Comey Confirms FBI Investigating Ties Between Russia, Trump Associates

Will assess whether anything illegal happened, but wouldn't provide details.



Yes, associates of President Donald Trump are the focus of an FBI investigation over potential connections to the Russian government and Russia's attempts to meddle with the 2016 presidential election, FBI Director James Comey confirmed in a House committee meeting this morning.

Comey would not discuss any details of the ongoing investigation or suggest that they believed that any crimes had been committed as yet. That's what the investigation was for. The public announcement confirms what had been leaked out from several sources already. Comey did say there would be an "assessment of whether any crimes were committed."

Furthermore, pretty much everybody participating on both sides of this House Intelligence Committee hearing was on the same side in concluding that Trump's tweets that he had been wiretapped by President Barack Obama were not supported by evidence. This doesn't necessarily mean that other types of surveillance might have happened. But parties dismissed the idea that wiretaps were involved, and Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, explained that Obama would not have had the authority to simply order Trump to be wiretapped on his own.

Other than those two major news hooks, much of the rest of the questioning from the House committee, at least in the earliest stages, ping-ponged back and forth between the two parties' attempts to spin this entire scandal their way. For Democrats, this meant a heavy focus on Russia's potential meddling in the election. Though there has still been no evidence that Russian hacking altered the results of the election in any way, committee ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) spent a good 15 minutes detailing the entire background of the targeting of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign pre-election for hacking and timed releases of private email discussions.

For Republicans, much of the focus was, first of all, pointing out that there was no evidence the election results themselves were altered by hackers, and then attacking the leaks coming out of the intelligence community, particularly wanting to track down and punish whoever it was who leaked to the press that Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national security advisor, had been talking to a Russian diplomat and—more importantly—had apparently lied to now-Vice President Mike Pence about it. The emphasis on the crimes of the leaks themselves may well have reached its strangest place when Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) made a show out of refusing to say Flynn's name when asking questions after making a big deal about how these intel leaks have the potential to violate the privacy of Americans.

There's a secondary goal here by pro-surveillance conservatives that helps make the line of questioning make a little more sense. It's not necessarily about protecting Trump and Trump's associates. It's about protecting the intelligence community's surveillance authorities. Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Florida), and other Republicans raised concerns that these leaks could compromise efforts to renew Section 702, an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that details some authorities and restrictions on overseas or international surveillance that also ends up scooping up conversations or data from Americans.

Section 702 is going to sunset this year unless Congress takes action on it. Privacy and civil liberties groups have called for reforms to Section 702 to provide greater protections for Americans from having their information collected, stored, and used in domestic crime investigations without warrants. Surveillance advocates and the Trump administration itself do not want any reforms to 702 and want it renewed as it is. So the perception among Republicans on the panel was that the leaks revealing Flynn's name jeopardize the renewal of 702 because it shows that the American people can't trust that their privacy actually will be protected by the intelligence community.

It's yet another example of how people in position of power don't grasp the consequences of the abuse of authority until it's against them or their friends. Even so, there was little evidence the Republicans were concerned at all that the collection and use of the private communication was itself a problem but rather that the information was leaked.

And ultimately the partisan split in the discussions here presents us with a false choice. There's no reason why Americans shouldn't be concerned by a foreign power's breach of a political party's communications in an attempt to influence the election and at the same time worry about the dangers and long-term consequences of the intelligence community using agenda-driven links to attempt to damage the leaders of the executive branch (a.k.a. their bosses).

NEXT: Tomi Lahren, Pro-Choice Conservative, Not 'Incoherent' on Abortion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mr. Credibility

  2. None dare call it Treason.
    There are some who call me … Tim.

    1. Timmeeeeeeh!

      1. Did Lassie fall down the well?

  3. “Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, explained that Obama would not have had the authority to simply order Trump to be wiretapped on his own.”

    Shackford, did you laugh when you wrote that?

