has a boner for, but I think it's actually impossible.

Hacksaw

Goumindong wrote: »

Oghulk wrote: »

Farage is now in California working on a Calexit.

The fuck?

It's been pointed out that the leader of the so-called "CalExit" movement currently resides in Russia, right? I think it's worth mentioning.

EDIT: I see that is has. Glad to know others are equally suspicious of that sneaky fucker.

cckerberos

dispatch.o wrote: »

The state of Jefferson thing has been around since i was a child.

A lot longer. Dates back to the 1940's, at least.

Spoit

I can't tell if this article is trying to corroborate that this guy was in a position to get the information in the dossier, or trying to discredit him as a credible source. But it's interesting either wayL https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-is-source-d-the-man-said-to-be-behind-the-trump-russia-dossiers-most-salacious-claim/2017/03/29/379846a8-0f53-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

Mr Khan

The Jefferson-area people probably get more in wealth transfers from the liberal parts of California than vice-versa. Same with the idea of splitting off Yakima-Washington from the Seattle side, folks would be screwing themselves.

Commander Zoom

The other half of putative Jefferson (Fremont, et al) is southern Oregon, who are similarly miffed at the urban libruls who decide everything for them (and have all the money). Same story all over - concentrated blue blobs surrounded by a mostly-empty sea of red and sometimes purple. Both sometimes fantasize about being rid of the other, but it's not actually practical to create Redland or Blueland (as wholly separate entities).

Spoit

I can't actually find it in a search, but I'm pretty sure we had a thread about Calexit (and how silly it was)?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Spoit

So apparently there was a senate hearing today? That was actually ran like they were fully functioning adults?

Hacksaw

I'll refrain from posting more about CalExit until such a time when further geopolitical links between it and Russia are revealed.

Which, at the rate we're going, means next week.

Anti-Climacus

From the skeptic's pov, this is a summary of the recent Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative and rebuttals:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/03/27/exposing-the-farcical-claims-about-russian-hacking-of-the-election/

I just looked back at the last thread and noticed a few questions. Responding briefly --

* how would the timing of Russian state media and alt-right coverage of the hacks necessitate Russian direct involvement in the hacks?

* why would anyone assert that hackers in Ukraine would be incapable of delivering the data gleaned from the hacks to Wikileaks? why would it be asserted this had to be state-sponsored?

Otherwise, an interesting social connection which I believe has relevance to these concerns (AA and GG):
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-14/at-t-hacker-weev-wants-indictment-tossed-after-prison-release

Goumindong

1) as explained many times. They went to press before the hacks were released. This means, absent a time machine, they had inside info.

2) not incapable, just unmotivated. Though yes, incapable of all the other supporting actions which are also in evidence.

Not sure what your links are supposed to be saying.

Anti-Climacus

Goumindong wrote: »

1) as explained many times. They went to press before the hacks were released. This means, absent a time machine, they had inside info.

Can you provide a source specifically for this?

Elki

That Comey's invitation to testify at another Russia hearing seems to be a matter for dispute. Nunes says he invited Comey to testify at the same time Yates was supposed to, but Comey would only testify if there was a formal invitation. Which put Nunes in the position of having to go ask Schiff and Schiff said no because he wanted the public hearing with Yates.

Then, Tuesday, Nunes said that he had invited Comey again to come testify before the House intelligence committee. A Nunes spokesman said that discussions between House intelligence staff and Comey staff have been conducted over phone and email, but did not immediately say if a formal request had been sent via letter.

Comey said he would not testify without a formal invite, a spokesman for Nunes told CNN.

"We had staff-to-staff discussions with their congressional affairs people," Nunes spokesman Jack Langer said. "He declined to come without a formal invite letter signed by the chairman and the ranking member. The ranking member declined to sign the invite."

He doesn't seem to be jumping at the chance to sit down and say "can't comment on that" for 10 hours.

Darkewolfe

I don't know if it's even worth reading any information sourced out of Nunes as though it really happened orr has a chance of being true. Even if it's routine and plausible.

Marathon

Anti-Climacus wrote: »

Goumindong wrote: »

1) as explained many times. They went to press before the hacks were released. This means, absent a time machine, they had inside info.

Can you provide a source specifically for this?

http://americablog.com/2016/10/russia-scoops-wikileaks-new-podesta-emails-things-make-go-hmm.html

There were also instances where people associated with the Trump campaign made vague statements about things coming, which in retrospect seem like they knew some of the things that were going to be released.

At the conclusion of an interview on October 26 about the presidential election, Giuliani (while speaking about FBI Director Jim Comey) said, “I think he’s got a surprise or two you’re going to hear about in the next two days. I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.” When MacCallum prompted the Mayor for follow-up, he coyly continued, “You’ll see.”

And Rodger Stone

Speaking at a conference for John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists on Sunday in Kenner, Louisiana, Stone indicated that Media Matters for America, a politically progressive media watchdog group, would be exposed next, along with the group’s founder, David Brock, and political commentator Brit Hume. “More about them next week because some of their internal workings are going to be exposed,” Stone said.

