Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Pavlov]

The funny thing about TSA is he is praying for legal technicalities to save his Dear Leader. He doesn't give a if anything about him is true or not.

[djohn2oo8]

The funny thing about TSA is he is praying for legal technicalities to save his Dear Leader. He doesn't give a if anything about him is true or not.

Yep. Sad!

[Pavlov]

Poster: I believe it has been reported much of the dossier's information has been verified.

TSA: WHO PAID FOR IT? LOCK THEM UP!




Poster: Comey has contemporaneous memos of his meetings with Trump that he distributed so people would know he didn't make up.

TSA: NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT! CLASSIFIED! LOCK HIM UP!

[djohn2oo8]

Somebody do something!!!!

[TSA]

This bit got debunked a while back. Comey's memos don't qualify under the statutes, or any NDA.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...on-comey-memos

Jan 03, 2018
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is today raising questions about when the memos memorializing interactions between former FBI Director James Comey and President Trump were classified and the chain of custody for the classified memos.

After a review of the seven memoranda created by former Director Comey, it is now clear that four are marked classified at various levels of sensitivity. Former Director Comey reportedly provided copies of four memos to Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman. If true, that would mean at least one disclosed memo contained information now-marked classified.

In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Grassley asks about the chain of custody of the memos, when they were marked classified and by whom. Grassley also asks what steps the Justice Department has taken to determine if any classified information was provided to Professor Richman and whether such a disclosure violated department rules or policy.

Full text of Grassley’s letter to Rosenstein follows.

January 3, 2018

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

This Committee has previously written to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the memoranda that former Director Comey created purportedly memorializing his interactions with President Trump.[1] My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security. The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified. Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the “SECRET” or “CONFIDENTIAL” levels. Only three did not contain classified information. FBI personnel refused to answer factual questions during the do ent reviews, including questions about the chain of custody of the do ents I was reviewing, the date that they were marked classified, and who marked them as classified.

According to press reports, Professor Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School stated that Mr. Comey provided him four of the seven memoranda and encouraged him to “detail [Comey’s] memos to the press.”[2] If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information.[3] Professor Richman later read a portion of one of the memos to a New York Times reporter.[4]

When the Committee contacted Professor Richman seeking copies of the memos Mr. Comey had provided him, he refused to provide them, did not say how many he had received from Mr. Comey, and refused to say whether he retained copies.[5] It is unclear whether any of the memos reviewed by the Committee were retrieved from Professor Richman. The Committee has accordingly not determined which of the seven memos Mr. Comey provided him. Professor Richman did tell Committee investigators that he was working with the Special Counsel’s Office, and he reportedly told the media that he had turned over to the FBI copies of the memos he’d received from Mr. Comey.[6] If true, the Justice Department should know which memos were provided and be able to share that information with the Committee.

In order for the Committee to further assess this situation, please respond to the following in writing by no later than January 17, 2018:
Has the Justice Department or FBI in fact determined that any of the memoranda Mr. Comey sent Professor Richman contained classified information? If so, what steps were taken to retrieve and safeguard the information?

Which of the seven memoranda the FBI made available for the Committee’s review did Mr. Comey give to Professor Richman?

When did Mr. Comey give Professor Richman the memoranda?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, were any marked as classified?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, did any contain classified information, regardless of markings?

Please explain the method by which Mr. Comey transmitted the memoranda to Professor Richman. If the transmittal was electronic:

Please provide the account information that Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman used.

Please describe what steps the FBI has taken to recover all copies of any classified memoranda that might reside on computers, servers, or at other locations.

Have you initiated an investigation into the matter of whether Mr. Comey improperly disclosed classified information by providing these memoranda to Professor Richman? If so, what is the status of the investigation? If not, why not?

Has there been any review of whether the disclosure of the memoranda by Mr. Comey was otherwise improper, such as whether it violated his employment agreement or any Department rule or policy? If so, what is the status of the review? If not, why not?

When did the FBI mark the four memoranda as classified, and who made the classification decision?

As noted above, it has been reported that Professor Richman returned the memoranda to the FBI.[7] If so, on what date did this occur?

Did anyone from the FBI or Special Counsel’s Office discuss with Professor Richman this Committee’s request for copies of the memos? If so, please provide all records related to any such communications.

