Comey and Mueller

Horn6721 said:
I won't sit and wait for Rosenstein to recuse himself.
Click to expand...

He wrote the memo that Comey should be fired upon which, at least in part, Trump based his decision to fire Comey.
To the extent Mueller is/was looking into whether Trump firing Comey was 'obstruction of justice' (hint: it's not) then Rosenstein himself became a potential fact witness. This is an automatic recusal at DOJ.
 
Horn6721 said:
But JF how many times just this year have we seen those same people thumb their nose at what is legal?
Click to expand...

By coincidence of timing, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) filed today a resolution to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
 
One interesting nugget from the Rosenstein impeachment resolution: Within the last month, "whistleblowers" have come forward to provide Congress with evidence that FBI/DOJ "knowingly and intentionally withheld documents" to "avoid oversight"

DjBsfmjX4AArmBy.jpg
 
In addition, Jim Jordan is bringing back Peter Strzok to testify before congress. The FBI supposedly agreed that Strzok did not answer 90% of the questions that he could have answered. So the next round should be even more interesting.
 
Joe Fan said:
In addition, Jim Jordan is bringing back Peter Strzok to testify before congress. The FBI supposedly agreed that Strzok did not answer 90% of the questions that he could have answered. So the next round should be even more interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't see the point. He's just going to lie some more. Perhaps something will slip from him is what they're expecting? What I want to see is Lisa Page testifying to the public.
 
Joe Fan said:
One interesting nugget from the Rosenstein impeachment resolution: Within the last month, "whistleblowers" have come forward to provide Congress with evidence that FBI/DOJ "knowingly and intentionally withheld documents" to "avoid oversight"

DjBsfmjX4AArmBy.jpg
Click to expand...

As I said before it's all about stalling and hoping the House goes blue so this will all be buried.
 
The US taxpayer, via the FBI, made 11 payments to Christopher Steele (before they fired him)

It took a long time for the FBI to admit this, and they did so only after being sued, multiple times

Why?

 
Nice article by Sharyl Attkisson --

"Let’s begin in the realm of the fanciful.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
What exactly might an “insurance policy” against Donald Trump look like?

He would have to be marginalized at every turn. Strategies would encompass politics, the courts, opposition research and the media. He’d have to become mired in lawsuits, distracted by allegations, riddled with calls for impeachment, hounded by investigations. His election must be portrayed as the illegitimate result of a criminal or un-American conspiracy.

To accomplish this, bad actors in the intel community could step up use of surveillance tools as a weapon to look for dirt on Trump before his inauguration. They could rely on dubious political opposition research to secretly argue for wiretaps, plant one or more spies in the Trump campaign, then leak to the press a mix of true and false stories to create a sense of chaos.

Once Trump is in office, a good insurance policy would call for neutralizing the advisers seen as most threatening, including his attorney general. The reigning FBI director could privately send the implicit message that as long as Trump minds his own business, he won’t be named as a target. When the president asks the FBI director to lift the cloud and tell the public their president isn’t under investigation, the FBI director could demur and allow a storm of innuendo to build. Idle chatter benefits the plot. There would be rampant media leaks, both true and false, but none of them would benefit Trump....."​

Its worth a full read to the end
What would the intelligence community's 'insurance policy' against Trump look like?
 
The FBI finally fired Strozk (one reason they held off was because the IG wanted to be able to subpoena him)
And someone immediately posted a gofundme for him. It is pretty telling that among the best things they could think of to say about this creep is to call him a "husband." lol He might not be a "good husband" but at least he might be a "proud husband." I wonder if his wife is a proud wife?
What about Lisa Page? Is she a "proud wife" too?


DkgOWA-XcAIWy-U.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
The FBI finally fired Strozk (one reason they held off was because the IG wanted to be able to subpoena him)
And someone immediately posted a gofundme for him. It is pretty telling that among the best things they could think of to say about this creep is to call him a "husband." lol He might not be a "good husband" but at least he might be a "proud husband." I wonder if his wife is a proud wife?
What about Lisa Page? Is she a "proud wife" too?


DkgOWA-XcAIWy-U.jpg
Click to expand...
Awesomeness. One down, how many more biased or flat out corrupt creeps to go?
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Awesomeness. One down, how many more biased or flat out corrupt creeps to go?
Click to expand...

Bruce Ohr (already fired) has to testify shortly
And hopefully his wife too, who worked at Fusion GPS and was the one doing the shortwave HAM radio communications (not subject to intercept)

Here is a good synopsis of Strzok's behavior
Peter Strzok became the face of Mueller’s Trump-Russia probe

The list, so far
Ohr - demoted
Strzok - Fired
Comey - Fired
McCabe - Fired
Yates - Fired
Rybicki - Resigned
Baker - Resigned
Page - Resigned

update - Gowdy says the Ohr testimony will be closed
 
Last edited:
Strzok was also the FBI Agent responsible for interviewing Michael Flynn.
Now that he has been fired for misconduct, it raises a large credibility issue in the Flynn case
Maybe the Govt will dismiss those charges now?
 
