Assuming Feinstein got the same information as Grassley, if Trump were under investigation, why wouldn’t she say so, or at least release her own weasel-worded statement that suggests he was? Seems to me that the Occam’s Razor explanation is that Trump is not personally under investigation.
Hurr, have you tried macramé? Maybe you have a natural knack for it?
No, no, see, it’s OK. Trump is not personally under investigation (except when he was, cuz he was being wire tapped). But, now, nosir! Not under investigation. His associates, his business partners, his family. They’re under investigation. And Trump merely fired Comey to stop those investigations. Totally, totally cool. Trump has the libs right where he wants them now!
Mark Shields, the Avatar of Frumpy, just said “Trump criticizing Comey for being a showboat is being called ugly by a frog.”
Out of curiosity, do you think that’s cricket? And is our nation’s security protocol so sloppily formulated that you can weasel around it like this and maintain security clearance?
If he’s not supposed to tell, it hardly seems appropriate for him to tell us with a wink and a weasel sentence.
That’s a legal question. IANAL. But I think yes, he manages to skate by.
Why do you say this? Do you disagree that there are a lot of Democrats who believe that the President and/or his campaign colluded with the Russians? More importantly, do you disagree that what I posited to be true will upset Democrats who expect more?
I didn’t imply all Democrats will be upset. Stop getting your knickers twisted. 
So you think that Grassley isn’t allowed to say that Trump is not under investigation. You then quote him verbatim as evidence that Trump isn’t under investigation.
Do you agree that the FBI should open a leaks investigation on Grassley? After all, we have been told many times that leaks are the problem in Washington, not Russia.
The words in quotes are not Grassley’s. They are mine, for argument’s sake:
Tell me if you agree with my 3 points below - separately. Each one by itself.
-
“Comey told me Trump is not under investigation” - an affirmative, clear repeating of what Comey said.
-
“Comey told me who is being investigated.” - not an affirmative, clear repeating of what Comey said.
-
“I never heard anything that would contradict Trump’s statements (that he is not under investigation)” - not an affirmative, clear repeating of what Comey said.
There is no point in dissecting each of the three statements. You have hypothesized, quite reasonably, that Grassley is under an obligation not to reveal whether Trump is under investigation.
Since you are using his words as evidence that Trump is under investigation, it is perfectly clear that Grassley violated his obligation. So, it is a leak. Right?
No. As I illustrated in the points that you refused to consider. Try. Do you agree with every one of the three - separately? 1 is a leak. 2 is not a leak. 3 is not a leak. (well, usually “leak” means an anonymous release of information, but you know what I mean).
If you do, then take 2 and 3 - together. Even though neither of them is a “leak”, together they confirm no investigation. Which means 2 and 3 confirm the no-investigation without a “leak”.
You think leaks are based on how sentences are phrased, rather than the information (or conclusions) conveyed? Seriously?
ETA: have you personally ever been bound by any confidentiality agreement? Like a security clearance, lawyer-client privilege, a non-disclosure agreement, or anything like that?
…you will note that this strategy has not worked for the “Muslim ban”. The courts aren’t stupid and neither are we. Saying it with a “wink and a nod” is the same as “saying it straight”. The end result is exactly the same: we know something that we shouldn’t have known because Grassley couldn’t keep his mouth shut. At least we know where Grassley’s priorities lie. Defending Trump is more important than national security.
Trump may or may not personally be under investigation for colluding in trying to tamper with the election, but he pretty clearly has Russian ties. His son, in fact said several years ago before this all came up that they were getting financing from Russians.
An investigation into ties between Trump associates and Russians, will likely reveal details of this. It seems to me that this is more likely what Trump is worried about coming out.
Google Trump Hotel Kazakhstan. Especially if you actually want your hair curled. Or the “…33-story luxury Trump International Hotel and Tower Baku, which never opened…” in Azerbaijan. Ivanka, we are told , played a key role. 'Course, if it never opened, doesn’t much matter if she could unlock it.
Or Trump Soho and Bayrock Group
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html
Worst Star Wars character ever
No, that would be Trump Trump Binks.
That’s the guy that said in reference to Obi Wan, “I like Jedi Masters who don’t get struck down;” who called Han Solo “low energy;” said Palpatine was “a smart cookie;” had an aide get in trouble for talking with Grand Moff Tarkin; and who talked about banning Wookiees but in the end suspended travel from Kashyyyk and said it was about galactic security. Right?
Okrahoma, do you think this reveals classified information:
Let’s suppose a raid is schedule for a Tuesday. The reporter knows that a raid is scheduled, because there has been in increase in troops in the area, but the actual day of the raid is classified. Here’s a conversation between the reporter and a general:
Reporter: General, when is the raid scheduled?
General: Sorry, that information is classified.
R: Is it scheduled for Monday?
G: No
R: Is it scheduled for Tuesday?
G: Sorry, I have no comment on that
R: Is it scheduled for Wednesday?
G: No
…
R: Is it scheduled for Sunday?
G: No
If, as you claim, the only possible interpretation for Grassley’s comments is that Trump is not under investigation, doesn’t that essentially boil down to the above? So, I think you can only choose one of the two options: (1) Grassley released classified information and should be investigated, or (2) Trump may or may not be under investigation and Grassley added no insight either way.
So, 1 or 2, which do you choose?