Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Collusiongate: Watergate II?

Collusiongate: Watergate II?

Similar, but different

Unlike Watergate, the current crisis in government/spying/politics doesn’t have a memorable name. But for those of us who lived through Watergate, it has a certain resonance with that event as well as major differences, imparting a strange sense of familiarity, dislocation, and increasing alarm.
This isn’t some burglary to get some dirt on the opposing party. And it isn’t an unfulfilled threat to use government entities to “get” the opposition. So far the evidence is mounting that this involves the marshaling of those government entities by one administration in order to “get” the next, and nearly succeeding.

And—as Roger L. Simon points out:

One of the more notable differences between Watergate and the metastasizing scandals involving the FBI, our intelligence agencies, and the Obama administration — subjects of the soon-to-be-released inspector general’s report — is that the media exposed Watergate. They aided and abetted the current transgressions.

By providing a willing and virtually unquestioned repository for every anonymous leaker (as long as he or she was on the “right” side) in Washington and beyond, the press has evolved from being part of the solution to being a major part of the problem.

However, it depends what side you were and are rooting for. For example, if you believe that Donald Trump and his associates colluded with Russia to try to defeat Hillary Clinton, then you believe that the media has been exposing Collusiongate, just as they did with Watergate.

And if you believe that FBI second-in-command Mark Felt, who turns out to have been the Woodward and Bernstein informant known at the time as Deep Throat, was right to leak to them, then you might believe that all of today’s leakers are also right to leak to MSM outlets like the Times in order to spread the word of Trump and Co.’s perfidy.

Now, I happen to think the evidence is powerful that Trump is innocent and that he was not only wrongly investigated but that he was most likely set up by the opposition—almost entrapped, although so far it seems the Trump people didn’t take the bait except for some go-nowhere incidents like the Trump Tower meeting between the Russian lawyer and Trump Junior. But those who read and admire the NY Times these days would beg to differ, and those people are still numerous.

As always, Andrew C. McCarthy has some especially cogent things to say on the subject of Collusiongate:

The fons et origo of the counterintelligence investigation was the suspicion — which our intelligence agencies assure us is a fact — that the Democratic National Committee’s server was hacked by covert Russian operatives. Without this cyber-espionage attack, there would be no investigation. But how do we know it really happened? The Obama Justice Department never took custody of the server — no subpoena, no search warrant. The server was thus never subjected to analysis by the FBI’s renowned forensics lab, and its evidentiary integrity was never preserved for courtroom presentation to a jury.

How come? Well, you see, there was an ongoing election campaign, so the Obama Justice Department figured it would be a terrible imposition to pry into the Democrats’ communications. So, yes, the entire “Russia hacked the election” narrative the nation has endured for nearly two years hinges on the say-so of CrowdStrike, a private DNC contractor with significant financial ties to the Clinton campaign

Despite the absence of any evidence that the Trump campaign conspired in Russia’s espionage…The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigated Flynn — including an ambush interview — on the theory that his discussions with Kislyak and other diplomats violated the Logan Act. Currently codified as Section 953 of the federal penal code, this statute purports to criminalize “any correspondence or intercourse” with agents of a foreign sovereign conducted “without authority of the United States” — an impossibly vague term that probably means permission from the executive branch. The Logan Act is patently unconstitutional, but no court has had the opportunity to invalidate it because, to borrow a phrase, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

It’s difficult to adequately summarize the article; I recommend you just read the whole thing. Anyone who reads even a portion of it should come away outraged at what the government appears to have done to Trump and his associates—and the outraged should include people who oppose Trump and everything he stands for. However, that’s not the way things work in this day and age; outrage is very very selective.

One of the many differences between now and Watergate is that back then there was actual evidence on which the investigation, and Nixon’s ultimate resignation, was based. There was known to be a break-in. Later, there were audiotapes of what Nixon said about it. You may disagree about whether the country came out ahead because he resigned, but the facts were and are the facts.

Mark Felt of the FBI leaked to the press, but he did not frame Nixon or lead him on—nor, as far as I know, did he lie in his leaks. On the other gate, it appears so far that Collusiongate is based on almost no evidence except for the partisan manufactured kind, and is loaded with lies and blatant misbehavior and favoritism on the part of the government and its law enforcement agencies. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Collusiongate is far worse than Watergate, both in what actually happened and what it reveals about our government agencies.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

Considering that the DOJ was in the thick of Watergate I (AG John Mitchell was campaign chief for CRP and I believe he was accused of obstruction of justice), Watergate II would certainly be appropriate.

neo-neocon: Unlike Watergate, the current crisis in government/spying/politics doesn’t have a memorable name

Sure it does. It’s called Stupid Watergate, “a scandal with all the potential ramifications of Watergate, but where everyone involved is stupid and bad at everything.”

    Ratbert in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 1:12 pm

    I agree, Comey, the DNC, Hillary, the DOJ, CIA, have all been incredibly stupid in their coup attempt against a lawfully elected President.

      Ratbert: Comey, the DNC, Hillary, the DOJ, CIA, have all been incredibly stupid in their coup attempt against a lawfully elected President.

      While Trump was lawfully elected, there is clear evidence of Russian interference in the election. Nor has there been any coup attempt.

        scooterjay in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 3:34 pm

        Sir, could you please link to an official source that shows collusion that actually changed the outcome?

        I’d sure like to see it, perhaps there is money owed to me for my vote.

          gospace in reply to scooterjay. | May 21, 2018 at 4:07 pm

          I didn’t get my share either. Nor have I received any money from Big Oil for recognizing that Global Warming is a scam. Do you think I could get the ninth circus to force them to pay up?

          scooterjay: could you please link to an official source that shows collusion that actually changed the outcome?

