• House intel subpoenas Trump’s personal attorney
    47 replies, posted
[quote] WASHINGTON — The House intelligence committee has subpoenaed President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, as part of its ongoing investigation into Russia’s election meddling and contacts with the Trump campaign, according to a congressional aide. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal committee matters. Cohen, a longtime attorney for the Trump Organization, remains a personal lawyer for Trump. He served as a cable television surrogate for the Republican during the presidential campaign. The subpoena for Cohen comes as the congressional investigations into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia advance beyond formal requests for information from Trump associates. The president’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has also received subpoenas from the Senate panel regarding his Russian contacts and his business records. The House intelligence committee has also subpoenaed Flynn, the congressional aide said. Cohen told ABC News Tuesday that he had been asked by both the House and Senate intelligence committees to provide information and testimony about contacts he had with Russian officials. Cohen told ABC he turned down the invitations. [/Quote] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-intel-subpoenas-trumps-personal-attorney/2017/05/30/695ea882-455c-11e7-8de1-cec59a9bf4b1_story.html?utm_term=.ea2fa8f17fde"]The Washington Post [/URL] He was also the guy who delivered a sealed folder on how to remove sanctions on Russia to Trump.
It will be interesting to see what this turns up. Maybe something will finally happen. Come to think of it isn't Cohen also Mr. "Says Who?"
You wanna know what's the worst part about this, he bitches and moans about how big of a witch hunt this is but it probably wouldn't as huge if he'd just keep his fucking mouth shut. Literally everything that's happening now is a result of him being unable to control himself.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52291877]You wanna know what's the [B]worst part[/B] about this, he bitches and moans about how big of a witch hunt this is but it probably wouldn't as huge if he'd just keep his fucking mouth shut. Literally everything that's happening now is a result of him being unable to control himself.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about. This is the best part of it
I will be surprised if anything comes out of this investigation.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52291894]What are you talking about. This is the best part of it[/QUOTE] Trust me I know but to listen to someone complain after digging themselves into a 5 meter hole is pretty annoying
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291906]I will be surprised if anything comes out of this investigation.[/QUOTE] Would you care to elaborate why? Both you and Chonch have said stuff like this but to the rest of us it seems like wishful thinking at best and malicious naivete at worst.
Must be serious if anonymous aides are running to the media
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52291918]Must be serious if anonymous aides are running to the media[/QUOTE] This whole situation has been serious from the start
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52291918]Must be serious if anonymous aides are running to the media[/QUOTE] I guess if people aren't willing to outright put their head on the chopping block it's not a serious enough situation for you.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291906]I will be surprised if anything comes out of this investigation.[/QUOTE] He says after a independent investigator was appointed [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] I also think it's really quaint to complain about anonymous sources when the current president came to political prominence by spreading conspiracy theories about where obama was born.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52291915]Would you care to elaborate why? Both you and Chonch have said stuff like this but to the rest of us it seems like wishful thinking at best and malicious naivete at worst.[/QUOTE] Because as of now, there [I]isn't[/I] any real evidence. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AWeZX1r.png[/IMG] This sort of thing just doesn't do it for me. Now of course this doesn't mean that there is information that we don't know of that the FBI may have already obtained. But, with all of the leaks and people in the white house and FBI who hate Trump I don't see how there hasn't been any [I]real/verifiable[/I] evidence leaked. That's why I'll be surprised if they find any real evidence. [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52291957]He says after a independent investigator was appointed [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] I also think it's really quaint to complain about anonymous sources when the current president came to political prominence by spreading conspiracy theories about where obama was born.[/QUOTE] I thought it was childish of Trump trying to spread those theories.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]Because as of now, there [I]isn't[/I] any real evidence. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AWeZX1r.png[/IMG] This sort of thing just doesn't do it for me. Now of course this doesn't mean that there is information that we don't know of that the FBI may have already obtained. But, with all of the leaks and people in the white house and FBI who hate Trump I don't see how there hasn't been any [I]real/verifiable[/I] evidence leaked.[/QUOTE] Is this shit the new "polls are not representative, they have only asked 2000 people"? What is so hard to understand about how anonymous sourcing and cross-referencing works?
