Release The Memo

[ProdigalHorn]

so they are pushing hard to provoke a cover-up merely because the confusion is causing people to make mistakes.

This is what should scare people. It's fun when it happens to the other side, but when you have a massive team of lawyers and accountants and can basically spend as much time and effort on it as you want, then what chance does anyone have. Regardless of what Flynn did or didn't do, he basically entered a plea because he was going to be bankrupted by the government's willingness to keep hammering until he signed something. Who knows whether his confession was true or not - and as I recall, didn't some of the agents at the time say that they didn't think his confession was actually true? Regardless, that's why we're all terrified of an IRS audit. Basically, you have no chance once the feds decide that they need to find SOMETHING. It's a bad enough issue in our justice system in general (outcome-based evaluation - basically you did a good job if you got a lot of convictions), but when you push that up to the federal level, it's basically anything goes.

Basically as people have said, no one should ever be advised or expected to go in and talk to Muller's team without a specific outline of what will be discussed, what the charges in question are, and who else has been interviewed, as well as specific ground rules on what will and what will not be discussed. Otherwise, even if Trump were a truthful person, who knows if he could accurately tell you what someone said or what he said eight months ago with some random DOJ employee, who was probably one of about 40 people to have conversations with him on that day, and who may or may not have even been in the top 20 in importance. I can't remember passing remarks I might have made a week ago in some random conversation. So is there any doubt at all that if Muller wants to find a mistake, he'll find one given the opportunity?

But again, the standard is "go get the other guys."

 

[OUBubba]

Those three possible outcomes were at the tail-end of a longer analysis. It told me that they don't see ANYTHING to prove collusion. Again, it goes back to the old saying: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." And in this article the Washington Post (which has an assumed Liberal bias while the Washington Times has an assumed Conservative bias) changed that saying: "Even if there was no crime; it's the cover-up."

Some people believe the Dems already know they can't prove Trump committed a crime (and possibly better stated, they can't prove it because he didn't commit one) so they are pushing hard to provoke a cover-up merely because the confusion is causing people to make mistakes.

That's what got Nixon. That's the parallel to Watergate and the lesson that they've not learned.

 

[Joe Fan]

Sounds like Flynn's atty is going to move to drop all charges
This is just chatter now, we will see what they file, if anything
But, if so, it might be an indication things are breaking down

 

[OUBubba]

even if Trump were a truthful person

It's sad that this is where we are today. The default position is that he's obviously NOT one of those.

 

[bystander]

That's what got Nixon. That's the parallel to Watergate and the lesson that they've not learned.

When you have some people who committed a crime or skirted the line and are willing to talk to save their necks, then things get dicey even for those who are innocent. There is no question in my mind that we are dealing with a presumed level of guilt for Trump and they are applying a ruthless amount of pressure to get confessions along with a compliant media that is producing long strings of "facts" that take a lot of time and effort to sift through in order to simplify the matter.

DID TRUMP ACTIVELY COLLUDE OR DID HE ORDER SOMEONE TO COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION?

From what I've read, I'm saying no.

 

[OUBubba]

When you have some people who committed a crime or skirted the line and are willing to talk to save their necks, then things get dicey even for those who are innocent. There is no question in my mind that we are dealing with a presumed level of guilt for Trump and they are applying a ruthless amount of pressure to get confessions along with a compliant media that is producing long strings of "facts" that take a lot of time and effort to sift through in order to simplify the matter.

DID TRUMP ACTIVELY COLLUDE OR DID HE ORDER SOMEONE TO COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION?

From what I've read, I'm saying no.

I've been listening to podcast about the Watergate mess, Slow Burn. If Nixon had not recorded everything in the Oval Office he would have been fine. But, he did and his lies were outed. Ironically, his lies sound very familiar to the current "no collusion" guy.

...."Lordy, I hope there are tapes".... Did that seem predictive to anyone other than me?

 

[Joe Fan]

Byron York is now looking at new info produced by the Senate hearings
Article link here
More to come

 

[Joe Fan]

"Fusion GPS Could Have Been Trying To Buy Access To DOJ With Payments To Official’s Wife"

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/04/fusion-gps-ohr/

"Under a contract from the Clinton campaign, the Fusion GPS research firm was paying the wife of a senior Department of Justice official as part of its efforts to gather opposition research on Trump, and the same official then brought that research to the FBI.