He also said that last week’s email dump containing hacked correspondence from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, was “small potatoes” compared to what’s to come.

Enc

Anti-Climacus wrote: »

Goumindong wrote: »

1) as explained many times. They went to press before the hacks were released. This means, absent a time machine, they had inside info.

Can you provide a source specifically for this?

It was provided in the previous thread, and the one before it, and the one before it. It's also easily findable with a google search from about a dozen reputable media outlets. If you are going to assert that your position is real and the rest are incorrect, I think the burden is on you to prove that by addressing the timeline rather than making everyone else prove that the sky is, actually, blue. Especially when you (historically) have countered with arguments like "well, technically it's a deep cyan."

Anti-Climacus

Marathon wrote: »

Anti-Climacus wrote: »

Goumindong wrote: »

1) as explained many times. They went to press before the hacks were released. This means, absent a time machine, they had inside info.

Can you provide a source specifically for this?

http://americablog.com/2016/10/russia-scoops-wikileaks-new-podesta-emails-things-make-go-hmm.html

A few things:

1. Note that the RT article in question links to the Wikileaks database itself; Wikileaks had already posted the data by the time the RT article covering the data was up. This is not really a smoking gun for anything, unless we are grasping at straws. Is it really impossible Wikileaks simply delayed tweeting about the release, and journalists monitoring their website saw this ahead of the official tweet from the Wikileaks account?

2. WikiLeaks has often colluded with global media for releases.
https://wikileaks.org/-Partners-.html

Yes RT is listed, but Wikileaks has also coordinated in the past with the New York Times
(Which NyTimes was criticized for: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )
And The Guardian, El Pais, very many other news organisations over the years. Wikileaks has always coordinated with journalists in its releases. Even if there was coordination with RT in rolling out this story, that would not be especially strange in long-term context at all.

3. This was part 15 of the Podesta leak. Do I need to even explain why, even if this is viewed as evidence of media roll-out coordination between Wikileaks and RT, it obviously is not evidence regarding nor even has anything at all to do with the question of whether Russia was state sponsor of the hacks in question?

There were also instances where people associated with the Trump campaign made vague statements about things coming, which in retrospect seem like they knew some of the things that were going to be released.

At the conclusion of an interview on October 26 about the presidential election, Giuliani (while speaking about FBI Director Jim Comey) said, “I think he’s got a surprise or two you’re going to hear about in the next two days. I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.” When MacCallum prompted the Mayor for follow-up, he coyly continued, “You’ll see.”

That seems really vague. This is not hard evidence of anything. Even if we interpret it to mean someone on team Trump had some contact with someone at Wikileaks and some advance notice of something coming, how is it possibly relevant to the question of whether Russia sponsored the hacks in question?

Couscous

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/847418964464459781

That has to be intentional.

JoeUser

NBC News correspondent here. Apparently Nunes's source was a leaker too?

https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/847404777281437698

New: Speaker Ryan to @NorahODonnell re:Nunes source- "He had told me that like, a whistleblower type person had given him some information"

So a leaker met him on White House grounds? This just gets more bizarre.

Jealous Deva

Couscous wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/847418964464459781

That has to be intentional.

Also, you know, there really were new taxes and this hurt Bush because he painted himself into a corner and had to go back on a promise, which was why that phrase got famous in the first place.

V1m

joshofalltrades wrote: »

Nobody is seceding

Mmm yes that does look delicious, I admit I'm tempted


- Fate

Butters

JoeUser wrote: »

NBC News correspondent here. Apparently Nunes's source was a leaker too?

https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/847404777281437698

New: Speaker Ryan to @NorahODonnell re:Nunes source- "He had told me that like, a whistleblower type person had given him some information"

So a leaker met him on White House grounds? This just gets more bizarre.

Leaker my ass. It's a person within the administration and they are almost certainly acting on orders. Cheney underlings did the same shit for years.

nexuscrawler

Butters wrote: »

JoeUser wrote: »

NBC News correspondent here. Apparently Nunes's source was a leaker too?

https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/847404777281437698

New: Speaker Ryan to @NorahODonnell re:Nunes source- "He had told me that like, a whistleblower type person had given him some information"

So a leaker met him on White House grounds? This just gets more bizarre.

Leaker my ass. It's a person within the administration and they are almost certainly acting on orders. Cheney underlings did the same shit for years.

Leak to themselves then cite their own bullshit as evidence?

Doctor Detroit

Butters wrote: »

JoeUser wrote: »

NBC News correspondent here. Apparently Nunes's source was a leaker too?

https://twitter.com/alanhe/status/847404777281437698

New: Speaker Ryan to @NorahODonnell re:Nunes source- "He had told me that like, a whistleblower type person had given him some information"

So a leaker met him on White House grounds? This just gets more bizarre.

Leaker my ass. It's a person within the administration and they are almost certainly acting on orders. Cheney underlings did the same shit for years.

Wouldn't this also be an illegal leak?

Or is that only when it's stuff the WH doesn't want released?