The Russian Connection 2

[AmazonGrace]

 

I'm not saying I'm guilty but when you charge me don't quote me

[fraurosena]

Word!

 

[fraurosena]

This is actually quite scary...

They are desperately trying to delegitimize anything and anyone that could bring about the downfall of the current corrupt and colluding administration.

Let's hope it won't go any further than posturing. I shudder at the thought of what would happen if they get what they wish for because of the grand old power-hungry pedophile party not doing a thing to stop it from happening.

[Howl]

Ali Soufan forgot to add Islamaphobe.  

I'm thinking Trump's biggest crime is refusing to believe there was Russian interference in the election through social media manipulation, hacking, general skull duggery, getting up in the business of his family and associates and appointees, treason, blackmail and possible actual interference with voting tallies in states whose tally process (no paper trail) creates a vulnerability.  I'm putting the latter on the back burner until there is actual proof.  I won't discount it because I'm sure the Russians have carefully studied how to do it -- I just don't know if they pulled it off.

This should be the biggest issue going forward, it should be in the headlines every. damn. second. of ever day because 2018 is looming and this is a long con for Putin.   

It's so easy to forget about Tillerson, Exon Mobil, Russia, dropping sanctions.  So glad THAT didn't work out, but, trust me, dropping sanctions is still in the works somewhere. Here's a refresher because the clock is running out on the agreement with Exon Mobil. 

Quote

Jul 5, 2017 - Exxon Mobil's landmark deal to explore for oil in Russia's Arctic and a portion of the Black Sea, and to drill for oil in Siberia, has run into a brick wall. The agreement with Russian state oil company PAO Rosneft was signed in 2012 by current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson when he was still CEO of Exxon. 

The deal was a strategic win for both companies: Rosneft lacks the technological ability to drill in cold offshore conditions by itself, while Russia became Exxon's second-biggest exploration area.

However, the Obama administration leveled sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine in 2014, which made it difficult for Exxon to hold up its end of the agreement. 

It's a long complicated article.  Here's the rest: Business Insider: Exxon got stuck in the middle as Russia-US relations broke down — and needs a solution soon

 

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo published this article, which is a long read, but worth the time: "Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked"

Spoiler

In the final days before Donald Trump was sworn in as president, members of his inner circle pleaded with him to acknowledge publicly what U.S. intelligence agencies had already concluded — that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was real.

Holding impromptu interventions in Trump’s 26th-floor corner office at Trump Tower, advisers — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and designated chief of staff, Reince Priebus — prodded the president-elect to accept the findings that the nation’s spy chiefs had personally presented to him on Jan. 6.

They sought to convince Trump that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win, according to three officials involved in the sessions. More important, they said that doing so was the only way to put the matter behind him politically and free him to pursue his goal of closer ties with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

“This was part of the normalization process,” one participant said. “There was a big effort to get him to be a standard president.”

But as aides persisted, Trump became agitated. He railed that the intelligence couldn’t be trusted and scoffed at the suggestion that his candidacy had been propelled by forces other than his own strategy, message and charisma.

Told that members of his incoming Cabinet had already publicly backed the intelligence report on Russia, Trump shot back, “So what?” Admitting that the Kremlin had hacked Democratic Party emails, he said, was a “trap.”

As Trump addressed journalists on Jan. 11 in the lobby of Trump Tower, he came as close as he ever would to grudging acceptance. “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” he said, adding that “we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”

As hedged as those words were, Trump regretted them almost immediately. “It’s not me,” he said to aides afterward. “It wasn’t right.”

Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House.

The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat. The repercussions radiate across the government.

Rather than search for ways to deter Kremlin attacks or safeguard U.S. elections, Trump has waged his own campaign to discredit the case that Russia poses any threat and he has resisted or attempted to roll back efforts to hold Moscow to account.

His administration has moved to undo at least some of the sanctions the previous administration imposed on Russia for its election interference, exploring the return of two Russian compounds in the United States that President Barack Obama had seized — the measure that had most galled Moscow. Months later, when Congress moved to impose additional penalties on Moscow, Trump opposed the measures fiercely.

