Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Final Senate IC report
HHusky
Member Posts: 23,963
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
-
Fuck off
-
I guess that’s why Mueller charged Manafort for conspiring with Russians to steal the election. You got Trump now!
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 would assume none of those people get indicted and none get charged.NorthwestFresh said:I guess that’s why Mueller charged Manafort for conspiring with Russians to steal the election. You got Trump now!
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 use so many words to say nothing interesting.MelloDawg said:
I would assume none of those people get indicted and none get charged.NorthwestFresh said:I guess that’s why Mueller charged Manafort for conspiring with Russians to steal the election. You got Trump now!
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. -
Poor @HHusky and @MelloDawg still believing Fake News. Did you even read the report other than your DU Manafort outtake, Lionel?
-
NOC.
you're embarrassing -
He’s wrong, too. Manafort lied a lot? Duh, he’s in prison for it. So if he said Trump and Putin conspired to steal the election, he’s suddenly telling the truth?MikeDamone said:NOC.
you're embarrassing -
-
-
-
Good thread. No one will read itSFGbob said: -
Love how guys like the Dazzler criticized "right-wing wackos" pushing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories while they continue to promote the completely baseless Trump/Russia collusion story and completely ignore the fact that the Dossier has been totally debunked and was most likely Russian disinformation paid for by Hillary and the DNC.RaceBannon said:
Good thread. No one will read itSFGbob said:
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. -
We are busy now with an obscure GOP congress candidate in Florida. She is a conspiracy nut!!!
-
It’s a good thing she didn’t fight against de-segregating schools because she didn’t want her kids growing in a “racial jungle” with the black kids. That would be terrible!RaceBannon said:We are busy now with an obscure GOP congress candidate in Florida. She is a conspiracy nut!!!
-
The Committee anticipated that it could face executive privilege claims from Obama
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. -
Tl,dr
-
Dazzler goes with "the city's insurance company settled with Mike Brown's family" angle in order to make his case. And to think some fool actually pays you money for your legal assistance.
-
I like, "I pity his clients" although they do have to be fools to actually pay the dazzler for anything.
-
Trump “could have known.” Oh no!! Lock him up. I “could know” Lionel defrauds people in nursing homes. That means he’s guilty.
@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. -
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.
The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time. -
The lineup of anti Trump witnesses over the years may be the least impressive in history
-
A notably flurry of activitySFGbob said: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.
The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.
immediately preceded Cohen's submission of his August written statement, and an additional
burst of communications surrounded his October 25, 2017 testimony. Based on the names of
counsel identified in the log, membership in the alleged JDA appeared to include, at least,
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.; the Trump Organization, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul
Manafort, the Trump Campaign, Keith Schiller, Hope Hicks, Michael Flynn, and Felix Sater.
However, the Committee was provided with no competent evidence to substantiate the JDA's ·
existence by Ryan or anyone else.
(U) Due to time and resource considerations, the Committee opted not to further pursue
its inquiry into potentially obstructive conduct under this alleged JDA umbrella. Doing so would
have likely required initiating litigation over subpoena compliance, a process that may not have
resolved in time to be of investigative value. -
A notable flurry of activity?
-
DamningRaceBannon said:A notable flurry of activity?
-
When you allege a non-existent joint defense agreement in stone walling an investigation, even Republican Senators take note of the volume of material you are trying to conceal.SFGbob said:
DamningRaceBannon said:A notable flurry of activity?
-
Which “may not be resolved.” FFS the FBI raided Cohen’s office and home, so much for attorney-client privilege, seized all documents and electronics, and STILL found nothing on Trump they could use which means the “flurry of activity” didn’t implicate anyone else, and especially Trump.. Then they squeezed Cohen, who had nothing to offer against Trump, so they indict him for tax evasion and campaign finance for the Stormy payoff, none leading to Trump, and locked him up with a guilty plea.RaceBannon said:A notable flurry of activity?
Biden’s America.
I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus. My opinion of you is actually somewhat lower after this thread. You’re in a trio with those other two morons.
-
Privilege log.RaceBannon said:A notable flurry of activity?
-
HHusky said:
A notably flurry of activitySFGbob said: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.
The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.
immediately preceded Cohen's submission of his August written statement, and an additional
burst of communications surrounded his October 25, 2017 testimony. Based on the names of
counsel identified in the log, membership in the alleged JDA appeared to include, at least,
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.; the Trump Organization, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul
Manafort, the Trump Campaign, Keith Schiller, Hope Hicks, Michael Flynn, and Felix Sater.
However, the Committee was provided with no competent evidence to substantiate the JDA's ·
existence by Ryan or anyone else.
(U) Due to time and resource considerations, the Committee opted not to further pursue
its inquiry into potentially obstructive conduct under this alleged JDA umbrella. Doing so would
have likely required initiating litigation over subpoena compliance, a process that may not have
resolved in time to be of investigative value.
-
Can someone remind Boris that I'm quoting the report from a committee his party controls?NorthwestFresh said:
Which “may not be resolved.”RaceBannon said:A notable flurry of activity?
I expect this nonsensical bullshit from @insinceredawg or @MontlakeBridgeTroll, yet Lionel has managed to out-dipshit them both in this thread. Great job, goofus. -
No masks, frogs dead in a week. Maybe 14 days.Swaye said:HHusky said:
A notably flurry of activitySFGbob said: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.
The crack legal mind of the Dazzler has him this time.
immediately preceded Cohen's submission of his August written statement, and an additional
burst of communications surrounded his October 25, 2017 testimony. Based on the names of
counsel identified in the log, membership in the alleged JDA appeared to include, at least,
Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.; the Trump Organization, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul
Manafort, the Trump Campaign, Keith Schiller, Hope Hicks, Michael Flynn, and Felix Sater.
However, the Committee was provided with no competent evidence to substantiate the JDA's ·
existence by Ryan or anyone else.
(U) Due to time and resource considerations, the Committee opted not to further pursue
its inquiry into potentially obstructive conduct under this alleged JDA umbrella. Doing so would
have likely required initiating litigation over subpoena compliance, a process that may not have
resolved in time to be of investigative value.
