S k a t e L o g     F o r u m
Inline Skating and Quad Roller Skating
Forum Hosts: Jessica Wright | Kathie Fry

FOLLOW US: Our Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Email    


Home - Forum Index - Africa Skating - Asia Skating - Europe Skating - Oceania Skating - Pan America Skating - Roller_Rinks - Friend the SkateLog Forum in Facebook - SkateLog Forum on Facebook

Forum Administrators: Jessica Wright and Kathie Fry | Email Us
Access code for buying and selling subforums: "skates"
How To Get a User Account and Posting Privileges in the SkateLog Forum
Use Google to Search the SkateLog Forum

Go Back   SkateLog Forum > Other Forums > Off-Topic Discussions
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Off-Topic Discussions You can use this forum to talk about any non-skating topic you want.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 9th, 2017, 04:20 PM   #41
Foot2big
The Elder Skatesman
 
Foot2big's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 7,421
Default

__________________
An early-morning skate is a blessing for the whole day.
Henry David Foot2big Thoreau
Foot2big is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2017, 05:02 PM   #42
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

The Clinton foundation always has and always will benefit the people of the planet, the Trump foundation on the other hand exists solely to line the pockets of the Donald and whomever he bequeaths his booty to, for example a certain Florida woman that didn't investigate his crimes, why, oh my, now she's in his transition team and cabinet, oh' right, the Trump foundation is under investigation and as much as the Donald would like to close it and sweep ts illegal activities under the rug, he can't

No pretty self portraits?
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2017, 08:18 PM   #43
Foot2big
The Elder Skatesman
 
Foot2big's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 7,421
Default

You are as naive as you are nasty.

You go look up the Clinton foundation and Haiti and then shut up.

lol.
__________________
An early-morning skate is a blessing for the whole day.
Henry David Foot2big Thoreau
Foot2big is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2017, 10:29 PM   #44
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

Clintons, Hati, OK, feel free to fact check


POLITICS
WHO'S WINNING, WHO'S LOSING, AND WHY.SEPT. 22 2016 1:15 PM
The Clintons Didn’t Screw Up Haiti Alone. You Helped.

Trump has turned Haiti into the new symbol of Bill and Hillary’s crookedness. If only things were that simple.


Former US president Bill Clinton and his wife, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pose with workers at the grand opening cermony of the new Caracol Industrial Park in Caracol, Haiti, on October 22, 2012.
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, at the grand opening ceremony of the new Caracol Industrial Park in Caracol,

Last week, during a swing through Miami, Donald Trump stopped by a community center in Little Haiti. Trump has never held much interest in Haiti or Haitian Americans, and it showed. Instead of the usual bluster, the reality TV star tentatively read some vague, prepared remarks off a sheet of paper, then sat back on a stool “to listen and to learn” for a few minutes from the small crowd of mostly middle-aged, upper- and middle-class Haitian Americans in dark suits and print dresses, scattered among a few rows of folding chairs.

Not long ago, Trump’s team glommed onto the possibility that Haitian Americans—generally black, generally Democratic-leaning voters who make up roughly 2 percent of the population of Florida, where Trump and Hillary Clinton are separated by less than a point—might be persuaded to vote against the former secretary of state. The irony of a nativist pandering to thousands of immigrants and refugees aside, there was a logic to this. Many people rightly identify Clinton with failures of humanitarianism and development in Haiti. The Trump team has folded that perception into a half-true narrative in which Haiti—like Whitewater and Benghazi before it—becomes a synecdoche for all the ills, real and imagined, of the Clintons themselves.

There are good reasons the world’s first black republic has been an island-sized headache for Clinton as she seeks the presidency. Haiti is a place where some of the darkest suppositions that lurk on the left and right about her and her husband take form. Here is an island country of 10 million people where America’s ultimate power couple invested considerable time and reputation. Here is a fragile state where each took turns implementing destructive policies whose highlights include overthrowing a presidential election. Bill Clinton in particular mixed personal relationships, business, and unaccountable power in ways that, if never exactly criminal, arouse the kind of suspicion that erodes public trust. No two individuals, including Haiti’s own leaders, enjoyed more power and influence than the Clintons in the morass of the failed reconstruction following the deadly Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake, when a troubled country managed to go from catastrophe to worse.

The Clintons compounded the resulting political problem the way they usually do, by saying as little as possible while letting their enemies fill in the blanks. A year before he became Trump’s campaign “CEO,” Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon began pushing facile theories of corruption and malfeasance in the book Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer under the aegis of Bannon’s Orwellianly named Government Accountability Institute. It was later turned into a film. Both versions of Clinton Cash tell a kaleidoscopic version of Haiti’s post-quake story, remixed and more than occasionally fudged to push the Clintons into the center. Those flawed but relatively measured accounts in turn inspired whack-job theories that have become articles of faith in the anti-Clinton fever swamps, such as the fantasy that Hillary and Bill just straight up stole billions of dollars in post-quake relief money—an impossible claim so unmoored from reality that even Peter Schweitzer didn’t bother making it.


The reality is a lot more complicated (and interesting) than that. The United States and Haiti were the first two independent republics in the Americas, and our often blood-soaked relationship goes back a lot further than the meeting of a silky Arkansan and an ambitious Illinoisan at Yale Law School.

