Full Clapper: 'No Evidence' of Collusion Between Trump and Russia

a reply to: olaru12

It gets complicated when liars are investigating liars.

LOL! I guess that's true!

www.latimes.com...

Thanks for the link -- I'll read it. But I gotta say I'm not a fan of the LA Times....

To the Flynn immunity question....anybody think so it's he can speak freely when questioned? He did work for Obama and I'd love to hear the disclosures he could make about those times (didn't Obama relieve him of command because he wouldn't roll over and stop trying to win the war?). Not sure on the last, I just seem to remember a bunch of Generals who wanted to win being sidelined by Obama, and I think Flynn might have been one of them...

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: olaru12

It gets complicated when liars are investigating liars.

LOL! I guess that's true!

www.latimes.com...

Thanks for the link -- I'll read it. But I gotta say I'm not a fan of the LA Times....

Perhaps this one is more to your liking....


www.buzzfeed.com...

or

www.politico.com...

a reply to: tothetenthpower

They weren't really investigating the issue outside of the intelligence reports produced by the NSA and the CIA.

That we know of anyway. However, assuming that's true, it seems fair to me to assume that if they found no evidence of wrongdoing even with ongoing surveillance, then there was nothing further to investigate.

The FBI wasn't involved at the stage if we are to believe what Comey has stated so far.

Comey... he raises far more questions for me than answers. Starting with his testimony that he had "authorization" to say that the FBI was investigating. So apparently he could not speak to any investigation prior to that authorization. I really don't know what to make of Comey yet.

The better question is why aren't they allowing them to testify in public?

That is an excellent question! And I don't know, but I am assuming because someone thinks it would somehow jeopardize national security -- which would be legitimate, if true. My other thought is that Nunes wants to keep Yates, Clapper and Brennan in the dark about exactly what is testified to before they testify -- which would not be legitimate, if true. But I really don't know.

Closed door sessions is only going to serve to fuel the idea that Nunez is a White House shill.

No doubt, but it will fuel lots of crazy notions on all sides.

Which leads me to another interesting point about all this.

Why did Nunez 'brief' the POTUS about information he received from the white house in the first place? I like how Trump doesn't complain about leaks when they benefit him.

Another excellent question. From what I've read, Trump knew about this intel before Nunes, so what exactly would Nunes even "brief" him on??? The way it's being presented to the public makes no sense to me...

Lots of folk have been gaslighting the HELL out of American politics in the last 18 months. SO much so, that some people on both sides, don't even care about real facts, they only care about how it makes them look.

Definitely -- and that gaslighting is coming from all sides. So the rhetoric of the Trumpers is no more or less significant than the Anti-Trumpers or the Never Trumpers or anyone else.

a reply to: olaru12

Perhaps this one is more to your liking....

A little better -- thanks!

The entire Russia narrative was 100% fabricated to create plausible deniability for using US intelligence resources against political opponents.

No matter what side your on, it's time to pull your head out of the sand and realize whats happening to America right now.

originally posted by: Konduit
The entire Russia narrative was 100% fabricated to create plausible deniability for using US intelligence resources against political opponents.

No matter what side your on, it's time to pull your head out of the sand and realize whats happening to America right now.

I'm afraid you're right. Even if we grant every benefit of the doubt about how it began, and assume that their initial intentions were noble and honorable, it degenerated into an excuse for political spying and sabotage.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Boadicea

No evidence that they found. Why would Flynn ask for immunity?

Why is the house intelligence committee cancelling certain people's scheduled hearings to testify?

And what's ironic here is that if he'd said there was evidence, Trump supporters would just say ' Oh well he worked for Obama, of course he's going to say that, he's a fake news democrat'.

But as soon as he says something that sounds even like the littlest bit of support for Trump's cause, he becomes the single authority on the issue.

How quaint.

~Tenth

How did they get the evidence to begin with? Ahahahahahahah its not related to russia so how did they know he talked to a russian? Did you ever think trump might have known he had been spying on him and he had flynn call the person on purpose in an attempt to catch them in the act when they reacted? This is chess not checkers lol sacrifice a pawn to get into a better position.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's time to put this whole delusion of Trump-Russia collusion to bed.

I agree, let's get those investigations taken care of and then we can put it to bed. If only the administration would stop trying to distract with new narratives.

Do you honestly buy that a day after the testimony by Rogers and Comey that Nunes went to the WH, was shown reports of *something* and then without a word to anyone in the committee went straight to the press the next day and delivered up the administration's counter-narrative and that's just coincidental timing?

Why did he apologize to the committee again? Why did he go on Hannity that night and say that his reasoning for the announcement was that Trump was taking a lot of "heat" in the media?

Then two days after THAT happened, he cancels the scheduled open hearings for the 28th — unilaterally — and declares that he's inviting Comey and Rogers back for closed door testimony and the hearings won't proceed until that's done?

There are small children who could connect those dots and realize what's going on.

Clapper says there was no such evidence found. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Despite the best (and unprecedented) efforts to find such evidence of the DOJ and the entire intelligence community.

Unprecedented? We've had one day of open hearing testimony in Congress. You want to know what is unprecedented? The dozen or so separate investigations into Benghazi. We can't even get one for RussiaGate. But you want to declare "case closed" based on Clapper saying that he hadn't seen evidence of collusion and your opinion about his statement was based on the "the best (and unprecedented) efforts of the DOJ and the entire intelligence community."

If there's no there there, then why are the administration and now the pro-Trump media doing everything in their power to stop the House Intel Committee's investigation? Why not just let it happen?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still an ongoing investigation? Why would a "former" anything know what type of information is being found right now?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Boadicea

No evidence that they found. Why would Flynn ask for immunity?

Why is the house intelligence committee cancelling certain people's scheduled hearings to testify?

And what's ironic here is that if he'd said there was evidence, Trump supporters would just say ' Oh well he worked for Obama, of course he's going to say that, he's a fake news democrat'.

But as soon as he says something that sounds even like the littlest bit of support for Trump's cause, he becomes the single authority on the issue.

How quaint.

~Tenth

So you are in effect saying that Trump is really smart and covered his tracks? That kind of goes against the narrative that he's an idiot... Can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: underwerks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still an ongoing investigation? Why would a "former" anything know what type of information is being found right now?

They've had surveilance on him for a year now. Where's the proof? Where's the witness list? Where is a theory on what he did?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree, let's get those investigations taken care of and then we can put it to bed.

Exactly... Everyone can either put up or shut up.

If only the administration would stop trying to distract with new narratives.

This administration has only been in power for a couple months... the previous administration had plenty of time to investigate and present the evidence -- or lack thereof. Whatever this administration is guilty of -- including "trying to distract with new narratives," although I would characterize it as expanding the previous narrative -- they had absolutely no power or authority over the last administration. That's all on them. There should have been absolutely no allegations without evidence to back those allegations up.

Do you honestly buy that a day after the testimony by Rogers and Comey that Nunes went to the WH, was shown reports of *something* and then without a word to anyone in the committee went straight to the press the next day and delivered up the administration's counter-narrative and that's just coincidental timing?

I'm not buying anything... to begin with, I know I don't have the whole truth, so I cannot come to any conclusions one way or another.

Why did he apologize to the committee again? Why did he go on Hannity that night and say that his reasoning for the announcement was that Trump was taking a lot of "heat" in the media?

You'll have to ask Nunes that.

Then two days after THAT happened, he cancels the scheduled open hearings for the 28th — unilaterally — and declares that he's inviting Comey and Rogers back for closed door testimony and the hearings won't proceed until that's done?

Actually, he first asked Comey and Rogers back for closed door testimony, which was refused by the Dems, and therefore cancelled due to their obstruction, and then cancelled the testimony of Yates, Clapper and Brennan because for whatever reason Nunes feels it necessary for Comey and Rogers to testify first.

So my questions are 1 -- Why won't the Dems let Comey and Rogers testify in closed door session? 2 -- Why does Nunes want Comey and Rogers to testify first?

Unprecedented?

Yes, unprecedented. Obama changed the rules for intelligence unmasking and dissemination... so this is a first.

But you want to declare "case closed" based on Clapper saying that he hadn't seen evidence of collusion and your opinion about his statement was based on the "the best (and unprecedented) efforts of the DOJ and the entire intelligence community."

And the fact that after months of surveillance and investigation no one has offered any evidence whatsoever to show any collusion.

If there's no there there, then why are the administration and now the pro-Trump media doing everything in their power to stop the House Intel Committee's investigation?

You'll have to draw me a picture because I haven't seen any effort on Trump's part to stop the House Intel Committee's investigation.... only the Democrats who refuse to sign off on Comey and Rogers' testimony in closed door session.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Boadicea

It's time to put this whole delusion of Trump-Russia collusion to bed.

I agree, let's get those investigations taken care of and then we can put it to bed. If only the administration would stop trying to distract with new narratives.

Do you honestly buy that a day after the testimony by Rogers and Comey that Nunes went to the WH, was shown reports of *something* and then without a word to anyone in the committee went straight to the press the next day and delivered up the administration's counter-narrative and that's just coincidental timing?

Why did he apologize to the committee again? Why did he go on Hannity that night and say that his reasoning for the announcement was that Trump was taking a lot of "heat" in the media?

Then two days after THAT happened, he cancels the scheduled open hearings for the 28th — unilaterally — and declares that he's inviting Comey and Rogers back for closed door testimony and the hearings won't proceed until that's done?

There are small children who could connect those dots and realize what's going on.

Clapper says there was no such evidence found. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Despite the best (and unprecedented) efforts to find such evidence of the DOJ and the entire intelligence community.

Unprecedented? We've had one day of open hearing testimony in Congress. You want to know what is unprecedented? The dozen or so separate investigations into Benghazi. We can't even get one for RussiaGate. But you want to declare "case closed" based on Clapper saying that he hadn't seen evidence of collusion and your opinion about his statement was based on the "the best (and unprecedented) efforts of the DOJ and the entire intelligence community."

If there's no there there, then why are the administration and now the pro-Trump media doing everything in their power to stop the House Intel Committee's investigation? Why not just let it happen?

.
All smoke and no fire. What I don't understand is why not give immunity to Flynn to get the big fish in all of this? More important to nail Flynn or let him get away with something instead of sacrificing all that to get their goal of catching President Trump? Doesn't make sense. And Clapper isn't the only one saying there's no evidence BTW...

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard

originally posted by: underwerks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still an ongoing investigation? Why would a "former" anything know what type of information is being found right now?

They've had surveilance on him for a year now. Where's the proof? Where's the witness list? Where is a theory on what he did?

How do you know they've had surveillance on him for a year?

originally posted by: digital01anarchy

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Boadicea

No evidence that they found. Why would Flynn ask for immunity?

Why is the house intelligence committee cancelling certain people's scheduled hearings to testify?

And what's ironic here is that if he'd said there was evidence, Trump supporters would just say ' Oh well he worked for Obama, of course he's going to say that, he's a fake news democrat'.

But as soon as he says something that sounds even like the littlest bit of support for Trump's cause, he becomes the single authority on the issue.

How quaint.

~Tenth

How did they get the evidence to begin with? Ahahahahahahah its not related to russia so how did they know he talked to a russian? Did you ever think trump might have known he had been spying on him and he had flynn call the person on purpose in an attempt to catch them in the act when they reacted? This is chess not checkers lol sacrifice a pawn to get into a better position.

Better yet, what if Flynn has nothing and the immunity is bait to expose them as partisan hacks? It would be fun to watch them drum it up as a big event, get everyone watching and then come up empty! I read a theory that Trump set this all up and Flynn sacrificed himself as part of it. I don't really buy that theory but what if...? Could the slam dunk from Trump be coming?

originally posted by: underwerks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still an ongoing investigation?

According to Comey, yes, it is an ongoing investigation. I even checked his testimony to make sure he said "is" and not "was."

Why would a "former" anything know what type of information is being found right now?

Um... leaks???

But more to the point, Clapper would know what was found (or not found) during the many months that Trump was being surveilled and/or investigated during the Obama administration.

Re the March 5 NBC interview, Clapper issued a statement to clarify

On March 20, Clapper’s spokesman released a statement clarifying his position:

Clapper statement, March 20: Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper has been clear that, while he was not aware of any conclusive intelligence related to collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russians prior to leaving government, he could not account for intelligence or evidence that may have been gathered since the inauguration on January 20th.

As Director Clapper has said publicly, it is in the best interest of all Americans—Republicans and Democrats alike—that we get to the bottom of an all-consuming distraction. So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was no evidence of collusion “at the time” he left office in January. And he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted to clear the air.

"Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was no evidence of collusion “at the time” he left office in January. And he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted to clear the air."

Spinning the Intel Hearing

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: underwerks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still an ongoing investigation?

According to Comey, yes, it is an ongoing investigation. I even checked his testimony to make sure he said "is" and not "was."

Why would a "former" anything know what type of information is being found right now?

Um... leaks???

But more to the point, Clapper would know what was found (or not found) during the many months that Trump was being surveilled and/or investigated during the Obama administration.

Is there any evidence besides unnamed sources that Trump has been investigated by the Obama admin?

a reply to: desert

After a year of eavesdropping on him and his team they should have some evidence in order to move forward. They don't. Donald's a really smart guy and uses state of the art spy crafty to hide his dark deeds. Right? I mean that's the only possibility. That or the investigators are idiots.

FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI during Obama were frantically looking for something, anything and came up empty. Definitely not partisan.