Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration

[Stapes]

National Security
Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration




President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.
The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.

As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is thought to be in the final stages of an investigation that has focused largely on whether Trump or his associates conspired with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. The new details about Trump’s continued secrecy underscore the extent to which little is known about his communications with Putin since becoming president.
After this story was published online, Trump said in an interview late Saturday with Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that he did not take particular steps to conceal his private meetings with Putin and attacked The Washington Post and its owner Jeffrey P. Bezos.

He said he talked with Putin about Israel, among other subjects. “Anyone could have listened to that meeting. That meeting is open for grabs,” he said, without offering specifics.
When Pirro asked if he is or has ever been working for Russia, Trump responded, “I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked.”


Former U.S. officials said that Trump’s behavior is at odds with the known practices of previous presidents, who have relied on senior aides to witness meetings and take comprehensive notes then shared with other officials and departments.
Trump’s secrecy surrounding Putin “is not only unusual by historical standards, it is outrageous,” said Strobe Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state now at the Brookings Institution, who participated in more than a dozen meetings between President Bill Clinton and then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s. “It handicaps the U.S. government — the experts and advisers and Cabinet officers who are there to serve [the president] — and it certainly gives Putin much more scope to manipulate Trump.”



Both President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about Russian interference in U.S. elections at a news conference on July 16 in Helsinki. (The Washington Post)
A White House spokesman disputed that characterization and said that the Trump administration has sought to “improve the relationship with Russia” after the Obama administration “pursued a flawed ‘reset’ policy that sought engagement for the sake of engagement.”

The Trump administration “has imposed significant new sanctions in response to Russian malign activities,” said the spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity and noted that Tillerson in 2017 “gave a fulsome readout of the meeting immediately afterward to other U.S. officials in a private setting, as well as a readout to the press.”
Trump allies said the president thinks the presence of subordinates impairs his ability to establish a rapport with Putin and that his desire for secrecy may also be driven by embarrassing leaks that occurred early in his presidency.
The meeting in Hamburg happened several months after The Washington Post and other news organizations revealed details about what Trump had told senior Russian officials during a meeting with Russian officials in the Oval Office. Trump disclosed classified information about a terrorism plot, called former FBI director James B. Comey a “nut job” and said that firing Comey had removed “great pressure” on his relationship with Russia.

The White House launched internal leak hunts after that and other episodes and sharply curtailed the distribution within the National Security Council of memos on the president’s interactions with foreign leaders.
“Over time it got harder and harder, I think, because of a sense from Trump himself that the leaks of the call transcripts were harmful to him,” said a former administration official.
Senior Democratic lawmakers describe the cloak of secrecy surrounding Trump’s meetings with Putin as unprecedented and disturbing.
Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview that his panel will form an investigative subcommittee whose targets will include seeking State Department records of Trump’s encounters with Putin, including a closed-door meeting with the Russian leader in Helsinki last summer.

“It’s been several months since Helsinki and we still don’t know what went on in that meeting,” Engel said. “It’s appalling. It just makes you want to scratch your head.”
The concerns have been compounded by actions and positions Trump has taken as president that are seen as favorable to the Kremlin. He has dismissed Russia’s election interference as a “hoax,” suggested that Russia was entitled to annex Crimea, repeatedly attacked NATO allies, resisted efforts to impose sanctions on Moscow, and begun to pull U.S. forces out of Syria — a move that critics see as effectively ceding ground to Russia.
At the same time, Trump’s decision to fire Comey and other attempts to contain the ongoing Russia investigation led the bureau in May 2017 to launch a counterintelligence investigation into whether he was seeking to help Russia and if so, why, a step first reported by the New York Times.

It is not clear whether Trump has taken notes from interpreters on other occasions, but several officials said they were never able to get a reliable readout of the president’s two-hour meeting in Helsinki. Unlike in Hamburg, Trump allowed no Cabinet officials or any aides to be in the room for that conversation.
Trump also had other private conversations with Putin at meetings of global leaders outside the presence of aides. He spoke at length with Putin at a banquet at the same 2017 global conference in Hamburg, where only Putin’s interpreter was present. Trump also had a brief conversation with ­Putin at a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires last month.
Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin, although Russia has often been first to disclose those calls when they occur and release statements characterizing them in broad terms favorable to the Kremlin.

