The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[geezer]

Committee to Protect the President: House Republicans quietly investigate perceived corruption at DOJ, FBI.

A group of House Republicans has gathered secretly for weeks in the Capitol in an effort to build a case that senior leaders of the Justice Department and FBI improperly — and perhaps criminally — mishandled the contents of a dossier that describes alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia, according to four people familiar with their plans.

A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. They haven't informed Democrats about their plans, but they have consulted with the House's general counsel.

The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement.

So much depends on 2018. Everything.

Devin Nunes. I'm shocked.

[Chaz]

Committee to Protect the President: House Republicans quietly investigate perceived corruption at DOJ, FBI.

A group of House Republicans has gathered secretly for weeks in the Capitol in an effort to build a case that senior leaders of the Justice Department and FBI improperly — and perhaps criminally — mishandled the contents of a dossier that describes alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia, according to four people familiar with their plans.

A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. They haven't informed Democrats about their plans, but they have consulted with the House's general counsel.

The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement.

So much depends on 2018. Everything.

Devin Nunes. I'm shocked.

You know, I'm starting to think that guy may not be on the up and up.

[Remus West]

Be fair. There is a ton of corruption and conspiracy in upper levels of law enforcement. Republicans have a lot of people there.

[Paingod]

Be fair. There is a ton of corruption and conspiracy in upper levels of law enforcement. Republicans have a lot of people there.

To be more fair, corruption isn't limited to Republicans. It's a pretty wide-ranging theme that crosses a lot of social and political boundaries. Anyone with an ounce of power will, at some point, feel tempted to abuse it. Not everyone that identifies as a Republican still is wallowing in the filth that seems to have risen to the top of the US political ladder this year.

[Zarathud]

It's only that McConnell, Ryan and Trump are all Republicans blatantly willing to do anything for power. And Republicans still blindly support them.

But, you know, all sides are at fault.

[Zaxxon]

And some, I assume, are good people.

[Remus West]

It's only that McConnell, Ryan and Trump are all Republicans blatantly willing to do anything for power. And Republicans still blindly support them.

But, you know, all sides are at fault.

Saying that they are blind to it assumes a lot. I'm of the opinion they know what is going on and where we are headed. They simply support it fully.

[Paingod]

It's only that McConnell, Ryan and Trump are all Republicans blatantly willing to do anything for power. And Republicans still blindly support them.

But, you know, all sides are at fault.

Saying that they are blind to it assumes a lot. I'm of the opinion they know what is going on and where we are headed. They simply support it fully.

Do they really gain so much by way of corporate backers that it's worth permanently tarnishing their party and alienating the vast majority of voters? I mean, it seems insane to me to be so blatantly cash-grab in such a big, public way. There MUST be some huge payoff at the end of this shitbow.

Trump is in a party of one and isn't really a Republican as much as he's like a Chaotic Evil Berserker that aligned with a Lawful Evil organization for some specific mission, so I'm not really surprised by any of his antics.

I hope Democrats sweep everything, crippling the GOP in 2018 and own 2020 through 2024. I want them to reverse everything that they're so adamntly opposed to right now - but will they? Will they piss of their corporate backers and return the tax rates to where they were two days ago? Not likely. Will they bump taxes on the rich? Probably - but they have the next 4 years to guzzle what they can out of the economy and squirrel it away safely elsewhere. Will they fix Gerrymandering? Probably not while they're in power and it benefits them.

[LordMortis]

I hope Democrats sweep everything, crippling the GOP in 2018 and own 2020 through 2024. I want them to reverse everything that they're so adamntly opposed to right now - but will they? Will they piss of their corporate backers and return the tax rates to where they were two days ago? Not likely. Will they bump taxes on the rich? Probably - but they have the next 4 years to guzzle what they can out of the economy and squirrel it away safely elsewhere. Will they fix Gerrymandering? Probably not while they're in power and it benefits them. and the Republican party as we know it is dismantled before the corruption of being a single party in power destroys the things I think are actually positive about the party on the left.

[raydude]

It's only that McConnell, Ryan and Trump are all Republicans blatantly willing to do anything for power. And Republicans still blindly support them.

But, you know, all sides are at fault.