Trump, probably unwittingly, submerged himself in some relatively recent chapters of that history at the Little Haiti Cultural Center. His host was Georges Saati, a wealthy Lebanese-Haitian industrialist whose family backed the brutal 20th-century dictatorships of François and Jean-Claude Duvalier and whose far-right faction helped foment the violent overthrow of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. Trump was also treated to a speech by Bernard Sansaricq, a radical right-wing ex-Haitian legislator whom the Los Angeles Times once called the “self-proclaimed president of Haiti’s Senate” and who collaborated with the military junta that ruled during Aristide’s first exile in the 1990s, following a coup carried out during the George H.W. Bush administration by former Duvalierists on the CIA payroll. Trump was so moved that this week, his staff published another statement by Sansaricq on its website.


Both wealthy Haitians openly loathe Bill Clinton, who ordered the U.S. invasion that put down the junta and restored Aristide to power, for a time. Sansaricq, who long ago left Haiti and ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Congress as a Republican in 2010 and 2012, repeated nonsensical, Breitbart-esque claims about “the whole world” having given “billions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation for the Haitians” (false: The Clinton Foundation has raised about $30 million in connection with Haiti and was at no point a general clearinghouse for post-quake relief money) and promising Trump the Haitian American community’s support if he will “ask Hillary Clinton to disclose the audit of all the money they have stolen from Haiti.”

Trump nodded thoughtfully. “I didn’t understand,” he said, “now I understand it.”

He didn’t. I know, because I’ve spent years looking into what’s really gone on in Haiti. I was the Associated Press correspondent in Port-au-Prince from 2007 to 2011 and survived the earthquake in 2010. I’ve spent years digging into the details of the response and recovery, much of which I put in a book. I’ve also done extensive, critical reporting on the Clintons’ roles in particular, which is why my name appears halfway through the Clinton Cash documentary, misleadingly implying that I was some sort of corroborating source.

In all that time, neither I nor anyone else has found the coveted evidence of either Clinton making off with vast sums of money from Haiti or the relief effort. And while America’s foremost power couple may be as culpable as anyone for the disastrous results of the earthquake response, it is fundamentally misleading to say that they are singularly responsible for it, much less for America’s long and abusive history with its oldest and poorest neighbor. I wish things were that simple.

* * *

There’s a real case to be made against Hillary Clinton in Haiti. From her first days as secretary of state, Clinton saw the island republic as a place to “road-test” a central piece of her foreign policy vision of “elevating development alongside diplomacy and defense as core pillars of American power.” Haiti would be a major example of “economic statecraft,” as she called it, where business and government partner to address natural disasters, poverty, and disease, neutralizing threats while generating money and power for the United States—what her husband would call a “win-win-win.”

Clinton has gotten grief in this election for that kind of thinking, exemplified elsewhere by a 2011 speech in which she pitched reconstruction in Iraq, eight years after the U.S. invasion, as a “business opportunity.” In reality, what she is pushing has been standard U.S. foreign policy for more than a century. (In Iraq, she was very late to the party.) It’s no less true when it comes to “humanitarianism.” The U.S. government devotes less than 1 percent of its budget to “foreign aid,” most of which goes to vendors based in the United States. For instance, nearly half a billion dollars of U.S. government relief aid “for Haiti” following the 2010 earthquake went to the Defense Department. The vast majority of U.S. government contracts went to American firms; almost no cash ever went, or was intended to go, to Haitians or the Haitian government. The same is true for nearly all nongovernmental organizations and charities, including the American Red Cross.

Despite promises to change this way of doing aid, both Clintons rode herd on business as usual—Hillary as head of the State Department (which effectively includes the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID), and Bill in his panoply of roles, including co-chairing the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), a nominally Haitian government agency charged with overseeing the allocation of reconstruction money donated by foreign governments to a World Bank–managed fund for 18 months after the earthquake.* USAID, ignoring recommendations to hire Haitian contractors, brought in several U.S. firms (and one Mexican firm) to build a housing development. The added cost of flights, hotels, cars, food allowances, living expenses, and “danger pay” ballooned the cost per house from $8,000 to $33,000, investigative reporter Jake Johnston found. Ultimately two of the American contractors were suspended from receiving future government contracts. “Out of ignorance, there was much arrogance,” a Haitian official told Johnston.

But when the right isn’t beating the Clintons over the head about it, this pattern—keeping the money close to home—is how most conservatives, and a lot of other Americans, want foreign aid to work. Clinton’s insistence that relief and development efforts yield benefits for American businesses and consumers is aimed mostly at critics who don’t understand that this is how U.S. aid and intervention always operate. (That includes Trump himself, who told a Fox News town hall in April: “We have many, many countries that we give a lot of money to, and we get absolutely nothing in return, and that’s going to stop fast.”)

Before and after the earthquake, the State Department openly and enthusiastically pushed a vision of prosperity for Haiti through foreign investment in tourism, construction, and low-wage garment factories. In its view, this would save Haitians from poverty and prevent future refugee crises while making money for American and multinational corporations. That idea is badly flawed—among other things, the low wages and sweeping tax exemptions investors demand mean little money flows into the local economy—but it’s the program every single U.S. presidential administration has backed in Haiti since at least the 1960s. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Haiti produced huge quantities of cheap clothes, toys—and at one point all the baseballs used in the U.S. major leagues—earning it the nickname the “Taiwan of the Caribbean.” It’s a bipartisan effort: Clinton’s vision of “economic statecraft” isn’t all that different from the policies Ronald Reagan was pushing when his administration created the Caribbean Basin Initiative.

