March 20th, 2017, 10:25 am
James Comey testifying on Russia and Trump's wiretapping claim
Opening remarks are ongoing right now. Comey is set to begin testifying soon.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag" - Molly Ivins
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
March 22nd, 2017, 6:12 pm
March 22nd, 2017, 6:17 pm
The entire intelligence community, including Devin Nunes himself just today, have said emphatically there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Trump Tower was wiretapped during the campaign. I really don't know what more you need before you agree that, yeah, I guess Trump Tower was not wiretapped during the campaign as Trump stated. He lied brother. No two ways about it.
Originally Posted by Cygnus X-1
March 23rd, 2017, 3:15 am
The FBI doesn't just go investigating on their own. They are directed to do so, either by the DOJ or by Congress. Whether Comey was political or not isn't the issue. What was the issue was who directed him to investigate, and why.
Originally Posted by Nebraska Football
Please. In relative terms, it is the look into the possible wire-tapping or surveillance that is early - not the look into collusion.
The investigation into the Russian attacks and the potential of collusion is still early in relative scope. These things often times can take years to hash out. As for us knowing definitively that surveillance occurred, perhaps. But equally as definitively, we now know from the whole of the intelligence community and the entirety of the DOJ that said surveillance was NOT directed at Trump or Trump Tower.
None. So what??? You think that the former administration didn't do things for partisan reasons???
And if they were surveilling Flynn, which is a big IF, then the surveillance was not occurring at Trump Tower. So, what other reasons do you have to believe they were surveilling Flynn, other than the partisan assumptions you seem to be offering?
No. YOU seem to be missing the point: Preibus doesn't advance with the removal of Flynn. Flynn wasn't replaced by Preibus and Preibus has as much or more influence with the POTUS already. If Preibus was worried about anyone over-shadowing him, it would be Steve Bannon - not Flynn.
You seem to be missing the point here. Allow me to present a scenario, so you can better understand...
The Russian ambassador was being monitored. A phone call is captured between Flynn and the ambassador. Flynn discusses the removal of sanctions, once Trump is sworn in. Flynn lies to Pence that such a conversation ever took place. Members of the DOJ report to the Trump administration that this call transpired, and what was said. Priebus, being the CoS, is read in to the details. After Trump refuses to act on the information, Priebus uses his longstanding relationship with the Washington Post to anonymously leak the information to them via a staffer. His goal is to move closer in the inner-circle and garner the power left behind from a Flynn resignation/termination. So as to help steer the fledgling Trump ship, avoid damage to the GOP brand, and help push more mainstream Republican policy that Flynn was known to bristle towards.
The WaPo did not say they got confirmation from the Obama holdovers. They said they were the SOURCE.
The Post, after receiving the leaked information, reaches out to their contacts of current and former intelligence official sources to see if they can confirm the information leaked to them. These sources, on condition of anonymity, confirm the original leaked information from Priebus as being correct. The Post then runs the story, and the rest is history.
Does it now make sense how plausible it is that someone from the inside was responsible for the leak? Now, this is speculation obviously on my part. Mark Levin is the original one who suggested this type of scenario with Priebus. But I could absolutely see it going down this way. Regardless, whoever was responsible for the original leak to the Post needs to be uncovered and they need to be prosecuted for their crime.
We agree that a crime was committed and that the criminal(s) need to be found and prosecuted. You cannot have a shadow government, trying to sabotage the administration, no matter how much you dislike it, and you cannot have people decide for themselves what is and isn't sensitive and classified material.
"WE KNOW the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." - Hillary Clinton, September 12th, 2012