Saying that they are blind to it assumes a lot. I'm of the opinion they know what is going on and where we are headed. They simply support it fully.

Do they really gain so much by way of corporate backers that it's worth permanently tarnishing their party and alienating the vast majority of voters? I mean, it seems insane to me to be so blatantly cash-grab in such a big, public way. There MUST be some huge payoff at the end of this shitbow.

The GOP has already said that they plan to tackle medicaid, medicare, and other entitlements in 2018. Even if they don't get anything passed, the ballooning deficit that will come from the tax cuts will make it painfully obvious in the coming years that something needs to be done to get the debt under control. The GOP's answer will be to cut entitlements and they will blame Democrats as the party of tax hikes should the Democrats try to increase tax revenue to pay down the debt.

It's genius actually, in a nefarious kind of way.

[RunningMn9]

The GOP has already said that they plan to tackle medicaid, medicare, and other entitlements in 2018.

Yes, because those are the only ways to tackle the expanding debt/deficit that they just expanded with things that have nothing to do with medicaid, medicare or other entitlements.

[Zaxxon]

The GOP has already said that they plan to tackle medicaid, medicare, and other entitlements in 2018.

Yes, because those are the only ways to tackle the expanding debt/deficit that they just expanded with things that have nothing to do with medicaid, medicare or other entitlements.

Why do you hate America?

[Paingod]

The GOP has already said that they plan to tackle medicaid, medicare, and other entitlements in 2018.

Yes, because those are the only ways to tackle the expanding debt/deficit that they just expanded with things that have nothing to do with medicaid, medicare or other entitlements.

Why do you hate America?

Seriously. If there's one valuable lesson we've learned from this GOP, it's that we need to be progressive. Revisiting bills and orders passed in previous years need to carefully considered and weighed and not overturned willy-nilly. They've made remarkable strides...

... oh, nevermind. I can't even laugh about it.

[Carpet_pissr]

The GOP has already said that they plan to tackle medicaid, medicare, and other entitlements in 2018. Even if they don't get anything passed, the ballooning deficit that will come from the tax cuts will make it painfully obvious in the coming years that something needs to be done to get the debt under control. The GOP's answer will be to cut entitlements and they will blame Democrats as the party of tax hikes should the Democrats try to increase tax revenue to pay down the debt.

I was just about to mention something I heard the Human Turtle state on NPR yesterday about entitlements specifically, and their strategy to tackle them, but he's such a lying shitbag, why would I? It was probably just completely bunk. I can't believe a word he says, even in that supposedly non-contentious/threatening situation.

[Holman]

link

link

Oh, FFS.

[GreenGoo]

I miss the ivory tower intellectual presidents like George W. Bush.

[Alefroth]

I miss the ivory tower intellectual presidents like George W. Bush.

[malchior]

Good piece in by Sargent about the Dems strategy vis a vis Trump.

The Post’s Paul Kane reports this morning that despite their rhetoric downplaying this possibility, House Democrats are privately preparing for a possible effort to impeach President Trump, should they regain the majority.

That’s excellent news. This is exactly what Democrats should be doing — right now. Not just because an impeachment battle might actually happen, but also for another reason: Democrats will need to find a more effective way to talk to the American people about the serial degradation of our democracy we are seeing in the Trump era, for the good of the party, yes, but also for the good of the country.

[Grifman]

Good piece in by Sargent about the Dems strategy vis a vis Trump.

The Post’s Paul Kane reports this morning that despite their rhetoric downplaying this possibility, House Democrats are privately preparing for a possible effort to impeach President Trump, should they regain the majority.

That’s excellent news. This is exactly what Democrats should be doing — right now. Not just because an impeachment battle might actually happen, but also for another reason: Democrats will need to find a more effective way to talk to the American people about the serial degradation of our democracy we are seeing in the Trump era, for the good of the party, yes, but also for the good of the country.

An attempt at impeachment would backfire. It would fire up Trump's base, while right now they are sort of discouraged. And while I find Trump to be disgusting, an imbecile and totally unqualified to be president both intellectually and emotionally, I don't think he's done anything that qualifies for impeachment. I think a far better strategy would be to "Benghazi" him - hold hearings in the House in every aspect of his administration. Investigate his conflicts of interest, investigate the gutting of the State Department, investigate the gutting of the EPA, investigate the links between industry and the EPA head, the dismissiveness towards real science, etc. There's plenty of fodder there to expose to the American people the total ineptitude of this administration. I just don't think an impeachment that you can't win will do the Democrats any more good than the Republicans impeachment of Bill Clinton (which I think backfired on them in the end).

