This russia stuff is all coming back to them. Such a great day. Big meeting thursday regarding FBI with DOJ and straNgely enough old rod rosentein isnt invited per sarah sanders in the foxnews article. I wonder why????

Ed ocallahan???

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...obe-on-thursday.html

All that's leaked from the Horowitz report so far is that the FBI is going to be criticized for sitting on the Hillary emails found on Weiners lap top for too long.

There better be a whole hell of a lot more than that in this report! That's not even worth leaking I think we all knew that a long time ago.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Carter Page or George Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration.

National Review
Andrew McCarthy


Exactly when is the “late Spring”.......
Link

This origination story has more twists and turns than a Marvel origination story.

In an interview with the ladies of “The View” Tuesday afternoon, James Clapper told another lie about his previous lies about the NSA program to spy on American citizens.

Meghan McCain confronted Clapper about a statement he made while testifying before Congress five years ago, when he was asked whether or not the NSA was spying on Americans.

“In 2013 when you were asked about it, you said ‘no,'” McCain said. “So that is a lie.”

“I made a mistake,” Clapper said. “I didn’t lie. I was thinking about something else, another program.”



Clapper then proceeded to prattle on about two different surveillance programs in an attempt to obfuscate his answer.

“I’ve been trotting up the Hill testifying for 25 years,” Clapper said. “Gee, just for a change of pace, I think I’ll lie on this one question and by the way do it on live television and do it in front of one of my oversight committees. So I made a mistake, but I didn’t lie.”

Let’s revisit the exchange that Clapper referenced.




Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs

In 2013 Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans?”

He did not ask Clapper about a specific program. Wyden simply asked if the NSA was collecting any data at all on millions of Americans, and Clapper said no. As it turns out, his response was a lie, plain and simple. Instead of fessing up and admitting that he lied before Congress five years ago, he’s doubling down.

Link

quote:

He did not ask Clapper about a specific program. Wyden simply asked if the NSA was collecting any data at all on millions of Americans, and Clapper said no. As it turns out, his response was a lie, plain and simple. Instead of fessing up and admitting that he lied before Congress five years ago, he’s doubling down.

"I was thinking about another program"?? A rotten liar for an intelligence expert--meaning he can't lie without being caught.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

He did not ask Clapper about a specific program. Wyden simply asked if the NSA was collecting any data at all on millions of Americans, and Clapper said no. As it turns out, his response was a lie, plain and simple. Instead of fessing up and admitting that he lied before Congress five years ago, he’s doubling down.

"I was thinking about another program"?? A rotten liar for an intelligence expert--meaning he can't lie without being caught.

He was thinking about Mickey Mouse Club, you know..... Annette, Darlene, Doreen, Sharon, ....

regarding the McCarthy article on the previous page,

"As I pointed out at the time, the memo by ranking member Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) let slip that the FBI had interviewed Carter Page in March 2016"

A while back, somewhere in this sea of threads, I posted a comment on that quote by Schiff.

I think he might be quoting a reporter who got the year wrong.

Here is a Wash Post report from 26 June 2017.

The author is our old friend Devlin Barrett (the reporter who Lisa Page talked to a lot, and the one where the leak led to McCabe's firing)

from that 26 June 2017 article :

Over a series of five meetings in March , totaling about 10 hours of questioning, Page repeatedly denied wrongdoing when asked about allegations that he may have acted as a kind of ­go-between for Russia and the Trump campaign, according to a person familiar with Page’s account.

given this article is in June 2017, that would seem to refer to March 2017

The questioning of Page came more than a month before the Russian investigation was put under the direction of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Mueller started 17 May 2017. another indicator of Mar 2017

Page confirmed Monday that the interviews occurred, calling them “extensive discussions.” He declined to say if he has spoken to investigators since the March interviews.

He said the FBI agents “acknowledged that I’m a loyal American veteran but indicated that their management was concerned that I did not believe the conclusions” of a Jan 6. U.S. intelligence report describing Russian government interference in the U.S. election. “Our frank and open conversations gave me confidence that there are still logical, honest individuals at the bureau who respect civil rights and the Constitution,’’ he said.

Because it is against the law for an individual to lie to FBI agents about a material issue under investigation, many lawyers recommend that their clients not sit for interviews with the bureau without an attorney present. Page said he spoke without an attorney and wasn’t concerned about the risks because he told the truth.

The FBI’s questioning of Page came during a tumultuous time for Trump and the Russia probe. On March 20, FBI Director James B. Comey publicly confirmed that the FBI was 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.’’