Knowledge of the relationship has raised questions about the extent to which the firm may have paid for heightened access to the criminal justice system, and whether they would have hired Nellie Ohr absent her spousal connection to the DoJ.

A declassified memo said Bruce “Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the” court when it was used to obtain a surveillance warrant.

Bruce Ohr was deputy associate attorney general until December. House investigators determined that he met personally with Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS’ founder.

The FBI has limited resources to deal with a firehose of information, so people seeking the FBI’s attention could potentially benefit from greasing the wheels in order to get info to the front of the queue and to a high level....."​

 

[Garmel]

I've been listening to podcast about the Watergate mess, Slow Burn. If Nixon had not recorded everything in the Oval Office he would have been fine. But, he did and his lies were outed. Ironically, his lies sound very familiar to the current "no collusion" guy.

...."Lordy, I hope there are tapes".... Did that seem predictive to anyone other than me?

Bubba, you come up with this but believe that Clinton's team lying about pneumonia is some impossible conspiracy theory.

 

[OUBubba]

Bubba, you come up with this but believe that Clinton's team lying about pneumonia is some impossible conspiracy theory.

Please refresh my memory about the pneumonia lie that I've apparently decried. You mean to tell me a 70 year old woman who's traveling all over the US on planes got pneumonia? I'm shocked. I could have been critical of all of the conspiracy theories about Parkinson's or some other brain maladies that surrounded the election and were pushed by Russian bots and some of our great posters here.

Much like the left likes to point to Trump's being careful on stairs. Like UBER careful. To be honest, my mom is a few years older than him. I want her being uber careful as well and think that criticism is silly. Now the two handed water drinking? That's at least more entertaining. https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/why-does-donald-trump-drink-water-like-this.html

 

[Seattle Husker]

DID TRUMP ACTIVELY COLLUDE OR DID HE ORDER SOMEONE TO COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS IN ORDER TO WIN THE ELECTION?

This isn't just about Trump but rather an organization. I've stated before that I don't think Trump personally colluded but rather used the Russian mingling as wind at his wings. It's entirely possible that others in his campaign are more culpable, including Don Jr., Manafort and others with direct ties to Russian surrogates.

This focus on the "dossier" is a bit of a distraction. We know the Russia collusion investigation by the FBI pre-dated the dossier's existence based on the original FISA warrant in the the Greek. We also now know of multiple clandestine meetings between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

 

[bystander]

This isn't just about Trump but rather an organization. I've stated before that I don't think Trump personally colluded but rather used the Russian mingling as wind at his wings. It's entirely possible that others in his campaign are more culpable, including Don Jr., Manafort and others with direct ties to Russian surrogates.

Above in one of my lost posts I discussed the problem of receiving factual, truthful information about the opposition party from a foreign source. Did the Trump campaign recklessly use this information that fell into their laps? Should they have said, "No, we do not want to know what you know. These types of communications are off limits NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY."

If the info, for instance, proved that Hillary conspired to steal the nomination from Bernie, what should the Trump campaign have done? Send it to the F.B.I. and let them handle it?

Regardless, it's a hot-potato and in this climate NOTHING is considered in good faith. It's only about how can it help me destroy you.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Above in one of my lost posts I discussed the problem of receiving factual, truthful information about the opposition party from a foreign source. Did the Trump campaign recklessly use this information that fell into their laps? Should they have said, "No, we do not want to know what you know. These types of communications are off limits NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY."

If the info, for instance, proved that Hillary conspired to steal the nomination from Bernie, what should the Trump campaign have done? Send it to the F.B.I. and let them handle it?

Regardless, it's a hot-potato and in this climate NOTHING is considered in good faith. It's only about how can it help me destroy you.

I think it's naive to think the Trump campaign wasn't aware of Russian interference while these conversations took place. Look merely at the communication between Stone and the Russian Hacker, Assange and others. We know that Manafort briefed a Russian Oligarch on the Trump campaign strategy the day after the Republican convention. Seriously, the Greek claimed in March/April he was aware that the Russians had DNC email. This is in his plea deal. What you're claiming is willful ignorance by the Trump campaign to Russia's illegal actions (i.e. Hacking). If someone robs a bank and asks you to secretly hold the loot and you say "sure", don't you become an accessory?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ying-to-suppress-release-of-new-trump-dossier

"The FBI’s reliance on the anti-Trump dossier is questionable because while the judge was reportedly told the author had political motivations, the FBI allegedly did not disclose who funded it: Donald Trump’s chief opponent in the presidential race — the Hillary Clinton campaign — and the Democratic National Committee.

