Jetrell Fo

^LMAO

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I’m starting the “quit smoking” process today. Anyone here gone through it want to share your thoughts on your challenge? I would think that knowing what others went through could be very helpful to me on all fronts.

Thanks.

I gave up cold turkey and put on so much weight I became practically spherical.
I would recommend some kind of nicotine replacement therapy.
Let your metabolism adjust to lower levels rather than just drop it in one go.
Dropping smoking in one go is best though.
Your body will quickly feel better for the extra oxygen.

I have noticed I am sleeping a little better. I have gone from 1 pack evey 1 1/2 days to 1 every 3 to 3 1/2 days. It’s a start.

And then there’s this … muddying the conspiracy theory waters even more I’m sure.

http://heavy.com/tech/2017/03/wikileaks-vault-7-part-3-marble-cia-tool-to-mask-hacks-hacking-russian-chinese-arabic-decoy-languages-attribute/

Another Hillary Clinton Scandal … 😦

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/30/hillary-clinton-aides-had-access-to-state-defter-left-says-key-lawmaker.html

When Hillary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State in 2013, she negotiated continuing access to classified and top-secret documents for herself and six staffers under the designation “research assistants,” according to a powerful senator who notes that Clinton was later deemed “extremely careless” with such information.

The staff apparently retained access even after Clinton announced her run for president in April 2015, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. The access was ostensibly granted to facilitate work on Clinton’s memoir, but Grassley said he was only able to verify it after the Obama administration left the White House.

“I have repeatedly asked the State Department whether Secretary Clinton and her associates had their clearances suspended or revoked to which the Obama Administration refused to respond,” Grassley wrote in a March 30 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

“Recently, the State Department informed the Committee that six additional Secretary Clinton staff at State were designated as her research assistants which allowed them to retain their clearances after leaving the Department,” Grassley added.

The State Department has not yet responded it an inquiry from Fox News as to whether Clinton, or her staff, including then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, her traveling chief of staff and former assistant, who went on to become the vice chair of her presidential campaign, and Jake Sullivan, her senior policy advisor, still have access to the classified and top-secret archives and systems.

Unholy heaven.

😉

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

Wow. Okay. Moving right along.

So there’s a saying (I’m too young to know if it’s true) that in 1969, Nixon voters could be found everywhere. In 1974, they were getting scarce. And by 1976, you couldn’t find anyone who’d voted for Nixon.

HA Goodman started an interesting trend. At first, he was just a fairly transparent Republican operative, right? This libertarian Republican who decided to jump right into supporting a Socialist, but rarely actually says very much about his newfound love for those lefty policies–instead he pretty much does nothing but attack the Democratic Party. But “from the left”, get it? Not from the right. Maybe he’ll convince an unsuspecting reporter or voter to think he’s not a Republican, and try to initiate a narrative about the chasm between Bernie and Hillary. You’ve got Goodman’s followers booing Bernie at the convention to, uh, show their love for Bernie (or something, I’m sure it made sense to them). That made some headlines, and it kinda worked for a while, successfully drawing the media’s focus away from the actual lack of any serious split between Bernie and Hillary.

But then something odd happened after the election. He (and others) kept going, he’s still doing his Bernie supporter schtick. And this is what’s interesting about it. Using Goodman’s precedent, Trump voters can pretend to be Bernie supporters, as a means of hiding their shame. Now I’m sure most Trump voters aren’t ashamed, but already there’s this small sad tribe of Trump voters who can’t come out and be honest with the world. Are they, like the disappearing Nixon voters, the wave of the future?

Looks like these ashamed Trump voters pretending to be Bernie supporters have a new target. Surprise! It’s Bernie! Who could have seen that coming?

I see why. He’s following along in the unproven Russian narrative like a good Democrat should apparently. He used to be a lot less like Hillary Clinton but now he’s starting to sound like her so they’re probably pissed off about it. It’s sad that you use the word “pretending” to describe them because I can’t imagine you know each and everyone one of them and they’ve told you this personally.

😉

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

Wow. Okay. Moving right along.

So there’s a saying (I’m too young to know if it’s true) that in 1969, Nixon voters could be found everywhere. In 1974, they were getting scarce. And by 1976, you couldn’t find anyone who’d voted for Nixon.