Trump has never convened a Cabinet-level meeting on Russian interference or what to do about it, administration officials said. Although the issue has been discussed at lower levels at the National Security Council, one former high-ranking Trump administration official said there is an unspoken understanding within the NSC that to raise the matter is to acknowledge its validity, which the president would see as an affront.

Trump’s stance on the election is part of a broader entanglement with Moscow that has defined the first year of his presidency. He continues to pursue an elusive bond with Putin, which he sees as critical to dealing with North Korea, Iran and other issues. “Having Russia in a friendly posture,” he said last month, “is an asset to the world and an asset to our country.”

His position has alienated close American allies and often undercut members of his Cabinet — all against the backdrop of a criminal probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

This account of the Trump administration’s reaction to Russia’s interference and policies toward Moscow is based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials, many of whom had senior roles in the Trump campaign and transition team or have been in high-level positions at the White House or at national security agencies. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

Trump administration officials defended the approach with Russia, insisting that their policies and actions have been tougher than those pursued by Obama but without unnecessarily combative language or posture. “Our approach is that we don’t irritate Russia, we deter Russia,” a senior administration official said. “The last administration had it exactly backwards.”

White House officials cast the president’s refusal to acknowledge Russian interference in the election as an understandably human reaction. “The president obviously feels . . . that the idea that he’s been put into office by Vladi­mir Putin is pretty insulting,” said a second senior administration official. But his views are “not a constraint” on the government’s ability to respond to future election threats, the official said. “Our first order in dealing with Russia is trying to counter a lot of the destabilizing activity that Russia engages in.”

Others questioned how such an effort could succeed when the rationale for that objective is routinely rejected by the president. Michael V. Hayden, who served as CIA director under President George W. Bush, has described the Russian interference as the political equivalent of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an event that exposed a previously unimagined vulnerability and required a unified American response.

“What the president has to say is, ‘We know the Russians did it, they know they did it, I know they did it, and we will not rest until we learn everything there is to know about how and do everything possible to prevent it from happening again,’ ” Hayden said in an interview. Trump “has never said anything close to that and will never say anything close to that.”

The feeble American response has registered with the Kremlin.

U.S. officials said that a stream of intelligence from sources inside the Russian government indicates that Putin and his lieutenants regard the 2016 “active measures” campaign — as the Russians describe such covert propaganda operations — as a resounding, if incomplete, success.

Moscow has not achieved some its most narrow and immediate goals. The annexation of Crimea from Ukraine has not been recognized. Sanctions imposed for Russian intervention in Ukraine remain in place. Additional penalties have been mandated by Congress. And a wave of diplomatic retaliation has cost Russia access to additional diplomatic facilities, including its San Francisco consulate.

But overall, U.S. officials said, the Kremlin believes it got a staggering return on an operation that by some estimates cost less than $500,000 to execute and was organized around two main objectives — destabilizing U.S. democracy and preventing Hillary Clinton, who is despised by Putin, from reaching the White House.

The bottom line for Putin, said one U.S. official briefed on the stream of post-election intelligence, is that the operation was “more than worth the effort.”

The Russian operation seemed intended to aggravate political polarization and racial tensions and to diminish U.S. influence abroad. The United States’ closest alliances are frayed, and the Oval Office is occupied by a disruptive politician who frequently praises his counterpart in Russia.

“Putin has to believe this was the most successful intelligence operation in the history of Russian or Soviet intelligence,” said Andrew Weiss, a former adviser on Russia in the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It has driven the American political system into a crisis that will last years.”

U.S. officials declined to discuss whether the stream of recent intelligence on Russia has been shared with Trump. Current and former officials said that his daily intelligence update — known as the president’s daily brief, or PDB — is often structured to avoid upsetting him.

Russia-related intelligence that might draw Trump’s ire is in some cases included only in the written assessment and not raised orally, said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the matter. In other cases, Trump’s main briefer — a veteran CIA analyst — adjusts the order of his presentation and text, aiming to soften the impact.

“If you talk about Russia, meddling, interference — that takes the PDB off the rails,” said a second former senior U.S. intelligence official.

Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said the briefing is “written by senior-level, career intelligence officers,” and that the intelligence community “always provides objective intelligence — including on Russia — to the president and his staff.”

