[BeaverFever]

$1:

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

The former chief of staff explained, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s behavior regarding North Korea, immigration, and Ukraine.

Peter Nicholas1:05 AM ET

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

The former chief of staff explained, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s behavior regarding North Korea, immigration, and Ukraine.

Peter Nicholas1:05 AM ET
This is your last free article.

Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly is seen in profile. The background behind him is black and he's wearing a navy suit.
Evan Vucci / AP
MORRISTOWN, N.J.—Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide and impeachment witness President Donald Trump fired Friday, was just doing his job, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told students and guests at a Drew University event here Wednesday night.

Over a 75-minute speech and Q&A session, Kelly laid out, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s words and actions regarding North Korea, illegal immigration, military discipline, Ukraine, and the news media.

Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said that Vindman is blameless and was simply following the training he’d received as a soldier; migrants are “overwhelmingly good people” and “not all rapists”; and Trump’s decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden upended long-standing U.S. policy.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said. Vindman, who specialized in Ukraine policy at the National Security Council at the time, was among multiple U.S. officials who listened in on the call. When subpoenaed by Congress in the House impeachment hearings, Vindman complied and told the truth, Kelly said.

David A. Graham: This is what an unleashed Trump looks like

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”

... “Through the Obama administration up until that phone call, the policy of the U.S. was militarily to support Ukraine in their defensive fight against … the Russians,” Kelly said. “And so, when the president said that continued support would be based on X, that essentially changed. And that’s what that guy [Vindman] was most interested in.”

When Vindman heard the president tell Zelensky he wanted to see the Biden family investigated, that was tantamount to hearing “an illegal order,” Kelly said. “We teach them, ‘Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss.’”

... At times Wednesday, Kelly sounded like the anti-Trump. He said he did not believe the press is “the enemy of the people,” for example. And he sharply criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has steadfastly courted. Kelly described Putin as someone who is “not necessarily a rational actor.” Putin sits atop “a society in collapse,” yet is intent on restoring “the glory days of the Soviet Union,” he said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/606496/

[BeaverFever]

$1:

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

The former chief of staff explained, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s behavior regarding North Korea, immigration, and Ukraine.

Peter Nicholas1:05 AM ET

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

The former chief of staff explained, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s behavior regarding North Korea, immigration, and Ukraine.

Peter Nicholas1:05 AM ET
This is your last free article.

Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly is seen in profile. The background behind him is black and he's wearing a navy suit.
Evan Vucci / AP
MORRISTOWN, N.J.—Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide and impeachment witness President Donald Trump fired Friday, was just doing his job, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told students and guests at a Drew University event here Wednesday night.

Over a 75-minute speech and Q&A session, Kelly laid out, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s words and actions regarding North Korea, illegal immigration, military discipline, Ukraine, and the news media.

Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said that Vindman is blameless and was simply following the training he’d received as a soldier; migrants are “overwhelmingly good people” and “not all rapists”; and Trump’s decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden upended long-standing U.S. policy.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said. Vindman, who specialized in Ukraine policy at the National Security Council at the time, was among multiple U.S. officials who listened in on the call. When subpoenaed by Congress in the House impeachment hearings, Vindman complied and told the truth, Kelly said.

David A. Graham: This is what an unleashed Trump looks like

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”

... “Through the Obama administration up until that phone call, the policy of the U.S. was militarily to support Ukraine in their defensive fight against … the Russians,” Kelly said. “And so, when the president said that continued support would be based on X, that essentially changed. And that’s what that guy [Vindman] was most interested in.”

When Vindman heard the president tell Zelensky he wanted to see the Biden family investigated, that was tantamount to hearing “an illegal order,” Kelly said. “We teach them, ‘Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss.’”

... At times Wednesday, Kelly sounded like the anti-Trump. He said he did not believe the press is “the enemy of the people,” for example. And he sharply criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has steadfastly courted. Kelly described Putin as someone who is “not necessarily a rational actor.” Putin sits atop “a society in collapse,” yet is intent on restoring “the glory days of the Soviet Union,” he said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/606496/

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But I'm tired of alligator tears for that traitor, Vindman. Let's move on.

$1:

One of the jurors who voted to convict the Trump confidante, Tomeka Hart, was recently discovered to have run for Congress as a Democrat. Hart also frequently posted anti-Trump stories and wrote a Facebook post Tuesday in support of the four prosecutors who withdrew after a revision in Stone’

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/13/cnn- ... meka-hart/

And she wasn't just another juror. They made her the jury foreman.

Let's not because you're deflecting as usual.

What makes him a traitor hmm? Did he sell state secrets to a foreign power? Did he make like Benedict Arnold and betray his country to an enemy? No, Vindman committed the ultimate crime, he spoke against the Dear Leader. And for that he had to pay. And his brother had to pay. Right товарищ?

