Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Trump Orders Agencies to Cooperate with Barr's Inquiry, Lets Barr Declassify Anything he Wants

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't really have any idea what you are trying to say at this point.  The house is 54% Dem today....they could easily move forward.  To what you quoted it's in response to your words saying we need Mueller to testify publicly to change public opinion.  My point to you is it doesn't matter if he testifies publically or not, the public has made up their mind on Trump and if you don't believe me, look at his polling numbers since he came into office.  It's the flattest line of any President I can ever remember.  

No I agree with you about his approval ratings. I’ve made the same point not a few times. 

But- while his disapproval rating is a steady 52%, the amount of Americans in favor of starting impeachment hearings is only around 29%. If I’m Nancy Pelosi I don’t start impeachment until that second number rises to meet the first number. The only possible way to do that, IMO, is public hearings with Mueller and McGahn...maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I disagree, this has bad implications for national security.

And it’s not like Barr would ever selectively declassify info to create a false narrative.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest Sam Harris Making Sense podcast with the guy from  lawfareblog really is a great summary of the report’s findings.  Good call Maurile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

If a voter is "polarized" by an impeachment process for obvious transgressions, then chances are pretty good that that voter was looking for any excuse he could find to vote for Donald anyway. It's the same crappy rationalization as voting for Trump "because Hilary." Donald is worse than anybody else and those voters are ok with it in the end.

Yet it happened time and time again.  Impeachment goes no where and I want to give no one any excuse to vote Trump.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, timschochet said:

Mueller wants private testimony only. 

Well...without public testimony there is no way to change public opinion. There will be no impeachment of Trump. Either he testifies publicly or it really is done. 

https://twitter.com/preetbharara/status/1131925756416806912?s=21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m okay with those investigated doing private testimony with transcripts provided after.  I am not the least bit okay with private testimony for the lead investigator. I believe the paraphrased “enhanced public interest” was from his memos, that same principle applies to his testimony.  Any all clarity regarding his report must come from his mouth.  I appreciate his concern and desire to avoid such a spotlight, but it is at this point completely inescapable

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were being asked to accept a lot on faith, and if the Trump conspiracy story wasn’t true, there were few alternative explanations that were not equally bizarre and unlikely. The only safe thing to do was to proceed with extreme caution and investigate both Trump and his accusers simultaneously, and that didn’t happen.

This is why it’s so bizarre that press figures are now claiming the Mueller report proves reporters got the story “mostly right” because they correctly reported some factual things, like that Trump did indeed ask Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn. 

Well, congratulations. Given that you missed the overarching fact that there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy, not screwing up lesser developments leaked directly to you, like the McGahn business, is not exactly reassuring. It’s like painting a portrait and bragging about getting a freckle right, when you forgot to paint the giant tree growing out of the subject’s head.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-was-journalist-qanon-part-40f

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

We were being asked to accept a lot on faith, and if the Trump conspiracy story wasn’t true, there were few alternative explanations that were not equally bizarre and unlikely. The only safe thing to do was to proceed with extreme caution and investigate both Trump and his accusers simultaneously, and that didn’t happen.

This is why it’s so bizarre that press figures are now claiming the Mueller report proves reporters got the story “mostly right” because they correctly reported some factual things, like that Trump did indeed ask Comey to end the investigation into Michael Flynn. 

Well, congratulations. Given that you missed the overarching fact that there was no Trump–Russia conspiracy, not screwing up lesser developments leaked directly to you, like the McGahn business, is not exactly reassuring. It’s like painting a portrait and bragging about getting a freckle right, when you forgot to paint the giant tree growing out of the subject’s head.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-was-journalist-qanon-part-40f

 "This post is for paying subscribers"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, joffer said:

The latest Sam Harris Making Sense podcast with the guy from  lawfareblog really is a great summary of the report’s findings.  Good call Maurile.

agreed.  good call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious if anyone thinks its odd that no one has connected the dots between the usa (Trumps campaign), wikileaks and Russia. 

