Russia Intel Hearing

[Brian4Liberty]

Is anyone watching this live? Pretty interesting questions and answers by the last two Representatives (Michael Turner and Brad Wenstrup).

Basically, they keep asking about what justifies "opening an investigation" on an American, and they are getting an answer they didn't expect.

More: so they were asking hypotheticals such as "if a person is paid to give a public speech in Russia, is that enough evidence by itself to open an investigation?" Comey hesitated to answer, basically said it depends. Turner was obviously expecting a "no, don't be ridiculous, that is not enough." He could not pin Comey down on anything that would not justify an investigation.

Wenstrup continues with "if a foreign ambassador introduces themself to me at an event in DC, and asks to meet with me at my office, is that enough to open an investigation on me?" Again Comey implies that, yes, it might.

Seems that these guys are a bit surprised to find out that the FBI can "open an investigation" on them at any time, for any reason, with no need for any evidence or "probable cause".

In other words, you are all under investigation, at all times. Big Brother is watching.

Relevant part starts around 3:20. Entire hearing is interesting, especially as the Democrats sound like vehement neoconservatives.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm0DxSBjPXE

[specsaregood]

link?

[Brian4Liberty]

And Wolf Blitzer and CNN panel immediately spins it away from what happened at the actual hearing to mean exactly the opposite of what was said!

The spin is "ah ha!, there is an investigation, therefore they are guilty!"

[Brian4Liberty]

link?

No links yet, it was live. On a break now.

[Brian4Liberty]

Press conference right now, press is pushing the narrative that investigation=guilt.

So this whole thing boils down to:

1) Make enough noise about something that FBI opens an investigation.
2) Leak to the press that there is an investigation.
3) Press reports that there is an investigation, therefore there is guilt. Let the hysteria begin.

[CPUd]

And Wolf Blitzer and CNN panel immediately spins it away from what happened at the actual hearing to mean exactly the opposite of what was said!

The spin is "ah ha!, there is an investigation, therefore they are guilty!"

This is pretty much what happened during the election.

https://i.imgur.com/qsB7gUC.png

[Brian4Liberty]

This is pretty much what happened during the election.

https://i.imgur.com/qsB7gUC.png

The difference being that the Clinton classified material investigation did indeed find illegal handling of classified material.

[CPUd]

The difference being that the Clinton classified material investigation did indeed find illegal handling of classified material.

That's not what the letter said.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's not what the letter said.

It's what Assange and Wikileaks said. Hard to ignore when the public gets the evidence first.

[Brian4Liberty]

Right now, Rep. Rick Crawford asking the same questions again. It's kind of funny, like they now want to know what they need to avoid to keep from being investigated.

[CPUd]

It's what Assange and Wikileaks said. Hard to ignore when the public gets the evidence first.

And what did the press say?

[Brian4Liberty]

843894101040742400
https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/843894101040742400

[Brian4Liberty]

843902587162255360
https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/843902587162255360

[Jan2017]

The difference being that the Clinton classified material investigation did indeed find illegal handling of classified material.

That's not what the letter said.

That is what Director Comey had already said to the Congressional hearing - this letter is supplementing that testimony . . . that there could be more from Huma/Weiner unrelated investigation.

[Brian4Liberty]

LOL, CNN has a nine person panel on right now to spin the hearing, and boy are they spinning.

[Jan2017]

Here's a few minutes from youtube . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okbAv5HlJOY

And a more complete version of the exchange . . . interesting.
Ya' gotta love that Loretta Lynch is on a suspect list /link for the investigation Comey can't confirm
for unmasking (which gets defined) and dissemination . . . excuse me . . . "felonious" dissemination of unmasked identity
- in this case Flynn - to the media. Gowdy states Comey has some 100 leads in the Obama administration . . .
sounds like someone has to do 10 years in the joint eventually.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIh-CadZweI

[jmdrake]

And what did the press say?

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/55846670.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

link?

Full hearing added to OP...

[Brian4Liberty]

The Missing Logic of Russia-gate (https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/20/the-missing-logic-of-russia-gate/)
By Robert Parry - March 20, 2017


Exclusive: Russia-bashing and innuendos about disloyal Americans were all the rage at Monday’s House Intelligence Committee hearing on alleged Russian “hacking” of the presidential election, but logic is often missing, says Robert Parry.