          There’s no way to determine the overall effect of Russian interference. That there was interference has been determined by U.S. and allied intelligence agencies, and part of an ongoing campaign by Russia against open democracies.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to scooterjay. | May 21, 2018 at 4:28 pm

          I got 500 rubles.

          Why is it people are compelled to address someone who says something stupid, as “sir?”

          Never got that. Nor ever did it, either. Usually just called them stupid.

          scooterjay in reply to scooterjay. | May 21, 2018 at 6:31 pm

          It is called “condescension”

          scooterjay in reply to scooterjay. | May 21, 2018 at 6:35 pm

          So, mister Wacky Zacky…….you cannot provide us with actual evidence, just your opinion.

          I, too, have an opinion. You are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey!

          Barry in reply to scooterjay. | May 21, 2018 at 11:41 pm

          “there is clear evidence of Russian interference in the election.”

          “There’s no way to determine the overall effect of Russian interference.”

          And the clear evidence? Crickets. Effects? Quieter crickets.

          “That there was interference has been determined by U.S. and allied intelligence agencies…”

          Ah, yes, the corrupt US intelligence has made that determination. Good for them.
          Guess what? Just about every country on the globe interferes in our elections, and we, theirs.

          You’re a corrupt commie con artist.

          scooterjay: you cannot provide us with actual evidence, just your opinion

          Pretending the evidence isn’t there is not an argument. The Russians have embarked on a campaign of cyberwarfare against Western democracies, including against the United States.

          Barry: And the clear evidence?

          Russia has been engaged in an extensive policy of cyberwarfare for years. They have attacked European nations, including Ukraine. They have used such means to undermine democratic candidates in Europe, and to sow confusion. They have attacked election servers in the U.S. They hacked the chair of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and we even know the exact URL used to spoof his account. Russia is reverse engineering open democracies, and you are part and parcel of their effort.

          As for the DNC hack, the FBI noted that there were Russian intrusions aimed at the DNC in 2015. The DNC dropped the ball. When the hack was finally uncovered, server logs show that the hack originated from Russia. Independent cybersecurity firms had been monitoring the Russians, Dutch intelligence traced it directly to Russia, and there are reports that intercepted chatter in Russia confirmed the source of the hack. More recent evidence has proved that Guccifer is a known Russian agent working for the Russian government, and that Guccifer was in contact with WikiLeaks just before the data-dump. This is just some of the evidence of Russian interference.

          Meanwhile, Mike Pompeo, Trump’s recent Director of the CIA, now Secretary of State, said the Russians were responsible for the hack.

          Barry in reply to scooterjay. | May 22, 2018 at 11:51 pm

          Commie:

          Just more of your BS. The DNC “hack” was an inside job. He was murdered for passing it to WikiLeaks. There is more evidence for that conclusion than anything you have on trump colluding with your beloved commies.

          Must really suck to have the corrupt FBI, corrupt DOJ, corrupt CIA, corrupt intelligence agencies all looking for the dirt on Trump and coming up empty. Completely dry. So now we add the SC, Herr Mueller and 14 or so assorted democrat party commies with the resources of the US government and unlimited funding –

          And you still find nothing. Trump must be the cleanest man to ever hold an office in DC.

This is much worse than Watergate, by at least a degree.

The Media will pick the moniker, not us. But I prefer

Deep State Coup

    jhn1 in reply to Fen. | May 22, 2018 at 6:33 pm

    This should be, at least, Watergate II, or Watergate 2 if not Watergate 2cubed (Exponential form not allowed here).

I suggest calling it Obamagate. We wouldn’t want to deny him the credit for his only real accomplishment.

    Exiliado in reply to Hawk_TX. | May 21, 2018 at 12:23 pm

    I would give 10 thumb-ups if possible.

    Definitely Obamagate.
    It all happened under his watch, 99% sure that under his direction. Let the shame stay with his name forever.

    persecutor in reply to Hawk_TX. | May 21, 2018 at 4:37 pm

    I don’t think obongo had the smarts to think this one up, but I think that Brennangate might be as fitting.

They are going to try to kill Trump. You don’t think Brennan has a STA Team in his Rolodex?

    MarkS in reply to Fen. | May 21, 2018 at 10:24 pm

    Scumer said about intelligence agencies, “You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” I suppose one of the six is termination.

      CKYoung in reply to MarkS. | May 22, 2018 at 3:04 am

      I could not believe when schumer said that. I could not believe the press didn’t demand his resignation. Then I remembered “democrat.” Could you imagine McConnell saying that about obama? The squeals from the press would have been so overwhelming McConnell would have been either forced to resign or forced from leadership. In the USA, the intelligence community has NO LEGAL WAY WHATSOEVER to get back at a duly elected POTUS. Looks like schumer already knew the soft coup was underway. This was a huge tell. The fact maddow did not call him on it tells you everything you need to know about her.

Why people don’t think Obama had accomplishments? I mean Nixon only *tried* to spy on the DNC. Obama spied on foreign leaders, the US press, and the presidential candidate of the opposing party. Those are quite some accomplishments, and deserve attention.

Roger L. Simon: the media exposed Watergate.

Watergate was all about leaks. Nixon was frantic about leaks. Leaks brought down the presidency.

neo-neocon: One of the many differences between now and Watergate is that back then there was actual evidence on which the investigation, and Nixon’s ultimate resignation, was based. There was known to be a break-in.

