Sally Yates Russiagate Senate Testimony

[Edge-]

No it wont. Soon after the election..the lefties got together to strategize on how to derail trump. Hence..the Trump-Russia collusion.

You realize those investigations got started in mid 2016, and potentially as far back as 2015...right?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ia-ties-report

[stabya23]

You realize those investigations got started in mid 2016, and potentially as far back as 2015...right?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ia-ties-report

Started from a bogus Dossier

You realize they have hours of intercepted info from their investigation. You would think by now there would be something leaked proving collusion.

[HumbleDuck]

Was this about Russia or Hilary emails and travel ban 1.0?

[Edge-]

Started from a bogus Dossier

You realize they have hours of intercepted info from their investigation. You would think by now there would be something leaked proving collusion.

No, the Steel dossier is a different matter entirely, actually.

These were communications intercepts, not opposition research (of which more and more is being verified over time).

[stabya23]

No, the Steel dossier is a different matter entirely, actually.

These were communications intercepts, not opposition research (of which more and more is being verified over time).

Ok - Be that as it may... Intercepts...they have them. many of them. Since 2015... so how come as late as today, nobody has any evidence of collusion? Even when we know anything bad about trump will leak?

[Edge-]

Ok - Be that as it may... Intercepts...they have them. many of them. Since 2015... so how come as late as today, nobody has any evidence of collusion? Even when we know anything bad about trump will leak?

What, do you want the FBI/CIA etc. to just do their investigations publicly?

That's not how investigations work, yo.

[Orbitus]

Started from a bogus Dossier

You realize they have hours of intercepted info from their investigation. You would think by now there would be something leaked proving collusion.

Actually the FBI has confirmed major parts of the Dossier.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
https://www.mediamatters.org/researc...borated/216098
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...details-2017-2

Want to try again?

[Blur4stuff]

Trump and his team were warned before they brought in Flynn. Yates warned them after they did it. They fired her after she warned them. Flynn would still be there if not for leaks.

How is this not a case of Trump, Pence (who both lied) and the rest of his team committing treason?

[Kujako]

How is this not a case of Trump, Pence (who both lied) and the rest of his team committing treason?

Because it's not treason to be stupid?

[Felya]

Do you even know how many democrats do business in russia? go google Jill Stein-Putin. It's a total red herring. I promise you there will be no proof of Russia and Trump colluding about anything.

Why would googling Jill Stein have anything to do with democrats?

- - - Updated - - -

Trump and his team were warned before they brought in Flynn. Yates warned them after they did it. They fired her after she warned them. Flynn would still be there if not for leaks.

How is this not a case of Trump, Pence (who both lied) and the rest of his team committing treason?

Because this isn't about Trump or Pence, but Flynn. In fact, the reason Yates approached the White House to raise alarms on Flynn, is because Pence was saying things to American public that were not true. Yates does not believe that Pence or Trump knew that Flynn was lying...

[Mormolyce]

So is it just me or is Sally Yates a very handsome woman?

Skipping it.

It's a public hearing. There will be no classified information, so we already know all this stuff. It brings the Trump-Russia right back to the front pages, but that's about it.

Feel free to throw this quote in my face if I'm wrong. Either way, I win.

I think it's unlikely to have any shock twists. More of an official public statement of what we all know and/or suspect. Might be some additional info but I doubt it'd be anything huge.

- - - Updated - - -

Started from a bogus Dossier

You realize they have hours of intercepted info from their investigation. You would think by now there would be something leaked proving collusion.

Unverified is not the same as bogus. The dossier came from a respected source and its veracity is yet to be determined.

[Felya]

Ok - Be that as it may... Intercepts...they have them. many of them. Since 2015... so how come as late as today, nobody has any evidence of collusion? Even when we know anything bad about trump will leak?

Trump and his staff have access to it, but not in a public setting. During the hearing, both Yates and the guy with her said that information can be provided in a different setting.

What is undeniable, is the reason White House was approached is because Pence wasn't saying the truth to American public, without his knowledge. The source of the information to Pence, was Flynn. Russia was aware of Flynn's lie, as it explicitly involved them as part of the lie in the intercept. White House was warned, that Flynn's lying and Russia knowing about it, risks black mail of Flynn, where Russia would make demands to prevent Flynn's lying from being revealed. None of this requires you to know what was intercepted, as Pence stating the lie was to the public and Trump justified the firing over exactly that... Flynn's lying...

You can pretend this is all bullshit or show that Trump did not know about Flynn's lying. This points away from both Trump and Pence, as Yates specifically and explicitly stated that nothing they were aware of would lead them to believe Trump and Pence knew of the lie. The accusation against Flynn relies on the fact that neither Trump or Pence knew...

Your belief of what is happening with Flynn does not depend on being supportive or against Trump. This does not implicate him in any way. There is absolutely no reason to defend Trump here or attack him. Flynn lied to the American people when Pence asked him for a briefing that would be repeated to American public. It wasn't Pence or Trump lying about a Russian connection, but Flynn... who was told to resign by Trump, over lying.

[Blur4stuff]

Trump and Pence didn't know

They were warned beforehand. Obama warned them. Spicer confirmed that he warned them. They chose to use Flynn anyways.

They knew! There's no hiding it. They then went on to lie about it.

[Felya]

They were warned beforehand. Obama warned them. Spicer confirmed that he warned them. They chose to use Flynn anyways.

