DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Sally Yates and James Clapper testify before the Senate about Michael Flynn and Russia

Thanks .. just following suit here.

Read the entire article yourself from the Pulitzer Prize winning site...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/24/scandal-o-rama/

Not how it works. You yell Fake News and follow it up with the FACTS that prove it is fake.

Trump Team Uses Debunked Right-Wing Media Smear To Deflect From Russia Scandals

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/20...scandals/215374

You mean like your claims that Obama undermined the second amendment but refuse to show any evidence to back it up? Does that mean you're a liberal too?

Did you do a Google search like I told you?

They are your claims to back up. Not mine. When people make claims they need to back it up with facts, not try to hand out homework assignments.

While you are sitting there whining to me, you could instead be looking it up and educating yourself for a change instead of having me educate you constantly.

You could be backing up your whining instead of expecting me to do your homework. I'm not whining, I'm waiting for you to back up your big mouth. lmao

Look, I can't keep teaching you for free. You are gonna have to do some work for yourself or pay the piper.

So far you owe me about $50,000 bucks for being schooled by me.

I wasn't the one whining about Obama. It's time to put up or shut up. Which I believe you have no capability of doing either.

An education as legit as Trump University.

You can always tell when its a slow News day around here.

So when republicans are going after trump, does that mean they're still salty about the election results, too? lol


U.S. Republican Graham curious on Trump business deals

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-se...-150736641.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday he wants to know more about President Donald Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia, but that congressional investigations may have to avoid the matter if they conflict with an FBI probe.

Graham asked former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Monday whether he had concerns about Russian ties to Trump's business interests. Clapper said he could not comment because the issue could be a subject of an ongoing investigation.

CNN reported on Tuesday that Graham intended to look into Trump's business ties to see if any connections exist between Russia and the Trump campaign or the president's associates.

The White House said it would welcome any fact-finding by Graham and the subcommittee, which he chairs, saying the president has no business ties to Russia.

"He has no business in Russia; he has no connections to Russia," White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters. "So he welcomes that."

Spicer added that Trump had directed a law firm to send Graham a certified letter stating as much.

While Graham expressed interest in finding out whether Trump's business interests had any Russia ties, he said the subcommittee may have to "steer clear" of the issue if it conflicts with the FBI's probe of Russia and the Trump campaign.

He clarified later that he had not taken any new actions.

"This is nothing new here," he told reporters at the Capitol. "I'm not a prosecutor. But if you ask me if I want to know if there are any Trump business ties to Russia that are inappropriate, the answer would be 'yes.'"

Graham told CNN it would be helpful to see Trump's tax records but that it was too soon to say whether he would be willing to subpoena them, the network said.

Graham and McCane and many others are Republican Establishment and have hated Trump from day one.

Take what they say with a grain of salt.

This just in...

Trump to Comey, YOU'RE FIRED!

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/09/trump-fires-fbi-director-comey.html

Man, I can't even express how much respect I have for how Sally Yates handled herself. Was watching TYT and seen the exchanges between her and Ted Cruz, lol, she utterly destroyed his spineless weaseling tactics. Shut him down COLD.

BIG NEWS!

Trump will probably live to regret this. I think Comey has been trying to be unbiased in his investigation of Trump. This will send dems into a frenzy and Comey will be forced to reveal all behind closed doors to senate/house committees. Trump just made an enemy out of him.

Man this is gonna bite Trump in the ass.

this only makes Trump look more and more as if he's trying to cover up something.

Is there anything you guys don't go over the top about?

Won't hurt Trump.
Sessions said he must go, need to get the FBI organized after all this crap with Comey and the elections and the Russians.

Trump thanked Comey for coming to him on 3 separate occasions to inform the President that he is NOT under investigation.

lol what? yea, a guy who had to recuse himself from russia investigations is now recommending the fbi director get fired over the investigation?

this will absolutely hurt trump. Trump literally just made the target on his own back bigger.

spin it however you want. this smells like a cover up

Meh, Sessions didn't fire him, Trump did.

