Posted on 05/20/2017 6:37:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
So, we had two stories yesterday that related to the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, or any other issues that may come from this inquiry. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been appointed as special counsel to the DOJ’s investigation, giving him a wide mandate to look into this case. The New York Times article noted that President Trump told the Russians that the pressure had been eased due to James’ Comey’s firing from the FBI. This was said in a meeting the day after he fired Mr. Comey—May 9—where he also called the former FBI chief a “nut job.” This meeting was documented and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer did not refute the story at all.
2 US officials say activities of a current WH official-- whose name they won't reveal -- are now under investigation in FBI's Russia probe.— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) May 19, 2017
WH not denying but explaining @nytimes report that Pres Trump badmouthed James Comey as "nut job" during talks with Russians last week. pic.twitter.com/hQ68FRcqVY— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) May 19, 2017
Then, there was The Washington Post piece that someone in the Trump White House was a person of interest in the Russian collusion probe: [emphasis mine]
The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official.
The revelation comes as the investigation also appears to be entering a more overtly active phase, with investigators shifting from work that has remained largely hidden from the public to conducting interviews and using a grand jury to issue subpoenas. The intensity of the probe is expected to accelerate in the coming weeks, the people said.
The sources emphasized that investigators remain keenly interested in people who previously wielded influence in the Trump campaign and administration but are no longer part of it, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Over at The Washington Examiner, T. Becket Adams had some commentary about the “person of interest” angle. He also said that out of the two stories from yesterday, read The New York Times piece.
…the sources are implicating a whole group of people (White House advisers close to the president) while deliberately not naming the one "person of interest." Secondly, that term—"person of interest"—is hopelessly vague.Attorney Ken White, who also manages the popehat.com law blog, saw the same issues in the Post's story.
"So today's WaPo story about a 'person of interest' in the White House is a little odd. 'Person of interest' is a deliberately ambiguous term, evasive. WaPo reporters are smart and know that. Yet they don't comment on it," he remarked on social media.
"'Subject' or 'target' would be far more precise terms, suggesting that the source has more knowledge and credibility," he added. "But it's odd and a bit disappointing that WaPo writers don't highlight that their source is using notoriously wobbly language with them."
He concluded with the final thought, "Because 'person of interest' could mean 'target' or 'subject' or could mean 'person mentioned once speculatively.' And no, adding 'significant' doesn't make it less ambiguous. That's like saying 'no, I STRENUOUSLY object!'"
Another big difference between the Times and Post is that the White House basically confirmed the former, while saying not a whole lot about the latter.
Guy had a good post of the Times piece, where he noted how he’s “gobsmacked” that the president would be so brazen to reveal such a detail:
To recap, the White House (a) essentially confirms that Trump made these statements -- again, directly to the Russians -- and (b) essentially confirms that Comey's firing did have something to do with Russia after all. I'm gobsmacked. Please recall that, like, just a few days ago, the White House was insisting that Comey's dismissal was about his handling of the Clinton email matter. Then Trump claimed that it was because the FBI director was doing a "bad job," or whatever. And now this. It's as if they huddled up and intentionally charted a course forward that would make them look as guilty and incompetent as humanly possible.
As for the investigations, it won’t change a thing. The DOJ has its special counsel quarterbacking things there, with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees continuing with their respective investigations into Russian collusion. Still, the whole being loose with one’s words and constantly not learning other instances of bad optics is on full display here.
When you quote the media, you know it’s more lies than truth... more suspect than not... they all are contaminated.
"It was the nephews sons brother in laws half uncles sisters neighbors postal workers grandfather"...LOL😂😂😂😂😂😂
The remark about taking pressure of the Russian investigation does sound problematic on surface. But if there were collusion or conspiracy, why would Trump state it openly, with the national security advisor present no less, and put it on official White House record? Can a president make a statement tongue in cheek? Or does a president need pre-approval from a special council before he can chitchat with a foreign dignitary?
The mainstream print and broadcast media are in a death spiral.
It literally does not matter what happens to them.
Like a madman facing the police outside his home, the media intend to do as much damage as possible on their way out.
If you think these people suck, get a twitter account and let them know.
When the MSM actually reports the news, then maybe I will believe them.
They would have to replace the want a bees and start over actual reporters.
Russians could be leaking their conversations with Trump to destroy US presidency.
Might be picked up by FBI.
It’s Jared Kushner.
The President needs to be able to do business in an unfttered manner.
Comey and the media accusing him of crimes every 5 minutes does not help.
Comey would not say he is innocent.
It says a lot that no reporter has asked Comey to show them his famous hand written memo.
The only crime that President Trump committed, as far as I know, was winning the election in a landslide.
Comey had been investigating this thing for nearly a year. Obviously this is beyond his level of competence and he needed to be replace with someone who was capable of doing the job and bringing it to an end.
It’s likely NSC Deputy Dina Habib Powell (formerly whiz kid at Goldman Sachs). Good friend of Ivanka (and therefore Jared). Been communicating with a friend in the press that Podesta found to be very useful in “teeing up stories” (that’s what he said in WikiLeaks email).
She’s the person of interest who will be going to prison.
Russians in the WH Oval Office and NOT recorded??? THAT would be a shock!
The House of Representatives is set to begin the impeachment process of current president Donald Trump. A spokesperson from the house said the decision was based on sufficient findings by the FBI of collusion with Russia during the campaign. Also, if you’re still reading this you’re a dumbass. You wish snowflake. 😂
You've Been Pranked!😂😂😂
That's what's being reported in the Independant from the UK sourced to Yashar Ali, a contributor to New York magazine on Twitter: “It’s Jared Kushner. Have confirmed this with four people. I’m not speculating.”
Comey is a nutjob.
His behavior during the election, his Hillary press conference, and since the election, his memo to himself, has been bizarre.
This guy was the FBI Director?
Let's assume that Greensea is under investigation for bank robbery, and at the same time Greensea is negotiating with the same bank for a loan.
The only way that your relief about "taking pressure off" the bank robbery oinvestigation is problematic, is under a presumption that you robbed the bank.
I don't find his relief to be tongue in cheek - it's genuine.
More crap from the Amazon Post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.