Stupid Watergate involved a hack of the DNC by Russian agents. Trump officials then repeatedly lied about their contacts with Russians. That’s justification for a closer look.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia…offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia…This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump…”

Trump Jr: if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.

Trump Jr. is indicating that he would love Russian government support for the Trump campaign. That’s justification for a closer look.

Meanwhile, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, former campaign foreign policy advisor, and number two in the Trump campaign, have all pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the Special Prosecutor, while his former campaign manager is under indictment. More indictments are expected. That’s justification for a closer look.

    Vancomycin in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 11:43 am

    “Trump Jr. is indicating that he would love Russian government support for the Trump campaign. That’s justification for a closer look.”

    Why?
    What *specifically* would be illegal about that?

    ” Trump officials then repeatedly lied about their contacts with Russians. That’s justification for a closer look.”

    Why?
    What’s illegal about A) contacts with Russians? or B) not disclosing them?

    Vancomycin in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 11:45 am

    “avisor, former campaign foreign policy advisor, and number two in the Trump campaign, have all pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the Special Prosecutor, while his former campaign manager is under indictment.”

    Yes, yes…the old *he pled guilty!* thing.

    I suppose if the government came along and said, “we’re going to bankrupt you, make you homeless *and* destroy your child’s life, unless you take a deal an co-operate” you would tell them to go piss up a rope if you were innocent, right?

    Right? I mean, they couldn’t go through with those threats…no matter your innocence?

    That’s the thing with you liberals…you’re a pack of lying liars that lie and then pretend you’re better than anyone else. Newsflash for you…you aren’t.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to Vancomycin. | May 21, 2018 at 2:58 pm

      I hope that when the dust settles, that Trump will pardon everyone which has been hung out to dry on procedural issues.

      I have no problem with someone being punished for an actual crime, I have a big problem when punishment is based on incorrectly remembering details of something, and that being used as a basis to punish. I also think that something needs to be done to mitigate financial damage, often devastating damage done to individuals prosecutors who lack common sense.

        JohnSmith100: I hope that when the dust settles, that Trump will pardon everyone which has been hung out to dry on procedural issues.

        While Trump can pardon federal crimes, he can’t pardon state crimes, and there is a significant possibility of state charges for some of the principals.

        JohnSmith100: I have no problem with someone being punished for an actual crime, I have a big problem when punishment is based on incorrectly remembering details of something, and that being used as a basis to punish.

        They lied. And that brings up the question as to why they lied.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | May 22, 2018 at 5:07 am

          And you know they lied how? Because Mueller said so, or because he forced them to plead guilty to it?

          Milhouse: And you know they lied how?

          They attested to lying.

          Milhouse: Because Mueller said so, or because he forced them to plead guilty to it?

          If anyone can defend themselves in court, it would be well-off, well-connected white guys.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | May 22, 2018 at 2:28 pm

          Garbage. Muller could have utterly destroyed Flynn and his son. Driven them certainly to the poorhouse and likely to prison as well. Pleading guilty to a nothing charge was the only rational response.

          Milhouse: Muller could have utterly destroyed Flynn and his son.

          When’s a well-off, well-connected white guy ever going to catch a break?

          Mueller’s allegations are subject to court review. That’s rather the whole point of due process. Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI. He’s apparently cooperating with the investigation. How did you think it worked?

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | May 23, 2018 at 4:00 am

          There’s no meaningful court review of a guilty plea. And despite your repeated insinuations, there are no “breaks” for “well-connected white guys”.

          Milhouse: There’s no meaningful court review of a guilty plea.

          He had the opportunity to contest the charges in court. But he admitted his guilt, in detail, and is cooperating with the prosecutor. How did you think it worked?

    ConradCA in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 11:56 am

    As Crooked Hillary sold the favors of her office for hundreds of millions in donations to her slush fund and millions for BJ’s “speeches” it’s clear that these crimes should have been investigated. They weren’t because the FBI, DOJ and Tyrant Obama the Liar wanted her to win the presidency. Furthermore, she set up her unsecure email server so she would have control over her emails and prevent the knowledge of her corruption from being exposed. Her email server was open to our enemies who no doubt copied her emails so they could blackmail President Clinton if she won. It’s perfectly reasonable for the Trump campaign to attempt to obtain these email which are proof that Crooked Hillary was unfit to serve. That she belonged in prison instead of office.

      ConradCA: As Crooked Hillary sold the favors of her office for hundreds of millions in donations to her slush fund

      The Clinton Foundation is subject to annual independent audits, and their records are open. The Clintons’ personal income tax returns for the last 20 years or so are also public. There is no evidence of self-dealing from the Foundation to the Clintons.

      ConradCA: and millions for BJ’s “speeches”

      The Clintons both charged for speeches at rates not inconsistent with their celebrity; not quite as much as Elton John or George Clooney, but about the same as Helen Mirren or Harrison Ford.

        alaskabob in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 1:03 pm

        You are missing the point. It can still be selling influence for a donation to the Fund even if there is no relationship between personal and Fund income. Even if the Clinton Fund was 100% efficient and altruistic, it is still potentially buying influence. So the “goodness” of the Initiative supersedes the influence peddling?

        SDN in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 1:44 pm

        You’re simply lying about the Clinton Foundation. Hildebeeste hires the auditors.

        mochajava76 in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 2:02 pm

        If all the money flowing into the Clinton Foundation was on the up and up and not pay-to-play, as you stipulate, then explain why this revenue stream suddenly stopped flowing the moment it became evident Hillary would not have a platform to grant favors to foreign clients?