    1. Well .. note the carefully chosen “would not have had the authority” versus “totally couldn’t have happened.”

      1. I recall a few of Obama’s own aides saying no one should say “totally couldn’t have happened” but, for some reason, that gets left out. Rogers is just using the same hymnal.

        1. B-b-b-b-but Obama!

          1. B-b-b-but Stupid!

      2. My understanding is that the President’s order isn’t necessary. They could go to a FISA court.

        And my understanding (from Snowden, Clapper, and just general observation) is that the NSA doesn’t really give a shit about whether they or the President have the authority to do what they do.

        Much better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

    2. He didn’t need the “authority” to wiretap. Judge Napolitano made that clear.

  4. It’s yet another example of how people in position of power don’t grasp the consequences of the abuse of authority until it’s against them or their friends.

    And even then.

  5. so they investigate the Trump campaign but they didn’t wire tap them. Either they are lying or did a piss poor job of investigating. either way the FBI loses bit at least they admit no ties between the campaign and Russia but the left will ignore that part

    1. I think this entire controversy depends on one’s definition of wiretapping and the intelligence community’s weaselly words. There is pretty much no need to physically tap phone lines to track communication anymore.

      1. One gets the feeling that if Trump had tweeted “surveillance” instead of “wiretap”, an entirely different set non-denial-denials would have been produced.

        1. You know how you investigate someone without investigating them, you investigate all their friends and business associates. technically not investigating the party of interest. Pluasible deniability

    2. How would they know to investigate if Trump wasn’t under surveillance? Wiretap can be used as a general statement of surveillance, interesting no one asked if the FBI had Trump under surveillance.

  6. Huh. Well, CNN’s take is quite a bit different. Here’s the monster headline on their site right now:

    Comey: Russia wanted to hurt US and Clinton, help Trump

    1. I used to think “Clinton News Network” was over the top.

      1. I don’t think there’s much doubt anymore that’s exactly what it is.

    2. “Hurt US and Clinton..”

      The passive implication being that Clinton IS the US, and anything which hurts Clinton invariably hurts the US. Conversely anything which helps Trump hurts the US.

      1. That’s an accurate if parsimonious paraphrase of exactly what Comey said.

    3. Funny, that monster headline comes from his testimony

      1. “Comey confirms Trump opponent committed felony in Flynn leak, declines to exonerate multiple named Obama officials.”

        Is a headline taken directly from his testominy.

  7. I wonder if he’ll come out later on this matter in the opposite manner of how he handled Clinton. As in: “We have found no evidence of a crime being committed, however we feel that a full indictment is warranted because reasons.”

    1. Sounds plausible.

  8. Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, explained that Obama would not have had the authority to simply order Trump to be wiretapped on his own.

    Yeah, he’d need to get a scrupulous FISA court judge to impartially review all the facts and then judiciously determine whether or not the justifications given reach the FISA court’s super-stringent requirements to grant the warrant. Obama couldn’t possibly have gotten a FISA court judge to just issue him a warrant on such flimsy grounds. Unpossible.

    1. a few sources have said a FISA warrant was issued. Unknown is its purpose and how gave the go-ahead. But I would be far more concerned about a state in which the chief executive had actual deniability about such a thing; plausible deniability I understand for political reasons.

      1. a few sources have said a FISA warrant was issued.

        OK, fucking subpoena it and settle the matter already.

        1. Silly Rich. It is much easier to leak information and/or make outrageous claims.

        2. How do you subpoena a secret warrant? The whole point of a secret warrant is that it’s SECRET.

          1. GOD it’s like you don’t even deep state!

          2. Does anyone know how secret FISA warrants are?

            Is there a central repository of them somewhere or are they just buried deep in the bureaucracy so that no one even know how many have actually been requested and granted?

            1. They’re in the warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant and behind the Stargate. Look for file boxes labeled “Leopard breeding reports”.

              1. One of these days a furry is gonna find that box and be very disappointed.

    2. Since when would obama care if he had the “authority” to order a wiretap? I think we can assume what bill, under orders of hillary suggested by obama, said to lynch on the “chance” meeting on the tarmac.