They knew! There's no hiding it. They then went on to lie about it.

Then you know something that Yates doesn't. She explicitly stated numerous times that the reason White House was contacted, was because they didn't know. If you want to assume or place your own bias, all power to you. I'll be the first to toss shit at Trump, but he isn't culpable in this, according to Yates today.

[Blur4stuff]

Obama warned them beforehand. They used Flynn anyways. They lied to the public. Yates heard their lies and thought they were genuinely clueless. When she warned them they fired her to cover it up.

But let's enjoy these choices anyways:

1. Trump and his team are incompetent

or

2. Trump and his team committed treason

[Heladys]

Then you know something that Yates doesn't. She explicitly stated numerous times that the reason White House was contacted, was because they didn't know. If you want to assume or place your own bias, all power to you. I'll be the first to toss shit at Trump, but he isn't culpable in this, according to Yates today.

Obama warned him off in November. We don't know what information was presented then. Sally Yates them warned them again, with information we do know about, and instead of listening this second time it took them 18 days to fire him, even then while saying he did nothing wrong.

You're fucking right Trump is culpable.

[Felya]

Obama warned them beforehand. They used Flynn anyways. They lied to the public. Yates heard their lies and thought they were genuinely clueless. When she warned them they fired her to cover it up.

What did Obama warn them about? As I said, with all the things to gripe on Trump, him lying here isn't one of them. Yates didn't just hear their lies, but unlike you and me... actually heard the intercept... actually knows the issue with Trump's campaign that we have no access to.

In fact, if you want to shit on Trump for this, I'll give you an avenue that doesn't alter reality. Would thinking Trump is just a pawn in the game his campaign is running with Russia satisfy your Trump angst?

- - - Updated - - -

Obama warned him off in November. We don't know what information was presented then. Sally Yates them warned them again, with information we do know about, and instead of listening this second time it took them 18 days to fire him, even then while saying he did nothing wrong.

You're fucking right Trump is culpable.

Obama most likely, this is assuming of course, warned of the same thing that got Flynn fired in the first place. I doubt Obama knew what was in the intercept and considering Trump's ideological differences, it is reasonable to believe that Trump didn't heed Obama's warning on ideological basis, not colluding with Russia.

Remember, this is focusing specifically on something FBI believed Trump did not know. Without that piece, the issue wouldn't by Flynn lying... it would be someone else...

[Stormspellz]

The embarrassment today is Sally Yates. She should've just did her job and let the courts decide legality. If Jeff Sessions pulled this shit I'd say the same thing about him.

thats the thing she was doing her job

[Breccia]

thats the thing she was doing her job

It bears repeating: Yates was so correct about the Muslim Ban, that the first one was blocked, and Trump gave up. Then, they re-wrote it specifically around the court ruling, and that one was blocked too. That's how right Yates was. Even a specific intent to force it to be legal, wasn't enough.

And it's not going great this time, either.

First of all, the ban was to be 90 days and it's closing in on 60 days since the second block in a hurry. As some point, the smart move is to just work on extreme vetting, which was the point of a temporary ban in the first place. The first ban would have expired by now.

Second of all, the one thing they can't change was Trump's flat-out stated intentions to which he got thundering applause. He can say whatever he wants now, he said he wanted a Muslim Ban. And that's unConstitutional. It came up today. One of the judges asked "Has the president ever repudiated the campaign statements he made about a Muslim ban?" And there is only one answer to that: no. The Muslim Ban was on Trump's website until literally today.

Third of all, even FOX News is suggesting a loss here. Yeah the case isn't over, but the headline "Appeals court casts skeptical eye at revised order" from the most favorable network to Trump is not a great sign.

And fourth of all, even if it passes the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, there's still the Ninth, who blocked it the first time. Trump has to win both cases. And I'll remind you, Trump has directly threatened the Ninth and impugned their objectivity. If he's right, they'll block him out of spite. If he's wrong, their arguments remain valid.

[NYC17]

It bears repeating: Yates was so correct about the Muslim Ban, that the first one was blocked, and Trump gave up. Then, they re-wrote it specifically around the court ruling, and that one was blocked too. That's how right Yates was. Even a specific intent to force it to be legal, wasn't enough.

And it's not going great this time, either.

First of all, the ban was to be 90 days and it's closing in on 60 days since the second block in a hurry. As some point, the smart move is to just work on extreme vetting, which was the point of a temporary ban in the first place. The first ban would have expired by now.

Second of all, the one thing they can't change was Trump's flat-out stated intentions to which he got thundering applause. He can say whatever he wants now, he said he wanted a Muslim Ban. And that's unConstitutional. It came up today. One of the judges asked "Has the president ever repudiated the campaign statements he made about a Muslim ban?" And there is only one answer to that: no. The Muslim Ban was on Trump's website until literally today.

Third of all, even FOX News is suggesting a loss here. Yeah the case isn't over, but the headline "Appeals court casts skeptical eye at revised order" from the most favorable network to Trump is not a great sign.

And fourth of all, even if it passes the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, there's still the Ninth, who blocked it the first time. Trump has to win both cases. And I'll remind you, Trump has directly threatened the Ninth and impugned their objectivity. If he's right, they'll block him out of spite. If he's wrong, their arguments remain valid.

And of course, this has fuck all to do with the subject of this hearing today. Fucking embarrassing display by Grassley, Cruz, Cornyn, and Kennedy.