Former FBI lawyer to plead guilty as part of Russia probe - defendant's lawyer

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's the major network news media coverage of what should be major news; the first guilty plea in the Durham probe:

 

CNN Tonight - 0 seconds

The Rachel Maddow Show - 0 seconds

NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt - 0 seconds

CBS Evening News with Norah O'Donnell - 22 seconds

ABC World News Tonight with David Muir - 26 seconds

New York Times - bottom of page 16

 

What does this tell you folks?

Sorry, I omitted the source.  The reporting transitions to the Senate investigation of the Russia collusion origins as well with Sen. Blackburn.  Well worth watching if you're interested in learning about things that the MSM refuses to cover in order to keep you in the dark.

 

 

[rcummings]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's the major network news media coverage of what should be major news; the first guilty plea in the Durham probe:

 

CNN Tonight - 0 seconds

The Rachel Maddow Show - 0 seconds

NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt - 0 seconds

CBS Evening News with Norah O'Donnell - 22 seconds

ABC World News Tonight with David Muir - 26 seconds

 

What does this tell you folks?

I just googled it to see if fox news reported on it. couldn't find anything. Trump is right, Fox news has surrendered to the dark side.

Of course, like their fellow lefties, they did do extensive reporting on it 4 or 5 days ago when it was reported that Clinesmith would plead guilty. That's when it was news.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, rcummings said:

I just googled it to see if fox news reported on it. couldn't find anything. Trump is right, Fox news has surrendered to the dark side.

Of course, like their fellow lefties, they did do extensive reporting on it 4 or 5 days ago when it was reported that Clinesmith would plead guilty. That's when it was news.

Fox News reporting on last Friday.

 

Kevin Clinesmith to plead guilty in Durham probe: Read the charging document

 

Wasn't hard to find.

 

Same reporting of lack of MSM coverage:

 

Fox News - Trey Gowdy rips mainstream media for ignoring ex-FBI lawyer's expected guilty plea

 

Why not simply to the lack of MSM coverage?  Doesn't that concern you?

[rcummings]

On 8/15/2020 at 11:19 PM, riclag said:

Suffice to say here,that those who chanted viva la resistance, will be held accountable for their contemptuous deeds!

Sounds like more Qanon nonsense.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Fox News reporting on last Friday.

 

Kevin Clinesmith to plead guilty in Durham probe: Read the charging document

 

Wasn't hard to find.

 

Same reporting of lack of MSM coverage:

 

Fox News - Trey Gowdy rips mainstream media for ignoring ex-FBI lawyer's expected guilty plea

 

Why not simply to the lack of MSM coverage?  Doesn't that concern you?

Lol. So you complain MSM don't talk about it anymore, same as Fox News, and to contradict this latter point, you come up with a news dating from Friday.

All MSM reported it Friday, I.e. CNN two articles. Wasn't hard to find!????

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/14/politics/fbi-russia-clinesmith/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/14/politics/clinesmith-fbi-russia-mueller-trump/index.html

 

MSM (including Fox News) don't talk about it any more because it's old news.

Another fake conspiracy.....????

 

[Bluespunk]

Hmm

 

Trump campaign Russia contacts were 'grave threat', says Senate report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53830374

[candide]

31 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Hmm

 

Trump campaign Russia contacts were 'grave threat', says Senate report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53830374

Full text here:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512493-read-final-senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-russian-election

[Bluespunk]

Another review of the findings

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/18/donald-trump-us-senate-report-russia-campaign?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Another review of the findings

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/18/donald-trump-us-senate-report-russia-campaign?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

From the piece:

 

"The committee is dismissive of the dossier by the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, which alleged that the Kremlin had been cultivating Donald Trump for at least five years, but stops short of offering an opinion on whether the allegations within it are true."

 

LOL.  Enough said.  Good luck, fellas.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Hmm

 

Trump campaign Russia contacts were 'grave threat', says Senate report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53830374

Here's a quote from the BBC piece:

 

"Stone was convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering, but pardoned by Mr Trump in July."

