Where did I say anything close to that? I don't like that CrowdStrike did the analysis and not the FBI. It's interesting that you don't find that the least bit questionable. Maybe you know why a private security firm was given the server and not the FBI?
MAGA= My attorney got an Attorney http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...-to-testify-in-house-judiciary-committee.html Judge Orders McGhan to Testify in Trump Obstruction of Justice Investigation A key witness subpeonaed earlier this year by the House Judiciary Committee in its investigation of presidential obstruction of justice has been ordered to testify by a federal judge. D.C. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson firmly rejected White House claims of executive privilege with which it barred the release of documents requested from or any personal appearance by former White House Counsel Don McGhan, who was suggested in the Mueller Report to have been the object of three separate presidential efforts to unlawfully interfere with his investigation (one of which involved an attempt to fire Mueller himself). Jackson’s ruling was very clear, as the New York Times reports: Citing Congress’s constitutional power to investigate suspected abuses of power within the government, Judge Jackson wrote that the Trump administration’s “claim to unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity on separation-of-powers grounds — essentially, that the Constitution’s scheme countenances unassailable executive branch authority — is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.” If sustained, Jackson’s decision could expose multiple current and former executive-branch officials to subpoena from the various congressional committees investigating Trump and his minions. But the Justice Department is certain to appeal and will request a stay on Jackson’s orders until such time as the D.C. Circuit, and probably after that the U.S. Supreme Court, has ruled on the matter, which could most definitely limit or neutralize the impact of today’s action. But it could help provide some judicial backing for the proposition that the administration’s obstruction of Congress is itself an impeachable offense. And more immediately, some potential House witnesses that were on the fence about testifying might cite Jackson’s decision as compelling them morally, if not legally, to cooperate with Congress. The one to watch is probably former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton, who might have a lot to contribute to the Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the president’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection campaign. In the longer run, maximum claims of executive privilege dating back at least to the Nixon administration may finally meet their match in the judiciary.
Marching orders for upcoming rigging: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/786530149/trump-to-meet-russias-lavrov-at-white-house-tuesday Trump To Meet Russia's Lavrov At White House Tuesday When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last visited the White House, President Trump had just fired his then-FBI director, James Comey. At the time, Trump bragged it would remove pressure related to an investigation into whether his campaign had ties to Moscow. But instead, it had the opposite effect, fanning the political flames over his Russia policy. Two-and-a-half years later, Lavrov is set to return on Tuesday, and Trump's Russia policy is still very much in the spotlight. There were no immediate details on what Trump plans to discuss with Lavrov, who is in Washington to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. A senior U.S. official said the talks would be about "the state of the bilateral relationship." Trump's critics have said he has been too friendly with Moscow, given how Russia has worked at cross-purposes with the United States, interfering with the presidential election in 2016, annexing part of Ukraine, and backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Trump has said he wants to work with Russia on curbing North Korea's nuclear ambitions — as well as a broader nuclear non-proliferation deal. Lavrov's visit coincides with Paris talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy meant to resolve the simmering war in eastern Ukraine. But it also comes as Trump faces a House impeachment inquiry into a hold he placed on military aid for Ukraine, and whether he made releasing the aid and hosting Zelensky for an Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy contingent on Ukraine announcing an investigation into his political rivals. The Lavrov meeting also coincides with the release of a report by the Justice Department's inspector general report on the FBI's Russia probe. That report criticized the bureau over its surveillance of a former adviser to the Trump campaign. Trump and his supporters said it was evidence of a plot against him. Last week at a NATO leaders' summit in London, Trump said he had been talking to Putin about "a treaty of some kind on nuclear weapons that will probably then include China at some point."
H4... you need to slow down and put your nose into the wind here. The article is factual... but Trump is playing graduate level 3D chess with this move. I'm not jumping into the fray here on this one... I'm just saying... he's staying one jump ahead. All roads lead to Putin. So they say. Trump is staying one length ahead H4. And tbh... with these career political cats.... its not real hard to do.
I believe its factual and I believe Trump is damn well trying his hardest, if only to save his own ass... to make it happen. Do I believe Kim gives a flying F about Russia or Trump? That's an absolute "no". Does China care about Russia? No. So like I said, you may be correct... but Trump is scrambling to make a deal. He needs a deal. For optics. Ain't gonna happen... but do I believe its going on? 100%.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/judge-putin-trump-notes-082600 Judge rejects government’s motion to toss suit over missing Trump-Putin meeting notes Two watchdog groups charge that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo violated the Federal Records Act. A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to toss out a lawsuit over missing notes documenting President Donald Trump’s face-to-face meetings with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. American Oversight and Democracy Forward, a pair of left-leaning nonpartisan watchdog groups, sued Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the State Department, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the archivist of the United States in June over the missing notes. The groups charge that Pompeo violated the Federal Records Act by allowing Trump to reportedly confiscate meeting notes prepared by State Department employees and for failing to preserve them. In a ruling from the bench on Wednesday, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case. The order by McFadden, a Trump appointee, means that the lawsuit will be allowed to move forward and gives the government until Jan. 10 to say whether Pompeo complied with federal records law or show why he was not obligated to do so. Pompeo will then have until the middle of March to produce the State Department’s record of evidence. The Washington Post first reported in January that Trump had gone to “extraordinary” lengths to conceal the details of his meetings with Putin, seizing the notes of his interpreter after the leaders’ first meeting in 2017 and ordering the translator not to disclose details of the discussion. Furthermore, The Post reported that no detailed record of Trump’s communications with Putin existed, prompting a flurry of document requests from Congress and outside groups. Trump and Putin have met in person multiple times, including a handful of occasions where few, if any, other U.S. officials were present. The disclosure of a lack of records came in the midst of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. “The administration has done everything it can to hide what Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump discussed in Hamburg,” Austin Evers, executive director at American Oversight, said in a statement in response to Wednesday’s ruling. “Today’s ruling is an important step to ensuring the government complied with its legal obligations.” Democracy Forward’s senior counsel also cheered the order. “President Trump clearly wishes to shield his interactions with foreign leaders even from those within his administration. But the law doesn’t allow Secretary Pompeo to turn a blind eye to those efforts,” Nitin Shah said in a statement, calling the ruling “a win for government transparency and accountability.” The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. In its motion to dismiss earlier this fall, the State Department rejected the watchdog groups’ characterization of the interpreter notes subject to the Federal Records Act and argued that Pompeo, who was not yet secretary at the time of several of the Trump-Putin meetings, was not obligated to recover and preserve the interpreter notes Trump took possession of. Trump’s efforts to keep under wraps the details of his conversations with other world leaders have taken on a new light in the wake of the ongoing impeachment inquiry. As outlined in an August whistleblower complaint, the White House took the unusual step of placing a rough transcript of the July phone call between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, which is at the heart of the probe, in a secure server meant only for highly classified documents.
What does it mean when they call this thing a "code word server"? Why is called that? Its just a super-encrypted thing right? I mean any server is a "code word server". And what happens to this server when the President leaves office? Does it stay there or does Trump haul it off with him to Mar-a-Lago? And if it stays, does Obama have stuff on this mysterious server? Can Trump read Obama's stuff? When is the stuff removed? Ever? 100 years? wtf. Inquiring minds....