It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked Email Shows Senate Probe Can Extend To Anyone "Of Russian Descent"

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.




posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Trump and friends did.


What did they do?

Ya'll are having a hard time pinning that one down.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert




Trump and friends did.


What did they do?

Ya'll are having a hard time pinning that one down.


Not quite sure yet. But apparently they did enough to be indicted in two cases and plead guilty in two more.

Plus the investigation is not over yet.

Rubio and friends going through something similar?



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.


Trump and friends are "alleged" to have done.

Thank you for proving my unhinged point.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps we are just interpreting the email differently.

Suppose it depends on the intent behind using the phrase "may be".


I gotcha.

So you are in agreement if this email is saying what I think it says, it would be very bad.

Lets look at it closely.

" The provision we discussed narrowing was clarifying that the phrase "Russian persons" in the Committees Jult 27, 2017 may be read to refer to persons that Mr. Johnson knows or has reason to believe are of Russian nationality or descent.

With that clarification that we previously discussed, does your client anticipate voluntarily providing documents and participating in a closed staff interview?"

Notice she is saying they discussed this already.

No doubt the lawyer got the request to give them the names of russian persons. The lawyer asked for clarification of what that means.

They say that the phrase russian persons may be read to mean person of russian descent or nationality.

The "may be" here is not say this is one possibility. It is saying you may interpret it as...

Keep in mind, this is the representative from the committee responding to the lawyer for the person being interviewed.

So lawyer asks for clarification, committee responds. It would make no sense for the committee to say "Yeah russian persons could mean a lot of things, such as russian descent" and then go on to ask if they will be submitting those names.

She is saying as we discussed, the request we sent for info on russian persons should be interpreted by you as people of russian nationality or descent.

In fact, at the bottom when the woman says "With that clarification that we previously discussed" she is saying this is the clarification of the term russian persons, as we already discussed, now will you submit documents and be interviewed.

If the phrase "may be" was meant to mean there could be other possible meaning of the phrase russian persons, she would not say "with that clarification will you now send us documents"

She would have said we will get back to you on exactly what we mean by russian persons.

I know that was wordy.

But I think it is pretty cut and dry; they are questing people based on their orgin of nationality (if you dont want to use race)

This is appaling.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.


Trump and friends are "alleged" to have done.

Thank you for proving my unhinged point.


What are Rubio and friends "alleged" to have done?



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.


Trump and friends are "alleged" to have done.

Thank you for proving my unhinged point.


What are Rubio and friends "alleged" to have done?


His dad was allegedly on the grassy knoll.




posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.


Trump and friends are "alleged" to have done.

Thank you for proving my unhinged point.


What are Rubio and friends "alleged" to have done?


They where alleged to having been little I think.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So you are in agreement if this email is saying what I think it says, it would be very bad.


Yes, if, and the lawyer would be a fool to agree to any such clarification.



Notice she is saying they discussed this already.


If you read the email, it seems she is referring to a clarification that was previously discussed. Not that what she said in the email IS the clarification. She is admitting the request "could be" read a certain way and therefore the need for clarification.



In fact, at the bottom when the woman says "With that clarification that we previously discussed" she is saying this is the clarification of the term russian persons, as we already discussed, now will you submit documents and be interviewed.


That is not what she said, that we can say for sure. There is too much grey area for interpretation to be let in, as we have seen.



This is appaling.


I'll wait for more context before I knee jerk too hard.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.


Trump and friends are "alleged" to have done.

Thank you for proving my unhinged point.


What are Rubio and friends "alleged" to have done?


They where alleged to having been little I think.


Thanks for proving my point.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


If you read the email, it seems she is referring to a clarification that was previously discussed. Not that what she said in the email IS the clarification. She is admitting the request "could be" read a certain way and therefore the need for clarification.



I think it is quite obvious what she is saying.

She clarifies to tell them what Russian person means, which is people with russian nationality or descent.

She starts the very next sentence saying "With that clarification" will the players client now provide documents and interviews.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Grambler

What next, placing people with russian heritage in internement camps?


Ouch; when we interned the Japanese Americans it was because we were at world war with the Japanese... And we now accept that was wrong.

When we McCarthyed the communists (or any one we wanted to be communists) it was because we were at cold war with the communists... And we now accept that was wrong.

Now we are going down that same road because ... because... we are at war ... with Donald Trump?

Man we are unhinged up in here.


No. We are not going down the same road.

It appears the verbiage used was in the process of being clarified and despite the title of the OP, and both sources used for the article, it does not apply to "anyone". It only applied to the specific request made in one case involving Charles Johnson.


I don't like Donald Trump as much as the next guy. But seriously we are coming unhinged over his election. A president is simply not THIS important; sure (s)he's important but we have plenty of other government institutions that provide checks and balances. If Donald Trump and his orange skin is really as bad as people think he is than we ride out the sunshower and elect someone better in 3 years. He really isn't worth the hisyeria.


I don't see how this has much to do with Trump.

It's a vague request from a committee and the lawyer, rightfully, worked to get further clarification. I'd like to see what that was, though.


Would we be having this conversation if Marco Rubio was the president? .... that's why it has to do with Trump's election.


Rubio did not do the things Trump and friends did.

