Patterico's Pontifications

5/16/2018

NoKo Threatens to Cancel Talks with Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am

Kim Jong-un, or as our Secretary of State calls him, “Chairman Un,” has threatened to cancel the upcoming nuclear talks:

North Korea broadened its threat to cancel President Trump’s upcoming nuclear summit with Kim Jong Un Wednesday, though the United States downplayed the sudden uncertainty.

At first, North Korea cited joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, always a sore spot, but later the country’s first vice foreign minister said in a statement that his government has no interest in a summit with the United States if it’s going to be a “one-sided” affair where it’s pressured to give up its nukes.

North Korea’s Central News Agency also announced it had already canceled high-level talks with South Korean counterparts because of the drills it considers rehearsals for an invasion of the North.

The New York Times has an analysis: this threat is likely just a threat, but it is a reversion to the classic playbook.

If North Korea’s tough statements on Wednesday caught officials in Seoul and Washington off guard, they also reflected a well-established North Korean stance, with Mr. Kim saying his country wants to enter talks with the United States as an equal nuclear power.

Few analysts said North Korea would ultimately go so far as to cancel the Singapore meeting. Rather, the threat to withdraw was an attempt to raise the price that Washington would have to pay to get any significant concessions on the North’s nuclear program, analysts said.

. . . .

Mr. Kim’s government has told its people that his nuclear weapons will protect them from suffering the fate of Libya or Iraq, whose governments collapsed under pressure from “big powers,” in Pyongyang’s words. At the same time, Mr. Kim has promised his people they will not have to tighten their belts again. He seeks to get sanctions lifted so he can rebuild the economy, but he must avoid looking as though he is succumbing to Washington’s pressure or its economic incentives, analysts said.

Cheon Seong-whun, an analyst at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul, said North Korea’s main goal in coming negotiations with the United States was to “weaken the influence of American forces in Korea.”

Anyone who thinks North Korea is totally going to denuclearize this time is ignoring history. Even if we’re in the good hands of the guy who Makes the Best Deals. Kim carefully watched the stupid move Hillary “We came we saw he died” Clinton and Barack Obama played in Libya. He is determined not to let that happen again.

[Cross=posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

119 Responses to “NoKo Threatens to Cancel Talks with Trump”

  1. dumb-ass over-hyped coward-pig John McCain was a huge supporter of the Libya fiasco too

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Worst part is, President Trump will have to find something else that will let him win a Nobel Prize.

    I saw something in my Twitter feed last night to the effect that NoKo has a long history of doing this sort of thing, starting with the Armistice negotations, and that the fighting in the Korean War effectively went on for two years longer because of that.

    kishnevi (2f2588)

  3. The damage from Obama’s ill-fated Libya adventure just keeps on giving.

    Cassandra (a815b9)

  4. no good deed goes unpunished, the lesson was to make any prospective candidate not trust us, so do you want to go to war, perhaps a nuclear exchange?

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. The Trump Administration is going to benefit, I think, from the decision to double down on the Gina Haspel nomination to replace Pompeo as the Director of Central Intelligence. My hunch is that Pompeo is behind that initiative, but Trump deserves due credit for adopting and executing upon it.

    I’ve seen only snippets of Acting Director Haspel’s testimony, but it left me with an impression of formidability and blunt competence. Her affect was the opposite of smarmy, oily types like James Comey or John Brennan: it was as if she’d shown up to actually answer the senators’ questions, rather than to deliberately spin the senators and the public. These questions just happened to be about her, which made her obviously and, to me anyway, endearingly uncomfortable; such questions would instead have caused Comey or Brennan to preen shamelessly. Yet she did not retreat. Among the tiny percentage of Americans who actually pays attention to politics at this level of detail, she assuredly earned some nods of respect, grudging or un-.

    And the optics of this fight are exactly what Trump needs: It’s the “security moms” dynamic repackaged, with special benefit for a POTUS whose optics on issues of sexual equality need continuing, copious re-polishing.

    It now appears that Acting Dir. Haspel will be confirmed with at least a few Dem votes. That datum really interests me! It shows us where our political opponents view themselves to be especially vulnerable in November, and confirms some potential fault-lines for peeling off Dems on selected issues between now and then. (Alas, not many, for the Dems’ party discipline is usually much tighter than the GOP’s. But that’s also why this interests me.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  6. More generally: The very best thing either chamber’s GOP caucuses can do to improve their chances in November will involve putting Dems on record on consequential votes between now and November. Make them vote; make them filibuster. Tag them as the party of “Nyet!”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  7. Beldar, Haspel is a spy. She should know how to dissemble convincingly. For her interrogators, for her targets, for everyone she meets. I didn’t buy any of her act. Not her discussions of “morality” with Kamala (I didn’t know that its charter required the CIA to be a moral organization) nor her “repudiation” of torture. But it was a good act. Oscar level. She said all the right things in all the right ways.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. Sure, the Norks have a history of jerking opponents around, that’s a given, however their demonstrations (not just words) of sincerity this time required we cautiously give them the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time keeping their well established tendencies firmly in mind.

    Consequently, I warched with growing dismay as conservative TV talking heads began to preen and crow as though Kim had already rolled over and had signaled his willingness to accept almost any concessions Trump might demand – no matter how insulting or humiliating.

    Nor was it only TV talkers who poisoned the well, highly placed Administration officials (Bolton and Pompao) began to lay down harsh conditions and raise unrealistic expectations before formal negotiations even began, let alone were concluded.

    It was easy to see Kim would lose face if he didn’t push back. Now he has, and in my opinion we have only the conservative media and stupid Administration jerks to blame.

    Damn loud-mouth fools

    ropelight (8139ac)

  9. as opposed to brennan, hamas handpuppet, she did what she had to do, what using a drone is more moral?