Trump’s aversion to the intelligence, and the dilemma that poses for top spies, has created a confusing dissonance on issues related to Russia. The CIA continues to stand by its conclusions about the election, for example, even as the agency’s director, Mike Pompeo, frequently makes comments that seem to diminish or distort those findings.

In October, Pompeo declared the intelligence community had concluded that Russia’s meddling “did not affect the outcome of the election.” In fact, spy agencies intentionally steered clear of addressing that question.

... < continues from here >

It's appalling that the Repugs, who used to be hawkish on Russia, are now shrugging and turning their backs.

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief: "Putin blames Trump’s ‘opponents’ for poor U.S.-Russian relations"

Spoiler

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladi­mir Putin on Thursday said that he doubted President Trump would be able to improve relations between their two countries because Trump was being held back by his political opposition. 

Trump undoubtedly has had some successes as president, including a booming U.S. stock market, Putin said. But, he asserted, reports about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election were being invented to create questions about his U.S. counterpart’s legitimacy. 

“There are things that he would want to do but hasn’t been able to so far, like reforming health care or other goals. For instance, he spoke about improving relations with Russia,” Putin said in remarks carried on national television. “It’s clear that, even if he wanted to, he’s not in a condition to do that because of some clear restrictions” created by his opponents. 

“I don’t know if he still wants [to improve relations with Russia], or if it’s totally exhausted, but I hope he still does,” Putin added.

It was another dose of the world as Putin sees it, as the former, current and likely future president sat down with more than 1,600 journalists packed into a Moscow convention hall. Equal parts news conference and political carnival, the annual event provides a sounding board for Putin. The discussion is always broad, though it often lacks depth. Journalists can ask sharp questions, but they rarely have a chance to ask follow-ups. 

Addressing the International Olympic Committee’s decision last week to ban the Russian Federation from participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, Putin said the investigation that revealed a state-sponsored doping program in Russia was driven by an attempt to undermine his expected reelection in 2018. 

“The scandal is being ramped up in connection with the Russian domestic political calendar,” Putin said. “No matter what anyone says, I am certain, and I know that it is very much so.” 

At moments, he showed flashes of anger, such as when discussing Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of the Rusada anti-doping lab in Russia, who later gave information on the country’s athletic doping program to investigators and journalists after fleeing to the United States.

“It was a mistake” for him to be put in charge of the lab, Putin said. “I know who did it.” 

Focusing on domestic politics, Putin also said he would like to see greater competition in Russian politics. But he said it is not his job to build up the opposition in a country he has ruled for 18 years, and likely longer as the new elections loom.

He said his campaign would be largely focused on improving the Russian economy and that he would run as an independent, distancing himself from the United Russia political party that he founded and built into the ruling party.

“The simplest thing for me to say is that it isn’t for me to foster opponents, although I should unexpectedly tell you, that I think that our political sphere, like our economic sphere, should be competitive,” Putin said.

Putin, Russia’s de facto leader since New Year’s Eve 1999, has held a marathon news conference once a year in December for the 13 years he has been president (taking a break for the four years he was prime minister).

The conference was attended by reporters from across Russia and the world, many of whom waved large signs in the hope of being called upon. “Give the Floor to Children,” read one. Another sign, a larger-than-life Russian passport, was held by an attendee hoping to liberalize border crossing rules between Russia and Estonia.

Another sign read “Putin Babay,” an expression of affection from a journalist from Russia’s Tatarstan republic. Putin confused the sign for “Putin, Bye-Bye,” after quickly pivoting from another journalist who asked him if he was tired of running the country.  

It was a marathon test of Putin’s ability to parry, brush off or simply dodge even the most hard-hitting questions with a poker face, eliciting applause

Radio host Tanya Felgengauer, who is recovering from a stabbing attack by a listener after her station, Echo of Moscow, was criticized harshly by state-run television, asked Putin why Russia seems to have a legal double standard. She cited the case of Igor Sechin, chairman of Russia’s largest oil company, Rosneft, who was allowed to ignore a subpoena in a high-level corruption trial in which he is a witness.

“All Russians are equal before the law,” Putin blithely responded. As for Sechin, he said, “the courts will decide.”

The hall appeared to have more than its share of Putin loyalists. When a journalist tried to ask a question about alleged human rights violations Crimea, Russian voices tried to shout him down. (Putin told them to let him finish the question, then blamed Ukraine for the conflict in which Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.)

