REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Clinton Ally Says No Russia-Trump Collusion

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, March 20, 2017 18:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 191
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Clinton Ally Says Smoke, But No Fire: No Russia-Trump Collusion

Quote:

Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton and called Donald Trump a dupe of Russia, cast doubt Wednesday night on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. He also raised questions about the dossier written by a former British intelligence officer, which alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

...

"On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site. "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."



He goes on to say that he thinks that Russia DID influence the election, but that the Trump campaign was not part of it. (But how would he know, unless there was surveillance? But that's a whole 'nother story.)

MORE AT http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no
-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:59 AM

G


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton Ally Says Smoke, But No Fire: No Russia-Trump Collusion

Quote:

Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who endorsed Hillary Clinton and called Donald Trump a dupe of Russia, cast doubt Wednesday night on allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Morell, who was in line to become CIA director if Clinton won, said he had seen no evidence that Trump associates cooperated with Russians. He also raised questions about the dossier written by a former British intelligence officer, which alleged a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

...

"On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site. "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."



He goes on to say that he thinks that Russia DID influence the election, but that the Trump campaign was not part of it. (But how would he know, unless there was surveillance? But that's a whole 'nother story.)

MORE AT http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no
-russia-trump-collusion-n734176



I seem to recall you dismissing this same guy as a deep state dupe in the past. What changed?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 9:07 AM

6STRINGJOKER


Seems to me the only thing that changed is his mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SOME people are still tuned into reality. Not G tho! There are no events, no facts that will dissuade that cat from maintaining his laser-like focus on a laser-dot!



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 3:52 PM

G


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SOME people are still tuned into reality. Not G tho! There are no events, no facts that will dissuade that cat from maintaining his laser-like focus on a laser-dot!



I seem to recall you dismissing this same guy as a deep state dupe in the past. What changed?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


He did.

Hey, I've thought all along that there was no "collusion" between Trump and BUT RUSSIA!

But now a "source" that YOU would "trust" says the same thing. So I posted what he said, partly because you can't seem to parse the news on your own but depend on "sources" to do your thinking for you.

In other words, this is for your benefit, not mine.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:16 PM

1KIKI


I wonder when the Trump/ PutinRussia thing will be quietly disappeared from the news.

Hmmm ... what HAS disappeared lately? Ukraine, Aleppo, Mosul ... they must not have turned out well, and so they're no longer useful as propaganda pieces ... NEXT !!!




Originally posted by G:
I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:37 PM

RIVERLOVE


FBI Director Jimmy "The Weasel" Comey goes to Congress tomorrow to testify on Russian hacking AND Obama wiretapping. Hold on to your birth control device, somebody's gonna get fucked!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2017 5:12 PM

1KIKI


I just wonder why anyone believes anyone from any of the spook agencies from any of the countries, whether they got their name and face up there or they're an 'unnamed source' flogging yet another allegation.




Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
He's a Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 4:51 PM

REAVERFAN


Well, now that we know there is actual Russian involvement, I guess we can forget what the Clinton ally said, huh?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 4:53 PM

1KIKI


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Well, now that we know there is actual Russian involvement, I guess we can forget what the Clinton ally said, huh?

Cite?




Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 4:57 PM

1KIKI


I get it - you have none. you're just making stuff up - again.




Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 5:04 PM

1KIKI


Quote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-t
ranscript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.6b0ba62d1c96


Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election

COMEY: With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.

So, according to Comey, there was no wiretapping per se information at the FBI.

But what about surveillance in general?
Quote:

NUNES: However, it's still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President's Trump and his associates.
And those anti-Trump leaks?
Quote:

NUNES: ... who has leak(ed) classified information? Numerous current and former officials have leak purportedly classified information in connection to these questions. We aim to determine who has leaked or facilitated leaks of classified information so that these individuals can be brought to justice.
Quote:

NUNES: Director Comey, I remain extremely concerned about the widespread illegal leaks that you just referenced in your — in your testimony. Just for the record though, I wanna get this on the record.

Does the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to the press violate 18 USC 793, a section of the Espionage Act that criminalizes improperly accessing handling or transmitting national defense information?

COMEY: Yes.

And here we have an extended dodge around the question: who would be a person who could authorize the 19 people who leaked information to the WaPo?
Quote:

ROONEY: And you mentioned in your opening statement that for that kind of information to be disseminated outside of your agency and the NSA that that dissemination would be strictly on a need-to-know basis, is that -- is that correct?

ROGERS: We use two criteria; is there a need to know in the course of the person or group that is asking for the identification, is there a valid need to know in the course of the execution of their official duties?

ROONEY: So like, who would that be?

