Comey and Mueller

Not when spoken by a sooner.

 

Bubba's statement proves just how dangerous our media is.

 

It's still remarkable that less than 6 years ago, Democrats and the media were literally laughing at Mitt Romney for pointing out Russia's danger to the US. Now those same people buy into every Russian conspiracy theory out there.

 

How close are you to East Berlin, comrade?

Seriously, I wonder if academics are still allowed by the left to openly talk about how great communism is and how Soviet Russia was amazing and yeah they made some mistakes, but Stalin really did have the right idea after all. And we should stop stressing out about possible communist sympathizers in government, because really we ALL should be sympathizing with communists. Because it's great! Not that we want it here or anything, but still!

 

I'm about 320 miles from Berlin, so I don't go too often. Certainly academics extol communism here like they do in the US. When I have visited Berlin, I've seen all kinds of things honoring and promoting communism. For starters, there's a colossal Soviet was memorial in Berlin and several smaller ones. I haven't seen anything named after Soviet communists or East German communists. You won't find a Josef-Stalin-Straße or an Erich-Honecker-Straße. However, I've seen all sorts of things named after pre-WWII German communists - Rosa Luxembourg, Ernst Thälmann, and several others, including obviously Karl Marx.

 

Because it was very serious? I was being "tongue and cheek"...like our President.

 

Certain conclusions on Strzok are now clear

1) He is a social justice warrior
2) He hates Republicans
3) He is not educated with regard to his own technolgy

 

I almost feel like these two are cartoon characters. They are literally laying out the fulfillment of every stereotype of insufferable beltway liberals that has ever been put out there. But again, I'm sure we just happened to stumble upon the two worst people in DC and they aren't representative of anyone but themselves.

 

I wrote about this is another thread
But here you can see clearly what they did
They edited out Obama to try and disguise the fact that Obama himself was well aware that Hillary was sending classified material via her private server. SHe even continued to use it while on foreign travel (making it even easier for them to hack into). Which is illegal. Which Obama knew about, Which Obama participated (under a "disguised name"). Which is what the whole quashing of the Hillary email case was all about. It was not as much about protecting her. It was about protecting him. This is banana republic stuff

 

I dont think any of the text of these two creeps should be redacted

 

There are so many cases the FBI has prosecuted for less than what Hillary did. For example, former CIA Director David Petraeus showed classified info to his mistress - who had a security clearance - at his home, not inside a SCIF. He was fired, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to 2 years probation and given a $100k fine.

Hillary had classified documents all over her emails/private server. As pointed out above, it even looks like she stored the PDBs on it. What she did was 100 times worse than what Patraeus did. But the FBI said they didnt notice any of it. Which let her get away with denying it all throughout the campaign. The FBI belatedly admitted they "missed" them, only after it no longer mattered. And only once they learned the IG had her emails.

 

I don't think many would disagree that Strozk and Lisa Page were sleazy people and terrible federal employees. However, I think your average liberal would dismiss their actions as the maneuvers of two rogue federal bureaucrats with poor judgement.

I think their moves made perfect sense and showed good judgment if you don't care about ethics as they clearly didn't. At the time this was occurring, people were operating under the assumption that a Hillary victory was as close to a lock as it gets in presidential politics. If she had won as everybody assumed, is there any doubt that Strzok and Page would have been rewarded for their loyalty? I don't think he'd be FBI director or that she'd be AG. Loretta Lynch would be AG, and James Comey would be serving out his term, after getting a tongue lashing from Hillary and Lynch for not being partisan enough. However, they'd get big promotions for their loyalty, which Hillary would have valued far more than their crappy ethics would have concerned her.

Keep in mind that if she had won, it's very unlikely that there would have been any investigation or that their texts would have become public. Even if Congress had investigated (which is unlikely), Hillary and Lynch would never have had the ethics to appoint a special prosecutor. That means Lynch and her people would have been responsible for answering congressional subpoenas and requests for documents. The texts almost surely would not have been turned over.

 

Weren't the texts exposed by the IG? How long have they been in role?

 

I'm talking more about the opinions they're expressing - the pure contempt for red state voters, the sense of entitlement, the Hillary Cult status... basically if Sean Hannity were going to create a stereotypical liberal personality, he would create them. For that matter, if SNL were going to do a skit about liberals (they apparently actually do make fun of progressives every once in a while), it would be these two. And while I'm sure they're not representative of the mainstream, they're pretty par for the course in terms of East Coast liberalism, from what I've seen.