 

Anyone see anything inaccurate about that statement?  Again, enough said.  LOL

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From the piece:

 

"The committee is dismissive of the dossier by the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, which alleged that the Kremlin had been cultivating Donald Trump for at least five years, but stops short of offering an opinion on whether the allegations within it are true."

 

LOL.  Enough said.  Good luck, fellas.

Enough said...don’t think so.

 

Your quote is followed by (the first paragraph is from the part you left out of the paragraph you quoted)

 

“That dossier contained an allegation that Russia spied on Trump during a visit to Moscow in November 2013 and filmed him in his private suite at the Ritz-Carlton hotel with two prostitutes. Trump strenuously denies the claim.

 

However, the Senate report offers the most compelling account yet of what went on inside the hotel. It alleges that a suspected Russian intelligence officer is stationed permanently in the building and presides over a “network” of security cameras, some of them hidden inside guest rooms. The officer’s agency is redacted, but is likely to be the FSB, the spy agency Vladimir Putin headed, in charge of counter-intelligence.”

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's a quote from the BBC piece:

 

"Stone was convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering, but pardoned by Mr Trump in July."

 

Anyone see anything inaccurate about that statement?  Again, enough said.  LOL

Again, not nearly enough said.
 

Your chosen quote was preceded by

 

“It also found that the Trump campaign tried to obtain information about the leak from Roger Stone - a longtime Trump ally and adviser. The committee was not able to determine how much access Stone had to WikiLeaks, however.
Mr Trump has said he does not recall speaking about WikiLeaks with Stone, but Tuesday's report found that "despite Trump's recollection", he did speak to Stone and other campaign staff about the matter "on multiple occasions".”

[Tippaporn]

Roll Call - Senate report outlines ‘grave’ Russian threat in 2016 election interference probe

 

"The committee, however, did not find any evidence of a coordinated scheme between the Trump campaign and Moscow," Rubio said.

 

End of story.

[rcummings]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's a quote from the BBC piece:

 

"Stone was convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering, but pardoned by Mr Trump in July."

 

Anyone see anything inaccurate about that statement?  Again, enough said.  LOL

I see something very inaccurate about that statement. Stone's sentence was commuted. Stone was not pardoned. If he was pardoned, then he couldn't invoke the 5th amendment should he be questioned about what if any potentially illegal acts he performed for the Trump campaign. LOL.

[rcummings]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Roll Call - Senate report outlines ‘grave’ Russian threat in 2016 election interference probe

 

"The committee, however, did not find any evidence of a coordinated scheme between the Trump campaign and Moscow," Rubio said.

 

End of story.

We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.

[simple1]

Interesting opinion piece on Barr and the Durham report.

 

there is, notably, nothing in DOJ’s voluminous Justice Manual offering the guidance to be used in an investigation directed at applying the standards of criminal law to the process that produces foreign intelligence product.

 

Picture, for example, a prosecutor telling a jury that he has “moderate” confidence in the defendant’s guilt, or that a particular piece of evidence might be probative of this fact or, alternatively, of a different fact, or, perhaps, constitute no proof at all because it represents the defendant’s attempt at disinformation and deception. This is the world in which intelligence analysts work, but it is an environment foreign to a prosecutor trained in terms of “clear and convincing” evidence and guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/71647/what-durham-is-investigating-and-why-it-poses-a-danger-to-us-intelligence-analysis/

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's a quote from the BBC piece:

 

"Stone was convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering, but pardoned by Mr Trump in July."

 

Anyone see anything inaccurate about that statement?  Again, enough said.  LOL

Again, not nearly enough said.
 

Your chosen quote was preceded by

 

“It also found that the Trump campaign tried to obtain information about the leak from Roger Stone - a longtime Trump ally and adviser. The committee was not able to determine how much access Stone had to WikiLeaks, however.
Mr Trump has said he does not recall speaking about WikiLeaks with Stone, but Tuesday's report found that "despite Trump's recollection", he did speak to Stone and other campaign staff about the matter "on multiple occasions".”

