Agreed.

This is interesting. Get out before the bottom drops out?

will25u said:

---

This is interesting. Get out before the bottom drops out?

---

Hmm. Perhaps CrowdStrike actually is part of the affirmative defense?

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

This is interesting. Get out before the bottom drops out?

---

Hmm. Perhaps CrowdStrike actually is part of the affirmative defense?

---

Hopefully he was tipped off and gets busted for insider trading.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

This is interesting. Get out before the bottom drops out?

---

Hmm. Perhaps CrowdStrike actually is part of the affirmative defense?

---

Hmm he sold January 6th. I don't know what you can tell from 2+ weeks before the trial.

And it was half the stock he owned if I'm reading that correctly.

Zemira said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

This is interesting. Get out before the bottom drops out?

---

Hmm. Perhaps CrowdStrike actually is part of the affirmative defense?

---

Hmm he sold January 6th. I don't know what you can tell from 2+ weeks before the trial.

And it was half the stock he owned if I'm reading that correctly.

---

With the way the White House is riddled with leakers, not that surprising.

The stocks were sold on 1/6/2020. Probably just part of rebalancing his portfolio, since retains another 4.85M shares.

akm91 said:

---

The stocks were sold on 1/6/2020. Probably just part of rebalancing his portfolio, since retains another 4.85M shares.

---

Yeah Definitely not nefarious looking. I misread the date as last week. I don't think it has anything to do with impeachment. They just a were a bit slow in reporting the sale. Executives and BODs at companies have to file paperwork with the SEC everytime they sell company stock.

akm91 said:

---

The stocks were sold on 1/6/2020. Probably just part of rebalancing his portfolio, since retains another 4.85M shares.

---

Insiders sell stock for all kinds of reasons, luxuries, booking profits etc. Big insider big buys are generally for one reason, the stock is going to go much higher. Buys are carry more weight with investors/traders than sells. His selling is a non-issue imo.

Agreed.

Anytime someone subjects themselves to a minimum $50 million tax bill from capital gains, wondering why is still a good question, and one we're not likely to find out, at least this year.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Agreed.

Anytime someone subjects themselves to a minimum $50 million tax bill from capital gains, wondering why is still a good question, and one we're not likely to find out, at least this year.

---

Maybe he is one of the Billionaires that wants to pay more taxes to the government, because they have too much wealth or whatever the Socialists are saying these days.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-british-spy-report-strong-possibility-that-anti-trump-dossier-was-completely-fabricated

Quote:

---

A British author who specializes in espionage raised serious doubts about former MI6 officer Christopher Steele's salacious dossier, which was included in the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Rupert Allason, a former member of Parliament whose pen name is Nigel West, conducted a forensic analysis of Steele's work, which made stunning allegations about coordination between Trump's camp and Russia. He came away "stunned" by what he viewed to be a poor job by a former intelligence officer whom he once considered to be a friend.

"There is ... a strong possibility that all Steele's material has been fabricated," Allason wrote in a report obtained by the British newspaper Sunday Times....

---

Who would've guessed that?
Unfortunately the original article in the Sunday Times is paywalled.

Good interview with Ratcliffe. Discusses how Schiff has a knack for being a very convincing liar -- says things that he knows are not true with impressive conviction regarding both the SpyGate & UkraineGate hoaxes.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-british-spy-report-strong-possibility-that-anti-trump-dossier-was-completely-fabricated

A British author who specializes in espionage raised serious doubts about former MI6 officer Christopher Steele's salacious dossier, which was included in the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's 2016 campaign.

---

No! Who'da thunk it?

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-british-spy-report-strong-possibility-that-anti-trump-dossier-was-completely-fabricated

Quote:

---

A British author who specializes in espionage raised serious doubts about former MI6 officer Christopher Steele's salacious dossier, which was included in the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Rupert Allason, a former member of Parliament whose pen name is Nigel West, conducted a forensic analysis of Steele's work, which made stunning allegations about coordination between Trump's camp and Russia. He came away "stunned" by what he viewed to be a poor job by a former intelligence officer whom he once considered to be a friend.

"There is ... a strong possibility that all Steele's material has been fabricated," Allason wrote in a report obtained by the British newspaper Sunday Times....

---

Who would've guessed that?
Unfortunately the original article in the Sunday Times is paywalled.

---

What? Didn't realize there was the slightest evidence that it was not fabricated...this is news....?

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

But it might be worth another look by Manafort's lawyers.

---

I wonder how much of the scope memos they got to see? It's absolutely worth looking into and fighting to see anything that was redacted before.

---

One other thing. This whole mess should go into Manafort's file for a pardon or commutation of sentence. A smarmy and sleazy as he was, he was only prosecuted because they wanted him to compose against Trump. He was hosed.

---

My one other thing is: the third warrant - currently the first invalid one - was in late April. Mueller was appointed in May. Beyond the effect on the expanded scope, doesn't this call his original appointment into question?

Corsi is full blown looney. Rudy trying to court his followers?

I have no idea. I just saw the tweet and thought it might belong in here.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Corsi is full blown looney. Rudy trying to court his followers?

---

I don't know if he's "full blown looney", but looney nonetheless.

It is kind of funny that we call out guys like Corsi as very unreliable, but there's thousands of guys like him on the Left, and I'm not sure I've ever witnessed their party leaders disavowing those cultists. All someone has to do is take a little time to read what Corsi says, and match it up with the facts.

Although, in his defense, I'm sure he was just in the way of Weissman (Mueller). There are a lot of folks on the Left I have zero interest in listening to, but I don't even want to LOOK at Weissman.

Quote:

---

My one other thing is: the third warrant - currently the first invalid one - was in late April. Mueller was appointed in May. Beyond the effect on the expanded scope, doesn't this call his original appointment into question?

