Russian hacking

#WhatTheyVotedFor (Corruption Conundrum)

#PutiTrump | #WhatTheyVotedFor

&#;35PutiTrump

The basic conundrum, the New York Times explained Tuesday night:

By firing the F.B.I. director, James Comey, late Tuesday afternoon, President Trump has cast grave doubt on the viability of any further investigation into what could be one of the biggest political scandals in the country’s history.

The explanation for this shocking move—that Mr. Comey’s bungling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server violated longstanding Justice Department policy and profoundly damaged public trust in the agency—is impossible to take at face value. Certainly Mr. Comey deserves all the criticism heaped upon him for his repeated missteps in that case, but just as certainly, that’s not the reason Mr. Trump fired him.

Mr. Comey was fired because he was leading an active investigation that could bring down a president. Though compromised by his own poor judgment, Mr. Comey’s agency has been pursuing ties between the Russian government and Mr. Trump and his associates, with potentially ruinous consequences for the administration.

(more…)

Very Nearly Inexplicable (Twitterpated Intelligence)

#trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor

Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr): "It's only fair that I have a chance to respond 2 any smears or half truths about alleged 'Collusion with Russians' from 2day's Intel Hearing" [via Twitter, 20 March 2017]

The hardest part of explaining Roger Stone is the fact of trying to explain Roger Stone; it a dangerous venture best left to some sort of expert. And part of this really is that he does not seem to know when to not boast, and that ridiculous episode seems to have set the tone for Caroline O.’s unparalleled tweetstorm tracking Mr. Stone’s presence in the Russia scandal, which in turn ought to be required reading.

And, in truth, if you happened to be paying the slightest of attention, it just really was something absolutely special to see Mr. Stone ask for a chance to bring his genuinely unbelievable show to the House Intelligence Committee.

This is one of those offers they can’t refuse. At least, they shouldn’t. That is to say, really? Seriously? Roger Stone wants to testify before Congress?

A’ight, then.

____________________

Image note: Tweet by Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr), 20 March 2017: “It’s only fair that I have a chance to respond 2 any smears or half truths about alleged ‘Collusion with Russians’ from 2day’s Intel Hearing”.

Beavers, Olivia. “Roger Stone claims ‘legal back channel’ to Assange”. The Hill. 5 March 2017.

O., Caroline. “You ready to take a little trip down memory lane with our good friend Roger Stone and his buddy Guccifer 2.0?” Twitter. 19 March 2017.

Stone Jr., Roger J. “It’s only fair that I have a chance to respond 2 any smears or half truths about alleged ‘Collusion with Russians’ from 2day’s Intel Hearing”. Twitter. 20 March 2017.