Bowsite.com

What bugs me is we know for sure Hillary's e-mails were compromised and as a result, so were those of many of her staffers. Yet we hear nada about that.

From Hot Air:

"Devin Nunes: No evidence Trump campaign was in contact with Russia

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 BY JOHN SEXTON

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes spoke to reporters earlier today and said he had seen no evidence of any contacts between the Trump administration and Russia. He also said he’d been told by people inside the intelligence community “there’s nothing there.”

Nunes opened himself to questions and was asked by CNN’s Manu Raju, “Can you say categorically that there were no contacts whatsoever between any officials affiliated with the Russian government and the Trump campaign?”

“Not that I’m aware of. We still haven’t seen any evidence of anyone from the Trump campaign, or any other campaign for that matter, that’s communicated with the Russian government,” Nunes replied.

Raju then asked why Nunes had agreed to talk to a reporter about the matter at the request of the White House. Nunes replied by turning the question around, “If the White House asked me to talk to you would you think that that would be okay or not okay?” When Raju suggested that the White House was urging Nunes to “knock down these stories” Nunes replied, “No, that absolutely didn’t happen.”

A few minutes later another reporter asked, “So the FBI specifically told you that they have found no contacts between any Trump associates and Russian officials.”

“As of right now I don’t have any evidence of any phone calls. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist but I don’t have that. And what I’ve been told by many folks is that there’s nothing there,” Nunes replied.

A few minutes later Nunes was asked again by CNN’s Jim Sciutto to clarify that he has been told there’s no evidence of any contacts. “The way it sounds like to me is it’s been looked into and there is no evidence of anything there. Obviously we’d like to know if there is,” Nunes said.

Asked if a special prosecutor was appropriate, Nunes said there would be nothing for them to do. “If at some point serious crimes have been committed it would be something that we’d consider but at this point we don’t have that,” Nunes said. He added, “But at this point the only serious crimes we have are leaks that have come out of our government to the press and others.” "

Clearly you men fell off the bar stool this morning if you think it holds any credibility without their approval.

God bless, Steve

To my knowledge, however, none of them have said HOW they did that or WHAT they did.

When Jill Stein forced the recounts in PA, MI and WI, most of the chatter from the left was the Russians were responsible and that they'd hacked the electronic voting systems in those states.

Yet when the recounts were finished, in every case NO such evidence was found even though DEMS were heading up the recounts in many parts of all three of those states.

"In pushing its Manchurian-candidate-Trump narrative, the media fail to mention the much deeper ties of Democratic lobbyists to Russia. Don’t worry, the media seems to say: Even though they are representing Russia, the lobbyists are good upstanding citizens, not like the Trump people. They can be trusted with such delicate matters."

That was wrong too.

The questions one should ask are why were the Russians eager to see Reagan defeated....and yet eager to see Trump win?

Things that make you go "hmmm....."

Trump and Russia is so, so much deeper than just them committing espionage and energizing their propaganda network on his behalf to try to help him win the election. His very shady business ties to Russian Mafia figures goes back decades. If you'd like tons of reading on the topic, just type the following at Google: "Donald Trump Felix Sater"

Have fun.

Show your work, THEN show the evidence.

..8......guaranteed........12 if zero or the democratic party makes makes a comeback.

The Rock

Polls(!!!)-Opinions-Tweets

You got it pookie, false registration and epic fail #35.

Darrell Issa, the "darling of the right".....you're so adorable when you try to poke the bear.....now go shoo; the adults are in charge.

The pride of Briarcliff Manor High School......LOL......

Calls for a special prosecutor to investigate Trump's Russia ties will get louder now, because it's clear Sessions can't make an objective investigation of things in his department.

The FBI is investigating Jeff Sessions. https://t.co/tXdZ5QCeI7

— Samuel Oakford (@samueloakford) March 2, 2017

From josh? That's like expecting actual money from the Nigerian Oil Minister that keeps winding up in your spam basket.

