Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former DNI: "No evidence of collusion between and the Russians"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Former DNI: "No evidence of collusion between and the Russians"

    Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told ABC News he did not see anything to suggest that Russia successfully infiltrated Donald Trump’s presidential campaign or recruited any of Trump’s advisers – at least as of Jan. 20, when the retired three-star general left office.

    "There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper, a career intelligence officer, told ABC News' Brian Ross in an interview Monday for "World News Tonight."

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-s...ry?id=46013305

    And the moronic Trump-Russia conspiracy theory continues to implode...

    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Too bad. While the snowflakes wail about the evil Russians, Trump and the GOP have been doing great things.

    We will need another distraction.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      The snowflakes and the buttercups have no problems providing their own distractions.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        ...did not see anything to suggest that Russia...infiltrated...or recruited any of Trump’s advisers...
        If the contact was voluntary, there was no need for the Russians to infiltrate or recruit.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by III Corps View Post
          If the contact was voluntary, there was no need for the Russians to infiltrate or recruit.
          "There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians,"

          "At the time" refers to January 20, 2017, Clapper's last day as DNI.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            You don't get it, Doc. For the believers of the Russian paranoia/conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence of any collusion just proves how devious the Russians are - they leave no evidence.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
              You don't get it, Doc. For the believers of the Russian paranoia/conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence of any collusion just proves how devious the Russians are - they leave no evidence.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                So is the former DNI a reliable source on this subject or is he not one? Seems that we have a disconnect on this. When he makes a statement about President Trumps claim of his tower being wire tapped the former DNI is a former Obama political hack. Suddenly with this statement he is an upstanding source that we should all listen to.

                So which is it?
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  *cue background music*
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    So is the former DNI a reliable source on this subject or is he not one? Seems that we have a disconnect on this. When he makes a statement about President Trumps claim of his tower being wire tapped the former DNI is a former Obama political hack. Suddenly with this statement he is an upstanding source that we should all listen to.

                    So which is it?
                    I think I've been pretty consistent in praising DNI Clapper. It's former DCI Comrade Brennan who I have vilified.

                    Clapper's statement on the wiretapping was extremely selective in its denial...
                    Parsing Clapper

                    by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY March 8, 2017 4:00 AM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

                    What he said was probably true, but what he didn’t say was more revealing.

                    In Monday’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty usefully outlined some intriguing statements made by former Obama national intelligence director James Clapper regarding the FISA surveillance controversy. Clapper’s remarks, in an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on Sunday, are being taken as a blanket denial of the allegations that the Obama administration used the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Trump-campaign figures, potentially including Trump himself. But what Clapper said is far from a wholesale rejection of the allegations. To be sure, General Clapper’s statements convincingly shoot down the claim that Trump himself was wiretapped by the government. But to my knowledge, no one has made that claim other than President Trump, in a series of controversial tweets on Saturday morning. Clapper’s statements do nothing to undermine the overarching allegation that the Obama Justice Department investigated associates of Trump who had varying connections to his campaign.

                    [...]

                    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...eveal-omission

                    Trump's tweets on wiretapping have basically caused the whole Trump-Russia conspiracy theory to collapse like a Jenga tower...



                    To paraphrase Bush-43, Trump "smoked 'em out"...
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      FISA-gate: The Times Revises History in Real Time

                      by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY March 9, 2017 11:45 AM

                      For four months, media wanted us to think that Obama was investigating Trump; now they don’t.

                      Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. It’s revisionist history, Soviet style. You know, the kind where the bad stuff gets “disappeared.” The New York Times is disappearing its claim that Obama investigated Trump.

                      For four months, the mainstream press was very content to have Americans believe — indeed, they encouraged Americans to believe — that a vigorous national-security investigation of the Trump presidential campaign was ongoing. “A counterintelligence investigation,” the New York Times called it.

                      As I contended in a column this weekend, it was essential for the media and Democrats to promote the perception of an investigation because the scandalous narrative they were peddling — namely, that Trump-campaign operatives conspired with the Putin regime to “hack the election” — required it.

                      Russia obviously did not hack the election.

                      [...]

                      Get it? If there is no hacking conspiracy — and there manifestly is not — the big scandal here is not possible Trump-campaign collusion with Russia. It is that the Obama Justice Department may have used its legal authorities to investigate the Democrats’ top political adversary. And not to be overlooked: This would have been done at the very same time the same Obama Justice Department was bending over backwards to whitewash the extremely serious criminal case against the Democrats’ nominee, Hillary Clinton. It would have meant Obama had his thumb on the election scale.

                      I began pointing this out in early January, but matters did not come to a head until last Saturday morning. In a tweet-burst, President Trump made the controversial allegation that President Obama had ordered that Trump be subjected to wiretapping at Trump Tower, where his campaign had been headquartered.

                      To say the least, it is unfortunate that this was the angle Trump chose to pursue. There is plenty of support for the overarching proposition that the Obama administration used its law-enforcement and intelligence powers to investigate Trump associates during the campaign. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that Trump personally was wiretapped. So instead of highlighting the alarming things that may be true, President Trump’s tweets obsessed over something that probably is not true.

                      Nevertheless, even if Trump’s allegation was false, the tweets demanded attention to the real scandal: Was the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign?

                      That was the uh-oh moment for the media-Democrat complex. That was when it dawned on them not only that the election-hacking conspiracy narrative wasn’t working, but that the investigation of the Trump campaign could be a much bigger scandal.

                      So, after insisting for four months that the Trump campaign was under investigation for conspiring with Putin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, the media decided that it better adopt a different strategy: “Investigation? What investigation?”

                      Thus the claim, suddenly, is that Obama was never investigating Trump. How could we possibly believe such a thing . . . even if it’s the thing the media have wanted us to believe for four months.

                      That brings us back to the New York Times.

                      On January 20, when the paper was trying to promote the “government investigating Trump–Russia conspiracy to steal the election” narrative, here’s the headline that appeared on the big story: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” See?

                      They wanted you to assume the “inquiry” was focused on Trump aides who had connections to the Trump campaign. The report elaborated that investigators were poring over “intercepted communications” of three associates of Donald Trump.

                      [...]

                      Have you checked the Times’s January 20 story lately?

                      Turns out the story has suddenly, quietly been given a new headline. No longer is it “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” Instead, readers are now told, “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates.”

                      Why would the Times change its headline in this manner, weeks after the fact?

                      Because, during the four months when the media-Democrat complex wanted you to believe there was a Trump–Putin conspiracy to hack the election, they needed you to believe that the Justice Department was targeting Trump associates for surveillance because they were Russian agents.

                      Now that they don’t want you to believe there was an investigation — because that would be an Obama abuse of power — they want to convince you that Trump associates were never targeted for surveillance.

                      [...]

                      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...wiretap-russia

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The issue isn't 'collusion' but did the Russians interfere with the election. And all of the US intelligence agencies agreed that they did.

                        If there was any collusion with the Trump campaign, that might come out of the investigations now being conducted.

                        And any charges of collusion are Trump's and his campaign's own fault. Trump praised WikiLeaks publicly, stated that he admired Putin (who is a dictator and a murderer), and he has not condemned the Russians for their activities in Ukraine.
                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          The issue isn't 'collusion' but did the Russians interfere with the election. And all of the US intelligence agencies agreed that they did.

                          If there was any collusion with the Trump campaign, that might come out of the investigations now being conducted.

                          And any charges of collusion are Trump's and his campaign's own fault. Trump praised WikiLeaks publicly, stated that he admired Putin (who is a dictator and a murderer), and he has not condemned the Russians for their activities in Ukraine.

                          Now you admit that there is no collusion yet you started a thread about that exact thing, hypocrite.
                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            The issue isn't 'collusion' but did the Russians interfere with the election. And all of the US intelligence agencies agreed that they did.
                            In what way? If you count in releasing all those questionable e-mails and such the DNC and top Democrats were tossing about, that's probably a good thing rather than a bad one. It showed just how corrupt, at least in part, the Democrats were / are.

                            If there was any collusion with the Trump campaign, that might come out of the investigations now being conducted.
                            I seriously doubt that the Russians were in cahoots with either party. What I see is the Democrats made themselves easy targets for hacking by having lax precautions on their electronic systems and by rather blatantly, and regularly, discussing quasi-legal, illegal, and questionable stuff via e-mail. They virtually asked to be targeted.

                            And any charges of collusion are Trump's and his campaign's own fault. Trump praised WikiLeaks publicly, stated that he admired Putin (who is a dictator and a murderer), and he has not condemned the Russians for their activities in Ukraine.
                            Again, I seriously doubt any sort of charges will come forward. As for the rest, meh. I can't blame Trump for praising WikiLeaks... After all, it was a help... due entirely to the Democrat's own technological and security incompetence.

                            I didn't know saying one "admired Putin" was now a crime of some sort. Same goes for Russia and the Ukraine's situation. I guess when you have TDS everything Trump does amounts to a capital crime or felony...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              In what way? If you count in releasing all those questionable e-mails and such the DNC and top Democrats were tossing about, that's probably a good thing rather than a bad one. It showed just how corrupt, at least in part, the Democrats were / are.



                              I seriously doubt that the Russians were in cahoots with either party. What I see is the Democrats made themselves easy targets for hacking by having lax precautions on their electronic systems and by rather blatantly, and regularly, discussing quasi-legal, illegal, and questionable stuff via e-mail. They virtually asked to be targeted.



                              Again, I seriously doubt any sort of charges will come forward. As for the rest, meh. I can't blame Trump for praising WikiLeaks... After all, it was a help... due entirely to the Democrat's own technological and security incompetence.

                              I didn't know saying one "admired Putin" was now a crime of some sort. Same goes for Russia and the Ukraine's situation. I guess when you have TDS everything Trump does amounts to a capital crime or felony...


                              One theory is that the Russians assumed Hillary would win, (Just like everyone else) and merely wanted to weaken her as a leader.
                              That makes sense. I seriously doubt that the Russians had a better grasp of how the election would turn out than anyone else and were just going after the presumed winner.

                              As for Trump praising Wikileaks, I seem to recall that the dems had nothing bad to say about Wikileaks when it was going after Bush.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X