We know they were all in constant contact, and two of them were for sure bad actors. I dont think it is a leap to suggest that is the link. Cant prove it but i dont think its grasping at straws.

Edited by Run It Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, joffer said:

The latest Sam Harris Making Sense podcast with the guy from  lawfareblog really is a great summary of the report’s findings.  Good call Maurile.

It was a great listen, the shame is, no Trump supporters will honestly take his advice at the end of it.

Substitute Trump's name in that report for Clinton, Obama, Biden... pick a Dem, and tell me a Trump supporter wouldn't be calling for their heads.  It's damning, whether a crime was charged or not.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

No I agree with you about his approval ratings. I’ve made the same point not a few times. 

But- while his disapproval rating is a steady 52%, the amount of Americans in favor of starting impeachment hearings is only around 29%. If I’m Nancy Pelosi I don’t start impeachment until that second number rises to meet the first number. The only possible way to do that, IMO, is public hearings with Mueller and McGahn...maybe. 

i'm inclined to believe that impeachment charges beg the question of "for what exactly?" because obstruction of justice is overly broad in many people's minds. without specifics - hence the need for the full MR and/or other documents related to Trump - then people see it as a political vendetta instead of something more genuine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Was it mentioned that Mr. T gave Barr full declassification authority in campaign spying probe?  

It has already been investigated.  Nothing to hide.

The whole exercise again is to say their is an investigation.  Not find anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Was it mentioned that Mr. T gave Barr full declassification authority in campaign spying probe?  

I pity that fool. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Run It Up said:

Just curious if anyone thinks its odd that no one has connected the dots between the usa (Trumps campaign), wikileaks and Russia. 

We know they were all in constant contact, and two of them were for sure bad actors. I dont think it is a leap to suggest that is the link. Cant prove it but i dont think its grasping at straws.

they're saving this for the season 3 finale IMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Daywalker said:

It has already been investigated.  Nothing to hide.

The whole exercise again is to say their is an investigation.  Not find anything.

 

Some people call this a re-do.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 3:05 PM, moleculo said:

$20B to keep Maria in Mexico does not sound like it's worth it to me.  

Besides, without Maria, how will we ever get a taco truck on every corner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>One official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said previously that Mr. Barr wanted to know more about what foreign assets the C.I.A. had in Russia in 2016 and what those informants were telling the agency about how President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 election.

The C.I.A. on Thursday referred questions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A spokeswoman for the office did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The directive is likely to irk the intelligence community, which has long prized its ability to determine what information about its operations can be released to the public. During the investigations of the C.I.A.’s enhanced interrogation programs, the agency stymied investigators by refusing to declassify documents.

There could be other implications for the intelligence agencies. The C.I.A. considers confidential sources its most highly classified and most protected assets, and any investigation that could possibly force it to reveal those identities is likely to create a standoff. Last year, the agency lost trust in the Justice Department’s ability to keep the names of informants and sources secret after the identity of an F.B.I. informant who interacted with two Trump campaign officials under investigation, Stefan Halper, was revealed as part of congressional inquiries, according to former intelligence officials.<<

- NYT.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>One official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said previously that Mr. Barr wanted to know more about what foreign assets the C.I.A. had in Russia in 2016 and what those informants were telling the agency about how President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 election.

The C.I.A. on Thursday referred questions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A spokeswoman for the office did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The directive is likely to irk the intelligence community, which has long prized its ability to determine what information about its operations can be released to the public. During the investigations of the C.I.A.’s enhanced interrogation programs, the agency stymied investigators by refusing to declassify documents.

There could be other implications for the intelligence agencies. The C.I.A. considers confidential sources its most highly classified and most protected assets, and any investigation that could possibly force it to reveal those identities is likely to create a standoff. Last year, the agency lost trust in the Justice Department’s ability to keep the names of informants and sources secret after the identity of an F.B.I. informant who interacted with two Trump campaign officials under investigation, Stefan Halper, was revealed as part of congressional inquiries, according to former intelligence officials.<<

- NYT.

I’m guessing every contact in Russia has, or is planning, their exit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>One official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said previously that Mr. Barr wanted to know more about what foreign assets the C.I.A. had in Russia in 2016 and what those informants were telling the agency about how President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 election.

The C.I.A. on Thursday referred questions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A spokeswoman for the office did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The directive is likely to irk the intelligence community, which has long prized its ability to determine what information about its operations can be released to the public. During the investigations of the C.I.A.’s enhanced interrogation programs, the agency stymied investigators by refusing to declassify documents.

There could be other implications for the intelligence agencies. The C.I.A. considers confidential sources its most highly classified and most protected assets, and any investigation that could possibly force it to reveal those identities is likely to create a standoff. Last year, the agency lost trust in the Justice Department’s ability to keep the names of informants and sources secret after the identity of an F.B.I. informant who interacted with two Trump campaign officials under investigation, Stefan Halper, was revealed as part of congressional inquiries, according to former intelligence officials.<<

- NYT.

What in the hell. No collusion amIright?  Jesus, start the impeachment proceedings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>One official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said previously that Mr. Barr wanted to know more about what foreign assets the C.I.A. had in Russia in 2016 and what those informants were telling the agency about how President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 election.

The C.I.A. on Thursday referred questions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A spokeswoman for the office did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The directive is likely to irk the intelligence community, which has long prized its ability to determine what information about its operations can be released to the public. During the investigations of the C.I.A.’s enhanced interrogation programs, the agency stymied investigators by refusing to declassify documents.

There could be other implications for the intelligence agencies. The C.I.A. considers confidential sources its most highly classified and most protected assets, and any investigation that could possibly force it to reveal those identities is likely to create a standoff. Last year, the agency lost trust in the Justice Department’s ability to keep the names of informants and sources secret after the identity of an F.B.I. informant who interacted with two Trump campaign officials under investigation, Stefan Halper, was revealed as part of congressional inquiries, according to former intelligence officials.<<

- NYT.

First of all, they should have thought about this before pushing a false conspiracy theory.  

Second of all, Stefan Halper was outed decades ago during the Reagan era.  By the NYT for christ's sake.  He was fine.  

Enough national security claptrap.  Enough of the surveillance state's precious sensibilities.  If their predicate was as bogus as it looks, they deserve all the scorn that's about to get chucked their way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>One official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said previously that Mr. Barr wanted to know more about what foreign assets the C.I.A. had in Russia in 2016 and what those informants were telling the agency about how President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 election.

The C.I.A. on Thursday referred questions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A spokeswoman for the office did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The directive is likely to irk the intelligence community, which has long prized its ability to determine what information about its operations can be released to the public. During the investigations of the C.I.A.’s enhanced interrogation programs, the agency stymied investigators by refusing to declassify documents.

There could be other implications for the intelligence agencies. The C.I.A. considers confidential sources its most highly classified and most protected assets, and any investigation that could possibly force it to reveal those identities is likely to create a standoff. Last year, the agency lost trust in the Justice Department’s ability to keep the names of informants and sources secret after the identity of an F.B.I. informant who interacted with two Trump campaign officials under investigation, Stefan Halper, was revealed as part of congressional inquiries, according to former intelligence officials.<<

- NYT.

Yep.  This has been Trump's MO for a while now.  And it makes us less safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise your hand if you know how many outed "assets" have been killed.

Raise your hand if you know how many "assets" have been outed.

Raise your hand if you know how many stars are missing from the wall at the CIA because they were so deep in #### that simply putting up an anonymous star was too risky.

This is probably the ONE place where anecdotes are absolutely, completely, without question, useless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Daywalker said:

It has already been investigated.  Nothing to hide.

The whole exercise again is to say their is an investigation.  Not find anything.

 

Sounds familiar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.