[El Guapo]

Good piece in by Sargent about the Dems strategy vis a vis Trump.

The Post’s Paul Kane reports this morning that despite their rhetoric downplaying this possibility, House Democrats are privately preparing for a possible effort to impeach President Trump, should they regain the majority.

That’s excellent news. This is exactly what Democrats should be doing — right now. Not just because an impeachment battle might actually happen, but also for another reason: Democrats will need to find a more effective way to talk to the American people about the serial degradation of our democracy we are seeing in the Trump era, for the good of the party, yes, but also for the good of the country.

An attempt at impeachment would backfire. It would fire up Trump's base, while right now they are sort of discouraged. And while I find Trump to be disgusting, an imbecile and totally unqualified to be president both intellectually and emotionally, I don't think he's done anything that qualifies for impeachment. I think a far better strategy would be to "Benghazi" him - hold hearings in the House in every aspect of his administration. Investigate his conflicts of interest, investigate the gutting of the State Department, investigate the gutting of the EPA, investigate the links between industry and the EPA head, the dismissiveness towards real science, etc. There's plenty of fodder there to expose to the American people the total ineptitude of this administration. I just don't think an impeachment that you can't win will do the Democrats any more good than the Republicans impeachment of Bill Clinton (which I think backfired on them in the end).

The point (as I take it, and with which I am inclined to agree) is not that the democrats should *start* impeachment now, but that they need to start the conversation, about abuses of power, corruption, and the kind of things for which impeachment may be merited. It's preparing for the potential constitutional crises to come. For example, what happens if Trump fires Mueller? What happens if Mueller sends Congress some type of report detailing, with solid proof, that Trump himself knowingly cooperated in a Russian government hack of the DNC? These are the kind of things for which an impeachment push of some type may be the only real remedy. The point is that if you don't prepare the American people for this type of discussion (which could come upon us literally any day), it may make it harder to go from (what may look like to many people) from zero to impeachment.

I agree that investigations would need to commence immediately upon the democrats taking either or both chamber of Congress in 2018. But some discussion of "what are the kinds of things for which one can be impeached?" is a useful discussion to put into the political sphere in preparation for a variety of terrible shit that Mr. Constitutional Crisis Walking may do.

[malchior]

That is my take as well. I think that it is important for them to come up with an election strategy for 2018 with this woven in. They are *terrible* at messaging and they need to fix that now. They need to figure out how to position all these abuses, make their case against it, and convince the public to give them a mandate to fix it. The investigation/impeachment angle is all academic if they don't overcome the +5% gerrymander advantage in favor of the GOP. If they don't even flip the House in 2018 then we are in for a very, very rough ride.

[Sepiche]

And while I find Trump to be disgusting, an imbecile and totally unqualified to be president both intellectually and emotionally, I don't think he's done anything that qualifies for impeachment. I think a far better strategy would be to "Benghazi" him - hold hearings in the House in every aspect of his administration. Investigate his conflicts of interest, investigate the gutting of the State Department, investigate the gutting of the EPA, investigate the links between industry and the EPA head, the dismissiveness towards real science, etc. There's plenty of fodder there to expose to the American people the total ineptitude of this administration. I just don't think an impeachment that you can't win will do the Democrats any more good than the Republicans impeachment of Bill Clinton (which I think backfired on them in the end).

You don't think admitting on national TV that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation is obstruction of justice? Also setting aside his violations of the emoluments clause, which is admittedly less of a slam dunk than obstruction of justice, but I think to any rational observer, Drumpf has clearly tried to obstruct justice a number of times now.

I do agree that unless the Democrats have the votes in the Senate they would need to impeach Drumpf (assuming they take the house in 2018), they should instead focus on using the committee chairs to investigate everything possible, but Drumpf has, IMO, committed multiple impeachable offenses at this point.

I also think talking about impeachment and helping set the stage isn't a bad idea for Democrats. Yes, that might fire up some of Drumpf's base a little more, but Fox news and the right wing hate machine are going to find ways to do that anyway, and the counter to a fired up right wing base isn't to try and suppress their turnout... it's to get the millions of people who sat out the last election, but are horrified of Drumpf, to get out and vote. Better to use the possibility of impeachment after 2018 to fire up the Democratic base and ensure the oncoming wave is as large as possible.

[El Guapo]

That is my take as well. I think that it is important for them to come up with an election strategy for 2018 with this woven in. They are *terrible* at messaging and they need to fix that now. They need to figure out how to position all these abuses, make their case against it, and convince the public to give them a mandate to fix it. The investigation/impeachment angle is all academic if they don't overcome the +5% gerrymander advantage in favor of the GOP. If they don't even flip the House in 2018 then we are in for a very, very rough ride.

The good news is that the current data suggests that the democrats should easily beat that in 2018 if things hold steady - the 538 average has the democrats ahead by +13% in the generic party ballot (which is reasonably predictive of mid-term outcomes at this point), and it's been increasing - a week or so ago a poll (want to say it was CNN?) had the democrats at +19%.

[Kraken]

That is my take as well. I think that it is important for them to come up with an election strategy for 2018 with this woven in. They are *terrible* at messaging and they need to fix that now. They need to figure out how to position all these abuses, make their case against it, and convince the public to give them a mandate to fix it. The investigation/impeachment angle is all academic if they don't overcome the +5% gerrymander advantage in favor of the GOP. If they don't even flip the House in 2018 then we are in for a very, very rough ride.

The good news is that the current data suggests that the democrats should easily beat that in 2018 if things hold steady - the 538 average has the democrats ahead by +13% in the generic party ballot (which is reasonably predictive of mid-term outcomes at this point), and it's been increasing - a week or so ago a poll (want to say it was CNN?) had the democrats at +19%.

They are walking a fine line. Polls show that 75% of Democrats support impeachment. It's still unclear whether there are compelling enough legal grounds to successfully remove Trump from office -- even if they capture both houses of Congress, they will need some Republican buy-in. But campaigning on impeachment risks firing up a Trumpster backlash and putting off some independents. Does whipping up their base outweigh that risk? It's too early to say, so they are best off holding their cards close to their vest until Mueller seals the deal or Trump gives clear evidence of being unhinged, such as nuking NK or invading Iran or sinking the economy in a trade war with China.

[El Guapo]

That is my take as well. I think that it is important for them to come up with an election strategy for 2018 with this woven in. They are *terrible* at messaging and they need to fix that now. They need to figure out how to position all these abuses, make their case against it, and convince the public to give them a mandate to fix it. The investigation/impeachment angle is all academic if they don't overcome the +5% gerrymander advantage in favor of the GOP. If they don't even flip the House in 2018 then we are in for a very, very rough ride.

The good news is that the current data suggests that the democrats should easily beat that in 2018 if things hold steady - the 538 average has the democrats ahead by +13% in the generic party ballot (which is reasonably predictive of mid-term outcomes at this point), and it's been increasing - a week or so ago a poll (want to say it was CNN?) had the democrats at +19%.

They are walking a fine line. Polls show that 75% of Democrats support impeachment. It's still unclear whether there are compelling enough legal grounds to successfully remove Trump from office -- even if they capture both houses of Congress, they will need some Republican buy-in. But campaigning on impeachment risks firing up a Trumpster backlash and putting off some independents. Does whipping up their base outweigh that risk? It's too early to say, so they are best off holding their cards close to their vest until Mueller seals the deal or Trump gives clear evidence of being unhinged, such as nuking NK or invading Iran or sinking the economy in a trade war with China.

As of now I wouldn't campaign on impeachment - make it more broadly about accountability. Like, "there's ample evidence of wrongdoing, corruption, and abuse throughout the Trump administration. Republicans are unwilling to hold Trump accountable, so you need to vote for democrats in order to do that. Mueller must be allowed to run a full investigation to completion without interference, and if Trump tries to fire him, that's potentially an impeachable offense."

And be ready to escalate if Trump does.

