Matt Taibbi: How Did Russiagate Start?

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com,

Amid the chaos of James Comey's firing, new questions about the timeline of his fateful investigation

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on This Week Sunday, and said some head-scratching things.

Clapper back in March told Meet the Press that when he issued a January 6th multiagency intelligence community assessment about Russian interference in the election, the report didn't include evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, essentially saying he hadn't been aware of any such evidence up through January 20th, his last day in office.

On Sunday, he said that didn't necessarily mean there was no such evidence, because sometimes he left it up to agency chiefs like former FBI Director James Comey to inform him about certain things.

"I left it to the judgment [of] Director Comey," Clapper said, "to decide whether, when and what to tell me about counterintelligence investigations."

Clapper said something similar when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Monday. In prepared remarks, he essentially said that there was nothing odd about his not being informed about the existence of an FBI counterintelligence investigation involving Donald Trump's campaign.

Speaking generally, Clapper seemed to imply that the Trump-Russia-collusion scandal, the thing colloquially known as #Russiagate all over the world now, may have originated in information gleaned by the intelligence community, who in turn may have tipped off the FBI.

"When the intelligence community obtains information suggesting that a U.S. person is acting on behalf of a foreign power," he said, "the standard procedure is to share that information with the lead investigatory body, which of course is the FBI."

He went on, explaining that in such a situation, it wouldn't be unusual for the DNI to not be informed about an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

"Given its sensitivity," he said, "even the existence of a counterintelligence investigation's closely held, including at the highest levels."

In his Senate testimony, Clapper went out of his way to say this didn't contradict his earlier statements. But if he's not contradicting himself, he's certainly added a layer of confusion to what is already the most confusing political scandal ever.

Back on March 5th, when Clapper gave that interview to Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, he sounded definitive on a number of counts.

Todd for instance asked Clapper if he would know if the FBI had a FISA court order for surveillance. Clapper answered unequivocally: "Yes."

Clapper made it clear that he would have known if there were any kind of surveillance authority against "the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign."

Todd realized this was an important question and re-asked it, to make sure Clapper heard it right.

"You would be told this?" he asked.

"I would know that," Clapper answered.

Todd asked again: Are you sure? Can you confirm or deny that a FISA warrant exists?

"I can deny it," Clapper said flatly.

It wasn't until the fourth time Todd asked the question that Clapper finally added the caveat, "Not to my knowledge."

Even so, there was no way to listen to the March 5th interview and not come away feeling like Clapper believed he would have known of the existence of a FISA warrant, or of any indications of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, had they existed up until the time he left office on January 20th of this year.

Todd went out of his way to hammer at the question of whether or not he knew of any evidence of collusion. Clapper again said, "Not to my knowledge." Here Todd appropriately pressed him: If it did exist, would you know?

To this, Clapper merely answered, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government."

That's not an unequivocal "yes," but it's close. There's no way to compare Clapper's statements on March 5th to his interviews last week and not feel that something significant changed between then and now.

Clapper's statements seem even stranger in light of James Comey's own testimony in the House on March 20th.

In that appearance, Comey – who by then had dropped his bombshell about the existence of an investigation into Trump campaign figures – was asked by New York Republican Elise Stefanik when he notified the DNI about his inquiry.

"Good question," Comey said. "Obviously, the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along. The DNI, I don't know what the DNI's knowledge of it was, because we didn't have a DNI – until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning."

Comey was saying that he hadn't briefed the DNI because between January 20th, when Clapper left office, and March 16th, when former Indiana senator and now Trump appointee Dan Coats took office, the DNI position was unfilled.

But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January?

If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January?

Furthermore, how could the FBI participate in a joint assessment about Russian efforts to meddle in American elections and not tell Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs about what would seemingly be a highly germane counterintelligence investigation in that direction?

Again, prior to last week, Clapper had said he would know if there was a FISA warrant issued on this matter. But then on April 11th, law enforcement and government officials leaked – anonymously, as has been the case throughout most of this story – that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page.