In an email, Tillerson said that he “was present for the entirety of the two presidents’ official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,” but he declined to discuss the meeting and did not respond to questions about whether Trump had instructed the interpreter to remain silent or had taken the interpreter’s notes.
In a news conference afterward, Tillerson said that the Trump-Putin meeting lasted more than two hours, covered the war in Syria and other subjects, and that Trump had “pressed President ­Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement” in election interference. “President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past,” Tillerson said.
Tillerson refused to say during the news conference whether Trump had rejected Putin’s claim or indicated that he believed the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia had interfered.

Tillerson’s account is at odds with the only detail that other administration officials were able to get from the interpreter, officials said. Though the interpreter refused to discuss the meeting, officials said, he conceded that Putin had denied any Russian involvement in the U.S. election and that Trump responded by saying, “I believe you.”
Senior Trump administration officials said that White House officials including then-National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster were never able to obtain a comprehensive account of the meeting, even from Tillerson.
“We were frustrated because we didn’t get a readout,” a former senior administration official said. “The State Department and [National Security Council] were never comfortable” with Trump’s interactions with Putin, the official said. “God only knows what they were going to talk about or agree to.”


Because of the absence of any reliable record of Trump’s conversations with Putin, officials at times have had to rely on reports by U.S. intelligence agencies tracking the reaction in the Kremlin.
Previous presidents and senior advisers have often studied such reports to assess whether they had accomplished their objectives in meetings as well as to gain insights for future conversations.
U.S. intelligence agencies have been reluctant to call attention to such reports during Trump’s presidency because they have at times included comments by foreign officials disparaging the president or his advisers, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a former senior administration official said.
“There was more of a reticence in the intelligence community going after those kinds of communications and reporting them,” said a former administration official who worked in the White House. “The feedback tended not to be positive.”
The interpreter at Hamburg revealed the restrictions that Trump had imposed when he was approached by administration officials at the hotel where the U.S. delegation was staying, officials said.
Among the officials who asked for details from the meeting were Fiona Hill, the senior Russia adviser at the NSC, and John Heffern, who was then serving at State as the acting assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs.


The State Department did not respond to a request for comment from the interpreter. Heffern, who retired from State in 2017, declined to comment.
Through a spokesman, Hill declined a request for an interview.
There are conflicting accounts of the purpose of the conversation with the interpreter, with some officials saying that Hill was among those briefed by Tillerson and that she was merely seeking more nuanced information from the interpreter.
Others said the aim was to get a more meaningful readout than the scant information furnished by Tillerson. “I recall Fiona reporting that to me,” one former official said. A second former official present in Hamburg said that Tillerson “didn’t offer a briefing or call the ambassador or anybody together. He didn’t brief senior staff,” although he “gave a readout to the press.”
A similar issue arose in Helsinki, the setting for the first formal U.S.-Russia summit since Trump became president. Hill, national security adviser John Bolton and other U.S. officials took part in a preliminary meeting that included Trump, Putin and other senior Russian officials.
But Trump and Putin then met for two hours in private, accompanied only by their interpreters. Trump’s interpreter, Marina Gross, could be seen emerging from the meeting with pages of notes.
Alarmed by the secrecy of Trump’s meeting with Putin, several lawmakers subsequently sought to compel Gross to testify before Congress about what she witnessed. Others argued that forcing her to do so would violate the impartial role that interpreters play in diplomacy. Gross was not forced to testify. She was identified when members of Congress sought to speak with her. The interpreter in Hamburg has not been identified.
During a joint news conference with Putin afterward, Trump acknowledged discussing Syria policy and other subjects but also lashed out at the media and federal investigators, and he seemed to reject the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies by saying that he was persuaded by Putin’s “powerful” denial of election interference.
Previous presidents have required senior aides to attend meetings with adversaries including the Russian president largely to ensure that there are not misunderstandings and that others in the administration are able to follow up on any agreements or plans. Detailed notes that Talbot took of Clinton’s meetings with Yeltsin are among hundreds of documents declassified and released last year.
John Hudson, Josh Dawsey and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[Stapes]

President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials sai



This rat bastard doesn't have long. They are starting to leak all the dirty laundry so when its time for him to go nobody will put up a fight.

