Thread: Comey: 'No information' to support Trump's tweets

Comey: 'No information' to support Trump's tweets

Watch live: Comey testifies before Congress on Russia’s election meddling, Trump wiretap claim

Dylan Stableford Senior Editor
Yahoo News March 20, 2017
Comment

FBI Director James Comey is testifying before House Intelligence Committee on Monday in one of the most widely anticipated congressional hearings in years.

Comey has confirmed that bureau investigators have been looking into whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia since July.

Comey also says he has “no information to support” Trump’s claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

Watch Comey’s testimony in the video player above and follow our instant analysis in the live blog below.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-liv...132655166.html

No information to support Trump campaign in collusion with Russians to "interfere with our democracy" either.

TWO BIG FAT NOTHING BURGERS created by criminals working as officials in our intelligence community.

LOCK EM UP!!

LOCK EM UP!!

LOCK EM UP!!

And throw the reporters who ran these fake news stories involving classified national security information into the cells with them.

GRRRR!!!!!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39331555

Could FBI investigation into Russia links ensnare Trump?

Anthony ZurcherNorth America reporter

• 2 hours ago
• From the sectionUS & Canada

Media caption What FBI Director Comey said on Trump, Russia and wiretaps


House of Comey, that hit political intrigue show from last year, is back on the airwaves, and this season looks like it's going to be another edge-of-the-seat affair.

Some of the characters have changed, of course.

Femme fatale Hillary Clinton and her team of Democratic Party heavies have been replaced by tough-guy Donald Trump and the alt-right gang. Fans will be thrilled to learn, however, that top law-man James Comey is back for another turn in the spotlight.

In this year's first episode, the FBI director faces down congressional inquisitors, who press him for information on allegations that Russia - those long-time stock Hollywood villains - tried to meddle in the 2016 US presidential election.

Here's a quick review of what we learned and what we still don't know. No spoiler alerts are necessary - the big revelations will have to wait until the season finale ... if there ever is one.

---

What we now know

There is an active, ongoing investigation
After a bit of grandstanding on the part of the top members of the House Intelligence Committee and a warm-up act from National Security Agency head Mike Rogers, Mr Comey led with the big news of the day.

"I have been authorised by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts," he said.






Media caption'Putin hates Clinton' and other things the FBI learned about RussiaThat there is an investigation isn't exactly breaking news - the BBC's Paul Wood reported on it in early January - but official acknowledgement is a significant development.

The fact that his investigation first began in July, during the heat of the 2016 election campaign, will likely leave Democrats howling. They will contrast Mr Comey's wide-ranging comments on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server with his until-recent silence surrounding the Trump-related inquiry.

Mr Rogers also said that the intelligence community stands behind the declassified report it issued in early January that concluded that the Russia government attempted to influence the US election in a way that helped Mr Trump's candidacy.

---

There is 'no evidence' Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower






Media captionTrump's wiretap saga explained in two minutesThe other big revelation of the day was how thoroughly both Mr Comey and Mr Rogers debunked the president-tweeted allegation that Barack Obama or his Justice Department had authorised the wiretapping of Trump Tower.

"With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration," Mr Comey said, "I have no information that supports those tweets. And we have looked carefully inside the FBI."

Indeed, the ability to order such surveillance was outside the powers of any president, Mr Comey said.
Mr Rogers also dismissed allegations that Mr Obama had bypassed domestic surveillance controls by requesting that British intelligence oversee the operation, noting that the accusation "frustrates a key ally of ours".

---

Donald Trump isn't backing down
Anyone expecting a chastened president to step forward after the day's proceedings obviously isn't a real fan of this particular show. Before the congressional hearings had even concluded, Mr Trump - or, perhaps, his staff, given that the tweets were unsigned - was firing off from the official @potus presidential account.

He tweeted that the NSA and FBI had confirmed that Russia "did not influence electoral process" (although they only had spoken about tampering with vote counts), that "unmasking individuals" in leaks - read, deposed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - endangered national security and that leakers had been "unusually active" recently.

He also asserted that Mr Comey admitted that the Obama White House "had the ability" to do such unmasking and that the FBI director wouldn't deny that Mr Obama was told about the secret recording of Flynn's conversation with a Russian ambassador.

It doesn't take a super sleuth to deduce that the point of these tweets was to imply that it was the Obama administration, or perhaps even the ex-president himself, behind the leaks that have fuelled speculation about Trump-Russia election collusion.

Press secretary Sean Spicer was as combative as ever, saying that the president had no plans to apologise for accusing his predecessor of wiretapping Trump Tower.

Image copyrightEPA

---

What we still don't know

When will this investigation end?
Although the FBI case has been open since July, Mr Comey said the effort is still in its early stages.

"For counterintelligence investigations, that's a fairly short period of time," he said.