Not only that, the newly-released criminal referral says Steele actually incorporated information that was funneled to him through Clinton associates and the U.S. State Department where Clinton had served as Secretary of State from 2009 to early 2013. In a memo dated Oct. 19, 2016, Steele wrote that a foreign source who was in touch with “a friend of the Clintons” passed him material through a U.S. State Department connection.

Even more problematic, the FBI may have violated strict rules — Woods Procedures — that forbid it from presenting even a single unverified fact to the special court, let alone a lengthy dossier full of them.

The criminal referral unveiled today says Steele's possible violations involve claims he reportedly made about his dealings with the media. Conflicting accounts arose as part of a lawsuit in Great Britain where Steele is defending a libel claim made by a Russian businessman. Steele publicly accused him of hacking the Democratic Party. The criminal referral is not a formal accusation of wrongdoing against Steele, but a request for an investigation.

Conflicts of interest?

In the bigger picture, the criminal referral highlights conflicts of interest questions emerging in the wide-ranging investigations:

The Steele criminal referral in essence asks the FBI to investigate a source with whom FBI officials collaborated, and whose evidence they used in a fashion that’s under congressional investigation.

The referral was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who himself signed at least one of the questionable wiretap applications using the Steele dossier.

It was also addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray whose choice for general counsel, Dana Boente, also signed at least one of the wiretap applications. Boente replaced James Baker, a confidante of former FBI Director James Comey, who signed three of the wiretap applications. (Baker was reassigned in December after questions arose about leaks promoting the anti-Trump material in the dossier. Last June, Comey admitted that he secretly orchestrated a leak to the press to prompt a special counsel investigation of any Trump-Russia ties. Robert Mueller was appointed two days later.)"

 

[OUBubba]

That's not wholly unreasonable. Except for the fact that Trump is still very pro-Russia. I mean, he did just decline the opportunity to invoke Russian sanctions that both the House and the Senate voted almost unanimously to invoke.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

Where do things stand with these relationships between American and Israeli intelligence in the Trump administration?

BERGMAN: Well, Dave, just a year ago, I published a story that created a lot of controversy. I said - and I was surprised to hear that from my sources in the beginning - that a group of American intelligence officers, in a regular meeting with the Israeli counterparts, just before Trump was elected and before the inauguration, they suggested that the Israelis stop giving sensitive material to the White House. They said we are afraid that Trump or someone of his people are under leverage from the Russians. And they might give sensitive information to the Russians who, in their turn, would give that to Iran. They said we have evidence that part of the material that Edward Snowden stole from the CIA and NSA - and was not yet published - found its way to Iran. And we believe, of course, that he gave everything he had to the Russians.

And the Israelis were shocked. They have never been in such an occasion. They have never heard Americans say something of that kind about their chief and commander - about the president. And when, just few months after that, it turned out that everything - all the predictions that the Americans have made to the Israelis as warnings - not because they knew it was going to happen but they thought it might - everything came to be true. And President Trump apparently gave secret information. And I know the nature of that information. It is indeed delicate and very, very secret.

It just instilled a sense of miscomfort (ph) inside Israeli intelligence. And I think, if I recall something that I heard just recently, they feel - Israeli intelligence feel that the American administration is in chaos - is in havoc. It's not function properly - not intentionally, but that lead to further leaks. And they are very hesitant with sharing everything they have, as they did in the past, with their American counterparts.

DAVIES: So if I understand it, you know of specific information that the U.S. shared with the Russians that has not been revealed publicly and that you are not revealing publicly?

BERGMAN: The nature of the information that President Trump revealed to Foreign Minister Lavrov is of the most secretive nature. And that information could jeopardize modus operandi of Israeli intelligence.

 

[Seattle Husker]

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ying-to-suppress-release-of-new-trump-dossier

"The FBI’s reliance on the anti-Trump dossier is questionable because while the judge was reportedly told the author had political motivations, the FBI allegedly did not disclose who funded it: Donald Trump’s chief opponent in the presidential race — the Hillary Clinton campaign — and the Democratic National Committee.

