Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Under Oath:

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

James Clapper - “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Not Under Oath:

James Clapper - "To me, it just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn’t affect the election, and it’s my belief they actually turned it,” he told the PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff on Wednesday, May 23, 2018.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russia-turned-election-for-trump-clapper-believes

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

James Clapper - “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”
 
 
•In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President. (5) Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
 
•Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” (6)
 
•Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.” (7)   A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks. (8)
 
•The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia.Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to Federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
 
•The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
 
•The Report raised questions about why Trump and associates repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia. (9)
 
 
(5) Id. at Vol. I, 67-80.
(6) Id. at Vol. I, 110-20.
(7) Id. at Vol. I, 5.
(8) Id. at Vol. I, 51-54.
(9) Id. at Vol. II, 18-23.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Niederhut, you must be the only person left citing the Mueller Report.

The WAPO, the NY Times, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the talking heads on CNN and even Rachel Maddow don't even bother.

Your insistence that the Mueller Report has any relevance has almost got me thinking you are some sort of Pro-Trump Intelligence Operator playing 3D level chess with Jeff and myself under a derivative of Cunningham's Law.

You post something so devoid of anything factual, or useful to an assertion of innocence on the part of the FBI/DOJ, I am "baited" into posting a correction for the lurkers to see.

Cunningham's Law states - "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." 

If that's what we're doing here, post the answer to the question below.

What time does the crow caw?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

What time does the crow caw?

The crow caws on January 20, 2017, the last day Clapper had access to information from the intel community. The testimony Jeff refers to, much older than Mueller's report, is post Flynn firing derived from the Republican led investigation into the 2016 election. Just thought you'd both want to know. No full throttle investigation had been started at that point beyond CI by the FBI which was flying alone. Just to let you know - the FBI doesn't require permission from DOJ to investigate or continue an investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Niederhut, you must be the only person left citing the Mueller Report.

The WAPO, the NY Times, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the talking heads on CNN and even Rachel Maddow don't even bother.

Rob,

      Huh?  When did you start reading WaPo  and the NYT?

      Didn't you say that you assiduously avoid reading America's two top-rated newspapers?

      But you, unwittingly, raise an important point here.

      To wit, when and how did the truly damning findings of the Mueller Report get lost in America's news cycle?

      IMO, it was mostly a result of Bill Barr's pre-emptive obstruction and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report findings last spring, with a major assist from Trump's repeated lies, and the Trumpaganda establishment in our mainstream media.

      Another problem was that Congress dropped the ball last summer on impeaching Trump for his multiple counts of obstruction of justice-- detailed in the Mueller Report-- perhaps partly because they got bogged down in the fight over their vote to subpoena the unredacted Mueller Report.

     Let's all remember that Congress has still not received a copy of the unredacted Mueller Report!

     In fact, the subpoena case has now gone to the SCOTUS, and the Trump administration called only YESTERDAY for the SCOTUS to block release of the Mueller Report to Congress!   Why?  What are Trump and Barr hiding?

     Meanwhile, Trump and his Trumpagandists have relentlessly repeated the lie that Trump's Russiagate scandal was a "hoax," and that Trump was exonerated by the Mueller Report!

Special Counsel Mueller explicitly declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct
 
 
•The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President (10) and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. (11)
 
•The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the
President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.
 
•Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:
 
In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice; (12) months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue–all of which McGahn refused to do. (13)
 
After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go; ”he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true. (14)
 
In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” (15)
 
In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an un-recused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.” (16)
 
The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement. (17)
 
(10) Id. at Vol. II, 8.
(11) Id.
(12) Mueller Report at Vol. II, 77-90.
(13) Id. at Vol. II, 113-18.
(14) Id. at Vol. II, 40-44.
(15) Id. at Vol. II, 319-25.
(16) Id. at Vol. II, 319-25.
(17) Id. at Vol. II, 332-45.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Just to let you know - the FBI doesn't require permission from DOJ to investigate or continue an investigation.

The controversy, as outlined in the timeline from the Motion To Dismiss, is over the appropriate protocol to arrange the interview. The FBI acted in defiance of the correct protocol so as to set a perjury trap, as the timeline and FBI notes demonstrate. It doesn't matter that the exculpatory information the timeline describes was known by the prosecution or the judge, as empty wheel argues, it's that it needed to be shared with the defence as it was entirely relevant to Flynn's legal position. If Flynn was properly represented at the interview in the first place, as was required, he would not have faced any exposure to legal jeopardy. 

