Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

Mueller’s Mountain Or Molehill? Prosecutors Mum on First Charges In Russian Investigation

Another_molehill (1)1600px-Aiguille_du_Dru_3-1Last night, the media was thrown into a frenzy with news that special counsel Robert Mueller has secured the first charges in his investigation into Russian election interference.  Despite the fact that the name or names of those indicted have not been released and the specific charges were not disclosed, the report was heralded as a breakthrough moment in the Russian investigation. CNN contributor David Gergen stated “Well, it certainly looks like the dam is starting to break now.”  It could be and then again it might not be.  Again, the breathless desire among some commentators is out-stripping the available information.  For months, many of us have been saying that it was extremely unlikely that Mueller would assemble this huge prosecutorial team and spend millions without charging someone on something.  The core question is whether he is going to move on the two primary allegations in the Russian investigation — collusion and obstruction — that might implicate Trump or his family.  In other words, we may have to wait for the arrest or surrender to know if Mueller has unveiled a mountain or a molehill.

If Mueller were to start with a core and major charge against a high-ranking official, it would be a seismic event. My expectations are low.  Even if Mueller expects to charge Trump or his inner circle, he would not likely start with those charges.  For my purposes, the most important thing is to take a look at the indictment and the underlying facts asserted by the prosecutors.  The charge might be minor but the underlying factual context could show a far more serious foundation laid by prosecutors on other crimes or individuals.

As I have previously discussed, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort are the most obvious targets of charges.  However, the violations raised against them are more collateral to the main allegations.  They include violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).  Only a handful of such cases have been prosecuted since the revision of the Act and these violations are uniformly address administratively. However, that does not bar a prosecution.

If the first charges are under FARA, it would be a relatively weak first showing by the team and would clearly be designed to add pressure for the target to flip as a cooperative witness.  To me, it would be a rather anemic start in prosecuting for the regulatory version of jaywalking.  The reason that FARA is rarely prosecuted is that most prosecutors do not view it as a good use of their time or public money.

Nevertheless, prosecutors will often target low-lying fruit in building a case toward high targets.  The problem for Mueller is that the challenges in his investigation are not simply factual but legal.  The theories that has been tossed around often involve some novel (and in my view unsustainable) interpretations.  It would be far better for Mueller to build a case toward a more recognized and conventional set of charges rather than adopting massive expansions of election law terms.

We have also discussed the always present threat of an 18 U.S.C. 1001 charge for lying to investigators.  Once again, it is a collateral charge and proves not the merits of the core allegations but the evasion of a target. It is an easy charge to bring and it is a favorite of prosecutors, particularly when they cannot establish charges on the core allegations.  It is also a charge often used to pressure witnesses.

Manafort has long been my view of the “designated defendant.”  Manafort has a rather free-wheeling reputation (to put it in the best light) in Washington as someone engaged in a wide range of financial dealings.  He is clearly being investigated for banking and money laundering allegations that are removed from the collusion and obstruction matters.  It is another example of the old adage “one day on the cover of Time, next day doing time.” Of all the people who would have least appreciated a spotlight on all of his financial dealing, Manafort would be near the top.

Even collateral charges like FARA and 1001 would mean that prosecutions would likely go into 2018 if not 2019.

The specifics on the charges will be telling in a couple of respects.  One will be how close the targets are to Trump. Another will be the how far Mueller if willing to go in bending and twisting the existing law.  Many have advocated extreme interpretations of obstruction and election laws that would present problematic cases for appeal. However, Mueller selected a couple senior prosecutors with high controversial records of being reversed in major cases where they twisted federal law or cases beyond recognition.

So, while not to be a buzz kill, we might just want to wait for actual charges before hyperventilating over the latest development in this controversy.  Moreover, Mueller could start with minor or modest charges that fact singling a lack of evidence of more serious crimes.  While we could gain an insight from the indictment on what he has, we might not.

444 thoughts on “Mueller’s Mountain Or Molehill? Prosecutors Mum on First Charges In Russian Investigation”

    1. Inadvertently omitted the quotation marks:

      “Jonathan Turley on the Indictment of Former Trump Campaign Officials Professor Jonathan Turley talked about the indictments of two former Trump campaign officials and a guilty plea by a third in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.” -about C-SPAN interview

  2. Still nothing on the indictments. A legal blog, and a Professor that can’t get enough airtime, going radio silent. Weird.

      1. Right he’s written several articles and made a number of TV appearances but nothing on this here website. Just pointing it out. Nice to see he’s going with the GOP talking points.

  3. According to Professor Turley, Washington D C is awash in Russian money.

  4. good luck getting a conviction on this confused mess of charges.. what exactly did he supposedly do wrong? it’s impossible to decipher

    1. Thanks anonymous. Why does Turley look oh-so-very-sad in the photo C-Span put alongside his voice over the phone? What if Turley was watching C-Span with the volume turned down while talking on the phone with them? Is C-Span trolling Turley on-air? Were it not for C-Span’s First Amendment protections, that would be so unethical.

        2. JC, I presume its a stock photo of Turley from the C-Span archives. They could’ve gone with the new one Turley chose for his own blawg. That’s a C-Span still shot, too. And it would’ve made Turley seem wryly unconcerned with the progress of Mueller’s investigation.

            1. Yes, but . . . was it a coincidence? Maybe C-Span was upset that Turley couldn’t be there live on C-Span.

              1. “Yes, but . . . was it a coincidence?”

                If we were to learn that it had been carefully chosen, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

  6. “So, while not to be a buzz kill”…no please, professor, tell us again how Hillary Clinton might have broken the law. Who cares about the Mueller investigation of Team Trump. How does this affect Hillary Clinton and her chances of going to jail?

    1. But, but, but, but,…..her e-mails….But, but, but……..Benghazi……..But, but, but……The Hindenburg……

    2. Darrin Rychlak, Turley bet his money on a bob-tailed nag [Trump]. So he hopes his blawg hounds will bet the bay [HRC]. On the other hand, Camptown Racetrack’s still five miles long. Doo-dah. Doo-dah. All the live long day.

  7. Tomorrow, Mueller will prove his investigation fraudulent by arresting someone for previous crimes unrelated to non-existent, theoretical “Russian collusion” which was presented by caterwauling anarchist leftists. Mueller will prove that the U.S. government has been seized by unelected forces and is completely out of control. Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, Wray, Obama “holdovers,” liberals et al. have conspired to fraudulently subvert a duly elected government. President Trump will be compelled to act as President Abraham Lincoln did by suspending the Constitution and imposing Marital law.

      1. Mueller and the psycho-babbling liberals are investigating “Russian Collusion” with President Trump to alter the last election.

        Mueller had better arrest President Trump tomorrow or he will have proven himself and his liberal allies caterwauling frauds who have conspired to file false reports to falsely incriminate another.

        To propose that the brilliant tactician, Mueller, is arresting to induce testimony, is to ignore the Presidential power to pardon.

        Article 2, Section 2

        “The President…shall have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States,…”

        1. The president can pardon federal crimes, not state charges. Mueller is working with the attorney general of New York. The money laundering charges can be brought by the state of New York. If you’re Manafort where would you rather do your time, Rikers Island or club fed ?

          1. Mueller is working with the attorney general of New York. T

            An ambitious uber-partisan named Eric Schneiderman.

      2. Jennifer said to George, “I think maybe you have no understanding of how investigations work.”

        Jennifer, I’m not sure I want to know how investigations work. The last I heard, I’m not supposed to know how an on-going investigation is working.

        As for George, he’s been itching for a replay of The Civil War since three out of four states ratified the Nineteenth Amendment.

  8. If Mueller arrests someone other than Trump for past crimes, Mueller will prove the corruption, failure, negligence and dereliction of the FBI and law enforcement as those cases were deliberately ignored when they occurred.

    Mueller will prove the bias of the FBI and related departments and agencies against conservatives and in favor of liberals.

    If Mueller does not arrest Trump, Mueller will have proven that the “Trump collusion with Russians” charge was an actionable “false report” by democrats. Mueller will have proven that he and his “special counsel” investigation was fraudulent.

    1. Oh ya, that’s because FBI-types are such notorious lefties…

      this is to “but Rush pinky-swore it was true” georgie

      1. Mueller was FBI Director when Obama and Hillary perpetrated pay-for-play while benefiting from “contributions” to the Clinton Foundation and ridiculously high speaker “fees.”

        Mueller has personal and professional relationships with the principals and targets of his investigation.

        1. Mueller was appointed U.S Attorney for Massachusetts in 1986-87 by Republican governor William Weld. He was named U.S. Assistant Attorney General by George H.W. Bush and held that post from 1990-93. Mueller was then named U.S Deputy Attorney general (acting) by George W. Bush, where he served from May 2001 to June 2001. George W. Bush then picked him to be the new FBI Director in September 2001, when Obama was elected in 2008 he kept Mueller on but he is no liberal.

          1. Mueller is a member of the legal establishment. They’re friends to their own tribe, not to human beings.

            While we’re at it, an imprimatur from William Weld cuts precisely no ice with anyone familiar with the man.

            We noticed, if you did not, that 30% of his hires were 4-digit donors to the Democratic Party. There’s a reason Glenn Reynolds has called for Mueller to resign. His investigation is tainted.

            1. What did Mueller know and when did he know it? A pre-dawn raid on his home, with Mueller and his wife still in bed, must be conducted to preserve evidence and determine his culpability. Manafort et al. were committing crimes during Mueller’s tenure. Why weren’t Manafort, Podesta, Hillary, Comey and the rest of the Obama gang prosecuted?

            2. More revealing discussion of this dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy, please. It reinforces my sense of superiority.

              this is to spammy

            3. “an imprimatur from William Weld cuts precisely no ice with anyone familiar with the man”. Ronald Reagan was the one who appointed him U.S. attorney general for the criminal division. The person who recommended him to Reagan…..was Rudy Giuliani. The fact that you bring up Glenn Reynolds, a white supremacist, cuts no ice with me.

              1. At this juncture, the discerning and prudent reader is left pondering this:

                1. Is Harry an inveterate liar?

                2. Does Harry actually fancy Glenn Reynolds is a ‘white supremicist’?

                Neither alternative says anything good about Harry.

                1. First, I know you are trying to fool people into thinking you are educated by throwing around certain words but since you don’t know how to properly put all the words in a sentence that shows you don’t know the definition of all of them. Second, as far as calling someone a liar, anyone can look up William Weld o Wikipedia or go on the FBI website and look up Robert Mueller. People who only care about partisanship are not going to do that because partisans don’t care about facts or truth. They only want validation, like insecure children.