That has to be more than a bit disconcerting to the Trump White House, which has been knocked off course by this Russia story since practically the moment Mr Trump took the oath of office. And while the administration seems intent on cracking down on unauthorised leaks out of this investigation, their efforts are unlikely to succeed.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials, prior to leaving office, had tried to disseminate intelligence related to Russian influence on the 2016 election as widely as possible in hopes of allowing it to eventually enter the public domain.

Image copyrightAPImage captionFace masks depicting Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump hang for sale at a souvenir street shop in St Petersburg, Russia

A one-two punch of those revelations and any new developments in the FBI investigation is likely to keep the Trump team off balance for quite some time.

"This work is very complex and there is no way for me to give you a timetable as to when it will be done," Mr Comey said in his opening remarks. "We approach this work in an open-minded, independent way and our expert investigators will conclude that work as quickly as they can but they will always do it well no matter how long that takes."

If Mrs Clinton were to come back for a cameo this year, she'd likely tell the audience that the only thing worse than an FBI investigation is an open-ended FBI investigation.

---

Who is targeted by this inquiry?

Time and again when asked about specific allegations or evidence relating to Russian contacts by specific members of the Trump campaign team, Mr Comey was silent.

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who had ties to pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians? No comment.

Long-time Trump advisor Roger Stone, who reportedly had communications with individuals who hacked the Democratic National Committee emails? No comment.

Former National Security Advisor Flynn? No comment.

"I really don't want to get into answering questions about any individual US person," Mr Comey said.

Image copyrightEPA

On Saturday, Lawfare blog editor Benjamin Wittes wrote that the worst-case scenario for the Trump White House was if Mr Comey appeared before the congressional committee and was tight-lipped.

A loquacious Comey, he said, was evidence of an investigation that was near its end with little evidence of substantive wrongdoing in the higher levels of the Trump brain trust.

But what would happen, Wittes wondered, if Mr Comey's FBI investigation is turning up real evidence?

"In this situation, I would expect him to be minimally verbal. He may have to answer yes or no questions in certain instances, including about the truth of the wiretapping allegations, but he will refuse to answer a lot of questions. He will make as little news as humanly possible. He will be exceptionally spare with his opinions."

"I'm trying to be studiously vague to protect the integrity of the investigation," Mr Comey said at one point on Monday.

Wittes has since parsed the director's words and concluded that it was a bad day for Mr Trump. "Really bad."

Mr Comey's relative silence could be deadly.

---

What will Republicans do?

Going into Monday's congressional hearing there was more than a bit of unease among Republican politicians over the allegations of ties between the Trump team and Russian interests.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said his committee was going to "find out all things Russia".

"We're trying to build a case," he said. "So, this is what Russia's doing in other places. Then we're going to dig into what they did here."

During the House intelligence committee proceedings, however, Republican lawmakers hewed closely to the White House line that the real story is the illegality of the intelligence community leaks about Trump team contacts with Russian officials.

Image copyrightREUTERSImage captionCommittee chairman Devin Nunes urged a speedy conclusion to the investigation, saying it had left a 'grey cloud' over the administration

From committee Chair Devin Nunes on down, they focused laser-like on impressing on Mr Comey the damaging nature of the leaks and the need to determine who is responsible for them.

If this is the view of rank-and-file Republicans coming out of the Comey hearings, then the Trump administration likely will feel well equipped to weather any resulting storm.

Although the president has been sagging in recent polls, Republican support for Mr Trump continues to be strong. Given that conservatives hold the levers of power in Washington DC, a united party will be able to fend of Democratic allegations as long as the FBI investigation fails to turn up any solid evidence of malfeasance.

In other words, all eyes are on Mr Comey and the FBI once again.

Last year, his letter to Congress just two weeks before election day proved to be a seismic plot twist.

Can the Trump-Russia investigation top that?

Keep tuning in to find out.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39331555

Comey needs to resign. Any FBI investigation in the name of national security that involves NSA, CIA, DNI and the FBI that can't figure out if any crime has been committed, if there has been any compromise of US national security, any threats, any harm, any anything that's hurt the United States or the American People or not in over 9 months, is waaaay too inept to have any role in national security matters.

Furthermore, Comey trying to be clever has stepped in his own mess. And here's why:

1. Comey stated under oath that the FBI and DOJ have no evidence of any Fisa warrant for wiretapping by the Obama Administration on Trump Tower.

2. Comey stated under oath that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign since last July of 2016 for possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

If you admit to an investigation of the Trump campaign for 9 months on something supposedly as important as Russia interfering in our democracy, then why didn't the DOJ and FBI order a wiretap of Trump Tower where the campaign was based?

He will be another casualty of the Clinton mafia. How long will he survive?

I sure hope so. I hope he resigns soon or is fired. He is a terrible FBI Director.

We need whistle-blowers in the FBI to come forth. You need to find some way to meet with the President and tell him what is going on in the FBI. The FBI is in this up to their ears.