HA Goodman started an interesting trend. At first, he was just a fairly transparent Republican operative, right? This libertarian Republican who decided to jump right into supporting a Socialist, but rarely actually says very much about his newfound love for those lefty policies–instead he pretty much does nothing but attack the Democratic Party. But “from the left”, get it? Not from the right. Maybe he’ll convince an unsuspecting reporter or voter to think he’s not a Republican, and try to initiate a narrative about the chasm between Bernie and Hillary. You’ve got Goodman’s followers booing Bernie at the convention to, uh, show their love for Bernie (or something, I’m sure it made sense to them). That made some headlines, and it kinda worked for a while, successfully drawing the media’s focus away from the actual lack of any serious split between Bernie and Hillary.

But then something odd happened after the election. He (and others) kept going, he’s still doing his Bernie supporter schtick. And this is what’s interesting about it. Using Goodman’s precedent, Trump voters can pretend to be Bernie supporters, as a means of hiding their shame. Now I’m sure most Trump voters aren’t ashamed, but already there’s this small sad tribe of Trump voters who can’t come out and be honest with the world. Are they, like the disappearing Nixon voters, the wave of the future?

Looks like these ashamed Trump voters pretending to be Bernie supporters have a new target. Surprise! It’s Bernie! Who could have seen that coming?

How dare Bernie try to stop corruption in Washington!

How dare Bernie talk like Hillary Clinton, the person that cheated him, out of his chance to run against Trump is more like it.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

I agree that the lawyer’s letter being fake is equally plausible as someone leaning on the law firm not to sue CNN (as in: not remotely).

As is the possibility that the Senate Committee rejected a deal that they were never offered because the letter making the offer was forged and the whole testimony-for-immunity offer is fake news and never happened. 😉

There are many ways to see it … hence the word “theory”.

I think you’re missing a word in front of “theory” though.

You have your opinion, I have mine, and you may chastise mine however you like.

😃

^^ I see why you’re laughing Frink, that article is rather hilarious, and from a place you quote frequently as 100% trusted source.

😉

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/feds-damning-report-russian-election-hack-wont-convince-skeptics/

They say they can’t show the proof because it’s classified, LOL.

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/03/23/what-is-crowdstrike-firm-hired-by-dnc-has-ties-to-hillary-clinton-a-ukrainian-billionaire-and-google/

There is a lot of information here and a lot of good links to support their argument.

CatBus said:

I agree that the lawyer’s letter being fake is equally plausible as someone leaning on the law firm not to sue CNN (as in: not remotely).

As is the possibility that the Senate Committee rejected a deal that they were never offered because the letter making the offer was forged and the whole testimony-for-immunity offer is fake news and never happened. 😉

There are many ways to see it … hence the word “theory”.

Darth Id said:

darth_ender said:

I think you don’t know what gaslighting is

Confirmed (and proud of it!):

Jetrell Fo said:

When I use the term gas-lighting, I am talking about adding fuel to the flame, nothing more.

So now we know.
…
But what if by “adding fuel to the flame,” he means some other random, unrelated sentiment???

But what if by confirmed you mean … convoluted? Or maybe Frink should check the pressure in his tires instead of filling up with gas?

😉

I finally had to get reader’s for night time and small print.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I read the letter. There isn’t even an official signature from the attorney on it, statements are legal documents, they should be signed.

So your theory is forgery? Unknown forger or do we have a suspect? Not perhaps that this letter isn’t actually a statement or a legal document, but a mere offer, and doesn’t require one?

Either way, forging documents from a well-backed law firm and then publishing them on your website seems like a recipe for getting sued out of existence. Why do you think the law firm is showing so much restraint? You think maybe they’re getting leaned on?

I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the letter but I believe that even under normal circumstances the agent of the firm that issues it normally signs it. The FBI/CIA/NSA may already be aware of what Flynn might know and his “offer” was rejected because they didn’t need him to make whatever case the info is in reference to.

Them being leaned on is a possibility especially with all that is uncertain at the moment.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?

If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.

If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?

Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.

The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.

If Flynn did indeed meet with someone it would have been behind closed doors because he hasn’t testified as far as I know. As for the “controversial issue” point, there is nothing to show that this unnamed person was or could even have been part of a closed door meeting. It’s all if, if, and if at this point.

I’ll wait til it’s confirmed by Flynn himself to believe this.

So, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article? Photoshop?

You mean the cartoon that the link you put up led to? You’re joking right?

No, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article I linked. I’m assuming there’s a reason you still think there’s a chance he may not have really offered testimony in exchange for immunity, even after that.

I edited while you were posting, sorry.

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?

If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.

If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?

Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.

The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.

If Flynn did indeed meet with someone it would have been behind closed doors because he hasn’t testified as far as I know. As for the “controversial issue” point, there is nothing to show that this unnamed person was or could even have been part of a closed door meeting. It’s all if, if, and if at this point.

I’ll wait til it’s confirmed by Flynn himself to believe this.

So, the letter from Flynn’s lawyer in the CNN article? Photoshop?

You mean the cartoon that the link you put up led to? You’re joking right?

I read the letter. There isn’t even an official signature from the attorney on it, statements are legal documents, they should be signed.

Then of course your article stated this below the “letter”.

However, aides to the House intelligence committee said they have not received any requests from Flynn yet. A spokesperson for the Senate intelligence committee declined comment Thursday evening.

Possessed said:

I guess you better also clarify your position on these articles, since you have a habit of spouting off things like “I didn’t agree with it I just found it interesting” when posting articles.

I am not the only one to “spout” things in this thread. I’ll quote my two separate posts here together to show relevance to each other. My position was clear. These “russian narrative” issues have a few possible different avenues with regards to where it started and who is known to be involved that haven’t really been discussed.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jetrell Fo said:

The odd thing about what you say CatBus, is that it was Obama who changed the Intelligence rules, to allow “better and quicker” communication between numerous Global Intelligence agencies. It was put in to effect before he left office. Obama started tweaking these Intelligence rules as far back as 2011.

Early on, before the election, there were quiet rumblings about our Intelligence community, that didn’t get a lot of press. There seemed to be a narrative that some of our own Intelligence folks knew about Clinton’s “private” server and the pay for play, and that they may have hacked the DNC server to release or “leak” the info to try and get it out there. Since it has been shown that our Intelligence community does have tools to make it look as if others were doing they hacking, it would make a great smoke screen. A digital version of “wag the dog”, if you will. Make it look authentic, make it look like Russia.

IF, the “Russian Narative” investigation were already going on before Trump was sworn in it is probable that the “hacked info” evidence somehow made it to them. Trumps own people may not have even been aware of it and that may have set off or gave “cause” to their “surveillance” of some Trump Campaign team members because they already knew that specific information had been purposely leaked to the Russians because they recognized their own work. It may have then been given to the Democrats to take the advantage away from those that wanted Clinton fried.

President Obama was in support of better ties with Russia but maybe his intentions, our Governments intentions, were duplicitous to a specific agenda.

I was doing some googling on Evelyn Farkas and I found it interesting to learn this.

http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/03/29/smoking-gun-obama-defense-deputy-slips-up-on-live-tv-reveals-spying-on-trump-team-and-leaking-of-intel/

On a related note, Evelyn Farkas is also a senior fellow at the vehemently anti-Russia Atlantic Council, along with Crowdstrike founder Dimitri Alperovitch. The Atlantic Council is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.

CrowdStrike, the Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking. Notably, CrowdStrike has recently been discredited – and was forced to retract evidence used in a botched report on Russia hacking Ukranian military equipment.

To sum up:

The White House surveilled the Trump campaign and then leaked information to anti-Trump allies in congress (on “The Hill”).

The Russian hacking claim hinges on a CrowdStrike Report from Dimitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch was forced to retract statements in a report blaming Russia for hacking Ukrainian military equipment – a failed attempt to smear Putin.

Alperovitch, along with White House Leaker Evelyn Farkas and Ukrainian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, are all senior fellows on the Atlantic Council – which is vehemently anti-Russia.

(As an aside – Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, sits on the board of a Ukrainian gas company reportedly owned by Pinchuk)

Is it a stretch to suggest that the CrowdStrike report on the DNC hack was fabricated to pin the DNC hack on Russia?

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

Jetrell Fo said:

Dmitri Alperovitch
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative
Expertise Topics: Cyber Policy, Cyber Security, US Cyber Policy

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alperovitch

Evelyn Farkas
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Future Europe Initiative, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, and Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security
Expertise Topics: US Defense Policy
Regions: Eurasia, Russia

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/evelyn-farkas

Some related articles …

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/crowdstrikes-russian-hacking-story-fell-apart-say-hello-fancy-bear-2.html

(As an aside – Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, sits on the board of a Ukrainian gas company reportedly owned by Pinchuk)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/innokenty-kes-grekov/bidens-cash-in-on-ukraine_b_5326687.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/leaked-emails-expose-clinton-foundation-pay-play-oligarch-show-support-ukraine

Possessed, does this meet with your approval regarding backing up my spouting?