She also mentioned as under review for the next revocations -- James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr

I do not see any good reason that persons fired from their jobs would retain their clearance
 
As a reminder, Brennan admitted using the spy agency to spy on the committee responsible for overseeing his agency.

I would argue that former public officials have no business keeping their security clearances after they are no longer working there (unless they are still working as contractors with direct need). The sad reality is that, until today at least, neither Rs nor Ds objected in the past. This is a lucrative and dishonest market, one that prospers from, by and in Washington D.C

Here, he gets a decent reaming out by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) yet he was nonetheless allowed to maintain clearance afterwards.
 
Back in the day, Rand Paul tried to filibuster Brannan's appointment to the CIA. He's never liked him. Still doesnt. With good reason.



-----------
This is the real Brennan
Dkq3F6-VAAA7ACp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dude is now claiming that revocation of his clearance is "suppression of free speech," despite the fact that he seems to speak 24/7. Whoever composes his tweets for him needs to be fired.



Dkq5YTfUYAAH_u1.jpg
 
Last edited:
It is pretty late in the process for this, perhaps too late, but good luck to them. I did bring this idea up months ago in this forum.

 
Sara Carter is reporting that sources are telling her the President may intervene soon and declassify parts of the FISA application identified by House members as being critical.

I would like to see this stuff for myself.
 
Joe Fan said:
Sara Carter is reporting that sources are telling her the President may intervene soon and declassify parts of the FISA application identified by House members as being critical.

I would like to see this stuff for myself.
Click to expand...

If Trump does this I'm curious to what narrative the MSM will push this time.
 
Garmel said:
What?
Click to expand...

I think they retired for the night without a decision.

Questions to the judge like this happen. It happened to me, more than once. It's always tempting to try and speculate what it means, but the truth is you never really know. You do get a chance to speak to federal juries after its all over, and sometimes what you hear back is something you never even considered.

So, while this question in this case suggests this jury is having trouble concluding the Govt met its burden, it might not mean that at all. We dont really know. We just have to wait and see.
 
Garmel said:
If Trump does this I'm curious to what narrative the MSM will push this time.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, he has not done this yet. It feels like the point of the tweets is to prompt the FBI/DOJ to do it themselves. No doubt he would prefer they do it themselves rather than him having to directly force it. And he is right, they should be able to do the right thing without having to first be prompted.

However, if it does happen, it will be released late on a Friday afternoon, or the weekend, or a holiday or buried behind some other large news event. They have an established pattern for releases.

And agree with you, whenever it comes out, they will spin it. They may already have their spin ready. Just like how they spun revoking Brennan's clearance is somehow a 1st A violation, which is as dumb a spin as can be possible. But their people are so dumb, they swallow it whole without even thinking about how dumb it is. The DNC and Dem activists know this. They count on it. They have discussions with PR experts asking questions like --
-- "How can we turn this news event into motivation for our people to vote in the upcoming election?"
-- "How do we use this to keep our people angry from now until November?"​
This is all they care about, and they are single-minded in this pursuit. They do not care about the truth or fairness of anything. They never have.

"The ends justify the means." – Machiavelli.​
 
Joe Fan said:
.... But their people are so dumb, they swallow it whole without even thinking about how dumb it is. The DNC and Dem activists know this. They count on it. ...
Click to expand...

As soon as I posted that, another example popped up

"Chelsea Clinton: Legalized Abortion Has Added 3.5 Trillion to the Economy"​
 
Team Mueller's case took 10 days, with 23 witnesses.
The defense made the choice to put on no witnesses (I did this once in a mock trial in school, and won). The defense obviously felt like Team Mueller failed to meet its burden of proof, which is high

Also, the judge's explanation of the jury instructions took 2 hours.

Here is an accounting of Manafort's lawyers' closing argument.
Here's Why Manafort's Lawyers Think They Have Enough to Exonerate Their Client

I dont personally have strong feelings about Manafort. He is a swamp monster, maybe the original swamp monster in terms of bringing foreign money into US elections. And if we want the swamp drained, it's hard to be upset over a swamp creature going down. Although you could be upset over the unequal application of the law -- no Democrat swampsters ever go down (indeed, they all seem to get immunity). And none of this trial, of course, has anything to do with Trump. In fact, there would be no Manafort trial now had he not briefly worked on the Trump campaign.

On the other hand, I am anti-Mueller, so I wont mind a jury finding against him.

And, in any event, we already know there will be a second trial no matter how this one comes out. And the DC jury pool is different from that in Northern Virginia.
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine the harassment of these people will get if they acquit and their names/addresses are released?

Yeesh

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top