As Rep. Adam Schiff tries out for the lead role in a remake of the Joe McCarthy hearings by maligning specific Americans as suspected Russian moles, some of the actual evidence argues against the Democratic notion that the Russians own President Trump and other key Republicans.

For instance, last week, Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, had received payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.

The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network, with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers’ bureau took its cut. Democrats treated this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.

Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. (Former President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times reported in 2015,)

Yet, besides Flynn’s relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post reported that RT negotiated Flynn’s rate downward.

Deep inside its article on Flynn’s Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote, “RT balked at paying Flynn’s original asking price. ‘Sorry it took us longer to get back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds our budget at the moment,’ Alina Mikhaleva, RT’s head of marketing, wrote a Flynn associate about a month before the event.”

So, if you accept the Democrats’ narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?

Wouldn’t you think that Putin would have told RT’s marketing department that the sky was the limit in paying off Flynn because the ever-prescient Russian president knew from his Ouija board in 2015 that Flynn would be the future national security adviser under President Trump?

After all, it’s become one of Official Washington’s favorite groupthinks that RT is nothing but a Russian propaganda front designed to destroy the faith that Americans have in their democratic process – as if the sleazy and shameful political campaigns financed with hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaires need any help from RT.

Anti-Democracy Debates

But RT-bashing is always in season. The Director of National Intelligence’s report on Jan. 6, with its evidence-free “assessments” that Russia was engaged in undermining American democracy included a seven-page appendix dating from 2012 that described how RT was contributing toward that goal by portraying “the US electoral process as undemocratic.”
...
To further demonstrate how RT was carrying out the Kremlin’s goal of spoiling Americans’ faith in the U.S. democratic process, the DNI report noted that “RT broadcast, hosted and advertised third-party candidate debates.”

Apparently, the DNI’s point was that showing Americans that there are choices beyond the two major parties was somehow seditious. “The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham,’” the DNI’s report said.

Yet, polls have shown that large numbers of Americans would prefer more choices than the usual two candidates and, indeed, most Western democracies have multiple parties. But somehow RT’s suggestion that other voices should be heard constituted an assault on American democracy.
...
Those “assessments” also assume that Putin’s motives were to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign, boost Trump and – as FBI Director Comey added on Monday – turn Americans against their democracy.

But there is a counter-argument to that thinking: Assuming that Putin read the polls like everyone else, would he risk infuriating the likely next President of the United States – Hillary Clinton – by embarrassing her with an email leak that would amount to a pinprick? Clinton herself blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director Comey’s decision to briefly reopen the investigation into whether she endangered national security by using a private email server as Secretary of State.

Unless one assumes that Putin’s Ouija board also predicted Comey’s actions or perhaps that Comey is another Russian mole, wouldn’t it be a huge risk for Putin to anger Clinton without ensuring her defeat? There’s the old saying that “if you strike a king, you must kill him,” which would seem to apply equally to a queen. But logical thinking no longer applies to what’s going on in Official Washington.
...
More: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/20/the-missing-logic-of-russia-gate/

[Zippyjuan]

https://i.imgur.com/LpuOIWF.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

Today- shows which they consider the most important: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39339431


Rex Tillerson to skip Nato meeting - but visit Moscow

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will miss a meeting of Nato foreign ministers next month, US officials say.

He will instead travel to a G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, and then to Moscow to meet Russian leaders.

Under Secretary of State Tom Shannon will represent the US at the Western military alliance meeting in Brussels.

The US State Department said that when it realised Mr Tillerson would be absent for the 5-6 April meeting, it offered alternative dates to Nato.

Spokesman Mark Toner said the United States remained "100%" committed to the security alliance.

During his election campaign, Mr Trump expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and described Nato as "obsolete".

It's not unprecedented for a US secretary of state to skip a Nato meeting, but it is rare. The last time was when Colin Powell had to cancel during the 2003 Iraq War.

So the decision to do so reopens questions amongst European governments already anxious about Donald Trump's commitment to the alliance.




Mr Tillerson had close links with the Russian government while he was CEO of Exxon Mobil and has questioned the sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of the Crimea region.