Clinton Ally Says No Russia-Trump Collusion

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 04:09
VIEWED: 2487
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:31 PM

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

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, March 19, 2017 7:07 PM

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:57 PM

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

SIGNYM

Monday, March 20, 2017 2:01 AM

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

1KIKI

Monday, March 20, 2017 2:16 AM

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.

RIVERLOVE

Monday, March 20, 2017 2:37 AM

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!

1KIKI

Monday, March 20, 2017 3:12 AM

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.

REAVERFAN

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:51 AM

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

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:53 AM

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.

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:57 AM

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.

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:04 AM

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 t

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

REAVERFAN

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:46 AM

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

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:09 AM

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.