[Grifman]

And while I find Trump to be disgusting, an imbecile and totally unqualified to be president both intellectually and emotionally, I don't think he's done anything that qualifies for impeachment. I think a far better strategy would be to "Benghazi" him - hold hearings in the House in every aspect of his administration. Investigate his conflicts of interest, investigate the gutting of the State Department, investigate the gutting of the EPA, investigate the links between industry and the EPA head, the dismissiveness towards real science, etc. There's plenty of fodder there to expose to the American people the total ineptitude of this administration. I just don't think an impeachment that you can't win will do the Democrats any more good than the Republicans impeachment of Bill Clinton (which I think backfired on them in the end).

You don't think admitting on national TV that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation is obstruction of justice? Also setting aside his violations of the emoluments clause, which is admittedly less of a slam dunk than obstruction of justice, but I think to any rational observer, Drumpf has clearly tried to obstruct justice a number of times now,

What you, or I or the Democrats think on this is irrelevant. The only thing here that matters is what Mueller thinks. If he declines to charge or implicate Trump with respect to obstruction of justice, then it would be a mistake for the Dems to try and do so.

I’ll also add (obviously ) that neither you and I are lawyers, and are not qualified to render such a judgement. I’ve read some legal analyses that say he did obstruct justice, and others that indicate that it is not a clear cut case. But all of that is just based upon public info, no doubt Mueller has more and better evidence based upon internal admin communications. I think the wisest thing to do is see what he says. After, that’s what we are paying him for

[Holman]

What you, or I or the Democrats think on this is irrelevant. The only thing here that matters is what Mueller thinks.

Well, it also matters what Schneiderman thinks.

If there's a strong case against Trump for money-laundering in the state of New York, the NY AG could force the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. If it looks like he can't, then the 2018 election becomes (almost without Democratic input) entirely about protecting a serially criminal president from prosecution.

[LordMortis]

What you, or I or the Democrats think on this is irrelevant. The only thing here that matters is what Mueller thinks. If he declines to charge or implicate Trump with respect to obstruction of justice, then it would be a mistake for the Dems to try and do so.

Concurred. Every instinct in my body says he's a pawn for Russian Propaganda acting on behalf of "The Oligarchy" but we're at a serious fracture here where there is a reasonable hope for "the system" to work. And as much as I think my instincts are on, I hope they're off and I hope Mueller shows he can show the whole picture. That said, I still want the republican party dismantled. My instincts be damned, the party has shown me, it has no regard for the welfare of the nation or its people.

[Kraken]

What you, or I or the Democrats think on this is irrelevant. The only thing here that matters is what Mueller thinks. If he declines to charge or implicate Trump with respect to obstruction of justice, then it would be a mistake for the Dems to try and do so.

Concurred. Every instinct in my body says he's a pawn for Russian Propaganda acting on behalf of "The Oligarchy" but we're at a serious fracture here where there is a reasonable hope for "the system" to work. And as much as I think my instincts are on, I hope they're off and I hope Mueller shows he can show the whole picture. That said, I still want the republican party dismantled. My instincts be damned, the party has shown me, it has no regard for the welfare of the nation or its people.

Yep. All indications are that Mueller is running a thorough, fair, professional investigation. If he ultimately exonerates Trump, I'll accept that as truth...as much as I want to see Trump's head on a pike.

[Grifman]

What you, or I or the Democrats think on this is irrelevant. The only thing here that matters is what Mueller thinks.

Well, it also matters what Schneiderman thinks.

If there's a strong case against Trump for money-laundering in the state of New York, the NY AG could force the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. If it looks like he can't, then the 2018 election becomes (almost without Democratic input) entirely about protecting a serially criminal president from prosecution.

There are federal laws against money laundering. There’s no way NY is going to pursue money laundering charges if Mueller doesn’t.

[El Guapo]

What you, or I or the Democrats think on this is irrelevant. The only thing here that matters is what Mueller thinks.

Well, it also matters what Schneiderman thinks.

If there's a strong case against Trump for money-laundering in the state of New York, the NY AG could force the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. If it looks like he can't, then the 2018 election becomes (almost without Democratic input) entirely about protecting a serially criminal president from prosecution.

There are federal laws against money laundering. There’s no way NY is going to pursue money laundering charges if Mueller doesn’t.