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. Kim has been reading:

    1.Think big
    2.Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
    3.Maximize your options
    4.Know your market
    5.Use your leverage
    6.Enhance your location
    7.Get the word out
    8.Fight back
    9.Deliver the goods
    10.Contain the costs
    11.Have fun

    – source, ‘The Art Of The Deal.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. @ nk: She’s not an agent. She’s an agent-runner. Different skill-set, although lying to and otherwise manipulating agents is indeed presumably high on her list. She’s briefed tons of congress-critters over the years, too, and I’m not accusing her (or crediting her, depending on one’s viewpoint) of being politically naive or inadequate. But I do think she’s more mission-focused than self-focused.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  12. Re the Norks & Trump, I say again: Covfefe is for closers. You don’t even get steak knives if you can’t close.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  13. Also @ nk (#8): I agree with you that she said the right things in the right way for that audience in this setting. I’d further speculate that but for the need to appear to have tried very hard to satisfy that audience, she’s likely not have voiced all the same opinions and resolutions in all the same ways. But she still struck me as an operations person bowing to the requirements of the moment, rather than a full-time bullsh!t artist. YMMV.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. Her effort to appear to try very hard to satisfy that audience is the excuse and cover needed by the Dems who’re going to vote for her confirmation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. 12 — she was a case officer earlier in her career. She was later a Station Chief, and then she went to HQ. While she was a case officer, I’m certain she was undercover. Maybe even as a Station Chief as well – depends on the posting.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  16. 12 — as a 30+ year veteran of the clandestine service — as opposed to Brennan who spent his whole career as an analyst — she’s very much committed to the “mission”.

    This should have been the direction Trump took when replacing Comey — pick a career agent from inside the Bureau, not an outsider like Wray.

    Some of the worst FBI Directors have come from outside the Bureau, and then attempted to “mold” the institution to their vision. The problem is that they do not live the “culture” inside the agency, because they never understood the culture inside.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  17. she’s never been a reformer that’s for sure

    just another swamp-slut

    happily cavorting in the CIA orgy of sleaze

    steeping in the sleaze practically her whole life

    Brennan lurvs him some Haspel! (lick lick)

    she’ll never be a reformer that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  18. Crossfire Hurricane.

    DOJ and FBI trying to get out ahead of something. New stories on long sought-after details hit the NYT website at 2:00 in the afternoon????? Accident??? LOL.

    Something is going to come out about Brennan the origins of the investigation, so the folks in charge at the time are trying to shape the field before they get hammered.

    Maybe the IG report, maybe finally some long sought-after disclosures to Congress from the FBI.

    Tighten your chinstrap — this article is a sign that the Apocalypse is about to descend on the Obama Administration.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  19. How long can a nation survive outside the global economy? China is having its own issues, how much are they going to invest in NK. As NK falls further behind the rest of the world the pressure on them has to intensify. absent a sugar daddy to support them you can only steal so much bit coin and print so much fake money. failing from the inside is probably a bigger risk right now than South Korea or Us Invading.

    Nate Ogden (e0378d)

  20. =ba-thumpa= Walrus got Gumboed by Sarah.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. While this was heading toward Trump leaving the summit without an agreement, a la Reagan at Reykjavík in 1986, this was a rather sudden turn by North Korea, after having agreed to a summit and released three prisoners.

    So I tend to think something happened that caused Kim to change his calculation.

    It might be a telephone conversation Trump had with Xi Jinping

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/readout-president-donald-j-trumps-call-president-xi-jinping-china-5/

    …Issued on: May 8, 2018

    President Donald J. Trump spoke today with President Xi Jinping of China. The two leaders discussed issues of mutual interest, including recent developments on the Korean Peninsula and President Xi’s meeting today with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un….

    Other communications continued.

    Then:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/995680316458262533?lang=en

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

    President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!

    8:01 AM – 13 May 2018

    That was the sign that Trump wasn’t serious about confrontation with North Korea – he was afraid of going too far.

    Trump’s continued to defend his tweet, but I don’t think sees the connection to his not being tough on North Korea.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/996119678551552000

    ZTE, the large Chinese phone company, buys a big percentage of individual parts from U.S. companies. This is also reflective of the larger trade deal we are negotiating with China and my personal relationship with President Xi.

    1:06 PM – 14 May 2018

    Keep it up with this “personal relationship. You’ll be abig failure.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  22. lol from the NYT today:

    Counterintelligence experts say that uncovering what occurred during an event like the 2016 election could take years, if not decades, to understand.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  23. True some of the other candidates were mike Rogers the congressman, not the admiral.

    As I pointed out before ztes supply chains run to ericsonn through mtm and Nokia through oredoo.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. @ swc (#17): My own nod of respect for Ms. Haspel was ungrudging. But nk’s also surely right that there’s many layers to her onion.

    Re the institutional culture: the cable channels are now running a nearly straight-to-cable 2017 movie called Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House, starring Liam Neeson. Spoiler alert: He rescues his daughter in this movie, too! It’s a hot mess of a movie. I admit to being disappointed that at no time did Felt/Neeson rappel down the side of a building to crash in through windows. Nevertheless, but one of the themes this movie established and then repeated was the insider/outsider dichotomy and its practical importance. The movie goes to a lot of trouble to make L. Patrick Gray, who’d been a Navy admiral before he was nominated and made Acting FBI Director, into a major putz, a political dildo to plug the hole Hoover left behind with someone compliant and nonthreatening to the Nixon WH. (I have no idea if that’s accurate, but it was reasonably entertaining work by both actors.) And the whole point of the repeated theme was obviously to contrast Gray-the-putz to the righteous Mark “Deep Throat” Felt, who I suppose in these moviemakers’ eyes was the Jim Comey of his day. They apologetically note that he was also Hoover’s fixer, but they paint him as having repented therefrom, for example.

    If others who read & comment here happen to have seen the movie, I’d be curious to learn what you thought of it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  25. They cast the thug from the equalizer and perennial bad boy Sizemore as felts rivals

    narciso (478783)

  26. 25 — I’ve seen the listing, but havne’t watched the movie. Will make a point to do so next time it comes on.

    The insider/outsider issue with regard to the Director is a BIG DEAL in the culture of the Bureau.

    If you have not worn a gun in the line of duty, you just aren’t “one of them.”

