919 Care to make a ban bet on the Trump - Russia conspiracy?

[919]

[h=1]Ex-CIA director James Clapper confirms British intelligence warned US about Trump-Russia activity[/h]

James Clapper (CNN) ​

​

Former CIA director James Clapper confirmed reports that British intelligence agencies notified their U.S. counterparts about suspicious interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence agents.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Clapper and Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general, to confirm a Guardian report that revealed British intelligence first noticed the suspicious activity in late 2015, and other European allies passed on additional information to the U.S. over spring 2016.

Yates told the senator she couldn’t answer, so Feinstein asked Clapper if the report was accurate.

“Yes, it is, and it’s also quite sensitive,” Clapper said. “The specifics are quite sensitive.”

Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the FBI opened an investigation into those ties in July 2016, which echoed previous congressional testimony by FBI director James Comey.

The former CIA director said he wasn’t sure what intelligence agencies might have done with evidence cited in the Guardianreport, but he said evidence dating back to 2015 showed Russian attempts to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.

“I’m not sure about the accuracy of the article, so clearly, actually, going back to 2015 there was evidence of Soviet — excuse me, Freudian slip — Russian activity mainly in information gathering-where or reconnoitering mode where they were investigating voter registration rolls and the like,” Clapper said. “That activity started early, so we were monitoring this as it progressed and certainly as it picked up and accelerated in the spring, summer and fall of 2016.”

 

[CarolinaKid]

919 stop changing my statements ,OR I WILL ASK FOR YOU TO BE ON TEMP BAN

 

[superbeets]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour agoMore



Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is "no evidence" of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.

.

 

[superbeets]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour agoMore



Sally Yates made the fake media extremely unhappy today --- she said nothing but old news!

 

[superbeets]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour agoMore



The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?

 

[superbeets]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour agoMore



Biggest story today between Clapper & Yates is on surveillance. Why doesn't the media report on this? #FakeNews!

 

[superbeets]

+5

Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Monday and explained why she wouldn't defend President Trump's travel ban

+5

Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, asked Sally Yates, 'Who appointed you to the Supreme Court?' when she explained why she was against the president's travel ban

 

[superbeets]

raindance, RockyMtnHigh, United States, 19 minutes ago
Strictly politically motivated...everyone knows this. Why is she lying again?

 

[superbeets]

Infraprods, BROOKLYN, United States, 49 minutes ago
She smells like swamp water to me

 

[superbeets]

Kristen.
Q Sean, thank you. Former President Obama warned then President-elect Trump against hiring Mike Flynn as his national security advisor. Why did he ignore that?



MR. SPICER: Well, the President doesn’t disclose details of meetings that he has, which, in this case, was an hour-long meeting. But it's true that the President made it -- President Obama made it known that he wasn’t exactly a fan of General Flynn’s, which is, frankly, shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that given that General Flynn had worked for President Obama, was an outspoken critic of President Obama’s shortcomings, specifically as it related to his lack of strategy confronting ISIS and other threats around -- that were facing America.
So the question that you have to ask yourself really is, if President Obama was truly concerned about General Flynn why didn’t he suspend General Flynn’s security clearance, which they had just reapproved months earlier. Additionally, why did the Obama administration let Flynn go to Russia for a paid speaking engagement, which he did? There were steps that they could have taken -- if that was truly a concern, more than just a person that didn’t -- had bad blood.

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Q I want to follow up on a couple points, because you raised the security clearance. But before that, if a sitting President raises the name of one individual, why wouldn't that give the President-elect pause? I understand what you're saying, the caveat about the fact of the campaign, et cetera, but wouldn't that give the incoming President pause?


