Let's face reality. One, we knew most of this long ago. We even knew about this meeting (Susan Rice had the meeting in her notes). But we didn't have documented evidence that the actual pros in the IC were saying something different before the meeting kicked this effort off, and we didn't have evidence that Obama may have directed this somewhat. Those are good things to learn.
But, people officially at the head of an agency stopping a report and redirecting it to say what they want it to say is not going to end in repercussions or jail time. It's done all the time in non-sinister ways and it's quite simply properly within their power.
It's just a loss of face, and as such we're talking about one more straw moving more people to the side of seeing the realities of Russiagate. Maybe this takes us from 55% of people getting it to 57-58% of people getting it.
I agree that people should temper their excitement here. No comeuppance coming.
One popular tweet yesterday related to Obama's NSA Director Mike Rogers going to Trump tower to warn Trump about surveillance and that was why Trump moved offices. That didn't happen. Rogers has testified about it, he was simply interviewing for a position, and Trump simply went to to one of his private golf clubs for the weekend with meetings resuming at Trump tower the following week.
Other tweets related to Mifsud. The sleuths have talked to Mifsud's lawyer and analyzed that mess with Papadopolous, there isn't any merit to Mifsud being tasked in some way - though he likely has ties to British intelligence.
My personal pet peeve is on tweets relating to Seth Rich, which is a very narrow view of how the spoofing occurred. It was likely much more brazen and done purposefully, likely by the Clinton operatives.
One caveat to my take that nothing will happen. On the John Brennan perjury issue, that may result in actual charges and a light sentence, because it's pretty cut and dried that he lied to Congress. They now have emails where he discusses making sure the Steele Dossier is included in the 2017 ICA, but then he explicitly, falsely, and misleadingly stated to Congress that it was not part of the justification for the ICA's conclusions.
But that dude lied long ago in the Feinstein matter, baldly and in a way that hurt a Democrat and never paid a price.
I never realized how political he was even from the jump. Obama seems to have politicized these agencies by breaking from tradition of how to hire the heads. Rather than from a pool of apolitical experts he picked Brennan, not for his caliber or merit, but because he was the one guy from the IC who had retired and backed Obama in the Dem primaries in 2008. He got rewarded and then was protected. He avoided repercussions in the fight with Feinstein, because Obama protected him then. In a sense he's like Hunter Biden - never held accountable, someone always covers for him, so the behavior just gets worse and worse.
I take your point. Still, we’ve entered a fresh, new recreational phase of Russiagate. So, there’s that.
😆
Let's face reality. One, we knew most of this long ago. We even knew about this meeting (Susan Rice had the meeting in her notes). But we didn't have documented evidence that the actual pros in the IC were saying something different before the meeting kicked this effort off, and we didn't have evidence that Obama may have directed this somewhat. Those are good things to learn.
But, people officially at the head of an agency stopping a report and redirecting it to say what they want it to say is not going to end in repercussions or jail time. It's done all the time in non-sinister ways and it's quite simply properly within their power.
It's just a loss of face, and as such we're talking about one more straw moving more people to the side of seeing the realities of Russiagate. Maybe this takes us from 55% of people getting it to 57-58% of people getting it.
I agree that people should temper their excitement here. No comeuppance coming.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/NEWS/NEWS-RELEASES/GRASSLEY-GRAHAM-UNCOVER-UNUSUAL-EMAIL-SENT-SUSAN-RICE-HERSELF-PRESIDENT-TRUMP-S
At least now we know why Rice wrote that... it seemed to be trying to whitewash a sinister meeting, and it was, 100%.
old ideas that have been debunked -- could you give a couple examples?
One popular tweet yesterday related to Obama's NSA Director Mike Rogers going to Trump tower to warn Trump about surveillance and that was why Trump moved offices. That didn't happen. Rogers has testified about it, he was simply interviewing for a position, and Trump simply went to to one of his private golf clubs for the weekend with meetings resuming at Trump tower the following week.
Other tweets related to Mifsud. The sleuths have talked to Mifsud's lawyer and analyzed that mess with Papadopolous, there isn't any merit to Mifsud being tasked in some way - though he likely has ties to British intelligence.
My personal pet peeve is on tweets relating to Seth Rich, which is a very narrow view of how the spoofing occurred. It was likely much more brazen and done purposefully, likely by the Clinton operatives.
One caveat to my take that nothing will happen. On the John Brennan perjury issue, that may result in actual charges and a light sentence, because it's pretty cut and dried that he lied to Congress. They now have emails where he discusses making sure the Steele Dossier is included in the 2017 ICA, but then he explicitly, falsely, and misleadingly stated to Congress that it was not part of the justification for the ICA's conclusions.
But that dude lied long ago in the Feinstein matter, baldly and in a way that hurt a Democrat and never paid a price.
I never realized how political he was even from the jump. Obama seems to have politicized these agencies by breaking from tradition of how to hire the heads. Rather than from a pool of apolitical experts he picked Brennan, not for his caliber or merit, but because he was the one guy from the IC who had retired and backed Obama in the Dem primaries in 2008. He got rewarded and then was protected. He avoided repercussions in the fight with Feinstein, because Obama protected him then. In a sense he's like Hunter Biden - never held accountable, someone always covers for him, so the behavior just gets worse and worse.
He was caught spying on our own Senate in 2014. Goes to show what happens when we don't have accountability, it only gets worse.
For sure!