@HenryAWallace

and so the confusion between the interpreters' notes engel (in the cnN interview) wants to subpoena and the notes from the meet-up in hamburg in 2017 had gotten confused for me, but from other reports. i apologize to all for getting them muddled. but yes, the counterintelligence investigation was opened after comey was fired.

once i'd finally twigged to my errors on dates and meetings, seeking news on the hamburg meeting, i found this from the sun.uk dated jan. 13, 2019, not 2017:

"DONALD Trump reportedly swiped the notes from his interpreter after meeting with Vladimir Putin - in order to hide details of their conversation from his own officials. It was one in a series of incidences in which the President went to apparently extreme lengths to conceal what transpired between him and his Russian counterpart, according to the Washington Post (jan. 13).

Trump took possession of the interpreter's notes at his face-to-face with Putin in Hamburg in 2017, the paper reports. Then-US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was also in attendance at the meeting and later provided a short summary of what was discussed.

Trump took possession of the interpreter's notes at his face-to-face with Putin in Hamburg in 2017, the paper reports. Then-US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was also in attendance at the meeting and later provided a short summary of what was discussed.

But US officials only learned of the President's behaviour after they requested more details about the meeting from the interpreter, the report claims. The President's alleged actions have meant that there is no detailed record - even in classified files - of the five face-to-face discussions Trump and Putin have had, the Post says.

Former government officials have said the President's behaviour goes against the known practices of previous administrations.

Strobe Talbott, a former Deputy Secretary of State, told the Post that Trump’s secrecy surrounding Putin “is not only unusual by historical standards, it is outrageous." He added: "It handicaps the U.S. government — the experts and advisers and Cabinet officers who are there to serve [the President] — and it certainly gives Putin much more scope to manipulate Trump."

They characterised the foreign policy of President Obama as "a flawed ‘reset’ policy that sought engagement for the sake of engagement.”

And the spokesman added that Tillerson "gave a fulsome readout of the meeting" to officials and the Press.

White House official spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the report, which cited unnamed current and former US officials, was "so outrageously inaccurate it doesn't even warrant a response. "The liberal media has wasted two years trying to manufacture a fake collusion scandal instead of reporting the fact that unlike President Obama, who let Russia and other foreign adversaries push America around, President Trump has actually been tough on Russia."

why did the investigation into that issue begin only after Comey was fired. And if there were no indication before Comey's firing that Trump worked for Russia, why did the FBI begin investigating that subject upon Comey's firing? Am I misunderstanding something?

Then again, Democrats have been trying to pretend that Putin's decision to plop himself down at the speakers' table, then leave without saying a word, means Stein is a Russian tool. So, why should I ask questions trying to make sense of any of it?

Thanks, Wendy.

ETA: Has everyone in Washington, D.C. gone starkers? Nothing should or will end Presidential diplomacy:

Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

And Congressional Democrats should eat their peas and mind their ps and qs. Diplomacy with foreign nations is a Presidential power, not a Congressional power. Just because impeachment is politically unpopular, Democrats have no business trying to create a Constitutional crisis. And Republicans need to give us a break on the hyperbolic threats.

Simma down now, all of you asshats.

@Linda Wood

3 parts of your homework assignment. ; )

a few outtakes from lazare:

“Consequently, the [james rubin] memo argues that the U.S. should topple the Assad regime so as to weaken Iran and allay the fears of Israel, which has long regarded the Islamic republic as its primary enemy. As the memo puts it:

“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.”

“But the memo illustrates much else besides: a recklessness, lack of realism and an almost mystical belief that everything will fall neatly into place once the United States flexes its muscle. Overthrowing Assad would be nothing less than “transformative,” the memo says.
“…Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy.

Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles.”

but DT's fealty to bibi and the clown prince haven't wavered, which must be why he'd taken the US out of the iranian nuclear accords and the INF (or did he give iran 'one last chance'?

“A cockeyed memo thus helped unleash a real-life catastrophe that refuses to go away. It’s a nightmare from which Trump is struggling to escape by trying to withdraw U.S. troops in his confused and deluded way. And it’s a nightmare that warmongers from arch-neocon John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, to “liberal” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Hillary Clinton are determined to keep going. “

boilerplate neocon and neocon clinton:

“Actions have consequences, and whether we’re in Syria or not, the people who want to harm us are there & at war,” Clinton tweeted in response to Trump. “Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous. Playing into Russia & Iran’s hands is foolish. This President is putting our national security at grave risk.”

so no, i don't see the focus on vlad nor russia, myself. although i liked his brief section re: her (and sarkozy's) abject delusions on libya, and spent more time reading ellen brown at CP on libya from the comments section (although i disagree that 'rebels' created an alt central bank).

alistair crookie monster outtakes, yes, the realignments happening were well configured afaik, thought i still don't see turkey w/ iran, russia, syria, but:

“And finally, it is this repeating pattern of statements being made by the US President on foreign policy that are then almost casually contradicted, or ‘conditioned’, by some or other part of the US bureaucracy, that poses to the region (and beyond) the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question. The pattern clearly is one of an isolated President, with officials emptying his statements of executive authority (until subsequently endorsed, or denied, by the US bureaucracy). It is making Trump almost irrelevant (in terms of the setting of foreign policy).