        If it was all legit, and the Foundation was still doing grand and wonderful planet-saving, healthcare goodness, then why oh why didn’t it continue?

        alaskabob: You are missing the point. It can still be selling influence for a donation to the Fund even if there is no relationship between personal and Fund income.

        ConradCA claimed it was a slush fund, which is not the case.

        But sure. The Clinton Foundation allowed the Clintons to maintain and develop relationships with many of the movers and shakers of the political and economic worlds, and for the movers and shakers to maintain and develop relationships with the Clintons. Turns out that’s how charities typically work.

        SDN: {Clinton} hires the auditors.

        Of course. That’s how that works too. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is the auditor for the Clinton Foundation. Are you saying they are in cahoots with the Clintons to funnel money to their personal accounts? Of course that doesn’t make sense, as we know how the Clintons made their money from their tax returns, through speaking engagements and book sales. It’s all open records.

        mochajava76: If all the money flowing into the Clinton Foundation was on the up and up and not pay-to-play, as you stipulate, then explain why this revenue stream suddenly stopped flowing the moment it became evident Hillary would not have a platform to grant favors to foreign clients?

        Revenues for the Clinton Foundation dropped in 2016 when most people thought she had a good chance of becoming president, contradicting your claim.

        In any case, you are conflating ordinary gladhanding associated with politics with corruption. Of course the Clinton Foundation provides the opportunity for the Clintons to network. It also provides the opportunity for the Clintons to do good and to be seen as doing good. There’s nothing particularly unusual about this.

        One might decry that this reinforces existing political power structures, but it hardly constitutes a slush fund.

        gospace in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 3:50 pm

        Clinton Foundation cursory audits have found vast numbers of things wrong. Like for example Why did the Clinton Foundation send a $37 million grant for the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund in 2010 to a Baltimore post office box when the CBHF told federal tax authorities that its only office that year was in Washington, D.C.? And- the Clinton-Bush-Haiti Fund shows no record of having received that donation, though the check was cashed. By whom and for what no one knows.

        “The Clinton Foundation is subject to annual independent audits, and their records are open. The Clintons’ personal income tax returns for the last 20 years or so are also public. There is no evidence of self-dealing from the Foundation to the Clintons….”

        Yo’ure nuts, ignorant or stupid: pick two.

    Vancomycin: What *specifically* would be illegal about that?

    It could represent an in-kind contribution from a foreign government, in this case, an adversary implicated in hacking the DNC.

    Vancomycin: What’s illegal about A) contacts with Russians? or B) not disclosing them?

    It’s a security risk to have undisclosed contacts with foreign agents of adversarial powers, especially those implicated in crimes against U.S. parties. Lying about them to the FBI or on government documents constitutes a criminal act.

    Vancomycin: I suppose if the government came along and said, “we’re going to bankrupt you, make you homeless *and* destroy your child’s life, unless you take a deal an co-operate” you would tell them to go piss up a rope if you were innocent, right?

    Depends on the evidence. If anyone can defend themselves in court, it would be rich well-connected white guys. But if the evidence is substantial, then pleading is often the recommended option.

      txvet2 in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 3:24 pm

      Now that’s funny. Defending millions in bribes by Russians (and I suppose from M.E. governments) to the Clintons in one comment, and attacking supposed Russian offers to provide derogatory information to the Trump campaign as “contributions in kind” in another. I guess you have to have a pretty good sense of humor to work as a Clinton defense lawyer.

      Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | May 22, 2018 at 5:16 am

      Vancomycin: What *specifically* would be illegal about that?

      It could represent an in-kind contribution from a foreign government

      BS. Information is not a contribution of any kind, and no campaign would ever turn down such help, no matter where it came from. Clinton had no compunctions about enlisting the Russian or the Ukranian government to help her.

        Milhouse: Information is not a contribution of any kind

        Well, that’s not true. If the information has value, is a “thing of value”, then it can be considered a campaign contribution. If the information is provided by an individual who is volunteering the information, then it may not represent a contribution under the law, but this is a case where it represented to be part of a Russian government effort to aid Trump.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | May 22, 2018 at 2:30 pm

          Any attempt to consider dirt on an opponent as a campaign contribution would be brazenly unconstitutional.

          Milhouse: Any attempt to consider dirt on an opponent as a campaign contribution would be brazenly unconstitutional.

          It’s not the dirt, but the connection to a foreign government’s concerted effort to interfere in the election, one that had been implicated in the felony of hacking into a domestic political party’s email system.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | May 23, 2018 at 4:07 am

          I assume that whether or not the Russians were Wikileaks’ source they did get into the DNC server, because it was get-into-able and that was their job. They tried getting into the RNC server as well, but reportedly failed. That this is a crime under our laws is irrelevant. It’s also irrelevant to whatever happened next. Having obtained this information they had every right to publish it or proclaim it from the rooftops, and any campaign they offered it to would have every right to accept it and would be insane to turn it down.

          Milhouse: I assume that whether or not the Russians were Wikileaks’ source they did get into the DNC server, because it was get-into-able and that was their job.

          Russia is trying to destabilize open democratic societies across the Western world. That’s like saying the job of the German government in 1940 was to invade France. They are reverse engineering open democracy, and you are an important tool in that effort.

          Milhouse: That this is a crime under our laws is irrelevant.

          Of course it’s relevant.

          Milhouse: Having obtained this information they had every right to publish it or proclaim it from the rooftops

          It is not legal to publish or otherwise disseminate private material you stole.