[AnalHamster]

This rat bastard doesn't have long. They are starting to leak all the dirty laundry so when its time for him to go nobody will put up a fight.

If only...

But, no. Probably not. For starters the real collusion is with Israel, not Russia. Which is not being reported for a reason...

This drama filled narrative serves a couple purposes; first, it creates the blue 'any moment now' mantra, much like the reds had with Obama. It never happened with Obama, it wont happen with Trump; but for some reason its like an opiate for the masses to believe it. On top of this it simultaneously pushing those who fall for team-politics deeper within the folds their respective parties (red and blue), which in turn leads such people to cast a blind eye to their parties every steady radicalizing stances because: 'go team!'

Second, this investigation also leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, not because I think Trump is some innocent person (after all, nearly every great fortune conceals a great crime); but because this is not a case, like with Nixon, where a crime was committed/discovered and the rabbit trail was followed to the top of the White House. You have an investigative body literally looking for a crime. Think about it, if the government can just investigate the POTUS and try to see if he broke the law absent of, anything criminally known beforehand... what is stopping the government from doing the same to you or me?

All of the sudden everyone is guilty until deemed innocent. And that is a very, very scary prospect.

There were grounds to investigate, and the investigation has uncovered a lot of crimes. Trump got folded in to the special counsel investigation when he attempted to obstruct justice over ongoing investigations into people he appointed who were being investigated already and have now been convicted. Nothing is stopping the government investigating you or me to determine if we've committed crimes, only lack of resources to investigate everyone in the absence of any actual reason to. Nothing ever was. If it reaches the point of an indictment then a grand jury must be persuaded by the evidence already gathered. If gathering that evidence involves a search requiring a warrant then a judge has to be be persuaded that a warrant is justified by the evidence gathered to that point. This idea that something nefarious bypassing the usual processes has happened here is bullshit being spread around by Trump and his fans and legal team. An intelligence operation by Russia was discovered, investigating that is a key role of the FBI, they have followed it up the chain of the white house.

[CaptQuint]

The full word salad of an answer where he never actually answers the question...

Pirro: Are you now, or have you ever worked for Russia Mr President?

Trump: I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked. I think it’s the most insulting article I’ve ever had written. And if you read the article, you’d see that they found absolutely nothing. But the, the headline of that article, it’s called “The failing New York Times” for a reason, they’ve gotten me wrong for three years. They’ve actually gotten me wrong for many years before that. But you look at what’s going on, you know, I fired James Comey. I call him lying James Comey, because he was a terrible liar, and he did a terrible job as the FBI director. Look at what happened with the Hillary Clinton and the e-mails and the Hillary Clinton investigation, one of the biggest screw-ups that anybody’s ever seen as an investigation. And what happened after I fired him? Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, his lover, Lisa Page, they did it. And, you know, they’re all gone. Most of those people, many, many people from the top ranks of the FBI, they’ve all been fired or they had to leave. And they’re all gone. This is what they were talking about. And, obviously, nothing was found. And I can tell you this, if you ask the folks in Russia, I’ve been tougher on Russia than anybody else, any other — probably any other president period, but certainly the last three or four presidents, modern day presidents. Nobody’s been as tough as I have from any standpoint including the fact that we’re doing oil like we’ve never done it, we’re setting records in our country with oil and exporting oil and many other things, so, which is obviously not great for them, because that’s what they, that’s where they get their money for the most part. But many other things. So I, I think it was a great insult. And the New York Times is a disaster as a paper. It’s a, it’s a very horrible thing they said, and they’ve gone so far that people that weren’t necessarily believers are now big believers, because they said that was a step too far. They really are a disaster of a newspaper.