J.D. Gordon a nat sec advisor for Donald Trump's campaign just told Jim @Acosta that he had meetings w/ Russian Ambassador during campaign.

— Yashar (@yashar) March 2, 2017

He also confirmed that it was Donald Trump personally who wanted the amended Ukraine language added to the RNC platform. https://t.co/igXxtezLWl

— Yashar (@yashar) March 2, 2017

Carter Page: ‘I don’t deny’ meeting with Russian ambassador https://t.co/9iAUajdVem pic.twitter.com/Lczsu4Jmsh

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 3, 2017

Really now, do you wake up each morning thinking..."Gee, how wrong can I be today?" Or is it just a natural God-given talent you have?

#1 - no meetings.

Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page tells @JudyWoodruff he "had no meetings" with Russian officials #PBSNews pic.twitter.com/7mgXe5wRzK

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) February 15, 2017

#2 - ummm.....about that......

Watch @chrislhayes pin down Carter Page into this ?? A+ answer: “I will say that I never met [Sergey Kislyak] anywhere outside of Cleveland.” pic.twitter.com/L6Mqa3NnpS

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) March 3, 2017

You haven't jumped the shark, you've nuked it.

Lol, I suppose now you're going to tell me that the former Trump aide being interviewed is actually a muppet and wasn't actually there talking?

I don't care if he said what he said on MSNBC, C-Span, PBS, Fox News, or Sesame Street. He said what he said, and it matters not one single iota on whose airwaves he said it. Only someone who is getting increasingly desperate about trying to obfuscate the truth of things would argue otherwise.

Lookin' at you.

Sorry you think so. I disagree.

I'm not worried about my integrity as long as I try to judge both sides of the aisle by the same standard. And I do.

Given that the Obama/Soros troublemakers are out there trying to discredit this administration, you would be well served to wait 2 or 3 weeks before commenting on any of the issues of alleged corruption/incompetence/dishonesty. A lot of these blow over quickly, as will Sessions.

I don't consider a person's own words to be an "incredible source" (in the way you're implying, incredible=unbelievable). The Trumpists who are getting their "news" from TrumpBart, TrumpWayPundit, TrumpfoWars and elsewhere are the ones who are treating truly unbelievable sources as "gospel".

"Given that the Obama/Soros troublemakers are out there trying to discredit this administration, you would be well served to wait 2 or 3 weeks before commenting on any of the issues of alleged corruption/incompetence/dishonesty. A lot of these blow over quickly, as will Sessions."

Mike Flynn=gone. Didn't "blow over". Which are all the ones that did blow over? Seems like a good portion of the people whose connection to Trump pre-dates the election are either under investigation or under an ethical cloud yet to be resolved. More and more info. is coming out to corroborate the allegations in the supposedly "Fake News" Trump dossier that roiled the political world last month. Where Russia and Trump and some of his aides and associates are concerned, there is smoke. And there is fire. That much is very obvious. Does that mean Jeff Sessions is a Russian spy? No, it does not. Because he recused himself from the Russia investigation yesterday, does that automatically absolve him of the possibility of suspicious purposes for his contacts with the Russian ambassador? No, it does not mean that, either.

Trump has ignored a cardinal rule for politicians: don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. He has picked a very public fight with the two factions of people who have the most ability to unearth his secrets and lay them bare for the world to see: The Media, and the Intelligence Community. He is very likely to regret that.

The Democrats are obsessed with Russian conspiracy theories. It seems that only Democrats are allowed to speak with Russia because nobody complained back in 2015 when 30 Senate Democrats met with Russian Diplomats in order to advance Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.

Foreign Policy reports in August of 2015:

The White House says it’s confident it has the votes to override Republicans who reject the historic accord to limit Iran’s nuclear program agreed to by world powers and Tehran. But some of America’s closest allies are less certain, and are clearing their schedules to meet with wavering Democratic lawmakers in a push to keep the deal intact.