          2. One correction, when Mueller was U. S. Attorney for the district of Massachusetts William Weld was attorney general, not governor of Massachusetts.

          3. Harry, it’s called the “swamp.” The denizens of the “swamp” are DINO’s AND RINO’s.

            Political affiliations exist solely to manipulate the “electorate.”

            You didn’t notice that nothing of significance changed between “W” and Obongo.

            You didn’t notice that republicans lied to their constituencies about Obamacare.

            “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”

            ― Mark Twain

      2. Msrky Mark Mark – the problem is that the FBI has been a fraudulent organization since its inception. It was centered around Hoover, who was said to have files on everyone in Washington, but when they went into his office after his death they certainly found no files or where a missing file cabinet might have been.

  10. Maybe the Russians are playing one side against the other. Trump vs Clinton.

    1. Almost. I’d argue that the Russians achieved precisely the results they wanted. For them, it didn’t matter which candidate was elected. It was more important for them to draw our very electoral processes into question while fostering discord where there ought to be discourse in our politics. Look at all we’ve seen since election day – riots and all the rest. The top guys in Moscow must be pretty happy with the results of their efforts. They didn’t need one candidate to win over another – for them America is a hegemonic thing anyway. They needed for us to devolve to the point that thousands now plan to scream helplessly at the sky on the annivesary of election day.

      1. “They needed for us to devolve…”

        Is that anything like “fundamentally transform?”

  11. Pingback: Out & About As a New Week Dawns… | Welcome to My Corner Here on Word Press

        1. Ya know what’s nuts? Bill and Hillary take in gazillions of bucks and “speaking” fees while she is ensconced as Sec. of State but the contributions and fees end abruptly after she loses the election.

          “What Happened?”
          _______________

          “I think maybe you have no understanding of how investigations work.”

          I have a good understanding that investigations don’t work against Bill, Hillary, Obongo, Rice, Power, Lynch, Abedin, Jarrett, Farkas, Holder, Koskinen, Lerner et al.

          1. I’ve heard of those people; wasn’t that the Oriole’s opening day lineup in 1964? Pro tip: everyone here isn’t plugged in to the wingnut conspiracy prattle….

            this is to “I think I’m being followed” georgie

            2. Marky Mark Mark – pro tip: you haven’t been on here long enough to be a pro. You are still playing the novice course.

        2. Jennifer, tell us what is wrong with this tweet:

          …the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more. Instead they look at phony Trump/Russia,….

          If you call this nuts and you can’t tell us why then you must be nuts.

  12. Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016

    Sean Davis

    Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016
    Since April of 2016, Obama’s campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.
    Former president Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.

    The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. cont below

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=be5ae868af-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-be5ae868af-83964361

      1. anonymous is afraid to point out exactly what she wishes to say so she hides behind a blog and someone else’s opinion whether or not it is within the context of the discussion. When she does come out to say something her presentation is generally a bit awkward and embarrassing so I understand her reluctance.

  13. The dirty Trump dossier: what no one is talking about
    The dirty Trump dossier: what no one is talking about

    A British spy’s fantastical story

    by Jon Rappoport

    October 27, 2017

    “Excuse me, can you help me? I’m a spy.” (Doctor Who)

    First, a bit of background.

    The dirty Trump dossier made several claims:

    One: Russia had strong blackmail material on Trump and could thus control him;

    Two: Most damning in that material, Trump used prostitutes while he was in Russia, and paid several of them to urinate on a hotel bed Obama had once slept in;

    Three: Russia hacked DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails and passed them on WikiLeaks, who published them. The emails were damaging to Hillary and helped Trump win the election;

    Four: Russia wanted Trump to win the election.

    Major media are now covering the Trump dossier from a new angle—who paid a British ex-spy to assemble it?

    And the answer everyone already knew—Hillary Clinton’s camp and the Democratic National Committee—is out in the open.

    Follow the bouncing ball. It goes this way:

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Hillary team and the DNC funneled some $9 million to a Hillary lawyer, Marc Elias, and his law firm, Perkins-Cole.

    That money then went to a research firm, GPS Fusion, who passed some part of it on to a British ex-spy, Christopher Steele. Steele had once worked in Russia and allegedly had many connections there.

    Steele put together the Trump dossier after consulting with a number of Russians and spreading some money around. He gave the dossier to his employer, GPS Fusion. The dossier found its way to many media outlets, who sat on it for a while and eventually decided to run with it and slam Trump without let-up.

    Steele also took the dossier to the FBI (and other intelligence agencies in the US and England). The FBI offered to pay Steele to keep digging up dirt on Trump!—but when the dossier went public and the media trumpeted its claims, the FBI withdrew its offer.

    Given that background, let’s go deeper.

    The fact that Hillary’s team paid to get damaging info on Trump is no surprise. It’s called opposition research, and many candidates engage in it.

    But paying Steele to put together the dossier and hiding the payments —that’s illegal. It’s also a ruse to parlay the un-vetted dossier into a pretext for: Democrat eavesdropping on Trump and his associates, as well as Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump.

    The contents of the dossier are open to question. Is Steele’s research accurate?

    And here is what no one is examining in any depth. Steele claims, in the dossier, that he was talking with a number of well-placed Russian officials. That’s where he obtained his information.

    What? Why would these Russians speak with him? Why would these Russians expose a purported plot, built by their own colleagues, under Putin’s orders, to hand the election to Trump?

    If such a plot existed, it would be a tightly controlled secret.

    Yet, here are Russian intelligence people spilling the beans to Steele, a former British spy.

    And by spilling the beans, they’re risking their own lives, because there is a good chance their Russian colleagues and superiors will be able to track them down and identify them, since they’ve had connections to Steele in the past.

    Steele appears to have pulled off an intelligence op for the ages. He goes to Russia, sits down with a number of Russian intel people, asks them questions, and they tell him all about a top-secret plot to sway a US election. No problem.

    Keep this in mind as well. While Steele worked for MI-6, the British spy agency, he was stationed in Moscow (1990-92) using a diplomatic cover. In order to put together the numerous Russian sources he was able to tap years later while assembling the Trump dossier, Steele must have blown his cover to pieces as he cultivated those Russian intel sources back in the 1990s. Odd, to say the least.

    Let’s imagine a similar scenario playing out in the US. During a campaign to elect a president of Russia, a Russian ex-spy who once worked at the Russian Embassy in Washington, under diplomatic cover, comes to the US and sits down with a few of his old pals from the CIA.

    Risking their reputations, careers, and lives, these CIA people tell him that, under orders from the president of the US, they’ve been putting together files on one of the Russian presidential candidates. They tell him they favor this candidate. They tell him they have important blackmail info on this candidate and can control him if he wins the Russian election. THEY HAND HIM THE MOST IMPORTANT INFO IN THE FILES.

    Poof. No problem. The Russian ex-spy returns to Russia with the info.

    Really? How likely is that?

    If we bend and twist credulity, and assume Christopher Steele did extract highly secret info about a Russian plot to hand the election to Trump and then control Trump as a Russian asset—if we assume all that to be true, well, we have just uncovered a MAJOR FRACTURE in the Russian intelligence establishment.

    We have uncovered a volatile rebellion in the Russian ranks, a rebellion against Putin himself. This rebellion is so relentless, the Russian instigators are willing to risk life and limb to forward it.

    Their hostility toward Putin is so great, they’ve picked this operation—Russia influencing the US election on behalf of Trump—to torpedo the president of Russia.

    If you were Putin, what could you do? The answer is obvious, and what you could do would be quite effective:

    “All right, men, I’ve brought you here because I trust you, and I’d better be right in that trust. I want you to collect every shred of information that exists on this British spy, Steele, going all the way back to when he was first stationed in Moscow. I want to know everyone he knew, everyone he had coffee and drinks and lunches and dinner with—every single Russian. I want you to unearth every detail, and find out who he tapped a year ago, when he put together this Trump dossier. Give me names. Don’t fail.”

    Of course, these Russians who supposedly handed over key information to Steele already knew, at the time, that this would happen. They would be hounded and most likely exposed. But…they didn’t care. They were willing to go to the wall.

    OR…Steele never accumulated all the information in the Trump dossier. He made unwarranted leaps of inference. He inflated information. He invented key facts. He wanted to satisfy his employers, GPS Fusion, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC. They wanted dirt on Trump, and he gave them dirt.

    For example, Steele claims, in the Trump dossier, that he discovered Russians hacked the DNC servers, extracted thousands of emails, and passed them on WikiLeaks. The implication is, Russian operatives told Steele about the plot.

    As we know, there has been a great deal of discussion around this point. Was there a hack of DNC emails, or was it a leak from inside the DNC? Without trying to draw a final conclusion from myriad technical and political analysis, I’ll point to a statement, published in The Nation, by a several analysts from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

    “For more than a year, we have been pointing out that any data acquired by a hack would have had to come across the Internet. The blanket coverage of the Internet by the NSA, its UK counterpart GCHQ, and others would be able to produce copies of that data and show where the data originated and where it went. But US intelligence has produced no evidence that hacking by Russia led to it acquiring the DNC e-mails and passing them on to WikiLeaks.”

    That’s a cogent point. If Steele really did extract a confession from Russian intelligence officials pointing to a Russian hack of the DNC emails, why doesn’t the NSA or GCHQ confirm it and show us the evidence?

    All in all, Steele has built a Trump dossier based on his highly questionable access to Russian intelligence professionals. If at this point, he cares about convincing us he’s on the level, he’ll have to do a lot of talking. At a recent photo op, he declined to comment on anything more than how happy he was to get back to work for his current private-sector company, Chawton Holdings. Otherwise, he was a silent bland egg.

    That isn’t going to cut it.

    We’re left with a fantastical story about his penetration of Russian higher-ups. Daniel Craig could play the Steele role in a Netflix series, and a bunch of good Russian actors who’ve been hanging around since the early James Bond movies, hoping for work, could step in, but beyond that, Steele has nothing to offer.

    I’m working on the Netflix script. Here are the first few lines:

    Steele: Hi, Ivan, remember me?

    Ivan: Why, it’s Chris Steele! Haven’t seen you in years. Let’s see, you were working for MI-6 in the old days here in Moscow, right? Pretending you were a diplomat. Yes, we had a few lunches back then.

    Steele: Right. Look, I was wondering whether you can tell me anything about a super-secret file you guys are building on Donald Trump. This is the off the record, of course.