Over a four-week period in March, Page met repeatedly with FBI agents, who pressed him on claims made in a secret dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer, according to people familiar with the probe.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

so I am wondering if the reference to a March 2016 FBI interview of Carter Page, really should have been March 2017.

(BTW I emailed that question to Devin Nunes, but never heard back)

American Spectator
George Parry

So many questions, too many coincidences
To paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, George Papadopoulos, an adviser to the Trump presidential campaign, had to walk into London’s Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016 where he got drunk and told Alexander Downer, Australia’s High Commissioner to the UK, that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton and many of her emails.

Downer reported this conversation to U.S. authorities in late July 2016. According to former FBI Director James Comey, this report — and not the dossier paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign — was the seminal event that raised concerns about Donald Trump’s ties to the Russians and the major reason it launched its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign.

But how did Papadopoulos’ fateful meeting with Downer come about? And what prompted Downer to report this drunken blather to U.S. intelligence?

To answer these questions, it is helpful to go back to February 2006, when then Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer — yes the same guy who happened to be in that London gin joint — and former President Bill Clinton signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian government and the William J. Clinton Foundation by which Australian taxpayers would pay up to $25,000,000 to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in China, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea.

In September 2016, Michael Smith, an Australian investigative journalist and former police detective, reported that this agreement opened the door to the mishandling of millions of dollars by the Clinton Foundation. According to Smith, shortly after the Memorandum of Understanding had been signed, the Clinton Foundation incorporated an entity to fight AIDS in Papua New Guinea. In July 2006, that entity, the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative (“CHAI”), entered into a funding agreement with the Australian government to receive $10,000,000. Under that agreement, CHAI was to begin work in August 2006.

Even though CHAI already had the contract, the Australian government later published an invitation for bids to perform the exact same task. As noted by Smith, this kind of pre-textual advertising is deceptive and a classic marker for fraud. Applying Australian law to this process, Smith concluded, “Inviting tenders [bids] for a contract that has already been given meets the criminal points of proof for Obtaining a Financial Advantage (for self or another) by Deception. It’s a cover up, something that is not what it purports to be.”

In July 2009, the CHAI program was audited. While noting the program’s positive aspects, the audit questioned the manner in which the contract was awarded and then left unmanaged. The report pointed out that there was “no stated objective/outcome” in the agreement or any subsequent program documents. In the absence of a clear statement of objectives, “it is not possible to say with any degree of confidence whether CHAI has been effective.”

In short, the audit described yet another taxpayer-funded Clinton Foundation boondoggle where nobody knows how the money was spent. This one was served up to the Australian taxpayers by none other than the same Alexander Downer who ten years later would just happen to cross paths with George Papadopoulos while Bill Clinton’s wife was running for president. And also by happy chance, Downer was able to help the Clintons by getting a drunken Papadopoulos to talk about about the Russians having dirt on Mrs. Clinton. What a remarkable string of coincidences!

But, among us old law enforcement types, there is a tried and true axiom that, in life, there is no such thing as a coincidence. Which raises the question as to whether Downer’s conversation with Papadopoulos was a matter of serendipity or part of a carefully orchestrated scheme calculated to benefit the Clinton campaign. Consider the following:

In October 2017, Papadopoulos pled guilty to a one-count information for lying to the FBI about the timing and extent of his interactions with one Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese-born British academic. At that time, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office filed under seal a “Statement of the Offense” in which the government and the defendant stipulated to certain facts. Among these was the following:

On or about April 26, 2016, the defendant Papadopoulos met the Professor [Mifsud] for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant Papadopoulos that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant Papadopoulos that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant Papadopoulos, as defendant Papadopoulos later described to the FBI, that “They [the Russians] have dirt on her”; “the Russians had emails of Clinton”; “they have thousands of emails.” [Emphasis added]
All of this raises many questions.

Did Mifsud’s information about the Clinton “dirt” and emails come from the Russians or someone else? If someone else, who? What was his motive in telling Papadopoulos about it? Did Mifsud dangle this story in the hope that Papadopoulos would repeat it?

How did Papadopoulos’ May 2016 meeting with Downer occur so soon after his April 26, 2016 meeting with Mifsud? Were these events coordinated? Was Downer’s meeting with Papadopoulos a chance encounter or was it arranged in advance? It is reported that an official at the Israeli embassy introduced Papadopoulos to Downer. Was this done at Downer’s request? If so, why? Put another way, why would Australia’s top diplomat to the UK want to meet with a peripheral, low-level adviser to the Trump campaign?