Some of Washington’s less reliable partners are worried too: Top diplomats from Russia and China joined a rare meeting of world powers’ envoys on Capitol Hill this week with roughly 30 Senate Democrats to tamp down concerns over the nuclear agreement.

During the meeting, which was confirmed to Foreign Policy by an aide to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a number of Democrats expressed genuine confusion about how world powers would react if Congress rejected the deal, and whether a “better deal” could be struck in the future. Surprised by this lack of clarity, the diplomats pushed back on a number of counts.

British Ambassador Peter Westmacott insisted any chances of getting a better deal were “far-fetched,” according to two individuals in the room. He also speculated that international sanctions against Tehran would fall apart even if Congress blocked the deal — a view seconded by Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Read the rest of this article here.

Strange how the Democrats can meet with Russian ambassadors and no one ever accused them of being Russian puppets, yet President Trump and his administration are constantly accused of wild Russian conspiracy theories. The Russian narrative is fake news propped up by the media in order to legitimize President Trump.

I'd sure hate to be in the market right now for a new life insurance policy with my occupation being "Kremlin official". Wouldn't be able to buy one to save my life.

6 Russian diplomats

6 mysterious deaths

4 of them mentioned in Christopher Steele’s Trump dossier. https://t.co/D6Noiqsj80

— Anthony De Rosa (@Anthony) March 3, 2017

Actually, that's not new news at all, and there is nothing remotely scandalous about it, unless you're a Trumpist. It's called a FISA warrant. Look it up. That news was reported in many stories shortly after the Steele Trump dossier came out. There were/are strong suspicions that the Trump campaign/Trump associates were engaged in helping to facilitate Russian espionage in the election campaign. In America, when people/organizations are suspected of working with Foreign powers, against the best interests of America, guess what? They come under scrutiny/investigation.

It is actually pretty stupid of Trump to be tweeting about this, because now the MSM will go through several news cycles of having people on, talking about just what this is that Trump is tweeting about. They will be talking about FISA warrants and why they are issued, and trust me, none of that will reflect well on Trump, his campaign, or his organization.

Spike, I can assure you: the feeling is strongly mutual.

I haven't changed. You have.

Homework for Trumpists: do some reading up on the FISA court.

"The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law"

By the way, the last Republican President by-passed the FISA court and authorized NSA wiretaps. If those wiretaps helped save American lives by preventing terror attacks, espionage, etc, would you have been just as outraged about them as you are about FISA warrants now? Or is it simply because a Republican President was in office for one, and a Democrat President was in office for the other that is your problem?

That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I already know the answer.

Oh, the Irony. It burns. By the way, Obama wasn't running against Trump. Hillary was. And if the FBI was in Obama's pocket to do whatever he commanded, then the FBI certainly would not have dropped that statement about Hillary's e-mails so soon before the election, if Obama's chief aim was to get Hillary elected.

One Presidential candidate encouraged and assisted our enemy Russia in perpetrating Espionage during the campaign "to try to get an advantage in the election".

The FBI got a FISA warrant to investigate nefarious contacts of the above Presidential candidate (and his aides/associates) with Russian agents/officials. Who were engaged in Espionage.

That you cheered the former and are seething mad about the latter is just more proof (as if any more was needed) that you're a partisan hack. Oh, and a Bigot.

"Oh, the Irony. It burns. By the way, Obama wasn't running against Trump."

That's absolute BS!

Obama desperately wanted The Witch From Hell to win to preserve his legacy. He would do, did, and is still doing anything he can to destroy a duly elected President in order to destroy America and preserve his sorry legacy,

Let me help you out.

"Espionage: the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information."

WikiLeaks and their senior Partner Russia/Putin absolutely engaged in Espionage. Trump absolutely encouraged it, and may have actively colluded with them in that effort. If so, then yes, he was a party to Russian Espionage efforts against America. Trump henchman Roger Stone has already flat out admitted that he was in contact with Julian Assange about the hacking.