Is this then a stealth process – knowingly contrived – incrementally to remove Trump from power? A hollowing out of his Presidential prerogatives (leaving him only as a disruptive Twitterer) – achieved, without all the disruption and mess, of formally removing him from office? We shall see."

then who is trying to remove him from power? as in: which iteration of 'the deep state'? he doesn't specify.

now you elijah magnier essay was a bit dated; newer is (the title won't copy paste for me):

"Secret negotiations are ongoing in Moscow and Damascus between representatives of the Syrian Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Russian officials concerning the fate of Kurdish militants in Syria. The Kurdish delegation is hoping that Russia – and not the US – will adopt the role of guarantor of their safety and is trying to gain a few more concessions to reduce their losses when the Syrian government forces regains complete control of al-Hasaka province in Northeast Syria.", etc., jan. 10

journalism in alternative media pointing out the total failure of Deep State policy in Syria may explain the desperate move by the Deep State to focus attention on Vlad again:

https://caucus99percent.com/content/four-current-articles-against-deep-s...

@Snode

irrc. from 'Integrity Initiative: A Look Into the Deep State?', by Mike Robinson, 2nd December 2018, ukcolumn.org

the UK cluster of the Integrity Initiative:

"Three names jump out from the others:

Andy Pryce, the Foreign Office Head of Counter Disinformation and Media Development, who we met at the beginning of this article
Ben Bradshaw MP, who has been promoting an anti-Russian outlook, including claiming that Russia “interfered” with the Brexit referendum, and
Sir Andrew Wood, former British ambassador to Russia, and one of the founders of Orbis Business Intelligence, the privatised British intelligence operation which features Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump 'dodgy dossier'.'

with the Pee Tape, and that British guy. When the tape didn't surface then Wikileaks and Russian bots floated to the surface. Right now it's whatever sticks to the wall.

@snoopydawg

the accursed zero hedge 4 me, at pcr's site: no hyperlinks, footnotes, but i dug it out of michael hudson's archives, with a total of 3 footnotes, lol.

"This is where the crime lies. The Obama regime and DNC were using these agencies for domestic political use, KGB style.

The Obama/Clinton cover story is now falling to pieces. That explains the desperation in the attack byAdam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, on Committee Chairman Devin Nunes to stop the exposure. Russiagate is not a Trump/Putin collusion but a domestic spy job carried out by Democrats.

Law requires Trump to arrest those responsible and to put them on trial for treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. If Trump fears to prosecute the Obama operatives within the Deep State, they will try all the harder to attack him to the point of forcing his removal, or at least discrediting him and his fellow Republicans to pave the way for the 2018 elections."

but here's whitney's much longer original piece. i will say someone brought his exposé on the killing of seth rich to the café, and i followed him to the Black Sheriff in Cowboy Hat, and decided he was being sold a bill of goods. i'm reading it...

the missing but key piece from hudson/PCS methinks:

" That’s not to say that their weren’t any connections between the 2016 political campaigns and Russia. There sure were, but the connections were all on Hillary’s side. As Robert Parry reports in his latest piece at Consortium News:

“An irony of the escalating hysteria about the Trump camp’s contacts with Russians is that one presidential campaign in 2016 did exploit political dirt that supposedly came from the Kremlin and other Russian sources. Friends of that political campaign paid for this anonymous hearsay material, shared it with American journalists and urged them to publish it to gain an electoral advantage. But this campaign was not Donald Trump’s; it was Hillary Clinton’s….

Indeed, you have the words of Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, in his opening statement at last week’s public hearing on so-called “Russia-gate.”

Schiff’s seamless 15-minute narrative of the Trump campaign’s alleged collaboration with Russia followed the script prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele who was hired as an opposition researcher last June to dig up derogatory information on Donald Trump.

Steele, who had worked for Britain’s MI-6 in Russia, said he tapped into ex-colleagues and unnamed sources inside Russia, including leadership figures in the Kremlin, to piece together a series of sensational reports that became the basis of the current congressional and FBI investigations into Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow…

Since he was not able to go to Russia himself, Steele based his reports mostly on multiple hearsay from anonymous Russians who claim to have heard some information from their government contacts before passing it on to Steele’s associates who then gave it to Steele who compiled this mix of rumors and alleged inside dope into “raw” intelligence reports….” (“The Sleazy Origins of Russia-gate”, Consortium News)"

wouldn't it be lovely if they'd known that steele is a big presence in the Integrity Initiative? and here's robert parry's piece. i'll have to read it later, 3 loaves of bread day here and i'm behind schedule. ; )

it was because Vlad told him to. When Trump fired Tillerson it was because Vlad told him to.

This is a good article from last year about Russia Gate and there is a link to another article in that's a good read. This bullcrap has been going on for so long I've forgotten half of the details about how crooked people who are involved in it are.