Depends. Mueller has been cooperating with Schneiderman (and, for example, Flynn's plea requires him to cooperate with state authorities as well). Schneiderman is a fallback in case either Trump successfully fires Mueller or in case Trump pardons relevant individuals. I agree that it is unlikely that Schneiderman goes ahead if Mueller completes his investigation and decides that charges are not warranted (though I suppose it's possible that Mueller and Schneiderman could reach different conclusions on whether the President can be indicted and tried while in office).

[Holman]

Australia's top diplomat to the UK: George Papadopoulos told me in May 2016 that Russia had HRC's emails.

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The information that Mr. Papadopoulos gave to the Australians answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year: What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?

It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.

tl;dr:

This is confirmation that the Trump campaign knew Russia had the HRC emails when they agreed to take the Trump Tower meeting in June.

Also that the Steele Dossier didn't "set off" the Russia investigation as Trump and his defenders claim.

[Rip]

They didn't have Hillary's e-mail. The only e-mails out there were the DNC ones.

Hillary just mishandled classified stuff in her e-mails they are not known to have been hacked.

Easy to get the two confused I guess since the wall between the DNC and Hillary was pretty much imaginary.

[Holman]

They didn't have Hillary's e-mail. The only e-mails out there were the DNC ones.

Hillary just mishandled classified stuff in her e-mails they are not known to have been hacked.

Easy to get the two confused I guess since the wall between the DNC and Hillary was pretty much imaginary.

My mistake, yes. I should have been clearer that it was DNC emails that were hacked and that HRC's own emails weren't part of the bargaining.

Too bad for the Trump campaign and their friends in Moscow, I guess. They could all have done so much with those, amiright?

[geezer]

Committee to Protect the President: House Republicans quietly investigate perceived corruption at DOJ, FBI.

A group of House Republicans has gathered secretly for weeks in the Capitol in an effort to build a case that senior leaders of the Justice Department and FBI improperly — and perhaps criminally — mishandled the contents of a dossier that describes alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia, according to four people familiar with their plans.

A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. They haven't informed Democrats about their plans, but they have consulted with the House's general counsel.

The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement.

So much depends on 2018. Everything.

Devin Nunes. I'm shocked.

You know, I'm starting to think that guy may not be on the up and up.

When even Trey Gowdy basically says you're acting like a partisan Trumper fuckhead, one really ought to take a look at one's self.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 7baa7d1655

[malchior]

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/stat ... 9201957888

[Grifman]

Australia's top diplomat to the UK: George Papadopoulos told me in May 2016 that Russia had HRC's emails.

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The information that Mr. Papadopoulos gave to the Australians answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year: What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?

It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.

tl;dr:

This is confirmation that the Trump campaign knew Russia had the HRC emails when they agreed to take the Trump Tower meeting in June.

No, having "dirt on Hilary Clinton" is not necessarily the same as having her emails.

Also that the Steele Dossier didn't "set off" the Russia investigation as Trump and his defenders claim.

True, so we can lay that red herring to rest.

[malchior]

House Republicans nearly ready with their whitewash...um..."report"...that will clear Trump's team of collusion.

"This idea this could go on into perpetuity is just nonsense," Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida, a senior Republican on the panel, told CNN last month. "You can interview anybody that's ever met a Russian in the government, and it's not going to help you get any closer to what the four parameters were, what our job is, what the report is supposed to look like, and to put it out there for the American people to consume."

Says the folks who had a 3 year - 5 committee investigation about BENGHAZI!!!!!

[malchior]

Have you ever heard of anyone ever questioning the racial makeup of a Federal grand jury before? Now you have - all to protect a terrible awful unfit person - we are at all-time lows here. Especially with the tweets yesterday. The danger is real here.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/948333473332432896

Extra irony: The page six article is self-tagged racism.

[PLW]

Have you ever heard of anyone ever questioning the racial makeup of a Federal grand jury before? Now you have - all to protect a terrible awful unfit person - we are at all-time lows here. Especially with the tweets yesterday. The danger is real here.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/948333473332432896

Extra irony: The page six article is self-tagged racism.

Well, since only 4.1 percent of Washingtonians voted for Trump, that's about what I'd expect.