Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Sam...your input is required

Sort of disappointed re: the “good for Trump”
Thread down below that, now that the Admin and GOP intel committee members are getting together with DOJ, CIA, FBI and The DNI you haven’t provided us with one of your vaunted Timelines so that we can all follow along. As they get to the bottom of the classified documents that lie at the heart of how all of this commotion got started. Who did or was doing what when?

Or maybe you have reviewed what you have on file and.......
9 Replies

Re: Sam...your input is required


Re: Sam...your input is required

There are hypocrites and liars to be found across the entire  political spectrum.


But as a group nothing compares to the cadre of square jawed tea partyish white fellers with good hair.



Senior Advisor

Re: Sam...your input is required

Hope this helps.



Several new strings have been tacked across the corkboard in the rapidly unraveling 2016 election scandal. Recently obtained FBI emails shed light on what appears to have been high-level coordination between the FBI and CNN surrounding the release of the infamous "Steele" dossier.


In an April leak of the Comey memos, we learned that the former FBI Director briefed then-President-Elect Donald Trump on the dossier on January 6, 2017 after he wrote in a memo that various news outlets - "CNN in particular" - were "looking for a news hook," and would soon be reporting on it. 

“I said media like CNN had [the dossier] and were looking for a news hook,” Comey wrote of his interaction with Trump. 


CNN, on the other hand, considered Comey's meeting with Trump to have legitimized the document - making it their journalistic responsibility to report on it. 

Thus - any coordination between the FBI and CNN surrounding its report on the Steele dossier is highly relevant, since the Jan. 10, 2017 release of the dossier by Buzzfeed immediately after CNN's report - along with the subsequent firing of James Comey on May 9, prompted the launch of special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation

CNN's bombshell report on Jan. 10 of last year includes a claim that Comey gave Trump a two-page summary of the dossier - which Comey denies. Regardless, the fact that CNN knew about the Comey-Trump briefing and a specific claim about a two-page memo begs the question; who leaked to CNN? 

New FBI emails obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) provide a look behind the scenes surrounding Comey's briefing of Trump, as well as what was discussed after the CNN report - suggesting that former Deputy director Andrew McCabe - who was fired for leaking to the press, had specific knowledge of CNN's plans to publish.


CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story,” McCabe wrote in an email to Comey, Rybicki, and two others. “The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment.” McCabe does not reveal how he knew CNN’s “trigger” was Comey's briefing to Trump.

McCabe shot off a second email shortly thereafter to then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates along with her deputy, Matthew Alexrod, with the subject line "News." 

Just as an FYI, and as expected,” McCabe wrote, “it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting.” Again, how McCabe knew this is unclear and begs investigation. 

In a Monday letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Sen. Johnson, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, provides a timeline of events which correspond to the newly obtained FBI emails, and asks the agency to provide a list of all the members of the "sensitive matter" team referenced in Rybicki's January 6 email. 

Johnson also wants to know when FBI officials "first learned that media outlets, including CNN, may have possessed the Steele dossier. "  

As The Federalist notes, "To date, there is no public evidence that the FBI ever investigated the leaks to media about the briefing between Trump and Comey. When asked in a recent interview by Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier, Comey scoffed at the idea that the FBI would even need to investigate the leak of a secret briefing with the incoming president."


Re: Sam...your input is required

Yeah. That sort of stuff exactly.  


The investigations on that were being undertaken were into the Russians. The Russians.  

Senior Contributor

Re: Sam...your input is required

bruce, you did not mention that besides the Russians they were following up suspicious activity from members of your dear leaders team who were visiting with and conversing with those very same Russians.


At least that is what is being reported in media here and in Britain which would seem to be unbiased sources.

Senior Contributor

Re: Sam...your input is required

(At least that is what is being reported in media here and in Britain which would seem to be unbiased sources.)


Whom, in your belief & opinion, are these media outlets whom "seem" to be "unbiased sources" in Canada & Britain that you speak of?

Have they said anything that the SNN & their ambulance chaser analyst haven't already said numerous times?

Senior Contributor

Re: Sam...your input is required

ED, they are removed from the biases within your country.

They work with facts and no direct connections with what happens within your borders like who they vote for.


Senior Advisor

Re: Sam...your input is required

Wrong again.



Exactly when is the “late Spring”?

Of all the questions that have been asked about what we’ve called the “Origination Story” of the Trump-Russia investigation, that may be the most important one. It may be the one that tells us when the Obama administration first formed the Trump-Russia “collusion” narrative.


First, they told us it was an early July 2016 trip to Moscow by Carter Page, an obscure Trump-campaign adviser.


With the Page origination story cratering, Team Obama tried to save the day with Origination Story 2.0: Papadopoulos did it. In this account, George Papadopoulos, an even more obscure Trump-campaign aide than Page, triggered the investigation by telling Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, in May 2016, that he’d heard from a Kremlin-connected academic, Josef Mifsud, that Russia had thousands of emails potentially damaging to Clinton.


The real origination story begins in the early spring of 2016 — long before Page went to Russia and long before the U.S. government was notified about Papadopoulos’s boozy conversation with Downer.


Instead of doing some or all of those things, the Obama administration chose to look at the Trump campaign as a likely co-conspirator of Russia — either because Obama officials inflated the flimsy evidence, or because they thought it could be an effective political attack on the opposition party’s likely candidate.

From the “late spring” on, every report of Trump-Russia ties, no matter how unlikely and uncorroborated, was presumed to be proof of a traitorous arrangement. And every detail that could be spun into Trump-campaign awareness of Russian hacking, no matter how tenuous, was viewed in the worst possible light.

The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Page or Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration.


Re: Sam...your input is required

Trump was nominated in July of 2016.