I guess you didn't spot it but the BBC could of at least gotten their reporting right on a fact so basic; Stone' wasn't pardoned.  At least they could have assigned a reporter to write the article who had familiarity with events.

 

Y'all might be getting all excited about this nonpartisan Senate Intelligence Report and treat it all as gospel.  I recall Schiff produced a memo to counter Nunes' memo a while back.  Schiff got it all wrong.  LOL

 

I can forgive you and all of the other lefties for not knowing much about the entire Russian collusion hoax.  How could you possibly know anything by listening and believing everything the MSM told you.  Here's my advice . . . let's wait for the Durham investigation to wrap up before getting too giddy.  More indictments of the real criminals to come.

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I guess you didn't spot it but the BBC could of at least gotten their reporting right on a fact so basic; Stone' wasn't pardoned.  At least they could have assigned a reporter to write the article who had familiarity with events.

 

Y'all might be getting all excited about this nonpartisan Senate Intelligence Report and treat it all as gospel.  I recall Schiff produced a memo to counter Nunes' memo a while back.  Schiff got it all wrong.  LOL

 

I can forgive you and all of the other lefties for not knowing much about the entire Russian collusion hoax.  How could you possibly know anything by listening and believing everything the MSM told you.  Here's my advice . . . let's wait for the Durham investigation to wrap up before getting too giddy.  More indictments of the real criminals to come.

Oh dear, the facts contained in this report appears to have touched a nerve. 

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Interesting opinion piece on Barr and the Durham report.

 

there is, notably, nothing in DOJ’s voluminous Justice Manual offering the guidance to be used in an investigation directed at applying the standards of criminal law to the process that produces foreign intelligence product.

 

Picture, for example, a prosecutor telling a jury that he has “moderate” confidence in the defendant’s guilt, or that a particular piece of evidence might be probative of this fact or, alternatively, of a different fact, or, perhaps, constitute no proof at all because it represents the defendant’s attempt at disinformation and deception. This is the world in which intelligence analysts work, but it is an environment foreign to a prosecutor trained in terms of “clear and convincing” evidence and guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/71647/what-durham-is-investigating-and-why-it-poses-a-danger-to-us-intelligence-analysis/

I read the piece in it's entirety.  I give it a thumbs down.  Too much to comment on as it was a long piece.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Oh dear, the facts contained in this report appears to have touched a nerve. 

LOL, you're fantasizing, Bluespunk.  I'm not in the least perturbed.  I'm sitting here smiling to myself imagining the Trump-haters all excited with another "gotcha."

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, rcummings said:

I see something very inaccurate about that statement. Stone's sentence was commuted. Stone was not pardoned. If he was pardoned, then he couldn't invoke the 5th amendment should he be questioned about what if any potentially illegal acts he performed for the Trump campaign. LOL.

Good catch.  At least someone noticed.

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, rcummings said:

We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.

Geezus, how long are they going to continue to repeat that lie?  LOL

[rcummings]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Geezus, how long are they going to continue to repeat that lie?  LOL

So their exoneration of the Trump campaign is correct but this is a lie? And this is not hypocrisy why exactly?

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, rcummings said:

So their exoneration of the Trump campaign is correct but this is a lie? And this is not hypocrisy why exactly?

Thanks for offering yourself up as someone who has been sold on the lie.  I'll explain it to you so that perhaps you won't repeat it.

 

Trump never denied Russian meddling in the election.  What he did deny, and call a hoax (which it was), was the Trump/Russia collusion assertion.  The two are distinctly separate things. People have long twisted his denial of Russia collusion to mean that he denies any Russian meddling.  I would say purposely since the claim is still being made long after he's clarified it (as in the article you quoted from).

 

Here's Trump's tweet:

 

 

Here's the quote you posted:

 

We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.