Does Professor Richman still have possession of any of the memoranda or copies?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,



Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary


cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

[djohn2oo8]

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...on-comey-memos

Jan 03, 2018
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is today raising questions about when the memos memorializing interactions between former FBI Director James Comey and President Trump were classified and the chain of custody for the classified memos.

After a review of the seven memoranda created by former Director Comey, it is now clear that four are marked classified at various levels of sensitivity. Former Director Comey reportedly provided copies of four memos to Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman. If true, that would mean at least one disclosed memo contained information now-marked classified.

In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Grassley asks about the chain of custody of the memos, when they were marked classified and by whom. Grassley also asks what steps the Justice Department has taken to determine if any classified information was provided to Professor Richman and whether such a disclosure violated department rules or policy.

Full text of Grassley’s letter to Rosenstein follows.

January 3, 2018

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

This Committee has previously written to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the memoranda that former Director Comey created purportedly memorializing his interactions with President Trump.[1] My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security. The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified. Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the “SECRET” or “CONFIDENTIAL” levels. Only three did not contain classified information. FBI personnel refused to answer factual questions during the do ent reviews, including questions about the chain of custody of the do ents I was reviewing, the date that they were marked classified, and who marked them as classified.

According to press reports, Professor Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School stated that Mr. Comey provided him four of the seven memoranda and encouraged him to “detail [Comey’s] memos to the press.”[2] If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information.[3] Professor Richman later read a portion of one of the memos to a New York Times reporter.[4]

When the Committee contacted Professor Richman seeking copies of the memos Mr. Comey had provided him, he refused to provide them, did not say how many he had received from Mr. Comey, and refused to say whether he retained copies.[5] It is unclear whether any of the memos reviewed by the Committee were retrieved from Professor Richman. The Committee has accordingly not determined which of the seven memos Mr. Comey provided him. Professor Richman did tell Committee investigators that he was working with the Special Counsel’s Office, and he reportedly told the media that he had turned over to the FBI copies of the memos he’d received from Mr. Comey.[6] If true, the Justice Department should know which memos were provided and be able to share that information with the Committee.

In order for the Committee to further assess this situation, please respond to the following in writing by no later than January 17, 2018:
Has the Justice Department or FBI in fact determined that any of the memoranda Mr. Comey sent Professor Richman contained classified information? If so, what steps were taken to retrieve and safeguard the information?

Which of the seven memoranda the FBI made available for the Committee’s review did Mr. Comey give to Professor Richman?

When did Mr. Comey give Professor Richman the memoranda?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, were any marked as classified?

At the time that Professor Richman received the memoranda, did any contain classified information, regardless of markings?

Please explain the method by which Mr. Comey transmitted the memoranda to Professor Richman. If the transmittal was electronic:

Please provide the account information that Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman used.

Please describe what steps the FBI has taken to recover all copies of any classified memoranda that might reside on computers, servers, or at other locations.

Have you initiated an investigation into the matter of whether Mr. Comey improperly disclosed classified information by providing these memoranda to Professor Richman? If so, what is the status of the investigation? If not, why not?

Has there been any review of whether the disclosure of the memoranda by Mr. Comey was otherwise improper, such as whether it violated his employment agreement or any Department rule or policy? If so, what is the status of the review? If not, why not?

When did the FBI mark the four memoranda as classified, and who made the classification decision?

As noted above, it has been reported that Professor Richman returned the memoranda to the FBI.[7] If so, on what date did this occur?

Did anyone from the FBI or Special Counsel’s Office discuss with Professor Richman this Committee’s request for copies of the memos? If so, please provide all records related to any such communications.

Does Professor Richman still have possession of any of the memoranda or copies?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,



Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary


cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

[Pavlov]

Wow, Grassley seems ultra concerned about what the memos say about Trump.

[TSA]

Cir stantial ad hominem

Funding source is irrelevant to underlying truth of any claims in them.

I told your dumb ass to look this up, but you can't seem to pass up an opportunity to play in your own waste.

Fallacy occurs when someone uses unsound reasoning to support a claim or argument. Cir stantial Ad Hominem occurs when someone attacks a claim by saying that the person making the claim is only making it because it's in his/her interest or because of his/her cir stances.

Correct critical thinking answer to your question is: Doesn't really matter.


Is the do ent false because of who paid for it?

