John Solomon does his usual excellent investigative reporting into the muck that is the Trump-Russia investigation.
Early in my reporting that unraveled the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, tying it to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses, I started to see patterns just as in the old mob meetings: FBI or intelligence-connected figures kept showing up in Trump Town USA during the 2016 campaign with a common calling card.
The question now is, who sent them and why?
Interviews with more than 50 witnesses in the Trump case and reviews of hundreds of pages of court filings confirm the following:
At least six people with long-established ties to the FBI or to U.S. and Western intelligence made entrees to key figures in the Trump business organization or his presidential campaign between March and October 2016;Campaign figures were contacted by at least two Russian figures whose justification for being in the United States were rare law enforcement parole visas controlled by the U.S. Justice Department;Intelligence or diplomatic figures connected to two of America’s closest allies, Britain and Australia, gathered intelligence or instigated contacts with Trump campaign figures during that same period;Some of the conversations and contacts that were monitored occurred on foreign soil and resulted in the creation of transcripts; Nearly all of the contacts involved the same overture — a discussion about possible political dirt or stolen emails harmful to Hillary Clinton, or unsolicited business in London or Moscow;Several of the contacts occurred before the FBI formally launched a legally authorized probe into the Trump campaign and possible collusion on July 31, 2016.
10 comments:
What would it take to bring this to a halt, and why does it not happen?
The question now is, who sent them and why?
And the Chicago variant: "Who do you work for?"
Eric Hines
AVI, last week it was reported that the President directed the DOJ to investigate the Clinton business with Russia. They demurred, saying it would lead to his impeachment.
The DOJ won’t do its job; the Attorney General recused himself in favor of one of the guys who signed the wicked FISA warrants. Short of Trump publicly firing the whole leadership chain... and, well, he’d have to get replacements through the Senate.
Trump could pardon everyone under Mueller investigation. But that would not stop this. The incoming Dem House would just start over, declaring that no one could take the 5th because they were already pardoned.
declaring that no one could take the 5th because they were already pardoned.
That would depend on the terms of the pardon and the charges potentiated/manufacturable from the Progressive-Democrats' hearings. And the courts being set up by Trump likely would get in the way of most of the attempts to override those protections--neglecting the fiscal costs to the victims from defending themselves.
Of course the Senate still can hold its hearings, including into the Clinton-Russia connection, but that would require McConnell to be less tradition-bound and more activist.
Eric Hines
Wouldn't firing (no matter how deservedly) any/all of the people who are obviously and evidently part of this anti-Trump scheme just lay the foundation for a claim of "obstruction of justice" and provide a publicly-digestible excuse for impeachment by the House? ...and possibly (however remote the chance) convert sufficient RINOs in the Senate to join the Dems for conviction?
That’s the way they’ve set it up, yes. My sense is that the way out of a setup like this is to start breaking teeth.
Some folks you can reason with, some you have to kill. If they can be cowed by broken teeth, however, start with that. :)
...start with that.
If starting with half-measures, it would be necessary to not escalate with any graduated, tit-for-tat technique. Escalation must be much faster than the enemy's ability to match or adapt to. And if they want to negotiate an end or even a solution to the matter, that total pressure must be kept on during the negotiations.
This is a no-quarter struggle, because they aren't having any quarter, from at least as far back as Obama's declaration that his goal was the destruction of the Republican Party.
Eric Hines
So, there are some relevant maxims.
"If violence was not your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it."
"Don't be afraid to be the first to resort to violence."
"Do unto others."
"Your name is in the mouth of others: be sure it has teeth."
Breaking some teeth ensures their name lacks teeth.
Post a Comment