Perhaps Obama hoped the Russians would retaliate & then he would escalate the issue in order to create an extremely hostile & potentially explosive environment. Then when the Trump Admin took over, the situation would necessitate an abundance of immediate communications between the US & Russia to sooth relations, & during that time, the cloak would fall off & reveal the ongoing collusion between Trump & Putin.aggiehawg said:
The other thing that is becoming more and more striking to me is how concerned Obama was over the lack of retaliation for the sanctions he put on Russia. So much so that he tasked the entire IC to find out why. IOW, the sanctions hadn't elicited the response Obama had wanted.
So what did Obama want/expect the Russians to do in response to his sanctions? Other than using the Russian non-reaction as potential evidence of a flimsy Logan Act allegation against Flynn, have you seen any further explanation of what set Obama's pants on fire about this, drcrinum?
Excellent post. Thanks for the insight.JJMt said:
Okay, here's my grand theory of everything. I've had a hard time believing that so many people were unified in their opposition to Trump that they'd coordinate this soft coup. I believe that the coup occurred, and that all those people were involved, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what their motives and intent were. I worked at a fairly high level in DC back in the early 90s, and although things have changed a lot since then, I'm still having a hard time figuring out how so many people at the highest levels of government could be engaged in such unethical and illegal behavior.
Possibly, like many evils in life, the participants didn't start off with what we know now, but rather gradually eased their way into an escalating pattern of wrongdoing. That is:
1. This problem started out simply as the FBI, CIA and their contractors being unable to resist the siren call of the ability to spy on U.S. citizens, including prominent politicians and journalists. After all, the FBI especially has a well-known tradition from its founding of doing so to increase and protect its power and turf.
2. In order to protect themselves, those agencies started sharing some of their info with Obama and his henchlings. They knew that the candy that they were offering would be irresistible to such amoral political animals, and once the Obamakins took some of the candy, they were hooked. It's like the mob starting the process of taking ownership of politicians by offering them small "gifts" at first, then larger and larger "gifts", and then extorting them by threatening to disclose the gifts.
3. The agencies were predisposed to support Obama and his administration because they, by default, believed in big government. And the primary imperative of any agency, like any organism, is to grow. In addition, the Obamakins were creatures of Chicago politics, wholly lacking in ethics and thus unlikely to raise any moral objections to the candy being offered to them.
4. Similarly, when Hillary and Trump were running against each other, the agencies assumed that Hillary was an easy winner. They needed to get her hooked like they had with Obama, so they offered her the irresistible temptation of dirt on Trump by presenting her campaign with Steele and his resources as well as wiretap info on Trump and his campaign. They weren't so much trying to ensure that Hillary won, as much as trying to make sure that she was a captive of their organizations. And, again, they were naturally inclined to her because of her lack of ethics and her support for big government.
5. When Trump won, they were shocked and scared. They did not have Trump on any kind of hook, and Trump had boy scouts like Flynn getting ready to read them the riot act. In panic, they decided to get rid of Flynn, at a minimum, with the bonus of possibly also getting rid of Trump. And, initially they seemed to succeed. During those heady early days, they must have thought that their power would be absolute. After all, they had gotten rid of a DNI and appeared to be successfully on their way to orchestrating the impeachment of a U.S. President. No one would dare challenge their power or turf.
That's all speculation and conjecture, of course, but it does fit my experience of how bureaucrats descend into evil.
But Obama already knew there was no collusion going on between Trump and Putin, he just wanted the illusion of one to continue at that point. The pressing for the bogus Intelligence Community Assessment to bolster that impression is proof of that.Quote:
Perhaps Obama hoped the Russians would retaliate & then he would escalate the issue in order to create an extremely hostile & potentially explosive environment. Then when the Trump Admin took over, the situation would necessitate an abundance of immediate communications between the US & Russia to sooth relations, & during that time, the cloak would fall off & reveal the ongoing collusion between Trump & Putin.
JJMt said:
Okay, here's my grand theory of everything. I've had a hard time believing that so many people were unified in their opposition to Trump that they'd coordinate this soft coup. I believe that the coup occurred, and that all those people were involved, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what their motives and intent were. I worked at a fairly high level in DC back in the early 90s, and although things have changed a lot since then, I'm still having a hard time figuring out how so many people at the highest levels of government could be engaged in such unethical and illegal behavior.
Possibly, like many evils in life, the participants didn't start off with what we know now, but rather gradually eased their way into an escalating pattern of wrongdoing. That is:
1. This problem started out simply as the FBI, CIA and their contractors being unable to resist the siren call of the ability to spy on U.S. citizens, including prominent politicians and journalists. After all, the FBI especially has a well-known tradition from its founding of doing so to increase and protect its power and turf.
