Sessions met with Russian envoy 2X last year, encounters he later did not disclose!

annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Republican Strategist Hit Trump With The Truth That FBI Has Warrant To Investigate Russia Ties

National Republican political strategist and media consultant Rick Wilson reminded President Trump this morning that the wiretapping was hardly a secret, the FBI was granted a FISA warrant in October covering Trump's ties to Russia.

After Donald Trump’s meltdown accusing President Obama of spying on him Saturday morning, the entire political world is up in arms, including some Republicans.
Not only does a president not order wiretapping, but national Republican political strategist and media consultant Rick Wilson reminded President Trump this morning that the wiretapping was hardly a secret, the FBI was granted a FISA warrant in October covering Trump’s ties to Russia:

. . . .
Heat Street reported at the time, “Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.” Also that story that was supposedly killed about a private Trump server being connected to a Russian bank wasn’t actually killed at all, “Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.”
​

More at the link.


I just found this, and saw they used the word "meltdown" as I'd done upthread. This really is looking bad for Trump's mental state.
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
unfortunately Trump has a bad habit from tweeting from the hip in a inarticulate manner and in this case he mishandled a perfect opportunity silence his critics.

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
Start with this: There is no evidence — none, not a speck, not even a little one — that Donald Trump or anyone associated with him had anything whatsoever to do with the hacking of Democratic accounts. Remember, that’s the only crime here. And the Trump campaign had utterly nothing to do with it. We know this for two reasons. First, in its ballyhooed report, the FBI told us not only that the Russians are the culprits but also that the Democrats were not the only targets. Putin’s regime, we are told, targeted both major parties. This was a Russian-government effort to compromise the American government, no matter which candidate ended up running it. It should come as no surprise, then, that the FBI made no allegation that Trump and his associates were complicit.

Second, it’s not like the FBI and the Obama Justice Department didn’t try to make a case against Trump. In fact, they scorched the earth. Besides the illegal leaks of classified information that have fueled the “Russia hacked the election” scam, this is the most outrageous and studiously unmentioned scandal of the election. While the commentariat was rending its garments over the mere prospect that Trump might have his political adversary, Hillary Clinton, investigated if he won the election, Obama was actually having Trump investigated.

To rehearse briefly, in the weeks prior to June 2016, the FBI did a preliminary investigation, apparently based on concerns about a server at Trump Tower that allegedly had some connection to Russian financial institutions. Even if there were such a connection, it is not a crime to do business with Russian banks — lots of Americans do. It should come as no surprise, then, that the FBI found no impropriety and did not proceed with a criminal investigation. What is surprising, though, is that the case was not closed down.

Instead, the Obama Justice Department decided to pursue the matter as a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In June, it sought the FISA court’s permission to conduct surveillance on a number of Trump associates — and perhaps even Trump himself. It has been reported that Trump was “named” in the application, but it is not publicly known whether he (a) was named as a proposed wiretap target, or (b) was just mentioned in passing in the application.

Understand the significance of this: Only the Justice Department litigates before the FISA court; this was not some rogue investigators; this was a high level of Obama’s Justice Department — the same institution that, at that very moment, was whitewashing the Clinton e-mail scandal. And when Justice seeks FISA surveillance authority, it is essentially telling that court that there is probable cause to believe that the targets have acted as agents of a foreign power — that’s the only basis for getting a FISA warrant.

In this instance, the FISA court apparently found the Obama Justice Department’s presentation to be so weak that it refused to authorize the surveillance. That is telling, because the FISA court is generally very accommodating of government surveillance requests. Unwilling to take no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department came back to the FISA court in October — i.e., in the stretch run of the presidential campaign. According to various reports (and mind you, FISA applications are classified, so the leaks are illegal), the October application was much narrower than the earlier one and did not mention Donald Trump. The FISA Court granted this application, and for all we know the investigation is continuing.

There are two significant takeaways from this. First, a FISA national-security investigation is not a criminal investigation. It is not a probe to uncover criminal activity; it is a classified effort to discover what a potentially hostile foreign government may be up to on American soil. It does not get an assigned prosecutor because the purpose is not to prove anything publicly in court — indeed, it is a major no-no for the Justice Department to use its FISA authority pretextually, for the real purpose of trying to build a criminal investigation.


Bottom line: The Obama Justice Department and the FBI spent at least eight months searching for Trump–Russia ties. They found nothing criminal, and clearly nothing connecting Trump to Russian hacking. Don’t get me wrong: I am as troubled as anyone by Trump’s public solicitude toward Putin, some of which has crossed the line into repugnance. But we’re talking about crime here, not policy foolishness. Where’s the crime?