          Milhouse: and any campaign they offered it to would have every right to accept it and would be insane to turn it down.

          It represents an illegal campaign contribution. It’s a thing of value that cost money to produce provided by agents for hire of an adversarial foreign government.

    Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 12:32 pm

    First of all, we have no verified evidence that the DNC servers were compromised through any on-line intrusion. Second, we have no verified evidence that, if such an intrusion DID occur, that the intruders were Russian agents. Third, we have NO evidence that any Russian actor released the contents of the DNC server to Wikileaks. What we have is an assurance, by the same intelligence community headed by John Brennan and Jim Clapper, that it BELIEVES that all of this is LIKELY to be true. So, the intrusion into the DNC server can not be used as justification for the surveillance of the Trump campaign. And, as we have now found out, it was NOT used as the justification for that surveillance.

    The surveillance of the Trump campaign was back-doored using a Title I FISA request for surveillance of Carter Page. This was based upon contacts that Page had with Russians, most of whom were never verified to be agents of the Russian government, which had occurred years earlier and which were well known to the FBI. In fact, Page had been used BY the FBI as an informant in a case, or cases against Russian criminals, prior to the application for the warrant. In addition, a Title I warrant requires stringent probable cause that the subject of the surveillance is engaged in criminal activity which would warrant such surveillance. No such probable cause has ever been produced. What was used to obtain the warrant, and to renew it four times, was a wholly constructed dossier which had nothing to do with Page at all. It was all about Trump. so, it is extremely difficult to see how any competent jurist would not know that Trump was, in fact, the subject of the investigation. And, as much of the dossier was purported to come from Russian government officials and agents, it would be more likely to believe that the dossier was evidence that the Russian government was working AGAINST Trump and FOR the people who had financed the dossier. The dossier would actually be exculpatory evidence in a case of Trump/Russia collusion.

    Also, none of the people charged by the SC has been charged with any criminal act which occurred during the campaign and which can in any way be construed to be as a result of any foreign influence in that campaign. All the charges are for vague procedural crimes and financial crimes, many of them strictly technical violations, which occurred long before the campaign. To date, NO EVIDENCE of any collusion has been found to even suggest, let alone prove, that the Trump campaign knowingly acted with the Russian government to gain an advantage or that the Russian government gained anything or was promised anything due to the election of Donald Trump.

    What is sooo ironic about this is that the very people who started this whole mess were the ones who had conspired, not just colluded, to illegally interfere in a Presidential campaign. It is now coming to light that members of our own government, not the Russian, were implicit in illegally tampering with an ongoing campaign for President. And, they knew that what they were doing was at least improper and very probably illegal. That is why they lied about it later.

      Mac45: we have no verified evidence that the DNC servers were compromised through any on-line intrusion.

      Gee whiz. You guys really do live in an alternate reality.

      Russia has been engaged in an extensive policy of cyberwarfare for years. They have attacked European nations, including Ukraine. They have used such means to undermine democratic candidates in Europe, and to sow confusion. They have attacked election servers in the U.S. They hacked the chair of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and we even know the exact URL used to spoof his account. Russia is reverse engineering open democracies, and you are part and parcel of their effort.

      As for the DNC hack, the FBI noted that there was evident Russian intrusions aimed at the DNC in 2015. The DNC dropped the ball. When the hack was finally uncovered, server logs show that the hack originated from Russia. Independent cybersecurity firms had been monitoring the Russians, Dutch intelligence traced it directly to Russia, and there are reports that intercepted chatter in Russia confirmed the source of the hack. More recent evidence has proved that Guccifer is a known Russian agent working for the Russian government, and that Guccifer was in contact with WikiLeaks just before the data-dump.

      Mike Pompeo, Trump’s recent Director of the CIA, said the Russians were responsible for the hack.

        Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 8:53 pm

        The only source for the information that the Russian government hacked the DNC severs comes from Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike is a private entity whose founder is also a member of the Atlantic Council which is an extremely anti-Russian entity in its own right. All of the “routing information” was provided by Crowdstrike. None of the official US counterintelligence agencies have ever seen the DNC servers. There is NO independent confirmation of the “information” provided by Crowdstrike. And, Crowdstrike was worjing for the DNC, which chose NOT to allow the organs of the US government who are directly responsible for investigating crimes of this type from having any access to the server and the evidence that it contained. And, the “evidence” that Crowdstrike presented did not lead back to the Russian government only to some hacker who the Clapper/Brennan IC SUSPECTS MAY be an agent for the Russian FSB. Again, no evidence that the Russian government was involved. Now Guccifer, aka Marcel Lazăr Lehel, is a Rumanian hacker who was not allied with any state intelligence service and who was out of play by the middle of 2014, having been arrested in Rumania. Guccifer 2.0 is an entity which has claimed responsibility for hacking DNC network. However, several of the documents, which Guccifer 2.0 released as being from the DNC server were found to very likely be counterfeits, fabricated from publicly available sources. and, no verifiable evidence has been produced which proves that Guccifer 2.0 was responsible for the leaked contents of the DNC server. Also, there has never been any documented evidence which shows that Guccifer 2.0 is affiliated with the Russian government. What you have is a leak of information from the DNC server. You have an entity calling himself Guccifer 2.0 who then claims responsibility for obtaining the information through on-line hacking. None of this is proven. Then you have cybersecurity “experts”, many of whom come from the US IC controlled by Brennan and clapper, who say that they believe that Guccifer 2.0 is a false front for Russian Government intelligence. So, what do we have? A steaming pile of NOTHING. First we are taking the word of an unknown cybercriminal that “he” was responsible for a leak. The evidence that “he ” presents is analyzed and found to be lacking in credibility. Then we take the word of agencies who “believe” that this hacker works for or is part of a Russian state intelligence apparatus. But, these are the same people whose credibility is almost totally undermined by the actions of their leadership, Brennan and Clapper.