    Ivan: Sure. We’re blackmailing him. If we can help him win the election, he’ll be under our control, completely. This is a Putin operation. I don’t like it myself. I think it’s over the top. Anything I can do to put a thorn in Putin’s side, I’m ready to help. It’s a little noisy here in the restaurant. Why don’t we go over to my office and I’ll show you all the data.

    Steele: That’d be great.

    Ivan: We also hacked the DNC and stole thousands of emails. We’re leaking them to Julian Assange. Be sure to keep my name out of it.

    Steele: Of course.

    Ivan: Putin wants Trump to win. I don’t like Trump or Putin. I prefer Hillary. I assume you do, too.

    Steele: Well, sure. I’m working for her. That’s why I’m here.

    Ivan: Wonderful…

    It’s a sure-fire hit.

    It’s so believable.

  14. Only a stupid would have suggested a special counsel and expect decent behavior from him in this situation

  15. Only one logical conclusion based on the reaction of Trump & company is that Trump & company are dirty and guilty – they are in full panic mode and their apologists are showing up here to deflect things also – so GUILTY – no other logical conclusion

      1. Trump fired Yates, Comey, Bharara, and Boente [who “resigned” a few days after telling associates how happy he was to go back to his permanent job] Trump confessed on tape to Russians in Oval Office and to Lester Holt about why he fired Comey. Members of family and administration lied about [conveniently “forgot”] about meetings with Russians and “forgot” to list loads of business associations on their federal disclosure forms. Trump lied that he never did business with Russian associates. Trump has interviewed only 3 of the dozens of US attorneys he needs to appoint, and conveniently these are the three who would have jurisdiction over Mar A Lago and Trump NY businesses [hmmm, why WOULD he do that – maybe lawyer Turley would like to hazard a guess].

        That’s just off the top of my head.

        He’ll likely fire Mueller and he’ll pardon everyone. Then, if god is good, every IC and media outlet in the world that has the evidence of his collaboration with things Russia will release all of it. That will be far better than the JFK papers!

        1. Gene, So far you have said almost nothing. Instead of a litany of things divorced from meaning take your best claim or few best claims and explain based on confirmed facts instead of spin-meisters why you believe Trump did something illegal.

            1. Gene, I see you can only provide ignorant insults and not fact. Is that a sign of laziness or ignorance?

              1. I sincerely apologize for saying that Trump ate your brain. And I reiterate that next time you should try not to be conned by a con.

                1. Gene, Tell us what has made him a con in your eyes while he has been in office. Be specific instead of dealing in generalized junk. Then think about Hillary and her involvement in so many scandals.

                  It’s amazing how little substance there is to so many comments. Don’t add to that problem.

                  1. Stay focused; don’t follow the shiny ball under the couch.

                    This is to “let’s talk about hillary” allan

                    1. Marky Mark Mark – Look, Mark, a squirrel. Another shiny object for you to follow.

          1. Andrew, Gene seems to have difficulty making arguments so all he does is complain without substance.

          2. I imagine it would have been quite impossible for Trump to fire James Comey, Bharara, Yates without people knowing about it.

          3. The main reason that they are common knowledge is that we have a free independent press that is investigating, follow up and reporting on these things. They sometimes make mistakes, yes, but thank god for them and for he First Amendment that enumerated their responsibilities.

            1. The main reason that they are common knowledge is that we have a free independent press that is investigating,

              LMAO.

              You’ve been on the CNN payroll since when?

            2. Gene, don’t confuse what should be true with what is actually true. The MSM has been negligently not reporting all the news and reporting news that never existed. We can clearly see this right now with the Steele dossier.

    2. Baloney, the Dossier was a paid for propaganda piece used to get surveillance on Trump and his associates in a FISA Court after Obama lowered the intelligence community’s abilities to read and spread SAP and making sure that fake Dossier gets passed around so they can claim that 17 security agencies have knowledge of it.

      They paid through a third party, two foreign agents to gather and or create this Dossier for the sole purpose to affect the election and take down a opposition party candidate.

      As far as obstruction, there’s no obstruction saying “I hope” and the Coney was investigating a Dossier that was created, so that is now moot anyway.

      The DNC and Clinton campaign colluded with the Russians and the Dossier is proof. They also sold them America’s Uranium and let it be shipped without any regulations or securities to Canada to be enriched and sold to most likely NK and Iran. That’s a hang till you die offense. These people are as treasonous as it gets and they all should die by hanging.

      1. Providing uranium to adversaries is preposterous considering its primary uses are weapons and energy.

        Why would Hillary provide uranium to potential enemies? Perhaps she provided Putin with “depleted” uranium.

        “Uranium is a very important element because it provides us with nuclear fuel used to generate electricity in nuclear power stations. It is also the major material from which other synthetic transuranium elements are made.

        Naturally occurring uranium consists of 99% uranium-238 and 1% uranium-235. Uranium-235 is the only naturally occurring fissionable fuel (a fuel that can sustain a chain reaction). Uranium fuel used in nuclear reactors is enriched with uranium-235. The chain reaction is carefully controlled using neutron-absorbing materials. The heat generated by the fuel is used to create steam to turn turbines and generate electrical power.

        In a breeder reactor uranium-238 captures neutrons and undergoes negative beta decay to become plutonium-239. This synthetic, fissionable element can also sustain a chain reaction.

        Uranium is also used by the military to power nuclear submarines and in nuclear weapons.

        Depleted uranium is uranium that has much less uranium-235 than natural uranium. It is considerably less radioactive than natural uranium. It is a dense metal that can be used as ballast for ships and counterweights for aircraft. It is also used in ammunition and armour.”

        1. Why would Hillary Clinton or any US government official provide Russia with uranium? Russia produces more than twice as much Uranium as the United States as a percentage of world production—US 2.1%,Russia, 5%. Russia could easily get all the uranium it wants from Kazakhstan, once a part of the Soviet Union, which produces more uranium than any other country in the world—39.3%,of world production. Ukraine also produces nearly as much uranium as the United States does. 2.0 of world production.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production

          1. For MONEY 💰 and she did it. It’s a fact and got money to her foundation, to her husband and $40 million given to people around her.
            The truth is coming out. She used her office as SOS to enrich herself and others.

            1. Do you have any reliable citations for that? Even if she wanted to do it for money why woukd Russia want uranium from the US when they have prodice more uranium than the US does? All you’ve done is make a wild, unsupported and prejudiced accusation. A uranium transfer from the US to Russia makes no sense whatsoever.

              1. Louise, the Canadian company, Uranium One, owned the rights to mine uranium in Kazakhstan. When the Russian company, Rosatom, bought Uranium One, Rosatom bought the rights to mine uranium in Kazakhstan. The Russians were very upset that Uranium One, the Canadian company, had secured the Kazakhstan uranium rights in the first place. The Russians were not really interested in buying the rights to mine uranium in the United States.

        2. Yes and she, Obama, Mueller, Rosenfield, Comey and Lynch did it.

          The gag order on the NDA of the FBI informant has been lifted by the DOJ. This informant has not only paperwork, he has tapes and video. Obama & Lynch threatened this informants liberties and with lawsuits if he testified to congress.

          Since when do NDA’s keep you from testifying on a criminal matter before congress. These actors are guilty of treason by letting yellow cake Uranium leave our borders to go to Canada.

          You better start watching real news because the news you’re watching isn’t telling you the truth. Much like them lying 🤥 to you that Hillary was going to win the election. I was on this blog and told everyone that Trump would win. I was called every name in the book for it. But I was right, Trump won. So you better wake up and demand truth from your news sources or you will always only get propaganda, just like the Dossier. It was used to almost destroy people and their careers for something that was made up and put forth as true by fake news.

            2. “VEROPHARM”

              Joseph Rago –

              “Wall Street Journal Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information” —-Turns Up DEAD 2 Days Later”

              “A Wall Street Journal Editor who was investigating how a Russian
              Pharmaceutical firm could have been purchased in 2014 by an American
              Pharmaceutical firm while Sanctions against Russia existed against such
              business transactions, has been found dead in his New York City
              apartment. The crux of the dead journalists investigation was how
              then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton influenced the transaction to be
              finalized, but only AFTER her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for giving
              a speech in Moscow.

              The Russia Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted
              by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a
              Thursday (20 July) in person interview with consular officials regarding
              an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links
              to Russia. Rago failed to attend the meeting and was later discovered
              dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to
              this meeting occurring.”

              http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/world-news/878-wall-street-journal-reporter-asks-russia-for-clinton-information-2-days-later-turns-up-dead

              2. After the autopsy was completed, the Medical Examiner said Rago of sarcoidosis. MAGA seems desperate today. If MAGA has other information, MAGA should contact the Medical Examiner and tell them that their autopsy was done incorrectly.

                1. The Freddie Gray case revealed that a determined political class can on occasion roll the coroner’s office.

                  —

                  About 14% of those who contract sarcoidosis die of the disease. For men, its less frequent. Death is generally the result of pulmonary fibrosis which is not an ailment which appears overnight. It can also occur when there are heart problems associated with the disease. The number of men who die of cardiac sarcoidosis in a typical year is fewer than 300 in this country, and those succumbing to sudden death fewer still. It’s a reasonable wager the number of people the coroner’s office in New York City has concluded suffered sudden death from sarcoidosis in the last half-dozen years does not exceed a couple dozen. N.B. Young Mr. Rago was not in an occupation at risk for it, either. It’s the sort of disease firefighters turn up with. Young Mr. Rago’s is a case for the books.

          2. You haven’t shown one citation. All you’ve done is made more unsupported accusations.

            Why should the US send uranium to Canada? Canada’s production of uranium is the same as United States’ production. With all of this uranium going to countries that have their own uranium, tne US would have a shortage for its own use. You haven’t explained why either Canada or Russia would wany uranium from the US.

            If it’s fake news then the conservative newspapers in the US are also dealing in the same fake news. You are blind to the giant holes, contradictions and complete lack of logic in your unsupported diatribe,

            1. Putin wanted to corner the market on Uranium. More facts are coming out but the FBI informant will testify in 2weeks.

              You can call it diatribe all you want, facts will always carry truth and that’s not diatribe. It’s all coming out. Again, willful blindness to facts. Liberals can’t handle truth.

              Here’s more facts, Obama has now been outed to have also paid almost a million dollars for the fake Dossier.

              1. “Obama has now been outed to have also paid almost a million dollars for the fake Dossier.”

                Lisa N. Do you have a confirmed source for this?