The Kremlin has announced that Putin will not participate in debates with other presidential candidates, prompting one of his potential challengers, Ksenia Sobchak, to accredit herself as a reporter from the Internet TV channel where she is a host. 

“Why are the authorities afraid?” Sobchak asked Putin, citing the Kremlin’s refusal to debate opponents and the decision to bar anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny from joining the race.

Putin, who never mentions Navalny by name, responded that only candidates who have something positive to offer should run for office.

Then he moved on from the presidential hopeful.

Putin last week said he would run for a new six-year term in a March presidential vote that he is expected to win easily.

“Whenever we speak about the opposition, it is important not just to make noise on squares or privately speak about how the regime is against the people. It is also important to offer something that will make life better,” Putin said. “People are discontented with lots of things, and they are right to be discontented. But whenever people compare and look at what the opposition, especially the extra-systemic opposition, has to offer, they have big doubts.”

A survey published Wednesday by the independent Levada Center suggested that 61 percent of Russians intended to vote for Putin, up from 54 percent in a similar poll conducted in late November. 

Two candidates who have traditionally played the role of runner-up garnered single-digit support in the poll: ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky with 8 percent and Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov with 6 percent.

Only 1 percent said that they would vote for Sobchak, the TV host who has made headlines as a candidate “against all.” Sobchak attended the news conference as a journalist for the opposition Internet channel TV Rain.

Anti-corruption crusader Navalny, who has been excluded from the elections because of a criminal conviction he says was politically motivated, was not named in the poll.

As state-run television counted down the minutes to the news conference, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, dismissed the competition. “There are a lot of worthy people” who have announced their candidacy, but “no one is ready to be a worthy opponent” to the Kremlin leader, he said.

Peskov also said that Putin would not take part in campaign debates against “candidates who know they have no chance.”

Wow.

[Howl]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Good grief: "Putin blames Trump’s ‘opponents’ for poor U.S.-Russian relations"

  Reveal hidden contents

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladi­mir Putin on Thursday said that he doubted President Trump would be able to improve relations between their two countries because Trump was being held back by his political opposition. 

Trump undoubtedly has had some successes as president, including a booming U.S. stock market, Putin said. But, he asserted, reports about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election were being invented to create questions about his U.S. counterpart’s legitimacy. 

“There are things that he would want to do but hasn’t been able to so far, like reforming health care or other goals. For instance, he spoke about improving relations with Russia,” Putin said in remarks carried on national television. “It’s clear that, even if he wanted to, he’s not in a condition to do that because of some clear restrictions” created by his opponents. 

“I don’t know if he still wants [to improve relations with Russia], or if it’s totally exhausted, but I hope he still does,” Putin added.

It was another dose of the world as Putin sees it, as the former, current and likely future president sat down with more than 1,600 journalists packed into a Moscow convention hall. Equal parts news conference and political carnival, the annual event provides a sounding board for Putin. The discussion is always broad, though it often lacks depth. Journalists can ask sharp questions, but they rarely have a chance to ask follow-ups. 

Addressing the International Olympic Committee’s decision last week to ban the Russian Federation from participating in the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, Putin said the investigation that revealed a state-sponsored doping program in Russia was driven by an attempt to undermine his expected reelection in 2018. 

“The scandal is being ramped up in connection with the Russian domestic political calendar,” Putin said. “No matter what anyone says, I am certain, and I know that it is very much so.” 

At moments, he showed flashes of anger, such as when discussing Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of the Rusada anti-doping lab in Russia, who later gave information on the country’s athletic doping program to investigators and journalists after fleeing to the United States.

“It was a mistake” for him to be put in charge of the lab, Putin said. “I know who did it.” 

Focusing on domestic politics, Putin also said he would like to see greater competition in Russian politics. But he said it is not his job to build up the opposition in a country he has ruled for 18 years, and likely longer as the new elections loom.

He said his campaign would be largely focused on improving the Russian economy and that he would run as an independent, distancing himself from the United Russia political party that he founded and built into the ruling party.