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]I thought it was childish of Trump trying to spread those theories.[/QUOTE] He's still fucking spreading them as president too.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]Because as of now, there [I]isn't[/I] any real evidence. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AWeZX1r.png[/IMG] This sort of thing just doesn't do it for me. Now of course this doesn't mean that there is information that we don't know of that the FBI may have already obtained. But, with all of the leaks and people in the white house and FBI who hate Trump I don't see how there hasn't been any [I]real/verifiable[/I] evidence leaked. That's why I'll be surprised if they find any real evidence. [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] I thought it was childish of Trump trying to spread those theories.[/QUOTE] Do you not know how this sort of thing works? Information leaks are going to be cracked down on more because they could actively harm the investigation. (So those who [I]do[/I] leak info are going to be careful about what they leak.) That's also why the leaks we do get are anonymous. These leakers could get in a lot of trouble. And from what has been said by official sources it sounds much more like a "what crimes are they guilty of" than a "are they guilty of crimes?" outcome anyways.
Even trump likes anonymous sources, since he's retweeting them. [url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump[/url]
Deepthroat was an anonymous leaker
[QUOTE=_Axel;52292031]Is this shit the new "polls are not representative, they have only asked 2000 people"? What is so hard to understand about how anonymous sourcing and cross-referencing works?[/QUOTE] Well, tell me why it's not used to impeach Trump? [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Snapster;52292049]Even trump likes anonymous sources, since he's retweeting them. [url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump[/url][/QUOTE] You linked his twitter not a tweet.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52292059] You linked his twitter not a tweet.[/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/869458369903566848[/media] this one
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52291918]Must be serious if anonymous aides are running to the media[/QUOTE] Dude, the concept of anonymous sources has been explained to you and others in seemly every single fucking thread about the Russia investigation. You're clogging up the commentary with people reiterating the same points over and over every time there is a new thead. The Washington Post isn't a tabloid, the source is double and triple checked.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]Because as of now, there [I]isn't[/I] any real evidence. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AWeZX1r.png[/IMG] This sort of thing just doesn't do it for me. Now of course this doesn't mean that there is information that we don't know of that the FBI may have already obtained. But, with all of the leaks and people in the white house and FBI who hate Trump I don't see how there hasn't been any [I]real/verifiable[/I] evidence leaked. That's why I'll be surprised if they find any real evidence. [/QUOTE] I wonder if that Comey memo thing ever comes up again, seeing as it was all the rage a few weeks ago, but the subpoena date of that passed a few days ago, and it hasn't even been in the news since the subpoena date announcement. It's weird how quickly that one fell off the media's radar. Not to mention how some of those supposed leaks are directly contradicting each other at this point. The big news now is supposedly that Kushner was trying to establish a telephone line to Russian ambassadors after the elections were over, despite other media sources claiming, by yet more anonymous insider sources familiar with the thinking of a person loosely connected to the case that Trump totally had those lines before the elections to ask Russia to rig the vote for him? Because the Democrats lost the election purely due to Russian hacking instead of their own massive shortcomings and miscalculations, according to the media, who are mostly in the pocket of said Democrats. No wonder that less and less Americans are trusting the media these days, every big claim gets made with no real evidence being shown other than the media's word, and it disappears out of view within a week until the next big claim without any hard evidence being shown gets cycled across media cooperation.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]Because as of now, there [I]isn't[/I] any real evidence. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AWeZX1r.png[/IMG] This sort of thing just doesn't do it for me.[/QUOTE] Seriously? Playing into the campaign to destroy the free press for some top kek meme... You know that news organizations don't just receive letters and go [I]"Huh, that sounds about right, let's report on it"[/I]. Come on.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52292059]Well, tell me why it's not used to impeach Trump?[/QUOTE] Because impeachment is a political process first and foremost, which requires a majority in the house and a two-thirds majority in the senate to take place. Both of those are held by the republicans, who have no reason to do this as long as Trump continues to help them pass their shitty laws and their gullible voterbase keeps gobbling what their god-emperor tells them.
[QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]Because the Democrats lost the election purely due to Russian hacking instead of their own massive shortcomings and miscalculations, according to the media, who are mostly in the pocket of said Democrats. [/QUOTE] [citation needed]
[QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]I wonder if that Comey memo thing ever comes up again, seeing as it was all the rage a few weeks ago, but the subpoena date of that passed a few days ago, and it hasn't even been in the news since the subpoena date announcement. It's weird how quickly that one fell off the media's radar. Not to mention how some of those supposed leaks are directly contradicting each other at this point. The big news now is supposedly that Kushner was trying to establish a telephone line to Russian ambassadors after the elections were over, despite other media sources claiming, by yet more anonymous insider sources familiar with the thinking of a person loosely connected to the case that Trump totally had those lines before the elections to ask Russia to rig the vote for him? Because the Democrats lost the election purely due to Russian hacking instead of their own massive shortcomings and miscalculations, according to the media, who are mostly in the pocket of said Democrats. No wonder that less and less Americans are trusting the media these days, every big claim gets made with no real evidence being shown other than the media's word, and it disappears out of view within a week until the next big claim without any hard evidence being shown gets cycled across media cooperation.[/QUOTE] On the other hand, if there was an active disinformation campaign in effect here then that would explain the conflicting information. The media could be getting information from sources they have privately verified but some are purposefully giving them false information or unknowingly doing so. And that would actually also line up with the claims about some of the recent Wikileaks releases.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52292066][media]https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/869458369903566848[/media] this one[/QUOTE] That's a good point but still, that doesn't clear his name. When he's talking to the FBI I'm sure he isn't going to bring up this article and say, "well the source said so! I didn't do it!".
I'm really fed up with the meme that anonymous sources are somehow 100% invalid or that sources must be identified. Where was all this concern whenever an anonymous source claimed something about Benghazi? Why did nobody on the right complain about the anonymous "federal investigator" in [URL="https://archive.is/TZWuE"]Fox News' entirely-false Seth Rich story[/URL] when it was a hot distraction? When you hear "anonymous sources can't be trusted", you should be hearing "I need to find a way to discredit this story". [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]-snip-[/QUOTE] Nice [URL="https://imgur.com/AWeZX1r"]freshly[/URL]-cropped [URL="http://www.sonsoflibertytees.com//patriotblog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/donald-trump-memes-17-lol-2017-05-23-16-31.jpg"]meme[/URL].
No one complained because its Hannity being Hannity
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52292117]I'm really fed up with the meme that anonymous sources are somehow 100% invalid or that sources must be identified. Where was all this concern whenever an anonymous source claimed something about Benghazi? Why did nobody on the right complain about the anonymous "federal investigator" in [URL="https://archive.is/TZWuE"]Fox News' entirely-false Seth Rich story[/URL] when it was a hot distraction? When you hear "anonymous sources can't be trusted", you should be hearing "I need to find a way to discredit this story". Nice [URL="https://imgur.com/AWeZX1r"]freshly[/URL]-cropped [URL="http://www.sonsoflibertytees.com//patriotblog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/donald-trump-memes-17-lol-2017-05-23-16-31.jpg"]meme[/URL].[/QUOTE] I didn't -snip- anything. I'm just saying that these anonymous sources aren't viable or used to prosecute people, or to prove they did something. It's facts, documents, emails, texts, transcripts, recordings, witness testimony. Unless anything like that is found, or surfaces, I don't believe Trump is to be impeached. The insider report on trump saying he likes to grab pussy wasn't from an anonymous source, it was a recording. That's why it was so detrimental.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52292098]That's a good point but still, that doesn't clear his name. When he's talking to the FBI I'm sure he isn't going to bring up this article and say, "well the source said so! I didn't do it!".[/QUOTE] You're avoiding the point, the article is claiming it was the Russians that suggested the secure line, not Kushner, and they're citing a "source familiar with the matter". That is an article using an anonymous source, which was retweeted by Trump himself according to Snapster.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.