Not only that, the newly-released criminal referral says Steele actually incorporated information that was funneled to him through Clinton associates and the U.S. State Department where Clinton had served as Secretary of State from 2009 to early 2013. In a memo dated Oct. 19, 2016, Steele wrote that a foreign source who was in touch with “a friend of the Clintons” passed him material through a U.S. State Department connection.

Even more problematic, the FBI may have violated strict rules — Woods Procedures — that forbid it from presenting even a single unverified fact to the special court, let alone a lengthy dossier full of them.

The criminal referral unveiled today says Steele's possible violations involve claims he reportedly made about his dealings with the media. Conflicting accounts arose as part of a lawsuit in Great Britain where Steele is defending a libel claim made by a Russian businessman. Steele publicly accused him of hacking the Democratic Party. The criminal referral is not a formal accusation of wrongdoing against Steele, but a request for an investigation.

Conflicts of interest?

In the bigger picture, the criminal referral highlights conflicts of interest questions emerging in the wide-ranging investigations:

The Steele criminal referral in essence asks the FBI to investigate a source with whom FBI officials collaborated, and whose evidence they used in a fashion that’s under congressional investigation.

The referral was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who himself signed at least one of the questionable wiretap applications using the Steele dossier.

It was also addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray whose choice for general counsel, Dana Boente, also signed at least one of the wiretap applications. Boente replaced James Baker, a confidante of former FBI Director James Comey, who signed three of the wiretap applications. (Baker was reassigned in December after questions arose about leaks promoting the anti-Trump material in the dossier. Last June, Comey admitted that he secretly orchestrated a leak to the press to prompt a special counsel investigation of any Trump-Russia ties. Robert Mueller was appointed two days later.)"

This is good info. Omission of details may be important though as Sharyl Atkinsson (SP?) fails to call out that Carter Page had been under investigation since 2013 when he first came on the FBI's radar. This was independent of Steele or the dossier. They were concerned enough to interview Carter Page directly then.

I appreciate that Atkinsson is now acknowledging that the dossier was presented by the FBI as "politically motivated". That's MUCH more than Nunes did through his purposeful omission of that fact.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I appreciate that Atkinsson is now acknowledging that the dossier was presented by the FBI as "politically motivated".

That's a little farther than she went - she said the judge was "reportedly" told, which I suspect stems from the claims by the Dem minority. It may be true, and it may be spin. Although let's be honest here. If you're a FISA judge and you're only told that something was "politically motivated," wouldn't you want to know a little more than that? That's a pretty vague term and could mean any number of things - "unvetted paid opposition research coming in part from foreign agents" being about as severe an interpretation as you could think of.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's a little farther than she went - she said the judge was "reportedly" told, which I suspect stems from the claims by the Dem minority. It may be true, and it may be spin. Although let's be honest here. If you're a FISA judge and you're only told that something was "politically motivated," wouldn't you want to know a little more than that? That's a pretty vague term and could mean any number of things - "unvetted paid opposition research coming in part from foreign agents" being about as severe an interpretation as you could think of.

If there is a real problem that has been uncovered here it's the approval process for a FISA application. As I understand it, only 4 applications have ever been rejected which means either the FBI is experts in building justification for a warrant or the judges don't scrutinize enough. It's likely somewhere in the middle. Of course, the FISA application has already supposedly been reviewed/approved by 8-9 people before the judge ever sees it.

Either way, these applications are 60-70 pages long. I suspect they aren't the easiest to decipher on the behalf of a judge. Then again, how often to regular wiretap warrants get rejected?

 

[Mr. Deez]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

Trump is still very pro-Russia. I mean, he did just decline the opportunity to invoke Russian sanctions that both the House and the Senate voted almost unanimously to invoke.

Of course, I didn't vote for Trump, and the decisive reason was foreign policy. His comments on NATO, Japan, and Putin worried me quite a bit, and I knew that even when trying to do that right thing, he would be sloppy and say stupid things from time to time.

Has he been sloppy at times? Yes. The disclosure of classified information to Russian officials and to Rodrigo Duterte are examples. Were they more nefarious than mere sloppiness? Maybe, but there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that. Basically, you're making that leap without any basis other than your inherent suspicion. Has he said stupid things at times? No question about it. I think the taunting of Kim Jong-un is dumb and juvenile.