I wouldn't and don't accept Comey's statement on the Trump Tower surveillance. I also don't accept the story that the Flynn wiretap was part of routine incidental foreign surveillance. I think Flynn was the target, not the Russian Ambassador. The Russians are very smart people, and Flynn is certainly no idiot. The Russians wouldn't have used a medium to speak with Flynn that NSA could pick up on if there was something secret or wrong or untoward about the conversation. I think that NSA "incidental surveillance" was a lie and a cover-up for an illegal "wiretap" of Trump's campaign operations in Trump Tower.

You remember the day Trump tweeted about the "wiretap", it was reported by one of the MSM's that Comey wanted the DOJ to announce that this wasn't true. The same day. Well, that means he didn't investigate his own department to see if there was some illegal or legal surveillance going on at Trump Tower. He didn't look, that takes time to figure out, right? He said today in the hearing they've looked and couldn't find any evidence of that happening.

Well, he said nothing happened weeks ago before he even looked. Therefore, by deductive reasoning, the only reason you would immediately claim the President's tweet wasn't true before looking, is if you knew it was but wanted to deny it. Otherwise, you would say nothing or say "we're investigating it".

There's no way Comey could NOW say "oh yes, we did, because of xxxx and yyyyy" because he'd already denied it and tried to get the DOJ, the Attorney General in fact, Jeff Sessions, to deny it, which Sessions refused to do.

Comey: 'No information' to support Trump's tweets

No information to support Comey's statement.

LOL!! Comey made the statement because the Acting Deputy Attorney General, Dana Boente, a Obamaite and Hillary Shrill, told him to deny the wiretap claim and also deny any involvement by any component of the Justice Department in the Trump wiretap. According to CNN, Don Lemon, tonight.

Better get Rosenstein confirmed ASAP as Deputy Attorney General.

"Thou protest too much", DOJ.

New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort talks to reporters on the floor of the Republican National Convention in July. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

By Andrew Roth March 21 at 10:42 AM

KIEV, Ukraine — A Ukrainian lawmaker released new financial documents Tuesday allegedly showing that a former campaign chairman for President Trump laundered payments from the party of a disgraced ex-leader of Ukraine using offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan.

The new documents, if legitimate, stem from business ties between the Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who enjoyed Moscow’s backing while he was in power. He has been in hiding in Russia since being overthrown by pro-Western protesters in 2014, and is wanted in Ukraine on corruption charges.

The latest documents were released just hours after the House Intelligence Committee questioned FBI Director James B. Comey about possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The hearing that also touched on Manafort’s work for Yanukovych’s party in Ukraine.

Comey declined to say whether the FBI is coordinating with Ukraine on an investigation of the alleged payments to Manafort.

[Inside Trump adviser Manafort’s world of politics and global financial dealmaking]

Four controversial figures Paul Manafort did business with

As a lobbyist and political consultant in the 1980s, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked with international clients that included two dictators who were then allied with the United States. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Manafort, who worked for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions for nearly a decade, resigned from Trump’s campaign in August after his name surfaced in connection with secret payments totaling $12.7 million by Yanukovych’s party. Manafort has denied receiving those, listed in the party’s “black ledger.”

Serhiy Leshchenko, a lawmaker and journalist, released a copy of an invoice on letterhead from Manafort’s consulting company, based in Alexandria, Va., dated Oct. 14, 2009, to a Belize-based company for $750,000 for the sale of 501 computers.

On the same day, Manafort’s name is listed next to a $750,000 entry in the “black ledger,” which was considered a party slush fund. The list was found at the party headquarters in the turmoil after Ukraine’s 2014 revolution. The ledger entries about Manafort were released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, a government law enforcement agency, last August.

Leshchenko alleges that Manafort falsified an invoice to the Belize company to legitimize the $750,000 payment to himself.

“I have found during this investigation that [Manafort] used offshore jurisdictions and falsified invoices to get money from the corrupt Ukrainian leader,” Leshchenko said during a news conference in downtown Kiev, where he provided a copy of the invoice to journalists.

[If Moscow tried to influence the U.S. election, things aren’t going as planned]

He said he received the invoices and other documents in January from the new tenants of Manafort’s former offices in downtown Kiev. The documents were left behind in a safe, he said, adding that Manafort’s signature and his company seal were proof that the documents were authentic.

Leshchenko said he was not aware of any formal Ukrainian investigation of the documents. He declined to comment on whether he had discussed the documents with U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Nazar Kholodnytskyi, a deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine whose department specializes in corruption cases, said in an interview on Tuesday that the documents hadn’t been confirmed by law enforcement or, to his knowledge, submitted for examination. There is an ongoing investigation into the black ledgers, he said, but Manafort was not a target of that investigation.

Manafort has previously accused Leshchenko of blackmailing him by threatening to release harmful information about his financial relationship with Yanukovych. That correspondence between Leshchenko and Manafort’s daughter was released in February as the result of a purported cyberhack.

Leshchenko has called the exchange a forgery.

Manafort was involved in crafting the political strategy that brought Yanukovych to power after a crushing defeat in the 2004 elections. Yanukovych’s party has been accused of ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly through wealthy oligarchs from the country’s east with interests in both Russia and Ukraine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.af478611690b