Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Final Senate IC report
HHusky
Member Posts: 21,563
in Tug Tavern
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-senate-s-grave-russia-report-what-we-learned-and-what-it-means/ar-BB1871e3?ocid=msedgdhp
Not only does it point to additional bases for the investigation, but it’s the product of a bipartisan committee in the GOP-led Senate.
Chief among the revelations is the role of Konstantin Kilimnik. The report describes the ally of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as a “Russian intelligence officer” — going beyond special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s more anodyne contention that Kilimnik had “ties to Russian intelligence.”
It’s one thing for Mueller and even this report to have found no proof of a conspiracy, but this report makes clear there were very big reasons to suspect there might be. And just because an investigation doesn’t prove a crime doesn’t mean it was illegitimate.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, like Mueller and the House intelligence committee before it, does not allege collusion or a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. But it does suggest certain very important aspects of potential coordination have been covered up and that we still don’t have the full picture.
For one, it says the Trump administration was not forthcoming with its requests, often offering very broad assertions of executive privilege with which it disagreed.
Perhaps more interestingly, though, it notes that what it labels the “single most direct tie” between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence — Manafort and Kilimnik — remains obscured because Manafort lied so much.
The report noted that Manafort sacrificed his plea deal with Mueller by lying repeatedly and that his lies mostly pertained to one thing: his contacts with Kilimnik, whom the report describes as being “at the center of the Committee’s investigation."
It’s difficult to get the full picture of such a foreign-led effort no matter how much time is spent investigating. But at the very least, this bipartisan report from the GOP-led Senate suggests the GOP-led House intelligence committee wasn’t terribly curious about something of huge importance.
Not only does it point to additional bases for the investigation, but it’s the product of a bipartisan committee in the GOP-led Senate.
Chief among the revelations is the role of Konstantin Kilimnik. The report describes the ally of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as a “Russian intelligence officer” — going beyond special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s more anodyne contention that Kilimnik had “ties to Russian intelligence.”
It’s one thing for Mueller and even this report to have found no proof of a conspiracy, but this report makes clear there were very big reasons to suspect there might be. And just because an investigation doesn’t prove a crime doesn’t mean it was illegitimate.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, like Mueller and the House intelligence committee before it, does not allege collusion or a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. But it does suggest certain very important aspects of potential coordination have been covered up and that we still don’t have the full picture.
For one, it says the Trump administration was not forthcoming with its requests, often offering very broad assertions of executive privilege with which it disagreed.
Perhaps more interestingly, though, it notes that what it labels the “single most direct tie” between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence — Manafort and Kilimnik — remains obscured because Manafort lied so much.
The report noted that Manafort sacrificed his plea deal with Mueller by lying repeatedly and that his lies mostly pertained to one thing: his contacts with Kilimnik, whom the report describes as being “at the center of the Committee’s investigation."
It’s difficult to get the full picture of such a foreign-led effort no matter how much time is spent investigating. But at the very least, this bipartisan report from the GOP-led Senate suggests the GOP-led House intelligence committee wasn’t terribly curious about something of huge importance.
Comments
Kevin Clinesmith is making his guilty plea tomorrow in federal court. A member of the Mueller team is the only one guilty of anything to do with Russia and the Obama DOJ spying on Drumpf. He lied to help get warrants for you Dem Dingleberries to spy on the campaign.
Guy looks like a snitch. Who do you think he gave up for being able to get the plea? Comey? McCabe? Strzok? Oh, the mystery!
I’ve never thought the Russia angle was much of a needle mover for me, I think Trump probably wins regardless. To say there was never anything there though, even if it wasn’t criminal, is a little short-sighted, however.
you're embarrassing
Collusion with the Russians that they can't prove and have no evidence of is bad, bad, bad. But collusion with the Russians that's an established fact and staring them right in the face is completely ignored.
Administration officials who testified about actions they took as part of the National Security
Council or conversations they had with President Obama about Russian interference. In practice,
though, Obama Administration officials freely shared their conversations with then-President
Obama· and each other related to the Russia threat. The. Committee heard testimony about
Principal's Committees (PCs) and Deputy's Committees (DCs) from Susan Rice, Denis
McDonough, Michael Daniel, Celeste Wallander, Jeh Johnson, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power,
Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and Lisa Monaco, among others. This testimony provided useful
insights into the history of interactions between the Obama Administration and the Russian
government, which informed the Committee's report.
The Committee did not anticipate, however, the multitude of novel and
unprecedented potential executive privilege claims from the WHCO on behalf of members of
President-elect Trump's Transition Team and the Transition itself, for communications before
Trump took office. The Committee was surprised by these assertions because they were made
inconsistently and because they have no basis in law. The Committee's experience demonstrated
the potential for abuse of executive privilege, particularly as it relates, to impeding a
Congressional inquiry. . . . The argument was
particularly suspect as applied to an apparent foreign policy operation run by Transition officials
who can claim no Constitutional authority to be conducting American diplomacy. To date, the
only court to address the existence of a Transition privilege has rejected it.
White House intervention significantly hampered and
prolonged the Committee's investigative effort. Most importantly, some witnesses were directed
by the White House not to tum over potentially privileged information-so they refused to
produce materials without first handing them over to the White House for a privilege review, or
refused to answer questions concerning the Transition without first consulting with the White
House. As a result, the White House had a chance to review and control the information
responsive to· Committee requests before the Committee did, even though the Committee was
seeking information from private citizens who could not themselves assert the privilege, and who
were free to disregard the White House's directive.
Although there is no formal requirement for Congress to honor the attorney-client
privilege, the Committee respected all legitimate and properly-supported invocations ofthe
privilege during its investigation as a matter of congressional discretion. Proper assertions of the
privilege did not prove to be obstacles to the Committee's work. However, the Committee
encountered dubious objections to its requests and questioning based on an undocumented and
unproven 'joint defense agreement."
From the documents produced by Cohen, the Committee became concerned that
multiple witnesses and/or their counsel could have been involved in or aware of Cohen's attempt
to mislead the Committee. Indeed, at least two witnesses (Donald Trump Jr. and Felix Sater)
could have known that Cohen's statement falsely represented material facts about negotiations
over a. deal for a Trump Tower Moscow. Further, Cohen told the Committee that following his
initial testimony, he received a phone call from Sekulow, who told him that Trump "heard that
you did great, and don't worry, everything's going to be fine. He loves ya." Cohen also
testified that after his initial interview, Sekulow mentioned "pardons" or "pre-pardons" for
Cohen.
The Committee questioned several witnesses and counsel to identify the nature of
the JDA. No showing to substantiate its existence was made by any proponent of the privilege.
All agreed that there was nothing written to document the JDA or any of its key features, such as
when it began, who was included, and the JDA'.s purpose. Even if the JDA were a verbal
agreement (valid under some case law), that would not excuse the participants from satisfying
their obligation to prove its existence.
And to think how much some of the gals here complain about corruption.
@HHusky loves his “may haves” and “could haves” as he treats them as facts.
Embarrassing all around that any time was spent on that toilet paper report.
multiple witnesses and/or their counsel could have been involved in or aware of Cohen's attempt
to mislead the Committee. Indeed, at least two witnesses (Donald Trump Jr. and Felix Sater)
could have known that Cohen's statement falsely represented material facts about negotiations
over a. deal for a Trump Tower Moscow.
The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.