Deflecting, my ass.

I had already made my point and that point had already been moved on from to discuss the Roger Stone thing. Not by me. By one of yours. If he didn't want it addressed he shouldn't have brought it up.

But, if you want to go back to Vindman and flog that dead horse some more we can do that.

Let's start here - You seem to approve of Schifty and Vindy's idea that opinion is fact. Very well, here's an opinion:

$1:

Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

It's an opinion that in my opinion accuses Vindman of treason, as in what a traitor does.

He draws his opinion from the facts in the transcript of the House inquiry. He posts the transcript here:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... nt-page-3/

Plus in my opinion by getting on board Adam Schiff`s ship of fools and aligning himself with their strategy he becomes party to the Dems failed coup attempt.

[BartSimpson]

Let's be clear here: The President (any President) has every right in the world to commute a Federal prison sentence or to issue a pardon. Merely weighing in to make sure that the appropriate sentence is issued in the Stone case is therefore an act of restraint.

[Robair]

Also, the president has the absolute power to pardon himself.



According to DJT.

[stratos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Let's be clear here: The President (any President) has every right in the world to commute a Federal prison sentence or to issue a pardon. Merely weighing in to make sure that the appropriate sentence is issued in the Stone case is therefore an act of restraint.

I may be very wrong on this but doesn't the person need to be sentenced first before he or she can be pardoned?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Let's be clear here: The President (any President) has every right in the world to commute a Federal prison sentence or to issue a pardon. Merely weighing in to make sure that the appropriate sentence is issued in the Stone case is therefore an act of restraint.

And the State interfering in the Judicial Branch of government in order to help out a former colleague is seen as the hallmark of typical dictatorships.

No different than Putin's restraint in directing his AG to 'reconsider' the sentence for a former colleague.

If Trump wants to pardon him after his conviction, that is his right. But to interfere in a sentencing decision reeks of corruption.

[BartSimpson]

stratos stratos:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Let's be clear here: The President (any President) has every right in the world to commute a Federal prison sentence or to issue a pardon. Merely weighing in to make sure that the appropriate sentence is issued in the Stone case is therefore an act of restraint.

I may be very wrong on this but doesn't the person need to be sentenced first before he or she can be pardoned?

Nope. The President can also grant immunity from prosecution. The President who issued the most immunities so far was Harry Truman (D) who made German rocket scientists and Japanese biowarfare researchers immune from prosecution for war crimes and in some cases even acts of genocide.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Let's be clear here: The President (any President) has every right in the world to commute a Federal prison sentence or to issue a pardon. Merely weighing in to make sure that the appropriate sentence is issued in the Stone case is therefore an act of restraint.

And the State interfering in the Judicial Branch of government in order to help out a former colleague is seen as the hallmark of typical dictatorships.

No different than Putin's restraint in directing his AG to 'reconsider' the sentence for a former colleague.

If Trump wants to pardon him after his conviction, that is his right. But to interfere in a sentencing decision reeks of corruption.

The Attorney General is a member of the President's Cabinet, in line of succession, and he is in charge of the Department of Justice which is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.

Also, he has not interfered in the Judge's sentencing decision, he objected to the sentencing recommendation from the US Attorneys who answered to him.

[BartSimpson]

This is long but well worth reading because it addresses much of the illegal activities the Obama administration conducted against Donald Trump both before, during, and after the 2016 election.

$1:

Well it's already leaking out so no sense in pussyfooting around it any longer.

All this shiny object nonsense in the MSM right now is a nice distraction but it's not going to last because leaks are still happening, but it's the swamp what do you expect. So all those chasing the monkey over Barr & Trump feuding take a seat.

Durham has been investigating the Obama’s response or lack of to Russia’s election interference in 2016. He's assigned a team to hunt down the reason & proof Brennan and the IC hid the evidence & manipulating analysis about Moscow’s so called covert operation, to build the narrative that Trump colluded or was colluding at the time.

We all know Trump has attacked the IC that concluded that Russia secretly tried to help him win, and it was contrived just to try and delegitimize his election. So they purposely fostered a narrative seeking to delegitimize his victory.

Trump has been promoting the investigation by Durham, as the means to proving that a deep-state cabal conspired against him.

Durham has been questioning the early actions of the FBI and the IC who acted like they were struggling to understand the scope of Russia’s scheme, so they would never have to come up with any real proof. Because we all know what a really sneaky bastard Putin is!

However Durham has come to view with suspicion several clashes between analysts at different intelligence agencies over who could see each other’s highly sensitive secrets, but not all agreeing as CLapper and Brennan portrayed.

Durham has been chasing evidence that the CIA, under Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia & was trying to get to a particular result & was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture so they don't upset the goal.

Brennan had it in his plan to frame Trump as a Russian asset, a Manchurian if you will. Brennan has a genuine hatred for Trump and all he stands for.

So he ran assets overseas and used his point person in Europe to manage the assets directly while Brennan flew all over under at least three different passports dropping bread crumbs to back up the narrative.

Bureaucrats from the FBI and the NSA have been pushing back against Durham the entire time against Durham and his investigators, swamp resistance at it's finest. They claim such an interpretation is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of how the intelligence community functions, which is spook talk for you don't know what we know.

NATSEC officials are typically cautious about sharing their most dark secrets, like source identities, even with other agencies inside the executive branch. Spooks are spooks, and they hold their power by not sharing with their bosses and other agencies.

Durham’s questioning is certain to add to accusations that Trump is using the DOJ to go after his perceived enemies, like Brennan, just get ready for that when this story breaks.

Brennan has been an outspoken critic of the president making over 380 appearances on news networks since leaving the CIA. So he just needs to put his big boy pants on and suck it up. Brennan's time in the barrel is coming and it won't be pretty.

Barr coming under attack in recent days over senior intervention to lighten a prison sentencing recommendation by lower-level prosecutors for Stone is just a smokescreen.

The Durham investigation has sent shockwaves throughout the IC & rattled current and former intelligence officers.

There's little to no precedent existing for a criminal prosecutor to review the analytic judgment-making process of the IC, but they brought this shit on themselves, & the FISA abuse fueled this fury to clean house.

Most prosecutors are ill equipped to assess how analysts work, but Durham isn't like most prosecutors. He has put together a team that do know, former spooks, and Durham specializes in corruption.

The bar for making a legal judgment is really high, but the bar for an analytic decision is much lower, & leaves the door open for mischief.

But intelligence people in the know, that are honest realize Durham is now rookie at dealing with the spooks. Remember Durham spent years investigating the CIA over its torture program and its destruction of interrogation video tapes Obama buried his findings and no one was ever charged, and Durham remembers. Durham's final report remains secret to this day.

If you remember who destroyed the tapes, was directly involved in the waterboarding, and walked away clean, after destroying all those tapes, and think about who was Brennan's point person in Europe during Crossfire Hurricane. Put your thinking caps one.

Brennan saved her ass and now she was beholding to him to carry out this hit on Trump. She has some answering to do, and it's not pretty.

Holder and Obama sealed everything, all they wanted was a narrative to release criminals from GTMO. Durham's investigation provided all the excuse Barry needed. Durham to this day, feels like he was used, and he was. It's his only blemish on his record of successes.

Durham is a longtime federal prosecutor who has repeatedly been asked, under administrations of both parties, to investigate accusations of wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Trump appointed him as the United States attorney for Connecticut in 2018, the smartest appointment he made next to Barr.

The DOJ has kept Durham’s work under wraps, in meaningful detail, pretty well, considering how many leaks there have been the last 3 years. Durham has been specifically interested in how the IC came up with its analytical judgments, including its assessment that Russia was not merely sowing discord, but specifically sought to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

When Horowitz released his report last year on the FBI’s Russia investigation, claiming he found no "documentary" or "testimonial" evidence senior law enforcement & intelligence officials had engaged in a high-level conspiracy to sabotage Trump, it set Durham off.

In a rare case Durham spoke up and I guarantee is sent chills throughout the system, because Durham stays out of the media for a reason, and for him to come forward was a big deal and a sign, shit is about to get real.

Durham and his team have examined all the emails among a small group of intelligence analysts from multiple agencies, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, who worked together to assess the Russian operation. This is that hand picked group Clapper put together to spit out that garbage based on a CrowdStrike report put out a month earlier.

Investigators have interviewed those analysts and their supervisors about the motivations behind several episodes in which some sought access to delicate information from the other agencies and were told initially, at least that they couldn't see it, they stonewalled him.

A big fight was over the identity and placement of a CIA source inside the Kremlin. Analysts at the NSA wanted to know more about him to weigh the credibility of his information.

The CIA was initially reluctant to share details about the Russian’s identity but eventually gave in when Trump made a phone call and laid down the law. Durham and his boys disagreed about how much weight to give the source’s information, and the IC’s eventual assessment reflected that division.

But the FBI and the CIA kept claiming with “high confidence” that Putin was specifically trying to help Trump win the election, the NSA kinda agreed but as Rogers said it had only “moderate confidence.” Supposedly the informant and his family were extracted from Russia in 2017 and resettled in the US. Notably, the source had initially refused to leave when US officials proposed getting him out for his own safety, raising suspicions about whether he might be a double agent.

They have kept him from Durham and his investigators. Durham is also focused on was a power struggle that centers on a certain data set & the disagreement concerns whether NSA analysts could see the raw information or whether the CIA, before sharing it. The NSA needed to filter the data to mask names & other identifying details about Americans and American organizations. But the CIA was pushing back on all that. It was one of the reason Rogers shut down 702.

