Trump's son-in-law met with U.S. sanctioned Russian bank; will testify

For those of you who say there was no crime committed, that could the case. But remember the political expression: It's not always the crime, it's the cover up. Now there's blood in the water and the sharks are circling. Stay tuned.

We can all connect the dots. It will turn out that Mr. Kushner is the person who texted Rep. Nunes and had him come to the White House to look at "unmasked" individuals in FBI documents -- one of those individuals being himself. Trump is being revealed as a village idiot who has no idea how his family and advisers are using him for their own ends. Flynn gets scared in April He sings his song in May He repeats his tune In the month of June Then we put them all away

Not lookin' good for Trumpty Dumpty. No, sireee.

Nunes, who was a member of Trump’s transition team, can no longer run a credible investigation of Russian hacking, the U.S. election and any potential involvement by Trump associates.

heh wow I didn't realize he was on Trump's transition team. What the hell are Republicans thinking?

Trump’s mention of wiretapping drew attention away from...

Core modus operandi of the Distractor-in-Chief.

Watch your wallets, health and planet, people!

Kushner is willing to testify to the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by U.S. Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican.

Kushner is a volunteer witness, A volunteer is the least likely person to have information relevant to an investigation.

Of course he is willing to volunteer, he probably has no information bearing on the investigation, and Trump needs another PR stunt to distract from the real investigation.

Only hostile and adverse witnesses will provide meaningful testimony. There are at least five more meaningful witnesses. For example, Flynn and Manafort, but the FBI is still working their case against them.

Can you be charged with perjury for lying while testifying to a Senate committee?

Can you be charged with perjury for lying while testifying to a Senate committee?

Depends on if you're sworn - and as a volunteer, Kushner will likely not be. Volunteering is likely his way of avoiding being sworn in and thus avoiding perjury.

Then there's Nunes. I like Crazy Joe's theory that it was Kushner who provided that intelligence to Nunes - it had to be someone at the White House, after all - but who, and for what purpose? You know the GOP side of the House investigation panel is in trouble when a further investigation is called for to investigate their leader.

There is much pressure on Ryan now to replace Nunes. McCain's strong suggestion (now echoed by Schiff) to create an independent commission is picking up speed - but it might be best to maintain the existing structure: while it is subject to politics, it is also far more transparent, as recent events have shown.

At any rate, it might be more time-efficient simply to ask for a show of hands of Trump administration officials who do NOT have ties with Russia.

The most important thing to me about all this is the fact that Nunes had to go to the grounds of the White House to have access to this information. It was not available to him at his location in Congress and no one who has testified (FBI/NSA) has been able to give it to him (or had it and didnt want to).

Once again same as Hillary emails, the media/Dem deflection is questions about the source or how the materials were obtained, none of that matters if the documents are authentic like Hillary emails were. Some stupid reporter even tried to say the documents were 'leaked' and they want to know what was going to be done to punish the leaker? Lol No, there is an investigation and someone who had evidence provided it as requested of them.

So....if only place he can view this evidence is the Executive offices near the White House....it isnt available on any other network or from any other source....doesnt that pretty much prove Obama had it or at least knew about it? Isnt this speculation game that the Dems love to play fun? The next step it to see what 'it' actually is.

You guys can focus on the leaks, and we'll go ahead and focus on the Russia/Trump investigation. Then everyone is happy.

Once again same as Hillary emails...

Sorry, but how does potential conniving with Russia equate with keeping a private server?

...if only place he can view this evidence is the Executive offices near the White House....it isnt available on any other network or from any other source...

That is a good question. There are many locations to view classified documents, but bringing such documents onto congressional grounds might require that they be released to relevant congressional staff. Nunes has yet to release the documents to the committee he purportedly heads though he's been requested to; this is probably because he no longer has access to them.

...doesnt that pretty much prove Obama had it or at least knew about it?

Not at all. Obama left office in January, three months ago. Even if the documents had existed before he left office, he may well not have seen them. One might imagine how many documents the intelligence agencies produce.

The next step it to see what 'it' actually is.

Yes. Here we are in agreement. Who provided Nunes with the documents and for what purpose - and what are they? You can bet that investigators are on that now.