                  1. Gene, I look for accuracy, not for the results I want to see happen. I’ll wait for Lisa to respond regarding confirmation, but I do note that you have made quite a few statements devoid of fact or confirmation so your criticism seems a bit odd. Maybe Lisa read it somewhere. We still don’t know all the facts in this case. Just a short while ago we didn’t know that Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the FBI were involved in paying for the dossier. Obama’s name might inadvertently be tied to a payment made by the DNC since as President Obama is a leader of the DNC and he is the head of the executive branch and is in ultimate control of the FBI.

                    1. Let me correct myself. Lisa was substantially correct, but it wasn’t Obama. It was his campaign so I can’t blame Lisa. She threw me off and I didn’t link her statement with my prior posting because Obama generally keeps his distance so someone else can be blamed. I will provide my source and Lisa, if she has another one, can provide hers. I apologize to Lisa for doubting what was a reasonable though slightly off comment.

                      Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016

                      Sean Davis

                      Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016
                      Since April of 2016, Obama’s campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.
                      Former President Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.

                      The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. cont below

                      http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=be5ae868af-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-be5ae868af-83964361

        3. “Why would Hillary provide uranium to potential enemies? ”

          It was a business decision, a transaction that brought wealth to the Clintons and potential profit to the purchaser and probably Putin. But it also compromised Clinton and everyone around her which is something that might have been useful to Putin when she became President. A Clinton Presidency ended all the misdeeds but left our country vulnerable.

        4. George, nuclear-power plants in the US consume roughly five times as much uranium as US uranium mines produce. That is partly because of the large size of the US strategic uranium reserves.

          As Louise’s post demonstrated, the Kazakhstan uranium mines are strategically important to US nuclear energy. That is why Bill Clinton helped Frank Guistra’s company, UrAsia, gain uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan in 2005. Moreover, that 2005 deal marked a turning point in Putin’s animosity toward all things Clinton.

          When Putin pressured Kazakhstan to renege on UrAsia’s (subsequently Uranium One’s) rights to mine uranium in Kazakhstan, the stock price of Uranium One declined precipitously, threatening to slow production from US uranium mines and increase the price to US nuclear power-plants, unless the US strategic uranium reserve was drawn down without being replaced with newly produced uranium.

          The problem, George, is that Rosatom was the only bidder for Uranium One. And that means that Rosatom could someday slow-down uranium production in Kazakhstan and increase prices for uranium consumed at US nuclear power-plants.

        1. The Beacon paid for opposition research, which did not include two foreign intelligence nationals being paid. As this is against the FEC laws, it’s a Felony.

          Hillary Clinton and the DNC specifically paid for a made up fake Dossier to be created specifically from Russian sources by a former British spy. It was all planned.

          Then Obama opened up intelligence communications and information sharing so they could share this created Dossier in the intelligence community to create a false security emergency that Russia has blackmail information intelligence on Trump.

          Done to affect the election and frame Trump as an immoral blackmailable president who must step down or be impeached.

          Let’s not put the convenient story out there, let’s put the whole story out there.

          1. . Meuller does not need a stupid pee tape to present the case. The MAGA bot bots have no case.

            1. The facts say one thing and Ken says another. That tells us that one cannot rely upon Ken.

        2. Also interesting to note that Matthew Continetti, the editor in chief of the Free Beacon, is married to Bill Kristol’s daughter. Bill Kristol is one of the biggest Trump haters in Washington. Small world, this Washington press corps.

          1. * oh and, ‘corps’ is pronounced ‘corpse’ if you are Obama the Messiah. 😉

          2. Important to remember we aren’t living in traditional two party politics anymore – that’s the flaw in virtually all pundit-thinking these days. There are Democrats. There are Republicans. There is Trump. At best we are a three party system right now – can easily expand to four if the Sandersistas gain strength.

        1. It doesn’t because I need a subscriotion to read it and I already pay too much for news subscriptions.

          1. “Why It’s Important: Whenever news about the Russia investigation heats up, the Trump White House cites the uranium deal in an effort to muddy the waters and suggest that Russia had gained something from Clinton in exchange for money. Trump himself has claimed the case is “Watergate, modern age.”

            But there is no evidence Clinton even was informed about this deal. The Treasury Department was the key agency that headed the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which approved the investment; Clinton did not participate in the CFIUS decision. The deal was also approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ultimately, only the president could have blocked or suspended the arrangement.

            Moreover, no uranium produced at U.S. mines may be exported, except for some uranium yellowcake which is extracted and processed in Canada before being returned to the United States for use in nuclear power plants.” From the WAPO article

            1. Swt arthmore thinks Hillary knew nothing about the Uranium deal. That is not credible even from the most common sense position. $140,000,000 being placed in her account, foundation account, makes a lot of noise as does a doubling of Bill’s speaking fees.

              Why people like you argue without providing proof and fact is beyond being rational.

              1. I provided the info from the Washington Post and provided no personal opinion. If you knew anything about the nuclear industry you would know that the NRC is a very thorough and non partisan agency and they approved the deal according to the records.

                1. Swarthmoremom, I guess that tells us we have to be careful about trusting the Washington Post. Use common sense. Additionally, there are reports that we do not know where some of that uranium is.

                  I used to like the Washington Post, but in recent years it seems to be making some of the news rather than reporting it. A broader range of sources would do you some good. I wish newspapers and news websites would separate the news from opinion and that goes for both the right and left wing news media.

              2. You might want to look up some info about the guy who made those donations, when he sold his small company to the larger one in question, and when he made the donations.

                1. Gene, Instead of speaking in code why don’t you clearly say what happened. It sounds as if you are unsure of yourself.

                  1. Allan, Gene is referring to Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer. Guistra’s company, UrAsia, changed its name to Uranium One after it acquired uranium mines in the United States and South Africa. Guistra then sold his stake in the company after which Telfer became the CEO. Guistra then joined with Bill Clinton to start the Clinton-Guistra “something-or-other” Initiative. That was the bulk of the donation from Guistra to the Clinton Foundation. Later on Telfer also donated to the same Clinton-Guistra “whatever” Initiative.

                    BTW, Allan, you posted an article a few days back on the EO3 thread that answered your own question. So either you’re still indulging yourself in your Perry Mason impersonation or you still don’t read the articles that you post on the blawg.

                    P. S. Gene appears to be raising a question about the timing of the contributions from Guistra and Telfer before the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom. Neither Guistra nor Telfer knew at the time of their contributions top the Clinton-Guistra “whatchamacallit” that Uranium One’s stock price would plummet when Putin pressured Kazakhstan to renege on the uranium mining rights that UrAsia bought in 2005.

                    1. Some of what you say is true. There were more than two entities involved in what was ultimately purchased and that perhaps is why there were so many different donations to the Clinton Foundation at the same time. Clinton as Secretary of State pledged that her Foundation would act transparently and in accordance with the law regarding donations, but she didn’t. That shouldn’t surprise us when we take a look at her email accounts, flaunting Congress, lying etc. How anyone supported her is an enigma to me. I guess it is the part of being Progressive, permitting, lying and stealing, that permits one to stomach Hillary.

            1. One does get free views each month, though I’m not sure how many.

              Thanks for the link, gene.

            2. NY Times: 10 free articles each month

              Washington Post: Once upon a time, it was 20 free views/articles, but I’m not sure the limit has been changed. (8-10, at least, I believe.)

        2. “This should help.”

          How does it help?

          I stopped reading this so-called fact checker after this statement:

          “But that ignores the fact that DNC emails — as well as the email account of the Clinton campaign chairman — were hacked and then published by WikiLeaks as part of the pro-Trump Russian operation identified by U.S. intelligence agencies. ”

          The fact checker drew a conclusion without proof where a different conclusion might be more credible. The DNC could have been an inside job and if it truly was a Russian job then the DNC interfered with national security interests by not letting the FBI investigate the computer system. The FBI would have also been culpable in hindering our national security interests by not insisting under the law that they investigate the hacking.

          It appears the fact checkers at the Washington Post are nothing more than spin-meisters. Unfortunately, that taints your veracity as well, gene, though I doubt that is what you intended. Sometimes it is better to copy the portion you agree with to avoid the portions that make everyone look foolish.

        3. Here’s the text from Gene’s link to WaPo:

          The Dossier

          Background: The “dossier” is a collection of 17 memos concerning President Trump and Russia written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, between June 20 and Dec. 13, 2016. Steele produced his memos under a contract with Fusion GPS, a strategic intelligence firm run by former journalists.

          The memos are written as raw intelligence, based on interviews Steele had with unidentified Russian sources (identified, for instance, as “Kremlin insider”), some of whom he paid for information. Raw intelligence is essentially high-grade gossip, without the expectation it would be made public unless it is further verified.

          The memos, among other things, allege the Russian government had been seeking to split the Western alliance by cultivating and supporting Trump and also gathering compromising information — “kompromat” — on him in an effort to blackmail him. The memos, among other allegations, claim the Russian government fed the Trump campaign “valuable intelligence” on Clinton.

          Why It’s Important: The dossier mirrors a separate conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that the Russian government intervened in the U.S. election in an effort to bolster Trump and harm Clinton, such as through hacking the Democratic National Committee and distributing materials to WikiLeaks to publish at key moments. As the official declassified report stated:

          “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

          Russian President Vladimir Putin intensely disliked Clinton because he was convinced that when she was secretary of state she had promoted anti-Putin, pro-democracy efforts in his country. The FBI considered the information gathered by Steele to be of sufficient importance that it considered paying him for his research, although it later dropped the idea.

          What’s New: The DNC and Clinton campaign were revealed as the “Democratic donors” who paid Fusion GPS for Steele’s research. (Technically, Perkins Coie, the law firm of Marc Elias, an attorney representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, funded the research.)

          Separately, a “Republican donor” who had earlier hired Fusion GPS for information on Trump was revealed to be the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website. But that earlier effort is unrelated to the Democratic-funded research that yielded the dossier, as Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after work for the Free Beacon had ended.

          We should note that, in another assignment, Fusion had been hired by a U.S. law firm in early 2014 to assist on the defense against a civil action filed by the U.S. government alleging fraud by Prevezon Holdings. Prevezon is owned by Denis Katsyv, the son of a senior Russian government official.

          Why is that relevant? Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was also working for the law firm on the Prevezon case, met with Trump campaign officials at the Trump Tower in June 2016, including Donald Trump Jr., campaign manager Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, the husband of Ivanka Trump. Donald Trump Jr. agreed to meet with Veselnitskaya after an intermediary promised dirt on Clinton. She arrived with a memo containing talking points that had been previously shared by Yuri Chaika, Russia’s prosecutor general who is known as a master of kompromat.