Rogers has spent a lot of time in Connecticut and it's not for the great maple syrup. Rogers is a main player in this investigation and it's one of the reasons he couldn't be DNI, because he's the main fact witness in all of this.

The problem is the filtering process involved FVEYs and Brennan was breaching the guidelines imposed by the attorney general.

The rules permit exceptions in cases where the identities are necessary to understand the information, which can lead to disputes about whether that standard has been met.

I'm hearing Powers was hand delivering datasets to foreign people outside FVEY. Her claim of she didn't unmask to 328 people in 2016, is falling short. The three part authentication is hard to fake for a reason. Durham also differs over access to unclassified emails of American officials that the CIA claimed Russian government had previously hacked, including at the White House and State Department.

Durham thinks it was insiders like a lot of other people do, so look for the left to scream conspiracy theory. A foreign ally’s intelligence service obtained its own copy of the stolen messages and provided drives with another reproduction of them to Durham's investigators, the FBI wanted to look at those files. Durham said not so fast, you had your chance before.

Evidently the ally had came forward in early 2016 and was pushed away by Brennan. Some members of the FBI argued that the Russian hackers’ chosen focus while the Kremlin’s election interference operation was gearing up might shed light on that operation.

Brennan & Comey overruled the case agents that knew about all the hard drives. Durham is building a case on possible obstruction and tampering, but there's a problem.

An index of the messages compiled by the foreign ally in 2016 showed up anonymously that they included emails from Barry Obama as well as members of Congress. The crap was soon to hit the fan.

Obama’s counsel, Neil Eggleston decided that investigators should not open all these drives Brennan & Comey had sat on, citing executive privilege and the possibility of a separation-of-powers uproar if the FBI sifted through lawmakers’ private messages.

One problem in making sense of these disputes between the intelligence agencies nearly four years later, is that officials did not caveat their emails with detailed descriptions of their motivations and rationales for balking.

That has left the messages open to multiple potential readings. The analysts could have been engaged in standard bureaucratic behavior like obeying the filtering process or hoarding sensitive information. Or perhaps they were trying to cover something up.

Durham and his team are looking for any potential basis to support making the latter reading, of a coverup. Durham has been fighting corruption his entire career and is really suspect.

This is the reason they sent for the Obama archives. And what did we find out a week ago? A bunch of Barry's archive files are missing. Imagine that.

So Durham is asking questions aimed at understanding how analysts reached their conclusion & who drove that process, & whether & how information from foreign governments or the CIA played any role in stoking suspicions at the FBI about Trump campaign links to Russia.

Standards issued by the ODNI require analysts to follow procedures aimed at ensuring objective, neutral and independent evaluations of the facts. Durham knows they weren't back in 2015-2016, he just has to prove it to make it stick.

Durham has interviewed past & present 7th floor FBI and field agents who worked on the bureau’s Russia investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, and the team of special counsel who took over the inquiry, including Mueller. They have also interviewed numerous CIA analysts.

Durham and his team also interviewed around a half-dozen current and former officials and analysts at the NSA, including as I said before Michael S. Rogers, last summer and again last fall.

But Durham has not interviewed Comey, McCabe or Brennan. He's not wasting time, because they have all lied under oath already.

Durham has requested Brennan’s emails, call logs and documents from the CIA to learn what he told other officials, including Comey, about his and the CIA’s views of the Steele dossier.

This entire pushback from day one started in the IC just like Chuckie warned, and has carried over because there's so much swamp. This makes Rudy taking down the five families in NYC look like arresting the girl scouts.

Keep watching for the MSM to spin this as it comes out as Trump is retaliating, it's all a conspiracy theory, all the same old bullshit but it's coming.

If you recall Johnny Ratcliffe and Gowdy both saying someone needs to look at the emails between Comey and Brennan, it reveals a lot. Well this is what Durham is after.

It's always the cover up that gets them caught FOR EVERYONE THAT KEEPS ASKING ABOUT OR MENTIONING THE DURHAM REPORT

US Attorneys don't write reports

As I stated further up the thread, this takedown will make the takedown of the five families of NYC look like arresting the girl scouts.

It took Rudy years to build that case. I think Durham is doing a fantastic job

All the cynics says I'll believe it when I see it...Durham will go down in history as the new Frank Church, except Durham isn't a politician he's a prosecutor

[Tricks]

https://twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/statu ... 3316453381

Source for the above.

[Tricks]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/us/p ... ussia.html

Parts of it seem to be quoted from here as well.

[BartSimpson]

I got it in an emailed newsletter.

[N_Fiddledog]

Quick like little bunnies, Proggies zip over to the new, improved, Progressive, Snopes.com.

Or were you already there, Tricks?

[BeaverFever]

Just more crackpot conspiracy nonsense and phoney allegations from the right. What else is new?