    Mueller is not a popular former Director in any respect. Comey is going to wear worse with age.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  27. Please don’t get me wrong. I respect Ms. Haspel’s competence and dedication, and I laugh at the notion that the CIA is supposed to be a *M*O*R*A*L* organization. (But it should be legal within the bounds of its charter.) Any objection I have to her as Director stems from my view that the Director’s job is to keep competent and dedicated persons like her in check, or on a leash, or maybe even in a cage, until it’s time to sic’em on America’s enemies.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. until it’s time to sic’em on America’s enemies.

    John Brennan set a good example, if you think Trump is the enemy.

    random viking (45621b)

  29. Actually, that’s a good example for my argument if you think Brennan wildcatted and abused his authority.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. You want a factotum like tenet, who was a for staffer to specter, and his previous work was overseeing the Iraqi accords terror campaign?

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. Brennan’s trashy and devoid of integrity under his watch the CIA degenerated into a loathsome orgy of incompetence gay porn and skittles

    go-with-the-flow Gina Hina Wina will surely follow in his footsteps as long as she stays sober and 5 by 5

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  32. speaking of setting a good example how tacky is this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. Who is a factotum is Pompeo. A less pretty Kellyanne. So from that perspective, Ms. Haspel is an improvement.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. Tillwrson was an enabler of the iran deal, among many other outrages, a protector of Qatar which is the lead player in the brotherhood from Birmingham to Bangladesh.

    narciso (d1f714)

  35. source, ‘The Art Of The Deal.’

    Day-yum. Who knew the world of Big Apple real estate wheeling and dealing could be so complicated? You’d have to be a genius to keep all that straight.

    Good thing I stuck to something simple like quantum physics…

    Dave (e2be00)

  36. Jumpin’ Jack Flash Kickin’ Bob Mueller

    I was pwned by a crossfire hurricane
    And I howled at 0bama gimme such a pain

    But it’s all right now, I’m givin’ ‘em sass
    But it’s all right
    I’m kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass, ass, ass

    I was raised, silver spoon up in my yap
    I was schooled by my pa not to take no crap

    But it’s all right now, I’m givin’ ‘em sass
    But it’s all right
    I’m kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass, ass, ass

    I was crowned, shocked ‘em all is what they said
    Clinton lost, licked her wounds but still they bled
    Yeah, and I frowned at that look on Sleepy Jeff yeah yeah
    Yeah, I was crowned and teh Feebs they can gimme head… one more yeah

    But it’s all right now, I’m givin’ ‘em sass
    But it’s all right
    I’m kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass, ass, ass

    kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass
    kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass
    kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass
    kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass
    kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass
    kickin’ Bob Mueller in teh ass

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  37. Tillerson’s a bitter old queen

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  38. I had reservations about Tillerson’s Russian connections when somebody named Donald J. Trump appointed him Secretary of State, but I am pleased to confess that I was proven wrong, and that the only bad thing about Tillerson was the President in whose cabinet he agreed to be in.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. “Good thing I stuck to something simple like quantum physics…”

    Ain’t you somethin’…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. Although I was wrong about Tillerson himself, I still might have been right about Trump’s motives for appointing him. That he thought Tillerson would be his Michael Cohen with Putin.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. “Good thing I stuck to something simple like quantum physics…”

    Ain’t you somethin’…

    If only the country could be run by quantum physicists, without elections getting in the way.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  42. there’s no such thing as Michael Cohen I don’t know why people keep talking about him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  43. @38. T-Rex has a Jurassic bark, eh, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. @36. Kim is doing ’11’ and having his fun.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. he’s so stupid and plus also he was a crappy secretary of state that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  46. Kim Jong Un reads Mao Tse Tung, DCSCA. “Take one step back to take two steps forward.” Now that was a Mogul who amassed a big real estate empire. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  47. If only the country could be run by quantum physicists, without elections getting in the way.

    Maybe it is.

    Dave (4e2ac9)

  48. “So a few important points on that new NYT “Hurricane Crossfire” piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers’ attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don’t buy it. It’s bad.”

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/996917898898649088.html

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. 50 — exactly.

    I said several hours ago when this first hit the NYT website that its a sure sign that DOJ has lost the battle for its records — likely the WH has told them they have to give Congress what they have asked for.

    So all the ugly truth is going to come out.

    Finally was able to read the NYT story — it is the most benign recounting of what are actually greatly controversial actions.

    The upshot of the defense to all the crazy things the IC did during and after the campaign is going to be that they were all acting in good faith — even if they were ultimately found to be wrong.

    But it ain’t going to wash. I think there will be a second prosecutor. You can’t use the IC — especially the CIA — against US citizens in the manner it was employed.

    Brennan might be headed for a trial.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  50. 50 — here’s one HUGE fact not yet known. The answer could be a bomb.

    We now know that an informant did have multiple contacts with Page and Papadopolous.

    But I think there is another person in addition to the informant — and that is a person inside the Trump campaign, as referenced by Glenn Simpson in his testimony, information he says he got from Steele after Steele began working with the FBI.

    My question — was the person inside the Trump campaign just a conscientious citizen who picked up the phone to volunteer info to the FBI? Or was this person a paid operative sent into the campaign by the FBI to gather intel.

    THAT is a thermo-nuclear question IMO.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  51. Or was this person a paid operative sent into the campaign by the FBI to gather intel.

    If the FBI believed laws were being broken, which clearly they were, why would it be improper to use standard law enforcement techniques?

    Dave (445e97)

  52. 51, 52… May justice prevail.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. If the FBI believed laws were being broken, which clearly they were,

    Clearly.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  54. Brennan might be headed for a trial.

    Brennan, the head of the kakistocracy.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  55. 53 – what laws were being broken?

    And do you really want to create a political climate where the party in power gets to decide if “laws are being broken” such that its acceptable to run paid informants into the political opposition’s campaign?????

    That’s rather Putinesque, don’t you think?? How many steps from that to locking up the opposing candidate for the “conspiracy” to violate those laws?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  56. From the Strassel piece the Colonel linked @50:

    “As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn’t meddle in our election.”

    random viking (6a54c2)

  57. Ever wonder what quantum physicists feel like knowing that useful contributions to the discipline are almost all made by young men very early in their careers?