 

Now Rubio states they found "irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling."  Nowhere does he conflate Russian election interference with Trump/Russia collusion or even Russians favouring Trump over Clinton.  The article, though, conflates the two.  Does that make it clear for you?

 

Edit:  BTW, the final report concludes no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which is what Trump has denied all along and has called a hoax.

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Tippaporn

[rcummings]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump never denied Russian meddling in the election.  What he did deny, and call a hoax (which it was), was the Trump/Russia collusion assertion.  The two are distinctly separate things. People have long twisted his denial of Russia collusion to mean that he denies any Russian meddling.  I would say purposely since the claim is still being made long after he's clarified it (as in the article you quoted from).

 

Here's Trump's tweet:

 

 

 

 

False:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL, you're fantasizing, Bluespunk.  I'm not in the least perturbed.  I'm sitting here smiling to myself imagining the Trump-haters all excited with another "gotcha."

 

Ah huh, sure...

[rcummings]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

  Here's my advice . . . let's wait for the Durham investigation to wrap up before getting too giddy.  More indictments of the real criminals to come.

Getting your guidance from "Q"?

[candide]

A few interesting quotes from the report made by the GOP led bipartisan committee  (not comments made by Journalists or political figures):

 

"the Trump campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks."

 

"Russian officials, intelligence services, and others acting on the Kremlin's behalf were capable of exploiting the Transition's shortcomings for Russia's advantage."

 

"Despite Trump's recollection, the committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions."

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512493-read-final-senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-russian-election

Edited August 19, 2020 by candide

[Tippaporn]

Just to follow up on this discussion.

 

Since the Senate Intelligence Committee released it's final version of their Russian Election Interference Report many headlines were screaming about the "grave counterintelligence threat."  Here's one such article.

 

NPR - Senate Report: Former Trump Aide Paul Manafort Shared Campaign Info With Russia

 

Here's a snippet from the article:

 

"Manafort's connection with Kilimnik was a "grave counterintelligence threat," the report reads, adding that it found evidence the Russian intelligence officer may have been linked to the Russian government's efforts to hack and leak Democratic Party emails."

 

Notice the gravity of the wording in the report regarding Manafort's ties to the "Russian Intelligence officer" Kilimnik.

 

Now take a look at this New York Times article from Feb. 23, 2019 about Kilimnik:

 

New York Times - Russian Spy or Hustling Political Operative? The Enigmatic Figure at the Heart of Mueller’s Inquiry

 

"In Kiev, Mr. Kilimnik became a valued source for the political staff of the United States Embassy, because he did not try to sugarcoat the financial motivations of the oligarchs who funded the political parties for which he worked, said David A. Merkel, who handled Ukraine issues as a deputy assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush.

“The idea that he is some master spy seems hard to fathom,” said Mr. Merkel, who was Mr. Kilimnik’s boss at one of the pro-democracy groups. “I find it much more likely that these guys were pursuing business interests without regard to core patriotic beliefs.”

 

LOL.  A valued source for the U.S. Embassy going back to the Bush years with a deputy assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush as his boss?

 

The article also mentions that Kilimnik traveled freely in the U.S. and back in May of 2016 met with senior State Department officials.  In the same year he met with the new U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.  Let me see, who became the new ambassador to Ukraine that year in May . . . OMG, Marie Yovanovitch??

 

Just to caution anyone who wants to put too much stock into this report.  The report paints Kilimnik as a nefarious Russian Intelligence officer while at the same time he had been a valued asset both during the Bush and Obama presidencies.  So much for the "new Russia/Trump connections," LOL.  But remember, too, despite all of this new nonsense the report concludes no Trump/Russia collusion.  A big, fat, nothing burger.  Folks really need to turn to other sources if they don't want to be completely misinformed about the Russian collusion hoax.

[simple1]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just to follow up on this <SNIP>

Don't worry so much - trump will soon be gone...

Edited August 20, 2020 by simple1