By the way....it doesn't cease to be Espionage just because it hurts someone you don't like. Keep that in mind, because next time, it may be against someone you do like.

This is a hate obsession with Trump. Josh, pull away from the keyboard think about what you're saying.

When it became publically known that WikiLeaks had Hillary's hacked e-mails, which Assange says did not come from Russia, Trump PUBLICALLY called on WikiLeaks to release her e-mails, as did pretty much everyone else not on the Hillary Clinton team.

Joshuaf gets more pathetic and desperate every time he posts.

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons: No ‘hard evidence of collusion’ between Trump camp, Russia

MARCH 6, 2017 BY JOHN SEXTON

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Democratic Senator Chris Coons walked back a striking claim he made last week about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Coons now says he doesn’t “know of any conclusive proof” collusion took place."

But apparently joshuaf does.

In addition, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence said Sunday on Meet the Press that he is not aware of any evidence showing collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign:

But apparently joshuaf does have such evidence.

Easy. He's a serial liar. That should be enough right there. He also has spent a lifetime espousing Liberal Democrat issues, and is now actively trying to make over the Republican Party in that image with all his Leftist, Liberal, Union-Friendly, anti-Free Trade, anti-Free Market economic rhetoric. He is a man who pretends to be whatever his particular audience wants. He's even admitted as much. His whole persona, his whole campaign was a shell game. All you have to do is look at some of his books and they were the absolute blueprint for how he ran his campaign. "Truthful hyperbole", etc.

"Josh follows/believes a religious bent, he never posts on Sunday."

I post on Sunday all the time.

"Trump follows Christianity/believes"

Really? Where is the proof for that?

Rhody, perhaps instead of trying to psycho-analyze me, you should look at yourself and try to determine why you find it necessary to attach the "Religious Neanderthal" moniker/sentiment to someone to try to explain to yourself why they have a stronger sense of ethics and morality than you do, but you are nevertheless more superior and enlightened than them.

"But can you please explain to me how it was that Trump knew - and gave "hints" at his campaign rallies - that some new release of Hillary-damaging information was about to drop into the public view?"

How about because Assange said he was going to release her e-mails in stages? Which he did. The whole freakin' world knew that. Well, everyone save you, apparently!

"You can consider American enemy Assange a hero for all I care."

That's not only a lie, its a damned lie! I've not only never said Assange is a hero, I've never even implied it!

"How is it that you believe he came by that information?"

Any middle schooler with even one iota of IT skills could have gotten her e-mails, given John Podesta handed out his password to the world.

"not aware" ... nice parsing of words ..lol.."

Just how is that parsing if in fact, it's true?

Lol. Says the guy who just made a flat out statement that I never post on Sunday, which isn't remotely true. Clearly, you have no problem with telling a lie in order to try to bolster a false point, the intent of which was to try to juice your own feelings of hyper-superiority.

I'll keep my morals and ethics. You can keep your excuses and rationalizations for lack of them.

We have a subject landing in our laps which has recently become increasingly controversial after generations of being nothing more than business as usual in journalism. The question at hand has to do with the use of anonymous sources who choose to speak on background rather than going on the record. This is something of a tradition in newsrooms around the country and I’ll confess to having employed such sources a few times in the past myself. But now something seems to have changed. I went on a bit of a twitter tirade on this subject over the weekend because of the “new style guide” which seems to been put in place for cable news and the nation’s major newspapers.