Guys, I’m starting to think this fucker might actually work for Russia.

[AnalHamster]

Nothing is stopping the government investigating you or me to determine if we've committed crimes, only lack of resources to investigate everyone in the absence of any actual reason to. Nothing ever was.

Maybe not across the pond, but here in America you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the 4th Amendment disallows the government from arbitrarily going through your belongs for that reason.

But, unfortunately, the social contract is often ignored and spin doctors are too often acting like 'freedom' is simply there to protect the guilty.

You are continuing to confuse investigation and indictment/search warrants. The fourth amendment means a judge has to approve a search warrant, it doesn't mean the police can't ask for one or look into whether one is in fact required. If I told the FBI you were in contact with the russkies, or told the po-po you were dealing crack, you'd be investigated if my tip were credible. There is absolutely zero constitutional protection against being investigated. The protections kick in when there is a search of protected property, or when you there is evidence for an indictment. You are presumed innocent whilst being investigated, but if you think about it for the tiniest fraction of a moment it's kinda obvious that if the presumption of innocence prevented investigations occurring in the first place then no one anywhere ever could be found guilty of anything, isn't it?

I presume you posted before under a different name since you know what side of the pond I'm on, unless it's just my perfect diction giving it away. Who were you?

[CaptQuint]

But you know "lock her up" is just fine

[CaptQuint]

But you know "lock her up" is just fine

Eh. that slogan was just a means to get people react emotionally about things. The more emotion involved, the less rational thought is applied. Both sides do this- and do so for a reason.

That said, its not that I think Hillary is somehow "innocent". You would have to be a fool to think Clinton, Trump, Bush, or any of the old guard establishment throughout the political realm have clean hands. They don't. Not on the National level, not at the State level, not even at the local... (though, naturally, there are always a few exceptions to this hard rule).

Yeah, just a mob screaming a slogan

[AnalHamster]

Like 'build the wall'.

[AnalHamster]

You are continuing to confuse investigation and indictment/search warrants. The fourth amendment means a judge has to approve a search warrant, it doesn't mean the police can't ask for one or look into whether one is in fact required. If I told the FBI you were in contact with the russkies, or told the po-po you were dealing crack, you'd be investigated if my tip were credible. There is absolutely zero constitutional protection against being investigated. The protections kick in when there is a search of protected property, or when you there is evidence for an indictment. You are presumed innocent whilst being investigated, but if you think about it for the tiniest fraction of a moment it's kinda obvious that if the presumption of innocence prevented investigations occurring in the first place then no one anywhere ever could be found guilty of anything, isn't it?

I presume you posted before under a different name since you know what side of the pond I'm on, unless it's just my perfect diction giving it away. Who were you?

That part underlined, focus on it. Does an assessment by the US office of the Director of National Intelligence making a claim that Russia favored Trump, and that Putin personally ordered a campaign to affect the US election a credible tip against the POTUS himself?

I am skeptical. Seems like the investigation should have been squarely on how Russia (bots) affected the campaign- and if during that process other connections are found- follow them, even if they lead to the top. But, that isn't really what happened, is it? The investigation was targeted at the POTUS directly and those around him at the start. Now Trump helped justify this greatly by firing people and tweeting idiocy, but the fact remains, they aren't following a rabbit trail and its leading to this and that --> they are investigating the people themselves and seeing what they can find, if anything. And that is a dangerous precedent.

Once upon a time you needed a warrant before you could go through personal belongings; the drug war helped create the FISA court to retroactively approve such events under the pretense of 'National Security', and thanks to the asinine war on terror the po-po can arrest your stuff (civil forfeiture) and can get a blanket warrant that doesn't even need to really specify what they are seeking or where. There should be no reason to ever investigate someone because of an open ended claim like 'we think someone did something to help this other person'.

