Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

FreeinChrist · Mar 28, 2017

Dem. Intel Committee Member: Nunes' Actions Are What A Cover-Up Looks Like (VIDEO)

Nunes admitted Monday that he was meeting with an anonymous source on White House grounds the day before he claimed that President Donald Trump associates’ information had been “incidentally” collected by U.S. intelligence agencies. After making that claim, Nunes went to the White House to brief the President. But he has still not shared evidence to support his claim with the rest of the committee.

“He should be gone,” Swalwell continued. “What we saw was, going over to the White House, he went to receive information that, you know, Joe, we can receive at the Capitol. We have our own secure facility. If this was done the proper way, they could have brought it over, shared it with both parties of the committee. This is done because the White House wanted it to be done. This is what a cover-up to a crime looks like. We are watching it play out right now.”

Swalwell added later: “We were going down this investigative road together until last week. And then our chair took an exit and has driven toward the White House and hasn't come back. That's a problem for people who are counting on us to get to the bottom of it.”

FreeinChrist · Mar 28, 2017

I read the transcripts of the hearings involving Rogers and Comey. Yes, Comey said that unauthorized dissemenation of classified material is a felony. Prove the unauthorized dissemination. He didn't say that about unmasking, and that is not proven either.

What Comey did clearly state (and Rogers), is that there is NO evidence of wiretapping of Trump tower so Trump plainly lied.

What is extrordinary to me is that the Republicans in the hearing cared more about potential leaks than the possibility of Russian interference in the election in order to hurt Clinton's chances. That shows bias. That they care more about some leaks than Wikileaks shows bias on their parts. That they worried and focused on potential leaks rather than the integrity of the election and potential collusion between Flynn and others (Roger Stone and Guccifer 2.0 for instance) as well also shows bias and that they are acting to protect themselves.

The manner in which Nunes jumps out of an Uber and goes to the White House, rather than the capitol, to read intelligence reports that only he apparently has seen - then did a press conference - then to the White House again - then a press conference and his failure to discuss it with the committee smacks of coverup. Then he canceled the hearings involving Sally Yakes, James Clapper and John Brennan, and now all committee meetings this week which also smacks of coverup

No wonder John Dean refers to Trump's presidency as Watergate 2.0.

miamited · Mar 28, 2017

BukiRob said:
Laughable. If you are TRULY concerned about Russia and its influence on the election then you really should be looking at the Clintons and the Clinton foundation.

But then, you dont want to see where the real problem is do you?

Hi bukirob,

Get a grip, friend. The Clinton foundation is a private non-profit foundation. If they want to have relationships with the Russian government in the furtherance of the work of their foundation, they are free to do so and they would not be breaking any laws. President Bill Clinton has not been in office for more than 8 years now and it is, quite frankly, a waste of time and money to go back now and try to investigate things that he may or may not have done while President Clinton was in office. Personally, I don't believe that in the performance of his duties as the President of the United States that he had anything to do with Russia that might be seen as improper or illegal. There has never been any such questions or evidence to come up that might lead one to conclude that he did. Did he do anything wrong as President? Yes. Did he possibly not do what you or someone else may think was the best way a situation could be handled? Yes! Absolutely! However, that's true of every President who has ever served in that capacity.

Many don't think that President Eisenhower did everything 'right'. Many don't think that President Kennedy did everything 'right'. Some don't think that either of the Bush's did everything 'right' and some don't think that President Nixon did everything 'right'. Of course, 'right' is generally defined as the claimants personal agenda and how they believe such events, situations or policies would have been handled if the claimant was the President. It is the nature of politics that not everyone is going to agree with how someone else did the job. But, the job gets done and soon there is someone else holding the reins. It is that person who is currently holding the reins that we need to be concerned with.

I think that many of us do see where the 'real' problem is, as regards the problems that we the people are facing today. The first and largest problem is that we have put a man in the office of the president who has absolutely zero experience in politics. He thinks that he's a king and not a president. That he rules by fiat command and not by the will and support of the legislature.