---

Things were too far down the road once Sessions was recused to prevent the appointment of a Special Counsel.

The American public just wouldn't stand for that after the "17 intelligence agencies" hoax in the Intelligence Community Assessment report.

Had Mueller not been a POS, he could have just investigated it for about 6-9 months and then written a report there was no direct Trump campaign/ Russian collusion nor conspiracy but here's what we did find.

As I recall, Manafort's lawyers did attempt to say Mueller's appointment was invalid but were turned away by the courts. Under the circumstances, the correct decision and still would be today legally.

Difference being that just because he had authority didn't mean he could (and did) abuse it.

Yes, they did challenge his appointment, but they didn't have this to argue.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

My one other thing is: the third warrant - currently the first invalid one - was in late April. Mueller was appointed in May. Beyond the effect on the expanded scope, doesn't this call his original appointment into question?

---

Things were too far down the road once Sessions was recused to prevent the appointment of a Special Counsel.

The American public just wouldn't stand for that after the "17 intelligence agencies" hoax in the Intelligence Community Assessment report.

Had Mueller not been a POS, he could have just investigated it for about 6-9 months and then written a report there was no direct Trump campaign/ Russian collusion nor conspiracy but here's what we did find.

As I recall, Manafort's lawyers did attempt to say Mueller's appointment was invalid but were turned away by the courts. Under the circumstances, the correct decision and still would be today legally.

Difference being that just because he had authority didn't mean he could (and did) abuse it.

---

The dossier led to Sessions recusal. If it was fiction, does that put someone on the hook for obstructing a government official in performance of their duties?

Most likely, no single person performed all the acts required AND has the necessary mens team, but it would be nice to see someone prosecuted for using that work of fiction.

If I remember correctly, there were several Dems (likely Dem supporters) who had wildly glaring ethical issues, and it didn't bother them in the least to stay involved.

Mr. Rosenstein is the first one I can think of.

Quote:

---

The dossier led to Sessions recusal. If it was fiction, does that put someone on the hook for obstructing a government official in performance of their duties?

Most likely, no single person performed all the acts required AND has the necessary mens team, but it would be nice to see someone prosecuted for using that work of fiction.

---

Doesn't matter, IMO. The horse is out of the barn. Was the whole thing a crappy mess? Yes.Is there any real remedy here? Only for Carter Page that I see at this point.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The dossier led to Sessions recusal. If it was fiction, does that put someone on the hook for obstructing a government official in performance of their duties?

Most likely, no single person performed all the acts required AND has the necessary mens team, but it would be nice to see someone prosecuted for using that work of fiction.

---

Doesn't matter, IMO. The horse is out of the barn. Was the whole thing a crappy mess? Yes.Is there any real remedy here? Only for Carter Page that I see at this point.

---

I guess your tagline need to be updated to "Mueller is still a PoS, and so is Rosenstein."

Quote:

---

I guess your tagline need to be updated to "Mueller is still a PoS, and so is Rosenstein."

---

Rosenstein is a weasel and a POS.

Quote:

---

Had Mueller not been a POS...

---

This is speculation that can only be explained in Quantum Physics.

Please do not muddle the timeline with such specious rhetoric...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess your tagline need to be updated to "Mueller is still a PoS, and so is Rosenstein."

---

Rosenstein is a weasel and a POS.

---

Have we had ANY FBI directors in this millennium that were worth a damn?

I guess Freeh was the last lawman who had any integrity.

fasthorse05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess your tagline need to be updated to "Mueller is still a PoS, and so is Rosenstein."

---

Rosenstein is a weasel and a POS.

---

Have we had ANY FBI directors in this millennium that were worth a damn?

I guess Freeh was the last lawman who had any integrity.

---

I'm not even that sure about Freeh, either.

This really belongs on the Impeachment thread (not the daily one), but I'm putting it here because I divorced myself from that thread. Plus, I'm likely to get a quality answer here.

I'm not saying this is going to happen now, but if a President was impeached, and removed from office, and strong exculpatory evidence later shows 100% not guilty, what remedy, if any, would our constitution provide? I ask this because if the Dems held the Senate by 58, or 59, plus some renegade Republicans, it could easily happen in the future.

I have a strong feeling this won't be the last time the Left attempts this, since the Dems have approached this so casually, and there certainly doesn't appear to be any punishment to any elected officials in the immediate future to stop this kind of action.

Just a thought.

No, if a POTUS is ever impeached and barred from office, he/she will have no future remedy to run again.

Yes, more future impeachment's are vastly likely now, because wrong political think is an acceptable cause for articles, and even today the left is fantasizing about Bolton saying something getting them toward 60 votes.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/certainly-will-be-a-standout-john-durham-appoints-new-criminal-chief

Quote:

---

The federal prosecutor in charge of the Justice Department inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation appointed a new criminal division chief.

John Durham, a United States attorney from Connecticut, announced on Monday that the role will be taken by Sarah Karwan, who has prosecuted a wide variety of criminal cases.

"I am thrilled that Sarah Karwan will lead our criminal division," Durham said in a statement. "During her more than 12 years as an [assistant U.S. attorney], Sarah has done it all, prosecuting violent criminals, drug traffickers, financial fraudsters, corrupt public officials, and a wide variety of other wrongdoers. Given the breadth of her experience and her exceptional lawyering skills, she certainly will be a standout as our new criminal chief.".....

---

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/us-attorney-durham-announces-appointment-new-criminal-chief

Why would Durham be the person who makes such an announcement? Wouldn't this be something that Barr or DAG Rosen would normally announce? Is this a warning bell?

Edit: I've checked a little further & Karwan will be the head of the Criminal Division for the US Attorney's Office in Connecticut where Durham operates, not the main Criminal Division in DC.