Much of the current episode centers around President Trump’s weekend tweets regarding possible wiretaps at Trump Tower. Plenty of headlines and cable news chyrons all seemed to include the phrase, “without evidence.” The allegations and implications contained in those reports may yet turn out to be true, but even the reporters in question still don’t know for sure. That raises the issue of who should be allowed to go around making claims without being willing to provide “evidence” of some sort, at least in the form of offering the name of the source from whom the details were obtained. Jim Geraghty of National Review writes on the subject in the Morning Jolt today and highlights some recent incidents where “anonymous sources” directly contradict each other in the mainstream media.(Emphasis added)

Last week, we noticed that “U.S. officials” could tell NBC News that the Yemen raid yielded no significant intelligence and “American officials” could tell the New York Times that computers and cellphones seized offered “insights into new types of hidden explosives the group is making and new training tactics for militants.” A difference in assessments that stark is hard to chalk that up to a mundane difference of opinion on the value of the intelligence. It’s hard to shake the feeling that some officials are leaking a false version of events and hiding behind anonymity in an effort to influence public perceptions.

So far, the story of alleged Russian collusion with Trump has relied just about entirely on anonymous sources.

That raid was a fairly sensitive subject, particularly because of the national security aspects involved. Reporters were obviously eager to talk about it, particularly if the tale could be used to make the Trump administration seem ineffectual. But as Jim notes, there were two sets of these anonymous sources, both allegedly with inside information of tremendous value, feeding diametrically opposed stories to the press. (And this is making the generous assumption that both of the sources were real, in a position to know and faithfully recorded.)

At what point do we simply stop blindly accepting reports which provide no sourcing other than these anonymous sources? I feel kind of sad saying that because in the past it really wasn’t ever an issue. Reporters were supposed to be diligent in ensuring that their sources had the goods, and in return they could offer them anonymity so they wouldn’t get into any trouble with their bosses. But the case Jim highlighted is just one more data point which makes us question these age-old assumptions. Somebody was feeding the reporters a bunch of baloney and the news consuming public still really has no idea which is which.

Perhaps, as I suggested on social media, it’s time for a new set of standards in the blogging world as well. When referencing and quoting a report from the major newspapers or cable news outlets, if it’s a story based on nothing but anonymous sources perhaps we should introduce it with the phrase, “without evidence.”

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

And when I use the word "wrong", that's exactly the word I mean, I don't play games with word meanings as you like to do. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. You're not a very good judge of people if you haven't figured that out about me yet. You clearly have a problem trying to reconcile how someone like me could have such a viscerally different view of Trump than you do. Just because there is a minority of people here like myself who share similar views of Trump, it doesn't mean that people like you are the sane ones.

I've made it very clear all along what my reasons are for not liking Trump. The biggest is that he is a serial liar. I've been as plain as day about that, over, and over, and over again. There are multiple other reasons (all of which I have stated a gazillion times), but I honestly don't need any others than that one. It's enough just by itself.

Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank

DC:

Democrat super-lobbyist Tony Podesta was paid $170,000 over a six-month period last year to represent Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, seeking to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.

Podesta, founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, is listed as a key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Podesta is the brother of John Podesta, who was the national campaign chairman for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s losing 2016 campaign for the presidency.

more here

Between Clinton and Trump, who do you think the Russians would have wanted to win the election?

When she was SOS, Hillary handed the Russians 20% of our uranium. In turn, they 'donated ' tens upon tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which is/was nothing more than a veiled slush fund for Bill and Hill.' That gave the Russians YUGE leverage over her in any dealings they would have had had she been elected POTUS.

Then there's the fact that they had all her e-mails, which gave them even more leverage.

She was totally incompetent as SOS and screwed up everything she touched.

Trump, OTOH, had a reputation as being a tough negotiator who was very experienced in negotiating deals.

The answer, of course, is Hillary would have been 1,000 times easier for them to manipulate, coerce and blackmail than Trump would have been.

And that's the facts, Jack, or perhaps I should say, 'joshuaf.'

"And that's the facts, Jack, or perhaps I should say, 'joshuaf.'"

Actually, Kyle, those aren't exactly facts. Clinton didn't "hand" the Russians our uranium. In fact, the uranium deal wasn't hers to approve or veto, only the POTUS can do that. Clinton was one of 9 cabinet members and department heads who were tasked to evaluate the transaction. The secretary of the treasury was the chairperson of that group.