My true fear is, when the dust settles Trump himself will be deemed innocent- and he will use this precedent against others. As will other agencies throughout the government.

***
And to answer your question: Yes, I have passively lurked and occasionally posted on this board for years, back before that crash that made everyone join date 1969 in fact. Though I can probably count on two hands the number of post I have made since I started coming to UJ.

Trump was not the initial focus of the investigation into Flynn or Manafort or the now entirely proven tip which has resulted in multiple convictions and indictments that Russia really did conduct an influence campaign to get trump elected. Trump brought himself in by blatantly obstructing those investigations. The investigation was simply not focused at Trump at the start, and it was focused on those around him in terms of Manafort before he was even around him. Flynn was picked up on routine surveillance of legitimate Russkie targets who are spied on year round. You have been deceived by Trump team propaganda.

Who is running the bots and why is the relevant question. The connections found are exactly what has been investigated, you've just been duped by propaganda aimed pretty openly at undermining that investigation. You have always and continue to need a warrant to go through personal belongings, you yet again make the same mistake there. Civil forfeiture is a separate issue that has simply not come up in the trump investigation. If you wanted to argue civil forfeiture violates fourth amendment rights, sure, I agree with you, but that is wholly irrelevant to the Mueller investigation because it simply has not come up.

I expect we'll find out who you are eventually. I'm guessing necro.

[CaptQuint]

[CaptQuint]

[AnalHamster]

Trump was not the initial focus of the investigation into Flynn or Manafort or the now entirely proven tip which has resulted in multiple convictions and indictments that Russia really did conduct an influence campaign to get trump elected. Trump brought himself in by blatantly obstructing those investigations. The investigation was simply not focused at Trump at the start, and it was focused on those around him in terms of Manafort before he was even around him. Flynn was picked up on routine surveillance of legitimate Russkie targets who are spied on year round. You have been deceived by Trump team propaganda.

Who is running the bots and why is the relevant question. The connections found are exactly what has been investigated, you've just been duped by propaganda aimed pretty openly at undermining that investigation. You have always and continue to need a warrant to go through personal belongings, you yet again make the same mistake there. Civil forfeiture is a separate issue that has simply not come up in the trump investigation. If you wanted to argue civil forfeiture violates fourth amendment rights, sure, I agree with you, but that is wholly irrelevant to the Mueller investigation because it simply has not come up.

I expect we'll find out who you are eventually. I'm guessing necro.

And you call me the conspiracy theorist... lol
You would be wrong, sir. Again, I am just a long time lurker who made an another account ultimately because I am bored.

You are also mixing the discussion, maybe I have been sloppy in my writing; never did I say anything about civil forfeiture being connected to Trump. That was simply in connection to how the 4th has been eroded here in America, along with FISA and blanket warrants.

***
On Trump and the investigation:

Trump has been the focus of this from the beginning; private entities started investigating him in June 2016 as soon as it was apparent he was going to win the RNC. That Steele Dossier (Steele being ex-MI6) was released in Jan 2017, which help catapult the investigation. Certainly not the first time a British intelligence official helped direct US action.

You might think what Steele said is enough to warrant the subsequent investigation (that Trump has no doubt made worse for himself being the asshat he is); I am not as convinced. I feel you shouldn't just allude to the possibility of a crime- you should have some kind of evidence first and then extrapolate form there. But, I am an old school thinker like that.

Since the investigation has started it has caught a few people; after all, if you cast a wide enough net you are bound to catch some fish. But none of this changes my core point in this: this is not a case of a crime being discovered and people trying to figure out who did what, this is a case where a crime is being looked for in hopes to punish. And that, in my humble opinion, is a dangerous precedent.

Yeah, I don't believe the 'longtime lurker' thing and nor does anyone else. Grow some balls coward.