Was Downer instructed to arrange the meeting? If so, by whom? The FBI, CIA, MI-6 or some similar intelligence agency? The Clinton campaign?

Was Downer briefed by any agency on how to conduct the meeting or the questions to be asked? Was he wired? Is there some other official record of the meeting? To whom did he report the results of the meeting?

Did Downer really wait two months to report his conversation with Papadopoulos to the FBI? If so, why? Did he report Papadopoulos’ statements to the Clinton campaign or others working on behalf of its interests?

We now know that, in September 2016, Stefan Halper, a Cambridge University professor and confidential informant for the FBI, invited Papadopoulos to a meeting in London. Halper offered to pay for Papadopoulos’ flight and hotel and offered to pay him $3,000 to write a policy paper on a Middle East gas field. When the meeting took place, Halper, acting in his undercover capacity, posed many random questions about assorted topics. But then, out of left field, he suddenly asked, “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?” Papadopoulos replied that he did not.

Did the FBI prep Halper for his meeting with Papadopoulos? Was Halper wired? Was he paid by the FBI? Were FBI funds used to pay for Papadopoulos’ trip to London and for the policy paper?

There are a thousand other questions that come to mind. But suffice it to say that, taken in sequence, these meetings with Mifsud, Downer, and Halper raise a reasonable inference that Papadopoulos was manipulated to repeat a planted, fictitious story about Clinton dirt and emails in order to create the appearance of collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians and a fabricated predicate for the FBI investigation of that campaign. Given that for the first time in this nation’s history the FBI and the Department of Justice have conducted electronic surveillance of a presidential campaign and used at least one undercover informant to infiltrate and spy on that campaign, it is certainly fair to conclude that stranger things than the possible duping and manipulation of George Papadopoulos have happened.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Was Downer instructed to arrange the meeting? If so, by whom? The FBI, CIA, MI-6 or some similar intelligence agency? The Clinton campaign?

Nunes said there was no Intelligence on this passed from the Australian or British Intelligence Agencies to American Intelligence Agencies.

quote:

Nunes: We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government. And that’s why we had to see that original communication.

Nunes Interview – “No Official Intelligence Used” & Problems for Brennan
https://www.themarketswork.com...roblems-for-brennan/

can't keep up

edit: later reports indicate this was a false alarm

https://youtu.be/R0C61RuKVMY

https://theconservativetreehou...lary-clinton-emails/

Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo appeared on Fox News moments ago with stunning statements. According to Caputo a contractor with a government agency was attempting to pass to him, through an intermediary, Hillary Clinton emails; and the intermediary reached out to Caputo to inform him therein.

In hindsight, Caputo now suggests the “contractor of the government agency” was attempting to set him up -and by extension the Trump campaign- in a sting operation similar to the recently revealed “Crossfire Hurricane” operation conducted by CIA operative Stefan Halper through Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

This occurred in May 2016

Need to watch the video

Caputo said he briefed this to Mueller team, House Intel Comm, and Sen Intel Comm

This seems crazy

Michael Caputo was working on the Trump campaign in May 2016. In the first week of May 2016, a friend of his contacted him that a former contractor of a govt agency said the agency had Clinton's 30,000 deleted emails.

They wanted to pass the emails to the Trump campaign. After several phone conversations, Caputo said he did not want to get involved. He left the campaign on 20 June 2016.

Caputo said the contactor again contacted his friend at the end of July 2016 w the same offer.

This sounds like a nutty story, but it should be easy to check out. Did Caputo really brief the House and Senate Intel comms on this ?

If Caputo is making this up, did he lie to two congressional committees and the Mueller team ?

Sounds risky.

Remember that on 9 June 2016 Donald Trump Jr went to a mtg w a Russian lawyer because it was said she had Clinton emails. She didn't, but the trap was sprung on Don Jr.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Was Downer instructed to arrange the meeting? If so, by whom? The FBI, CIA, MI-6 or some similar intelligence agency? The Clinton campaign?

Nunes said there was no Intelligence on this passed from the Australian or British Intelligence Agencies to American Intelligence Agencies.

quote:

Nunes: We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government. And that’s why we had to see that original communication.

Nunes Interview – “No Official Intelligence Used” & Problems for Brennan
https://www.themarketswork.com...roblems-for-brennan/

It wasn’t an intelligence agency. It was the Clinton Campaign that arranged Downer, maybe.

