Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Pavlov]

Been a while since I read it but believe it was Manafort

The only person I can find with a confirmed warrant was Carter Page.

If you have info on others, by all means post it.

[Pavlov]

R E S P E K

So how was Nixon pardoned when he wasn't convicted of any crimes?

[RandomGuy]

Grand Jury empaneled.

It's Mueller time RG!

Grand jury subpoenas have been issued in connection with a June 2016 meeting that included President Donald Trump's son, his son-in-law and a Russian lawyer, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.

[RandomGuy]

I stated time and time again guccifer 2.0 wasn't the only one in the DNC system. You were late to the "hacking" thread so I understand your ignorance, but don't try and put words in my mouth.

Be happy to not do that. I would strongly prefer not to. All I saw was you going on and on about it.

....so who else was in the DNC's systems?

[TSA]

Be happy to not do that. I would strongly prefer not to. All I saw was you going on and on about it.

....so who else was in the DNC's systems?

I have no idea who else was in the system, but I'm sure there were state actors from multiple countries.

[Reck]

They got him now!

Darrins pre election: Trump is disgusting, I dont like him, he's a POS.

Darrrins post election: I enjoy Trump's in my mouth. I gargle his every morning and before I go to sleep. This Russia thing is fake and I bathe in pee.

[TSA]

I already said I think this is excellent. Which company worked with the Russian lawyer and do you think any questions about the connection will come up in questioning?

[RandomGuy]

the meeting [between Trump and Russian lady lawyer to totally ONLY talk about Russian bouncy babies and definitely nothing else] ... was of no value to them until after Hillary lost.

In your world, evidence of a major presidential campaign meeting with a hostile foreign power to get dirt on their opponent is useless.

[RandomGuy]

I have no idea who else was in the system, but I'm sure there were state actors from multiple countries.

Is there any evidence indicating which country?

[DarrinS]

Darrins pre election: Trump is disgusting, I dont like him, he's a POS.

Darrrins post election: I enjoy Trump's in my mouth. I gargle his every morning and before I go to sleep. This Russia thing is fake and I bathe in pee.

Gross, dude

[RandomGuy]

to pretend dropping the Uday meeting before the election would do nothing is ridiculous.

oh yes, it will be ridiculed.




Setting Ridiculometers to LUDICRIS SPEED.

[boutons_deux]

Susan Rice didn’t do anything wrong, Trump administration finds: report

Barack Obama's former national security adviser, vilified by conservative media, didn't do anything wrong

A new report reveals that President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, does not believe that his predecessor, Susan Rice, did anything wrong in unmasking the iden ies of Trump transition officials.

“National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has concluded that Rice did nothing wrong, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to me on condition of anonymity,” wrote Eli Lake of Bloomberg.

“That might explain why Trump has yet to declassify more information on the prior administration’s unmasking requests.”

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/03/susa...-finds-report/

[RandomGuy]

Gross, dude

Do you think that evidence of a major presidential campaign meeting with a hostile foreign power to get dirt on their opponent would be useless to the other political party?

[Pavlov]

I already said I think this is excellent. Which company worked with the Russian lawyer and do you think any questions about the connection will come up in questioning?

Given that no one ever outside of message boards presented Fusion GPS as directly involved in Uday's meeting in any way, what do you think everyone outside of message boards has been hiding?

[TSA]

Given that no one ever outside of message boards presented Fusion GPS as directly involved in Uday's meeting in any way, what do you think everyone outside of message boards has been hiding?

Since you want to jump in on the question try actually answering it.

[TSA]

Is there any evidence indicating which country?

I have seen no evidence from any company but Crowdstrike

[RandomGuy]

I have seen no evidence from any company but Crowdstrike

Do you have evidence that Crowdstrike was wrong in their assessment?

[RandomGuy]

Since you want to jump in on the question try actually answering it.

Your theory, your burden of proof.

[TSA]

Do you have evidence that Crowdstrike was wrong in their assessment?

There were quite a few articles I posted from industry leaders in cyber security that said their assessment had many holes in it and it was not a convincing attribution.

[RandomGuy]

I already said I think this is excellent. Which company worked with the Russian lawyer and do you think any questions about the connection will come up in questioning?

That wouldn't seem to be where one would start an investigation, were one seeking to uncover what you think happened.

[TSA]

Your theory, your burden of proof.

I didn't make a claim I asked you a question you either didn't see or dodged.

"Which company worked with the Russian lawyer and do you think any questions about the connection will come up in questioning?"

[spurraider21]

for what? the unmasking stuff isn't going to lead to anything. there are a number of ways to justify unmasking... such as to provide context for what the foreign agent is talking about i.e. if the foreign agent says "ok get the job done" it matters a lot if he's talking to a diplomat or a mechanic

if an ambassador/diplomat/foreign minister has having conversations it's reasonable that the context of who they were talking to is pertinent if it involves somebody on a transition team, or a national security figure, etc

of course amidst all the investigation going on in washington, the only issue fox news cares to discuss relating to any of it is the "massive unmasking scandal" which is going to be a non-story. dont get me wrong, i'm sure no matter what happens at the hearings, no matter who says what, there will be people claiming that susan rice's testimony was a bombs proving political sabotage, politically motivated surveillance, etc. none of it will be legally significant though, in all likelihood.

the leaking of the information is a different story (if they're actually able to crack down and find out who's doing what), but the unmasking itself? i'm not expecting much. if im wrong, i'll bump this myself and acknowledge it

[RandomGuy]

There were quite a few articles I posted from industry leaders in cyber security that said their assessment had many holes in it and it was not a convincing attribution.

No, actually you didn't.

So you don't have evidence they were mistaken. They said Russia.

If they were mistaken the intelligence community, now led by Trump, would know about it.

Does Trump not want this information to get out?

[RandomGuy]

I didn't make a claim I asked you a question you either didn't see or dodged.

"Which company worked with the Russian lawyer and do you think any questions about the connection will come up in questioning?"

Oh, that question you asked in order to dodge answering my question?

[Pavlov]

Since you want to jump in on the question try actually answering it.

I don't think they are hiding anything. I think the Russian government was perfectly able to carry out the contact and the meeting without Fusion GPS. You need to explain why you think they weren't.

I'll wait for your explanation.