“The simplest thing for me to say is that it isn’t for me to foster opponents, although I should unexpectedly tell you, that I think that our political sphere, like our economic sphere, should be competitive,” Putin said.

Putin, Russia’s de facto leader since New Year’s Eve 1999, has held a marathon news conference once a year in December for the 13 years he has been president (taking a break for the four years he was prime minister).

The conference was attended by reporters from across Russia and the world, many of whom waved large signs in the hope of being called upon. “Give the Floor to Children,” read one. Another sign, a larger-than-life Russian passport, was held by an attendee hoping to liberalize border crossing rules between Russia and Estonia.

Another sign read “Putin Babay,” an expression of affection from a journalist from Russia’s Tatarstan republic. Putin confused the sign for “Putin, Bye-Bye,” after quickly pivoting from another journalist who asked him if he was tired of running the country.  

It was a marathon test of Putin’s ability to parry, brush off or simply dodge even the most hard-hitting questions with a poker face, eliciting applause

Radio host Tanya Felgengauer, who is recovering from a stabbing attack by a listener after her station, Echo of Moscow, was criticized harshly by state-run television, asked Putin why Russia seems to have a legal double standard. She cited the case of Igor Sechin, chairman of Russia’s largest oil company, Rosneft, who was allowed to ignore a subpoena in a high-level corruption trial in which he is a witness.

“All Russians are equal before the law,” Putin blithely responded. As for Sechin, he said, “the courts will decide.”

The hall appeared to have more than its share of Putin loyalists. When a journalist tried to ask a question about alleged human rights violations Crimea, Russian voices tried to shout him down. (Putin told them to let him finish the question, then blamed Ukraine for the conflict in which Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.)

The Kremlin has announced that Putin will not participate in debates with other presidential candidates, prompting one of his potential challengers, Ksenia Sobchak, to accredit herself as a reporter from the Internet TV channel where she is a host. 

“Why are the authorities afraid?” Sobchak asked Putin, citing the Kremlin’s refusal to debate opponents and the decision to bar anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny from joining the race.

Putin, who never mentions Navalny by name, responded that only candidates who have something positive to offer should run for office.

Then he moved on from the presidential hopeful.

Putin last week said he would run for a new six-year term in a March presidential vote that he is expected to win easily.

“Whenever we speak about the opposition, it is important not just to make noise on squares or privately speak about how the regime is against the people. It is also important to offer something that will make life better,” Putin said. “People are discontented with lots of things, and they are right to be discontented. But whenever people compare and look at what the opposition, especially the extra-systemic opposition, has to offer, they have big doubts.”

A survey published Wednesday by the independent Levada Center suggested that 61 percent of Russians intended to vote for Putin, up from 54 percent in a similar poll conducted in late November. 

Two candidates who have traditionally played the role of runner-up garnered single-digit support in the poll: ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky with 8 percent and Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov with 6 percent.

Only 1 percent said that they would vote for Sobchak, the TV host who has made headlines as a candidate “against all.” Sobchak attended the news conference as a journalist for the opposition Internet channel TV Rain.

Anti-corruption crusader Navalny, who has been excluded from the elections because of a criminal conviction he says was politically motivated, was not named in the poll.

As state-run television counted down the minutes to the news conference, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, dismissed the competition. “There are a lot of worthy people” who have announced their candidacy, but “no one is ready to be a worthy opponent” to the Kremlin leader, he said.

Peskov also said that Putin would not take part in campaign debates against “candidates who know they have no chance.”

Wow.

And there you have it.  With a bow on top. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Let’s be clear on what Republicans are really saying about the Mueller probe"

Spoiler

From the moment a special counsel was appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with that meddling, it was inevitable that it would become a target of Republican attacks. That’s just how things work: As soon as it became clear that the investigation wouldn’t simply exonerate the president, his allies in Congress and the media would try to disparage and discredit it to minimize the damage it might do to the administration.

But at this point, they have nearly lost their minds. And it’s precisely because, from all appearances, Robert S. Mueller III is going about his work methodically and professionally, and is getting closer and closer to the Oval Office. If Mueller really were some kind of partisan hack launching a witch hunt, Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP wouldn’t have all that much to fear.

