Comey and Mueller

Howard Kurtz has a new book out called 'Media Madness"

In it, he shows McCabe orchestrating the way the original Trump-Russia narrative was spread around to friendly media and other members of the 'resistance.' This is what eventually got us Robert Mueller as the "insurance policy." It was a scheme and McCabe was an instigator (rmbr how Page & Strzok texted about "Andy"). And, as the other thread showed^, McCabe's career has been pockmarked controversial behavior --

"The FBI’s top brass initiated conversations with a White House official that were quickly leaked to CNN. ​

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe asked to speak privately with White House chief of staff Reince Priebus following a February 2017 intelligence briefing . .... McCabe said he asked for the meeting to tell Priebus that “everything” in a New York Times story authored by Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo was “bullsh-t.”
* * *
Now, a week later, CNN was airing a breaking news story naming Priebus. According to ‘multiple U.S. officials,’ the network said, ‘the FBI rejected a White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence.’
Priebus was stunned by the implication that he was pressuring law enforcement. Had he been set up? Why was the FBI leaking this information when one of its top officials had initiated the conversation?
* * *
The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations…"​

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/29...eeting-that-led-to-leak/#.WqyNUqLvvmD.twitter

 

. Incredible corruption. These people built the swamp. Martha Stewart and I both want people sent to prison. No plea bargains. And no country club prisons.

 

The current discussion is dominated by two conflicting viewpoints:

1. Trump is unprecedentedly awful. Anybody- inside or outside of government- working to turn him out is a hero.

2. Obama’s Administration had the fix in for Clinton. The media was in support of this. When Trump unexpectedly won, they responded with a Russia stink bomb.

I take an alternate view- Trump is awful, and the Obama admin had the fix in for Clinton. There are no heroes; just two parties selfishly pressing for power.

 

Newsflash, that's more hipster than alternative. In modern American society, if you truly seek to be "alternative" then you would have to ignore the noise and look at facts. You would be able to see what is done versus what was said. You would need to think for yourself.

Trump has been in office a little over one year.
-- Which means Hillary is not (which has to be accomplishment #1)
-- He has had a great run with federal court appointments, including a SCOTUS pick.
-- Almost all the area ISIS took under Obama has been reclaimed.
-- He got out of the Paris Accord, which was strongly biased against the US.
-- He got us out of the TPP, which would have surrendered a degree of US sovereignty over to UN types
-- He moved the US Emb in Israel to Jerusalem
-- Employment levels are superlative
-- The financial markets have been great (over $2 Trillion in wealth has been added since the election)
-- Both Small Business and Consumer optimism are reaching historical peaks
-- Redundant and unnecessary federal regulations have been gutted, and the growing yet troubling power grab by Executive Branch Agencies to operate outside the Constitution by legislating has been curtailed
-- Illegal immigration is mostly down
-- The OCare individual mandate is dead
-- He got a significant Tax Cut bill through an otherwise braindead Congress
-- He got us out of Obama's Net Neutrality
-- NATO states upped their funding
-- Opened ANWR
-- Brought a sorely needed degree of accountability to the VA system
-- Revived NASA (matters to me at least)

As far as year 2 goes, he has already begun the big pivot towards rectifying decades of bad trade agreements which were prejudiced against the US.

Which of these was/is "AWFUL?"

Look, I get it that folks like you dont like his personality or what he says sometimes or his tweeting. But y'all go way too far, blaming him for everything that happens (like your phone bill or a bad meal). In the alternative, if instead of going solely by "your feels," you were look to his actions, you would see that he has had perhaps the best first year of any president in modern history.

Can you prove this wrong?

 

There are multiple reports out the quoting McCabe saying --

‘If I go down I’m taking everybody else with me” ​

 

Oh Boy!

Let the Dominos fall. Throw down the hammer for the most corrupt group by far in American History. There should be a good 20 of them serving big time prison sentences. This can’t be tolerated by either side. If you are making excuses or trying to defend this bunch then you are just as much the problem as their corruption. It’s just unbelievable how bad and far they and the MSM have gone.

 

Oh, I feel I’m on sound footing saying Trump is awful. For one thing- he’s an awful person. I mean- Stormy Daniel? Really? He’s a billionaire and he dips his wick into a ***** (not a particularly attractive one), and it’s a ***** that thinks she’s a star and not just a piece. How is that good judgment by any measure? What make over the age of 19 is impressed by that brag?

And policy- it doesn’t take a flight of genius for a Republican President with a GOP senate to select a Republican Judge. Economic policy? Where is the 3% annual GDP growth? The (obvious) corporate tax cut was a start; where is the Obamacare repeal? And why tarrifs?

