FBI Director Comey confirms probe on Russian meddling in US election and Trump Team links

March 20, 2017
Oops! CNN accidentally confirms story that Brit intell passed along Trump communications to Obama admin
www.americanthinker.com... l

video at link

STELTER: “Let me ask you about this thing.” JOHNSON: “Sure.” STELTER: “So my sense is that on Monday, Napolitano says this on TV, he says he has Intel sources who believe this is true. You’re saying you were one of those sources, but you didn’t know Napolitano was going to use you like that?” JOHNSON: “What happened was I communicated, when Donald Trump tweeted what he did Saturday two weeks ago, the next day I was interviewed on Russia today. I had known about the fact that the British, through ghcq were information back channel, this was not at the behest of Barack Obama, let’s be clear about that. But it was done with the full knowledge of people like John Brennan and Jake clapper. Two people I flow within the intelligence community in January, they were very concerned about this because they saw it as an unfair meddling in the politics, but it was a way to get around the issue of American intelligence agencies not collecting.” STELTER: “To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn’t get this information directly, you’re hearing from others. JOHNSON: “I’m hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that’s correct.”

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

Can you explain to me how Trump is talking something other than wiretapping with the following tweet?

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

It looks clear as day to me as to what he is talking about and why.

I read it as embellishing the original post. No need to keep using quotation marks.

a reply to: NthOther

And what exactly would you statists do if it were found the Russians did in fact hack the election?

I'd start by removing their man.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

wow
that is quite a mokey wrench

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

So specifically using words and actions related to the ACTUAL process of wiretapping and alluding to it being a conspiracy the likes of Nixon (which a wiretapping claim would be) is Trump still talking general surveillance (which would NOT be a conspiracy the likes of Nixon)? I think I just hurt my back trying to understand your mental gymnastics.

Looks like this turned into the Schitt and Sewer Show
Comedy at its best..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't think so.

Write Putin a nasty letter? Stop or else I'll say stop again?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

404'd. Also this:

STELTER: “To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn’t get this information directly, you’re hearing from others. JOHNSON: “I’m hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that’s correct.”

Looks like it is "he said, she said" nonsense. I'm calling fake news on you.

a reply to: gortex

For what? You can't impeach him. He didn't do anything.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't think so.

Write Putin a nasty letter? Stop or else I'll say stop again?

Sure. You've already assumed enough about me, so knock yourself out and finish assuming the rest of my argument for me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm asking you, man. Here's your chance to give us all your grand solution.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Page Doesn't Exist

Seems it's been removed ... curious.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: gortex

For what? You can't impeach him. He didn't do anything.

That is for the investigation to conclude not you or I.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

So what's the circumstantial evidence?

I think we already know some of it, but:

he said that some of it would emerge at the panel’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday.

Already know some of what? I'd like to see the circumstantial evidence he is talking about. Seems to me he made a partisan comment with nothing to back up his claims.

originally posted by: gortex
Democrats top man on the panel , Adam Schiff , tweeted this out to President Trump before the proceedings got under way.

“Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered. No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is called 'fact,'” Schiff wrote in a series of tweets denouncing Trump's claim that his predecessor wiretapped Trump Tower. “The intelligence community concluded the Russians will interfere again. This is why full investigation is important to country. Please stop.”

Followed by....

“Your suggestion British wiretapped you & jape with Merkel are harming our relationships with key allies. This is called ‘collateral damage,’”
www.politico.com...

Gotta hand it to President Trump , there's never a dull day with him in charge.

It seems a bit pre-emptive and also false, the conclusion hasn't been drawn yet as the investigation is just beginning. If they don't find any link to Russian interference he's gonna be eating a lot of humble pie. I wonder if there's any chance this is political.

I've said it on this site before and I'm sure I'll say it again before 2020, the Trump Administration is fascinating to those of us observing from the outside. Curiouser and curiouser...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

So specifically using words and actions related to the ACTUAL process of wiretapping and alluding to it being a conspiracy the likes of Nixon (which a wiretapping claim would be) is Trump still talking general surveillance (which would NOT be a conspiracy the likes of Nixon)? I think I just hurt my back trying to understand your mental gymnastics.

If the IC was eavesdropping on Trump in any fashion and allowing that information to leak in any form, including by proxy such as British GCHQ, then a comparison to Nixon is fair.

It IS just a comparison after all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell us more about how you believe being tapped doesn't mean being surveilled??

Everyone in the WORLD knows what he meant but since Trump......

I missed it. Was there anything in regards to the actual and probably only crimes committed, the leaking of sensitive information?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

So what's the circumstantial evidence?

I think we already know some of it, but:

he said that some of it would emerge at the panel’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday.

Already know some of what?

From the article I linked.

Schiff referred to President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who misled administration officials about a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. regarding U.S. sanctions against Russia.

“Why was he deceptive about this? Why would he lie about that conversation? Why was it necessary to fire him?” Schiff said.

I'd like to see the circumstantial evidence he is talking about. Seems to me he made a partisan comment with nothing to back up his claim

Wouldn't we all? Schiff is on the House Intelligence Committee and has access to information that we don't and propbably never will.

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet

So specifically using words and actions related to the ACTUAL process of wiretapping and alluding to it being a conspiracy the likes of Nixon (which a wiretapping claim would be) is Trump still talking general surveillance (which would NOT be a conspiracy the likes of Nixon)? I think I just hurt my back trying to understand your mental gymnastics.

If the IC was eavesdropping on Trump in any fashion and allowing that information to leak in any form, including by proxy such as British GCHQ, then a comparison to Nixon is fair.

It IS just a comparison after all.

The IC wasn't eavesdropping though. That was literally just disconfirmed by Comey.