  9. There’s no reason why Americans shouldn’t be concerned by a foreign power’s breach of a political party’s communications in an attempt to influence the election

    Like in a hypothetical scenario or some alternate universe or in a Tom Clancy novel perhaps? I do hope you’re not taking that weak bullshit pdf file as actual evidence of this happening. To date the only evidence I’ve heard of is that a line or two of code was of Russian Cyrillic origin, which is the equivalent of saying that Russia was behind some murder in Montana because the assailant used an AK-47.

    1. the most recent WikiLeaks dump said the CIA can hack into something and make it appear as though a foreign govt did it.

    2. Evidence indicated that a Cyrillic keyboard was used and the tools used to hack in where outdated Russian ones, which are available in online hacking communities.

      Of course, it’s not like there’s a massive hacking underground in Russia and Eastern Europe as a whole with connections worldwide or anything. Like how it’s always the Nigerian government sending those emails about the princes to you.

      1. You want a Cyrillic keyboard? Shit, i can get you a Cyrillic keyboard in under an hour. WITH the ?????? ???? on it.

        1. Well, I know a guy…

        2. there is more than likely an app that will make a QWERTY key board actions into Cyrillic. it would probably be pretty easy

          found on online already

          Cryillic key board

      2. Wikileaks said the CIA has the ability to hack and make it look like the russians. Funny how one of the two states who refused “help” from the NSA to “secure” their computers before the election was hacked by that same NSA.

  10. Furthermore, pretty much everybody participating on both sides of this House Intelligence Committee hearing was on the same side in concluding that Trump’s tweets that he had been wiretapped by President Barack Obama were not supported by evidence

    They’re absolutely correct.

    You don’t need evidence when you’ve got this–

    Comey Confirms FBI Investigating Ties Between Russia, Trump Associates

    A confession.

    The circus of semantics that’s going on right now about physical wiretapping–among other types of surveillance– should be enough for anyone.

    Not for nuReason though.


    Yeah. Monitered Minds and Managed Markets.

    1. Read the next bloody sentence. IT IS THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE.

      1. The fog of partisanship is very much like the fog of war.

      2. Damn, Azathoth, you fucked up so bad you made Shackelton type British!

    2. You have comey and the CIA no longer under the direction of the president, but they believe the president are under the FBI and CIA, that they are the ones who call the shots

  11. This whole thing smacks of the Obama’s Secret Kill List – ooops, Disposition Matrix.

    Step 1 – Lefty institution pumps story. Previously it was how tough on terrorists Obama is. This time it’s how Trump’s in Bed with Putin.

    Step 2 – People opposed to Lefty institutions say “Wait, what?” Previously it was about the Constitutional limits of exec power, now it’s about Obama using the FBI for political purposes.

    Step 3 – Feeble attempt by Lefty Apologists to walk it back/cover it up.

    Step 4 – Bring in a reputable member of the intelligence apparatus to dispute the claim/muddy the water. Somebody like James Clapper, known for perjuring themselves on national TV.

    Step 5 – Lefty Apologists, realizing they just stepped in it, get mum about it and hope everybody forgets. Call anybody who attempts to remind you of the abuses of power Tinfoil hat wearing Kochsuckers.

    1. Nah, you still do not get anything. Not even your food stamps; they are getting cut

  12. If you can’t trust the head of the FBI, who can you trust?

    1. The guy who believes everything he hears on Fox News?

      1. What’s MSNBC? Chopped liver?

        1. Rachel Maddow applying a lilt to her voice when talking about facts is not equivalent to Sean Hannity’s paranoid nightly ranting about bullshit.

  13. OT: Moonbeam’s choo-choo derailed.

    1. “OT: Moonbeam’s choo-choo derailed.”

      I hope you are right.
      This lefty wet-dream has been declared dead several times, but moonbeam seems to find judges who decide he ‘means well’, and keep it on life support.