But efforts to resurrect the assembly sector, which collapsed in the turmoil following the fall of the Duvalier dictatorship 1986, got ugly. A few months before the quake, U.S. embassy officials pressured the then-Haitian president, René Préval, to nix a legislative proposal to raise the minimum wage for garment factory workers from roughly 22 cents an hour to 62 cents an hour, arguing that higher wages would discourage investment. Préval and legislators compromised at 38 cents an hour. (It has since gone up.) Bill used his newly minted position as U.N. special envoy to promote the economic agenda. “In the end all of our efforts will have to be judged by how many jobs we create, how much we swell the middle class, and whether we perform for the investors and make them a profit for doing the right thing,” he said at the time.

Once the disaster struck, the U.S. government focused its reconstruction efforts on pushing this vision. That resulted in the construction of Caracol Industrial Park, a $300 million, 600-acre industrial development built to house garment factories in northern Haiti. The project was financed through U.S. tax money via USAID, as well as the Washington-based Inter-American Development Bank. The Clinton Foundation helped promote the project to investors. Bill and George W. Bush teamed up to lobby Congress together to expand trade preferences for Haiti-sewn apparel. Bill also used his position with the IHRC to direct further funds to the project. With the help of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a former South Korean trade minister, the organizers recruited Sae-A Trading Co. Ltd., a South Korea–based global garment giant that supplies many of the clothes you buy at Target, Walmart, Gap, Old Navy, and other stores, to be the anchor tenant.

All that was at stake when, 11 months after the earthquake, Haiti held a presidential election. Millions were still displaced and polling places in rubble, but the United States and its allies were paying for the election and insisted it go on. The process fell into chaos in the first round, with riots in the streets and candidates accusing each other of manipulation and fraud.

Haiti—like Whitewater and Benghazi before it—has become a synecdoche for all the ills, real and imagined, of the Clintons themselves.
The electoral mess increased the Americans’ frustrations with Préval; they blamed his recalcitrance and skepticism about foreign intervention for the slow pace of reconstruction. The U.S. embassy openly fanned the flames by saying the official electoral results conflicted with a European Union–sponsored poll. U.S. officials then pushed Préval to throw his party’s candidate out of the second-round runoff and replace him with Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly, a raunchy pop singer who enthusiastically backed foreign investment projects including Caracol. (Martelly had also proved receptive to guidance from foreign political hands.)

Clinton’s State Department played hardball behind the scenes, revoking the visas of Préval’s inner circle and banding with France, Brazil, Canada, and the United Nations leadership to pressure the president into stepping down.

Then, on Jan. 30, 2011, the secretary personally flew to Port-au-Prince. The night before, she had traded emails with her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, as well as the Clinton Foundation’s chief operating officer, Laura Graham, who also served as Bill’s chief of staff on the IHRC. In one email, Graham said resistance was building against the U.S. plan and that the secretary had been “specifically criticized today for imposing this solution.” Mills suggested that Clinton emphasize a message in response: “The voices of the people of Haiti must be heard. The votes of the people of Haiti must be counted fairly. And the outcome of this process must reflect the true will of the Haitian people. That is the only interest of the United States.”

Hillary delivered that message almost word for word to the Haitian and foreign press the next day. Behind closed doors, she sweet-talked Préval, convincing him that accepting the U.S.-backed candidate would secure his legacy.

Martelly became president in May. In his inaugural speech he declared, in English: “This is a new Haiti open for business, now!” Bill was in the audience.

Initially, Martelly accepted Garry Conille—Bill Clinton's chief of staff at the U.N. Office of the Special Envoy—as his first prime minister. But sensing a babysitter, Martelly quickly booted him out and replaced him with his own business partner. “The situation cannot afford Washington to sit on sidelines. They elected him and they need [sic] pressure him,” Graham grumbled to Mills in an unusually candid email.

The earthquake recovery foundered, inflation spiraled, and violence spiked. Martelly left office earlier this year amid an unfinished, fraud-wracked election; for a week, the country had no president. Haiti is now struggling with a weak, transitional government. Demonstrations loom, as do strikes and threats of takeover by armed militants.

Caracol opened in 2012 with both Clintons joining Martelly (and an acquiescent Préval) at the opening ceremony. The project has been a disappointment by any measure. Sae-A brought in a fraction of the jobs it promised. Its employees grumble about the long hours, tough conditions, and low pay. The project has had little positive impact on Haiti’s economy so far.

* * *

Trump has criticized Caracol on the stump, referring in a recent speech to the time that “Hillary Clinton set aside environmental and labor rules to help a South Korean company with a record of violating workers’ rights set up what amounts to a sweatshop in Haiti.” It’s a hypocritical complaint for a mogul who employs his own sweatshop labor in China and Central America. Small wonder that he dropped that line of criticism at the Little Haiti event, where his hosts were wealthy industrialists whose opposition to Aristide (and Bill Clinton) was rooted in large part in the former Haitian leader’s resistance to garment-factory owners and foreign investment schemes. Still, it’s only a bit overstated—while Hillary built nothing alone, her State Department pushed hard to get the park up quickly, over the objections of other administration departments.

But what the shallower critics of the Clintons miss is whom this fundamentally unjust system is designed to benefit. Despite cherry-picked, half-understood stories about permits for nonexistent gold mines and isolated instances of naked (and duly punished) fraud that account for rounding errors in the actual billions raised and spent after the earthquake, there is simply no evidence that the intent was to line the Clintons’ pockets.