So what's going on here? In talking to people on the Hill last week, I heard a number of theories.

One interpretation is that the FBI, concerned about operational security, conducted a secret investigation during the last months of Barack Obama's presidency without informing the likes of Clapper and other agency chiefs.

But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th?

Another interpretation is that Clapper was simply not telling the whole truth, either on March 20th or last week. In this version of events, he knew of the FBI investigation all along. More than one person I spoke with found it implausible that Clapper could have been ignorant of any investigation, especially following the issuance of the reported FISA warrant against Page.

But the context of these interviews still makes Clapper dissembling in his March interview a strange and unlikely possibility. Clapper has not been in the habit of doing Trump political favors this season. And if indeed it's standard practice for a DNI to not know what counterintelligence operations the FBI might be up to, it would have made a lot more sense for Clapper to say that on Meet the Press on March 5th.

Instead, he did Trump a solid by stating unequivocally that there were no FISA warrants out, and that he would have known if there were, adding he had seen no evidence of collusion. Why?

When James Comey was fired last week, I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story is still hidden from view.

Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.

But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.

What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.

Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?

Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.

Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.

But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason. Gutting a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.

However, let's say the FBI is actually investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state. That's the most serious possibility, and the one exciting so much public dread.

If it's that, what's at the heart of that case? Why can't we be told what's going on? Operational secrecy would be a believable excuse, were it not for the fact that so much else has been leaked. Intelligence sources even appeared to give up their ability to capture Russian officials celebrating Trump's election win. If something like that can be leaked, and if even foreign governments can be told about "leverages of pressure" Russia allegedly has on Trump, it stands to reason that the American public should have heard what's behind the Trump-Russia investigation by now.

Trump easily could have committed some disqualifying act in response to this scandal. The worry about that is why we've always needed an independent investigation.

Such an investigation into Trump's campaign might very well uncover a range of improprieties and shady dealings by some of the campaign "associates" who've figured into news reports. This wouldn't be surprising, I don't think, even to some of the people in the White House.

But when it comes to the collusion investigation, there are serious questions. A lot of our civil liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent exactly this situation, in which a person lingers for extended periods of time under public suspicion without being aware of the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations.

It's why liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret evidence, and in the past would have reflexively discouraged the news media from printing the unverified or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it's Donald Trump, no one seems to care.

We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media hysteria and excess, and possibly even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite literally driving the country crazy.

The public deserves to know what's going on. It deserved to know before the election, it deserved to know before the inauguration, and it deserves to know now.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
holdbuysell's picture

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.[1][2]

Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term owes its origin to Gas Light, a 1938 play and 1944 film. It has been used in clinical and research literature.[3][4]

Sociopaths and narcissists frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.[7] Some physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners by flatly denying that they have been violent.[4]Gaslighting may occur in parent–child relationships, with either parent, child, or both, lying to each other and attempting to undermine perceptions.[8]

An abuser's ultimate goal is to make their victim second guess their every choice and question their sanity, making them more dependent on the abuser. A tactic which further degrades a target's self-esteem is for the abuser to ignore, then attend to, then ignore the victim again, so the victim lowers their personal bar for what constitutes affection and percieves themselves as less worthy of affection.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

crazzziecanuck's picture

If Trump is suffering this bad from the mere appearance of interference, can you imagine how badly HRC would have gone apeshit once the FBI just started to properly investigate all the crap her and her kickback sche--- I meant --- "Foundation"?  She literally allowed the sale of American uranium to Vladamir Putin's government while her husband got $500,000 from one of "Putin's" banks (Sberbank) for one of his "speeches".  Don't even need the FBI to investigate.  It's a matter of public record.

And, let's not forget, the media just loves to put people up on pedestals only to cut their legs out shortly afterwards.  HRC would have been no exception.  

It's funny, but the real choice in November 2016 was deciding which person would be the one to be impeached...  and I don't think the Kremlin really wanted Trump?  Do you think Putin is so stupid as to want to have a man with an incredibly thin skin and an ego complex in charge of America's nuclear arsenal?!  I didn't think so...

