Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

a reply to: Gandalf77

yeah at the last hearing comey spoke at he revealed the investigation into russian collusion started in JULY OF 2016

keep on holding out hope they will find some mysterious piece of evidence that does point to collusion or crimes

imo our intel agencies are much better than that and our capabilities are much better than that
they had access to at least 5 years worth of data(emails,texts,phone calls)
no crime
no collusion

all political
obama and his corrupt doj will have to answer for spying on their political opponents

originally posted by: Kali74
Is no one else curious why it took 18 days from the time the administration was informed that Flynn was compromised and his firing?

Al Frankin was...7 minute mark, but his whole line of questioning is good.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Guantanimo Bay is US soil though. Any US base is Us soil. And as such Its Under constitutional protection. Your example is garbage. There was another case where a us citizen was in african countries and was tortured there and th eUS law did not cover him as well because they were not on US soil AKA base.

a reply to: Indigo5

Tha man needs to have a accident..like falling from a balcony.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Guantanimo Bay is US soil though. Any US base is Us soil. And as such Its Under constitutional protection. Your example is garbage. There was another case where a us citizen was in african countries and was tortured there and th eUS law did not cover him as well because they were not on US soil AKA base.

I can't account for the times the US has exceeded constitutional authority in the name of the war on terrorism. That is why I specifically set aside your point about being on the terror watch list. I already think the war on terrorism (like all wars on in this country) is unconstitutional and wrong.

But I'm specifically talking about your day to day citizens and not suspected terrorists on the watch list or actual terrorists that have been detained.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My point is that assessment was not the final word on this by a long shot.

I agree with your assessment about the the US IC's capabilities. Where I disagree is that anything and everthing they found would necessarily have been included in an assessment of limited scope. The data you listed is likely in the hands of the FBI as part of the current investigation. And Clapper indicated yesterday that he has in fact seen new information since that assessment.

The FBI investigation that started in July of 2016, for example, likely includes whatever they've found on Carter Page with multiple FISA warrants. You don't get a FISA warrant renewed multiple times if there isn't anything there. That's not political. That's counterintelligence and national security.

So I'm willing to let this play out. I haven't drawn any conclusions as to whether or not there was crime or collusion.
I don't think we can say that one way or the other with any degree of certainty.

Time will tell.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Guantanimo Bay is US soil though. Any US base is Us soil. And as such Its Under constitutional protection. Your example is garbage. There was another case where a us citizen was in african countries and was tortured there and th eUS law did not cover him as well because they were not on US soil AKA base.

I can't account for the times the US has exceeded constitutional authority in the name of the war on terrorism. That is why I specifically set aside your point about being on the terror watch list. I already think the war on terrorism (like all wars on in this country) is unconstitutional and wrong.

But I'm specifically talking about your day to day citizens and not suspected terrorists on the watch list or actual terrorists that have been detained.

YEah I get that. but i was also referencing ordinary people who are not in the US currently as well. the man i referenced was never charged and as such was a normal civilian.

Anyway were off topic. FLynn was a moron I totally agree but the VP himself defended him so obviously he was not pissed at him.

a reply to: Gandalf77

I haven't drawn any conclusions as to whether or not there was crime or collusion.

The former director of national security has. Until proven otherwise his word, now on MULTIPLE occasions about the same subject, is good enough for me.

What is really humorous to me is on one hand you people yell about "russian' interference in the election(which came from the same assessment) but, you don't believe the part about no crime or collusion.
Why not wait to draw any conclusions on that part of the assessment?

a reply to: shooterbrody
Why not wait indeed. That's exactly what I'm doing since that angle is clearly within the scope of the FBI's ongoing investigation, which I'm guessing is leveraging quite a bit of the intel we haven't heard about.

Here's one of Clapper's remarks from the hearing:

Clapper had earlier 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."

No evidence INCLUDED. He's not saying it does or doesn't exist.
Given what he said about things he's seen since that report, I don't think we can conclude from that report alone that there wasn't collusion or criminal activity.

He has acknowledged that he wasn't aware of the FBI's investigation.
He has acknowledged that he's been made aware of other information since that report was drafted.

It's the FBI's job to untangle that web, not the IC's.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
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.

The only crime we know was committed is the leaking of information. Everything else is muddying the waters - nothing but political propaganda.
Let's find out who exactly leaked classified information to the press and why...

a reply to: UKTruth

The only crime we know was committed is the leaking of information.

False.
It is a crime to steal emails. That happened.

a reply to: Gandalf77

INCLUDED

nice

had there been actual evidence it would have been included

this is from march 5th, not yesterday
www.nbcnews.com...

We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., 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.

this is also from the same conversation

CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

so actually clapper has said it does not exist

a reply to: Phage

were those "stolen" emails or "made up" emails?

the dnc didn't really do all those awful things to bernie did they?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Kali74
Is no one else curious why it took 18 days from the time the administration was informed that Flynn was compromised and his firing?

Al Frankin was...7 minute mark, but his whole line of questioning is good.

There was no line of questioning after 7 minutes. Franken was just rambling and speculating on why Trump might have taken 18 days to fire Flynn. Wild speculation is all the Democrats have left as their Russian narrative is burning in flames around them (and the fools who tried to spread it).

As for 18 days, that is quick. I can fully understand why Trump would want a few opinions other than someone he had sidelined and knew was a partisan politician out to do damage to his administration. It shows smarts to not trust Yates. As it happens nothing she was made aware that she relayed actually warranted Flynn being fired. I suspect he went in the end because a story was leaked to the press and dressed up as something sinister when it was not. Public pressure forced Trump's hand, not anything Yates told him.

a reply to: shooterbrody

"Not to my knowledge" is not the same thing as Clapper saying it does not exist.
He's no longer on the job, and he so much as indicated yesterday that he's been made privy to more information since that report; you don't seem to want to acknowledge that, though.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

were those "stolen" emails or "made up" emails?

the dnc didn't really do all those awful things to bernie did they?

To date the only people caught trying to influence the election season by foul means are the DNC.

a reply to: UKTruth

if flynn is the bogeyman the dems want to make him out to be why didnt the all knowing holy barak hussain obmama administration arrest him before they left office?
if he was such a threat to national security why was flynn left to roam free?

a reply to: UKTruth

And I'm sure the republicans are so mad about those leaks for purely patriotic purposes.
So honorable.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

The only crime we know was committed is the leaking of information.

False.
It is a crime to steal emails. That happened.

False. There is zero evidence that emails were stolen.

a reply to: UKTruth

Your source?