The system isn’t designed for them; it’s for us. The low wages that the U.S. embassy helped suppress are the reason we can enjoy a steady stream of $9 Mossimo camisoles and $12.99 six-packs of Hanes T-shirts. Even U.S. military uniform parts get made in Haitian sweatshops. As America moves further away from its producer past and deeper into its consumer present, we will want cheaper and cheaper smartphones and cheaper and cheaper clothes that we can afford on our stagnant service wages, and we will demand our leaders find us alternatives to sourcing from rivals like China. Places like Caracol are the result. Some Americans say they want production jobs to come back home, but few are ready to pay twice as much for their clothes or $100 extra for their iPhones, most of which would still have to be sourced from overseas.

To get the things we want, the United States has been in the business of overturning elections and toppling governments for more than a century. Clinton’s trip to Haiti in 2011 represents the softer end of a long tradition of U.S. invasions, coups, and usurpations: Panama in 1903 to Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954, to Congo, 1961; Vietnam, 1963, to Chile, 1973, to Iraq 2003, and on and on.

The U.S. Marines occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, helping foster the overcentralization—whereby American-run businesses and breaks on custom duties were concentrated in the capital—that made the 2010 earthquake so deadly. And we have been meddling ever since—ferrying leaders out and in and out again. As Trump was reminded in Little Haiti, Bill Clinton ordered the 1994 U.S. invasion. George W. Bush ordered his in 2004. The U.N. peacekeeping mission that dumped cholera into Haiti’s waterways a few months after the quake had nothing to do with Clinton’s U.N. Office of the Special Envoy; it was created years earlier, during the Bush administration, to take over from his U.S.-led force and has been kept there and aggressively defended by administrations through Barack Obama’s in large part because it is cheaper than sending U.S. troops back again.

That military might is used, explicitly, to keep things from deteriorating to the point that thousands of Haitians flee toward Florida, as they did in the 1980s and 1990s. Why? Because as it turns out, a lot of Americans aren’t fond of refugees.

None of this gets the Clintons off the hook for the actions they are personally responsible for in Haiti. I’ve asked Hillary’s spokesman many times to comment on how things have turned out there and what if anything she would do differently as president. He said once that she’d comment “when the time comes to do so.” That was back in April 2015. I’m still waiting.

Bill continues to mix his post-presidential fame and Haiti business matchmaking in ways that set off alarm bells—often in conjunction with his trademark quarter-million-dollar speaking fees. In the reconstruction effort, he often partnered with Irish cell phone company Digicel and its head, Denis O’Brien. The company helped arrange at least one lucrative speaking engagement for the former president, while the Clinton Foundation “facilitated introductions” to help O’Brien build a luxurious new Marriott hotel next to Digicel’s Port-au-Prince headquarters. USAID has directed about $1.3 million to Digicel since 2008, along with private grant money. Digicel has donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. It’s hard to say how, or even if, any of those parts fit together: Digicel was dominating Haiti’s cell phone market and doing development work there long before the Clintons re-engaged with the country in 2009. USAID money started going to Digicel while George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice were running U.S. foreign policy, and most has been paid out since Clinton left the State Department. An indirect speaking fee is hardly proof of a kickback scheme. Still, the relationship is clearly an example of the many ways money and celebrity combine and strengthen each other at the highest levels of power.


But it ignores all history and logic to pin the whole sordid tale of Haiti’s relief and reconstruction disasters on one couple, no matter how powerful they have been. Turning legitimate criticisms about U.S. intervention into a question about one candidate’s personality is a way of avoiding harder questions. The Clintons didn’t create the world we live in; they just know how to navigate it better than most of us do. If we want it to change, we have to change it. And it seems clear that electing a strongman leader who turns to putschists for advice on the developing world and who has never shied away from making money by working with corrupt regimes isn’t the answer. Changing a system that operates with millions of people and trillions of dollars will take more than shunting all the evils of empire onto one or two personalities—not when we benefit from them so eagerly and almost never change ourselves when it counts. Pretending otherwise is just a way to let ourselves off the hook, too.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2017, 10:42 PM   #45
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

Go ahead and fact check this also, Treason

(CNN)Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.
The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.
These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton's candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.
Sources tell CNN that these same allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October, in which he wrote, "It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States."
CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs.
The Trump transition team declined repeated requests for comment.
CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.
Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.
On the same day that the President-elect was briefed by the intelligence community, the top four Congressional leaders, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- were also provided a summary of the memos regarding Mr. Trump, according to law enforcement, intelligence and administration sources.
The two-page summary was written without the detailed specifics and information about sources and methods included in the memos by the former British intelligence official. That said, the synopsis was considered so sensitive it was not included in the classified report about Russian hacking that was more widely distributed, but rather in an annex only shared at the most senior levels of the government: President Obama, the President-elect, and the eight Congressional leaders.
CNN has also learned that on December 9, Senator John McCain gave a full copy of the memos -- dated from June through December, 2016 -- to FBI Director James Comey. McCain became aware of the memos from a former British diplomat who had been posted in Moscow. But the FBI had already been given a set of the memos compiled up to August 2016, when the former MI6 agent presented them to an FBI official in Rome, according to national security officials.
The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.
Spokespeople for the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. Officials who spoke to CNN declined to do so on the record given the classified nature of the material.
Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.
One high level administration official told CNN, "I have a sense the outgoing administration and intelligence community is setting down the pieces so this must be investigated seriously and run down. I think [the] concern was to be sure that whatever information was out there is put into the system so it is evaluated as it should be and acted upon as necessary."
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2017, 12:52 AM   #46
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ursle View Post
Go ahead and fact check this also, Treason