 

The initial ones were. I think the most recent batch came from the Senate investigation. However, if Hillary had won, why would the IG be looking into it? She and Lynch obviously wouldn't be pushing for that. In fact they'd be discouraging it and saying we needed to "move on." I'm not saying they wouldn't push for a Russia inquiry, but it wouldn't be aimed at the conduct of the FBI or DOJ. It would be much narrower.

You might assume that Republicans would push for it, but that ignores context. Republicans are pushing the issue now because Trump is under investigation. It's a defensive matter for them. They'd much rather the whole issue was gone. In short, both parties have a reason not to pushpush whole matter.

And on the off-chance that there is a major inquiry, does Hillary's past conduct suggest cooperation or delay and obstruction? Clearly the latter. We might one day learn about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, but it would take years.

 

They're federal employees who live and work in the DC area. Not particularly surprised. They might be somewhat of a caricature, but if you spend your days working for the government for political appointees and spend your evenings watching MSNBC, Colbert, or Trevor Noah, it's going to impact your views and your attitude.

 

This is "colluding with Russia" - Mark Warner was in contact with a Russian who the State Department said has ties to organized crime and said he did not want to leave a "paper trail."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ontact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html

"Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele
* * *
Secrecy seemed very important to Warner as the conversation with Waldman heated up March 29, when the lobbyist revealed that Steele wanted a bipartisan letter from Warner and the committee’s chairman, North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr, inviting him to talk to the Senate intelligence panel.

Throughout the text exchanges, Warner seemed particularly intent on connecting directly with Steele without anyone else on the Senate Intelligence Committee being in the loop -- at least initially. In one text to the lobbyist, Warner wrote that he would "rather not have a paper trail" of his messages.
* * *
Waldman is best known for signing a $40,000 monthly retainer in 2009 and 2010 to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of controversial Russian billionaire Oleg V. Deripaska. Deripraska had his visa revoked by the State Department in 2006 because of charges, which he has denied, that he has organized crime ties."​

 

Here was Senator Warner last summer
This hypocritical turd should resign

 

This is the same slime ball who invented Obama birtherism
Decent, sourced read

 

Rasmussen Poll: 55% of Republicans view FBI as bigger meddler in 2016 election than Russia

 

It's almost like DC is a swamp or something

 

It appears that at least one of the reasons for the double demotions of Bruce Ohr may have been his failure to disclose the conflict of interest created by his wife's employment by GPS Fusion in helping to create the Steele Dossier, which he was required to do. He was supposed to have requested a waiver for this but instead he just did not tell them. Ohr is the person who is supposed to have brought the information to the FBI. So his failure to disclose was quite significant in this story. The FISA warrant was sought and obtained without the Court having knowledge of this financial relationship conflict.
On top of that, lying on these forms can carry jail time

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4377321-Ohr-Annual-Submitted-in-2017.html

 

How do we explain how how some of the Govt people involved in this matter have been removed -- namely Mike Kortan, David Laufman, Sally Yates, James Rybicki and Andrew McCabe
while some of the other Govt people have not been removed? (Peter Strozok is in FBI's "HR Dept"; Lisa Page is doing something in some office somewhere; Bruce Ohr and James Baker are watching paint dry; and Bill Priestap is still Asst. FBI Director in charge of CI)

One possibility is that they are cooperating witnesses at this point. Which would explain why Nunes has called none of them in for testimony. Which he has not despite having a full month to call them in. All of the quotes from them have come from releases from the IG's Office, not from Congressional testimony. This would also explain why we have not heard one peep out of any of them.

Here is the way that would work --They are sat down, told to not do anything or say anything or discuss anything until they get an attorney. At which time, their attorney is handed a letter from the investigating unit. That letter says in essence, this is how screwed they are. If you want to be less screwed you will sign this letter of cooperation and assist us. When we don’t need you, you just sit there and keep your mouth shut. When we need you, we will call you and you will provide what we need. Any deviation from this agreement lands you in jail for the full term.

We know that Nunes met with Wray about a month ago. Ever since, Nunes has been going full bore. Wray probably disclosed to Nunes what was going on with these 5 people, and so Nunes just moved on to the next phase (which I believe, as I posted above, is going to be Brennan and Clapper, and possibly Panetta and Rice).

 

I hope Rep. Nunes stays well away from any private aircraft in the future.

 

So a few things have happened in the Flynn case.