 

nmewn's picture

And Boeing's $900,000 "gift" to the Clinton Foundation 10 weeks after the deal with Aeroflot...lol...pure pay-for-play. You can ALWAYS count on the dimz to reveal what they are REALLY up to because they accuse everyone else of what they are actually doing. 

AltRight Girl's picture

How it started?

It started when true polls (never made public) showed Cankles was prone to lose big time. 

Then the Cankle stable aka DNC scrambled to find someone/something to blame in hope they could turn the tide around. 

The bigger the lie, the more credible.. and they tried mostly everything so why not the Russians.

Clinton Blamed Misogyny, FBI, Russia, Everything but Herself for 2016 Loss

john doeberg's picture

She should have blame Mossad for NOT helping her

 

Chuck-Norris's picture

Indeed.

Maybe is not too late though

 

John Law Lives's picture

***   SPAM ALERT   ***

Do not click on AltRight Girl's link.

AltRight Girl = SPAMMING Maggot

crazzziecanuck's picture

... and the DNC is still trying to court Bernie supporters.  Good luck with that.  Democratic leadership had a good racket going for a while playing the whole "lesser of two evils."

The USA survived Bush, it can surely survive Trump.  People need to start to relax

Hurricane Baby's picture

The USA only "survives" in the sense that a zombie survives, maintaining whatever motion it has while decay slowly takes its toll.

Since you're on the outside looking in, I'll give you the view from the belly of the beast: America ain't really America anymore, and hasn't been for a while.

AltRight Girl's picture

Leave the innocent Foundation out of it.

And the child (normal only) loving innocent Podestas, also.

nmewn's picture

The lies & obfuscation are non-stop.

The "investigation" (really, state espionage of its political opponents) started around the time Seth Rich was murdered. It went "mainstream" into the public domain 24hrs after Hillary lost.

crazzziecanuck's picture

Personally, I do think Seth Rich was the leaker but that he did die in a street crime by robbers who were smart enough to know any fenced items could be quickly traced back to them. 

I do think people are falling into the DNC trap by taking the focus off what Seth Rich did while he was alive rather than how he actually died.  The death has been used to overshadow and taint even considering what he did while he was still alive.

The more people go on about murder conspiracies, the easier it is for the DNC-types to dismiss any talk regarding Mr. Rich.

It's also quite possible that if this was a hit, Mr. Rich could be the innocent party here.  It could have been another leaker who took steps to make it appear that Mr. Rich was the source of the leaks.

nmewn's picture

He could also be exactly what Kim & Julian say he is, the DNC leaker, which blows the entire "Russians hacked the election" meme sky high. A street thug would turn his own grandmother in for $250,000.

At the end of the day we've got the party in power previously using the assets of .gov for their own personal beneft. A coming up on year long "Deep State investigation" of a Russia connection to Trump that just is not there and someone has been murdered with no suspects.

//////

Oh...and lest I forget...the Alinsky media has a very good reason to keep billowing clouds of smoke in the publics eyes...there is TWO class action lawsuits by dim donors and Burnie Marx supporters who say they were screwed over by the DNC. 

/////

And no, thats not my downie, thats the prog trolls making it look like I did...and looky, theres a bunch of them...lmao!

sleigher's picture

"I do think people are falling into the DNC trap by taking the focus off what Seth Rich did while he was alive rather than how he actually died."

 

The police report showed that Seth Rich was alive at the time the police arrived.  He died either at the hospital or on the way there.  The cop who arrived on scene and took the police report is married to a woman who works for Democratic Campaign Committee.  DNC connection and thus Hillary connection.  Julian Assange, or someone acting just like him, has all but said Seth Rich was the leaker.  Guccifer 2.0 also said he was the leaker.

Often the simplest answer is the correct one.

East Indian's picture

They are robbers, they killed him to rob him, but did not take any items because it could be tracked back to them?