Swish
^
^
^
Top

session made the recommendation, which is what i said.

learn to read.

I can read and I also comprehend that making a suggestion is not taking action.

Swish
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
Top

does putin pay you to spin on social media?

this is pathetic. gotta fire the guy investigating you? Trump looks guilty as all hell.

breaking news:

The new FBI director will be Michael Flynn

Perhaps Jared Kushner will want to be FBI Director, we will see.

"Trump administration must release Clinton emails State Department tried to hide"

How does this come into play? What's it mean?


I have some good news and some bad news regarding the ongoing search for the truth concerning the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack.

First the good news: Judicial Watch recently announced that on March 20, 2017, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the U.S. Department of State to release to Judicial Watch “eight identical paragraphs” of previously redacted material in two emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email server dated Sept. 13, 2012.

The emails detail phone calls made by President Obama to Egyptian and Libyan leaders immediately following the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. The emails have the subject line “Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt” and were among the emails stored on Clinton’s non-government email server. Judge Jackson reviewed the documents in-camera and rejected the government’s contention that the records had been properly withheld under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) B(5) “deliberative process” exemption.



Judge Jackson ruled, “The two records, even if just barely predecisional, are not deliberative. [The State Department] has pointed to very little to support its characterization of these two records as deliberative, and the Court’s in camera review of the documents reveals that they do not fall within that category.”

The full emails may reveal what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew about the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi – prior to Susan Rice’s contention that the Benghazi attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.

The bad news is that— following close upon the heels of Judge Jackson’s March 20 ruling – the State Department asked the court to reconsider. The State Department is arguing that, due to an internal “mistake,” it failed to claim that the emails were classified and, therefore, should be exempt from production under FOIA Exemption B(1), which is reserved information related to national security.

Not surprisingly, Judicial Watch’s legal team went back to court to oppose this maneuver. Judicial Watch’s brief argues that the failure was not a mistake, but instead was unquestionably part of a deliberate effort by the State Department to protect Clinton and the agency by avoiding identifying emails on Clinton’s unofficial, non-secure email server as classified.

Judicial Watch’s filing cites an interview of an FBI employee who told federal investigators that top State Department official Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to keep Clinton’s emails unclassified. The employee told the FBI he “believes STATE ha[d] an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON."

Judicial Watch also cites an interview of a State Department employee who told the FBI that the State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel interfered with the FOIA processing of email from Clinton’s server, instructing reviewers to use Exemption B(5) (deliberative process exemption) instead of Exemption B(1) (national security exemption). According to the FBI interview, "The use of the B(5) exemption, which is usually used for executive privilege-related information, was incorrect as the information actually was classified and related to national security."

As we point out in our response, the "agency’s deliberate withholding of a FOIA claim, either to gain a tactical advantage or, as appears to be the case here, to protect the agency’s interests and those of its former head," is entirely inappropriate under the applicable law.

The emails in question were sent to then-top administration officials, including Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, Special Assistant Robert Russo, and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.

If the Trump administration decides to maintain the State Department’s obfuscation, it is reasonable to be concerned that this potentially historic Benghazi material may never see the light of day. Does President Trump know his State and Justice Departments are still trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

This may well be an example of the “deep state” trying to get away with a cover-up. If so, then the Trump administration must be called upon to intercede.

Judicial Watch fought many legal battles against the Obama administration in an effort to unearth the truth about Benghazi, and was certainly more successful than Congress in doing so. Let’s hope the Trump administration appointees cooperate with the court (and the Freedom of Information Act generally), put an end to this egregious waste of taxpayer dollars (legal battles are not cheap), and uphold the public’s right to know the truth.

Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) is the president of Judicial Watch.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/th...on-emails-state

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he is “disappointed” with President Trump's decision to fire FBI Directory James Comey, arguing such a move reinforces his calls for a special congressional panel to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/332649-mccain-disappointed-in-trump-for-firing-comey

If there were anything Trump could release that would hurt Clinton, he would have done it day one. lol

I just wonder why it is that Republicans in the House and Senate are so opposed to an independent investigation?