2. In order to protect themselves, those agencies started sharing some of their info with Obama and his henchlings. They knew that the candy that they were offering would be irresistible to such amoral political animals, and once the Obamakins took some of the candy, they were hooked. It's like the mob starting the process of taking ownership of politicians by offering them small "gifts" at first, then larger and larger "gifts", and then extorting them by threatening to disclose the gifts.
3. The agencies were predisposed to support Obama and his administration because they, by default, believed in big government. And the primary imperative of any agency, like any organism, is to grow. In addition, the Obamakins were creatures of Chicago politics, wholly lacking in ethics and thus unlikely to raise any moral objections to the candy being offered to them.
4. Similarly, when Hillary and Trump were running against each other, the agencies assumed that Hillary was an easy winner. They needed to get her hooked like they had with Obama, so they offered her the irresistible temptation of dirt on Trump by presenting her campaign with Steele and his resources as well as wiretap info on Trump and his campaign. They weren't so much trying to ensure that Hillary won, as much as trying to make sure that she was a captive of their organizations. And, again, they were naturally inclined to her because of her lack of ethics and her support for big government.
5. When Trump won, they were shocked and scared. They did not have Trump on any kind of hook, and Trump had boy scouts like Flynn getting ready to read them the riot act. In panic, they decided to get rid of Flynn, at a minimum, with the bonus of possibly also getting rid of Trump. And, initially they seemed to succeed. During those heady early days, they must have thought that their power would be absolute. After all, they had gotten rid of a DNI and appeared to be successfully on their way to orchestrating the impeachment of a U.S. President. No one would dare challenge their power or turf.
That's all speculation and conjecture, of course, but it does fit my experience of how bureaucrats descend into evil.
A. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.JJMt said:
Okay, here's my grand theory of everything. I've had a hard time believing that so many people were unified in their opposition to Trump that they'd coordinate this soft coup. I believe that the coup occurred, and that all those people were involved, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what their motives and intent were. I worked at a fairly high level in DC back in the early 90s, and although things have changed a lot since then, I'm still having a hard time figuring out how so many people at the highest levels of government could be engaged in such unethical and illegal behavior.
Possibly, like many evils in life, the participants didn't start off with what we know now, but rather gradually eased their way into an escalating pattern of wrongdoing. That is:
How could they interfere with the CI investigation of Flynn when it had been ordered closed because of no derogatory information?drcrinum said:
I think Yates' 302 needs to be combined with McCord's. The latter is far more detailed since McCord kept copious notes during the entire time. Her 302 is 12 pages long:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.4.pdf
On Page 4, she had a conversation with McCabe about Flynn & the Kislyak calls. McCabe told her that the FBI did not want to compromise their counterintelligence investigation (of Flynn), which is what would happen if the DOJ notified the White House about the Flynn-Kislyak calls -- it's briefly mentioned again on Page 5. Later the issue of a 'criminal investigation' on Flynn begins to appear in the discussions.
It is my thinking that the issue of a Logan Act violation that became the track that Yates became involved in, was merely an attempt to mislead the White House (as well as the public via the leaks) so as to provide cover for the counterintelligence investigation on Flynn...i.e., a disguise in a way.
The FBI didn't make any effort to vet nor corroborate the Steele Dossier until after the election. They knew from the start it was bogus and they had a direct hand in slipping info to Steele for incorporation into his reports.drcrinum said:
People will believe a lie because they want it to be true or are afraid that it is true. I think they believed in the dossier because they wanted it to be true. No higher up, Obama -- Rosenstein -- Clapper -- etc., knew that it was truly bogus...they suspected at least significant parts of it were true. The FBI didn't discover the discrepancies between the Primary Sub-source & Steele until January 2017, & even then, the FBI hid that revelation.
Not interfere...compromise...meaning expose the fact that Flynn was being investigated.VegasAg86 said:How could they interfere with the CI investigation of Flynn when it had been ordered closed because of no derogatory information?drcrinum said:
I think Yates' 302 needs to be combined with McCord's. The latter is far more detailed since McCord kept copious notes during the entire time. Her 302 is 12 pages long:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.4.pdf
On Page 4, she had a conversation with McCabe about Flynn & the Kislyak calls. McCabe told her that the FBI did not want to compromise their counterintelligence investigation (of Flynn), which is what would happen if the DOJ notified the White House about the Flynn-Kislyak calls -- it's briefly mentioned again on Page 5. Later the issue of a 'criminal investigation' on Flynn begins to appear in the discussions.
It is my thinking that the issue of a Logan Act violation that became the track that Yates became involved in, was merely an attempt to mislead the White House (as well as the public via the leaks) so as to provide cover for the counterintelligence investigation on Flynn...i.e., a disguise in a way.