Civil forfeiture entered the discussion because of your persistent and fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between investigation and indictment/warrant. There is and has never been any constitutional bar to an investigation being opened or pursued. It runs up against checks if and only if it requires a search requiring a judicial warrant or reaches the point of indictment. Are you able to grasp that fact? It kinda seems like you can't. Civil forfeiture has certainly blurred that line, but is hasn't come up in any trump related investigation and is thus a separate issue.

Trump was not the initial focus of the investigation, that is a lie trumpcucks fall for, but it is not true. Manafort was under investigation before he came anywhere near the trump mess. Flynn was picked up via routine spying on the russian ambassador. Trump got folded in because he attempted to obstruct ongoing investigations, these are demonstrable publicly accessible facts, backed by actual criminal convictions, you poor dupe.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah, I don't believe the 'longtime lurker' thing and nor does anyone else. Grow some balls coward.

Civil forfeiture entered the discussion because of your persistent and fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between investigation and indictment/warrant. There is and has never been any constitutional bar to an investigation being opened or pursued. It runs up against checks if and only if it requires a search requiring a judicial warrant or reaches the point of indictment. Are you able to grasp that fact? It kinda seems like you can't. Civil forfeiture has certainly blurred that line, but is hasn't come up in any trump related investigation and is thus a separate issue.

Trump was not the initial focus of the investigation, that is a lie trumpcucks fall for, but it is not true. Manafort was under investigation before he came anywhere near the trump mess. Flynn was picked up via routine spying on the russian ambassador. Trump got folded in because he attempted to obstruct ongoing investigations, these are demonstrable publicly accessible facts, backed by actual criminal convictions, you poor dupe.

I don't give a flying fuck what you believe about me or my identity. Its just one more thing you are wrong about; but hey- that's on you.

Facts remain facts: the ball got rolling on the Steele dossier, and Trump was the central figure of that document. A document that was first brought to light a month before the RNC when it was obvious he would win, and was made public in January around the time when he was sworn in.

***
As to the eroding 4th Amendment the question has to be asked: are the police/fbi/whatever investigating a crime, or in search of one? Investigating someone sans evidence is the latter --> And that is wrong.

You seem a little tetchy about it, and chose to lie about it in the first place, so you clearly kinda do.

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

Also you continue to regurgitate propaganda from your lying president and his lying legal team. The dossier,large sections of which are now proven true, did not trigger an investigation in to trump. Trump's actions did.

Searching for crime is in fact a role of the police and FBI. It deters crime. Also still not what happened here, they acted on information and actions and have made multiple arrests with multiple convictions. Your inability to see reality indicates your attempt to portray yourself as neutral rather than a trumpcuck is another lie.

[CaptQuint]

[Charliesheen]

Yep. Trump comes off as a hypocrite, over and over. Anybody here defending his moronic remarks and teeets?

[AnalHamster]

Only biker.

[Charliesheen]

Bullshit. He laments the POTUS' knuckleheaded tweets like any other. That he defends some of his actions as I do from the rabid haters is a far cry from the universal Nobama ball slurps we got here for the duration of his terms.

[stymiegreen]

Bullshit. He laments the POTUS' knuckleheaded tweets like any other. That he defends some of his actions as I do from the rabid haters is a far cry from the universal Nobama ball slurps we got here for the duration of his terms.

Its pretty funny that the Trumpeteers still hold on to that larf that the only thing wrong with Trump and his administration is some "knuckleheaded tweets". But hey...the other side is always worserer, eh chuck? That way you never have to use your brain.

[AnalHamster]

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

Also you continue to regurgitate propaganda from your lying president and his lying legal team. The dossier,large sections of which are now proven true, did not trigger an investigation in to trump. Trump's actions did.

Searching for crime is in fact a role of the police and FBI. It deters crime. Also still not what happened here, they acted on information and actions and have made multiple arrests with multiple convictions. Your inability to see reality indicates your attempt to portray yourself as neutral rather than a trumpcuck is another lie.

Your first mistake is thinking I like Trump. Well, I like him about as much as I liked Obama, W, and all the asshats before since I have been paying attention- he has done a few things I like, and a bunch of shit I don't. Mostly he, like O and W, are signing shit bills from Congress that empower a police state, and I will never support someone who extends the Patriot act or the NDAA (regardless of what stupid name they slap on it).