ROGERS: It could be another element with the intelligence community, it could be another element within NSA, it could be a military customer, for example, who's reading some of our reporting. It could be a policymaker. I apologize, there was one other point I wanted to make, but I've lost the thread in my mind. I apologize if I jump in at a moment...

ROONEY: I'm sorry, I cut you off.

ROGERS: I'll try to make...

ROONEY: Let's get back to masking briefly.

You spoke about masking and trying to keep a U.S. person's identity concealed. And when it is disseminated, you -- we often talk about in the intelligence community about the exceptions to how -- if somebody's mask(ed) (as an incidental finding in an investigation of foreigners), how you unmask them. What would the exceptions to that masking be before it's disseminated?

ROGERS: So again, we use two criteria; the need to know on the person requesting us in the execution of their official duties and the second part was, is the identification necessary to truly understand the context of the intelligence value that the report is designed to generate? Those are the two criteria we use.

ROONEY: Is that identity of a U.S. person communicating with a foreign target? Is that ordinarily disseminated in a masked or unmasked form?

ROGERS: No. It is normally disseminated, if we -- if we make the decision that there's intelligence value and we're going to report on it, it is normally disseminated in a masked form. I would -- again, as I said, we use a reference, U.S. person one, U.S. person two...

ROONEY: Right.

ROGERS: I would highlight, if you look at the total breadth of our reporting, reporting involving U.S. persons at all is an incredibly small subset in my experience of our total reporting.

ROONEY: Who normally in the NSA would make the decision to unmask?

ROGERS: There are 20 individuals including myself who I have delegated this authority to approve unmask requests.

ROONEY: And does the level of approval change depending on the reason for unmasking? If it was something or somebody, say, really important would that matter or could it be...

ROGERS: Not -- it's not necessarily designated in writing that way, but certainly by custom and tradition, at times requests will be pushed up to my -- I'm the senior-most of the 20 individuals. Requests will be pushed to my level, say "hey, sir, we just want to make sure that you're comfortable with this."

ROONEY: Right. So 20 people, that -- you know, what procedures or safeguards are put in place to make sure that those 20 people are not unmasking wrongly?

ROGERS: So they retrieve specific training, there are specific controls put in place in terms of our ability to disseminate information out of the databases associated with U.S. persons.

ROONEY: OK. Let's run through the exceptions quickly through a following hypothetical. If the NSA collects a communication where a target under surveillance is talking to a U.S. person, how would the NSA determine whether disseminating the U.S. person information is necessary to understanding the foreign intelligence or assess its importance?

ROGERS: So first of all, try to understand the nature of the conversation. Is this truly something that involves intelligence or a national security implication for the United States or is this just very normal, reasonable conversations, in which case we have no desire to have any awareness of it, it's not applicable to our mission.

In that case, normally we'll purge the data. We'll ask ourselves, is there criminal activity involved, is there a threat, potential threat or harm to U.S. individuals being discussed in a conversation for example.

ROONEY: If there was criminal activity involved, what would you do then? ROGERS: If when we disseminate -- if we decide we need -- if it's criminal activity, we'll disseminate the information and if the FBI or other criminal activities are on the reporting stream, in some cases I also will generate a signed letter under my signature in specific cases to Department of Justice highlighting that what we think we have is potential criminal activity, but because we are not a law enforcement or justice organization we're not in a place to make that determination.

ROONEY: OK. Based on that, again, hypothetically, if the NSA obtained the communication of General Flynn while he was communicating with the surveillance target legally, would you please explain how General Flynn's identity could be unmasked based on the exceptions that we discussed?

ROGERS: Sir, I'm not going to discuss even hypotheticals about individuals, I'm sorry.

ROONEY: If I could make reference to a Washington Post article that I have here from February 9 which states -- do you -- let me say what it is and I'll ask if you've read it or -- or -- or if you've seen it. Which states national security under Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with the country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office.

Contrary to public assertions by Trump officials current and -- and former U.S. officials said. The article goes on to say that nine current or former -- former officials who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the call spoke under the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. Did you read this article?

ROGERS: I apologize, sir. It's not -- an article that references nine particular individual -- it doesn't necessarily ring a bell. I've certainly seen plenty of media reporting that but again, I'm not going to comment on specifics.

ROONEY: Just basically under the breath of that article, when we when we hear that nine former, current -- or current officials had spoken to the press under the condition of anonymity, and we heard our director Comey and the Chairman speak of this is a potential crime -- a serious crime -- under the Espionage Act, assuming if this article is accurate, who would have the -- who would be in a position to request the unmasking of General Flynn's identity? Would that be you?

ROGERS: I would have the authority to do that.