Has he been "very pro-Russia?" If you asked our token Web Brigade virtuoso and overall Putin rimjob homey and propagandist (and he knows I mean that as a compliment) if he thought Trump was pro-Russia, I think he'd tell you otherwise.

You can point to his unwillingness to impose new sanctions as an example of being pro-Russia. I would have imposed the sanctions. However, that is pretty small stuff in the grand scheme. That doesn't shift the geopolitical balance of power to any significant degree. If there had actually been a plot to install a significantly more pro-Russia President, Putin would have expected Trump to behave in office more like how he campaigned. He'd isolate or even withdraw from NATO. He'd cut the US military presence in Europe. He'd be soft on Russian allies like Iran and North Korea. He'd make sure the US didn't compete with Russian energy sellers in Europe. Furthermore, he'd stack his foreign policy team with pro-Russian tools. None of that is occurring.

What is occurring? The US and the rest of NATO are making significant expansions of their military presence and activities in Europe including missile defenses, and they're deploying mostly to the East. I'm seeing some of that first hand. When I moved to Germany back in 2013, we were making major cutbacks in our military presence and capability. We had just shutdown two big Army facilities in Mannheim and Heidelberg and were closing smaller installations all over the continent. In fact, at one point, we didn't have a single tank in Europe. Our force in Europe was by far the weakest it had been since before WWII. Obama did start the reversal of the drawdown that he had previously accelerated after the annexation of Crimea, but the Trump Administration has significantly amped it up. Where are the pro-Russian tools? A few entered the Administration but were quickly shitcanned. McMaster, Haley, and Mattis are the primary people setting our policy. None are Russia-friendly. And of course, we're confronting Iran and North Korea every chance we get. And what about energy? We're strongly pushing US energy exports to Europe in direct competition with Russian dealers. Is Trump politically toxic in much of Western Europe? Yes. (He's not toxic in Eastern Europe.) However, he has stepped back a bit, and for the most part, Mike Pence and Mattis are our point men in Europe, and both have good relations with European governments and the European Union.

So is he "very pro-Russia?" At least on big items (the kind of things that you rig elections for), no. In fact, when it comes to our defense posture, the Trump Administration has been far more confrontational to Putin than the Obama Administration ever was.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

f you asked our token Web Brigade virtuoso and overall Putin rimjob homey and propagandist (and he knows I mean that as a compliment)

Someone's getting a new signature...

 

[Seattle Husker]

Has Trump taken the hard right turn toward Russia and away from NATO he advocated during the campaign? No, but he has tacked in that direction. Our relationship with NATO countries has deteriorated from where it was. That's only a positive for Putin. We allow NK to be a major distraction. Win for Putin? Trump continues to sow division in America with every tweet, most important distrust for our institutions. Win for Putin? China is the wildcard. Trump loves them then hates them....loves them then paints them as the bad guy. A closer US-China relationship is bad for Russia. I'd say the jury is still out on this one.

Where Trump has been more of the same, against Soviet interests, is the Middle-East. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have been a continuation of existing plans with only some attempted rebranding. In the end we are still facing Soviet jets in the skies.

If anything, I'd argue that Trump's foreign policy has been inconsistent. There are some areas he's been good and deserves credit. He is getting Europe to think about it's own defense a little more which isn't bad.

 

[OUBubba]

Of course, I didn't vote for Trump, and the decisive reason was foreign policy. His comments on NATO, Japan, and Putin worried me quite a bit, and I knew that even when trying to do that right thing, he would be sloppy and say stupid things from time to time.

Has he been sloppy at times? Yes. The disclosure of classified information to Russian officials and to Rodrigo Duterte are examples. Were they more nefarious than mere sloppiness? Maybe, but there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that. Basically, you're making that leap without any basis other than your inherent suspicion. Has he said stupid things at times? No question about it. I think the taunting of Kim Jong-un is dumb and juvenile.

Has he been "very pro-Russia?" If you asked our token Web Brigade virtuoso and overall Putin rimjob homey and propagandist (and he knows I mean that as a compliment) if he thought Trump was pro-Russia, I think he'd tell you otherwise.