Then why did they kill him?

DuneCreature's picture

Better known as shit stirring out in the sticks here.

Didn't Matt make a living stirring shit in your neck of the woods as a budding shit swirller?

Live Hard, Matt-a-Horn Claims He Was Only There For The Nightlife And Hot Chicks And Not to Stir Up Trouble But Waking Up Under All The Upturned Tables And Chairs He Had To Come Up With Some Loose Rubles For All The Bar Damage And Stirring Turned Out To Be A Good Way To Make Partying Pay Its Own Way, Die Free

~ DC v5.0

junction's picture

Taibbi is worthless, a writer for "Rolling Stone", which plants stories in its magazine written to glorify the Pentagon, Homeland Security and the CIA.  

Oh, and lock up former D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell foer conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Seth Rich murder investigation.

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

Why the hell doesn't Trump fire Clapper? During the campaign when Killary said that 17 intel agencies said such and such about Russia? THAT WAS CLAPPER, the head of all 17 agencies, not 17 different heads.. Keep him around at your own peril Mr. Prez.

Bigly's picture

Why the hell doesn't he oust kushner?

He NEEDS to do this.  Not take him on trips FFS

11b40's picture

Clapper resigned when Trump was sworn in.  Did you read the article?

He is gone....but not too far.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4I_KKUzSalcC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Who+d...

 

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

My bad, appaerently not the whole thing. I've seen him so much i assumed he was still there.

Badsamm's picture

Rolling Stone and Taibbi can go fuck themselves.
Not a single mention of Podesta

doctor10's picture

Trump is merely a proxy for the fear of the criminal American Oligarchy of We the Deplorables.

His name was Seth Rich

bigdumbnugly's picture

How did Russiagate start? 

Russia was the nearest straw man the press could set fire to at the time i guess.

DeepFriedLizards's picture

More fake news leftist wet dream bullshit.  Let's see some evidence.

Westcoastliberal's picture

C'mon...what dif does it make what Clapper said or when? We all know he's a friggin liar since he lied under oath before CON-gress about electronic surveilance. Snowden proved he was lieing his ass off.  So again I ask, what dif does it make what he says? He is an "impeached witness".

markovchainey's picture

He should be a "jailed perjurer".

GRDguy's picture

Since Mueller was in charge of the FBI during the whole 9/11 investigation,

either Trump or the public will be screwed once again.

However the Deep State wants to play it.  We'll see.  

SRV's picture

Well, its MSM and at least Matt is asking some questions about the mass insanity... it's a start, and at some point a few of the muppets may clue into the damage they're doing to their long term career...

SquadronVBF94's picture

It started in the dark recesses of the CIA & NSA. It was then spoon feed to the Democrats and the Democrats as the Dan Ratherian false but true narrative. How dare these peons in fly over country think and vote for themselves! Threse idiots best remember the III% rule.

michigan independant's picture

Yellow cake covers it all and security risk jointly resolved. Democrats sold it for pay to play later. The Ranchers property was for mining it and Reids solar wet dream.https://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of... Seth was butt hurt about Sanders as told. Seth is being scrubbed from archives as told as we speak. They have two on grainy digital as he was terminated. Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE1DE1230F93BA1575AC0A... http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowca...

loveyajimbo's picture

Hey, taibbi:  Here is your answer:  Clapper is, and always has been, a shitbag lying traitor, just like his $5 whore Comey.  Brennan is hoping to have another get together with both and be "Lucky Pierre".  All three should be on the hot seat for perjury and obstruction.

And why the fuck is Hillary still unindicted, Donald?!!??

Being Free's picture

The entire Russia/Trump story is nothing but a cover by Obama and the Dems  for the fact that they had been using the NSA/FBI assets for political espionage.  They thought the hildabeast would win.  When DT won they had to do something to cover their tracks...what better way then claim all they were doing was investigating Russian interference in our election.