Obama left some low hanging fruit. You can argue he’s a good president when he collects all the low hanging fruit and grabs some mid level stuff.

 

Let us review.
You claimed Trump is an awful president.
I responded with a list of his year one accomplishments.
I then challenged you to prove your point.

Your response is that Trump is an awful president now because he may had consensual sex with another adult over 10 years ago? Is this considered a persuasive argument in your world?
I dont even have to pull the Bill Clinton card for this one

 

I could go point for point with the accomplishments listed above. Some good things you listed have been done that would not have happened had Clinton won. Some of the items on your list as positive accomplishments may indeed not prove to be positive depending on the details.

Trump is erratic, impulsive, and often acts in a manner undignified for someone occupying the highest office in the land. There seems to be little continuity in terms of policy and ideology.

But I voted for Trump over Hillary based on two criteria:

1. I believe Hillary Clinton presides over the biggest criminal organization in world history - The Clinton Foundation.
2. Donald Trump ran on a non-interventionalist platform and indicated US foreign policy would transition from globalism and militarism toward diplomacy and a return to more national self-reliance.

On the second issue, Trump has failed. The budget is accelerating on a non-sustainable trajectory as the US expands militarization across the globe. Diplomacy, something the US hasn't practiced in decades, is at an all time low. The warmongering neocons that guided Bush's invasion of Iran, and Obama's regime change operations in Ukraine, Libya, and Syria continue to be given leadership positions. The US is illegally occupying sections of Syria, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, and added hundreds of billions to a military budget that includes a worthless F-35 and aircraft carriers that are now arguably obsolete given the Russian military technology now being deployed.

As bad is Trump is, there really was no other viable choice on election day.

 

The casual observer might assume as much. Which is the problem with casual observations. Because its not true. The facts suggest Republican Ps have not come close to "genius" on this front. Theyve been pretty disappointing
GHWBush (Souter)
Reagan (Sandy baby and Kennedy)
Eisenhower (Warren)

The US econ is cranking by most any measure. Further, you should know that new policy, from legislation to enactment to effect, usually takes a year (or more). For example, the Reagan econ still sucked a full year in as interests rates and inflation were not yet done peaking. Trump's GDP is already better than O's, so if he is awful, what was Obama? Anyway, I still think we hit not 3 but 4% at some point during the first term.

Not on Trump

Dont really understand your point here but, assuming you are correct, it doesnt support your claim. Taking low hanging fruit doesnt make a president "AWFUL."

 

I think this part gets to the heart of the Trump-hate. It's all based on your feelings, as opposed to anything Trump has actually done as President (or not done). The love of Obama by those who loved/love him is the same thing in reverse.

This is no way to run a country ("Muh feelings!"). And it does not bode well for the future of the United States that you people have any political power.

 

How is not repealing, replacing or fixing Obamacare “not on him”? He is the president and his party controls both houses (for now; it looks like he’ll challenge Obama’s record for blowing a majority). And he has bragged for 30 years about how great he is at deal-making.

 

Did McCabe throw Comey under the bus for a perjury charge?
McCabe admits leaking to the WSJ in 2016, but claims he had the authority and consent of his boss.
But his boss swore he knew nutting about any leaks

Top is McCabe
Bottom is Comey under oath

 

See US Const, Art I and II

He did the part he could do on his own, as mentioned above, by undoing the ind mandate.
I will concede this was a failure of year one, but my point is that Trump's inability to control the political machinations of the Senate hardly make him an "awful" president, which is your claim.
What might qualify as awful under these circumstances would be if Trump responded to frustrations with the Congress by knowingly and intentionally violating Separation of Powers to legislate from the Oval Office, which is what Obama repeatedly did. Obama really was awful (even worse than awful given he claimed to have taught Con Law at Harvard Law).

 

Adam Schiff (who has seen a lot of information the rest of us have not yet seen) on McCabe on one of the Sunday morning shows --

“You know, his firing may be justified”​

Things must look pretty bad if a character like Adam Schiff refuses to have your back.

My theory is that, besides being caught leaking classified info to the press (and then lying about it to OPR), McCabe was also caught altering the 302s in the Flynn case. You may recall that Peter Strzok was one of the FBI folks who originally interviewed Flynn and came away clearing Flynn. Then suddenly Mueller took a different position. What changed?

If so, this is enough to get McCabe a prison sentence. It has happened before. For example, in a Whitey Bulger related prosecution, the Govt ended up going after Bulger's FBI handler, in part for altering the 302s.