That said, I do however enjoy honest discussion.

If there was nothing happening from the Steele dossier then firing of Comey would never have generated a response. You can't obstruct justice if there isn't some sort of investigation happening to obstruct. So, the truth of the matter is the Steele dossier is what got the ball rolling.

Now I get you don't like that because that dossier has connections to Clinton/DNC and you have a narrative that you articulate very well; to acknowledge reality on this means exposing yourself as either a fool or a tool. And no one wants to be seen as either... But reality is reality no matter how much you want to skew it.

I think you like trump because you unthinkingly swallow trump propaganda. I don't think I'm mistaken about that or you disguising your prior username.

He fired Comey, citing the Russia investigation as a reason for doing so. That is what triggered the investigation into Trump personally, his attempt to obstruct the highly successful ongoing investigation into Russian election interference. Once the investigation into Trump had begun, all additional evidence would be considered, and that includes the Steele dossier, which also has connections to the RNC. You are misinformed, as previously noted, on basically everything you say about everything. It's remarkable. Someone as divorced from reality as you just has to be a trump fan.

[AnalHamster]

I think you like trump because you unthinkingly swallow trump propaganda. I don't think I'm mistaken about that or you disguising your prior username.

Yeah, of course you do. Just one more thing to be wrong about. But, you strike me as being one of those people who- once you make a claim, you have to hold on to it, no matter what. Amirite?

Too bad, inflexibility in ideas and thoughts leads to intellectual dishonesty and grief.

Nope, if I'm wrong on something I have no problem admitting it. I think you on the other hand are going continue to demonstrate you can't.

He fired Comey, citing the Russia investigation as a reason for doing so. That is what triggered the investigation into Trump personally, his attempt to obstruct the highly successful ongoing investigation into Russian election interference. Once the investigation into Trump had begun, all additional evidence would be considered, and that includes the Steele dossier, which also has connections to the RNC. You are misinformed, as previously noted, on basically everything you say about everything. It's remarkable. Someone as divorced from reality as you just has to be a trump fan.

When the FBI is going after a drug lord like El Chapo they start with the people around him and below him; then work up the chain.

Steele dossier comes out privately in June 2016, its central figure was Trump; "Crossfire Hurricane" started the following month a couple weeks after the RNC. Take it for what it is.

My basis for saying Trump firing Comey was the triggering event is the NYT sources that revealed the investigation had even occurred have said so. Your basis for saying it was the Steele dossier, is that you have pulled that from your ass. Is the problem that you are unaware of the difference between the ongoing and highly successful Russia investigation, and the personal counterintelligence investigation into Trump that was recently reported? Most people blindly swallowing the trump propaganda seem to have fallen for the line that it's all always been all about him.

Are you aware that Russia did in fact interfere in the US election?

[AnalHamster]

I think you like trump because you unthinkingly swallow trump propaganda. I don't think I'm mistaken about that or you disguising your prior username.

Yeah, of course you do. Just one more thing to be wrong about. But, you strike me as being one of those people who- once you make a claim, you have to hold on to it, no matter what. Amirite?

Too bad, inflexibility in ideas and thoughts leads to intellectual dishonesty and grief.

Nope, if I'm wrong on something I have no problem admitting it. I think you on the other hand are going continue to demonstrate you can't.

He fired Comey, citing the Russia investigation as a reason for doing so. That is what triggered the investigation into Trump personally, his attempt to obstruct the highly successful ongoing investigation into Russian election interference. Once the investigation into Trump had begun, all additional evidence would be considered, and that includes the Steele dossier, which also has connections to the RNC. You are misinformed, as previously noted, on basically everything you say about everything. It's remarkable. Someone as divorced from reality as you just has to be a trump fan.

When the FBI is going after a drug lord like El Chapo they start with the people around him and below him; then work up the chain.

