seen from Venezuela
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Australia
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
The Steele Dossier connected Russia with Trump. Over and over again.
Marco Rubio paid for the research.
Then Republicans lied about who paid for the research and tried to pin the dossier on Democrats.
Then dossier was tainted and degraded as partisan.
What did we learn? Republicans are Russia,and Republicans will lie about anything.
Can't wait for Shifty Schiff to get shafted and not in a way he would enjoy! Lying creep needs jail time with a really angry, Republican cell mate
Trump’s retribution campaign is now targeting prominent Democratic lawyers — with broad implications for every American.
Nicole Narea at Vox:
President Donald Trump is going after a pair of major law firms — and attacking the First Amendment in the process. Trump issued an executive order on Thursday that took aim at Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton when she ran against Trump in 2016. Notably, Perkins Coie hired a research firm that produced the infamous “Steele dossier,” which alleged the president colluded with Russia to steal the election. Trump’s order aims to strip the firm’s attorneys of their security clearances and asks the government to review all contracts with the firm with the intention of terminating any they can. Trump issued a similar memorandum last month, going after some attorneys at the law firm of Covington & Burling. The memorandum aims to strip security clearances from Peter Koski, a partner at the firm based in Washington, DC, and any other individuals who helped Smith while he served as special counsel.
Canceled contracts promise to cost the firms revenue while stripping security clearances hurts them by putting certain areas of federal business off-limits. But the issue is far bigger than harm to a pair of well-off law firms.
Legal experts say that Trump’s executive actions challenge the First Amendment right to free expression — and aim to send a signal to would-be opponents from well beyond just the legal profession. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) “No one is going to cry for a big law firm,” said Katie Fallow, deputy director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “But the idea of the government punishing a private entity based on the political positions it’s taken, or the speech it’s engaged in, or who it’s associated with, is terrible from a free speech and association standpoint.”
What the executive orders say
Thursday’s executive order accuses Perkins Coie of trying to “judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification,” as well as discriminating against applicants and staff by promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. In addition to demanding that firm attorneys be stripped of their security clearances on that basis, it also orders government contractors to end their business relationships with the firm to the extent permitted by law and blocks the government from hiring firm employees. The earlier memorandum concerning Covington & Burling similarly accused anyone at the firm who assisted Smith of “weaponization of the judicial process,” ordering the termination of their security clearances and government contracts with the firm. Trump’s executive actions are not normal: Under President George W. Bush, a senior Pentagon official encouraged clients to cut their ties with law firms representing prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But a month after his remarks, the official resigned and publicly apologized, asserting that he believed “that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel.”
[...]
Why Trump’s targeting of law firms raise key constitutional concerns
Legal scholars say that Trump’s targeting of law firms likely violates the First Amendment and other constitutional protections. The executive order seems to be taking aim at specific positions that Perkins Coie has taken on behalf of its clients, its views about employee management policies (including DEI programs), and its association with Democrats.
Trump’s attacks on Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling are a threat to the 1st Amendment.
Treason........the Clinton Connection.
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley explained on Fox News Tuesday the timeline that led to the derailment of President Donald Trump's first te
Obama Indicted Trump 🤔
Pre-Indictment #4 Facelift
Post-Facelift
Speechless. Stunning. SMH
Remember what Hillary Did:
"Russia Russia Russia"
https://twitter.com/KevinTober94/status/1691264994996895744?s=20
The truth about Russia, Trump and the 2016 election - By Glenn Kessler
There have been four major investigations into Russian intervention in the 2016 presidential election and the FBI’s handling of the subject — a 2019 report released by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, a 2019 Justice Department inspector general report, a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee issued in 2020 by a GOP-controlled Senate, and now a 2023 report released by special counsel John Durham. All told, the reports add up to about 2,500 pages of dense prose and sometimes contradictory conclusions.
But broad themes can be deduced from a close reading of the evidence gathered in the lengthy documents, as well as indictments and testimony on related criminal cases. We took a long look and wrote a comprehensive report that explores four key takeaways:
*Russia tried to swing the 2016 election to Trump
*The FBI had reason to investigate a tip suggesting Trump campaign involvement
*The Trump campaign welcomed help from Russia
*The ‘Steele dossier’ proved to be a red herring
The interview consisted of but a handful of interesting tidbits sprinkled throughout the heavily produced profile on Russia hoaxer Christopher Steele.
If the dossier was significantly disinformation, then all Americans were victims of it. It turned a legitimate concern about real Russian interference into American elections into one of the biggest sources of political polarization in recent history. Like the social media trolling from Internet Research Agency, it stoked divisions, with the added benefit that it led significant numbers of Trump voters [to trust the Russians who were feeding that disinformation]* more than they trust the current President. One [viral Twitter thread earlier this year]** even claimed that the dossier (and therefore any Russian disinformation in it) led directly to and justified the attack on the Capitol on January 6. As such, disinformation injected into the dossier should increasingly be treated as a potential central part of the 2016 Russian influence operation — perhaps its most successful and lasting part.
Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel. THE DISINFORMATION THAT GOT TOLD: MICHAEL COHEN WAS, IN FACT, HIDING SECRET COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE KREMLIN
Links in this passage:
*Vladimir Putin has a HIGHER approval rating than Joe Biden among Republicans despite deep tensions between Russia and U.S., two new polls reveal
**The Vral Twitter Thread In Which Darrell Cooper Confesses Republicans Were Pawns Of Russian Disinformation
Here’s the Columbia Journalism Review podcast talked about in the article: Deep on the Steele beat: Erik Wemple & Marcy Wheeler