Lost in the hysterical fears that the Republic and the rule of law are forever damaged in light of this Motion, is that the charges against Flynn were fully part of the "nickel and dime process crimes" which were the hallmark of Mueller's indictment record. Not remembering details of phone calls discussing a UN Security Council Israel vote has nothing whatsoever to do with Russian election interference. The leak to the Washington Post which brought the Kisylak/Flynn phone call to public attention in mid-January 2017 was itself an illegal act far more serious than anything pinned on Flynn. That leak generated the questions to Pence which began the process ending with Flynn's dismissal. The leak was likely initiated by Comey or McCabe. Instead of interviewing Flynn after declaring it a priority, senior FBI officials initiated an illegal leak which created a disruptive furore around the incoming administration. There was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the Flynn/Kisylak phone calls - this fact too is being heavily downplayed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The FBI acted in defiance of the correct protocol so as to set a perjury trap, as the timeline and FBI notes demonstrate. It doesn't matter that the exculpatory information the timeline describes was known by the prosecution or the judge, as empty wheel argues, it's that it needed to be shared with the defence as it was entirely relevant to Flynn's legal position. If Flynn was properly represented at the interview in the first place, as was required, he would not have faced any exposure to legal jeopardy. 

 

Please enlighten me on the laws regarding a subject or target of an investigation who agrees to be interviewed by federal investigators. You're making a giant leap here that there was "exculpatory information" because there isn't - you're making that up. "Correct protocol" is not a legal requirement. I guarantee you it is not the investigator's job to provide defense to the person they are interviewing. Flynn's decision to do the interview was his not anyone else's and he can hardly claim ignorance like my 90 year old Aunt Millie. The Judge has already ruled on that and Flynn has plead guilty.

Is this the sort of thing you think they do with Gotti or Cartels operating in the US? Give em a call say "Hey! We're coming over to have a chit chat make sure your lawyer is there?" This is why it is hysterical to me you're pushing this. Multiply that by ten because he's pled guilty to the charges several times and at the end of the day it's like a six month beef! Which he's already served! It's a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Lost in the hysterical fears that the Republic and the rule of law are forever damaged in light of this Motion, is that the charges against Flynn were fully part of the "nickel and dime process crimes" which were the hallmark of Mueller's indictment record. Not remembering details of phone calls discussing a UN Security Council Israel vote has nothing whatsoever to do with Russian election interference.

Process crimes are definitely relevant, you don't know what you're talking about. This is a Fox talking point that can fool the fans but not the players.

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The leak to the Washington Post which brought the Kisylak/Flynn phone call to public attention in mid-January 2017 was itself an illegal act far more serious than anything pinned on Flynn. That leak generated the questions to Pence which began the process ending with Flynn's dismissal. The leak was likely initiated by Comey or McCabe. Instead of interviewing Flynn after declaring it a priority, senior FBI officials initiated an illegal leak which created a disruptive furore around the incoming administration.

This is an entirely separate issue and has no bearing on Flynn's pleas or Janitor Barr's ridiculous withdrawal.

 

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

 If Flynn was properly represented at the interview in the first place, as was required, he would not have faced any exposure to legal jeopardy.

This is complete and utter BS as the judge would have thrown it out and had the chance to on several occasions, if this was true. It isn't required. You can blame Flynn for that.

 

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

There was nothing illegal or inappropriate about the Flynn/Kisylak phone calls - this fact too is being heavily downplayed. 

This is also not true as Flynn (according to now disclosed 302 documents) actually brought up the idea of going easy on retaliation for the sanctions rather than the other way around. Even if all they hang their hats on is the Logan Act it's still on the books. They were willing to close the investigation until such time as it became apparent he was lying about a lot more than they thought. Guess what? Flynn agreed with me! So there you go. Take it from the source himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Please enlighten me on the laws regarding a subject or target of an investigation who agrees to be interviewed by federal investigators. You're making a giant leap here that there was "exculpatory information" because there isn't - you're making that up. "Correct protocol" is not a legal requirement. I guarantee you it is not the investigator's job to provide defense to the person they are interviewing. Flynn's decision to do the interview was his not anyone else's and he can hardly claim ignorance like my 90 year old Aunt Millie. The Judge has already ruled on that and Flynn has plead guilty.