😉

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details?

If they’re in one of the offices working on either of the two Congressional investigations into the matter. There are three investigations into the Russian matters–the House, which is only nominally active, the Senate, which is only slightly more active, and the FBI, which is active. Based on that, I’d say a Senate Aide for one of the Senators on the relevant committee. The chair of the Senate committee allows the Democrats to be involved with committee business, so it could be either party. If it was the House, it’d have to be a Republican.

If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no?

Media traditionally do not name their sources for a whole host of reasons. That’s why you always see “unnamed <position> staffer”. Generally you only see named sources in cases where under no circumstances could anyone consider the issue controversial.

The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

The news broke yesterday. As is often the case with breaking news, more always comes out later.

If Flynn did indeed meet with someone it would have been behind closed doors because he hasn’t testified as far as I know. As for the “controversial issue” point, there is nothing to show that this unnamed person was or could even have been part of a closed door meeting. It’s all if, if, and if at this point.

I’ll wait til it’s confirmed by Flynn himself to believe this.

Dmitri Alperovitch
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative
Expertise Topics: Cyber Policy, Cyber Security, US Cyber Policy

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/dmitri-alperovitch

Evelyn Farkas
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Future Europe Initiative, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, and Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security
Expertise Topics: US Defense Policy
Regions: Eurasia, Russia

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/evelyn-farkas

Some related articles …

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/crowdstrikes-russian-hacking-story-fell-apart-say-hello-fancy-bear-2.html

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Aaaand now we know why Flynn is out of favor:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

That said, this sort of thing has been a double-fake-out before, where they ask for immunity and then proceed to testify to nothing as serious as a jaywalking offense, and in the meantime, suck up all the media coverage a la Al Capone’s vault. Also worth noting nobody’s yet taken him up on his offer.

I haven’t seen anything myself that confirms or denies that Flynn is out of favor and asking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. There isn’t even any irrefutable proof that he was asked to resign due to wrongdoing of any kind. It could be entirely true, it might not be, but I wouldn’t even bet my mother’s retirement on this article’s substance or lack of.

😉

If you’re being sarcastic, I admit I missed it entirely, LOL. If not, I’m ok.

“Out of favor” was tongue-in-cheek Kremlinology-speak (and who doesn’t smile when saying “Out like Flynn”?). Asking for immunity… the link’s right there. Feel free to click. I know the Wall Street Journal’s not up there with Zerohedge in your book, but there are some who consider it a fairly reputable source.

Your sarcasm aside, this … “according to officials with knowledge of the matter.” … does not equal accurate. This scenario is being floated around so much with articles from the press that I fail to jump for joy every time I read a story with this so called confirmation included.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

If Flynn is actually seeking immunity for testimony, he may be wanting discuss crimes committed that helped start this “russian narrative” mess. There is an article in NPR that reports, as other outlets have, that Flynn would not be charged with wrongdoing because he did nothing wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Sorry, try CNN, maybe they have proof. 😉

Okay:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/michael-flynn-immunity-testimony/index.html

I’m sure that letter’s a Photoshop, though.

Also:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/senate-intelligence-committee-turned-down-flynns-request-for-immunity-nbc.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-flynns-story/story?id=46486968

Even Fox News and Trump are on board:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

But regarding the substance of the news, I’m glad the Senate’s rejected the deal. This seems like an Oliver North deal to me.

How could or would an unnamed Congressional Aide either really know or confirm such details? If it’s true and legal they should be able to name the aide, no? The Trump tweet came today, after we started this discussion. I read your link. Thanks for posting it.

^^^

Your comment on the article is kind of funny because it would seem you’re using the headline alone to base it on. Any of us here can cherry pick an article.

Start of the article says:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is dismissing concerns over whether President Trump would use his office to pad out his personal fortune.

“He’s already rich,” Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told The Atlantic in an interview published Friday. “He’s very rich. I don’t think that he ran for this office to line his pockets even more. I just don’t see it like that.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz is not defending conflicts of interest and he doesn’t state that he is anywhere in that article.