Blacklabel, this is not a "speculation game." Either documents were provided or Nunes lied. If they were provided, that was done in a way that greatly hinders the investigation. Nunes went behind the back of his committee to provide information to the target that he still has yet to reveal to the committee itself - and he had been very vague about precisely what it was (perhaps because he's not clear about it himself). This is not small potatoes, as you say in Russia. Speculation is appropriate here.

BlacklabelMAR. 28, 2017 - 12:00PM JST Isnt this speculation game that the Dems love to play fun?

I don't think anyone thinks a foreign power potentially subverting a sovereign state is fun... except possibly the people potentially doing it.

Some stupid reporter even tried to say the documents were 'leaked' and they want to know what was going to be done to punish the leaker?

It was not a stupid question. It was a rhetorical question because it is obvious the WH "leaked" the documents.

They were controlled documents and could have been presented to the intelligence committee. There are facilities there to receive and view classified document. Instead, Nunes was required to go the WH to view them. It wasn't supposed to come out that he saw the documents at the WH because it looks odd, unless you realize that this is a just staged theater to draw attention away from the investigation. There are a bunch of flimsy excuses and explanations around Nunes WH visit once it became know. The obvious conclusion is that the WH showed him the documents.

Nunes hasn't come up with an adequate explanation for the WH visit (both the visit to view or the visit to inform the president), hasn't provided access to these document to the rest of the committee, or allowed the FBI or NSA to testify about these documents. He doesn't want the truth to come out, but he and the WH did want to create a side-show to distract the public. Nunes' credibility and the GoP's credibility are the victim. Trump's credibility is already less than zero.

U.S. Representative Devin Nunes, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee... who was a member of Trump’s transition team

is in control of the henhouse.

Glad I put my coffee down.

Well, we will see. The documents exist now and there are several whistleblowers from the NSA/CIA floating around as well. So I think the truth of this will come out shortly.

Well, we will see. The documents exist now and there are several whistleblowers from the NSA/CIA floating around as well. So I think the truth of this will come out shortly.

The documents always existed, but they don't support Trump's position that Obama tapped his phone lines. Nunes making a spectacle out of the documents has served its purpose to take people's eyes off of the ball. It has given the alt-right some hope and feelings of justification. However, that hope is misplaced because it doesn't support Trump's position, and it only further shows that the U.S. caught Trump's associates talking to Russians.

Trump's most recent obfuscation is pointing fingers at the Clintons and possible Russian relationships. However, those relationships were disclosed and publicly visible and didn't include outright lies about them happening. Also, there weren't lucrative deals to promote Putin's interests or the interests of foreign governments. Not to mention, Russia hacking of the election, Trump's calls for Russia to hack Clinton, and Trump placing more sympathy for Russia than his own country.

There is an FBI counter-intelligence investigation of Trump collusion with Russians of the hack of the election. Obviously, there is probable cause to conduct the investigation, which is worrying.

Trump is doing everything possible to distract people's attention from the real investigation. The whole wire-tapping allegation is an attempt to distract people like you from that investigation. Look at the shiny object, look, look, and you are looking. As another flim-flam man put it (PT Barnum), a sucker is born every minute.

Well as someone said there is the Trump collusion investigation and the leak investigation. Which one has proof that it happened and which one doesnt? (Hint: the leaks are real, already proven while collusion has not been)

As far as the documents if they always existed as you said, then why did everyone testify there was no evidence? By the existence of these documents, that is now evidence. Not of a 'wiretap of Trump Tower' no. But everyone has moved on from that claim, the investigation is now the unmasking of people's names and whether the surveillance was legal or if legal surveillance was misappropriated to spy on Trump instead. Existence of documents on the Executive Office network should put that closer to Obama than his fans should be comfy about.

So if it is found that Trump was illegally spied on by the Obama administration, under a guise of spying on Russians, are you guys just going to say that doesnt matter because it wasnt a 'wiretap' of 'Trump Tower'?

As far as the documents if they always existed as you said, then why did everyone testify there was no evidence?

No one has testified, or even said, that Trump was never picked up on wiretaps. So you are mistaken with this.

By the existence of these documents, that is now evidence.

Sure, evidence of something that about which no one ever claimed otherwise.

Not of a 'wiretap of Trump Tower' no.