  14. Trump: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    1. I’m confused. Are you, on a libertarianish forum, suggesting that TOP MEN be (more) routinely stripped of their position(s)?

      1. It is a troll. It says all kinds of things in a desperate bid for attention.

        1. I learned it from you, Dad!

          1. You’ve never learned anything.
            Fuck off.

  15. James B. Comey complicated the life of every Republican elected official today

    For Trump to continue to make the case that he was wiretapped by Obama during the 2016 election, you must believe that the current FBI director is lying in a public, nationally televised congressional hearing. And that the former director of national intelligence was lying. And that Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, is lying that Britain was not involved in a wiretapping program at the behest of the American government.

    Given Comey’s flat denial of any evidence of Trump Tower being wiretapped, there will be increased pressure on both Trump and Republican members of Congress to back off that position and apologize for it. Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Will Hurd (R-Tex.) have already called on Trump to apologize to Obama. It’s hard to imagine that other GOPers won’t follow that lead in light of Comey’s testimony in front of the House intelligence committee Monday.

    B-b-b-b-but Hillary!

    1. Did the FBI formally investigate the wiretapping allegation?

  16. pretty much everybody participating on both sides of this House Intelligence Committee hearing was on the same side in concluding that Trump’s tweets that he had been wiretapped by President Barack Obama were not supported by evidence. This doesn’t necessarily mean that other types of surveillance might have happened

    Given that “wiretaps” is just a euphemism for any form of electronic surveillance, this seems to be trying to split hairs that don’t actually exist.

    1. And, of course, “electronic surveillance” is just a euphemism for masturbation.

      1. You aren’t funny, Cuckschmuck Gay Boy.

        1. Mikey’s still trying to make that happen, for some* reason.


          1. I have joined his cause, CGB.

            1. Sad!

            2. For real, it is pretty tragic that the extra chromosome is contagious.

              1. Hey, we put our pants on just like the rest of you – one leg at a time. Except, once our pants are on, we make amazing nicknames.

                1. I’m calling bullshit on your claim to be wearing pants, when we all know you’re Donald Duckin’ 24/7.

                  1. I don’t look good in hats.

                    1. Like that’s a dealbreaker for you.

    2. Agreed. Given the NYPD’s super-duper secret use of IMSI Catchers, the idea that his ‘wire was tapped’ at some point during the campaign (intentionally or not) is an almost certainty. Not that that’s his point, but his mild disconnectedness or scatterbrained approach to the issue doesn’t really matter in light of their n-layers deep self-parody.’

  17. Lunatic dems still can’t get over that they lost the election, and are so deranged they literally believe Trump is going to be impeached and Pence will get scared away and Hillary will be President in a year.

    Remember when Trump was trolling in August saying how he wouldn’t accept the results and people freaked out. They they freaked out again when they wouldn’t accept the results

  18. It’s, um, amusing to watch these “open” hearings in which much of the verbiage is expended in dancing, repetition, and inability to comment due to “ongoing investigation” or “classified matter”.

  19. The investigation started in July. We’re now 2 weeks from April 2017.

    Given that he offered almost no relevant details (while unequivocally shooting down wiretaps allegation), the bombshell revelation is nothing more than a mercurial head of FBI providing an update to an old news.

    Everything Clinton did was ethically dubious (like her foundation taking gobs of money from Russians) but did not rise to the level of crime. Or at least that was the FBI’s position. The precedent has been set. Comey probably has nothing, but he’s trying to avoid appearances of bias, which is why he publicly announced the reopening of Clinton’s case weeks before the election.

  20. OK, serious question:
    Someone is ‘investigating ties’. What are they looking for? Is it a general fishing expedition to see if some Russki bought a Trump staffer a meal worth more than, what $100.01? What ‘ties’ are illegal between a politico and representatives of a country which is not at war with us.
    Are they still hoping to find the Russkis packed the ballot boxes in CA so the hag didn’t win by more than she already did?

          1. DanO.|3.20.17 @ 5:45PM|#
            “^ Turd!”

            That’s a mirror you’re looking at.