        Now, you are free to believe that fairies live under the hill and dance in the moonlight and that unicorns frolic under rainbow waterfalls, if you want. The rest of us need some objective proof of this. And such proof simply does not exist.

        This is R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, not whatever you are trying to sell. Did the Russian government and its agents attempt to infiltrate US political information systems? I would hope so. After all, we do the same thing. It is called gathering intelligence, or espionage, if you prefer. Sometimes these efforts are successful, and sometimes they are not. That is REALITY. In the case of the DNC servers, we have never had ANY verified evidence that Russia was responsible for the leak of material stored on that server. And, what is so puzzling is why the DNC would not allow the FBI access to the alleged hacked server. If there was any evidence of criminal activity by the DNC, on the server, that could all have been deleted and overwritten to make it virtually impossible for the FBI to retrieve these files. But, the access logs and other housekeeping files could have been left in place for the FBI forensic people to study. his was not done though. Why?

          Mac45: he only source for the information that the Russian government hacked the DNC server

          Not only is there a pattern of Russian behavior, including against democracies in Europe and the hack of the Podesta account, foreign intelligence agencies also traced the hack to Russia.

          Mac45: there has never been any documented evidence which shows that Guccifer 2.0 is affiliated with the Russian government.

          That is incorrect. Guccifer 2.0’s IP address was traced to Russian state intelligence. But keep flaking for the Russians at the expense of the truth. They appreciate the help.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | May 22, 2018 at 11:42 am

          First of all, There is STILL no verified evidence that Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC server, or that it was the victim of an on-line hack at all. Remember that point, because it is very important. No one is saying that the Russia intelligence services did not ATTEMPT incursions of US based servers. Heck the Chinese, the Israelis and everybody else in the world does that. And, the US does it to them. The difference is whether they succeed. In the case of the DNC server, we have NO verified evidence that this occurred. All we have is the word of Crowdstrike and a self identified “hacker” Guccifer 2.0. Also, the documents which Guccifer 2.0 produced to “prove” he hacked the server have been widely identified as being counterfeited from publicly available images.

          “Mac45: there has never been any documented evidence which shows that Guccifer 2.0 is affiliated with the Russian government.

          That is incorrect. Guccifer 2.0’s IP address was traced to Russian state intelligence. But keep flaking for the Russians at the expense of the truth. They appreciate the help.”

          Again, there is no verified evidence that this is true. If you have such evidence, please present it, otherwise all we have is unverified hearsay. However, IF Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian intelligence operative, there is still no verifiable evidence that he was responsible for the leak from the DNC servers. This persona could be more disinformation from the government agencies invested in the Russian Collusion meme. It could be disinformation from the Russians [they have done this before]. Or, the ISP address could be generated through one of many programs which are designed to do just that [I refer you to the Wikileaks documents from the CIA explaining how this is done]. Here is the problem with ISP addresses. They are not unique to any individual. They may be traceable to a location, but not to a single machine, if something like a wifi connection is being used.

          Now if you have any verified evidence that the DNC leak was an on-line hack, or that it was actually done by Russia government assets, please post it. As we have found, over the last 18 months, there is an incredible amount of misinformation, disinformation and flat out lies out there. A little verifiable evidence would be nice, for a change.

          Mac45: No one is saying that the Russia intelligence services did not ATTEMPT incursions of US based servers.

          They did more than simply attempt incursions. They have been directly interfering with open democratic systems, including the U.S., in order to undermine confidence in open democracies. Your response is part-and-parcel of that effort.

          Russian involvement is the conclusion of multiple Western intelligence agencies and cybersecurity firms around the world. We have posted evidence, including that Guccifer 2.0 was directly traced to Russian intelligence. Waving your hands doesn’t constitute an argument.

        regulus arcturus in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 9:03 pm

        It is you who live in an alternate non-realty, Zach the idiot.

        There is no confirmation of Russian hacking of the DNC. None.

    Ratbert in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 1:15 pm

    Where is the proof that Russia hacked the DNC server? Can you not understand the portion of the post where it was pointed out that no evidence was provided to the authorities or evidence preserved? The only information I have seen about the “hack” seems to indicate that is was actually a leak and that the information of DNC wrongdoing was downloaded locally.

      txvet2 in reply to Ratbert. | May 21, 2018 at 3:25 pm

      Limbaugh pointed out today that it’s just as likely that the “hack” was perpetrated by the DNC’s own employees – the Pakistanis.

    MattMusson in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 2:56 pm

    Would you agree to use that same standard for Hillary’s Campaign and the Clinton Foundation?

    Every time they lied it was worth creating a special prosecutor?

    Guess what Zach. The Russians did not hack Hillary’s server anyway. Just ask Seth Rich.

      MattMusson: Would you agree to use that same standard for Hillary’s Campaign and the Clinton Foundation? Every time they lied it was worth creating a special prosecutor?

      Special prosecutors are only used when there is a conflict of interest; otherwise, the investigation is done by the DOJ and the FBI. In this case, Trump fired FBI Director Comey, who leading an investigation of the Trump campaign, an obvious conflict, so DOJ appointed a special prosecutor.

        alaskabob in reply to Zachriel. | May 22, 2018 at 1:13 am

        Conflict of interest? They are chums! No degrees of separation. Every lawyer Mueller is using has some connection with Dems. Mueller has exceeded his authority wielding power requiring Senate confirmation.

          alaskabob: Every lawyer Mueller is using has some connection with Dems.