Jetrell Fo said:

The odd thing about what you say CatBus, is that it was Obama who changed the Intelligence rules, to allow “better and quicker” communication between numerous Global Intelligence agencies. It was put in to effect before he left office. Obama started tweaking these Intelligence rules as far back as 2011.

Early on, before the election, there were quiet rumblings about our Intelligence community, that didn’t get a lot of press. There seemed to be a narrative that some of our own Intelligence folks knew about Clinton’s “private” server and the pay for play, and that they may have hacked the DNC server to release or “leak” the info to try and get it out there. Since it has been shown that our Intelligence community does have tools to make it look as if others were doing they hacking, it would make a great smoke screen. A digital version of “wag the dog”, if you will. Make it look authentic, make it look like Russia.

IF, the “Russian Narative” investigation were already going on before Trump was sworn in it is probable that the “hacked info” evidence somehow made it to them. Trumps own people may not have even been aware of it and that may have set off or gave “cause” to their “surveillance” of some Trump Campaign team members because they already knew that specific information had been purposely leaked to the Russians because they recognized their own work. It may have then been given to the Democrats to take the advantage away from those that wanted Clinton fried.

President Obama was in support of better ties with Russia but maybe his intentions, our Governments intentions, were duplicitous to a specific agenda.

I was doing some googling on Evelyn Farkas and I found it interesting to learn this.

http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/03/29/smoking-gun-obama-defense-deputy-slips-up-on-live-tv-reveals-spying-on-trump-team-and-leaking-of-intel/

On a related note, Evelyn Farkas is also a senior fellow at the vehemently anti-Russia Atlantic Council, along with Crowdstrike founder Dimitri Alperovitch. The Atlantic Council is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.

CrowdStrike, the Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking. Notably, CrowdStrike has recently been discredited – and was forced to retract evidence used in a botched report on Russia hacking Ukranian military equipment.

To sum up:

The White House surveilled the Trump campaign and then leaked information to anti-Trump allies in congress (on “The Hill”).

The Russian hacking claim hinges on a CrowdStrike Report from Dimitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch was forced to retract statements in a report blaming Russia for hacking Ukrainian military equipment – a failed attempt to smear Putin.

Alperovitch, along with White House Leaker Evelyn Farkas and Ukrainian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, are all senior fellows on the Atlantic Council – which is vehemently anti-Russia.

(As an aside – Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, sits on the board of a Ukrainian gas company reportedly owned by Pinchuk)

Is it a stretch to suggest that the CrowdStrike report on the DNC hack was fabricated to pin the DNC hack on Russia?

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-03-31/hungarys-orban-says-soros-founded-college-cheated-with-diplomas?int=popular-articles-news

Oh Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria.

The odd thing about what you say CatBus, is that it was Obama who changed the Intelligence rules, to allow “better and quicker” communication between numerous Global Intelligence agencies. It was put in to effect before he left office. Obama started tweaking these Intelligence rules as far back as 2011.

Early on, before the election, there were quiet rumblings about our Intelligence community, that didn’t get a lot of press. There seemed to be a narrative that some of our own Intelligence folks knew about Clinton’s “private” server and the pay for play, and that they may have hacked the DNC server to release or “leak” the info to try and get it out there. Since it has been shown that our Intelligence community does have tools to make it look as if others were doing they hacking, it would make a great smoke screen. A digital version of “wag the dog”, if you will. Make it look authentic, make it look like Russia.

IF, the “Russian Narative” investigation were already going on before Trump was sworn in it is probable that the “hacked info” evidence somehow made it to them. Trumps own people may not have even been aware of it and that may have set off or gave “cause” to their “surveillance” of some Trump Campaign team members because they already knew that specific information had been purposely leaked to the Russians because they recognized their own work. It may have then been given to the Democrats to take the advantage away from those that wanted Clinton fried.

President Obama was in support of better ties with Russia but maybe his intentions, our Governments intentions, were duplicitous to a specific agenda.

When I use the term gas-lighting, I am talking about adding fuel to the flame, nothing more. As someone mentioned, warbler isn’t daft, he knows a thing or two about some thing or another.

About that article, it has some interesting parallels, to a number of situations I have come across.

😉

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/30/things-go-from-bad-to-worse-for-devin-nunes-and-team-trump.html

There is no substance in this article. It’s just another show of frustration because no-one “in the know” is giving any journalists definitive answers on the process. Even Trey Gowdy isn’t saying anything beyond simple remarks when interviewed.