False equivalency.


Trump and friends are "alleged" to have done.

Thank you for proving my unhinged point.


What are Rubio and friends "alleged" to have done?


They where alleged to having been little I think.


Thanks for proving my point.


Which is what exactly? The harsher the allegations the less important our adherence to the presumption of innocence should be?

You see the point you are trying to make is exactly why Grambler is right to worry about the OP issue. It's apparently acceptably now to investigate all Russians because the allegations against the Russians are harsh.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Let's start by looking at Charles C. Johnson's history.


Johnson is frequently described as an internet troll. He periodically makes false and unsubstantiated claims. Johnson is part of the alt-right movement in the United States.


Okay, so what kind of false claims?


Johnson was involved in the creation of a Daily Caller story that accused U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) of soliciting underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. A criminal investigation of the case found no evidence, and the women making the allegations later admitted they had been paid by a local lawyer to make the claims.



In December 2014, Rolling Stone columnist Sabrina Erdely published an article entitled "A Rape on Campus" about the alleged gang rape of a University of Virginia (UVA) student named "Jackie" in 2012 at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at UVA. The article was later found to be fabricated. Johnson publicly identified a woman he thought was Jackie, which has since been proven to be false.


There are more cases of this kind of deception, but of course, fake news is only on the left.

How is Charles C. Johnson related to Russia?


In September 2016, Johnson published a story on GotNews about a soon-to-launch anti-Trump website called PutinTrump.org.[28] WikiLeaks forwarded the story in private to Donald Trump Jr. before publicly tweeting it. Business Insider speculated that Johnson's story in September on GotNews may have marked the beginning of Donald Trump Jr.'s—and the Trump campaign's—back-channel contact with Julian Assange and Wikileaks. (Johnson wrote after Wikileaks tweeted the story, "About 2 hours after our original article, Julian Assange's WikiLeaks repeated our discoveries. Guess which big leaks organization reads GotNews & WeSearchr on the downlow! Come on Julian, let's work together. WikiLeaks & WeSearchr is a match made in heaven. We can take down Hillary together.")


It looks like he may have been working with Wikileaks. From what I have learned in this thread so far, the Senate probe cannot extend to "anyone of Russian descent" as claimed in the O.P. unless they were involved in the 2016 election AND were in contact, specifically, with Charles C. Johnson.

From ZeroHedge:


Relevant materials, the letter went on, would include any records of interactions Johnson had with “Russian persons” who were involved in some capacity in the 2016 U.S. elections.


Let's be clear about that.


So are you of "Russian descent" and have any level of interest in US politics - perhaps you occasionally read the newspaper, or have ever called in to a radio talk show? You could be subpoenaed for merely existing on American soil!


Sounds like a fabrication to me. I think the Senate probe is interested in someone more involved in the 2016 election than just "reading the newspaper" or "calling into a radio talk show." In addition, you would not only have had to have been involved in the election, but had been in communication with Charles C. Johnson, as well.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
yea this is pretty bad stuff. I am still holding out hope this is just some bad improper miscommunication or something, but its certainly on the road to that good 'ol McCarthyism stuff, from what the cold war era generation people have disclosed to me.

a reply to: introvert
Yea, there you go with the derailment, right on time.
edit on 12-28-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Even if they are only interested in people involved with the election, why is russian descent even a category worth mentioning.

Sure maybe someone connected to the Russian government.

But to view someone as somehow more suspicious due to only their heritage is disgusting.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Also your links about Johnson are irrelevant to the bigotry of having suspicion of someone based on their heritage.

But even still, could you provide a link to that article you are citing so I made read it.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I will agree with you that dragging people of Russian descent into things is probably going a bit overboard.

Quick aside: that Menendez thread you made, it turns out it was fake news. And it turns out that Charles C. Johnson was involved.


Three Dominican women were paid to lie about having sex for money with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and a close friend, Dominican police said Monday, citing statements from the women and other evidence. At a news conference in the Dominican Republic, National Police spokesman Maximo Baez Aybar said authorities had determined that the women were paid hundreds of dollars by a local lawyer to make the false claims in videotaped interviews. The women said the lawyer coached them on what to say in their recorded statements, taped in a Dominican shopping mall in La Romana province.


Washington Post: Dominican police: 3 women paid to make false claims about Menendez

I found that interesting.

Note: I'll continue that discussion with you in the relevant thread.
edit on 28pmThu, 28 Dec 2017 23:47:45 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

The thread I made wasnt fake news, but better to discuss that there.

Again, Johnson could be a serial killer for all that this OP is concerned about.

His being a bad guy has nothing to do with people being viewed upon with suspicion based solely on their heritage.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Imagine a lot of Alaskans are scratching their heads about now .



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Is there even one Russian member in this site. I got to wondering about that a while ago. Have never noticed one. I supposed they'd be afraid to speak about it. See just about everyone else talk about their decadency at some point. And then I've seen threads straight calling out pre-emptively demonizing the very idea of a Russian being able to post here. What kind of bigoted 'racism' is that, what kind of diversity, now?



If you listen to some of our more vocal members, anyone who thinks the Russian thing is a witch hunt is certainly being paid by Russia if not being Russian themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join