Just a ploy to keep DOJ in their lane and out of the FBI's way. Comey was running the show and he would brook no interference from his superiors at DOJ. He flat out ignored Yates and did an end round run on her by sending Strzok and Pienka.Quote:
How could they interfere with the CI investigation of Flynn when it had been ordered closed because of no derogatory information?
Which is why we kept having the useful idiots come over and claim that "nothing in the dossier has been disproven." It was a convenient talking point for the corrupt and the stupid.aggiehawg said:
The FBI didn't make any effort to vet nor corroborate the Steele Dossier until after the election.
Nobody knew about Crossfire Hurricane or Crossfire Razor. They were spying on the Trump Campaign & incoming Admin. That's a no-no. Comey et al had been very careful never to reveal that in any defensive briefing or incoming/transition briefing.VegasAg86 said:
How do you compromise a closed investigation? It had been ordered closed. The mere technicality of it not being closed enabled them to interview him.
She didn't when she supported McCabe's defiance.VegasAg86 said:
I wonder if Yates is cooperating? Seems she was quite surprised by the shenanigans and not involved. Maybe she puts the law above Obama?
That would be quite the professional and personal point of ambivalence for the journo industry. On the one hand, many of them still believe they're being honorable and doing their duty, even though so much of the information fed to them on the backside was NEVER verified, but many still want respect from others they work with, and this certainly won't enhance that respect. Personally, their beliefs are going to run head on into their culpability and hatred.dreyOO said:
I just realized that Obamagate could easily morph into him alienating a big part of his base (all dim allies, foreign allies, journos, celebs, business professionals, silicon valley, etc.) if it's proven he was spying on 'friendlies'. To a much greater degree than the embarrassment with Merkel.
And then, he weaponized agencies (as we've all seen) on an as-needed basis when somebody fell out of line.
ETA: Trump/Flynn just happened to get in the way of the massive scheme. It's one thread that, when pulled, discovers a much bigger program. Ala Snowden but I think he didn't have the pulpit or resources Trump does.
They didn't blink when Obama spied on (and even tampered with the computer of) journalists and their families. It was met mostly with overwhelming silence.dreyOO said:
I just realized that Obamagate could easily morph into him alienating a big part of his base (all dim allies, foreign allies, journos, celebs, business professionals, silicon valley, etc.) if it's proven he was spying on 'friendlies'.
When she has spoken publicly about the topic she seems very much in-line with continuing the shenanigans. She may have been shocked when this blatantly happened without her knowledge, but she clearly did nothing to right a wrong.VegasAg86 said:
I wonder if Yates is cooperating? Seems she was quite surprised by the shenanigans and not involved. Maybe she puts the law above Obama?
This is the root of all the problems. Any database which has a software interface to individuals private information is subject to nefarious activities/queries, based on the morality, honesty and integrity of the individual who has access to the software...let alone the data underlying it.ccatag said:nortex97 said:Well, sort of. Flynn had to be targeted because he was going to find out about the Russia Trump investigation and spill the beans. The investigation really had no proper predicate so catching him in a lie about Russia was a perfect solution to two problems (protect investigation/dirt digging, and eliminate him as a threat to NSC/intelligence community).aggiehawg said:
WOW! Had other things to deal with last night so wasn't online nor watching TV. Just catching up.
So I was right about Flynn being under surveillance but I was wrong about the sequence of events. I thought Flynn was under surveillance because he was named in the Steele Dossier. It was the reverse, he was named in the Steel Dossier because he had already been under surveillance and they needed the cover.
The rank falsity of the Steele Dossier is now complete. It was not only a product of Russian disinformation but American intelligence disinformation as well.
This isn't going to go away.
Every political opponent was under surveillance, and Fusion GPS was also involved in the surveillance going way back to at least 2014/congress/feinstein. Yes they built the silly dossier of Russian disinformation hoping to use it in the campaign but wound up finding it most useful from Jan 2017 until Mueller was done.
It also helped that Obama hated him for calling out islamic terrorism.
A further refresher, for thread readers, go look up Xkeyscore and consider that this tool was used in conjunction with the unmasking and queries by CIA contractors to dig up all of the contacts/information on political friends and enemies. The issue is the CIA isn't supposed to snoop on US persons, but they worked around that through a partnership with the FBI, and the contractors (who could be legion), really had no concern for such trivial details.
Thanks for posting this, nortex. I had never seen this before. Quite illuminating.
Wow. This software just begs to be abused by users.
Here's a pretty thorough time line on the Flynn mess, for starters.AgCMT said:
Having followed this thread for the better part of its existence I have tried to explain the Flynn to my Marine buddy. He happens to be a conservative lawyer in California, which is definitely a unicorn. However, he does not follow anything on the news and has never had any type of social media account. He is very smart and well read, but just doesn't have the time or want to get into Facebook or the ilk.