GooseShtepping Moron's picture

I conjecture that on the night of Nov. 8th, when it became clear that Trump was coasting towards an electoral victory, the Democratic Party began some emergency meetings in the smoke-filled back room of Hillary's campaign headquarters and strategized about how to salvage the Deep State's (and their own) hold on power. That is why Hillary could not make a concession speech that night. The strategy was not yet solidified.

Knowing that she was suffering damage from her private server fiasco and the Wikileaks revelations, the democrats reached into the Alinkskyite playbook for the tried and true tu quoque response: turn the accusation back on the accuser. The next morning when Hillary finally gave her concession speech, she made sure to plant the seeds of the attack that would follow. To quote her own words, she specifically attributed her electoral misfortune to a "coordinated cyber attack."

It first became necessary to deflect attention from the contents of Hillary's leaked emails by painting the leak itself as a crime of much graver proportions than her obvious security breaches and influence-peddling. That in itself is ridiculous, but this is how the game works. Only one bogeyman was large enough, strong enough, amorphous enough, and far enough away from the understanding of the ordinary American to be plausibly blamed for the leak: Russia.

The first version of the story had it that Russia had hacked both DNC and RNC servers but had only leaked material from the DNC in a deliberate effort to discredit Hillary. (Again, the fact that the material was discrediting in the first place seems to be beside the point.) But this story was invalidated when Reince Priebus made it clear that the RNC was never hacked. Furthermore, it then became widely known that the so-called DNC "hack" came about directly as a result of a phishing attack on John Podesta that had nothing to do with the Russians, so neither leg of this particular story will stand.

Undeterred, the Democrats, now operating in concert with the Deep State to delegitimatize Trump's election, proceeded to suborn James Comey and enlist the services of the rest of their toadies scattered throughout the government establishment. The offensive against General Michael Flynn was the first wave of this assault. Flynn's crime was apparently assuring the Russian ambassador that the new administration coming into power in Washington would have a different approach to Russian-American relations. This was neither an illegal nor an imprudent thing to do, but in the atmosphere of ginned-up suspicion regarding "Russian meddling," it was used to slander Flynn as a foreign agent. Trump very inadvisedly cucked on this issue and fired Michael Flynn, which only seemed to cement the admission of guilt.

The Deep State claimed another victory when they bullied AG Jeff Sessions into recusing himself from "any and all investigations pertaining to the campaign." That bought them all the breathing room they needed to run wild with the phony "Russian hacking" story without having to worry about a DoJ investigation into their own malfeasance.

Next, their was Congressional testimony from a slough of Deep State intelligence professionals in which the Russian hacking story was treated as an established fact. "This is not fake news. This is what they did to us," said one of them whose name escapes me at the moment. This was an obviously orchestrated, stilted, and fabricated act of theater by the establishment, but it fell rather flat and was washed out of the news cycle in less than a day, so it generated very little interest.

The fact that the whole US intelligence community is behind this phony-baloney story, despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for it, despite the fact that high-profile individuals like James Clapper are carefully to hedge their testimony in such a way that they cannot be construed as saying anything directly accusatory, is rather curious. As everyone can plainly see, it is only consistent with a systematic campaign to pressure, frustrate, and ultimately destroy President Trump. Additionally, it has the side effect of further stigmatizing Russia, the destruction of which is the NeoZioLibs' ultimate objective. But the degree of coordination between the various federal agencies, the news media, and the DNC indicates that there is one unifying force behind this all. That leads directly to the question of who is capable of such a thing. Who is doing this? Who is Kaiser Soze?

Bill Clinton is Kaiser Soze. The sleaziness of this particular campaign is consistent with his well-established MO of dragging the highest institutions of the country through the mud of his personal power-politics. He has no qualms in bringing us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia in order to advance a fictitious hacking narrative, as indicated by his fiasco in Kosovo which, as president, he initiated to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He has the ability to coordinate the illegal activities of key personnel placed throughout the Deep State, as evidenced by his tarmac meeting tete-a-tete with Loretta Lynch. He has all the means and all the contacts necessary to move his agenda through the instrumentality of the Clinton Foundation, which could best be described as a shadow government. He has the strongest possible motives for doing so, because he's trying to keep himself, his wife, and all his friends from spending the rest of their pathetic lives in federal prison for their many crimes against the country.