          What’s controversial: The Trump White House has tried to use the connection between the dossier and Clinton to claim that this shows that rather than Trump colluding with Russia, Clinton colluded with Russia. (The theory appears to be that because Steele was getting information from Russian officials in part with funds provided by the Clinton campaign, the Russians were helping Clinton.)

          But that ignores the fact that DNC emails — as well as the email account of the Clinton campaign chairman — were hacked and then published by WikiLeaks as part of the pro-Trump Russian operation identified by U.S. intelligence agencies. (Wikileaks denies it received the material from Russia.) Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported that a prominent Trump donor and the chief executive of a data-analytics firm working for Trump’s presidential campaign in August 2016 discussed how to better organize the Clinton-related emails being released by Wikileaks in order to leverage their impact.

          Steele started producing his memos in June 2016, about the same time that intelligence agencies began investigating possible ties between Russia and people close to Trump. The connection between Steele’s research and official government investigations is murky, but for some Republicans it raises questions about whether the official probe begun in the Obama administration was influenced by information gathered by someone being paid by Democrats.

          CNN, for instance, reported that the FBI used information in the Steele memos to obtain approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who Trump had said was a key adviser on national security issues. Presumably, the FBI had verified the information before it could cite it in court. Steele had quoted an “ethnic Russian close associate” of Trump as saying Page was an intermediary in “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership. Page has adamantly denied any wrongdoing.

          Steele, during the campaign, at Fusion’s direction also briefed reporters from some U.S. news organizations, including The Washington Post, on his findings, according to court filings. Only one publication, Mother Jones, published information based on the briefing before the election.

          The Uranium deal

          Background: In 2010, Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company that had mining licenses for about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity. The agreement was approved by the Obama administration when Clinton was secretary of state.

          Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, had sold a company, UrAsia, to Uranium One in 2007. Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. Meanwhile, in 2010, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank to give a speech at a conference in Moscow.

          Trump, during the campaign, tossed all of these separate facts together to falsely claim that Clinton “gave 20 percent of our uranium — gave Russia for a big payment.” But numerous fact checks have found no evidence for this claim. The original suggestion of wrongdoing was first raised in a book underwritten by an organization headed by Stephen K. Bannon, a key adviser to Trump.

          Why It’s Important: Whenever news about the Russia investigation heats up, the Trump White House cites the uranium deal in an effort to muddy the waters and suggest that Russia had gained something from Clinton in exchange for money. Trump himself has claimed the case is “Watergate, modern age.”

          But there is no evidence Clinton even was informed about this deal. The Treasury Department was the key agency that headed the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which approved the investment; Clinton did not participate in the CFIUS decision. The deal was also approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ultimately, only the president could have blocked or suspended the arrangement.

          Moreover, no uranium produced at U.S. mines may be exported, except for some uranium yellowcake which is extracted and processed in Canada before being returned to the United States for use in nuclear power plants.

          What’s New: The Hill newspaper on Oct. 22 reported the FBI had gathered evidence at the time of the sale that a Russian Rosatom official had conducted a massive bribery scheme, compromising an American trucking company that shipped uranium for Russia. The official eventually was convicted in 2015, but Republicans have said the case should have raised alarms about the Rosatom investment in Uranium One and possibly blocked the deal. But there is no evidence that U.S. officials weighing the transaction knew about the FBI investigation.

          The reporting prompted House Republicans to announce they would launch an investigation. With the apparent urging of President Trump, the Justice Department gave a former FBI informant in the case approval to testify before Congress. The informant’s lawyer claimed he would discuss his work “uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with [former president Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”

          What’s controversial: Any suggestion that Russian money was directed to influence Clinton’s decisions would be explosive. But the fatal flaw in this allegation is Hillary Clinton, by all accounts, did not participate in any discussions regarding the Uranium One sale which — as we noted — does not actually result in the removal of uranium from the United States.

          1. The problem is that there is a lot of garbage in the above report since it intentionally slants the truth.

            Everything Russian in the dossier was paid for by Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the FBI. The FBI was led by Mueller and then Comey.

            The DNC was likely an inside hack. claimed to be Russian interference in our elections. The problem is that the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate and the FBI acceded to the DNC’s requests. This was and is a national security issue demonstrating that the FBI did not do its job and was heavily influenced by the DNC.

            The Podesta group (J. Podesta was Hillary’s campaign manager) was deeply involved in Fusion (Steele dossier). Both Podesta brothers are under investigation for all sorts of things. There is no evidence the Russians favored Trump. The opposite is the most likely. Clinton had already been involved with the Ukraine, had emails that were nonsecure, was pushing a reset button, Obama off mike told Medvedev that after the election he could be more flexible (the American population was not supposed to hear that), $145 Million in the Hillary foundation and half a million to Bill Clinton at the time of the Uranium One dealings that Putin had involvement in. Over and over we see the dastardly acts of the Clintons trying to blame their bad deeds on others. A pattern that has existed over their entire political history. Let’s not forget Hillary’s slander against those that accused her husband of rape or inappropriate sexual actions against them.

            There is so much more that the article misstates or spins.

          2. A better discussion is here:

            A Bipartisan Dossier of Collusion

            October 28, 2017 4:00 AM
            Have you noticed that we are no longer talking merely about “the Trump Dossier”? Ever since the Washington Post’s startling revelation this week that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, there’s been a subtle tweak in the coverage. Now, reports allude to the research that led to the Trump dossier.

            Why the shift in emphasis? Because the Democrats and their media accomplices are doing what they do best: controlling the terms of the public discussion in order to obfuscate.

            Democrats now own the dossier. That is a problem. The dossier was supposed to be seen as a roadmap of Trump collusion with Russia. But now, the dossier is emerging as a campaign dirty trick that was itself compiled through collusion between the Democrats’ contractor and Russian sources. Hence, focus on the dossier has become counterproductive. Better to refer to the research that led to the dossier, which widens the lens to capture some Republican involvement in an initial anti-Trump research project.

            In reality, only after this project was taken over by Democrats were new operatives hired and the dossier created. Still, Dems and their media allies figure the facts are vague enough that the early research can be conflated with the eventual dossier, thus implicating Republicans — and obscuring the Democrats’ singular culpability.

            Clever, but it’s not going to work. After a year of Democrats pounding the Trump-Russia drum, it won’t help them to tee up the dossier (and, of course, the research!) as a bipartisan undertaking. Not when it turns out that collusion itself is a bipartisan undertaking.

            On the dossier, let’s get this straight: There would be no dossier were it not for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. My own previous reluctance to finger the Clinton campaign has been proven wrong by the Post’s reporting. (And in a correction to its original story, the Post itself has noted that left-leaning Mother Jones reported in October 2016 that the compendium now known as the dossier was a Democrat-funded research effort.)

            Continued at:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453205/steele-dossier-democrats-collusion-russia

      4. Parts of the raw intelligence data have been independently corroborated already. The salacious parts were a couple of paragraphs.

        1. Tell us the corroborations that affect Trump and Hillary.

          The false Russian angle was created and paid for by Hillary and the DNC.

          Let’s hear facts instead of innuendo.

          1. Allan, the Steele dossier was raw human intelligence that had not yet been analyzed for veracity. Raw intelligence typically raises questions without providing any answers. Subsequent investigation is the only way to answer the questions raised by raw intelligence. Meanwhile, The Russian informants for the salacious portion of the dossier might very well have been Russian agents provocateurs. The more interesting part of the dossier is the alleged meeting between Trump’s lawyer, Micheal Cohen, and supposed Russian operatives. Cohen denies the meeting. However, Cohen initially denied, but subsequently admitted, having proffered Yanukovich’s Ukrainian Peace Plan to the Russians. So there. Take that.

            1. The Russian angle began when Hillary, the DNC and later the FBI started paying the bill. It was all BS, but like a good Progressive, you will make all sorts of excuses to cloud the illegal acts by lying Hillary and the rest of the lying Progressives.

              1. Allan said, “The Russian angle . . . was all BS.”

                You’ve prematurely overstated your case, Counselor. Parts of the Steele dossier–such as the urination allegation–were most likely Russian propaganda. Other parts of the Steele dossier have not yet been dismissed as Russian propaganda. Michael Cohen’s alleged meeting with Russian operatives might eventually be dismissed as Russian propaganda. Or not. In the meantime, Cohen’s delivery of Artemenko’s peace plan to Flynn does not bolster the credibility of Cohen’s denial of the alleged meeting with Russian operatives. And Cohen has already been named as someone who Mueller is investigating.

                P. S. Do you remember the old schoolyard playground taunt about rubber versus glue? If you don’t, just ask TBob.

                1. What you are saying Diane is typical of the liars propelling junk into the news stream. Nothing in the dossier can even be considered as fact since the dossier was already frontpage news that has been totally discredited. If there are any items left in the dossier they cannot be used as proof, so if you think something is true quote another primary source or continue to advance the lies of liars and become one.

                1. Manafort is not the issue. He did a lot of things before Trump and even worked with the Podesta’s and they are all involved with dealings we are talking about today that had nothing to do with any Trump campaign involvement, though the Podesta’s had a lot to do with Hillary’s campaign. You have added zero fact and a bunch of opinions that don’t involve Trump.

                  Your posting of this paragraph demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is going on.

                  [“The Podesta Group and another firm, Mercury Public Affairs, are listed in the indictment as “Company A” and “Company B,” although it is not known which company is A or B. The two firms were hired by Manafort to lobby for the Yanukovych government in 2012 but did not register as foreign agents until 2017.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tony-podesta-manafort-indictment_us_59f78e1ae4b0aec1467a2417 ]

            2. Correction: Michael Cohen delivered Ukranian lawmaker Andrii V. Artemenko’s peace plan between Russia and The Ukraine to Michael Flynn one week before Trump fired Flynn. There’s no evidence Yanukovich had anything to do with Artemenko’s plan. However, Artemenko claimed that associates of Putin approved of his plan.

          2. It’s been corroborated that Trump was pursuing a “Trump Hotel Moscow” while running for President. It was alleged in the dossier that such real estate deals were being pursued. It’s been corroborated that high ranking campaign officials were meeting with Russians (i.e. Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions). All of them denied the meetings until proven by reporting.

            1. enigma – it probably was not Trump who was looking to build a hotel but someone who branded the name.