    So, what do tenured old guys do?

    They go into administration of course.

    ropelight (459b44)

  58. 57… Cry “uncle!!!”, ConDave, hoisted by your own kiwis.

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  59. Slightly off-topic, but still Trumpy:

    Nobody at all should be surprised by Guiliani’s claim that, in recent discussions with Mueller’s team, Mueller’s team has acknowledged that it’s bound by the existing opinion of the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel from October 2000, which in turn reconfirmed prior DoJ positions (from a 1973 Office of Legal Counsel memo, and from a brief submitted by Solicitor General Bork in refuting Agnew’s claim of immunity) — all to the effect that the DoJ believes it would be unconstitutional to indict or prosecute a sitting POTUS.

    Because source documents rock, I commend the 2000 memo for your reading, if you’re very patient. If you’re not, here’s the money quote (boldface mine):

    The Department concluded [in 1973] that neither the text nor the history of the Constitution ultimately provided dispositive guidance in determining whether a President is amenable to indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. It therefore based its analysis on more general considerations of constitutional structure. Because of the unique duties and demands of the Presidency, the Department concluded, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of the government in the same manner as can all other individuals. The OLC memorandum in particular concluded that the ordinary workings of the criminal process would impose burdens upon a sitting President that would directly and substantially impede the executive branch from performing its constitutionally assigned functions, and the accusation or adjudication of the criminal culpability of the nation’s chief executive by either a grand jury returning an indictment or a petit jury returning a verdict would have a dramatically destabilizing effect upon the ability of a coordinate branch of government to function. The Department therefore concluded in both the [1973] OLC memorandum and the Solicitor General’s brief that, while civil officers generally may be indicted and criminally prosecuted during their tenure in office, the constitutional structure permits a sitting President to be subject to criminal process only after he leaves office or is removed therefrom through the impeachment process.

    ….

    [W]e [also] conclude that [three intervening SCOTUS precedents between 1973 & 2000] are largely consistent with the Department’s 1973 determinations that (1) the proper doctrinal analysis requires a balancing between the responsibilities of the President as the sole head of the executive branch against the important governmental purposes supporting the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President; and (2) the proper balance supports recognition of a temporary immunity from such criminal process while the President remains in office. Indeed, United States v. Nixon and Nixon v. Fitzgerald recognized and embraced the same type of constitutional balancing test anticipated in this Office’s 1973 memorandum. Clinton v. Jones, which held that the President is not immune from at least certain judicial proceedings while in office, even if those proceedings may prove somewhat burdensome, does not change our conclusion in 1973 and again today that a sitting President cannot constitutionally be indicted or tried.

    Some people have argued otherwise, including, for example, former Ken Starr subordinate Ronald Rotunda and former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. I’m unpersuaded by either, but regardless, Mueller isn’t going to be looking to their opinions anyway. Instead, Mueller is bound by the legal opinions of the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, including this one from 2000. Conceding that much in the course of a conversation with Guiliani and Sekulow is therefore a huge nothing-burger — but of course it’s been spun by Team Trump as some sort of major concession by Mueller or a victory by Team Trump. It’s neither. It’s just Mueller, and Rosenstein as his superior, going “by the book.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  60. 62 — thanks for going to the trouble of doing this. I’ve read about this question many times, but have never gone to the source docs themselves, which as you point out is ALWAYS the best place to settle a dispute.

    But, I think there is more of a concession here than you are suggesting. 1000% speculation on my part, but i would be SHOCKED if Mueller has not asked Rosenstein for a new DOJ OLC memorandum on the question of indicting a sitting President for 1) espionage during the campaign that led to his election, and/or 2) obstruction of justice while in office where the intent was to prevent a Special Counsel for uncovering evidence related to (1).

    To avoid leaks, I would not be surprised if Mueller asked for, and received, the appointment by Rosenstein of a “special government employee” to issue an opinion on this question. Someone like Jack Goldsmith, formerly with OLC, whose bona fides re integrity are well respected on both sides.

    I’m GUESSING the concession to Guiliani MIGHT be as a result of this question having been resolved for this specific factual circumstance, against the view of the SC, and in favor of the view that a sitting President cannot be indicted or subject to the process of the Court demanding personal appearance and questioning regarding activities in his capacity as POTUS.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  61. what laws were being broken?

    It might be faster to try to identify laws that weren’t being broken, but let’s see:

    There was an illegal conspiracy to enlist the Russian government and intelligence services in the service of the campaign, furthered by a meeting between the candidate’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager in the building housing the campaign’s headquarters.

    You had another campaign aide meeting with a Russian cut-out and being promised dirt on Clinton in return for arranging a Trump/Putin meeting.

    Yet another campaign aide negotiating bribes “brokerage fees” with the head of Rosneft in return for getting the candidate to lift sanctions if elected.

    The campaign manager was a covert foreign agent laundering millions of dollars in kick-backs “consulting fees” from the puppet of a hostile foreign dictator.

    The top national security advisor was laundering six-figure checks from a foreign shell corporation to lay the groundwork for a wet-job on one of the Turkish government’s political opponents.

    The candidate’s attorney was making illegal, undeclared loans and laundering money to conceal them, as well as soliciting millions in bribes “consulting fees” from foreign governments and domestic corporations, some of which may have been routed into a hush-money slush fund to conceal their existence and nature.

    The candidate himself went on television to encourage the Russian intelligence agencies to commit specific crimes on his campaign’s behalf.

    And that’s just the stuff we know about…

    And do you really want to create a political climate where the party in power gets to decide if “laws are being broken” such that its acceptable to run paid informants into the political opposition’s campaign?????

    Well, it depends on whether the investigation is predicated on reasonable suspicions. This one clearly was.

    Isn’t it sort of asking for trouble when your campaign is run by crooks, staffed by crooks, in bed with crooks, and falling over itself to arrange quid pro quos with the intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign dictator? Maybe the answer is not to run political campaigns like that.

    That’s rather Putinesque, don’t you think?? How many steps from that to locking up the opposing candidate for the “conspiracy” to violate those laws?