I know some will try claim it's a waste of money, but wasting money doesn't seem to be a concern when it comes to Trumps golf outings.

They can't control the flow of information if this happens.

well....what if it's because some of them might get swept into the scandal if that happened?

right now it seems like DC is in "every man for himself" mode after the firing of the director, combined with Yates and Clapper's testimony.

Trump has now fired 3 high-profile federal officials who were investigating him and his associates

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f2a61621-c41a-3970-9fb2-a059e949416f/ss_trump-has-now-fired-3.html

The burden of proof is on you. I look at this and see that liberals have been on this case for nearly a year, and have come up with a big fat nothing. Pizzagate had more "evidence" than this does.

Note that I am not saying I believe in the allegations made in Pizzagate, but the amount and quality of circumstantial evidence was indeed stronger. That's the thing about circumstantial evidence though... when you have huge amounts of politically motivated people, they tend to see things how they want to see them, even if they don't realize it. That's why hard evidence is required. Both accusations fall well short.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/...mpaign-n2322991

bold added


"Not at this time", she says.

Maybe we'll get something a little more definitive in 2018.

obviously the burden of proof was on the republicans, as it was a republican FBI director who was leading the charge.

right up until he got fired. and this is why it's hard to take you and others seriously: you keep thinking it's ONLY liberals that are wanting answers for these alleged russian connections.

its funny how you bring up pizzagate because you was one of the main dudes on this board talking about it when the story first dropped.

it's also funny how you ignore the fact that evidence just doesn't drop piece by piece, as the Feds go through all the evidence before concluding the investigation.

They let us know there's an investigation going on, and the only thing we will get after that is the results in it's ENTIRETY once the investigation is complete.

which also means, Haus, that you're part of the same group who back in the 70's was making fun of people and trying to say that Nixon didn't do anything wrong, that it was liberals being intolerant of Nixon.

he also made an enemy out of the media, as well. wonder why.

your opinion is off, bro. sorry. pizzagate can't compare to this. pizzagate has ZERO evidence of anything.

We've already had how many fired for russian connections? how many recused?

how many people fired that was investigating the scandal?

so as of right now i won't go as far as to say you're lying, but you're definitely spreading misinformation. We already have people fired/recused over not disclosing/lying about connection to russian officials/networks.

So we already have proof that there is something there just based on THAT fact alone.

what we DON'T know is how deep the connections go. Does it go all the way to Trump? Is he being blackmailed? Is he doing this for russian interest? Does it just stop at Flynn? Was Flynn and Priebus the only ones, and unfortunately the Trump campaign got swept up into all of this by accident? Was the hack done in a way that involved payments from powerful people here in the states? if so, by who? if not, was wikileaks and the Kremlin involved all on there own, and only required a gullible Trump to keep the circus show off of their agenda? Why did he feel the need to try and discredit Yates before she testified?

that's a sign of guilt.

and that's not even half the questions, bro.

see, that's what you don't get. we already have the reasons to start the investigations in the first place.

That's not liberals or the media's fault. that's trump's fault. either he sucks at vetting and is gullible enough to get played by guys with nefarious agendas, or he's an active part of a grand conspiracy.

Hopefully it's he's just a gullible dude. I would really like to believe that Trump isn't involved with this, but right now there is ZERO reason to.

So it would be nice to not have this investigation stalled.

but your boy has fired 3 people investigating him. you're upset with liberals because we don't trust Trump.

well maybe your president shouldn't give us a reason to distrust him in the first place.

History has a crazy way of repeating itself. there's a lot of credible people out there saying this is almost deja vu to the Nixon era.

Trump might not be guilty, but he's certainly operating like someone who is, or has something to hide.

Do you get all your news from internet memes and Fox News?

briebart