Having tried to explain everything that has been going on is near impossible. With the headlines of the past few days he has reached out to me to ask me for more information and links. Would any of you have a good suggested link or two for me to send him to get him caught up? There is no way I could get him to read this thread in its entirety, but if he would he would learn a great deal.
Thanks in advance...and Semper Fi,
He's a lawyer, he should start by reading the Motion to Dismiss.aggiehawg said:Here's a pretty thorough time line on the Flynn mess, for starters.AgCMT said:
Having followed this thread for the better part of its existence I have tried to explain the Flynn to my Marine buddy. He happens to be a conservative lawyer in California, which is definitely a unicorn. However, he does not follow anything on the news and has never had any type of social media account. He is very smart and well read, but just doesn't have the time or want to get into Facebook or the ilk.
Having tried to explain everything that has been going on is near impossible. With the headlines of the past few days he has reached out to me to ask me for more information and links. Would any of you have a good suggested link or two for me to send him to get him caught up? There is no way I could get him to read this thread in its entirety, but if he would he would learn a great deal.
Thanks in advance...and Semper Fi,
LINK
That is not how it works anymore. In the early 90's, bush and clinton were already compromised, and clinton certainly pushing policy and theft for china, sa, etc., but the widespread planting through the bureacracy, total control of media, etc., had not yet occurred. Thus it sort of worked like,that then.JJMt said:
Okay, here's my grand theory of everything. I've had a hard time believing that so many people were unified in their opposition to Trump that they'd coordinate this soft coup. I believe that the coup occurred, and that all those people were involved, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what their motives and intent were. I worked at a fairly high level in DC back in the early 90s, and although things have changed a lot since then, I'm still having a hard time figuring out how so many people at the highest levels of government could be engaged in such unethical and illegal behavior.
Possibly, like many evils in life, the participants didn't start off with what we know now, but rather gradually eased their way into an escalating pattern of wrongdoing. That is:
1. This problem started out simply as the FBI, CIA and their contractors being unable to resist the siren call of the ability to spy on U.S. citizens, including prominent politicians and journalists. After all, the FBI especially has a well-known tradition from its founding of doing so to increase and protect its power and turf.
2. In order to protect themselves, those agencies started sharing some of their info with Obama and his henchlings. They knew that the candy that they were offering would be irresistible to such amoral political animals, and once the Obamakins took some of the candy, they were hooked. It's like the mob starting the process of taking ownership of politicians by offering them small "gifts" at first, then larger and larger "gifts", and then extorting them by threatening to disclose the gifts.
3. The agencies were predisposed to support Obama and his administration because they, by default, believed in big government. And the primary imperative of any agency, like any organism, is to grow. In addition, the Obamakins were creatures of Chicago politics, wholly lacking in ethics and thus unlikely to raise any moral objections to the candy being offered to them.
4. Similarly, when Hillary and Trump were running against each other, the agencies assumed that Hillary was an easy winner. They needed to get her hooked like they had with Obama, so they offered her the irresistible temptation of dirt on Trump by presenting her campaign with Steele and his resources as well as wiretap info on Trump and his campaign. They weren't so much trying to ensure that Hillary won, as much as trying to make sure that she was a captive of their organizations. And, again, they were naturally inclined to her because of her lack of ethics and her support for big government.
5. When Trump won, they were shocked and scared. They did not have Trump on any kind of hook, and Trump had boy scouts like Flynn getting ready to read them the riot act. In panic, they decided to get rid of Flynn, at a minimum, with the bonus of possibly also getting rid of Trump. And, initially they seemed to succeed. During those heady early days, they must have thought that their power would be absolute. After all, they had gotten rid of a DNI and appeared to be successfully on their way to orchestrating the impeachment of a U.S. President. No one would dare challenge their power or turf.
That's all speculation and conjecture, of course, but it does fit my experience of how bureaucrats descend into evil.
Here's another timeline with more links to documents. LINKVegasAg86 said:He's a lawyer, he should start by reading the Motion to Dismiss.aggiehawg said:Here's a pretty thorough time line on the Flynn mess, for starters.AgCMT said:
Having followed this thread for the better part of its existence I have tried to explain the Flynn to my Marine buddy. He happens to be a conservative lawyer in California, which is definitely a unicorn. However, he does not follow anything on the news and has never had any type of social media account. He is very smart and well read, but just doesn't have the time or want to get into Facebook or the ilk.
Having tried to explain everything that has been going on is near impossible. With the headlines of the past few days he has reached out to me to ask me for more information and links. Would any of you have a good suggested link or two for me to send him to get him caught up? There is no way I could get him to read this thread in its entirety, but if he would he would learn a great deal.
Thanks in advance...and Semper Fi,
LINK