Yeah, exactly. The stated claim was that Trump tower was never wiretapped. These documents don't show it to ever have been wiretapped.

if it is found that Trump was illegally spied on by the Obama administration, under a guise of spying on Russians

If it's found that horses with a single horn protruding out of their head have existed on this planet, will you feel justified in your search for them?

are you guys just going to say that doesnt matter because it wasnt a 'wiretap' of 'Trump Tower'?

No - if it were to be found that Trump was illegally spied upon, then an inquiry would be necessary, to prevent it from ever happening again. But no inquiry, nor any charges laid to be followed, would change the fact that Trump was repeating fake news about Obama illegally wiretapping Trump Tower. There has been absolutely nothing to show that those claims were based in reality, nor that Trump had anything whatsoever to support those claims when he made them.

You keep trying to justify Trump spreading fake news through what you hope may be evidence related to something entirely separate from that.

it is not entirely separate. The specific charge was wiretapping by Obama in Trump Tower. If it ends up being surveillance by the Obama administration in multiple locations, it doesnt make that not illegal. It makes the initial claim false, but investigation of that claim led to something related to the same group and same activities that is true. Its like if I say a guy stole my bike and when the police go there to look for it, they find the stolen wallet of another person. Is that person not still a thief?

Same for all these documents and potential evidence. Doesnt matter who gave it, where it was viewed, who it was shared with, when, etc etc It was given to the head of the investigation, not leaked to the press so that is the way it should be handled. Now as the head of the investigation, Nunes can decide what to do with that evidence next and who to share it with and when. Ultimately it just matters what it proves and if it is legitimate. If it is and shows evidence of wrongdoing then that needs to be told to the American people and the wrongdoers need to be punished.

it is not entirely separate. The specific charge was wiretapping by Obama in Trump Tower. If it ends up being surveillance by the Obama administration in multiple locations, it doesnt make that not illegal.

No one is claiming it does make it 'not illegal'. The claim is that Trump repeated fake news that he saw on Breitbart, without first looking into whether or not there was any basis in reality on the claim he was repeating.

If it turns out the Obama administration was tapping someone else, and Trump and/or his peons got caught on the taps, that's an entirely separate issue. Wiretapping a presidential candidate without legal approval to do so would be an egregious violation of that candidate's rights. Catching a presidential candidate on legal wiretaps of other people is entirely fine.

It makes the initial claim false

Exactly. And your attempts to drag it to something else are an attempt to remove attention from the fact that Trump made an extremely disturbing charge against the former president, without any basis in fact for that charge.

Its like if I say a guy stole my bike and when the police go there to look for it, they find the stolen wallet of another person. Is that person not still a thief?

If you just decided that your bike was gone, without even looking, then went to the police and filed a report of your bike being stolen by someone else, without even looking into whether that guy stole it, and the police then went to arrest that guy and found the stolen wallet of another person, sure that person would be a thief, but it wouldn't change the fact that you filed a false police report about your bike. The fact that they found a wallet would not suddenly excuse you from culpability for filing that false police report.

Same for all these documents and potential evidence. Doesnt matter who gave it, where it was viewed, who it was shared with, when, etc etc

It does, in regards to the fact that Trump was reporting fake news as fact, in the process smearing the name of the former president, all without checking to see if there was any basis in reality behind that smear.

Which one has proof that it happened and which one doesnt?

Hint: Which really matters and which doesn't? Now that servergate and Benghazi!!! are obsolete, squirrel-pointers struggle to find a new target.

Now as the head of the investigation, Nunes can decide what to do with that evidence next and who to share it with and when.

Maybe in Russia, but America has procedures, rules, and laws which become progressively more constraining. Nunes clearly broke the first two with his undercover escapade; he may have also broken the latter if the documents were truly confidential and he willingly leaked that info. In any case, he stepped in some deep doo doo and will now, eventually, have to excuse himself from the investigation.

Think, Blaclabel: Do you off the top of your head remember the identity of that whistleblower "Deepthroat"? Didn't think so. But you do remember Nixon.

heh wow I didn't realize he was on Trump's transition team. What the hell are Republicans thinking?

Nothing that's illegal.