    1. Ties, goddamnit… TIES!

      And when we say ties we mean like Dianne Feinstein to China type of ties. That level of ties.

      1. So he’ll have to joint Di Fi in jail? THAT’s scary!

    2. They’re probably trying to ascertain whether casual contacts between Trump people and “Russians” amounted to something more serious. Roger Stone apparently had a friendly twitter conversation with “Guccifer”, but not the Russian government.

      The FBI “tied” the Grizzly Steppe attacks to Russian sources, but their report was criticized for inaccuracies. And IP addresses can be easily manipulated.

      The FBI interviewed a number of Clinton people and went over their devices. Comey was direct in asserting Clinton was careless with classified info. The private server was never authorized by anyone. He still declined to go after Clinton. So what does he have on Trump that would damn his administration? He can’t subpoena the Russian government.

    3. Pretty easy to guess I’d say. It’s publicly confirmed that Russia engaged in cyberespionage in order to benefit the Trump campaign. It’s also well known that you can’t throw a rock in the White House without hitting someone with ties to the Russian oligarchy.

      Stretch your brain real hard now.

      1. “It’s publicly confirmed that Russia engaged in cyberespionage in order to benefit the Trump campaign.”

        Um, no. Google “Grizzly Steppe” to find out more about the many flaws in that report.

        Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion just this month.

        1. I didn’t say anything about collusion. That’s what they’d be investigating. The fact that the Russians actively tried to help the Trump campaign was reiterated by Comey today.

          1. How did they help him exactly? What was the mechanism?

            1. Hacking John Podesta and DNC emails, but nobody on the Republican side, to create the illusion of a one-sided scandal.

              1. What was the scandal involving John Podesta since you just mention below they are about recipes and irrelevant?

              2. Also fyi they tried to hack the Republicans and didn’t really get thru fully. Wikileaks on their twitter today showcased some of the RNC they released so your assertion is false

              3. They don’t have any evidence that the Russian government hacked the emails. Guccifer (a Romanian) and some other Russian hackers (Cozy and Fancy Bear) hit the DNC servers.

                The only real evidence of Russian interference either the FBI or DHS publicly released is the Grizzly Steppe report, which was criticized by many cybersecurity experts as inconclusive.

                If Trump didn’t collude with Russians, then any instance of Russian hacking is just a stain on the DNC and US intelligence, not to mention the Obama admin. The hackers leaked damaging information about Clinton that the DNC acknowledged was true. The voters acted on information that was kept from them.

                No, I’m not saying this is a legitimate way to influence the election. But that’s how it happened. The hackers were effectively whistle blowers.

                1. What misdeeds were uncovered again? A bad recipe for risotto?

                  1. How did the hacked emails hurt the Clinton campaign if there was nothing actually-damaging in them?

              4. I don’t see why anybody would think the one-sidedness of this scandal was illusory.

                The leaks merely confirmed what we already suspected about Hillary: she was a lying, corrupt, incompetent b*tch who couldn’t keep her E-mails secure.

                When it comes to Trump, there is no hint of any similarly damaging information, and the RNC was not successfully hacked because, apparently, they are a little more competent.

      2. Care to elaborate how releasing the emails helped the trump campaign? Why were those emails helpful? Who wrote them?

        1. The substance is of course completely irrelevant. The emails were about John Podesta’s risotto recipe.

          The problem was Americans assumed Hillary was engaged in something nefarious with this email “scandal” that dragged on for months. Turned out she wasn’t, but Comey announced a reopening of the investigation less than two weeks before election day, which precipitated a large drop in her poll numbers, probably costing her the election. It’s not about anything specific, it’s about “OMG EMAILS.”

          To this day you can surprise many an American by pointing out that Hillary Clinton was one of the only people involved in the election not to be hacked, thanks to her private server.

          1. Ok you are going off on a different issue. I thought you were talking about Russians helping Trump so not sure what the email server of hers has to do with it seeing how it was taken down a few years go.