Irrelevant to the question at hand. I’m not arguing whether or not the do ent is true or false. djohn2oo8 continues to falsely claim the Steele dossier was funded by Republicans and I want to know if he still believes that.

[djohn2oo8]

Poor TSA, can't explain what an unlawful exoneration is. Anybody ever heard of that?

[TSA]

What was classified and what was the classification?

Or do questions still scare you?

Including that question.

Pussy.

Four are marked secret or confidential. Asking what was classified is like asking what color underwear Comey is wearing today and expecting an answer.

[Pavlov]

Four are marked secret or confidential. Asking what was classified is like asking what color underwear Comey is wearing today and expecting an answer.

And all this is so much more important to you than the actual record of the meetings with Trump.

Why is that?

question you'll never answer

[spurraider21]

And all this is so much more important to you than the actual record of the meetings with Trump.

Why is that?

question you'll never answer

yes. its like when LEAKS were more important than wrongdoings of Flynn

basically doing exactly what they (rightfully) called Donna Brazile out for when she claimed she was being "persecuted" for passing debate questions to shillary...

in that one:

Q: Ms. Brazile, emails confirm that you sent them questions.
A: How did they acquire those emails??

[djohn2oo8]

And all this is so much more important to you than the actual record of the meetings with Trump.

Why is that?

question you'll never answer

Because Hillary's emails

[RandomGuy]

Irrelevant to the question at hand. I’m not arguing whether or not the do ent is true or false. djohn2oo8 continues to falsely claim the Steele dossier was funded by Republicans and I want to know if he still believes that.

If memory serves:
Beginning funding was paid by one of his opponents during the primary runs. What was paid for became less relevant after Trump defeated whoever paid for the beginning of the work. Democrats funded the rest after Trump won the nomination.

Now the question remains:
Is the do ent false because of who paid for it?

[Pavlov]

If memory serves:
Beginning funding was paid by one of his opponents during the primary runs. What was paid for became less relevant after Trump defeated whoever paid for the beginning of the work.

Now the question remains:
Is the do ent false because of who paid for it?

Oh, you're gonna have to acknowledge muh bet before he'll dodge your question.

[TSA]

big ass grin

[Pavlov]

"I believe."

Nunes gonna arrest people himself!

[djohn2oo8]

"I believe"

Jesus, they haven't provided anything yet.

[TSA]

If memory serves:
Beginning funding was paid by one of his opponents during the primary runs. What was paid for became less relevant after Trump defeated whoever paid for the beginning of the work.

Now the question remains:
Is the do ent false because of who paid for it?

Incorrect. Republicans never funded any of the Steele dossier as Steele wasn’t hired by Fusion GPS until Democrats started paying Fusion GPS.

Who paid for it has no bearing on it’s validity.

[djohn2oo8]

BTW, has the DOJ/FBI confirmed anything? Or just Nunes, who can't even be sure

[Pavlov]

Incorrect. Republicans never funded any of the Steele dossier as Steele wasn’t hired by Fusion GPS until Democrats started paying Fusion GPS.

Who paid for it has no bearing on it’s validity.

So you bring up the funding all the time for no reason whatsoever.

[TSA]

"I believe."

Nunes gonna arrest people himself!

right over Nunes head only to meet with him and fulfill his request
and you were so giddy last night

[djohn2oo8]

right over Nunes head only to meet with him and fulfill his request
and you were so giddy last night

Its been hours. Why hasn't anybody confirmed Nunes' story? "I believe"

[TSA]

So you bring up the funding all the time for no reason whatsoever.

Gotta CTR every time djohn says Republicans funded it

[RandomGuy]

Oh, you're gonna have to acknowledge muh bet before he'll dodge your question.

WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.

The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.

The Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee on Friday that it had retained the firm. That committee is one of a number of congressional committees investigating Russian attempts to disrupt the 2016 election and whether there was any collusion with Mr. Trump’s associates.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/u...ul-singer.html

Given that consulting is always done on a hourly basis, if any part of the dossier used any of the older information, or built on work began during the primaries, then yes, part of the funding for the dossier was from Republicans.

This means the dossier's work appears to have been funded by both Republicans, and Democrats, at different time.

Impossible to know definitively without sifting through the billing invoices and report though. The above statement is a reasonable conclusion to make, based on what is available publicly.