Sam Clovis was the co-chairman of the Trump campaign

Victoria Toensing represents Sam Clovis.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...ustify-fisa-warrants

The former co-chairman of the Trump campaign who met with a suspected FBI informant said during a recent radio interview he believes the source was attempting to establish an “audit trail” that would provide the FBI with justification to obtain warrants to spy on members of the campaign.

Sam Clovis confirmed during a radio interview Monday with the “Simon Conway Show” that he met with Stefan Halper, the suspected informant, in either late August or early September 2016.

“They were trying to literally plant evidence or create an audit trail that would lead investigators on something. Then they would have justification to go back for their [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrants and all their other things,” Clovis said of the FBI and Halper.

Clovis said he and Halper met in the lobby of a DoubleTree hotel in Arlington, Va., for coffee, and described the gathering as an “academic meeting,” during which Halper discussed his research on China.

“The meeting wasn't very high level. It was like two faculty members sitting down in the faculty lounge talking about research,” he said. “There was no indication that this was anything other than just wanting to offer up his help to the campaign if I needed it.”

Clovis said Halper, who previously worked at the University of Cambridge and for past Republican presidential administrations, had met with Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and used that meeting as “bona fides” to secure an appointment with Clovis.

“And then I think he used my meeting as bona fides to get a meeting with George Papadopoulos,” Clovis said.

Clovis said he and Halper did not have any other contact again until late September 2016, when Halper emailed him academic papers that “to this day, I have not read a single one of them.”

The former Trump campaign co-chairman, who went on to work in the Department of Agriculture but left the administration this month, said he believes Halper’s motivation was to get to Papadopoulos. But he said the FBI “misread” Papadopoulos’ relationship with the campaign.

“What unsettled me, and I think that’s accurate, is the fact of what he tried to do with George Papadopoulos, and that was to establish an audit trail from the campaign or somebody associated with the campaign, back to those Clinton emails —whether or not they existed, we don’t know,” Clovis said.

“This to me appears to have been a deliberate effort, a deliberate and intentional effort on the part of the leadership of the FBI to create something that did not exist, and that is exactly what this looks like,” Clovis said. “And I think at the end of the day that’s what we’re going to find out.”


video of interview w Sam Clovis

https://youtu.be/rVljHT0Ltzc


*************

maybe Caputo's story isn't so crazy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
As for the others, they need to worry. Even John Mitchell, former Attorney General of the United States, was unable to escape justice for his failings. It is just a matter of having proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mitchell was a Republican. Totally different.

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Opening Construction Jobs for Women

President Trump’s tightened labor market through increased enforcement of immigration is forcing home builders to recruit American women, rather than relying on cheap, illegal alien workers.

A new report by MarketWatch reveals how the tightened labor market is securing construction jobs and opportunities for women who would otherwise have been passed on in favor of cheaper foreign laborers.

The report notes:

There are several demographics, not just immigrant men, that home builders will have to start tapping as a labor source. Alison Charley is the face of another: women.

Rob Dietz, the economist for the industry association, agrees. “I particularly challenge remodelers and builders to recruit more women,” he said. “I think that will occur as the industry capitalizes.” [Emphasis added]

While women are being recruited for construction jobs, home builders and Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi complain that the dried-up supply of cheap, illegal workers is a crisis that must be ended by importing more foreign workers to flood the labor force.

“Without more immigration, even if we maintain the current level, we’ve got a problem,” Zandi told MarketWatch. “It’s not just about attracting more, it’s also about keeping the ones you have.”

“The crackdown on illegals is terrifying,” Zandi said. “It’s causing people to leave. More Mexicans leave than come here. That clearly is not helpful.”

Meanwhile, like farmers, home builders are increasingly turning to mechanization rather than relying on cheap, foreign workers. That automation can be seen in this Vice News report which profiles a bricklaying robot named “Sam.”

In Trump’s tightened labor market, there has been history-making wage growth for American workers in the construction industry, the garment industry, for workers employed at small businesses, black Americans, and restaurant workers.

The tight labor market has also secured higher wages for overtime workers and high-paying, coveted white-collar jobs for American teenagers.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...tion-jobs-for-women/

This seems like a pretty big deal from Mark Levin:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...er-article-ii-video/

Mueller’s lawyers filed for, and obtained an obscure special status giving them dual roles as not only special counsel prosecutors, but also as ‘Special Assistant US Attorneys (SAUSAs) which could make it difficult for Judge Ellis to hand the case over to other prosecutors.

According to Politico’s reporting, this special status given to Mueller’s lawyers theoretically allows them to rove around and pursue matters outside of the special counsel’s mandate.