If Trump is interested in keeping his hold on power and fulfilling any of his campaign promises at all, he needs to bring down the Clinton cabal. He needs to arrest them all, perp-walk them, throw the book at them, and make sure that none of them ever see the light of day ever again, because they will not stop attacking him until they destroy him.

Stormtrooper's picture

Come on Donald!  Issue that general Presidential pardon for all deeds done to drain the swamp and this problem will be resoved shortly, and all of the FEMA coffins will finally be used for good purposes.  Or maybe we should just bury them all at sea like Osama bin Laden so that there is never evidence that it happened. 

spanish inquisition's picture

Well thank god Taibbi is on the case and we can eliminate Hillary and Obama as instigators of the Russia probe.

LibertarianMenace's picture

I know. Could drown in the crocodile tears this one is spewing for The Donald. Beyond his The Squid article, not much else ever produced by him beside DNC "buy" lines.

headless blogger's picture

Great article. And conclusion.

azusgm's picture

Yes, we should have full and public investigations -- starting with the DNC servers since that was the complaint that started the Russia meme. Let it spread out to Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas. Throw in Hillary's server and Weiner's laptop. Find out if Huma had top secret clearance. If not, we need to know if anything top secret was on Weiner's laptop besides the state dept emails that weren't supposed to be there anyway.

This is all so bogus.

And now Billy Bush has been interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter. Trump's expression of amazement about what liberties a man can take if he is a celebrity is being rehashed as if Trump had been talking about his own personal pattern of behavior. These people are trying to throw Trump under the bus again. Anyone who watched could have seen that Billy Bush was being an instigator. That recording was a hit piece that had been on the shelf for years.

Disgusting.

LibertarianMenace's picture

"That recording was a hit piece that had been on the shelf for years."

And twas The Bushes(TM) that put it there who thought it would ultimately be useful.

Oh, those Bushes! Like Santa Claus, they always know. The question is, how do they know? Why, they're one of, if not the premier directors of The Farce(also TM)!

DuneCreature's picture

Ray McGovern's take on the 'Russian Hack' and the Seth Rich case.

If you want to cut to the chase go to 45:00 forward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG40ahMJWUk

Comey and or Meuller are going to have a REALLY TOUGH time pinning this on the Russians.

Clapper is the one that should be crapping his pants and sweating. .. And, of course our favorite Satanist witch bitch.

We could get Barry and Brennan too if we are lucky and the FBI really blows the cover-up.

Live Hard, Spin, Spin, Spin, Goes The Story. Don't Get Too Dizzy, Die Free

~ DC v5.0

dlfield's picture

Shouldn't we be investigating OVERT election interference every single election cycle by Mexico?

azusgm's picture

Do you mean like running out of ballots at the polling places in Mexico and telling people that they may not get to vote so they may be wasting their time by hanging around? or do you mean participation in US elections by citizens of Mexico?

I was told that during the last school bond election here the athletic director went to the high school cafeteria and told the workers there that they should attempt to vote at the ever so handy early voting location on campus even if they were not citizens.

Not cute, Coach.

dlfield's picture

I think we can probably find oh, about 30-40 other countries much closer to us who stand much more to gain than Russia, just sayin'.

DirtySanchez's picture

There are some motherfucker department heads in DC, that need to be waterboarded, then beheaded.

The sooner the better.

 

Herdee's picture

And then a British spy trying to milk the FBI and get paid off with a stupid story about Trump getting golden showers from broads in Moscow when he's pissed and out of his head.

newworldorder's picture

My experiences have taught me to believe in timelines and who, what, when. how, where, and why.  Merge these timelines together with all people concerned, especially under oath, and all answers will be revealed.