But they do, and their reaction is positively unhinged. To take just one example, let’s look at this appearance yesterday on Fox News by Tom Fitton, head of the conservative organization Judicial Watch:

... < Faux News video -- don't watch if you don't have something to punch >

That is not just the lunatic ravings of one extremist. It is fast on its way to becoming the position of many in the Republican Party — not that we should shut down the FBI, but that the Bureau has become a hopelessly corrupted outpost of anti-Trump subversion, expressed most fully in Mueller’s investigation, which not only must be shut down but which should then be targeted by another special counsel appointed to investigate Mueller.

This hysterical campaign Republicans are now waging against Mueller and the FBI is being hung mostly on the fact that an agent named Peter Strzok, who had been working for Mueller, sent texts during the 2016 campaign to his girlfriend, a Justice Department attorney, in which they said uncomplimentary things about Trump. As soon as Mueller discovered that, he had Strzok reassigned.

This week, in a highly unusual decision, the Justice Department showed reporters many of those texts, so they would then be disseminated to the public. They tell us nothing about Mueller’s investigation, since they were sent before there was any investigation. All they tell us, in some colorful language, is that this FBI agent found Trump to be a dangerous fool, an opinion which by sheer coincidence happens to be shared by many people who work for Trump today.

Everyone agrees that it’s important that Mueller’s investigation be conducted with the highest standards, in which all the participants examine evidence objectively, pursue potential crimes to wherever they lead, and implicate only those whose actions were genuinely problematic or criminal. But it’s important that we step back and grasp the underlying argument Republicans are making right now. They seem to be saying that if an investigator is revealed to have political leanings, then that investigator is by definition warping the investigation in service of his politics. Not only that, even if he is removed from the investigation, it is forever tainted.

Republicans are not saying that Strzok actually committed any kind of misconduct during the time he was working for Mueller, because there is no evidence to suggest he did. Instead, some of them are saying that the very fact that we know this guy who used to work for Mueller didn’t like Donald Trump means that the investigation is hopelessly compromised. Because of this, some Trump allies say, it must therefore be shut down.

But if that were true, then it would be impossible to run any investigation of any president. The fact that Mueller is himself a Republican would mean that he is biased and couldn’t be objective when investigating a Republican president. But a Democratic prosecutor would be also biased against a Republican president, just in the other direction. So investigations could only be staffed by people who had no political leanings or opinions at all.

Here’s one thing we haven’t seen: All the text messages sent about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton by every other FBI agent. Because if we did, I’m pretty sure that they’d weigh heavily in Trump’s favor. That’s because the FBI is an extremely conservative institution staffed by people who tend to be pretty conservative themselves. It spent much of its history targeting suspected communists and civil rights activists and anti-war activists and people who objected to U.S. foreign policy.

In fact, if we want to find evidence that FBI agents not only had opinions about the presidential candidates but took action to influence the campaign, we don’t have to look far. As the Guardian reported just before the election, “Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.” As one agent put it, “The FBI is Trumpland.”

Needless to say, as obvious as that was at the time, Republicans were not bothered, because they plainly believe that investigations of Republican presidents must be run and staffed only by Republicans sympathetic to that president, and likewise, investigations of Democratic presidents must be run and staffed only by, that’s right, Republicans unsympathetic to that president.

And that has been the tradition. Lawrence Walsh, who investigated the Iran-Contra affair, was a Republican. Kenneth Starr, who tirelessly investigated the contents and activities of what was in Bill Clinton’s pants, was a Republican. Mueller is a Republican.

Which isn’t necessarily a problem, nor is it a problem that people working for Mueller have their own thoughts about politics. Republicans have angrily pointed out that a few people on Mueller’s team made contributions to Democrats. But as Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) pointed out yesterday, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray has made $39,000 in political contributions, all to Republicans, and Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, who ranks just below Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, has made $37,000 in contributions to Republicans. Does that mean that the FBI and the Justice Department are fatally biased in Donald Trump’s favor when it comes to the investigations they pursue? Of course not.

In the end, what matters is what Robert Mueller’s investigation produces. So far, there hasn’t been a shred of evidence that it has been anything but professional. Perhaps the indictments and plea bargains he has obtained so far will be the end of the story, and he’ll conclude that there was no further wrongdoing, particularly on the president’s part. But the possibility that he’ll find a great deal more — and present it with unimpeachable evidence — is precisely what has Republicans in such a panic.