You can point to his unwillingness to impose new sanctions as an example of being pro-Russia. I would have imposed the sanctions. However, that is pretty small stuff in the grand scheme. That doesn't shift the geopolitical balance of power to any significant degree. If there had actually been a plot to install a significantly more pro-Russia President, Putin would have expected Trump to behave in office more like how he campaigned. He'd isolate or even withdraw from NATO. He'd cut the US military presence in Europe. He'd be soft on Russian allies like Iran and North Korea. He'd make sure the US didn't compete with Russian energy sellers in Europe. Furthermore, he'd stack his foreign policy team with pro-Russian tools. None of that is occurring.

What is occurring? The US and the rest of NATO are making significant expansions of their military presence and activities in Europe including missile defenses, and they're deploying mostly to the East. I'm seeing some of that first hand. When I moved to Germany back in 2013, we were making major cutbacks in our military presence and capability. We had just shutdown two big Army facilities in Mannheim and Heidelberg and were closing smaller installations all over the continent. In fact, at one point, we didn't have a single tank in Europe. Our force in Europe was by far the weakest it had been since before WWII. Obama did start the reversal of the drawdown that he had previously accelerated after the annexation of Crimea, but the Trump Administration has significantly amped it up. Where are the pro-Russian tools? A few entered the Administration but were quickly shitcanned. McMaster, Haley, and Mattis are the primary people setting our policy. None are Russia-friendly. And of course, we're confronting Iran and North Korea every chance we get. And what about energy? We're strongly pushing US energy exports to Europe in direct competition with Russian dealers. Is Trump politically toxic in much of Western Europe? Yes. (He's not toxic in Eastern Europe.) However, he has stepped back a bit, and for the most part, Mike Pence and Mattis are our point men in Europe, and both have good relations with European governments and the European Union.

So is he "very pro-Russia?" At least on big items (the kind of things that you rig elections for), no. In fact, when it comes to our defense posture, the Trump Administration has been far more confrontational to Putin than the Obama Administration ever was.

Well written. You gave me homework.

 

[Garmel]

That's MUCH more than Nunes did through his purposeful omission of that fact.

If Nunes was doing purposeful omissions the part about what got the Trump investigation started would not have been there. Schiff, who has issues with truth in the past, is the person who's memo you need to be concerned about.

 

[iatrogenic]

Liberal law professors claim that because opposition research firms provide dirt and charge money for it, if Russia gives dirt for free, it's effectively campaign contribution (which everyone agrees doesn't have to be money). I don't think they're right, but that's the argument.

I can see that argument

 

[iatrogenic]

That's what got Nixon. That's the parallel to Watergate and the lesson that they've not learned.

Except there was an actual crime behind the Watergate investigation.

 

[OUBubba]

My understanding is that Trey Gowdy has seen the intelligence that the Nunes memo is based upon. Ironically, neither Nunes or Schiff have seen the intelligence. Gowdy's take is that this memorandum shouldn't have an impact on Mueller's process.

I heard a funny summary of this issue. So, the "democratic leaning" FBI and Justice Dept wrote an email about the Hillary stuff that helped get Trump elected. Trump then appointed Wrey and Sessions. Both of them were against the memo being released. They played the longest of long cons to "get Trump".

 

[OUBubba]

Except there was an actual crime behind the Watergate investigation.

Flynn has plead guilty and is cooperating with Mueller. Manafort will get more charges or cooperate. Gates is cooperating. It's about to get nasty. I think that has a lot to do with the release the memo flurry that we've seen over the last week. I'm still waiting for the Reichstag fire.

 

[Garmel]

Flynn has plead guilty and is cooperating with Mueller. Manafort will get more charges or cooperate. Gates is cooperating. It's about to get nasty. I think that has a lot to do with the release the memo flurry that we've seen over the last week. I'm still waiting for the Reichstag fire.

Flynn was had on a process crime. Manafort was caught in shady dealings that predate Trump. I've not seen any evidence that either are involved with Russian collusion.

 

[OUBubba]

He plead to lying to the FBI about his dealings with THE RUSSIANS.

 

[Garmel]

He plead to lying to the FBI about his dealings with THE RUSSIANS.

Who? A lot of people deal with the Russians. Clinton and Podesta had dealings with the Russians as well. It's not against the law. Russia is not the boogeyman.