            Anyway back on topic

            If the substance was irrelevant how would that be helpful to Trump?

          2. The thing you cite here by Comey 2 weeks before was not due to the Russians. Your original claim was about Russians helping Trump. Try to stay on topic. TIA

          3. The problem was Americans assumed Hillary was engaged in something nefarious with this email “scandal”

            Assume? Are you kidding? Clintons and Podesta’s E-mails were a stinging indictment of the dishonesty, callousness, and corruption of Hillary and her campaign.

            You’re right to the degree that Hillary’s actually illegal acts were indeed largely separate from the leaks.

            Either of those two E-mail related issues should have killed her campaign. The fact that Hillary has engaged in so much bad behavior that normal people can’t keep it all straight anymore doesn’t exonerate her.

    4. They are looking to see whether your mom was that hooker who peed on Drumpf, or was it you.

      That is a serious answer.

  21. Obama wiretapped me, and by “wiretapped” I don’t mean he actually wiretapped me, and by “he” I don’t mean Obama — it could have been the British or or or the Lamestream Media or one of my other enemies and believe me I have a lot of enemies, believe me, and by the way Arnold’s ratings tanked so bad they fired him, they fired him, so it goes to show you how unbelievable the polls are, which by the way I have historic polls, historic polls, believe me, and not those fake news polls but real polls by real Americans who want to Make America Great Again thank you thank you.

    1. You missed “and the crowds at my inauguration were historic, very historic.”

    2. This is the guy 80% of the libertarians have decided to start loving government for.

      1. Tony|3.20.17 @ 5:05PM|#
        “This is the guy 80% of the libertarians have decided to start loving government for.”

        English language used here; please try again.

  22. Turns out the libertarian moment requires libertarian ‘intellectuals’ completely deferring to and trusting government top men.

    1. VG Zaytsev|3.20.17 @ 3:56PM|#
      “Turns out the libertarian moment requires libertarian ‘intellectuals’ completely deferring to and trusting government top men.”

      WTF does THAT mean? Are you drunk this early in the day?

      1. Don’t worry Sevo, no one ever thought of you as an intellectual.

        A tool yes, a stool often, but never an intellectual.

  23. BTW, has anyone else here noticed that certain writers at this site seem to believe its their job to explain the government’s position to the rubes?

    WTF is up with that.

  24. Before I become too concerned if a foreign power’s hack influenced the election I would first be concerned if indeed it was a foreign power who did the hacking.

    Perhaps it was a young, recently murdered, DNC employee with a conscience and a travel drive.

  25. What difference at this point does it make?!

  26. Let’s not forget that Comey and his brother are still on the Clinton Crime Foundation payroll.

    . In 2013, the same year that he was appointed the FBI Director, James Comey became a board member, a director, and a member of the Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee for the controversial London-based bank HSBC with close ties to the Clinton Crime Foundation and lists among its clients Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate with ties to a Russian uranium deal approved under Clinton’s State Dept., and six other major foundation donors listed in a report by The Guardian. When Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
    But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin also became a Clinton Crime Foundation donor that very year.

    1. So being the single individual most responsible for Hillary not being president was just part of the elaborate plan. Also chemtrails.

      1. I’m pretty sure Hillary is the single person most responsible for her not being President.

        1. Glib. Unoriginal. Ten yard penalty.

          1. Are you saying it isn’t true? This is what happens when an unlikable candidate thinks she has it in the bag

            1. Unlikable is an interesting term for the person who got the most votes of anyone in the election.

              1. Well would you consider Trump likable seeing how he got 62 million votes? George Bush likable?

              2. Look you need to relax and realize your queen will not be POTUS

              3. all California votes because republican voters in California quit voting in mass years ago since its useless for a republican to vote in this state. If they had voted the numbers would be different. Califonria electoral vote would still have gone to Clinton. And they say individual votes don’t matter. they do matter when those who don’t like the result try to change the result.

