Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

She was deputy attorney General while she was "temping " attorney general. It's not like they pulled someone out of the typing pool to fill in.
Stupid comments drive me crazy.

well she was appointed by Obama, so

Yep and Trump didnt immediately fire her on taking office. So its his fault again if he didnt like her or trust her opinion. Because why would he order the Office of Legal Consul to not inform the DoJ until after the EO was out?

She would not have been there if Democrats had not delayed Sessions confirmation.
Trump obviously didn't trust her - probably because he knew she was a partisan working against him.
Much better to sideline her whilst he waited for Sessions.
She must have been a butt hurt at not being valued. Ineffective people like her usually get that way when it's made clear they are useless.

Every sovereign country has the right to ban entry of refugees. Saudi Arabia does not take in a single Arab refugee despite being the richest Arab country. The US is a sovereign nation. It is not a charity foundation where anyone can come whenever they feel like it. Trump violates no US Constitution banning refugees.

a reply to: xuenchen

No she wasn't. She was kept by Obama.
And every other president going back twenty years...because she did a good job.
Look I understand the need to undercut her.

She's a problem for king cheeto.

a reply to: xuenchen
Customs checks your luggage and your ID because it's easier than having two agencies a t the gate
If there's an issue immigration takes over. So I guess technically.

I worked at Kennedy airport in the customs brokerage business when I lived in N.Y.. importing goods.
It really helped me later when I opened my store and was importing rugs from the middle east.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't get the dismissive attitude some have about Russian hacking. It's kind of a big deal.

Probably because we are still waiting on that proof thing.

Proof is for you to find on your own. We aren't going to hold your hand, but here's some pretty interesting things we learned yesterday.
5 things we learned from Sally Yates’s testimony on what the White House knew about Michael Flynn

a reply to: UKTruth


Flynn was a problem before Yates got involved. Flynns activities were an issue . Yates only reported the truth.
She didn't vilify Flynn.
Sessions would have turned a blind eye.

a reply to: Pyle

Those Trump EOs were actually successful in case you don't know it.

The EOs were bolstered for a reason.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't get the dismissive attitude some have about Russian hacking. It's kind of a big deal.

Probably because we are still waiting on that proof thing.

You are aware of there's an investigation going on. Or do you want the evidence released piece meal and incomplete as they get it?

The fact that there is even enough reason for the FBI to investigate should be alarming enough.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

SPirit of the Law does not outweigh the WORD of the law. And also She was not a supreme court justice and overstepped her powers.

All that is dynamite, literally has nothing to do with Flynn being compromised by Russia, which was why she was there.

I mean, look, she disobeyed the president's EO, got fired, that's basically the end of the story.

Talking about the Muslim ban in the midst of a hearing to learn more about her warning to the WH counsel is blatant changing the subject. And frankly, concerning that so many want to ignore the National Security Advisor canoodling with the Russians.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Her priority was to inform the WH that Flynn was compromised and subject to blackmail.
That Russia probably had proof that Flynn lied to the Veep and could use that to control him.
That's what she meant by priority.
Of course to Spicer this means she gave the president a heads up that some information may not jive. That was a total lie and an attempt to down play the seriousness of this.

I have no idea what you are yapping about. What yates had to say means exactly jack squat.
Clapper said the same thing yesterday that he said on meet the press in march. In fact he reveled in the fact that the investigation was so well done that NOTHING HAS BEEN ADDED to it.

www.washingtonpost.com... /?utm_term=.a6f2f4775c71

While it's been over four months since the issuance of this assessment, as Directors Comey and Rodgers testified before the House Intelligence Committee on the 20th of March, the conclusions and confidence levels reached at the time still stand. I think that's a statement to the quality and professional of the — of the intelligence community people who produced such a compelling intelligence report during a tumultuous, controversial time, under intense scrutiny and with a very tight deadline.

The fbi was one of the agencies that signed off on that assessment.

Yates "concern" about flynn is sideways with the assessment of 16 intel agencies. What part of "no collusion and no crime" do you not understand?
Or is the fbi going to prove THEMSELVES wrong?

a reply to: jordan77
Yeah, it's pretty clear the republicans are trying to focus on anything that can muddy the waters and distract from the bigger issues at hand. The leaks and the EO (which was rejected by the courts and subsequently rewritten) are small potatoes here.

a reply to: shooterbrody
Clapper also admitted that he only learned of the FBI counterintelligence probe when Comey went public with it. The FBI isn't going to retroactively add whatever may have turned up in the course of the investigation to that initial report.

a reply to: Gandalf77

And as Pointed out previously THE FBI WAS ONE OF THE AGENCIES that signed off on the assessment.
As clapper pointed out comey and rogers BOTH verified the assessment at the previous house hearing.

Or do you think this "counterintel" investigation began after jan 20 2017 on intel gathered after jan 20 2017?

a reply to: carewemust

It would have helped if you had both ears in the operation. You only heard half of what was said.

Or as my dear mother used to say. You only hear what you want to hear.

a reply to: SBMcG

It was asked. She said none. Then asked how many were released without telling the DOJ before and the answer was...The same none.

Note...

This hearing was not about the executive order... that was a distraction to try to discredit Yates. a trump move if ever I saw one.

hosted.ap.org...

His aides are engaging in real-time political combat with Trump, including revealing Monday that Obama personally warned his successor against tapping embattled Michael Flynn as his national security adviser.

So they openly admit trumps tweet was correct.
Obama himself personaly knew about this and had no problems with an american citizen being spied on when NO COLLUSION OR CRIMES WERE COMMITTED.

#worsethanwatergate

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

And as Pointed out previously THE FBI WAS ONE OF THE AGENCIES that signed off on the assessment.
As clapper pointed out comey and rogers BOTH verified the assessment at the previous house hearing.

Or do you think this "counterintel" investigation began after jan 20 2017 on intel gathered after jan 20 2017?

No, the counterintelligence probe clearly began earlier.
And since it is ongoing, anything that may have been uncovered at the time that assessment was drafted--and since--is naturally not going to be included because it would compromise the investigation.

Another interesting detail in the same vein surfaced yesterday.
Clapper admitted that initially there wasn't anything he'd seen to suggest shady business deals with Russia were in play. When pressed by Graham on this point, Clapper indicated that he had seen some evidence since that time, but he can't talk about it due to the ongoing investigation. If that becomes a part of this mess, we might just see someone--a committee or perhaps a special prosecutor--decide to subpoena, among other things, Trump's tax returns.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah trump hates and fears brown people.

Obama, et al, were up to no good. I'm convinced they were using intelligence agencies to spy on republicans, not only the candidates but senators and congressmen as well. It is being reported that the uptick in requests to unmask names gathered by NSA increased more than threefold starting in 2015. hmmmm.