This is proven in his recent defeat of Rep. Ryan's healthcare bill. He honestly believes that every republican votes for anything republican and every democrat votes for anything democrat. Because he believes this he 'assumed' that by pushing the bill through to a vote, and knowing that the House of Reps is republican controlled, that the vote would be a slam dunk. That's what happens to people who have no political experience who try to do political things. Legislators will often vote the party line, but they don't have to. Ultimately, they are charged to vote what's best for their constituents. He said after the bill was quashed that he was 'surprised' that the bill wasn't carried. How could he have been surprised if he had any idea how the government works and also knew that many republicans were not with him on this issue?

I'll tell you why he was surprised. He thought that if he just pushed for the vote, that when it came time to vote, republicans would all vote with the republicans and democrats would all vote with the democrats. But, since the republicans have control of the House, he assumed that the bill would just naturally carry. That kind of thinking comes from lack of experience. Then he has the gall to infer that the fault was that none of the democrats voted with him. This man knows absolutely nothing about politics or how the government of our nation operates. But, he's in charge!!!!!

He's now issued two immigration 'fiats' and they have both been forestalled by the courts. He has tried to change healthcare and it has been soundly turned back on its ear. President Trump has ticked off a lot of people with his mouth and his arrogance. Unfortunately, a lot of 'those people' are of his own republican party. But, that's what happens when one tries to lord their power over others who really have the power.

Get a grip, friend. The man's a bad president. But, with God's grace we'll make it through and hopefully without any major harm being created by his pompous arrogance and lying mouth.

(Yes, I fully understand that you're not going to see it this way. That's politics.)

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

FreeinChrist · Mar 28, 2017

I think there is evidence. Manafort and Flynn are just the beginning.

FreeinChrist · Mar 28, 2017

That really was much ado about nothing.

As compared to:

We’re learning a lot more about the Trump team’s financial ties to Russia

Take Manafort, the former campaign head. Just hours after FBI Director James Comey confirmed that his agency was pursuing a criminal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia Monday, a Ukrainian lawmaker released documents allegedly showing that Manafort funneled money through offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan to hide money that he received from a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party.

Then on Wednesday morning, the Associated Press broke a bombshell story revealing that as recently as 2009, Manafort had a $10 million annual contract with a Russian oligarch in Putin’s inner circle in which he agreed to promote the Kremlin’s interest in Washington. He had not previously disclosed the lobbying agreement, and it stands at odds with all his public claims that he never worked for Russian interests.

Flynn, meanwhile, has been at the center of two substantial revelations regarding his foreign ties in recent weeks. On March 7, Flynn registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. He admitted to the public only after he’d been pushed out of office that he was a lobbyist for the Turkish government while he was a campaign operative — and almost until the very day he became national security adviser.

Then late last week, documents from a congressional oversight committee revealed that Flynn had received tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of payments from Russian companies in 2015 that had never been previously disclosed.

Roger Stone slips up and reveals personal detail about Trump-Russia hacker Guccifer 2.0

Donald Trump’s former campaign adviser and longtime personal friend Roger Stone has recently admitted that he had contact with Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 during the the election – the same hacker who stole and released Democratic Party emails. But Stone still insists that the contact was limited and benign, and that he doesn’t even really know who the hacker is. However, Stone just slipped up and revealed a personal detail about the hacker that could only be known by someone who knows the hacker well.

During an on-air interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Roger Stone said the following: “Let’s finish with Grucifer. My communication with her is now entirely public.” Oops. Nevermind the fact that Stone referred to Guccifer as Grucifer; he’s made that mistake before, and that’s not the point. It’s what he said directly afterward. Stone referred to Guccifer as “her.”

Jared Kushner had a previously undisclosed meeting with the CEO of 'the bank that financed Vladimir Putin’s grandest ambitions'

President Donald Trump's son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, met with the CEO of Russia's state-owned Vnesheconombank in December 2016, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The meeting — which had not previously been disclosed and came on the heels of Kushner's meeting with Russia's ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, at Trump Tower — recently caught the eye of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether any members of Trump's campaign were complicit.....
Between 2012 and 2014, Vnesheconombank was used as cover for Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov as he attempted to recruit New York City residents as intelligence sources for Moscow, according to the Department of Justice. Before that, Buryakov used Vnesheconombank as a cover to spy and recruit assets in South Africa.