This bombshell revelation may be the key to dismantling Mueller’s entire operation, says Mark Levin.

Since Mueller’s lawyers have dual status as US Attorneys, that makes Mueller a US Attorney rather than a Special Counsel. Only a President can appoint a US Attorney. By appointing Mueller, Rod Rosenstein usurped the President of the United States.

THIS IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT.

Via Fox News:

Levin said the attorneys in the case before an Alexandria, Va. federal judge are simultaneously considered “Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys.”

He said that therefore, their direct supervisor — Mueller — should be lawfully considered a “roving” U.S. Attorney.

He said the Constitution designates the president as the person who must nominate all “principal officers” — including U.S. attorneys and cabinet members.

But, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and was not confirmed by the Senate, as anyone working as a U.S. attorney should be by law, according to Levin.

Levin said that the scenario therefore “violates the Constitution [via] the Appointments Clause” in Article II.

“Rosenstein usurped the authority of the president of the United States to nominate whoever he wants as a prosecutor,” Levin said.

“Mr. Mueller is serving unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because of the way Rod Rosenstein appointed him.”

Downer's role in the FBI's Russia hacking probe to remain secret

The precise details of Alexander Downer's role triggering the FBI probe into alleged dealings between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign team will remain shrouded in secrecy, with the Australian government refusing to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of diplomatic cables that likely cast light on Mr Downer's role sparking the inquiry.

Mr Downer, Australia’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom, became a key figure regarding the question of how the Trump-Russia investigation began, after details emerged of his London bar room chat with a young Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos.

During their May 2016 conversation, Mr Downer was told that Russia had a dirt file on Hilary Clinton, including hacked Democratic Party emails.

But Mr Downer, the foreign affairs minister in the Howard government, is understood to have taken several weeks to officially relay Mr Papadopoulos’ information to Canberra via a diplomatic cable.

The reason for his delay is not known. However, it is possible Mr Downer only realised the significance of Mr Papadopoulos’ Russian claims after Wikileaks released hacked Democrat emails that embarrassed the Clinton campaign in late July, 2016.

A de-classified US Congress committee minority report shows the FBI began its counter intelligence investigation into Russian influence on July 31, 2016 after it received specific information relating to Mr Papadopoulos's hacking claims from an unidentified source.

The Australian government has not disputed the widespread reporting of Australia’s role in warning US authorities about Mr Papadopoulos’ information.

But the government’s response to a Freedom of Information request from the office of Centre Alliance (formerly Team Xenophon) senator Rex Patrick, and to additional questions in senate estimates hearings, demonstrates Canberra’s extreme sensitivity on a matter that threatens to tear apart American politics.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told Senator Patrick’s office that it could “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of diplomatic cable traffic between Canberra and Australian missions in London and Washington in relation to “George Papadopoulos”.

DFAT has also refused to answer any questions raised at a senate estimates hearing about Mr Downer's role in the affair because it was not “in the national interest to engage on this matter”.

Senator Patrick was attempting to establish a precise timeline of Australian involvement in the Trump-Russia controversy by seeking Australian diplomatic cable traffic using the Freedom of Information Act and the senate estimates process.

While lawful, it is rare for a government department to respond to a FOI request by refusing to “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of documents.

In almost all cases-- and even when access to documents is being denied in full-- an applicant is given a schedule of relevant documents uncovered by their FOI request.

The schedule includes useful information such as the dates the documents were created, the identity of who authored them and who received them.

But in this case, DFAT’s decision maker, Greg Wilcock, the acting first assistant secretary of the United States and Indo-Pacific Strategy Division, invoked section 25 of the FOI Act that permits the government to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of document on the grounds of national security, law enforcement and public safety.

In response to Senator Patrick’s senate estimates questions, DFAT only provided a short statement saying, "These questions relate to ongoing and high profile investigations in the United States.

"It is vital we do not prejudice or be seen to prejudice those investigations. They also relate to potentially sensitive matters in our bilateral relationship with the United States. For those reasons, the Department does not believe that it is in the national interest to engage in the matter.”
Former federal Information Commissioner and administrative law professor John McMillan said the failure to acknowledge even the mere existence of any documents appeared to be based on flimsy grounds.

"It's important to state this is not about releasing what was actually said at a meeting with Mr Downer and a well known public figure [Mr Papadopoulos]. The refusal involves declining to say if a diplomatic cable was ever even sent. It is inherently implausible that the mere existence of a cable relating to an internationally known figure could be exempt."