Steele dossier comes out privately in June 2016, its central figure was Trump; "Crossfire Hurricane" started the following month a couple weeks after the RNC. Take it for what it is.

My basis for saying Trump firing Comey was the triggering event is the NYT sources that revealed the investigation had even occurred have said so. Your basis for saying it was the Steele dossier, is that you have pulled that from your ass. Is the problem that you are unaware of the difference between the ongoing and highly successful Russia investigation, and the personal counterintelligence investigation into Trump that was recently reported? Most people blindly swallowing the trump propaganda seem to have fallen for the line that it's all always been all about him.

Are you aware that Russia did in fact interfere in the US election?

Follow your narrative chief.

Remember: When the FBI is going after a drug lord like El Chapo they start with the people around him and below him; then work up the chain.

Steele dossier comes out privately in June 2016, its central figure was Trump; "Crossfire Hurricane" started the following month a couple weeks after the RNC. Take it for what it is.

Trumps real collusion was with Israel (and that SHOULD be investigated); Russia is a red herring. But, it gives the blues material to cling onto- 'impeachment will come any day now'. Which, is exactly the point of this long standing daytime drama.

Bead and circuses baby, bread and circuses.

My narrative is known facts and reality. Comey briefed Trump on the steele dossier, on the grounds that it would come out in the press. There was no investigation based on it. There is still no investigation based on it. When Trump fired comey and openly admitted doing so in an attempt to obstruct the russia investigation, then a counterintelligence operation looked at trump.

That is the known information. The sources that are the sole reason you know about this investigation at all (still guessing you were confusing the two) have stated why it was started, and to support your view you have absolutely nothing and the timeline does not fit.

For the second time of asking,
Are you aware that Russia did in fact interfere in the US election?

[AnalHamster]

When the FBI is going after a drug lord like El Chapo they start with the people around him and below him; then work up the chain.

Steele dossier comes out privately in June 2016, its central figure was Trump; "Crossfire Hurricane" started the following month a couple weeks after the RNC. Take it for what it is.

Have they been investigating a crime, or are they in search of one?

If evidence of tampering with the election lead to Trump, Awesome. But does Trump firing Comey over 'this Russia thing' constitute a crime? Not on its face, however this investigation sure is looking for one.

Yes, they were investigating a series of crimes and a counterintelligence operation related to the Russian interference of the election and the criminal activities of several trump campaign staff. The counterintelligence operation into trump himself was triggered by his firing comey and saying that it was to obstruct the ongoing investigations. You are unable to grasp reality where it contradicts your incorrect starting conclusion.

For the third time of asking,
Are you aware that Russia did in fact interfere in the US election? Your inability to answer this simple question indicates the answer would be yes. That's the investigation you can't quite grasp was already happening.

[PimpDaddy]

Is it possible the Presidents of USA and Russia might have a meeting to discuss something a little more sensitive than some twat in the UK needs to know? OR should the most powerful men on the planet have open mics on their desks at all times?

[CaptQuint]

Is it possible the Presidents of USA and Russia might have a meeting to discuss something a little more sensitive than some twat in the UK needs to know? OR should the most powerful men on the planet have open mics on their desks at all times?

This is how an innocent man acts?

[AnalHamster]

Is it possible the Presidents of USA and Russia might have a meeting to discuss something a little more sensitive than some twat in the UK needs to know? OR should the most powerful men on the planet have open mics on their desks at all times?

What's trump going to discuss? He doesn't know anything and didn't let anyone else in the room, except an interpreter whose notes he took and swore to secrecy. That is not normal process, Trump taking the notes of the meeting to hide them isn't just unusual, it's actually unprecedented. It never happened before. Notes get taken, if they need to be classified they get classified but the record still exists. Eventually they get declassified, historians look at them and they get put in presidential libraries and such.

And in this case the president himself is under suspicion of being a russian stoolie and is hiding what was said even from his own administration, which is exactly what he would do if the things he is suspected of are true. If you can't see the problem it's because you have nothing but a close up view of trumps rectal wall lining.