                1. enigma – when you are a businessman at Trump’s level, business does not stop because of an election, unlike our legislators who play hooky from Congress. Moscow is an ideal location for one of his hotels.

                  1. When a businessman runs for President, normally they would try to avoid conflicts of interest and not embrace them, all the while lying to the American public.
                    I found it interesting that Mueller apparently has all of Manafort’s tax returns. What are the chances he doesn’t have Trump’s?

              1. If he told the same story about “not pursuing any Russian business deals” to the FBI instead of just the whole nation, that would be a crime. This only makes him a liar (which we knew) with multiple conflicts of interest (which we knew) and scum (again… we knew).

                  1. Being a liar when it comes to obstructing justice is a criminal offense. I don’t have to speculate on whether or not he obstructed justice. We’ll all be finding out soon enough!

                    1. Do you think (Hillary) refusing to turn over emails to Congress and then wiping the hard disc clean isn’t obstructing justice?

            3. I don’t know if it was Trump or someone else that was using his name (PCS), but it doesn’t matter Trump is a businessman, builder, and marketer that has business in many locations. What is wrong with building a hotel in Moscow (mespo)?

              Here is a list of worldwide Hilton hotels. Should we arrest the Hiltons? Do you think a Hilton was directly responsible for the construction of each of these hotels? Which ones are franchises? Do you know what a franchise is?

              AlgeriaArgentinaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBarbadosBelgiumBrazilBulgariaCabo VerdeCameroonCanadaChadChinaColombiaCroatiaCuracaoCyprusCzech RepublicEcuadorEgyptEquatorial GuineaEstoniaEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceFrench PolynesiaGeorgiaGermanyGreeceGuamHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKuwaitLebanonMalaysiaMaltaMauritiusMexicoMontenegroMoroccoMyanmarNamibiaNetherlandsNew Caledonia (French)New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaOmanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationSaudi ArabiaSeychellesSingaporeSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSpainSri LankaSwedenSwitzerlandThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyU.A.EUSAUkraineUnited KingdomUzbekistanVietnam

              ” It’s been corroborated that high ranking campaign officials were meeting with Russians (i.e. Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions). All of them denied the meetings until proven by reporting.”

              It’s not unusual for people to meet with Russians. It’s context enigma. I’m sure you have had Russian dressing. Should we assume you are a crook? Sessions was a Senator and invariably met many people and met a Russian ambassador at a function. Is that really a meeting? One has to have their head in the wrong place to think in the fashion you are doing, but I will give you a chance to climb out of crazy-land and enter the place where normal humans exist.

              Take each individual by name, state the date of the meeting, the context and how the meeting involved Trump in an illegal act. Make sure there is proof. You get an F for your above comment.

              1. Allan, Allan, Allan. There you go again, demanding I prove to you what is well established in the public record. Sessions lien in his confirmation hearings when being questioned by Al Franken, Kushner lied about multiple meetings as did Don, Jr. They conspired to explain away Don, Jr’s meetings in a lie dictated by the President. If the meetings were about nothing, why are they all lying so much about them?
                Regarding Trump Tower Moscow, if you are negotiating to remove sanctions against Russia in opposition to the interests of the Country to advance your own business interests? Sounds like treason to me?

                1. There you go again, demanding I prove to you what is well established in the public record.

                  No, established in your imagination.

                2. Doesn’t sound like treason to me. I’d love for you to explain why I am wrong as I remind you, treason sounds more like approving a deal to give Russia control of Uranium One. I mean, uranium is only used for one of three things and Russia isn’t a) a paragon of nuclear power generation or b) purveyor of nuclear medicine. That leaves c) and uranium will do a whole lot more than a truckload of C4 if you are picking up what I’m laying down.

                  1. I’m seeing among Trump followers, nothing the man could ever do would be considered even wrong let alone treason. The “control” of the uranium is completely in US hands and the company can’t export anything without US approval. Clinton’s role in approving the sale was minimal (One of 9 Cabinet members on a committee that had to approve it) and her staff did all the work. Again, the uranium is now and has always been in the United States.

                    1. Trump can do plenty wrong, but to date, he has done a good job. Increased employment, increased growth of the economy, increased salaries. Obama said we would have to learn to live with less and Trump proved him wrong.

                      Hillary is a different story. You say that no uranium leaves the US, but no one is sure of that and to be honest that isn’t the most important thing. It’s an excuse. Hillary used her office to enrich herself at the expense of America and the American people. Even if no harm was done that is wrong and harm was done. Hillary lied about her email accounts and compromised national security. Documents of hers are all over and who knows what has been given to the enemy and if some of those documents led to the deaths of Americans. We know her actions tried to blame an American for Benghazi which could have led to jail yet she knew the truth of what happened. But what does she care about American lives? Women talk about sexual harassment, but she was right there doing what you do best enigma character assassination. I guess you care about women’s rights as much as Hillary cared for the women’s rights that were sexually harassed by her husband. You have an odd way of accusing one person and completely forgetting about the true crime staring you in the face.

                    3. I looked at the article. It points out that some of the “yellow-cake” went to Canada for processing with most of it returned to the US and about 25% went to Western Europe or Japan. That’s definitely not within the spirit of the understanding (they used the transporter’s license and I don’t know if they got approval) and should be looked into. There is no indication any went to Russia and most of it is not “gone.”

                      “Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

                      Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.”

                    5. Unlike yourself Allan, When Mespo referred to something of which I was unaware, I researched it myself instead of demanding he prove it. He had provided enough information for me to do so. I incorporated the new information into my base of knowledge. You might try that sometime? In the meanwhile, I’ll be thinking of a troll theme song for you as you certainly deserve one.

                    7. “Unlike yourself Allan”

                      I generally have the proof before I make my comments. You just make things up and lie all the time. That is your nature. Once again you have an excuse and a poor one at that because I seem to remember mespo’s comment being mentioned before and you being in the room.

                      I also seem to remember Sessions clarifying his greetings to the Russian ambassador at a political event where both were supposed to be. Sessions explained why he didn’t consider that a meeting and that explanation was factual. Suddenly excuses, even very legitimate ones don’t count because those excuses destroy your phony scenario. In fact, you even go further and quote two meaningless words of Sessions while placing your own words before and after those two words in order to make it appear Sessions said what you wanted to hear. That is a disguting type of lie, but that is who you are.

                    8. I provided a videotape of the man lying to the Senate. Sessions had meetings plural that he denied not just one. And your idea of “proof’ of your statements is laughable. You may feel free to continue this conversation by yourself, I have writing to do.

                    9. “I provided a videotape of the man lying to the Senate. ”

                      Enigma, once again you are a liar. He told the truth. You are broadly interpreting what he said when what he said was clear. He had no meeting. For people that run businesses the word meeting has a specific meaning. You are not happy with the correct answer so you formulate your gotcha answer in order to cover your lies. Sessions clearly explained away all your protestations including your attempt to fool people into thinking your statement was a quote by Sessions based upon only two of his words (“may have”). You are a liar. You prove that over and over again.

                    10. Breaking News! Sessions now recalls a meeting in which he rejected the suggestion by Papadopoulos about setting up Trump meeting with Russians. He had previously denied under oath in a Senate hearing having attended any meetings or participated in any discussions in which anything like that had taken place.
                      This revision takes place as the House prepares to recall him to discuss his previous testimony.
                      Allan, you are now welcome to tell us why he didn’t lie?

                    11. enigma – revision of memory is not a problem for people who have a lot on their plate. I once signed off on an agreement to judge teachers for competence. The first time we actually used it, I actually read it in depth and was against it, in part. I had to be reminded that 6 months earlier I had signed off on it. I still have no clear memory of signing off on it but I was running about 10 projects at a time, so I probably glanced at it and said okay not paying it any attention. Then it came back to bite me in the butt. 🙂

                    12. I’ll suspect that memory lapse wasn’t under oath during a Senate Confirmation Hearing? How many such lapses by Sessions is an acceptable number? It seems he never remembers on his own and corrects the record without being prodded by public reporting of events he’s previously denied knowledge of. With all the recent reporting of Papadopoulos having suggested Russia meetings and the photo of the meeting with Trump and Sessions at different ends of the table. He didn’t remember it even then?

                    13. Paul, some people do so little work and complain so much that they have a tendency to remember almost everything they do and so does everyone else. Then there are the producers that frequently are the ones responsible for feeding the former and occasionally those people don’t remember unimportant facts. The complainers have difficulty recognizing that unimportant facts are put aside by the producers so more work can be accomplished. If that didn’t happen the complainers might starve to death.

                    14. Enigma, you continue to lie. Your words ” he rejected the suggestion by Papadopoulos about setting up Trump meeting with Russians.” What is wrong with him rejecting a meeting with the Russians? The question asked was whether he met with the Russians which isn’t a very specific question and can be interpreted in many different fashions.

                      How many times and how many different ways have you already tried to lie about Sessions. Have we reached a dozen? More? You always lie about evidence that isn’t even on point. You even create sentences quoting two words of his in order to make believe Sessions said what you wanted him to sy.

                      You are disgusting.

                    15. Attack me all you like. He was asked not whether he approved any trips to meet Russians but whether he had knowledge of any conversations about Russia. If he had not lied, he’d have no reason to revise his testimony. Attacking me doesn’t take away his lie. If knowing this and saying so makes me disgusting. So be it.

                    16. I’m not attacking you. I am just confirming each time you lie which soon might go into triple digit numbers. Apparently lying and calling people racists is no big deal for you and perhaps is your way of life. That is fine. Different strokes for different folks.

                      “If he had not lied, he’d have no reason to revise his testimony.”

                      Sounds like a brain that is running on low. Sessions didn’t lie when he answered the question, but since then there have been questions about the questions asked and answered. With a lot of time to think Sessions has clarified some of the misunderstandings due to questions that were not specific enough. That is entirely reasonable and quite common.

                    17. Carter page just reported he testified to Congress that he told Sessions before he took his trip to Russia. One more incidence of a conversation he denied vehemently and indignantly having.
                      I have no problem calling a racist a racist. I don’t use the word injudiciously or as a throwaway term. Despite any disagreements with you, for example, I’ve never called you one. There is a person on this blog I’ve called one as have others. There isn’t a case where I can’t explain why I say what I said and can document it. You may have set a bar for being racist so high that absolutely no one qualifies but you can’t impose that on me.

                    18. “I have no problem calling a racist a racist. I don’t use the word injudiciously or as a throwaway term. ”

                      I think you certainly have injudiciously thrown out the term racist before and you never corrected the record. My bar isn’t too high. My bar prevents the overuse of the term so it doesn’t diminish the actual pain and suffering of those subject to real racism. I think some of your attitudes promotes racism and racial discord. Tribalism is the result of your type of rhetoric and tribalism isn’t pretty.

                    19. Is their anyone alive that you feel is racist, besides me, Black Lives Matter and anyone else you might think is racist against white people? Can you name one public figure that meets your criteria?

                    20. There are plenty of people that are racists, but that is their business until their racism causes them to involve themselves in illegal activities. There is also reverse racism which IMO is nothing more than racism. You seem to like to separate the races (“and anyone else you might think is racist against white people?”) I don’t believe in that. You like tribalism. I don’t believe in that either. You are constantly measuring things to see to it that proportionality is maintained. I base these things on merit with the recognition that sometimes some people fall through cracks. You fix those cracks based upon proportionality not based upon need. You are a whiner and a complainer frequently twisting the truth which is essentially lying and it appears you approve of race-baiting.

                    22. enigmain black said to Allan, “In the meanwhile, I’ll be thinking of a troll theme song for you as you certainly deserve one.”

                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity doo,
                      I’ve got another riddle for you.
                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity dee,
                      If you are wise you will listen to me.

                      What do you get when with Allan you joust?
                      Whose bargain with Trump may remind one of Faust.
                      Who sold his soul just to look on her face,
                      Not Helen of Troy but Hillary in her place?

                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity dee,.
                      Locking her up is an errant folly.
                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity doo,
                      That’s all Allan’s got; Mistah Trump, he through.

                    24. “Trumpa lumpa dumpity doo,”

                      Trump is President and HRC a proven cheat that rigged the Democratic Party’s primary. What more does one need to know?

                3. Enigma, I don’t demand you prove anything. You have proven that what you call fact is tainted like almost everything you say. You are just trying to twist a story to meet your desired results. You are not an honest broker and honest intelligent people recognize that.

                  Take note how many accusations you make, but the proof seldom if ever exists and that is why you complain when proof is requested. Sessions never lied. That is your opinion. A lie is an intentional mistruth. Go ahead and prove that Sessions met that criteria. You couldn’t weeks ago and you can’t now. You partake in character assassination to promote your particular gutter ideology that can’t stand the light of day. That is why it is so easy for you to call people racists and liars without proof. It’s disgusting.

                    1. He didn’t lie. NBC would like to crucify Sessions, but they didn’t say he lied. Why? Because he didn’t. You did.

                    3. Congratulations enigma, you found a left-wing commentator from a left-wing journal who intentionally twists the truth just like you do and is a liar. Sessions was at a government function and the Russian ambassador was there. I suppose from now on all appointees have to ask what is a meeting? Is that where two people agree to meet and discuss things or is a meeting simply when two people collide or are introduced.

                      No, I didn’t have a meeting with my staff though we did our daily business and acknowledged each other’s existence. You are distorting the meaning and the general intention of such a question to play gotcha. That is intentional and is a lie. You do that when calling people racists when you have no evidence. It’s a dirty game you like to play and it forces everyone close to you to need a shower.

                    4. You need a theme song to play when you come trolling. He met with the Russian Ambassador at least twice and acknowledged he “may have” discussed campaign issues. He talks like a man who isn’t sure what they have on him.

                    5. “Ambassador at least twice and acknowledged he “may have” discussed campaign issues.”

                      Do you know what liars do enigma? Just what you did. They quote two words of a person and place them out of context between words that are not the words of that person. That makes them liars.

                      You seem to have the quote “may have” Where is the rest of the quote? Why do you have only two words and the rest of the words are yours? Obviously, there was more to the sentence and paragraph than those two words, Because you wish to lie and the real sentence is different than yours. That is a lie.

                    6. Trumpa lumpa dumpity doo,
                      I’ve got another riddle for you.
                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity dee,
                      If you are wise you will listen to me.

                      What does it mean when a nominee bleats,
                      Not a once with a Russian did he ever meet?
                      No campaign issues broached when that Russian sat near.
                      Not a lie in the context of questions unclear?

                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity dee,
                      Sessions recused himself for lapsed memory.
                      Trumpa lumpa dumpity doo,
                      That’s all Allan’s got; Mistuh Trump, he through.

      5. Rich. Not even creative fiction. Pravda Faux News sold you a bill of goods…FYI: the Sunday New York Times has the actual and factual story on the “uranium scandal.” If you were to refer to it, you’d instantly (?) see the difference between the work of bona fide journalists and what propagandists issue.

        this is to “but Hannity sounded so sincere” lisa

        1. Marky Mark Mark – the NYT has not had a bona fide journalist on its staff in the last century. Right now they take orders from the DNC just like everybody else.

          1. What Would Allen Say

            Allen would say this:
            “[PCS,] it’s amazing how little substance there is to so many comments. Don’t add to that problem.”

            Or this:
            “[PCS] seems to have difficulty making arguments so all he does is complain without substance.”

            Maybe this:
            “[PCS] Do you have a confirmed source for this?”

            This would be good:
            “Why people like you argue without providing proof and fact is beyond being rational.”

            This would work also:
            “[PCS], your statement was a bit disjointed so I figured I would give you an opportunity to clarify what you wish to say and give you a chance to inject a bit of fact.

            Why, Allen would say this:
            “[PCS], So far you have said almost nothing. Instead of a litany of things divorced from meaning take your best claim or few best claims and explain based on confirmed facts . . .”

            1. WWAS – check the Project Veritas video drops on the Grey Lady. Very interesting. Show a decided lack of interest in truth-telling by the Grey Lady.

              1. So do you.

                Has Nick Spinelli handed you the torch of being the umpire here?

                It’s funny how you consistently demand that commentators present issues in a fashion that reflects your thinking and what you perceive as the direction the commentary should follow.

                Ignoring your own transgressions, yet demanding others check theirs, is bad form.

                1. WWAS – since you started out by quoting me out of context, which is bad form, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on. Actually, you are fighting dirty to start with. Do you want to continue that way, or do you want to be civil? I can go either way.

                  1. “WWAS – since you started out by quoting me out of context, which is bad form, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on.” — PCS

                    I didn’t quote you at all, PCS.

                    You’re such a fool; the joke was at Allen’s expense — as in WWAS.

                    All the quotes I provided were Allan’s words, with your moniker in square brackets to replace the directed chiding Allen has offered to others on this thread and many others.

                    This is very obvious to any that read. The fact that you think I quoted you tells me that both your memory of contribution and your reading is lacking.

                    Follow the quotes back, PCS; they all occur on this thread. Allen is down other people’s throats with such nebulous ideas of keeping the “conversation” on track — sort of like you a few years back.

                    It’s not up to Allen to dictate the responses of others, nor is it yours.

                    2. There is little to reply to here, PCS.

                      You were not quoted out of context — you were not quoted at all.

                      Puff your chest up as much as you like, little will come of it, I’m sure.

                    3. WWAS – I have my answer, soon you shall have yours. All good things come to those who wait.

                      a

                    4. Your call, PCS.

                      But don’t let my opinion that you offer little — except quantity of comments — influence your decision.

                  2. Paul, it appears WWAS has a lack of reading comprehension and is denying what is clear to intelligent people. As you already recognize his response was a backhand insult to you while he was striking out at me. It’s sad to see a grown man unable to create an argument in his favor based upon content.

                    2. Gosh, Paul, you ask difficult questions. Since we only see text we can only gauge mental development and based on his recent comments I would say not high. We could say young, with a chance of development, old in decline or one in his prime that was intellectually stunted. You are the educator so you tell me.

                    3. Allan – I do not guess people’s ages on a blog, that is insane. However, some people will make cultural references that give you clues to roughly how old they are.

                2. “Has Nick Spinelli handed you the torch of being the umpire here?”

                  WWAS, Perhaps you need an umpire to tell you right from wrong and a spin-meister to tell you what to think. I am not an umpire just an individual who likes to base his opinions on fact. That requires a bit more work and skill than repeating misstatements so you can choose the methodology that suits your personality.

                  “It’s funny how you consistently demand that commentators present issues in a fashion that reflects your thinking and what you perceive as the direction the commentary should follow.”

                  I understand why you might not want to take the more difficult road of studying and reading. I saw that throughout the education process and noted some would graduate with C’s and some with A’s. Those that wrote junk got C’s. That is appropriate, right?

                  “Ignoring your own transgressions, yet demanding others check theirs, is bad form.”

                  Anytime I transgress you have the opportunity to quote me and debate what I said. But, you just included the questions and conclusions along with my desire to hear some facts in your quotes, not the substance of the debate. Perhaps that takes a bit too much work for you? You do realize that this blog deals in debate, right?

                  Bad form is not having reasonable proof to back up what one says. Do you think repeating nonsense is a good thing?

                  1. “Perhaps you need an umpire to tell you right from wrong and a spin-meister to tell you what to think.”

                    And who anointed you this this glorious position, Allen?

                    “I understand why you might not want to take the more difficult road of studying and reading.”

                    What a great deflection — accuse strangers laughing at your very deflections of self-made requirements of valid commentary.

                    As with PCS, you don’t recognize when someone is laughing hilariously at your “studying and reading.”

                    1. WWAS, I love your work. I hope you have the stamina you’ll need to wrangle with Allan. Do you have any previous experience corralling greased pigs???

                    2. Late4Dinner said: “WWAS, I love your work.”

                      Ditto.

                      Late4Dinner, again: “I hope you have the stamina you’ll need to wrangle with Allan. Do you have any previous experience corralling greased pigs???”

                      “Greased pig” sums him up nicely. And he’s a particularly slippery and nasty one.

                    3. “And who anointed you this this glorious position, Allen?”

                      Absolutely no one. You recognize that this is an open blog, right?. Stupid ideas are permitted to circulate and be repeated by mindless ones, some of whom have posted and provided you congratulations. No facts provided because these folk generally don’t have or like facts but do like to pile up like rats on cheese. I’ve asked you to quote when I transgress and try to use your intellect to dispute my ideas. That is known as debate something you seem afraid of, unless the problem is you lack intellect.

                    4. “WWAS, I love your work. ”

                      Of course, you do Diane. The intellectually challenged generally like to stand together, but low-level thinking plus low-level thinking equals low-level thinking. Why don’t you try and boost your dialogue up a notch? You can and maybe the others will follow. Maybe WWAS, but I don’t think anonymous can.