Sydney lawyer and FOI expert, Peter Timmins, said he could not recall many instances of a government using section 25 of the FOI Act to refuse to neither confirm nor deny the existence of a document.

"What they would be trying to argue is that by actually releasing information to say they have such documents would endanger national security. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me," Mr Timmins said.

"It seems a long bow designed to defer and push down the track the need to address the sensitivity of that document."

Senator Patrick said the government's response was "unacceptable and unsustainable" as more details of the investigation into Russian interference campaign emerged.

While the government's sensitivity was not surprising, Senator Patrick said the Australian and American public were entitled to know why it took two months for the Australian government to warn US authorities about Mr Papadopoulos' Russian email claims to Mr Downer.

Mr Downer has been praised by some foreign affairs experts for his handling of Mr Papadopoulos’ information, saying his decision to meet Mr Papadopolous and later alert the US via Australian intelligence officials was appropriate. Mr Downer has declined to publicly comment about the matter.

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller has so far charged four members of the Trump 2016 campaign team, including Mr Papadopoulos who has admitted to lying to investigators and is now co-operating as a witness.

Link

Caputo's claims are falling apart.

https://www.dailywire.com/news...-trump-ryan-saavedra

On Tuesday, The Daily Wire interviewed Caputo, the alleged second informant who does contracting work with the U.S. government, and one of Caputo's friends who was an intermediary between the two men.

On May 7, 2016, Caputo's friend, Kirk Bell, attended a DC-area Kentucky Derby event at the house of his friend Nick Ikeda, a military staffer for US Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI).

At the event, Bell spoke with a government contractor, who asked not to be named in this report; this is the person Caputo told The Daily Wire he thought may have been another informant in light of the recent revelations about the FBI's alleged secret informant. At the event, the government contractor mentioned to Bell that he had heard about some of Hillary Clinton's missing emails and said that the campaign should see if they could obtain them.

After the interview with the government contractor, The Daily Wire interviewed Caputo and informed him of the interview with the government contractor. In discussing what the government contractor said, Caputo said, "This also could be a great big misunderstanding."

Caputo also clarified the comments that he made on Ingraham's show last night, saying that it was not his intention to suggest that the government contractor was involved in some sort of government spying like the alleged FBI source outed last week.

Caputo asked The Daily Wire to review text messages between Bell and the government contractor and between Bell and himself.

All three men agreed that the core details in the timeline of events were correct. The government contractor and Caputo also agreed on most of the major details in each other's stories and it appears as though there was a misunderstanding between the two men.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Caputo's claims sound like a false alarm

From signewt’s post just above:

“…Since Mueller’s lawyers have dual status as US Attorneys, that makes Mueller a US Attorney rather than a Special Counsel. Only a President can appoint a US Attorney. By appointing Mueller, Rod Rosenstein usurped the President of the United States…”

A good (and welcome) reason to fire Rosenstein.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
From signewt’s post just above:

“…Since Mueller’s lawyers have dual status as US Attorneys, that makes Mueller a US Attorney rather than a Special Counsel. Only a President can appoint a US Attorney. By appointing Mueller, Rod Rosenstein usurped the President of the United States…”

A good (and welcome) reason to fire Rosenstein.

It says they “filed for and obtained...” with and from who?

CBS Poll: 68% Credit President Trump for Current Economy



(CNSNews.com) -- Today's strong economy is the result of President Donald Trump's policies, according to a recent poll by CBS News, which also showed that nearly half of Americans believe Trump is keeping a good number of his campaign promises.

In the survey of 2,023 adults, conducted by YouGov for CBS News, May 16-18, 2018, people were asked, "How would you rate the nation's economy today?" Eighteen percent said "very good" and 46% said "somewhat good," for a majority 64% saying it was at least "good."

When asked, "How much do you think Donald Trump's policies are responsible for the current state of the economy?" 35% said "a great deal" and 33% said "somewhat," which means a majority 68% believe that, to a certain degree, Trump's policies are responsible.

Looking towards the future, 42% said they were "optimistic" about the economy and 33% said they were "pessimistic."

The survey also asked, "Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his policies, what do you think about Donald Trump and his campaign promises?" 23% said "he's keeping most of them" and another 26% said "he's keeping some and hasn't gotten around to others yet." Total: 59%.

As for the 2018 congressional elections, 34% said they would prefer to vote for a "Republican who is more in line with Donald Trump." Only 22% said they would prefer to vote for "a progressive of liberal Democrat."

The CBS News Nation Tracker poll had a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points.



https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a...rump-current-economy