Slowhand wrote:Draft dodging Trump declares Bergdahl decision deplorable.

A week after news broke that special counsel Robert Mueller had handed down the first indictments in the investigation into the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has introduced a resolution calling for his recusal.

Gaetz, along with Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Andy Biggs of Arizona, cite Mueller’s involvement in the “Uranium One” controversy. He was serving as FBI director at the time.

The problem is there is very little weight behind this argument.

Clinton did not have the ability to neither approve or veto the sale, her involvement was as one of nine cabinet members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Only the president can decide to block a sale for national security reasons. None of the other eight members or President Obama voted against or blocked the sale, and this is likely because the sale posed no national security risk.

A lot of discussion surrounding the scandal focuses on an argument that Russia obtained 20 percent of the American uranium supply — in reality, it’s closer to zero. This is because the U.S. mines owned by Uranium One do not contain quality uranium and are barely used. The Russians were only interested in Uranium One to create productive Uranium mines in Kazakhstan.

The Trump campaign had gotten a whiff of Clinton email hacking, too. According to recently unsealed court documents, former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos said that it was at an April 26 meeting at a London hotel that he was told by a professor closely connected to the Russian government that the Kremlin had obtained compromising information about Clinton.

“They have dirt on her,” Papadopoulos said he was told. “They have thousands of emails.”

A few days later, Amy Dacey, then the DNC chief executive, got an urgent call.

There’d been a serious breach at the DNC.

All three leak-branded sites have distanced themselves from Moscow. DCLeaks claimed to be run by American hacktivists. WikiLeaks said Russia wasn’t its source. Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be Romanian.

But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox, according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document.

Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.

The same afternoon, just as the American electorate was digesting a lewd audio tape of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women, WikiLeaks began publishing the emails stolen from Podesta.

The publications sparked a media stampede as they were doled out one batch at a time, with many news organizations tasking reporters with scrolling through the thousands of emails being released in tranches. At the AP alone, as many as 30 journalists were assigned, at various times, to go through the material.

Guccifer 2.0 told one reporter he was thrilled that WikiLeaks had finally followed through.

“Together with Assange we’ll make america great again,” he wrote.

Bucky wrote:

Slowhand wrote:Draft dodging Trump declares Bergdahl decision deplorable.

@ChuckGrassley
This wk the senate confirmed 4 circuit judges + 1 district judge We have confirmed more circuits than Clinton Obama Bush each did in 1st yr

Bucky wrote:Does WaPo think it's April 1st???

Climate change driven almost entirely by human action, dire report released by Trump administration finds

Republican Ed Gillespie, already capitalizing on Confederate monuments and Latino gangs, has added national anthem protests to the red-meat smorgasbord he’s serving up in the homestretch of the Virginia governor’s race.

Squire wrote:The other thing worth noting is how poorly the President comprehends what is against the law and what isn't. The DNC stuff is interesting but what could possibly be the crime there.

JUburton wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

pacino wrote:

BREAKING: Bergdahl to get dishonorable discharge, lose rank, forfeit pay in addition to getting no prison time.

probably an appropriate decision; guy needs help, not prison

there'll be an uproar

Disagree. There should be an uproar.

he was a taliban captive for 5 years and spent 3 in jail during this trial.

Rococo4 wrote:
Not going to get all that worked up about it. And I don' think many people will - unless / until one of the 5 he was traded for commits some new henious act, which will blow this story up again.