    Yes, it would be almost as outrageous as promising, during a nationally televised debate and at every other campaign appearance for a year and a half, to send your opponent to prison after the election, wouldn’t it? Trump was the one trying to make political hay by weaponizing law enforcement. Next to nothing about the investigations of *him* came out before election day.

    Dave (445e97)

  62. Dave — you are way out of your league.

    What “crime” was the object of the conspiracy? The meeting you reference was to receive information — putting it as “malign” as possible — what statute does that violate? Who at the meeting was known agent of the Russian gov’t or an intelligence service?

    Cite to me the statute which makes it a “crime” to receive information from any foreign national?

    What evidence is there that Page met with the head of Rosneft for the purpose of getting Trump to lift sanctions??? Words on a page written by a retired MI6 agent, about things told to him second and third had, is not “evidence” that would support a criminal investigation.

    “Agent of a foreign power” has a defined meaning under the espionage statutes. Reference Manafort’s actions in terms of the statute.

    “Laundering” is a criminal act involving the proceeds of specific unlawful activities as defined in the money laundering statutes — define what Flynn did in terms of the requirements for his actions to constitute the crime of “money laundering.”

    I can go on and on — you are the one who claimed crimes were being committed as justification for the introduction of an informant — paid or otherwise — into the campaign of the political opposition.

    So, justify your allegation — make reference to CRIMES as defined in Title 18 or otherwise.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  63. “MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: 10 Key Takeaways From The New York Times’ Error-Ridden Defense Of FBI Spying On Trump Campaign. “It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to leakers’ fears about information that will be coming out in the inspector general report. . . . The story says the FBI was worried that if it came out they were spying on Trump campaign it would ‘only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.’ It is easy to understand how learning that the FBI was spying on one’s presidential campaign might reinforce claims of election-rigging.”

    Remember when Trump’s claim that his campaign was being spied on was dismissed as absurd paranoia?”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/297096/

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  64. 65… I can almost hear the gears grinding from my front porch.

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  65. 67 — Mollie is correct but doesn’t have the reason accurately stated.

    Just as we knew the recommendation from the IG was to fire McCabe before the IG report was published, we are hearing this now because the rules provide that persons subject to discipline based on an IG report are advised of the findings before the report is made public, and given a certain number of days to respond to inaccuracies in the Report, or include further information they think is relevant.

    This story has made it out into the press now because the IG report is going to recommend discipline of senior DOJ and FBI officials, likely in connection with the Clinton email investigation, but maybe more broadly. That was the original basis for the IG investigation — demand by Senate Dems by the way — but the investigation has been broadened on the basis of information uncovered.

    So you have some folks who are likely in for rough handling by the IG running to friendly reporters in advance of the publication of the report to spin things — much like McCabe tried to spin his firing as being all about the actions he took with regard to the Trump-Russia investigation, when the facts as laid out in the report on his misconduct had nothing to do with it.

    IT very possible the IG report has a publication date of tomorrow — or Monday at the latest.

    Yesterday’s article was probably based on conversations with multiple sources which have taken place over several months, but the key to publication was that the findings of the IG are likely damning of the people who are trying to get ahead of the story now.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  66. Isn’t it sort of asking for trouble when your campaign is run by crooks, staffed by crooks, in bed with crooks,

    crooks: Strzok, Page, Ohr, McCabe, Clapper, Hillary, Huma, Mills

    …and others yet to be revealed.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  67. Democrat senators self-identify as vulnerable:

    The Senate on Thursday confirmed Gina Haspel to lead the CIA despite engrained opposition over her involvement in the George W. Bush-era interrogation program.

    Senators voted 54-45 to confirm Haspel, making her the first female director of the spy agency.

    GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) sided with most Democrats in voting against Haspel. GOP Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who was captured and tortured during the Vietnam War, also opposes her nomination but is in Arizona undergoing treatment for brain cancer.

    Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and red- and purple-state Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) supported the nominee.

    The GOP needs to be forcing Dems to cast formal record votes like this one on at at-least-weekly basis from now through election day next November. Take every win they can get (like this one), and campaign on every Dem “No” vote.

    Thus, Sens. Warner, Shaheen, Donnelly, Manchin, Nelson & Heitkamp crossed the aisle on this vote, to immunize themselves among their homestate security moms on this issue. That’s okay, they helped us win on this nomination despite GOP defections. Schedule hard votes on more issues, and they’ll either continue to help us win those votes or, more likely, find issues that are just too touchy for their Dem-base voters, which thereby create fresh campaign issues against them.

    But other vulnerable Dems, including Clare McCaskle (D-MO), Jon Tester (D-MT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Bob Casey (D-PA), all voted against Director Haspel’s confirmation. Their GOP general election opponents need to make that vote a campaign issue against them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  68. Looks like Halper had some direction:

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/17/halper-trump-page-papadopoulos/

    random viking (6a54c2)

  69. “What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

    That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

    random viking (6a54c2)

  70. 64. Dave (445e97) — 5/17/2018 @ 12:26 pm

    The candidate himself went on television [this was a press conference – SF] to encourage the Russian intelligence agencies to commit specific crimes on his campaign’s behalf.

    But they didn’t, and it was too late anyway, unless you bought into the idea that Hillary Clinton was still keeping her deleted emails connected to the Internet!

    Aso he avoided saying it would be for the campaign’s benefot, but said they would be rewarded by the media.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  71. What “crime” was the object of the conspiracy? The meeting you reference was to receive information — putting it as “malign” as possible — what statute does that violate? Who at the meeting was known agent of the Russian gov’t or an intelligence service?

    Cite to me the statute which makes it a “crime” to receive information from any foreign national?

    52 USC 30121(a)(2)

    What evidence is there that Page met with the head of Rosneft for the purpose of getting Trump to lift sanctions??? Words on a page written by a retired MI6 agent, about things told to him second and third had, is not “evidence” that would support a criminal investigation.

    He testified about it under oath:

    Asked whether he and Baranov discussed “a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft” in July, Page said, “He may have briefly mentioned it.”

    “Did you ever express support for the idea of lifting US sanctions on Russia with Mr. Baranov?” Schiff asked.

    “Not directly,” Page said.

    “Not directly” means that it was discussed but not with that particular named official.

    Words on a page written by a retired MI6 agent, about things told to him second and third had, is not “evidence” that would support a criminal investigation.

    You assume that Steele’s work was the only evidence, but you don’t know that. In fact, it almost certainly wasn’t, because much that was alleged about Page’s dealings could be independently confirmed. But even if it was, so what? If I call the police and say there’s a crime happening across the street, they will investigate it without knowing anything more about me than what I tell them myself over the phone.

    According to the abstract of the book Privacy and Police Work, cited as National Criminal Justice Reference Service reference number NCJ 092410:

    Police undercover work involves the use of deception by a police agent that may result in the obtaining of information and evidence used to build a criminal case against those targeted by the undercover activity. The courts do not require a warrant before the police initiate an undercover assignment, nor is the obtaining of incriminating information and evidence of a crime considered a violation of privacy rights or search and seizure laws. Although the warrant process prevents overt police search-and-seizure operations without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed (except under specified circumstances), no such warrant is required if the police gain access to a person’s property and personal habits through deceptive means.

    I’m sure, like everything to do with the law, that there are caveats, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, but I repeat that I do not see what would be improper about using standard techniques in a properly predicated investigation.

    “Agent of a foreign power” has a defined meaning under the espionage statutes. Reference Manafort’s actions in terms of the statute.

    Manafort qualifies under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. Or do you think they were paying him millions of dollars out of charity?

    Trump’s own idiotic, televised appeal for the Russian spy services to commit crimes on his campaign’s behalf seems more than adequate to trigger an investigation. If you go on TV and ask the mob to do a hit on your wife, and she is gunned down shortly afterward, don’t you think the police would want to find out more?

    Dave (445e97)

  72. 72. random viking (6a54c2) — 5/17/2018 @ 1:56 pm National Review:

    That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official.”

    You don’t need a criminal predicate for a counterintelligence investigation. On the other hand it is important to get to the bottom of this quickly, and spoiling a possible prosecution should not be an important consideration.

    This is how the New York Times (or its sources) said it started:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html

    Lastly, there was Mr. Papadopoulos, the young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton. But even if the F.B.I. had wanted to read his emails or intercept his calls, that evidence was not enough to allow it. Many months passed, former officials said, before the F.B.I. uncovered emails linking Mr. Papadopoulos to a Russian intelligence operation.

    had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.

    That’s a nice way of covering up the discrepancy between what he said (and had been told) and what was.

    Because what the Russians supposedly had were emails, and by emails, any fool would think the emails in question would be those deleted from her email account. But what the Russians actualkly had, and had hacked were DNC files and emails.

    Not at all the same thing.

    Now this could have been a game of telephone – but maybe not accidental.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  73. The New York Times revealed that the FBI interview with the Ambassador (technially High Commissioner) of Australia to the United Kingdom, had to be negotiated “between Washington and Canberra”

    Does that mean State Departement involvement?

    And that very very few peole in the FBI knew – not even all the peop[le who would normally know.

    This tells me also that the Australian High Comissioner, Alexander Downer, did not volunteer this information but maybe the the third person in the bar, the FBI informant, who was almost certainly not Stefan Halper who had maybe arranged for Alexander Downer to hear George Papadoupolous say that if he did, because that’s a question now – maybe he told the FBI.

    The New York Times seems to imply that one of the two FBI agents who interviewed Alexander Downer in London was none other than Peter Strzok, but it doesn’t outright say so.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  74. You don’t need a criminal predicate for a counterintelligence investigation.

    Correct, but you’re missing the point. Because they didn’t have a criminal predicate, they opened s counterintelligence investigation.

    McCarthy:
    “The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.“

    random viking (6a54c2)

  75. *opened a

    random viking (6a54c2)

  76. I don’t hear that any benefit of the spying (and there was spying, on whom not clear, but they get “phone records and other documents” ) went to the Clinton campaign, or other opponents of Donald Trump.

    Nor that anything the Trump campaign wanted to do wss impeded.

    Maybe a bit did get leaked to newspapers. At least Christopher Steele did. But the FBI tried to contain the story the New York times reported,

    But Mr. Steele had become frustrated by the F.B.I.’s slow response. He began sharing his findings in September and October with journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, according to congressional testimony.

    So as agents tried to corroborate Mr. Steele’s information, reporters began calling the bureau, asking about his findings. If the F.B.I. was working against Mr. Trump, as he asserts, this was an opportunity to push embarrassing information into the news media shortly before the election.

    That did not happen. Most news organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.

    The New York Times manages to write about “top lawmakers” woithout mentioing the name Harry Reid.

    Congress was also increasingly asking questions. Mr. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, had briefed top lawmakers that summer about Russian election interference and intelligence that Moscow supported the Trump campaign — a finding that would not become public for months. Lawmakers clamored for information from Mr. Comey, who refused to answer public questions.

    Online, there’s a link to this artivle:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  77. They did tell some people – including Democrats – that

    Russia’s hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election, according to two former officials with knowledge of the briefing.

    and that

    unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  78. I don’t hear that any benefit of the spying (and there was spying, on whom not clear, but they get “phone records and other documents” ) went to the Clinton campaign, or other opponents of Donald Trump.

    If true, that would be significant only if the Obama administration thought Trump had any chance of winning, but they didn’t. Hardly anybody did.

    And anyway, I consider the special counsel team to be opponents of Trump. They, and their cheerleaders, have derived huge benefits. This was the “insurance”, after all.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  79. Maybe a bit did get leaked to newspapers. At least Christopher Steele did. But the FBI tried to contain the story the New York times reported,

    Again, as McCarthy stresses, Clinton’s was a criminal investigation whereas Trump’s was a counterintelligence investigation.

    “By contast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services”

    random viking (6a54c2)

  80. The insurance was insurance against Trump winning. But what Strzok wanted to do was spewed up the investigation so it would be well on its way beforfe Trump could stop it.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  81. 64 — its just a lie to claim that he said that. Its one of the great media drive “urban myths” of this whole fiasco.