 

You might also recall the judge in the Flynn case who suddenly was recused?
It now looks like he did not recuse himself but rather was recused. Which probably means by the chief FISC judge (or possibly even by John Roberts himself, we dont yet know). Who did this and how did they learn of what was happening?

In addition, back when he was still on the case, Judge Rudolph Contreras warned Flynn to cooperate with prosecutors for lighter sentence. But we also now know from the Strzok-Page communications that this judge was having improper meetings with FBI investigators during this period.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...operate-with-prosecutors-for-lighter-sentence

 

I outlined some of McCabe's pre-Trump legal troubles in a thread back in June
https://www.hornfans.com/threads/the-michael-flynn-matter.104726/

 

Dershowitz addressed John Brannan's weird, coup-threatening tweet. The law prof says now that we see the full extent of Brennan's bias, even though he is no longer the head of the CIA, it is impossible to believe he did not have the same type of feeling while CIA Director. And so Brennan has further destroyed the credibility of the CIA.

Samantha Powers seems to suggest Brennan might try to assassinate Trump

While Rand Paul says Brennan is pretty scary

FF to ~5:45
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5754070929001/?#sp=show-clips

 

Based on these two statements, it is clear McCabe was only given “limited access” to the OIG/Horowitz report (which is due out in Apr, I think). Which is consistent with OPR Policy, as pointed out.

Parsing McCabe’s lawyer's statement, it also appears likely McCabe has been under criminal investigation for months (something I brought up in other threads). Which means that it is also likely a Grand Jury has already been empaneled. And so, a McCabe indictment could come down at any moment.

 

Your attacks on Trump are mostly personal. You are attempting to call out Trump on a couple of other things that he can't do on his own. That would be a dictatorship..... hence the previous President. President Trump is actually accomplishing most of everything he said he would do on the campaign trail. That's what America voted for.

It's really amazing that he has the swamp that's made up of both parties establishments, the FBI, CIA, the MSM all against him and he's still getting a ton of things done by making deals. He's swimming across the river with both hands tied behind his back. You'd prefer to tie his feet as well?

You need to move on because your credibility is gone.

 

McCabe is a king a--hole

 

Further proof -- Net worth of $11M+ and multiple homes
(he also has special parking for his Porshe at Main Justice which I hear annoyed alot of people)

I worked there for a long time and the only people who also worked there and might have had a net worth approaching McCabe's were either the Division heads/other political hires, or Trust Fund beneficiaries. (I did once have an intern whose dad had an entire Harvard School named after him). Most everyone more or less just accepted that they would not be paid the same as their privately employed counterparts.

I heard there is a new book coming out soon that will shed light on how people go into "Govt Work" with little or no assets and come out multi-millionaires -- like Dirty Harry Reid for example ( i think its by Peter Schweizer)

 

It is beginning to look more and more like Christopher Steele was on the Russia payroll

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/21...at-he-knows-about-russian-payments-to-steele/

"An attorney representing Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska has refused to tell Senate investigators what he knows about dossier author Christopher Steele’s financial and business relationships with the Russians. Steele is the former British intelligence agent hired by Democrat research firm Fusion GPS on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter Feb. 9, 2018, asking Paul Hauser whether he was legal counsel for Deripaska or any businesses associated with him. He also asked whether he’d ever hired Steele or his businesses, and what the nature of the arrangement was. He asked whether and when Steele worked on behalf of Deripaska. Finally, he was asked, “Are you otherwise aware of any business or financial relationships between Mr. Steele and Russian government officials, Russian oligarchs, or Russian businesses?”

Hauser refused to answer all but the first question. In a letter written Feb. 18 but made public this week, he admitted he is legal counsel for Deripaska and businesses associated with him. He refused to answer whether Deripaska had hired Steele and to answer what he knows about Steele’s financial relationships with Russian government officials, oligarchs, or businesses. He said he wasn’t involved with the dossier and that he’s not aware of Deripaska commissioning, paying for, or preparing the dossier....."​

 

US Q4 revised up to 2.9% from 2.5%

Pers Consumption to 4% from 3.8%

 

Well, well, well. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...arly-in-trump-russia-probe-investigators.html

 

I see this as both good and not good
It's not good that an FBI agent "knowingly and willfully" transmitted documents and info related to national defense to a reporter.
But it is good that the FBI under Sessions is now willing to investigate and charge his own people for leaks. Something that has been in doubt the last couple years
http://www.startribune.com/justice-...ing-secret-document-to-news-outlet/478203203/

 

I only been writing about that for a year

 

She makes some good points

 

That's awesome.

 

It's gets to heart of it all, doesnt it? The double-standard. The separate set of rules. One set of rules for connected Dems, and another set for everyone else. It violates the Constitution, and must end.