                1. So the Democratic vote is somehow not also down in a state with a foregone conclusion? What about Texas? Same dynamic reversed, or are you as full of shit as all the other defenders of the putrid treasonous mango?

              4. Yes, millions and millions of welfare-dependent Californians voted for the hag, while Republicans in California don’t even bother going to the polls anymore. Popular vote FTW!

    2. HSBC struck a $35 million settlement with investors in a proposed class action alleging the bank fixed yen-denominated Libor rates

  27. Seems appropriate to keep an eye on the President and anyone else involved in government to insure inappropriate relationships with Russia don’t develop. Why, first thing you know, people connected with the Trump’s could be selling the Russians a major portion of our uranium supply or else taking large donations (hidden as charitable contributions and laundered through Canada) for God only knows what. or …. er… ah… wait a minute… I … er … oh hell, never mind!

    1. Imagine if you filled the part of your brain taken up by utter bullshit with actual facts.

      1. What are the actual facts here?

        1. Seventeen different government agencies signed off on the deal in question. It’s utter Republican conspiracy horseshit. Just fucking learn to use Google for Christ’s sake.

          1. What is the inappropriate relationship of trump and russia going on here?

            1. He likes to have their hookers piss on each other while he watches, for one.

              1. Are you using an unsubstantiated dossier for this info? I thought you were reality based and support truth and facts

                What is wrong with that if true?

              2. Gross yes but is that a crime

                1. It’s blackmail material on the president of the United States, and it’s just one of many allegations. And why are you defending this retarded nazi.

                  1. It’s blackmail material on the president of the United States,

                    Well, since it’s public now, it obviously isn’t. Of course, the whole story is utterly incongruous.

                    and it’s just one of many allegations

                    Oh, do tell!

              3. Ah, yes, that about sums up the strength of the evidence Democrats have against Trump.

                Meanwhile, whoever leaked them, the Democratic E-mails are a treasure trove of duplicity, corruption, and plain nastiness.

  28. If they don’t believe any crimes have been committed, what are they investigating…
    Bad Manners?

    1. Com-ey being FBI Director

  29. So-called judge Napolitano pulled because of his lies:…..story.html

  30. So after the NYT and WaPo, Congressional hearings have become the latest source of non-news fake news. “See, we’re still investigating this, and we still haven’t found any evidence whatsoever, but that doesn’t keep us from talking about it, because we know how the media work, and simply saying we’re investigating it somehow makes it true. That’s how stupid and credulous people are.”

    Meanwhile, the list of alternative information sites being accused of disseminating “fake news emanating from Russia” grows longer and now includes sites like Consortium News, Black Agenda Report, and Moon Of Alabama (which of course, unlike the WaPo/NYT, don’t pretend to be “news” sites at all, but rather commentary sites) and is being pimped by Harvard University, no less, as Steve Lendman revealed (search for “Harvard’s Fake Guide to Fake News Sites”).

    If all this is supposed to make us all stupider and more credulous, it ain’t working. So I guess the next step is to prevent us even accessing these “propaganda” sites that more and more educated people are now counting on – not blindly believing, mind you, but counting on – because “pro” journalism just isn’t journalism anymore. All I can say is, good luck putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

  31. Still wondering why Clinton’s campaign isn’t looked at since we know Russian agents talked with them and her campaign manager’s company lobbied to remove the sanctions from Russia….after she sold them a nice chunk of our uranium assets and her boss promised increased flexibility after his re-election.

    1. Well, maybe next time

      I think the states getting uppity and hiring people to find dirt on the members of the administration is a great thing. Hopefully this sets a new standard that red states will follow whenever we have a Democratic president again.

      1. It’ll be “hateful” then.

        And Reason will be agog to bitch about it.

  32. Chuck: “So, Mr. Trump, when did you stop beating your wife?”

  33. Nowadays, phones are not “wiretapped”. Since 2005, every phone conversation NSA can hear, is recorded. The POTUS and British intelligence can access the archives, without a FISA warrant.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.