Furthermore, the vast majority ($131 million) of the alleged $145 million in donations came from one Russian donor who had sold his stake in the Russian uranium company 3 years before the US/Russia uranium deal was done.

With that clarified, I do agree, it appears Clinton would have been the Russians preferred POTUS candidate. But that's all just conjecture, not facts. Trump and Putin seem to have a bro-mance going, since Trump was elected, so who knows.....

Among other things, what we do know is: 1) Trump's National Secretary Advisor was forced to resign over misleading statements regarding Russian communications, and 2) Trump's Attorney General has recused himself from any investigations into the Russian matter, despite Trump's "total confidence" in him. Those 2 facts alone suggests there's more to this than "fake news", to me.

The problem with this whole mess is, who would you trust to investigate it?

Matt

You are 1,000% wrong on the 'recuse' issue!

Any time a challenge or a charge is brought forward on any matter upon any issue what-so-ever where any person who could be involved in investigating said issue might be accused of having even a tiny bit of bias in the investigation by even the most fanatical and uninformed person imaginable , he or she would recuse himself/herself so as to avoid having even the most partisan person claim the result was therefore biased and slanted in favor of the position of said person.

Then, as to your claim the person who gave all of the money to the Clinton Foundation was someone far removed from the deal, you apparently are not familiar with the term 'surrogate' , nor are you familiar with the fraud and double-dealing that goes on in Putin's Russia on a daily basis.

How so, Kyle? Did he not recuse himself, despite Trump's objections against him doing so? I made no claims regarding his moral obligation to recuse himself. Only that he did, despite Trump's wishes.

Where there's smoke.....

Matt

Again, conjecture and conspiracy theories aren't my forte'. I leave that to the puppets. I stated facts, nothing more. You'd be well served to do the same, IMO.

Matt

Trump objected AFTER Sessions recused himself, not before

Your assertation that 'where's there's smoke, there's fire" is also 1,000% WRONG! You recuse yourself so not even the most rabid and uninformed person on 'the other side' can later claim that the outcome of the investigation was tainted.

This is SOP and I'm surprised you didn't know that!

I'm fully aware of the obligation to recuse one's self. You seem to be giving Trump a pass on that same awareness.

Matt

'splain that comment, my friend!

What's Trump got to do with Sessions recusing himself?

Based on what?? The smart people in the room (the bankers) know not to let Trump touch anything. The man has made his money purely off his name and reality TV. He is basically an orange Kardashian.

I have a feeling Russia was much happier with Trump. Relations weren't exactly friendly under Obama and with Clinton it would have been more of the same. I'm sure the Russians view Trump very much as the bankers do...a narcissist that you can bend to your will assuming you throw his ego a bone or two.

SOP aside, We agree the Attorney General has an obligation to recuse himself. Not legally, but ethically...for the sake of "his side", as you put it.

Yet, Trump objected to his recusal, publicly and definitively. Doesn't that differ from our agreed to position on the recusal?

Matt

You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you hadn't foisted 34 false registrations upon this forum. Casting yourself as a champion of the moral high ground while skulking in anonymity isn't bravery, it's craven cowardice. You do nothing but a great disservice to those people who are being civilly disobedient and exercising their First Amendment rights as intended; I have only respect for those individuals.

You, on the other hand, have much more in common with the trash masquerading as champions of free speech at Berkeley than with the aforementioned caste.

"Our country"? You live in it and breathe free air on the backs of those who put real skin in the game. You wouldn't have the first clue as to that level of self-sacrifice.

Get help.

No, it does not.

My post was about why Sessions recusal was the only appropriate thing to do. Trump's opinion was irrelevant the Session's recusing himself.

I'm curious why so many of you do?

Don't feed the trolls, gentlemen.

Matt

I won't repeat myself again. We agree, Session's recusal was appropriate. Doesn't the fact that Trump disagrees give you any pause?

If not, I'm not sure what to say.

Matt