    He did not invite the Russians to “hack” anything.

    Here’s what he said EXACTLY:

    “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

    Clinton claimed she deleted 30,000 emails from her private server account prior to turning over 51,000 emails to the State Dept. She claimed the 31,000 deleted emails were “personal”, and not subject to rules regarding retention of federal records.

    Her attorneys claimed the emails were not recoverable, which turned out to be not completely true.

    But, in the same time frame all of this was happening, there was a lot of chatter among the punditry that it was very likely one or more foreign intelligence services had compromised here home-brew server set up since it wouldn’t have been too difficult for an experience group of cyber-hounds.

    Trump’s comment was about whether the deleted 30,000 emails could be found anywhere in the netospherre. Clinton’s home-brew server had already been taken down.

    So, to say he encouraged the Russian’s to “hack” Clinton is a simple and bald face lie.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  82. 74 — here was your original claim regarding the Rosneft meeting:

    Y

    et another campaign aide negotiating bribes “brokerage fees” with the head of Rosneft in return for getting the candidate to lift sanctions if elected.

    Now you want to move the goal posts — he didn’t meet with the “head” of Rosneft, he met with the head of investor relations — Andrey Baranov. He has never denied that. He’s been an investor through an energy sector fund he help run, and that fund has invested in Russian energy companies.

    And he had publicly called for the lifting of sanctions on Russian energy companies because the sanctions hurt the business prospects of his company — again, something that has never been a secret.

    But there is NO EVIDENCE that he met with any Russian in July 2016, on behalf of the Trump Campaign, to discuss getting a stake in Rosneft in exchange for assistance in getting the sanctions lifted.

    Your dishonest claptrap makes further responses a waste of my time.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  83. 75 — actually you do Sammy, because its implied in wanting to open a “counter-intelligence” investigation of a US citizen.

    If you want to open one against a foreigner, you would be correct — no crime required.

    But when the target of the CI investigation is a US citizen, you must have a basis to claim the person is actually the “agent of a foreign power”, AND is involved in criminal activity.

    It’s not enough to simply be an “agent of a foreign power” because its perfectly legal for lobbyists to take on foreign governments as their clients, thereby becoming their “agents.”

    But to open a CI investigation of such a lobbyist, you would have to show some form of criminal predicate.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  84. The deal went a consortium of qatari, glencore (mark richs firm) and an Italian bank, actually they would have done if page had advised since he had been part of the Gazprom deal a decade before, successfully

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. 84… the mischaracterizations – stock in trade of ConDave – are what have been normalized by the likes of Adam Schiff. Never even a grain of truth to be found.

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  86. There it is — first reports now coming out that IG has found “Violations of Law” in the handling of the Clinton Email investigation.

    No report yet — just the early leaks.

    Exactly the same as was the case with McCabe.

    Which turned out to be correct — the early leaks re the IG report, or the indignant denials of McCabe and his attorney (who I know, like, and respect, by the way).

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  87. So, to say he encouraged the Russian’s to “hack” Clinton is a simple and bald face lie.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/17/2018 @ 3:45 pm

    So he wanted Russia to hack someone else, someone who had already obtained the emails?

    DRJ (15874d)

  88. Tweet out from a reporter who has had some very accurate “Scoops” on these issues — someone whispers in his ear, and that someone knows what they are talking about:

    Tweet Via Paul Sperry:

    Comey/Yates targeted Gen. Flynn in C.I. investigation a yr BEFORE he communicated w Russian ambassador in Dec 2016 as a transition official–and the trigger was Flynn sitting at same table w Putin at Dec 2015 Moscow event, even tho Green Party’s Jill Stein also at table

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  89. 90 — he said “find” them. Reported from campaign trail July 27, 2016. They were “missing” because they had been deleted. Clinton’s reps said they couldn’t be recovered.

    That’s pretty much akin to the real world act of putting your garbage out on the street, and and having the sanitation guys take it away. Digging through the trash at the landfill isn’t the same as rifling through your personal file cabinet inside your house.

    Clinton’s email server was down — it had been down for over a year. She had already been investigated, and Comey made his announcement 3 week earlier.

    Where — in relationship to Clinton — do you think he was suggesting to the Russians that they “hack”?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  90. No, he just wanted to actually care about emails that were under subpoena but comedy apparently want interested in.

    Conversely a rogue fincen employee decides on his own to leak confidential records, because he didn’t have access to all of them, furthermore he doesn’t even due diligence these are the right records.

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. I took it to mean that Russia, as well as any other number of foreign powers, already had them. Which is as likely as not, since that was the point of the whole brouhaha. That Hillary had stored classified information on an insecure system. And then they turned up in Weiner’s laptop. Snicker.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Also from Sperry via Tweet:

    IG Horowitz has found “reasonable grounds” for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ’s handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution

    And this — suggesting the most vocal “spinners” in the media ahead of the release of the IG’s report are likely the ones who have been told their conduct is under scrutiny:

    As the IG prepares to release his next report, Sally Yates is suddenly animated & agitated. She is tweet-storming against Trump, giving speeches bashing Trump, and spinning her role in the investigations in the New York Times. Yates appears worried about something ahead of report

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  93. You’ve worked with bromwich, it appears from my narrow perspective he always served democrat purposes.

    narciso (d1f714)

  94. if the filth-dirty men and women of the sleazy corrupt FBI had done their jobs there would never have been 30,000 missing emails

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  95. 93 — I think that person has a very real fear that the Treasury IG is already quite close, and went running to Farrow for protection by hoping to be cloaked with the label of “Whistleblower.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  96. I think they have suffered from bad management, that the likes of Spencer ackerman tried to obscure it really degenerated in the comedy era but there were signs of trouble in the Mueller era.

    narciso (d1f714)

  97. 96 — I did. It was a bank secrecy act case of some magnitude involving bank policies and practices of filing/not filing SARs. The bank hired Bromwich to defend them, Bromwich retained another law firm with three former DOJ prosecutors to do an internal investigation, and DOJ agreed to hold off while they did so.

    Everything else beyond that is non-public info.