ROONEY: Who else would?

ROGERS: The 19 other individuals.

ROONEY: Would that include director Comey?

ROGERS: I'm talking about...

ROONEY: In the NSA...

ROGERS: ... within the National Security Agency and we're talking about NSA reporting.

ROONEY: But -- but would people like Director Comey also be able to request that?

ROGERS: Yes.

ROONEY: And the attorney general and Director Clapper, are those type of people also on this list?

ROGERS: Again, I'm not going to -- in general, yes, they would be...

ROONEY: Generally speaking, not with regard to...

ROGERS: I'm not going to talk about...

ROONEY: OK.

ROGERS: ... of an individual or hypothetical scenarios.

ROONEY: Well, here's what I'm trying to get at. If -- if -- if what we're talking about is a serious crime as has -- as has been alleged, in your opinion, would leaking of an -- a U.S. person who has been unmasked and disseminated by intelligence community officials, would that leaking to the press hurt or help our ability to conduct national security matters?

ROGERS: Hurt.

ROONEY: OK. If -- if it hurts -- so this leak, which through the 702 tool, which we all agree is vital -- or you and I at least agree to that -- do you think that that leak actually threatens our national security? If it's a crime and if it's unveiling a masked person, and this tool is so important that it can potentially jeopardize this tool when we have to try to reauthorize it in a few months.

If this is used against the ability of us to reauthorize this tool and we can't get it done because whoever did this leak, or these nine people that did this leak, create such a stir, whether it be, you know, in our legislative process or whatever, that they don't feel confident that a U.S. person under the 702 program can be masked successfully and not leaked to the press, doesn't that hurt, that leak hurt our national security?

ROGERS: Yes, sir.

ROONEY: Can you think of any reason why somebody would -- would want to leak the identity of a (masked) person?

ROGERS: No sir, I -- I mean I have raised this directly with my own workforce over the -- over the course of the last few months to remind everyone, part of the ethics of our profession, not just the legal requirement but the ethics of our profession as intelligence professionals is we do not engage in this activity.

And I've also reminded the men and women of the National Security Agency, if I become aware of any such conduct, there is no place for you on this team. It's unacceptable to the citizens of the nation that one would engage in this.






Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 5:46 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I get it - you have none. you're just making stuff up - again.



http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-r
ussia-donald-trump.html?_r=0

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 6:09 PM

1KIKI


You seem to believe the NYTimes version. But reading their reporting versus the transcript, makes it clear there was no confirmation that Russia did anything, and that the reporting was extremely - and intentionally - misleading. By not providing full quotes, in context, the NYTimes tried to make the testimony mean whatever they wanted it to mean. Now, all I did was a search on that narrow topic. But I have no doubt that if I were to compare the entire NYTimes 'story', versus the transcript, I would find more - the only word that fits is - propaganda.

Comey did not confirm Russian interference, as the NYTimes alludes
Quote:

Comey confirms the F.B.I. is investigating Russian election interference.
Comey confirmed that there was an ongoing investigation.
Quote:

As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize. This is one of those circumstances.
Admiral Rogers did NOT link any claimed intrusion to election interference as the NYTimes implies here:
Quote:

Admiral Rogers made it clear that Russian efforts to interfere in democratic elections were not a one-off intrusion. They continue — now in Europe.
Rogers in fact limited his statements to disinformation, fake news and embarrassing information.
Quote:

ROGERS: So you see some of the same things that we saw in the U.S. in terms of disinformation, fake news, attempts to release of information to embarrass individuals, you're seeing that play out to some extent in European elections right now.





Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Trump Nuts?
Sun, March 26, 2017 10:18 - 324 posts
ACA
Sun, March 26, 2017 10:15 - 83 posts
Yet another ... and another ... terrorist attack
Sun, March 26, 2017 09:14 - 2 posts
Libel & Slander
Sun, March 26, 2017 09:02 - 50 posts
The White House and Phone Purges
Sun, March 26, 2017 08:45 - 38 posts
The Yemen Thread
Sat, March 25, 2017 18:58 - 23 posts
JO 753 for Prezident!
Sat, March 25, 2017 18:27 - 102 posts
Coffee - Cheers!
Sat, March 25, 2017 14:55 - 215 posts
CNN: Russian Ambassador also met with Hillary advisors
Sat, March 25, 2017 08:12 - 15 posts
we're like, really smart
Fri, March 24, 2017 23:46 - 21 posts
'media matters' Alex Jones Apologizes For Pizzagate Coverage, Blames Other Media Outlets
Fri, March 24, 2017 22:32 - 4 posts
Stuk in yor hed
Fri, March 24, 2017 20:52 - 8 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL