Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It's Trump's fault for ignoring the warnings from various people, doesn't matter who it was.

a reply to: UKTruth

I doubt that even Gorsuch will try to overturn how the Establishment Clause has been interpreted and followed.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: burgerbuddy

They're looking for a clear example of Trump's collusion with a foreign government where him or any of his staff knowingly and willingly cooperated in some fashion to meddle with the election process for a Trump victory. IMO, they are also looking for a way to prove that his connection to Russian oligarchs, Moscow, maybe even Putin directly, or the Russian mafia can be shown as a clear conflict of interests with his being President.

This would be grounds for impeachment and possibly charges of treason. Ultimately it would cause Trump to resign.

It's not only Democrats looking into this. It's clear that there are still plenty of Republican elected officials who want to know the truth when it comes to how connected Trump actually is to Russia. It's not going to look good for all those people who backed him up if theres evidence that he was in anyway involved with Russian interference in our political system.

So..if I understand you, a new potus should know no one until he gets elected?

And there is that little definition of "interference" to contend with.

a reply to: JinMI


With mid-term elections just a little over 18 months away, Democrats are starting to think along the lines of dragging these investigations out, and keeping doubt in the minds of voters.

But, two can play at that game. Get Susan Rice before a Senate Committee and then begin calling all her Democrat friends. Just let them speak, and Republicans will have nothing to worry about in November 2018.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JinMI


With mid-term elections just a little over 18 months away, Democrats are starting to think along the lines of dragging these investigations out, and keeping doubt in the minds of voters.

But, two can play at that game. Get Susan Rice before a Senate Committee and then begin calling all her Democrat friends. Just let them speak, and Republicans will have nothing to worry about in November 2018.

I can agree to that. They saw how well it worked with HRC and are happy to repeat it, regardless of the evidence. Also, yes, they should be careful how they play this because there has been activity in the email scandal again as well as "how" they came to possess all this intel and if it was obtained legally.

From the outside looking in, I wish it ALL would just implode and it very well may!

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Regardless of how you feel about Yates and whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to the people affected by the EO, the EO does violate the Establishment Clause. That makes the law illegal and Yates was right to refuse to enforce it.

No, just no.

She didn't enforce it because she didn't "like" what he said on the campaign trail, not what the EO said.

Trump got a win on the Court.

He got Healthcare through the minor house.

So the non-Deplorable's must distract with their lying chant.

Russia, Russia, Russia

Of course they tried to interfere...I would be disappointed if they didn't.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I guess that depends on how well he knows someone who may potentially be working for the FSB, FAPSI or directly within the Kremlin.

I would like to be a fly on the wall at a classified hearing on this issue. The non classified versions are full of nothing. It's information that's classified that is the key to all of this.

Clapper lied under oath before, I don't trust that old man as far as I could throw him. Yates? I don't know. She was equally dodgey when it came down to what she would and wouldn't say with regards to most of it being classified. These are the reasons these types of hearings never produce anything actionable.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Even if your correct about her, the EO still violates the Constitution.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Correct. By her own words.
She dropped the ball, or rather let it fall for political reasons.

a reply to: Kali74

No. It doesn't.

a reply to: JinMI

If Obama Administration officials did things that are illegal, Republicans will not need to launch a "witch hunt", that consumes thousands of person-hours investigating. Wiki-leaks proved that the Democrats are sinister, but not too bright.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Clapper lied under oath before, I don't trust that old man as far as I could throw him.

I don't either. And, yes. He willfully lied under oath before.

He seems dodgy and twitchy like he's hiding something, and he also acts peeved that he has to be there at all.

I don't think there were any repercussions when he lied, so I don't think he has any qualms about doing it again.

Hearing Narrative Scorecard:

Democrats 1

Republicans 9

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Kali74

No. It doesn't.

Are you familiar with the Establishment Clause?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: AnonyMason

If they had something, they would show it already.

My thoughts is that they are looking for enough "evidence" to where it would only matter in the court of public opinion. People are still pissed about the election and impeachment is their last hope. I don't see it happening, the evidence doesn't exist.

No, they're not going to reveal evidence from an ongoing investigation.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., asked if Clapper's prior statement was correct, when he said on NBC that there was "no evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. When asked if that is still accurate, Clapper said Monday, "it is."

On NBC weeks earlier, Clapper said, "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report."

When former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was asked the same question, she declined to answer indicating that to do so might reveal classified information. But Yates clarified further by saying, "Just because I say I can't answer it, you should now draw from than an assumption that the answer is 'yes.'"

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Someone is lying and someone is not telling the whole truth then, right?

Or perhaps they are all confused on what evidence is. They are digging still, sure, like I said above, only to sway public opinion IMO.

Given that multiple foreign intel agencies have handed over sensitive info regarding Trump associates meeting with Russians under suspicious circumstances, I'm really curious if any of that information has been used to corroborate more details of the Steele dossier.

Several of the meetings in that dossier have been confirmed. The journalists who sat on it for lack of corroboration likely lack the means to track those things down--certainly not to the extent US intelligence folks can.

Moreover, I'd be curious to know if that intel has been shared with the FBI.

The testimony today tells a few stories:

1. Trump administration and their dirtbag leaders are full of sh it by lying through their teeth about Flynn. There should be laws that can punish even the president of the US when he knowingly committing libelous accusations to other people with his deflections on this subject.

2. Now with Yates/Clapper/ and Obama coming out to flag Flynn as a compromised person back as early as November 2016, nobody in their right mind believes that Flynn's appointment was an oversight. On the contrary, Trump put Flynn in KNOWING as a compromised foreign agent who lied on his background information. To me, the complete disregard of Flynn's situation shows me Trump's collusion with Russia. There is no other explanation (and stupidity of Trump doesn't cut it here).

Can you imagine if this was Obama. The # storm this would be if Trump was a democrat. But no, because Trump is a Republican, the right wing dolts on this website continue to defend him. It doesn't matter if his name could be Hitler, you would all defend him because he has an (R) next to his name. And you wonder why right wingers were referred to as deplorables during the election...it's because the name is applies.

This is the worst presidency in US history...hands down. He needs to be impeached immediately and all right wingers need to be taken to task by being complicit to the subversion of our democracy.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I think you must have watched a different hearing than I did.