(CNN)Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.
The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.
These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton's candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.
Sources tell CNN that these same allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October, in which he wrote, "It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States."
CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs.
The Trump transition team declined repeated requests for comment.
CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.
Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.
On the same day that the President-elect was briefed by the intelligence community, the top four Congressional leaders, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- were also provided a summary of the memos regarding Mr. Trump, according to law enforcement, intelligence and administration sources.
The two-page summary was written without the detailed specifics and information about sources and methods included in the memos by the former British intelligence official. That said, the synopsis was considered so sensitive it was not included in the classified report about Russian hacking that was more widely distributed, but rather in an annex only shared at the most senior levels of the government: President Obama, the President-elect, and the eight Congressional leaders.
CNN has also learned that on December 9, Senator John McCain gave a full copy of the memos -- dated from June through December, 2016 -- to FBI Director James Comey. McCain became aware of the memos from a former British diplomat who had been posted in Moscow. But the FBI had already been given a set of the memos compiled up to August 2016, when the former MI6 agent presented them to an FBI official in Rome, according to national security officials.
The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.
Spokespeople for the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. Officials who spoke to CNN declined to do so on the record given the classified nature of the material.
Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.
One high level administration official told CNN, "I have a sense the outgoing administration and intelligence community is setting down the pieces so this must be investigated seriously and run down. I think [the] concern was to be sure that whatever information was out there is put into the system so it is evaluated as it should be and acted upon as necessary."

aaahhh cnn..... that explains a lot...
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2017, 11:13 PM   #47
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

And ABC, CBS, NPR, BBC etc, etc, etc.

Surprised anyone still supports this traitor, which makes them by happenstance, traitors, ha, goldenshower, wonder if the wife (lesbian model, hooker, illegal alien) contributed or received.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 02:43 AM   #48
sk84luv
..., therefore, I skate.
 
sk84luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ursle View Post
And ABC, CBS, NPR, BBC etc, etc, etc.

Surprised anyone still supports this traitor, which makes them by happenstance, traitors, ha, goldenshower, wonder if the wife (lesbian model, hooker, illegal alien) contributed or received.
Why aren't you out scraping the Clinton 2016 bumper sticker from your PRIUS?
__________________
Riedell 336, Roll-Line Mistral, Roll-Line Panthers. Swiss Labyrinth II .
sk84luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 03:30 PM   #49
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84luv View Post
Why aren't you out scraping the Clinton 2016 bumper sticker from your PRIUS?
I don't do decales or tattoos, if I had a sticker it would say

BIDEN

My other brother from another mother(fact)
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 01:15 AM   #50
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default

POLITICSComey Goes Rogue, Reveals “Dirty Little Secret” He Was Forced to Hide By Jolene Peters | Jan 12, 2017
While testifying before the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey exposed a massive lie Obama and the Democrats have been peddling.
The left continues to claim that Donald Trump only won the presidential election because Russia hacked into the DNC’s computer services, leading to a scandal of epic proportions when private emails between members of the Clinton camp were made public.

However, adding to the mounting evidence that the suspicious Russia hack never actually happened, Comey said on Tuesday that the FBI was never allowed access to investigate the supposed intrusion themselves.



Comey explained that the FBI made “multiple requests at different levels” to investigate the alleged hack, but was ultimately informed by the DNC that a “highly respected private company” had been hired to perform the investigation instead.
How much do you want to bet that “highly respected private company” has ties to the Clinton mob?

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, adding that he had no idea why the DNC rejected the FBI’s request, according to MRC Blog.
The DNC claimed last week that the FBI never made the requests Comey referred to, but a senior law enforcement official has now spoken out to say the DNC’s story simply isn’t true.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” said the official.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third-party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
I don’t know about you, but it definitely sounds to me like the DNC didn’t want the FBI looking into their servers. Something to hide? Nah…


My fake news copy and paste is as good as anyones!!!
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 12:44 AM   #51
DannyBoySk8s
Style Skater
 
DannyBoySk8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierocious1 View Post
POLITICSComey Goes Rogue, Reveals “Dirty Little Secret” He Was Forced to Hide By Jolene Peters | Jan 12, 2017
While testifying before the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey exposed a massive lie Obama and the Democrats have been peddling.
The left continues to claim that Donald Trump only won the presidential election because Russia hacked into the DNC’s computer services, leading to a scandal of epic proportions when private emails between members of the Clinton camp were made public.

However, adding to the mounting evidence that the suspicious Russia hack never actually happened, Comey said on Tuesday that the FBI was never allowed access to investigate the supposed intrusion themselves.



Comey explained that the FBI made “multiple requests at different levels” to investigate the alleged hack, but was ultimately informed by the DNC that a “highly respected private company” had been hired to perform the investigation instead.
How much do you want to bet that “highly respected private company” has ties to the Clinton mob?

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, adding that he had no idea why the DNC rejected the FBI’s request, according to MRC Blog.
The DNC claimed last week that the FBI never made the requests Comey referred to, but a senior law enforcement official has now spoken out to say the DNC’s story simply isn’t true.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” said the official.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third-party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
I don’t know about you, but it definitely sounds to me like the DNC didn’t want the FBI looking into their servers. Something to hide? Nah…

My fake news copy and paste is as good as anyones!!!
Wow! I'm impressed! It is truly interesting when you do a little digging isn't it? It seems that as you dig you find that the Democratic Complex articles are full of theories, suppositions, conjectures, innuendos and baseless accusations. In other-words propaganda: derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.


Well done Sir!

Cheers,
DannyBoy

Last edited by DannyBoySk8s; January 14th, 2017 at 01:22 AM. Reason: Correction
DannyBoySk8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 12:48 PM   #52
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

I don’t believe Donald Trump colluded with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee. I don’t think anyone working on Trump’s behalf met with anyone working for Vladimir Putin. That allegation—which appeared in clearly erroneous form in the sketchy “dossier” published by BuzzFeed on Tuesday—could turn out to be true. But nothing I’ve seen so far, dossier included, has convinced me.

But that leaves all of us with a problem: How do we explain the overtly pro-Russian behavior of Trump and his surrogates? If they’re not Russian puppets, why do they work so hard to defend Putin and Russia against American investigators and reporters? Why do they divert blame to other countries and victims of the hack? Why, instead of targeting the Russian intelligence agencies that infiltrated us, do they attack the American intelligence agencies that exposed the Russians?

This behavior has been going on for months. In June, Trump openly invited Putin to hack more Democratic emails. Trump’s allies excused this as a joke, but Trump kept going. In July, he defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea. Even after the election, and after U.S. intelligence agencies had reported that senior Russian officials directed the hack “to interfere with the US election process,” Trump ridiculed the intelligence agencies and scoffed: “They have no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody.”

Last week’s intelligence briefing on the hack was supposed to bring Trump around. “If, after the briefing, he is still unsure,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, “that will shake me to my core about his judgment.” But the briefing has changed almost nothing. Trump continues to belittle the intelligence, question Russia’s guilt, divert scrutiny, and attack the intelligence community. This month, as evidence against Russia has mounted, here’s how Trump and his team have responded.

Tuesday, Jan. 3: Trump tweets, “The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case.” Trump’s claim was false: The briefing wasn’t delayed. But the scare quotes conveyed that he didn’t think the case against Russia was based on reliable intelligence and that he was willing to undercut that case publicly, even before the briefing.

Wednesday, Jan. 4: Trump accuses the press of a “double standard” for investigating Russia but not Hillary Clinton. He also tweets that Julian Assange, the fugitive from justice whose WikiLeaks site published the hacked material, “said Russians did not give him the info.” Vice President–elect Mike Pence, when asked about Trump’s citation of Assange as a credible witness, defends his boss:

The president-elect has expressed his very sincere and healthy American skepticism about intelligence conclusions. … Given some of the intelligence failures of recent years, the president-elect has made it clear to the American people that he’s skeptical about conclusions from the bureaucracy, and I think the American people hear him loud and clear.
Taken together, the statements from Trump and Pence implied that the public should place less faith in the intelligence agencies than in Assange.

Thursday, Jan. 5: At a Senate hearing, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, testifies that new evidence—to be detailed in a classified setting the next day—has increased the already high confidence of the U.S. intelligence community that senior Russian officials directed the hack. The evidence begins to leak that evening. Around 7 p.m. Eastern, the Washington Post reports, “American intelligence agencies intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome.” The Post also discloses two other lines of evidence: “the identification of ‘actors’ involved in delivering stolen Democratic emails to the WikiLeaks website, and disparities in the levels of effort Russian intelligence entities devoted to penetrating and exploiting sensitive information stored on Democratic and Republican campaign networks.”

Despite the Post article, Trump reaffirms his doubt that the DNC “was supposedly hacked by Russia.” He tweets: “So how and why are they so sure about hacking if they never even requested an examination of the computer servers? What is going on?”

Friday, Jan. 6: In morning TV interviews, Trump counselor and spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway says Trump “can’t agree with the rush to judgment.” She makes a firm prediction: It’s “unproven, and it will be unproven, that what Russia did or did not do affected the election results.” She accuses President Obama of expelling Russian diplomats prematurely. Shortly after Conway’s interviews, Trump tells the New York Times that inquiries into Russia’s role are “a political witch hunt.”

Around noon, as Trump is about to be briefed, NBC News confirms that the evidence outlined by the Post is in the 50-page classified report he will receive. According to NBC, the report “says that U.S. intelligence picked up senior Russian officials celebrating Donald Trump’s win.”

That afternoon, Trump is briefed on the classified report. A declassified version released to the public says Russia’s military intelligence directorate, GRU, used online fronts to release hacked material through WikiLeaks. The report lays out a timeline of Russian hacks into the DNC, along with “cyber operations aimed at the US election.” It also says, “Russian intelligence accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards.” Evidence for these charges, including the intercepts cited by the Post and NBC, is confined to the classified version.

Shortly after the briefing, Trump issues a statement. He says nothing about what Russia did specifically. “While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations,” he says, “there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.” The Associated Press reports that, in an interview after the briefing, Trump “declined to say whether he accepted [intelligence officials’] assertion that Russia had meddled in the election on his behalf.”

Hours after the briefing, Conway appears on Fox News. She repeats Trump’s claim that the discussion of Russian hacking is “a political witch hunt.” Responding to a question about the intelligence officials who prepared the Russia report, she says Trump “will convene his own panel. … He wants to talk to his own intelligence community. He wants to talk to his own advisers about what makes sense moving forward.”

