RoscoePColtrane said:
Let me get this straight Sam Nunberg, self proclaimed political campaign genius has now:
1. Cooperated fully with FBI investigation
2. Praises Mueller's professionalism
3. Receives subpoena
4. Gets plastered
5. Drunk dials every media outlet he can think of to let Mueller know he can F*** himself
Stone has to be proud of this performance.
oysterbayAG said:
Michael Horowitz's IG Report can't be issued too soon !
Anybody but Hillary!!!etcetera said:
All in a single day of news:
-- the new WSJ article on Trump's lawyer Cohen
-- the superb New Yorker article on Steele
-- Sam Nunberg going off on national tv like Mt. Vesuvius on a coke binge
-- US Senator Thad Cochran announces his resignation effective April 1st
Yes it is. You only show up on this thread to play your "gotcha game."etcetera said:Not at all. I just thought it was amazing that on a day when several huge news stories broke, Sam Nunberg instigated several interviews in response to the subpoena he received from Mueller's investigation team, and Sam displaced every other big story as today's headline story. Remarkable, if you step back and think about it.Rapier108 said:
Trolling, Trolling, Trolling...
just flag the troll and move on.RoscoePColtrane said:
Like Clockwork
TXCityAggie said:
The walls are closing in on this clown show in the White House. It's gonna be an entertaining year.
etcetera said:
Mrs. Hawg: Had you seen this reported before? I had not. It was in the New Yorker article.Quote:
Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.'s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.'s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump's team and Moscow that had been intercepted.
Not with that type of detail. Particularly the "illicit" adjective. But far from being condemning of Trump, that nugget raise very large questions as to why Brennan still took a hands-off approach to the dossier and Clapper as well? It also raises the question of additional FISA abuse by way of using the Brits' access to NSA meta-data for spying on US citizens without a warrant. Where the CIA and NSA are prohibited, the Brits are not.etcetera said:
Mrs. Hawg: Had you seen this reported before? I had not. It was in the New Yorker article.Quote:
Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.'s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.'s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump's team and Moscow that had been intercepted.
Not really. Hannigan abruptly quit his post with no reasons given. Brennan has either denied or downplayed his interaction with Hannigan on this subject, and further took no action on the basis of that alleged report.etcetera said:So it was new information to you, too.aggiehawg said:Not with that type of detail. Particularly the "illicit" adjective. But far from being condemning of Trump, that nugget raise very large questions as to why Brennan still took a hands-off approach to the dossier and Clapper as well? It also raises the question of additional FISA abuse by way of using the Brits' access to NSA meta-data for spying on US citizens without a warrant. Where the CIA and NSA are prohibited, the Brits are not.etcetera said:
Mrs. Hawg: Had you seen this reported before? I had not. It was in the New Yorker article.Quote:
Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.'s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.'s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump's team and Moscow that had been intercepted.
That passage you quoted opens a new can of worms, in my view.
So you are opting for the "Brennan was incompetent" angle? Can't really argue with that possibility.etcetera said:The briefing by Hannigan was pre-election. The article implies Hannigan's visit was in August or September 2016, but the article didn't list a specific date.Quote:
You would have to know the contents of the call to know if it was illicit. Also at what point was these conversations? Pre-election vs post election? Who made these calls?
As to whether the contents of the intercepted communications were "illicit", it seems highly improbable the head of British intelligence would have flown to the US to give an in-person briefing to the CIA Director unless the information was of a serious nature.
etcetera said:The briefing by Hannigan was pre-election. The article implies Hannigan's visit was in August or September 2016, but the article didn't list a specific date.Quote:
You would have to know the contents of the call to know if it was illicit. Also at what point was these conversations? Pre-election vs post election? Who made these calls?
As to whether the contents of the intercepted communications were "illicit", it seems highly improbable the head of British intelligence would have flown to the US to give an in-person briefing to the CIA Director unless the information was of a serious nature.
Not if the surveillance was illegal. Couldn't be used in a criminal court and would subject the "spies" to criminal sanctions themselves.Quote:
If there were transcripts of something illicit they would have leaked OR Mueller would have already indicted Trump. No way they let trump survive a year in office with actual evidence of collusion in the NSA database.
Obama certainly had no problem pronouncing Hillary innocent twice during the campaign, during an open investigation on her. He meddled in the election when he did that. And signaled to his DOJ that she should skate.Quote:
I remember the WaPo article that reported the British intelligence provided a packet of secret intel. The Brits stipulated that only four specified US govmt officials could read its contents. Iirc, the previous administration did take some actions on the information, including meeting with the Gang of Eight. The problem the previous administration faced was "What should we do? Go public with this? Or deal with it after the election?" Given the timing (two months before election day) and the extreme partisanship throughout the country, any action taken by the Administration was going to be met by extreme accusations of interfering in the election with intent to help their party's candidate.
Quote:
Australian diplomat whose tip prompted FBI's Russia-probe has tie to Clintons
The Australian diplomat whose tip in 2016 prompted the Russia-Trump investigation previously arranged one of the largest foreign donations to Bill and Hillary Clinton's charitable efforts, documents show.
Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation fight AIDS is chronicled in decade-old government memos archived on the Australian foreign ministry's website....
Downer, now Australia's ambassador to London, provided the account of a conversation with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a London bar in 2016 that became the official reason the FBI opened the Russia counterintelligence probe.
But lawmakers say the FBI didn't tell Congress about Downer's prior connection to the Clinton Foundation. Republicans say they are concerned the new information means nearly all of the early evidence the FBI used to justify its election-year probe of Trump came from sources supportive of the Clintons, including the controversial Steele dossier....