I'm starting to feel stabby again.

[GrumpyGran]

5 hours ago, Howl said:

And there you have it.  With a bow on top. 

Awww, his poor lap dog. Then the lap dog calls him and they commiserate, then Putin gives the lap dog his next set of orders. And at least 35% of Americans say "Oh, okay."

[ShesCrafty]

Word on the tweet is that Kushner is going down tomorrow. Nothing confirmed but I’m so hoping it’s true. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

Aww I love my new title. Converting with Cookies. It's very happy holidays!

[Howl]

Congrats on Converting with Cookies, @AmazonGrace!   

It's Friday, the day that news goes to die!  So, yes, it would be awesome if Kushner  is going down in flames leaving to spend more time with his family, even though he hasn't achieved peace in the Middle East, or other items in his portfolio. 666 5th Avenue has been his financial ball and chain; a horrible misstep from Day 1 and an absolute financial disaster.   Russian involvement would be icing on the cake and really, who else would he call to dig himself out of that hole?  And, Jared, honey?  666 = Satan.  

I just googled "what is in Jared's White House portfolio" and here's a brief history in headlines: 

• Mar 31, 2017: 7 jobs Jared Kushner is now doing for the United States of America #7. Jared Kushner is responsible for reinventing the entire government and making it work like a business. - Think Progress
• April 3, 2017: Trump's Secretary of Everything: Jared Kushner - CNNPolitics
• Sept. 12, 2017: Why Is Jared Kushner Still in the White House? - The Atlantic
• Sept. 29, 2017: Kelly struggling to make sense of Kushner's West Wing role - POLITICO
• Oct. 2, 2017: Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are shrinking their White House roles as they come under increasing scrutiny - Business Insider
• Nov. 1, 2017: Trump is reportedly souring on Jared Kushner in the White House as Mueller's Russia probe intensifies - AOL.com
• Nov. 21, 2017: “KELLY HAS CLIPPED HIS WINGS”: JARED KUSHNER’S HORIZONS ARE COLLAPSING WITHIN THE WEST WING - Vanity Fair Hive
• Nov. 21, 2017 JOHN KELLY HAS CUT JARED KUSHNER'S MANY WHITE HOUSE ROLES, REPORT SAYS - Newsweek
• Nov. 25, 2017: The shrinking profile of Jared Kushner - WaPo
• Nov. 25, 2017: Jared Kushner's Vast Duties, and Visibility in White House, Shrink - NYT 
• Nov. 25, 2017: WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS DISCUSS IVANKA TRUMP AND JARED KUSHNER DEPARTING BY 2018: REPORT - Newsweek
• Nov. 25, 2017: John Kelly reportedly wanted Kushner and Ivanka Trump to leave the White House by the end of the year - Business Insider
• Nov. 26, 2017: Jared Kushner marginalised in the White House as Chief of Staff John Kelly asserts control - The Telegraph (UK)

I'd say the wily old general played a bit of a long game. 

And "Word on the tweet"?   LOVE THIS! 

[onekidanddone]

7 hours ago, ShesCrafty said:

Word on the tweet is that Kushner is going down tomorrow. Nothing confirmed but I’m so hoping it’s true. 

On Shabbos and Hanukkah? It's a Hanukkah miracle! 

[Ali]

35 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

On Shabbos and Hanukkah? It's a Hanukkah miracle! 

Jones getting elected and possibly Kushner going down. A miraculous Hanukkah!

[AmazonGrace]

 

The operational word: YET

[formergothardite]

If Flynn thought he could be pardoned for everything, he wouldn't have flipped. They have enough non-pardonable stuff on him and his son that he knows he doesn't stand a chance unless he works with the FBI. 

What I don't get is why Trump is still being nice about Flynn. He throws anyone who even slightly crosses him under the bus, yet with Flynn Trump is still saying he is a good man even though it is pretty clear he has turned on Trump.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

This is not good. At all. 

I am worried that the Repugliklans will let the presidunce fire Mueller and then the investigation will die. Impeachment? Not gonna happen on their watch. 

I wonder though, how the American public will react. I can't imagine them sitting idly by while their democracy is being disintegrated.

[Howl]

As I mentioned elsewhere, this isn't the Federal version of The Apprentice.  It is possible that Trump cannot unilaterally fire Mueller. 

From CNN: This story on Trump's Russia paranoia is terrifying  

Quote

What's terrifying about that [Trump's] willful blind spot is that every single person in a position to know has been unequivocal about the fact that Russia views its 2016 interference as a massive success and predicted that the country will be back in 2018 and 2020 with even more sophisticated meddling efforts.

This is why I say Dems need to be hammering every single day 24/7 about why the Russia investigation is important and critical to our democracy.  We're under attack by Russia; it's as big a threat in its own way as a nuclear attack from North Korea.  And fucking Trump is tweeting while democracy burns. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GrumpyGran]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

"About 22 of you have families who don't think you're so great. Sorry."

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

So the plan is to start with the FBI, gut it and use the people fired there as scapegoats. Then put in people who will shut down the Mueller investigation.

These Repugnantcans are playing a dangerous game. They must think they can fully control the outcome of elections in this country now.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

This is a blatant call for obstruction of justice. Oh, and it asks you to please give some money. And if you can't, well, please give money anyway...

Trump super PAC quietly launches new ad campaign targeting Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Quote

A pro-Trump super PAC is running a new ad in local cable markets calling for four members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to be fired, and a PAC call center staffer told ThinkProgress on Thursday that the group, Great America Alliance, believes Mueller should be fired as well.

The new ad is similar to one the PAC began running this summer featuring conservative commentator Tomi Lahren.

“Who does Mueller select to help lead the ‘independent’ investigation?” Lahren asks. “Four top lawyers, all major donors to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic national party… Only in Washington could a rigged game like this be called ‘independent.’”

>the ad you don't want to watch if you don't want to puke<

The new ad ends with a phone number viewers can call to “demand” Mueller fire the “Clinton four.” A recorded message says, “Thank you for calling to demand Mueller fire the Clinton four” and asks the caller to listen to an important message from Lahren.

“We must and will show support for President Trump,” Lahren says in the recording. “We cannot win this fight without support from patriot supporters like you… Can we count on you to support President Trump’s presidency?”

Lahren asks callers to press one to donate or two to proceed. If you press two, there’s another message from Lahren who again asks for a donation, saying, “I understand a donation is a lot to ask for but now is our time to stand up and support President Trump.” The caller is again asked to press one to donate and two to proceed. If you press two, the call ends.

f you press one, you’re taken to the PAC’s call center. When ThinkProgress called, a staffer named Nancy picked up. She told ThinkProgress the ad just started running — “because of everything that has been going on” — though she didn’t know the exact date when the ads began.

“They’re calling for [Mueller] to be fired as well the four,” Nancy said when asked if the group believed Mueller should be fired as well.

Unprompted, Nancy added, “We were the organization that ran all those ads for Donald Trump to help get him elected.” Nancy added that their ad campaign “broke records.”

Mueller is currently investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and the possibility of Trump campaign collusion with the Kremlin during the election. Four Trump allies have been indicted so far as part of the investigation, which Trump has consistently called a “witch hunt.”

The administration and some Congressional Republicans have argued Mueller’s team is biased against Trump, and Great America Alliance isn’t the only group calling for Mueller to be fired. On Wednesday, some House Republicans called for an inquiry into Mueller’s team, and anchors on Fox News, Trump’s favorite channel, have also been laying the groundwork for Trump to fire the special counsel.

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Fox News, Lahren’s current employer, reached out to ThinkProgress to say that Lahren recorded her portion of the ad prior to being hired by Fox News.

2

So his organization says they ran all the ads that got the presidunce elected. I hope some good journalists start looking into their funding because I would not be surprised if it could be traced back to Russian sources.

[Howl]

I'd like to say that I can still be shocked by these things, so WTAF? 

However, I just realized that my WTAF meter needs to be recalibrated to reflect this new era of Trump insanity. 

 

 

[WiseGirl]

Faux News video -- don't watch if you don't have something to punch > actually I need something to punch every time I see orange one,  every time we are sold by our elected officials, and the rage I feel that many in the general population don't feel alarmed.... However, may the miracle of  Alabama reign across the land at the next elections.