Conway also asserts that at Thursday’s hearing, Clapper said the hack “did not influence votes.” This was false. In his testimony, Clapper said that as a matter of jurisdiction, “The intelligence community can’t gauge the impact that it [the hack] had on choices the electorate made.”


Saturday, Jan. 7: Two days after the hearing and a day after receiving the classified report and the briefing, Trump tweets: “Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results.” Again, this is false. Clapper made no such statement, and the unclassified version of the report said: “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” The report did say, however, that Russia’s interference influenced the course of the campaign: “We assess the Russian intelligence services would have seen their election influence campaign as at least a qualified success because of their perceived ability to impact public discussion.”

In his Saturday tweets, Trump dismisses the whole inquiry and defends Russia. First he writes, “Only reason the hacking of the poorly defended DNC is discussed is that the loss by the Dems was so big that they are totally embarrassed!” Then he argues: “Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only ‘stupid’ people, or fools, would think that it is bad!”

Sunday, Jan. 8: Conway again goes on TV to accuse Obama of punishing Russia prematurely. Five times she insists that Russia’s interference is only “alleged.” She mocks the notion that “this is so important to our intelligence and our security.” Three times, she repeats her false claim about Clapper and the intelligence report.

Conway also adds a new claim. “I don’t want any of your viewers to be misled into thinking that somehow … the Kremlin was dealing with any of the hackers and bringing that information back to Moscow,” she says. How would Conway know whether any of the hackers talked to anyone in the Kremlin? How would she know what information was or wasn’t brought to Moscow? She didn’t explain.

Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman and Trump’s incoming chief of staff, echoes Conway’s charges. In Sunday morning TV interviews, he expresses dismay that Obama, while going easier on China, has imposed “the biggest sanctions that we’ve ever put out on Russia. … So there’s a political angle here … that is clearly politically motivated to discredit the victory of President-elect Trump.” Trump makes the same point, retweeting a line from Conway: “We certainly don’t want intelligence interfering with politics.”

Monday, Jan. 9: Conway escalates her attack. She claims that there’s “no smoking gun” in the intelligence report on Russia and that “there weren’t any fireworks” in “the intelligence briefing on Friday.” She accuses Trump’s critics of “selective outrage about Russia.” Conway and Trump’s incoming communications director, Sean Spicer, deflect questions about further investigation of the Russian hack, saying it has been investigated enough.

Tuesday, Jan. 10: In a taped appearance with Seth Meyers, Conway further describes and belittles the contents of the intelligence briefing. “I have to tell you, there wasn’t very compelling information in terms of the nexus that many people would like to make between the alleged hacking and the election results,” she says. She denies “that the Russians interfered in the election successfully, that they disrupted our democracy, which is really what we should all care about.”

That night, BuzzFeed publishes the uncorroborated dossier. In response, Trump returns to his theme that the whole controversy is bogus. He tweets: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

Wednesday, Jan. 11: As evidence that allegations of his collusion with Russia are false, Trump quotes the Russian government. He tweets: “Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is ‘A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE.’ Very unfair!”

In TV interviews, Conway attacks not just the dossier but the whole Russia controversy. On CBS This Morning, she says “the Russian hacking issue is fading out of view” because the “smoking gun that was promised” hasn’t been produced. On ABC’s Good Morning America, she repeatedly brushes aside questions about Russia’s guilt.

While shifting blame from Russia to other countries, Conway accuses the intelligence community of leaking about Trump and Russia for political reasons. She declares: “Just to smear the president-elect of the United States, we now have intelligence officials divulging information that they are sworn not to divulge.”

I’m at a loss to explain, in the absence of collusion, why Trump and his coterie would behave this way.
At a midday press conference, Trump contradicts findings in the intelligence report, and he repeatedly diverts questions about Russia to the broader problem of hacking by many countries. Initially, as part of this maneuver, he concedes Russian guilt in the DNC hack: “I think it was Russia. But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.” Later, he hedges. When a reporter describes Trump as having affirmed that “Russia indeed was responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s emails,” Trump interjects: “It could have been others also.”

Another reporter notes that according to the intelligence report, Putin ordered the hack “to help you in the election. Do you accept that part of the finding? And will you undo what President Obama did to punish the Russians for this, or will you keep it in place?” Trump replies: “Well, if Putin likes Donald Trump, I consider that an asset, not a liability.”

In another round of TV interviews, Conway repeats her charge that Obama and the media are applying a double standard—treating Russia more harshly than China—and that they’re ascribing “outsized importance” to hacking because “the election results were not what they expected.”

Thursday, Jan. 12: On NBC’s Today show, Conway is asked several times whether Trump believes Clapper’s statement that the dossier was not leaked by the intelligence community. She refuses to say that Trump believes it or that she believes it. She repeats that “intelligence officials or other people are leaking to the media” for “political purposes.”

Friday, Jan. 13: Trump tweets: “Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans - FAKE NEWS! Russia says nothing exists. Probably released by ‘Intelligence’ even knowing there is no proof, and never will be.” The tweets imply that he doesn’t accept Clapper’s statement, that the intelligence agencies leaked material to hurt Trump, and that they did so knowing that the material was false. Again, Trump invokes Russia’s denials as evidence. In addition, he repeats his objection that Clinton “should never have been allowed to run.”