          Mueller, who was previously appointed by Republican George Bush to head the FBI, and who is heading the investigation, is a Republican. Rosenstein, who was appointed by Trump, who appointed Mueller, and who is overseeing the investigation, is a Republican.

          Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | May 22, 2018 at 2:33 pm

          And you know he’s a Republican because what? He registered once upon a time to vote in a Republican primary? Many/most Republicans I know register as Democrats to vote in the D primaries, because around here those are the real election.

          Milhouse: And you know he’s a Republican because what?

          Well, he’s certainly no True Republican™.

    gospace in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 3:43 pm

    If I were a judge, but I’m not, if any lawyer presented evidence to me that began The Crown prosecutor of Russia I would rip it up in front of him and ask “Crown Prosecutor? Of Russia? REALLY? (really dripping with sarcasm) Do you have any evidence that isn’t fabricated? I can sit on a jury and my reaction to that being the evidence that started an investigation would be a “NOT GUILTY” vote.

    Tell me- do you still defend Dan Rathers false ANG memo saying it could have been produced on a mythical typewriter that no one had at the time, especially not a backwater ANG office?

      gospace: If I were a judge, but I’m not, if any lawyer presented evidence to me that began The Crown prosecutor of Russia I would rip it up in front of him and ask “Crown Prosecutor?

      Goldstone is English, so that would be the title in Britain. The proper title in Russia would be Prosecutor-General. In any case, the email chain shows that Trump Jr. was more than willing to entertain Russian government support for the Trump campaign.

        gospace in reply to Zachriel. | May 21, 2018 at 4:13 pm

        No one who knows legalese would translate it as crown prosecutor- for it shows legal ignorance. Keep defending the undefendable. I’ve never seen a British source that referred to an American AG as Crown Prosecutor. But I’ve seen them change dialog from “flashlight” to “torch”.

          In any case, the email chain shows that Trump Jr. was more than willing to entertain Russian government support for the Trump campaign.

          Barry in reply to gospace. | May 21, 2018 at 11:50 pm

          It shows nothing of the sort.

          It shows they would accept dirt on Hillary from ANYONE, including the Russians.

          Barry: It shows they would accept dirt on Hillary from ANYONE, including the Russians.

          In particular, the Russian government, an adversary of the United States that had been implicated in cyber-crimes.

          Milhouse in reply to gospace. | May 22, 2018 at 2:35 pm

          Sure. Why would they not? What idiot would turn such information down if it were offered?

          Milhouse: What idiot would turn such information down if it were offered?

          The type who puts country over party. The proper response, with U.S. intelligence having already announced that Russia had hacked into the DNC, would be to call the FBI.

      Milhouse in reply to gospace. | May 22, 2018 at 2:35 pm

      Crown Prosecutor is Goldstone’s term, and it is the term he would use because it’s the one with which he’d be familiar. Why do you think Goldstone would “know legalese”, let alone Russian legalese?

Obama spied, Clinton colluded, and the DNC axis denied.

Water Closet

Deep Plunger is at work clearing the environmental and human hazards.

regulus arcturus | May 21, 2018 at 11:53 am

Larger and far worse than Watergate.

Here is the outstanding McCarthy summation of Obamagate – In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/clinton-email-trump-russia-probes-justice-department-double-standards/

Obama is most certainly involved, and a target of ongoing investigations.

We could be looking at the first ex-President charged with crimes.

    MattMusson in reply to regulus arcturus. | May 21, 2018 at 2:58 pm

    Things that Obama did while in office through IRS, DOJ, NPS were all way worse than WaterGate because he targeted average US citizens. Not the rich and powerful enemies of Nixon. But, Mom and Pop tea party members and Veterans.

      regulus arcturus in reply to MattMusson. | May 21, 2018 at 3:43 pm

      Indeed, and many who worked on Watergate were appalled at the conduct of Obama officials, since that is exactly the conduct they were trying to prevent Nixon from engaging in.

    DINORightMarie in reply to regulus arcturus. | May 21, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    Thanks – I was just going to ask for the link to that article. #ObamaGate (he does so love his name and face plastered everywhere and on everything)

    CKYoung in reply to regulus arcturus. | May 22, 2018 at 3:21 am

    I don’t have much confidence obama will be prosecuted, but I truly hope so. I have a high degree of confidence that many high obama administration officials will be indicted and convicted. If they choose to sacrifice their freedom, reputations, careers, future careers etc, to protect their king, that’s fine. They will be the benedict arnolds of our times, and history will know obama was nothing but a criminal. The important thing is this never happen again.

Coloradoopenrange | May 21, 2018 at 12:17 pm

Obama most likely deserves major prison time. His crimes surpass anything even imagined by other Presidents. “We didn’t do anything wrong!”, Susan Rice’s note to self.

“Stupid Watergate involved a hack of the DNC by Russian agents.”

That’s not factual evidence, it’s not proven, its theory. And a recent investigation claims the data transfer rate was too fast to be over the internet, their ISP couldn’t upload data that fast.

The only matching upload speed would have been an upload to an external drive or USB thumb drive directly attached to the computer, ie by someone physically next to the computer.

This suggests a leak, not a hack.

Test it yourself – upload a file onto the net, then upload it to a thumb drive. Compare the speeds.