As noted above, a day or so after accepting Flynn's plea, Judge Contreras recused himself from the case. The filings were not made available to us but the most logical reason left to fill this void is that Contreras was one of the FISA judges who authorized the FISA warrants which allowed the FBI to wiretap Flynn in the first place. If so, I think Contreras should have recused himself immediately but that is not really how Obama-appointees roll (as we have seen in the Travel Ban cases).

So now the Flynn case has a new judge who is much more favorable to the defense. Emmet Sullivan is the judge who dismissed the case against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens after finding the federal prosecutors in the case in contempt for failing to disclose evidence. It even led to the appointment a special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department. DOJ got hammered for that https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304459804577283371409080312

So the first thing Sullivan did was issue a sua sponte Brady Order to Mueller (posted again below). It meant Mueller had to give Flynn everything he had (with a protective order that prevents the rest of us from seeing the material). In short, the new judge shoved it up Muller's pooper. This is not common in criminal cases and I read it as a clear signal that Sullivan will not put up with any more abuses from Team Mueller.

The short of all this for Flynn is that he got very lucky with the reassignment. Although Sullivan is black, he was not appointed by Obama (he was moved along by Reagan then Bush I and then Clinton). If there is one judge on the entire DC District Court who would hold Mueller's feet to the fire, Flynn got him. In fact, Judge Sullivan is probably the most experienced trial court judge on abusive prosections by DOJ in the entire country.

Given everything that has subsequently come out about the Obama Admin's spying as well as the internal problems on Team Mueller, I think Flynn has a decent shot at withdrawal/dismissal of the plea. His chances seem to improve daily with each new release of bad news for Mueller. It has happened before to some of the same attorneys Mueller assigned to this team. Perhaps the most notable being the botched the prosecutions in the Enron case by Mueller's chief trial lawyer Andrew Weissmann https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113270854867104758

 

If interested in this part^, here is a good piece by Judge Jed Rakoff (now Sr. Judge for the Southern Dist of NY) wrote several years ago, about how common it is for defendants, even if innocent, to enter guilty pleas. They simply can't continue to endure the high stress of a criminal investigation. They and their families suffer sheer exhaustion in every form — financial, physical, mental, and emotional. Add in a little prosecutorial duress (like threatening to indict your son, as Mueller did to Flynn here) and, bingo, there’s your guilty plea.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/

 

And here is the full discovery order in the Flynn case that Judge Sullivan issued sua sponte

 

Here is something else on the possibilities for Flynn moving forward. A plea brought about by a "Brady" violation can be remedied by withdrawal of the plea.

click once to enlarge

 

Mueller's indictment lists eight marches promoted by Internet Research Agency.
5 during the campaign/one FOR Hillary
3 after the election/two AGAINST Trump
Mueller did not report attendance at any of these 'marches.' Nor did any national political reporter report on the attendance which, as it turns out was zero or negligible for all events during election campaign. The only one with an attendance worth noting was the 'Trump is Not My President.'

If nothing else, it is now clear we are not getting our money's worth out of Team Mueller.



The first two were March for Trump, Jun 25, 2016 (NYC) and Down with Hillary, Jul 23, 2016 (NYC). The NY Post said it was "unclear ..if [rallies] held at all". Could not locate "written or photo evidence"
https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/russians-staged-pro-trump-anti-clinton-rallies-across-us/

Next was "Support Hillary, Save American Muslims" scheduled for July 9, 2016 at the White House. It was promoted by United Muslims of America (FB).
There is no evidence or photos of this one either, just like with the two above.

Next were multiple "Florida Goes Trump" rallies on Aug 20, 2016 in multiple Florida cities. Attendance was paltry. This thread has several pictures of these rallies. Looks like the largest had 8 people (and a dog) https://www.bellingcat.com/news/ame...p-flash-mobs-organized-russian-troll-factory/

Next was the "Miners For Trump" rally on Oct 2, 2016 in Philly, Erie, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Harrisburg, Allentown. The Philadelphia Inquirer says none took place http://archive.is/Nq5pK

After the election, they promoted "Trump is not my President" march in NY on Nov 12, 2016, which attracted 10,000
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-york-city-protest-trumps-election …
…
…

The last last was "Charlotte against Trump" on Nov 19, 2016 which attracted about 100 people http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article115914483.html

 

Mueller makes multiple charges in his indictment about these 'rallies'
Most of it reads like nonsense, given the context that the rallies either did not take place or no one showd up for them
Here, Mueller indicts someone on the charge of funding and directing someone else to go "get a megaphone"