That’s what Trump and his advisers have said in the days leading up to, and following, his intelligence briefing on Russia’s interference in the election. They have conceded as little as possible. They have belittled and lied about the contents of the intelligence report. They have attacked the credibility of U.S. intelligence officials and have accused them of leaking falsehoods “just to smear the president-elect.” They have denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin. They have criticized the sanctions against Russia as unfair. They have disputed the need for further investigation. They have dismissed the whole controversy as political and fake.

I don’t attribute any of this to back-channel phone calls or an alleged secret meeting in Prague. But I’m at a loss to explain, in the absence of collusion, why Trump and his coterie would behave this way, and why Pence would go join in their attacks on the intelligence “bureaucracy.” Something is deeply wrong with the incoming president-elect and his White House team. They seem not to understand, or to care, that their job is to represent and protect the United States, not Russia. Their behavior in the past two weeks makes this problem indisputable. Until we know more, they cannot be trusted.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 01:35 PM   #53
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Trump's pick to be national security adviser, did speak to Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak by telephone on Dec. 29, the same day the Obama administration announced measures retaliating against Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign, two Trump transition officials confirm to NPR.

This is different timing than the Trump transition had announced to reporters Friday morning. Transition spokesman and incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said then that Kislyak texted Flynn on Dec. 28, asking to talk. Spicer also said the text messages showed they wished each other Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and added they spoke by phone later that day, the 28, meaning they couldn't have discussed the retaliation measures or Russia's response.

But now, the transition officials, including Spicer, confirm to NPR that was not correct. The phone conversation, initiated by the Russian ambassador, actually didn't happen until the next day, Dec. 29, the same day as the retaliatory efforts were announced.

David Ignatius at the Washington Post broke the story Thursday that Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador Dec. 29, although the transition said it actually happened the day before. AP published a report Friday night that supported Ignatius' version.

Spicer told NPR in a phone call late Friday night that he had misread the timing of Flynn's texts Friday morning and that accounts for the discrepancy.

Spicer said the call took place "around the same time" as when the retaliation measures were announced, which was some time around 2 p.m. ET. But, he insisted that the details of the phone conversation did not change from what he said Friday morning and called it "doubtful" that Flynn and the ambassador discussed the U.S.'s retaliatory measures or Russia's potential response, because Flynn told Spicer they did not.

Senate Panel Plans To Investigate Russian Activities During U.S. Elections
THE TWO-WAY
Senate Panel Plans To Investigate Russian Activities During U.S. Elections
The first hint that sanctions against Russia were coming was when President Obama said in an interview with NPR on Dec. 15, "We need to take action. And we will." The Washington Post then reported on Dec. 27 that action was imminent. By late afternoon the following day, multiple news sources were quoting government officials as saying the announcement would come on the Dec. 29.

So Kislyak likely knew an announcement was coming when he asked to talk to Flynn.

Another transition official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, said the ambassador invited the Trump administration to participate in a conference in Kazakhstan on the conflict in Syria set for after the inauguration in late January. Were that to happen it could mark a concrete diplomatic shift in the relationship between Russia and the U.S. The Obama administration has opposed Russia's aid to the Assad regime, essentially putting the U.S. and Russia on opposite sides of the Syrian civil war – even as they have attempted to coordinate on parts of it.

Contact between an incoming administration and foreign ambassadors isn't out of the ordinary. But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act, which states, in part:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.

The news comes hours after the Senate Intelligence Committee reversed course and said it would, in fact, investigate Russian interference in the election, including "any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 02:27 PM   #54
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default Trump won! Trump won!Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won

Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won!

Get over it!

If you were a business person, even you would know that looking forward to a new playing field would be and could be good for the country. As sharp as he is I would say that he is setting upfor the future of our country. Why would we want to be at war with the strongest opponent other than China? He is looking into the options of possibly working with a government that has been an opponent and turn them into an ally by possibly having the US have future business with them. What does this accomplish? No threat of war, possible working partner, profits for both countries and less threat. Of course there will be a learning curve in all this and a proving up of trust. Also in the background there will be strategy as in all business. So get over worrying about Russia. Kinda hard to do damage to us from across the water other than all out war. Now if we were on the same continent, maybe it would be a problem.

So Snowflakes, get over it! It will be good for you.....

Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won! Trump won!
Get over it! Trump won! Get over it! Trump won! Get over it! Trump won!

This is F1 News, not a fake news network(cnn is FAKE NEWS, TRUMP said so LOL).
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 02:50 PM   #55
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default

fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 02:56 PM   #56
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default

fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:01 PM   #57
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default



Trump IS coming, and a shredder is coming with him!!!
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:31 PM   #58
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default bo not pres much longer..........

One sunny day in January, 2017, an old man approaches the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where he’d been sitting on a park bench. He speaks to the U.S. Marine standing guard and says, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine looks at the man and says,
“Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer president and no longer resides here.” The old man says, “Okay,” and walks away.
The following day the same man approaches the White House and says to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine again tells the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer president and no longer resides here.” The man thanks him and again walks away.
On the third day, the same man approaches the White House and speaks to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.”
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looks at the man and says, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I’ve told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don’t you understand?”
The old man looks at the Marine and says,“Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.” The Marine snaps to attention, salutes, and says, “See you tomorrow, Sir!”


IN a few days I predict this will happen.....
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:33 PM   #59
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,787
Default

fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:55 PM   #60
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 2,177
Default

ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.