For example, if you believe that Donald Trump and his associates colluded with Russia to try to defeat Hillary Clinton, then you believe that the media has been exposing Collusiongate, just as they did with Watergate.

But you would also know that you are perverting the news by suppressing contrary or exculpatory information. That’s not like Watergate at all. And it can’t be justified, no matter how strongly you believe in the guilt of the accused.

Having lived through those times, and they were dicey… it is sad that the Watergate break-in happened considering the final outcome of the election. BUT… McGovern had all the appearance of creating a US government, not in collusion, but ready to capitulate globally in the face of communism. This was more than pulling out of Vietnam, but pulling back to “give peace a chance”. That the “Peace Movement” was heavily influenced by Soviet money and propaganda goes without saying. As in “The Art of War”, the Soviets best investment to spread communism was to have a sympathetic US Administration defer to them what they wanted rather than fight for it in proxy wars in a global struggle.

As for the press. The classic example was a press meeting with Nixon which I will paraphrase but close… A reporter stood up..”Mr. President… Dan Rather… CBS News” at which the other press members cheered and clapped. Nixon comments…”Mr. Rather are you running for office?” Rather came back ..”Are you”..

The press has always been in the Left’s pocket.. so what is new? Murrow and then Cronkite led the charge. Rather with Nixon and Bush and now the Media Alliance.

But this time, it isn’t a proxy war or ferreting out commies, it is to defend the Progressive gains, protect the Establishment and choose the leadership the technocracy wanted. The American people are given the illusion of a republic as long as the voting now goes the “correct” way.

inspectorudy | May 21, 2018 at 2:09 pm

Watergate was about a stupid burglary to obtain political info on the campaign of an opponent. This scandal is about violating our Constitution and all of the publicly held trust in our governmental institutions. This is below third world politics and in a word sedition. It doesn’t matter that the culprits thought/think they were “Saving” our nation. Benedict Arnold thought he was saving America too. I watched the children’s movie “Black Panther” last night and inadvertently there is a line in it where the popular king is thought to have been killed and is replaced by a hatemonger. Then the dead king’s sister asks the top general if she will escape with her to fight the new king another day. The top general who loved the old king said “I love my country and will serve the new king”. While the movie sucked and was basically anti-white drivel, this one line stood out to me and should resonate with all Americans. When there is a fair and honest election the results should not be challenged and the new president accepted by all.

Years ago I taught in a sort of rough type of high school. The local fast food used to lock their doors as soon as the home football game was over. One night two of my students got into a fight. The conclusion was when one put a knife between her teeth, and jumped into a car to get the other one. The driver hit a trash can and the car stalled, so the other got away. The paper reported that the crowd numbered between 100 and 150. The police interviewed between 40 and 60 before they decided that no one had seen anything. So, Mr. President, let me help you. The DOJ has thoroughly investigated both the DOJ and FBI. There may have been some discretionary errors, but nothing of significance that any one remembers.

Try a staff meeting: Hey, if anybody did anything to influence the election, raise your hand, I’ll get your name, and we can meet next week. By the way, since Hillary lost, nothing they did influenced the election. No smoking, no smoking gun.

    gospace in reply to Milwaukee. | May 21, 2018 at 4:00 pm

    I’ve seen and done similar investigations with similar witnesses who attested they either saw nothing OR they saw something that couldn’t happen, and swear it did. “She kicked the pistol that was under the couch and it went off shooting her in the heel.” She got her discharge from active duty. What they didn’t realize is that the federal government can- and did- go after her aunt, the gun’s owner, for all the medical bills incurred.

What has changed this time is the culture. Back in Nixon’s day, the American public expected their government to be honest. As near as I can tell, that’s not the case any more. Nobody much cares.

It’s extremely interesting that if the Russians actually hacked the DNC server and altered the outcome of the election, the FBI was not interested enough to look for themselves at the server.

They didn’t, because they knew damn well that grucifer 2.0 was a sham, and that the Podesta emails were copied by someone with physical access to the server.

Evidence of that is the fact that the one person who has the power and the mandate to investigate the server hack has shown no interest in it. Imagine that. The greatest attack on the United States since the burning of the capital, and not one law enforcement agency is interested.

    Barry in reply to Petrushka. | May 21, 2018 at 11:55 pm

    Exactly.

    The vaunted FBI, early morning raiders of that dangerous desperado, Manafort, didn’t even take a peek. Because they knew.

I’d submit that “Crossfire Hurricane” is a pretty damn good nickname for this unbelievable scandal, and, has “Watergate” beat by a country mile.

With any luck, “Crossfire Hurricane” will become the Dumb-o-crats’ Watergate, a scandal one thousand times for brazen, lawless and anti-democratic.

When Wacky Zacky shows up with his quoting responses to every.single.post I know that the disinformation/denial campaign by the left is in full swing.

What if I told you there exists a troll farm in West Virginia where CIA and FBI employees are paid to spread misinformation to American blogs.

Brennan and Podesta types walking through row after row of computers, handing out the latest carefully crafted talking points.

6 months ago I would have said that’s nuts. But if Russian bots are spreading misinformation, it’s only logical for our intelligence agencies to run counter-ops, right Zach?

We really have entered Matrix territory.

    scooterjay in reply to Fen. | May 21, 2018 at 6:33 pm

    As I said……taking flak when you are over the target.

    Barry in reply to Fen. | May 21, 2018 at 11:58 pm

    “6 months ago I would have said that’s nuts.”

    Comrade Zach is a poorly paid employee of the commie party, otherwise known as the democrat party. One of many trolls on the payroll.

    Of course brennan and podesta are members.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend