Congressional Committee Hearings Discussion

[clubgop]

"How about corruption?"

"Yeah, I'm ok with corruption, as long as it's my guy benefiting." Really guys?

Yes. Think of the children. If your son or daughter was benefiting from a corrupt system and would be hurt by its end, how could you possibly do that?

[Penner]

I watched the entire Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Former DNI James Clapper and former Acting AG Sally Yates were under oath in this hearing.



There was a decent amount of partisan grandstanding in the form of "asking questions", but there were some substantial revelations made during the hearing. Here's my highlights on what we learned.

Former DNI James Clapper:

• stands by the US Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.
• Says "The classified version was profusely annotated, with footnotes drawn from thousands of pages of supporting material."
• Stated, "If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it."
• Confirmed that "Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians."
• "Russia also collected on certain Republican Party- affiliated targets, but did not release any Republican-related data"
• Clapper was not aware of the FBI investigation last year. This would imply the FBI was treating this as an especially sensitive/secret domestic criminal investigation.
• Elaborated that incidental collection regarding FISA 702, is on foreign targets located outside the United States. (You should be asking if Kislyak-Flynn conversations were collected via FISA 702, or a different warrant.)

On unmasking:

• During lawful surveillance on foreign targets, US citizens' identities are typically masked. When, to fully understand the context of the communication or threat being reported by the collecting agency, the intelligence consumer can request that identity be unmasked.
• It is up collecting agency to decide whether to allow the unmasking based on the consumer's request, and their reasons for it.
• The unmasked intelligence is only delivered to consumer that requested it.
• This process is documented by the collecting agency.
• Sometimes, though rarely, the collecting agency will unmask the intelligence themselves before reporting it to the consumer. My guess is, this happens when the reason the intelligence is reported, the threat demonstrated, is related to the actions and activities of the US citizen that was unmasked, where they aren't a 3rd party, target, or bystander, but part of the threat.
• Clapper states that he has asked for intelligence to be unmasked on numerous occasions, including, once, a Trump associate or Donald Trump himself.
• Yates stated that she has never requested unmasking of intelligence reports.

On Yates meetings with White House Counsel Don McGahn:
Meeting #1:

• Yates requested to meet with McGahn after it became clear that Vice President Pence had been misled by Michael Flynn, and was making publican statements based on those lies.
• Yates said that the DOJ and IC were not the only ones who knew about Flynn’s lies to the Vice President. The Russians did as well and likely had proof, and that created “a compromise situation, a situation where the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians”.
• Yates told McGahn that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI, but refused to discuss the details or results with him. Throughout her testimony, Yates continued to refuse to discuss Flynn's interview with the FBI.
• Yates brought this information to the White House Counsel so they could "take action" regarding this compromising situation.

Meeting #2:

• McGahn called Yates and requested a second meeting.
• The four topics McGahn wanted to discuss were: "why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another", "the applicability of criminal statutes and the likelihood that the DOJ would pursue a criminal case", "his concern that their taking action might interfere with an investigation of Mr. Flynn", and "his request to see the underlying evidence".
• Yates stated this mattered to DOJ because the situation compromised the President's National Security Advisor to blackmail by those who knew he lied to the Vice President, including Russia.
• Yates did not answer on the details of any criminal implications of this situation.
• Yates told McGahn that taking action would not interfere in any way to any possible investigations.
• DOJ made the raw intelligence available to McGahn and the White House. Yates could not confirm if they review this information, as she was fired the next day.

Additional issues:

• Michael Flynn joined President Trump in a phone call with Vladimir Putin the day after these 2 meetings occurred.
• Flynn continued in his role as APNSA for 18 days after these meetings before being fired by President Trump. The reasons for his firing were the exact issue that the DOJ, via Yates, brought to the attention of WH Counsel McGahn. Flynn took part in many national security decisions during this time.
• Michael Flynn should have required a higher security clearance that he had after leaving the DOD. It does not appear he was vetted for, or given, a higher security clearance for his role as APNSA in the White House. No one is sure why this is the case, or who should have enforced this outside of the White House.

Overall, I feel that a lot of details that have been reported have been confirmed, but that the underlying reasons for why these events unfolded was not reached. I thought Clapper was in true "don't give a fuck" mode, and disclosed some serious information that will probably be overlooked by those who only read the headlines, and don't understand what was going on behind the scenes last year. Yates was clear and concise, recounted her actions in great detail, and defended the actions she took as Acting AG. Great testimony from both witnesses.

THnaks for the breakdown. Overall, it seems like Trump and Pence knew that Flynn had Russian ties but instead of staying away from him they brought him even in closer and higher up cicrles of US government.

[adwinistrator]

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Thursday, May 11, 2017 - 10:00am

Witnesses
Daniel R. Coats
Director of National Intelligence

Michael Pompeo
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Admiral Michael Rogers
Director of the National Security Agency

Andrew McCabe
Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

Robert Cardillo
Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

[adwinistrator]

Burr just handed off the gavel "because of a meeting we can't push off", he will be joined by Warner (both chairman of the committee).

They stopped a long-scheduled and much-anticipated open hearing for a hastily scheduled meeting with Rosenstein...

Rosenstein seeks meeting with Senate Intelligence leaders
By ALI WATKINS 05/11/17 11:52 AM EDT

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has requested to meet with the Senate Intelligence Committee, including committee chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and vice-chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.), sources told POLITICO.

Rosenstein was seen walking into the Senate Intelligence Committee space as the panel was holding a hearing on worldwide threats.

The request came after President Donald Trump unceremoniously fired FBI Director James Comey, citing a three-page letter from Rosenstein questioning the director’s fitness to serve. It also came amid reports that Rosenstein, a well-regarded federal prosecutor, was furious over the White House’s characterization of his apparent recommendation and even threatened to quit.

It’s unclear whether Rosenstein made the request to the committee unilaterally, or took his request through officials channels at the Department of Justice. He arrived with a security detail.

[adwinistrator]

Hearing has been adjourned, will reconvene after lunch.

Nice tidbit at the end:
NSA Director Rogers said that the White House did not consult with NSA before letting Russian state media org TASS into Oval Office, with all of their equipment...

[Okeefenokee]

muh russians, y'all.

[TheReal_ND]

The NSA is just jealous they couldn't get their bugs into the Oval Office..... oh wait

[jediuser598]

"How about corruption?"

"Yeah, I'm ok with corruption, as long as it's my guy benefiting." Really guys?

Yes. Think of the children. If your son or daughter was benefiting from a corrupt system and would be hurt by its end, how could you possibly do that?

Speaking of political analysis, was thinking about your comment the other day, what's funny is that the ways you judge political analysis are largely subjective. If it aligns with your political view, it's good, if it doesn't, it's bad. Though I don't imagine anyone survives in a board like we used to go to without a fair bit of cynicism. At most, both boards were high grade bullshit. I believe your smart enough to realize that. Am I good at politics? Nah, I have a day job, got other things to do, but I stay informed on things that are happening in the world, but are you real good at political analysis? Lets be serious here, you're not either. Your pseudonym is "clubgop." By any objective metric you could put forth "Predictions, accuracy" you've failed as well. Neither of us get paid to do this.

Let us not pretend it is something other than it is, ok? This is all bullshit, and some of it is high-grade.

[clubgop]

"How about corruption?"

"Yeah, I'm ok with corruption, as long as it's my guy benefiting." Really guys?

Yes. Think of the children. If your son or daughter was benefiting from a corrupt system and would be hurt by its end, how could you possibly do that?

Speaking of political analysis, was thinking about your comment the other day, what's funny is that the ways you judge political analysis are largely subjective. If it aligns with your political view, it's good, if it doesn't, it's bad. Though I don't imagine anyone survives in a board like we used to go to without a fair bit of cynicism. At most, both boards were high grade bullshit. I believe your smart enough to realize that. Am I good at politics? Nah, I have a day job, got other things to do, but I stay informed on things that are happening in the world, but are you real good at political analysis? Lets be serious here, you're not either. Your pseudonym is "clubgop." By any objective metric you could put forth "Predictions, accuracy" you've failed as well. Neither of us get paid to do this.

Let us not pretend it is something other than it is, ok? This is all bullshit, and some of it is high-grade.

Fine, I don't play this game and have no experience with it. Ask around I have had dead on balls right analysis. In 2013 I answered correctly how a GOP candidate can get 270. Sorry, I don't do your feelz bullshit I am straight truthful. Unlike you and the rest of tje undercover hacks I am honest about mine. Comparing you to me is laughable bullshit, you could never. I am a stone cold wonk and nerd, when I dont like something I say why and give arguments I dont compare it to Stalin or Hitler or gp into wild emotional hysterics with meaninglessness platitudes more befitting a fucking Hallmark card. Take that weak bullshit somewhere else.

[jediuser598]

"I think it will be Cruz or Rubio vs Hillary and if it's a generational fight, the younger generation is going to win that. If it is Boomer establishment vs boomer establishment we saw that before and the GOP loses."

http://archive.is/sRJbe#selection-777.0-777.216

Your predictions sure do turn out to be correct, don't they?

All your metrics are rather subjective. "I'm good because I think I'm good." When someone puts you to a real objective metric, you fail. I remember you saying that Republicans were going to lose the majority and that Trump was going to lose the presidential race when the "Grab 'em by the pussy" stuff came out. You sir, have a history of error.