    He and I knew a few people in common from our time during the Clinton Admin.

    He had some very interesting stories as one of the three courtroom prosecutors from the Ollie North case.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  98. I know someone who has been acquainted with Yates, the opinion is not positive. Ymmv.

    narciso (d1f714)

  99. 96 — yes, he’s a partisan Dem. Had Al Gore beaten Bush in 2000, Bromwich would have likely been the Dep. AG.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  100. 101 — I knew her only a bit, but i knew 2 prosecutors who worked for her.

    She did not command much respect as a trial attorney in the ND of Georgia. She got the job of DAG purely on the basis of her gender.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  101. 64 — its just a lie to claim that he said that. Its one of the great media drive “urban myths” of this whole fiasco.

    He did not invite the Russians to “hack” anything.

    [wall of indignation omitted for brevity]

    So, to say he encouraged the Russian’s to “hack” Clinton is a simple and bald face lie.

    I have not used the word “hack” anywhere in this thread (until this sentence).

    For someone who tosses around accusations of lying left and right, you’re pretty loose with the truth yourself.

    He encouraged the Russian intelligence services to intervene in the campaign, in a way that would benefit him, by releasing information that they could not have obtained or possess legally.

    And as Sammy has pointed out, they had just done so, it’s just that the illegally-obtained information previously released to benefit him was different from what Trump was specifically requesting here. He was saying, in effect: “Great job on the DNC emails, keep up the good work.”

    Dave (445e97)

  102. Podesta was as cavalier with his security as he was with his clients money entrusted to them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  103. This is what I was referring to earlier:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/997199222737965058

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. dave @ 104

    He encouraged the Russian intelligence services to intervene in the campaign, in a way that would benefit him, by releasing information that they could not have obtained or possess legally.

    That’s different than what you said in 64:

    The candidate himself went on television to encourage the Russian intelligence agencies to commit specific crimes on his campaign’s behalf.

    So, I took your original comment, i.e., to “commit specific crimes”, and reduced to that to “hack”. What else did you mean??

    Keep your terms straight and you won’t be called a liar.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  105. Speaking of Manafort, it was just confirmed by his former son-in-law’s attorney that the son-in-law cut a plea deal with the Feds earlier this year under which he is cooperating with state and federal prosecutors.

    Dave (445e97)

  106. Matters concerning a 12 year old business deal, when w still thought he could look into volodya soul.

    narciso (d1f714)

  107. Dave @ 108

    SQUIRREL!!!!!

    Shipwreckedcrew (1b7516)

  108. SQUIRREL!!!!!

    Gee, uh, weren’t we discussing Manafort and his crimes in this thread?

    I could have sworn we were.

    Just to make sure, your non sequiturs in 89, 91 and 95 were not “SQUIRREL!!!!!”, right?

    Dave (445e97)

  109. He was investigated in 2013, and they shut up shop till the dossier provides the pretext, the judge who approved the case going forward was William ‘cold hard cash’ jecgersons

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. 111 — wrong Manafort, and the ex-son-in-law pled guilty to completely unrelated conduct in LA. There has been nothing reported anywhere that he had anything of substance to offer on Manafort with respect to the indicted conduct.

    And I thought the evidence against Manafort was overwhelming? If Mueller is using him, why does he need him?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  111. Nobody’s gonna believe the whistleblower BS. When the T-men get to him, he’s toast.

    nk (dbc370)

  112. And, once again point out how little you really understand about what you write, the “cooperation” language found in federal plea agreements is standard boilerplate language. It changed very little — and nothing from a substantive standpoint — from the first plea agreement I signed in 1992 to the last one I signed in 2014.

    Its always a generic reference to providing “substantial assistance” in the “investigation and prosecution of others”, without ever specifying what “substantial assistance” will consist of, and who is among the “others” referred to.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  113. Completely unrelated, eh? Nothing reported? This is from almost a year ago:

    Many of Mr. Manafort’s real estate purchases over the years coincided with his long-running work as a political consultant to the Russia-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine. During his time there, Mr. Manafort used a network of shell companies in the tax havens of Cyprus and Belize to move money around and collect payments from clients, who, in addition to the Ukrainians, included Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with whom Mr. Manafort partnered in investments.

    Back in the United States, Mr. Manafort created still more shell companies to make cash purchases of expensive properties for millions of dollars and other investments. His Los Angeles investments were handled through a limited liability company called Baylor Holding, in which Mr. Manafort and Mr. Yohai were partners, according to court records.

    As far as why the plea deal, I can only speculate, but it is consistently reported that Mueller wants Manafort’s cooperation. The more Manafort accomplices lined up to testify, and the more time he’s facing, the more incentive to join the good guys, no?

    Dave (445e97)

  114. Yet podesta diverts his clients money into bad art, and no one is the wiser.

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. #104, Disingenuous Dave, swc quoted Trump’s quip about Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails at #84. Yet you persist in misrepresenting what Trump said, the context in which it was said, and why he said it.

    Trump’s only misstep was in suggesting that “our press” would likely reward Russia for finding Hillary’s missing emails. Quite to the contrary, our lapdog press would have done pretty much the same thing you’re doing: falsify Trump’s meaning, misrepresent the context, impute the worst possible motive, and refuse to face the inevitable conclusion that Hillary willfully and illegally destroyed 30,000 email records of her tenure as Secretary of State rather than face the consequences of public disclosure.

    The fact that Trump threw her felonious behavior right straight in her face on national TV during a Presidential Debate is why you’re so angry (not at Hillary for the audacity of blatently obstructing justice, but at Trump for exposing the arrogant crook behind the mask).

    Few here have failed to notice that not once have you trained your sharp eye on ferreting out Hillary’s motives for destroying evidence, but that you’re busy as the proverbial beaver denouncing Trump for every imaginary crime and dastardly motive your febrile mind can concoct.

    Killing the messenger when you don’t like the message is a well known way of keeping yourself in the dark. However, when you dwell in darkness you don’t have to take stock of yourself eather.

    Dave, you’re not the only living embodiment of intellectual dishonesty, but you sure make the short list here.

    ropelight (044604)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4221 secs.