The exculpatory information was the long buried revelation that the FBI’s Washington Field Office had concluded its extensive investigation of Flynn under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella and found “no derogatory information” and were closing his file. The means by which the file was instead kept open, and the means and methods by which Flynn was afterwards targeted has now been determined as  something like “egregious government misconduct. The FBI’s questionable motivations, in light of the apparent conflict with other agencies including particularly the DOJ, and flagrant and deliberate defiance of established protocol which exposed Flynn to legal jeopardy, as they had intended, has been exposed. The extent to which Flynn “volunteered” for his interview is not exactly relevant.

4 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Is this the sort of thing you think they do with Gotti or Cartels operating in the US? Give em a call say "Hey! We're coming over to have a chit chat make sure your lawyer is there?" This is why it is hysterical to me you're pushing this. 

But Flynn is not a mob boss or drug kingpin. He was the National Security Advisor for the president of the United States. He had been entirely cleared by a months long FBI investigation just weeks earlier,  The FBI predicated the interview, and the ensuing indictment, on the Logan Act, and that predicate has now been repudiated. A presumed Logan Act violation was a criminal rather than a counter-intelligence matter and the FBI never opened a criminal investigation based on the Logan Act. In any case, the DOJ would never pursue a prosecution based on the Logan Act. The matters to which Flynn was accused of lying, or making material misrepresentations, were only relevant to presumed Logan Act violations. This is the reason for the exoneration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The exculpatory information was the long buried revelation that the FBI’s Washington Field Office had concluded its extensive investigation of Flynn under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella and found “no derogatory information” and were closing his file. The means by which the file was instead kept open, and the means and methods by which Flynn was afterwards targeted has now been determined as  something like “egregious government misconduct. The FBI’s questionable motivations, in light of the apparent conflict with other agencies including particularly the DOJ, and flagrant and deliberate defiance of established protocol which exposed Flynn to legal jeopardy, as they had intended, has been exposed. The extent to which Flynn “volunteered” for his interview is not exactly relevant.

But Flynn is not a mob boss or drug kingpin. He was the National Security Advisor for the president of the United States. He had been entirely cleared by a months long FBI investigation just weeks earlier,  The FBI predicated the interview, and the ensuing indictment, on the Logan Act, and that predicate has now been repudiated. A presumed Logan Act violation was a criminal rather than a counter-intelligence matter and the FBI never opened a criminal investigation based on the Logan Act. In any case, the DOJ would never pursue a prosecution based on the Logan Act. The matters to which Flynn was accused of lying, or making material misrepresentations, were only relevant to presumed Logan Act violations. This is the reason for the exoneration.

This response is so ridiculous you've made the DOJ withdrawal an "exoneration". Please. He did it. He is not exonerated. When I have more time and a better computer to respond with I'll point out why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The exculpatory information was the long buried revelation that the FBI’s Washington Field Office had concluded its extensive investigation of Flynn under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella and found “no derogatory information” and were closing his file.

In this DRAFT document, it clearly states without any ambiguity, that they are not closing it out in regards to further information that could come forth. This could be because he was lying to them! Whadya think? That's why "process crimes" are relevant. Either way this was a DRAFT document not the closing papers. The prosecutors didn't accept a draft plea.

flynn-1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The means by which the file was instead kept open, and the means and methods by which Flynn was afterwards targeted has now been determined as  something like “egregious government misconduct.

Who has determined that? John Solomon? Qanon? You? Please give me your source on that. Oh no, it's that pillar of truth and justice, Michael Flynn and his attorney Sidney Powell. The judge didn't, that's for sure because he's looked at these issues before and ruled against them. The term you use is a legal term of art which is exceedingly difficult to apply to this situation because Flynn wasn't asked to do anything he  a) hadn't done before and b) admitted to doing on his own in an allocution to the court twice. Any documentary evidence revealed such as emails and texts only show deliberative processes that aren't in any way unusual. Again, you can fool the fans but not the players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The FBI’s questionable motivations, in light of the apparent conflict with other agencies including particularly the DOJ, and flagrant and deliberate defiance of established protocol which exposed Flynn to legal jeopardy, as they had intended, has been exposed.

The FBI is not obligated by protocol and always wants to expose people to legal jeopardy if they so deserve it. McCabe spoke to Flynn prior to the interview and Flynn new exactly what the interview was about, declined having representation and lied anyway. And he pled to those facts several times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The extent to which Flynn “volunteered” for his interview is not exactly relevant.

No, it's inconvenient to the BS your trying to push. He was informed of the interview. McCabe claims Flynn passed on having anyone there. He lied or was misleading in the interview and stated so in his sworn testimony several times. This is not irrelevant other than you don't want to accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...