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Well, I think that -- I don't know that I agree with your characterization. He made it clear that he wasn’t a fan of his, and I don't think that should have come as a surprise considering the role that General Flynn played in the campaign, criticizing his --[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Q It didn’t give him any pause at all?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

MR. SPICER: No. I think, again, I think if you know what we knew at the time, which is that the security clearance that he had had been reapproved in April of that year, and not only did they reapprove it, but then they took no steps to suspend it. So the question has to be what did they do if they had real concerns beyond just not having -- not liking him for some of the comments that he made.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Q And it's our understanding -- and if you could clarify this -- did Mike Flynn not need an upgraded security clearance in order to serve as the national security advisor?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

MR. SPICER: He’d been head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. That's the same --[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Q And you vetted him, as well, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

MR. SPICER: That's the same clearance that -- the security clearance -- we went over this a while ago -- it's the same clearance at any level. Once you get it, you get it for the time you had -- he had his reinvestigation in April of 2016, and the Obama administration took no steps -- not only did they reaffirm that security clearance, they took no steps to suspend it or take any other action.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Q But did you not vet him yourselves?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

MR. SPICER: Well, you don't vet -- on a security clearance, that's why you get a security clearance. Everyone in the government goes through the same process. So the answer is, is that those same -- that same process worked for General Flynn as it did for me, or for anyone else who works here. There’s no difference of a security clearance once it's issued. [/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

Zeke.
Q What we do know is what we knew at the time. So knowing what the White House knows now, does the White House, does the President think that General Flynn should not have had that clearance reissued last year, number one? And number two, does the White House believe that General Flynn was truthful when he filled out his SF-86 for that reinvestigation last year?


MR. SPICER: Well, I'm not going to get into those details. Obviously, that was something that was adjudicated by the Obama administration in April of 2016. They took no steps to suspend that. So that's not really a question for us; it's a question for them at that time.


Q Knowing what you know now --


MR. SPICER: I think the President took appropriate action when he did. Once he felt as though General Flynn had misled the Vice President, he took appropriate action at the time, and he stands by that today.


Q His ties to Russia, and his work as a registered foreign agent now -- registered foreign agent for the government of Turkey lead to his firing in February?


MR. SPICER: Well, again, I don't think we're going to re-litigate this. The President made the right decision back then and he stands by that.

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Sara.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q Thanks, Sean. The President tweeted this morning that senators on the Intelligence Committee should ask Sally Yates about her role in classified leaks about General Flynn. Does the President have evidence that ties Sally Yates to the Flynn leaks? Why did he tweet that?


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Well, I think you guys are well aware of the President’s concern about spills of classified and other sensitive information out into the open. It's something that should concern every American. And the President has made it very clear since he took office that that's a big concern of his. And so the idea that classified information made its way into the press is something that I think, while we're asking all of these questions, is one of the ones that I think the senators should ask -- how did that information get out into the open like that. I think that is an equally important question that, frankly, isn't getting asked.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q But does the President believe that Sally Yates was the leaker in this?


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Again, I think the tweet speaks for itself. What he’s saying is that the Senate should ask those questions.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Q Thanks, Sean. Ahead of her testimony today, does President Trump believe Sally Yates is a trustworthy source of information?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: That's not up for us to decide. I mean, that is up to the Senate to decide whether or not what she does, and we'll have to wait and see what that --


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q And following up on Sara’s question, it seemed that the President was implying that Sally Yates may have had something to do with the leaked information to newspapers. Is that what he was implying?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: Well, I think the tweet speaks for itself. Sometimes you don't have to read too much into it. [/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

John.
Q Thanks a lot, Sean. Did Sally Yates have to run any of her planned testimony by the General Counsel's office that she'll deliver later this afternoon?


MR. SPICER: I'm not aware of it, no.


Q And also, do you have any reason to doubt that her testimony, which will be under oath, will be truthful before the Senate Subcommittee?



MR. SPICER: No. I would assume that when you raise your right hand and agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, that you'll do that. That's the whole reason that you pledge.

 

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Francesca.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q Thank you, Sean. For weeks during the transition, President Trump was not receiving a daily intelligence briefing; he was receiving his information from General Flynn. Do you think that lack of direct information from the intelligence community contributed to the lapse in vetting with General Flynn?


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MR. SPICER: So, first, he did get his -- we extensively went over the PDB briefing throughout the campaign. I believe back then it was three times a week that he was getting it, and, supplanted by his national security team, they would go in and do that. So I think the premise is not there.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Secondly, as I mentioned to Kristen, the processes that were followed by General Flynn are followed by every government employee who receives a clearance at that particular level.[/FONT]