                    5. “sums him up nicely. And he’s ”

                      Anonymous, you better worry a bit more about getting to the cheese. The other two appear a bit smarter than you so you better run faster and earlier so they don’t beat you out.

                    6. To the question I presented, which was prompted by Allen’s claim of my need of ‘umpires’:

                      “And who anointed you this this glorious position, Allen?”

                      Allen’s response was:

                      “Absolutely no one.”

                      Which is the correct answer, yet Allen misses his own point, given his very next sentence:

                      “You recognize that this is an open blog, right?”

                      This statement, while noting that Allen’s responses to others — demanding a logic that only he can fathom yet fails to sustain; rolling in the gutter with his spittled words when his expectations are dashed — whereupon he and PCS claim no one reads and thinks like the both of them makes me question both of their claims of astuteness.

                      The world is full of fools, and I’m so happy, Allen, that you are here to save the multitudes.

                      As you stated, Allen, and as all know, it is an open blog.

                      So here is what I think:

                      You are a fool who pretends to argue from a rational position, yet when presented with anomalies of your own making lashes out and accuses others of various forms of ignorance. You take this path rather quickly, which makes any rational observer not give credence to your claims of higher standards of argumentation.

                      As for PCS, his frequency of commentary, coupled with the observation that most of his comments are trivial and lacking in any substance, makes his opinions inconsequential.

                    7. WWAS – what you are not seeing is that even though some of my comments seem trivial, they all have a much deeper meaning, which you have not found. When you find that meaning, you too will become enlightened. I look forward to the day when you will join the rest of us in Enlightened Understanding. It will bring such joy to your life. 🙂

                      w

                    8. “As you stated, Allen, and as all know, it is an open blog.”

                      WWAS, it took you a long time and a lot of hot air to recognize that. Unfortunately, what follows lacks substance. You say Allan “pretends to argue from a rational position”. That should make it easy for you to quote my ideas in context and then rip them apart, but to date, you have been childlike in your replies. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that your brain is able to hold its side of an intellectual discussion.

                    9. After all, Allen, you end up talking about cheese?

                      Don’t let me stop your summations of much reading and thinking.

                    10. WWAS wrote:“After all, Allen, you end up talking about cheese?”

                      Did anonymous beat you out of the cheese? Don’t sit there crying and licking your wounds. It’s tough when you lose to anonymous, but you can hold back the tears and hope for a better day.

                    11. Allan said, “Anonymous . . . [t]he other two appear a bit smarter than you . . .”

                      As WWAS might say, “Who are you, Allan, to rank L4D and WWAS smarter than anonymous?”

                      FTR, the only officer who can rank L4D smarter than anonymous is Field Marshall Natacha. Not even anonymous, herself, nor the dashing and gallant WWAS can grant such field promotions. Your feeble effort at sowing discord amongst your adversary’s ranks will not spare you the wrath of our fearless leader, who shall surely remind you of your dementor’s crass mocking of a disabled journalist who is almost, but not quite, as smart as anonymous. That mockery didn’t do Trump any more good than your mockery will do you, Bully Boy.

                    12. “As WWAS might say, “Who are you, Allan, to rank L4D and WWAS smarter than anonymous?””

                      Diane, I read your drivel and find it amazing how fiction has entered your world of reality. Right now you are dreaming of marching behind a great leader (“Field Marshall Natacha.”) A wet noodle would be a better leader, but that just shows how low your starting point is.

                      I just want to let you know with all your protestations Trump is President, HRC lost and has been found by her own party to be a crook that rigged the Democratic Primary.

                    13. Allan – “we” all knew she was a crook before the election. Now, even the Democrats will have to admit it. Hopefully, now she will be toast. Wonder how her book tour is going?

  16. One of the interesting documents that the CIA reluctantly released was the record of a deposition given before the presidential Commission on CIA Activities in 1975 by Richard Helms, who had served as the agency’s director. After a discussion of Vietnam, David Belin, an attorney for the Warren Commission, turned to whether the CIA was involved in Kennedy’s killing.

    “Well, now, the final area of my investigation relates to charges that the CIA was in some way conspiratorially involved with the assassination of President Kennedy. During the time of the Warren Commission, you were Deputy Director of Plans, is that correct?” Belin asked.

    After Helms replied that he was, Belin then asked: “Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or agent…”

    Of course, the corrupt, criminal CIA enterprise would not permit Helms’s answer to be public, so the document is blank after that question was posed. But all genuine JFK researchers know the answer. Oswald WAS, in fact, working for the CIA.

    For example, we already know from earlier documents that the CIA had a “201” file on Lee Oswald and the circumstances surrounding that file indicate that Oswald was working either for or on behalf of the CIA. Most of the key people in Oswald’s life were connected to the CIA, including Oswald’s friend George de Mohrenschildt (who also knew George H.W. Bush, former CIA Director and President) and Ruth Paine, who befriended the Oswalds, stored Lee Oswald’s personal items in her garage, and, most importantly of all, placed Oswald in the Texas School Book Depository job. Ruth Paine’s father worked for the CIA, her sister was employed by the CIA, and her husband Michael’s mother was connected to none other than Warren Commissioner, Allen Dulles through her lifelong friendship with Mary Bancroft who worked side by side with Allen Dulles as a World War II spy in Switzerland and became his mistress. And on September 7, 1963, less than 3 months before JFK’s murder, Oswald met with David Atlee Phillips, who was CIA’s chief of operations for the Western hemisphere, at the lobby of the Southland Building in Dallas.

    The CIA simply has too much at stake and too much to hide to permit disclosure of its direct role in JFK’s murder to be revealed. The CIA has gotten away with murder–literally.

    Here’s some photos of two CIA criminals deeply involved in JFK’s murder and cover-up:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=photo+dulles+david+atlee+phillips&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=J7fMDwnVLdzOsM%253A%252CH77ZuChmUIq_6M%252C_&usg=__8Wp3yDjmFXqiuv-buOIOlsr8RIU%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8ytSQvpTXAhXGbiYKHY6xBVYQ9QEIRjAD#imgrc=J7fMDwnVLdzOsM:

  18. I’ll bet it’s Manafort, not Flynn & this won’t be in the news headlines for long….Why?

    Dear Leader Kim aka “little rocket man” of North Korea is going to pull a stunt when Trump visits South Korea in November. NK will probably test an H-bomb in the Pacific wear 3 U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups are.

    1. Sundown, there’s an outside chance the person to be named in the indictment might be Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer for many years and one of Manafort’s longtime business partners as well.

  19. Here Are The 10 Most Important Reported Claims About The Steele Dossier On Russia [Abridged]

    1) Russian officials were sources of key claims in dossier

    2) No, the Russian dossier was not initially funded by Republicans

    When the news broke that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were admitting partial responsibility for the Russia dossier, journalists acted like they’d presented it as a Clinton campaign operation all along. They also claimed it was initially funded by a Republican.

    Incorrect. And Tapper took the tweet down when the error was pointed out. There is no evidence that a Republican donor or Republican campaign was ever involved with the Russian dossier. Fusion GPS claimed to reporters (though they did not provide evidence) that a Republican funded separate opposition research on Trump, dealing with his business interests. But as the Washington Post itself reports, the dossier did not exist until after the Democrats hired Fusion GPS:

    3) The dossier is chock full of discredited information

    4) The dossier was used as a basis for wiretaps on American citizens

    A Clinton campaign opposition research operation using information or disinformation from top Russian intelligence officials was used by the FBI, these sources say, to enable spying on an opposing political party’s campaign.

    5) The FBI also paid for the dossier

    6) Dossier publisher Fusion GPS works with shady outfits

    At a July hearing, Senate Judiciary members were told Fusion GPS helped advocate the interests of corrupt Russian and Venezuelan officials while hiding its foreign work from federal authorities.

    Fusion GPS has been accused of illegally working as an undisclosed foreign agent and is currently refusing to comply with federal subpoenas for information on its foreign clients.

    7) Fusion GPS’ ties to media are problematic

    The principals at Fusion GPS are well-connected to mainstream media reporters. They are former journalists themselves, and know how to package stories and provide information to push narratives. They are, in fact, close friends with some of the top reporters who have covered the Russia-Trump collusion story.

    Fusion GPS has placed stories with friendly reporters while fighting congressional investigators’ attempts to find out the group’s sources of funding. Fusion GPS leaders have taken the Fifth and fought subpoenas for information about the group’s involvement with Russia. Their close friendships with key reporters on these stories have paid huge dividends for the firm, although these friendships and cooperative relationships have not served the public well.

    Fusion GPS was responsible for the dossier. But the group’s larger narrative push to reporters is even more influential, and a difficult story to unpack due to defensiveness, embarrassment, and outright media complicity.

    8) Jim Comey personally briefed Trump on the dossier, shortly before CNN reported it

    10) The Steele dossier was a Clinton/DNC-funded operation supported by the FBI and influenced heavily by Russian operatives in the Kremlin

    Yet here we have the realization that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the FBI all worked wittingly or unwittingly with Russians to affect the results of the 2016 election. Far from just meeting with a Russian and not getting dirt on a political opponent, these groups wittingly or unwittingly paid Russian operatives for disinformation to harm Trump during the 2016 election and beyond.

    Worse, these efforts perverted our justice system by forcing the attorney general to recuse himself for the crime of having served as a surrogate on the Trump campaign, spawning a massive, sprawling, limitless probe over Russia. These things are so much more damaging to the republic than a couple thousand dollars in ads on Facebook paid for by Russian trolls about a pipeline protest.

    Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/top-10-things-to-know-about-dossier/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=a5a1bd556f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-a5a1bd556f-83964361

    1. Thank god that’s not the only piece of evidence implicating Team Trump in espionage, tax fraud, money laundering, obstruction, and on and on.

      1. Darrin, your statement was a bit disjointed so I figured I would give you an opportunity to clarify what you wish to say and give you a chance to inject a bit of fact.

        1. I’ll pass on the opportunity but thanks anyway. My morning bowel movement is more engaging than your flailing nonsense. Your copy and paste has been debunked many times on other sites. You add nothing. A parrot has more talent for voicing an original view than you do.

          1. Quote of the Month

            Darrin Rychlak: “My morning bowel movement is more engaging”

            There is an honest man, self-engagement with his butt. I guess it gives new meaning to the term a$$-wiper. He must always get a smile in the morning.

  20. Missing from all this, and at least 60 hours of forthcoming non-stop coverage, is this simple fact: one person in these United States has the power to pardon.

Comments are closed.