It just keeps piling on.

miamited · Mar 29, 2017

BukiRob said:
You are the one that needs to get a grip.... Perhaps you see nothing wrong with the pay for play game that Hillary was playing using the SoS department to allow for bribes, graft and corruption.

Trump is not a bad president.... I mean shoot he has caused more job creation in his short time in office, saved money that Obozo and his group of bumbling idiots never even tried to get.... tell me of the things Trump has actually DONE.... which of them is bad as you assert..

Hi bukirob,

You've got evidence to support those claims, I suppose. Mind sharing it?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

FreeinChrist · Mar 29, 2017

Again, stop making this about me. Stick to the content of the post and not about the member - that is in the flaming rule.

I don't see proof that intelligence was disseminated without authorization, not that unmasking was done illegally. That proof was not provided. Nunes hasn't even shared the intel with the intel committee that has oversight. The Intel agencies aren't speaking up - or have no clue what Nunes is talking about. How do we know it is not all made up? What if it is made up to distract from Trump lying about Obama wiretapping him (which Nunes says Obama did not wiretap Trump). Nunes needs to share with the rest of the committee.

That the Russians interfered with the election is a fact per the intelligence community. That Flynn talked to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions is fact. That Manafort has long standing ties with the Russians is fact. That the Trump campaign wanted the change in the Republican platform regarding Russia is fact.
And there is so much more. Nunes is not helping at all.

The 3 Trump-Russia scandals, explained

miamited · Mar 29, 2017

Hi bukirob,

You asked:
I mean shoot he has caused more job creation in his short time in office, saved money that Obozo and his group of bumbling idiots never even tried to get.... tell me of the things Trump has actually DONE.... which of them is bad as you assert..

Well, I'll just give you one. He's a liar. Now you may not think that's a bad thing or you may not think that he's 'actually DONE' it. You'll likely just climb up on your big white horse and say, "Well yea, but look at so-and-so." I don't care about so-and-so. I'm not comparing him to so-and-so. I'm looking at and listening to the man who has gone by the name of Donald Trump for a number of years and that man is a liar. Now, you're free to bury your head in the sand and your free to accuse all the evidence against him as being tainted somehow. That's ok with me.

However, here's the evidence that I have researched:

From politifact.com

True (4%)(16)
Mostly True (13%)(48)
Half True (14%)(54)
Mostly False (20%)(76)
False (33%)(126)
Pants on Fire (16%)(63)

Now, the number in the first set of parenthesis is the percentage based on the total of statements that were checked. The number in the second set is the actual number of statements, of those that were checked, that were determined to fit that category. Overall, politifact rated 383 statements of fact that President Trump has made, both while in office and on the campaign trail. Of those 383 statements of fact, only 16 or 4% were deemed to be reliably true. 13% were mostly true. So on the grand scale of speaking the truth or mostly true statements, President Trump comes in with 17%. That's deplorable.

Bernie Sanders, a man who has actually spent time face to face with then campaigning Donald Trump has written:
Bernie Sanders

✔@SenSanders
President Trump cannot continue to lie, lie, lie. It diminishes the office of the president and our standing in the world. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837996746236182529 …

10:49 AM - 6 Mar 2017

This was only 3 weeks ago that he wrote this. This isn't something that he accused President Trump of while they were squabbling for position in the election. You might find the entire article informative: Bernie Sanders Responds to Calling Trump 'a Liar'

And more: Is Trump Dumb or a Liar?

The man just is a liar. A regular liar who seems to be perfectly ok with everyone believing that it is his native tongue.

Now, as I say, you can believe whatever you'd like to about the man. You can believe he's saved you money and employed more people than his predecessors, although I did ask for your evidence on those claims. However, you don't have to put it out there if you don't want to. As I say, it's ok with me what you believe, and I hope you'll grant me the same respect.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

FreeinChrist · Mar 30, 2017

The FBI is investigating Russia's interference with the election - and if there are connections made between the Trump team and Russia, they will investigate. That is not wire-tapping Trump tower, nor is there any illegal surveillance.

What is of concern is if there was coordination between Russia and Trump's team. Comey used the word "coordination."

Almighty's humble servant · Mar 30, 2017

Calminian said:
The Russia connection story is slowly dying. This story is growing like a weed and for Woodward to mention jail time is very serious.

Apart from terminology, looks like Trump has been completely vindicated. Wiretapping is obsolete now, and liberals are hanging onto it for deal life, but most Americans are not going to make the distinction between that and surveillance. And it appears something very shady is going on.

I tell you this, I'd much rather be Trump right now than Comey or even Obama.

Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges for unmasking the names of Trump transition team members from surveillance of foreign officials.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said earlier that he had briefed Trump on new information, unrelated to an investigation into Russian activities, that suggested that several members of Trump's transition team and perhaps Trump himself had their identities "unmasked" after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials.

The revelation is notable because identities of Americans are generally supposed to remain "masked" if American communications are swept up during surveillance of foreign individuals.

During an interview on Fox News, Woodward said that if that information about the unmasking is true, "it is a gross violation."

He said it isn't Trump's assertion, without proof, that his predecessor wiretapped Trump Tower that is of concern, but rather that intelligence officials named the Americans being discussed in intercepted communications.

"You can learn all kinds of things from diplomats gossiping, because that's what occurs. Under the rules, and they are pretty strict, it's called minimization. You don't name the American person who is being discussed," Woodward said.

He noted that there are about 20 people in the intelligence community who, for intelligence reasons, can order this "minimization" be removed.

"But the idea that there was intelligence value here is really thin," Woodward said. "It's, again, down the middle, it is not what Trump said, but this could be criminal on the part of people who decided, oh, let's name these people."

He drove the point home, adding that "under the rules, that name is supposed to be blanked out, and so you've got a real serious problem potentially of people in the Obama administration passing around this highly classified gossip."

Of course Comey is NOT gonna blank out Ivanka or Jareds name when theyre meeting with Russian Spys who are CEOs of sanctioned banks under investigation.

As for unmasking the identity of certain Americans spying for the Russians and aiding Trumps election......yeah, theyre going to club fed.
The whistleblowers shouldnt have went to the papers, but rather to Chairmen Nunes and Rep Schiff and gotten immunity.

Those folks might eventually be caught by the investigation and face criminal charges for leaking classified info.

But Trumps impeachment will proceed when the investigation proves he's a Russian asset sitting in the oval office and his taxes reveal the Putin operatives paid him more since 05 than he's made on his own in his entire life.

Almighty's humble servant · Mar 30, 2017

BukiRob said:
Those are the LAST people we need investigating this.

This needs to be FULLY investigated by the Senate and Congress and any involved NEED TO GO TO PRISON up to and INCLUDING Obama if it can be shown that he ordered this

President Obama can't go to prison because even if he did commit a crime, he has executive privilege provide by our federal laws.

However, Trump can be put in front of a firing squad under our archaic treason laws which require his death since as a citizen he aided the enemy by attempting to preemptively subvert our sanctions against Russia.

Trump is a TRAITOR.

The Obama administration simply caught him.

But.....at least we'll get a conservative judge out of the act of treason by Trump and Putins propping him up into the oval office.

I hope President Pence allows former Special Ops servicemen to apply to be on the firing squad.

miamited · Mar 30, 2017

Hi bukirob,

Just checking back to see if you were up to the challenge of providing your evidence that President Trump has created more jobs and saved us more money. Any evidence to offer to support your claims?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

ewq1938 · Mar 30, 2017

Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

Ted

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

Ted

CF Advisory team

Ted

CF Advisory team

Fisher of men

Fisher of men

Ted

I love you three.

Similar threads