Comrade Trump

[frank ryan]

So now Trump's advisors can't say anything negative to him from intelligence reports about what Russia is doing or he flips out? Nice.

Knock it off, wise minds on here have told me Trump isn’t deferential to Russia or Putin.

[BlueK]

Knock it off, wise minds on here have told me Trump isn’t deferential to Russia or Putin.

Putin told us he didn't do it and we believe him!

[creekster]

Jordan is a hack just trying to keep his wing nut constituents happy.

No kidding. Its not like we have ever seen anyone on the other side fo the aisle do something like that.

[creekster]

Another independent counsel, Ken Starr, took about four years to dig into Whitewater, and at the end of his investigation the most significant thing his team came up with was a smudge on Monica Lewinsky's dress which led to an impeachment. By that standard, the pace and gravity of Mueller's work are very impressive.

Pace? Yes. Gravity? Not really. Remember the McDougals and the other guy (I forget his name)?

[Walter Sobchak]

So help me understand the FBI issue.

I haven't looked very far into it, so tell me what is so horrible.

Here's what I understand. One of the agents working on the investigation seemed to really hate Trump. Said a bunch of dumb disparaging/dumb things. Doesn't have any financial interest or other real interest in taking down Trump beside really not liking the guy (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong). Muller finds out about the dumb things the guy said and removes him from the investigation in the Summer.

Is that an accurate description of the situation?

If so, this is a huge nothingburger. The process is working as it is supposed to.

Pretty much.

For the record, the collusion investigation so far only has nothingburgers. Lying to the FBI is dumb and serious but there isn't anything related to collusion yet.

Pretty much.

See my previous post summarizing the analysis of the former CIA deputy director Morrell:

The second point I’d make is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who were associated with the campaign who violated the law with respect to their interactions with the Russians on the election. Paul Manafort comes to mind. I think he has little to no integrity. There’s no way you spend that much time with the old Ukrainian government and not bump up against Russian intelligence officers a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who faced criminal charges here with regard to their interactions with the Russians, and Paul Manafort’s a possibility. But that’s different than a conspiracy by the campaign, right?

I saw this the other day... pretty much sums it up:

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

It is damn expensive nothingburger!... I wonder if it comes with fries.

Russia probe cost $7 million over 5 months, DOJ says

[Uncle Ted]

Now why would Comey do a thing like that? Apparently the original draft of Comey's prepared remarks were a lot different than those he actually delivered:

Senator: Comey’s remarks on Clinton probe heavily edited

A draft statement former FBI Director James Comey prepared in anticipation of concluding the Hillary Clinton email case without criminal charges was heavily edited to change the “tone and substance” of the remarks, a Republican senator said Thursday.


Some of the edits proposed to the May 2016 draft, obtained by The Associated Press, appear to soften the gravity of the bureau’s findings.


Comey, for instance, initially wrote that the FBI believed that Clinton and her aides were “grossly negligent” in their handling of classified information, language also contained in the relevant criminal statute.


But the text was edited to say they were simply “extremely careless” in their use of a personal email server, a phrase Comey adopted for his July 5 public announcement that the FBI would not be recommending charges.
[...]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.ae11c280e9c0

Johnson's letter to the FBI:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/downloa...r-comey-speech

#WhatAboutTheRussianHackers

[beefytee]

Maybe he was just trying to use all the best words!

I see that 2. entry in the dictionary for grossly is extremely. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/grossly

And check out the 2nd entry here for negligent. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent


So how are those word changes significant?

[Uncle Ted]

Nothing to see here folks... All these Anti-Trump text messages are just the Drumpf propaganda machine doing it's thing:

Top Democrats Say Trump’s Justice Department Helped Undermine the Mueller Investigation

The disclosure of FBI agents’ text messages was for “propaganda purposes,” one says.
[...]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...investigation/

[Uncle Ted]

Maybe he was just trying to use all the best words!

I see that 2. entry in the dictionary for grossly is extremely. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/grossly

And check out the 2nd entry here for negligent. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent


So how are those word changes significant?

"Grossly negligent," the language dropped from the draft, is a term that carries with it legal ramifications. "Extremely careless," the term Comey ended up using, does not. Ask one of the many lawyers around here... you may have to pay them a retainer first, however.

[beefytee]

"Grossly negligent," the language dropped from the draft, is a term that carries with it legal ramifications. "Extremely careless," the term Comey ended up using, does not. Ask one of the many lawyers around here... you may have to pay them a retainer first, however.

Does "Grossly negligent" mean an automatic indictment? Does this come down to deciding there wasn't enough harm to indict her?

[old_gregg]

"Grossly negligent," the language dropped from the draft, is a term that carries with it legal ramifications. "Extremely careless," the term Comey ended up using, does not. Ask one of the many lawyers around here... you may have to pay them a retainer first, however.

did you consider that comey’s drafting reflects his knowledge of this fact?

[falafel]

I don't think changing the language means much. Its not like the DOJ would have seen that letter and though "slam dunk!" The facts are the facts, and the language is just semantics. Yes, the term "gross negligence" is a term of art with legal meaning. Probably better to drop that phrase for the similar, but not as loaded term "extreme carelessness" or whatever was used. To me, this sounds more like careful craftsmanship than smoking gun.

[Uncle Ted]

I don't think changing the language means much. Its not like the DOJ would have seen that letter and though "slam dunk!" The facts are the facts, and the language is just semantics. Yes, the term "gross negligence" is a term of art with legal meaning. Probably better to drop that phrase for the similar, but not as loaded term "extreme carelessness" or whatever was used. To me, this sounds more like careful craftsmanship than smoking gun.

Yeah, they just need to release all the emails (including the 30,000+ that Clinton lost when she deleted them that the NSA has archived for her) and let the public decide if it is "gross negligence" or some other select term.

[falafel]

Yeah, they just need to release all the emails (including the 30,000+ that Clinton lost when she deleted them that the NSA has archived for her) and let the public decide if it is "gross negligence" or some other select term.

Actually, it would be for a jury to decide it ifs gross negligence. That is the only time that phrase really matters.