And what else is propping up the “Russia hacked the election” narrative? First there is General Flynn. He had a conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, during which Kislyak raised the subject of sanctions imposed earlier that day by Obama. But there was nothing illegal or improper about this conversation: Flynn was part of the Trump transition and about to become national security adviser, so he was supposed to be reaching out to foreign governments. And, as the New York Times acknowledged, though the FBI has a recording of the conversation (because the Russian ambassador was under surveillance), and though the Bureau, the Obama Justice Department, and what the Times gingerly called Obama’s “advisers” carefully combed over every word of it, Flynn made no commitments to address the Russian concerns — the Times: “Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no.”
Click to expand...
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
i read it jeff - thank you for taking the time to make a post that was informative


it's a shame anna's only interested in playing games
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/s...ambassador-a-day-after-meeting-with-ukraines/
As a senator last year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions met separately in his office on two consecutive days with the ambassadors of two nations in conflict: Ukraine and Russia.

But it is Sessions’ meeting with the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislayk, that is receiving all of the attention following a Washington Post reported that dropped late Wednesday.

The meeting, which occurred on Sept. 8, was Sessions’ second contact with Kislyak during the presidential campaign. In June, he had a discussion with Kislyak and a group of ambassadors during a sideline session hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

What has been lost in the furor over the report is what happened in the days before and after Sessions met with the Russian official.

That visit occurred a day after Sessions met with Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador.

And those two meetings took place just as Russia and Ukraine were hammering out a ceasefire plan in a conflict between pro-Russia separatists operating in eastern Ukraine.

“These meetings took place a week before a seven-day unilateral ceasefire plan was accepted by Russia on behalf of separatist rebels it backed in the conflict with Ukraine,” Fox News reported.
Click to expand...

yup nothing to do with 2016 elections.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
ok doser said:
i read it jeff - thank you for taking the time to make a post that was informative
Click to expand...

:chuckle: Oh, I know you better than that.

it's a shame anna's only interested in playing games
Click to expand...

I know you so well...

I post a lot of articles I know no one reads (including you) before replying, but I don't let it bother me. The article is posted for those who want to read it.

Those who don't want to read any article shouldn't think they have to in order to please the article nannies who are going to fret over it.
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
jeffblue101 said:
I partially agree with you, Sessions holds some fault in this.
Click to expand...
That you got right, though what followed it was nothing more or less than partisan nonsense. He knew better. Any lawyer worth his salt would and would have been prepared for the question. He's too shrewd a practitioner to be caught off guard by that or unprepared. The only question is why did he do it? Sometimes the answer to that is as simple as the arrogance of power (see: Hillary Clinton) and sometimes it's about something else. Time will tell.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti said:
:chuckle: Oh, I know you better than that.



I know you so well...

I post a lot of articles I know no one reads (including you) before replying, but I don't let it bother me. The article is posted for those who want to read it.

Those who don't want to read any article shouldn't think they have to in order to please the article nannies who are going to fret over it.
Click to expand...




anna - if you and the tard brigade manage to find something valid to start an impeachment, i'll be behind you 110%


until then, you just look like whiny retards
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Town Heretic said:
He knew better. Any lawyer worth his salt would and would have been prepared for the question. He's too shrewd a practitioner to be caught off guard by that or unprepared. The only question is why did he do it? Sometimes the answer to that is as simple as the arrogance of power (see: Hillary Clinton) and sometimes it's about something else. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I'd read that elsewhere, that he was a prosecutor who knew well how to choose words. I wish I could remember the quote.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
ok doser said:
anna - if you and the tard brigade manage to find something valid to start an impeachment, i'll be behind you 110%


until then, you just look like whiny retards
Click to expand...


You mean you'll sit back while someone else does all the work and then you'll reap the rewards? Interesting.
 
Crucible

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
patrick jane said:
Nope. Obama administration applied for wire tap in June of 2016 and was denied, then they were approved in October 2016. So far, with ALL the investigations and searching there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to swing the election - Clinton lost fair and square
Click to expand...

They're desperate- which is something that naturally doesn't occur to me unless someone points it out, because I'm naturally on high alert with this Marxist agenda.

Maybe I tend to just assume the odds are always against us :idunno:

But
Trump is the President
And
Their media are not the elect to deal with the interests of this country- they are simply inebriated on their own fumes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top