If it turns out the Obama administration was tapping someone else, and Trump and/or his peons got caught on the taps,

Obama's minions? Or are you saying, someone in the Trump admin. is just blindly indiscriminately shoving blame on the innocent Obama admin. that in No way shape or form could EVER possibly do something so outrageous, is that what you are trying to tell us?

that's an entirely separate issue. Wiretapping a presidential candidate without legal approval to do so would be an egregious violation of that candidate's rights.

Yes, Merkel and Netanyahu would tell you that as well, but as we know now......

Exactly. And your attempts to drag it to something else are an attempt to remove attention from the fact that Trump made an extremely disturbing charge against the former president, without any basis in fact for that charge.

He did, but I think with good reason, I just wouldn't have accused the former president without tangible evidence. On the other hand with what the Obama admin has done in the past spying and listening on our allies, there's nothing far fetched about it at all, if they can spy on our allies, there's No doubt in my mind, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit.

It does, in regards to the fact that Trump was reporting fake news as fact, in the process smearing the name of the former president,

the former president smeared his name in so many other ways, that part is already done. Now do I think Obama ordered the wiretapping, hard to say, I'm neutral on that, but that someone in that admin. was behind it, I definitively believe it.

the former president smeared his name in so many other ways, that part is already done. Now do I think Obama ordered the wiretapping, hard to say, I'm neutral on that, but that someone in that admin. was behind it, I definitively believe it.

I believe the Obama administration broadly disseminated lawfully collected intelligence to ensure it wasn't buried by the Trump administration.

A president doesn't have the power to order wiretapping, and those who would make such an order or know has said in testimony no wiretaps were made of Trump. So, Obama did not "tapp" Trump's phones, and Trump's claims have been refuted as baseless at best and knowingly lies at worst.

The whole discussion of the lawfully collected intelligence is a part of the real investigation of Trump collusion with Russians. Saying it is part of Obama's tapping of Trump is just a distraction from the real investigation.

Hardcore Trump fans can continue to believe charges supported by their imagination and hatred for Obama. It won't change much of anything, and over time these people will just sideline themselves with crackpot conspiracies. Everyone else has moved on.

Next up is what they don't want to talk about or even acknowledge, which is the FBI investigating Trump and his team for ties to Russia. I think we are all interested to see the evidence there, especially since several of his staffers lied about meeting them. My guess is there will be no smoking gun but Trump's surrogates will be shown as fast and loose with the rules. And Trump fans just aren't interested in doing anything about stiff like that.

A president doesn't have the power to order wiretapping, and those who would make such an order or know has said in testimony no wiretaps were made of Trump.

In theory that would be correct, but the IRS doesn't have the power to target political donors either and yet they did, Merkel and Netanyahu are our allies and yet, they were spied upon, sorry, liberals can believe whatever they want, many Americans regardless of political affiliation don not believe anything the intelligence agency puts out, those days our over.

The whole discussion of the lawfully collected intelligence is a part of the real investigation of Trump collusion with Russians. Saying it is part of Obama's tapping of Trump is just a distraction from the real investigation.

And what that might be? What is it that liberals know that the FBI doesn't or the DNI (who might I add was from the former Obama admin.) who said, he could find No evidence of legal wrongdoing by the Trump admin. Dog will hunt.

Hardcore Trump fans can continue to believe charges supported by their imagination and hatred for Obama.

And the same goes for the Obama fans that are desperately clinging to some sliver of hope in finding some nugget that could just hopefully put Trump in the cookie jar of criminality. Keep searching.

It won't change much of anything, and over time these people will just sideline themselves with crackpot conspiracies. Everyone else has moved on.

Precisely

Next up is what they don't want to talk about or even acknowledge, which is the FBI investigating Trump and his team for ties to Russia.

Like what kind of ties. What do you know, please brief us.

I think we are all interested to see the evidence there, especially since several of his staffers lied about meeting them. My guess is there will be no smoking gun but Trump's surrogates will be shown as fast and loose with the rules. And Trump fans just aren't interested in doing anything about stiff like that.

Yeah, right.

many Americans regardless of political affiliation don not believe anything the intelligence agency puts out, those days our over.

Those kinds of people tend to be open to conspiracy theories. Not really material suited for mainstream America.

The FBI is investigating Trump's ties to Russia. Until they reach their conclusion, your dream of "no evidence" is a partisan fringe position. Embrace it.