DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[NM11046]

If it's Georgie Pap then he's been a mole for more than a a year?  Can't be, the info shared was that he was arrested in Dulles in July(I think) upon a flight return and that's when he flipped.  Whoever this is would have been in the campaign/early WH.  So Fall 2015.

 

Edit - I know it's Bertrand that's pushing this out, I saw the tweet, I just don't think it aligns timewise.

Edited January 9, 2018 by NM11046

[FrankWheeler]

26 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

If it's Georgie Pap then he's been a mole for more than a a year?  Can't be, the info shared was that he was arrested in Dulles in July(I think) upon a flight return and that's when he flipped.  Whoever this is would have been in the campaign/early WH.  So Fall 2015.

 

Edit - I know it's Bertrand that's pushing this out, I saw the tweet, I just don't think it aligns timewise.

 

How do you figure he would of had to of been a mole for a year?  He spouted off to an Australian diplomat about the dirt - who subsequently went to the FBI.  From the article:

 

Quote

The FBI called Steele back later, in mid-late September, and asked him to tell them everything he knew, Simpson said. That was because the bureau had obtained information from "a human source from inside the Trump organization" who was "concerned about the same concerns we had" and spoke to the FBI on a "voluntary" basis. 

"It was someone like us who decided to pick up the phone and report something," Simpson said. He added later that he did not know whether the source came from inside the Trump Organization or from the Trump campaign. 

 

A source close to Fusion told Business Insider on Tuesday that Simpson did not know who the human source was at the time he testified. The FBI's source turned out to be an Australian diplomat, who had reported comments made by Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos one evening in May 2016. 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by FrankWheeler

[FrankWheeler]

Can somebody please make this movie already?  I'm having trouble following along.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[NM11046]

52 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

How do you figure he would of had to of been a mole for a year?  He spouted off to an Australian diplomat about the dirt - who subsequently went to the FBI.  From the article:

 

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the dates.  I read the information in the testimony that the day that Steele went to the FBI they said the info was confirmed by someone inside the Trump house that (paraphrasing here) "that made a call because he saw what we saw and felt it wasn't right"  He went to the FBI last year.

 

My understanding was that George P was bragging, not being a good citizen and sharing info.  Also said the call was direct to FBI.

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Perhaps I misunderstood the dates.  I read the information in the testimony that the day that Steele went to the FBI they said the info was confirmed by someone inside the Trump house that (paraphrasing here) "that made a call because he saw what we saw and felt it wasn't right"  He went to the FBI last year.

 

My understanding was that George P was bragging, not being a good citizen and sharing info.  Also said the call was direct to FBI.

I can already see Trump claiming that all of this is evidence of the deep state in the FBI that was out to get him because they should have gone to him instead of having the FBI investigate it.

 

Which...as we all know...is a load of crap.

[NM11046]

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Perhaps I misunderstood the dates.  I read the information in the testimony that the day that Steele went to the FBI they said the info was confirmed by someone inside the Trump house that (paraphrasing here) "that made a call because he saw what we saw and felt it wasn't right"  He went to the FBI last year.

 

My understanding was that George P was bragging, not being a good citizen and sharing info.  Also said the call was direct to FBI.

I was wrong - absolutely misunderstood the timeline.  Here is a nice succinct summary.  

 

 

[ZRod]

So for some of us young whippersnappers looking for context. How does this compare to the events surrounding Clinton's impeachment? We Dems at the time as infirmly entrenched behind the President as Repuba are now? Did they flat out deny the facts and make up their own to smear the opposition?

 

Obviously the two situations are quite a bit different. Just wondering what some of you guys remember.

[NM11046]

I remember there being pretty heated debate between those who thought he tarnished the office with his actions, and those who felt a BJ wasn't a big deal, a personality flaw, and not something that wasn't impeachable.  Something that wouldn't impact his ability to lead and govern.  That other presidents did the same or worse and because the press had an "agreement" to not out the POTUS for his extra marrital actions.

 

The big difference of course was the Congress/HOR was republican, so there wasn't this blind head in the sand stuff.  

 

Now I was old enough to recall more specifics, but I don't (that was my young, cool, hip drinking and going out days).  I fell into the later camp, as I didn't think a BJ was "sex" so in my mind he didn't lie.  i'm not sure how I'd feel about it all today.  It would be interesting to revisit all the facts and see if my older self would come out the other end with a different or the same thoughts.

 

On a similar vein, I asked a couple of my customers what Watergate was like environment compared to this ... they all said that it's worse now.  That by the time the evidence was presented during Watergate even those in his party saw him for what he is.  I don't think we can count on people standing up for the republic now like they did then.

Edited January 10, 2018 by NM11046

[BigRedBuster]

51 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

I remember there being pretty heated debate between those who thought he tarnished the office with his actions, and those who felt a BJ wasn't a big deal, a personality flaw, and not something that wasn't impeachable.  Something that wouldn't impact his ability to lead and govern.  That other presidents did the same or worse and because the press had an "agreement" to not out the POTUS for his extra marrital actions.

 

The big difference of course was the Congress/HOR was republican, so there wasn't this blind head in the sand stuff.  

 

Now I was old enough to recall more specifics, but I don't (that was my young, cool, hip drinking and going out days).  I fell into the later camp, as I didn't think a BJ was "sex" so in my mind he didn't lie.  i'm not sure how I'd feel about it all today.  It would be interesting to revisit all the facts and see if my older self would come out the other end with a different or the same thoughts.

 

On a similar vein, I asked a couple of my customers what Watergate was like environment compared to this ... they all said that it's worse now.  That by the time the evidence was presented during Watergate even those in his party saw him for what he is.  I don't think we can count on people standing up for the republic now like they did then.

Every President since Reagan has seen a higher level of partisan hate. It’s like each party is trying to out due the other. 

 

The issues around clinton were not the BJ and a messy blue dress, it went back to the election with stories of sexual assault and affairs. Then it went into issues with investments...etc. 

 

The BJ was just what they caught him lying about. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Every President since Reagan has seen a higher level of partisan hate. It’s like each party is trying to out due the other. 

 

The issues around clinton were not the BJ and a messy blue dress, it went back to the election with stories of sexual assault and affairs. Then it went into issues with investments...etc. 

 

The BJ was just what they caught him lying about. 

The Repubs tried really, really hard to find something more substantial with Clinton's investments but couldn't.

[Danny Bateman]

 

11 hours ago, RedDenver said:

The Repubs tried really, really hard to find something more substantial with Clinton's investments but couldn't.

 

The way I've always heard it described was that if it wasn't the BJ, they'd have found something else.

 

Newt Gingrich was a big cause of significantly worsened partisanship in the 90s. Not to mention he's a filthy hypocrite who wanted to impeach Clinton for extramarital stuff while he was literally having an affair himself. But leaving your wife on her deathbed for your next mistress really takes the cake.

 

Obviously the GOP habit of hocking disingenuous crap they pretend to care about to get votes stretches back quite a ways. Long before Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. But the double standard to me is pretty jarring - in the 90s, the GOP tried to impeach Clinton for lying. Today those same people stand gleefully behind Trump like he's the second coming. And today's congressional GOP has let Sessions perjure himself multiple times & watches what they know is the most dishonest, ill-informed president lie with impunity without lifting a finger.

 

Apparently it all comes down to who is doing the lying.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by dudeguyy

[zoogs]

I think there's a growing sentiment among the left that yes, while the Republicans played dirty, were scandal-chasing for years, and made a bad case... he nonetheless should have resigned and it was wrong for the Democrats to circle the wagons instead. Here's Vox's Matt Yglesias making the case: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/15/16634776/clinton-lewinsky-resigned...and here's Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/gillibrand-bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct.html

 

I haven't read or considered all the back and forth (here's one rejoinder https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/4/13157308/clinton-marriage-trump-attack-sexual-hypocrisy), but I lean towards agreeing with Klein, Yglesias, et al.

[BigRedBuster]

11 hours ago, RedDenver said:

The Repubs tried really, really hard to find something more substantial with Clinton's investments but couldn't.

 

10 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

 

 

The way I've always heard it described was that if it wasn't the BJ, they'd have found something else.

 

Newt Gingrich was a big cause of significantly worsened partisanship in the 90s. Not to mention he's a filthy hypocrite who wanted to impeach Clinton for extramarital stuff while he was literally having an affair himself. But leaving your wife on your deathbed for your next mistress really takes the cake.

 

Obviously the GOP habit of hocking disingenuous crap you pretend to care about to get votes stretches back quite a ways. Long before Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. But the double standard to me is pretty jarring - in the 90s, the GOP tried to impeach Clinton for lying. Today those same people stand gleefully behind Trump like he's the second coming. And today's congressional GOP has let Sessions perjure himself multiple times & watches what they know is the most dishonest, ill-informed president lie with impunity without lifting a finger.

 

Apparently it all comes down to who is doing the lying.

 

 

 

Not necessarily arguing against any of that.  I think there was so much crap being thrown around that it's hard to figure out what was real and what wasn't.  That hasn't changed.

[TGHusker]

17 hours ago, FrankWheeler said:

Can somebody please make this movie already?  I'm having trouble following along.

Oh, there will be movies -- many movies  - you can count on it.   Once this all goes down, Hollywood will be very happy to capitalize on it.