Comey and Mueller

Garmel said:
On another sports site I go to...
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Garmel said:
On another sports site I go to I was told that there wasn't anything wrong with unmaskings (the conservatives there are a minority). I just called everybody there a stupid *** and left today. After three years of stupidy on that site I had enough.
Click to expand...

I also learned from these nitwits that prosecutorial misconduct and bias does not get cases dismissed according to these nitwits that I'm dealing with. I'm not exaggerating.
 
Garmel said:
I also learned from these nitwits that prosecutorial misconduct and bias does not get cases dismissed according to these nitwits that I'm dealing with. I'm not exaggerating.
Click to expand...

Cliven Bundy's case was dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, the judge who did it was an Obama appointee. Yeah, it's a thing.

As for whether there was something wrong with the unmaskings, the argument could be made that it was defensible for some of those who requested it but surely not all or even most. And of course, it was not defensible for any of them to leak the unmasking to the media. That was an abuse even if done by someone with a valid reason to do the unmasking.
 
Garmel said:
What would you defense attorneys here do if a judge said this to you?
Click to expand...


Sullivan has gone "beyond the pale." The parties can petition the DC Circuit -- ask for a writ of mandamus or perhaps a writ of prohibition

By coincidence of timing, just last week, the SCOTUS/Ginsburg overturned a 9th Cir case where the court acted "beyond the pale" -- she really let them have it in an immigration case
"[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion. ..... A court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale."​
United States v. Sineneng-Smith - SCOTUSblog
You can almost feel the SCOTUS' growing impatience with the 9th Cir, which has gone completely off the rails. The SCOTUS is tired of having to reverse them all the time. Reversals are not something appellate courts enjoy doing. But the 9C keeps wasting their time by forcing them to keep doing it over and over. It has gotten so bad that even the higher court libs are getting sick of their fellow lib lower court judges.

Besides directly confronting this recent SCOTUS case, there is also a recent DC Cir case (which controls the DC Dist Ct) in direct opposition to Sullivan. In US v. Fokker Services, Judge Leon refused to accept a deferred prosecution agreement between the Obama DOJ and a Dutch aerospace services company. He thought it was too lenient. The parties took a writ of mandamus to the DC Cir. A 3-judge panel nicely smacked Judge Leon about the head. They noted his position was "contrary to the law and constitutional understanding" -- lol. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V. | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

If it happens this way, it might destroy Sullivan's career, so my sense is that he will back off.
 
Last edited:
Barr with some comments today --

—Collusion hoax used against Trump was “baseless” and “unprecedented in American history”

—Durham is a criminal investigation

—Does not believe - based on his knowledge of Durham probe - that Obama or Biden will personally be the focus of a criminal investigation

—Durham’s focus “is on others” involved

—DOJ under Obama had “dual standard” - rules for Trump, and rules for everybody else

—DOJ must have *one* standard for *every* American

—DOJ will only prosecute if it can prove every element of a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt”

—Not every “abuse of power”, no matter how egregious, is necessarily a federal crime that can be prosecuted

—But Durham is trying to “get to the bottom of what happened”, and if crimes can be proven, will bring perpetrators to justice​
 
This "—Not every “abuse of power”, no matter how egregious, is necessarily a federal crime that can be prosecuted"
while true is disappointing when applied to some of the crap Obama etc did
 
More from Grenell, acting DNI - bringing the FBI back under control

He has removed the FBI from SIGINT briefings and products that contain sources/methods. They have been ordered to return to core LE/CT work. The FBI will no longer receive raw or refined sources and methods COMINT/SIGINT product, only sanitized analyst product. The orders have already gone out to the relevant IC commands, including INSCOM.

Now FBI's access will only be granted on a per-incident basis if matter is not directly related to terrorism or a criminal activity under active investigation. And thus, with the exception of terrorism and criminal matters, the FBI is out of the raw intelligence business.

This is a pretty big deal. Too bad but it had to be done. The FBI's misbehavior and institutional myopia left them no choice
 
We now know the definite answer to this question posed
They got down to the business of unmasking US citizens and planning a coup d'état

Did they forever destroy the long held distinction of the American principle of the peaceful transition of governments? Only time will tell

EYVCsW_XgAM2ZP7
 
So what was up with Susan Rice's email she sent to herself on inauguration?
She knew her little paper trail would be found. And so clearly it was an attempt at ***-covering. But it would also seem she was not exactly out to help Obama

Why?
Because her email shows Obama knew the FBI was looking at Flynn over a fear Flynn passing classified info on to Russians.
But Rice also makes it clear Obama made the presidential choice not to inform Trump of that suspicion.
Nor did Obama did not direct Comey to inform Trump of this.

This was pretty significant information. They had gone from from being concerned Flynn was compromised by Russian to believing he was actively passing on classified intel to Russians. This is treason (we know he wasn't but that is not they point, the point is they believed it at the time).

It was a huge potential scandal and Rice covered her own rear and dropped it all squarely in Obama's lap.
 
Garmel said:
I also learned from these nitwits that prosecutorial misconduct and bias does not get cases dismissed according to these nitwits that I'm dealing with. I'm not exaggerating.
Click to expand...

I have written about her in here in the past, but Flynn's attorney has a history of getting convictions set aside or reversed in the federal courts against DOJ, including the Enron case
Here is her book
Amazon product ASIN 1612541496
 
Mr. Deez said:
...As for whether there was something wrong with the unmaskings, the argument could be made that it was defensible for some of those who requested it but surely not all or even most. And of course, it was not defensible for any of them to leak the unmasking to the media. That was an abuse even if done by someone with a valid reason to do the unmasking.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a federal crime in the disclosures (the leaks).
So some of this might boil down to first amendment issues.
But, I say, if Fitzgerald had zero problems incarcerating a reporter over (what he already knew to be!) nothing, then neither should Durham.
Seems like Brennan here since he looks like a ringmaster who was on very friendly terms with the media. But who knows? Sometimes its the quiet ones.


I would be fine if they got the John Wilkes Booth attempted coup treatment
hith-lincoln-assassination-aftermath-90002109-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top