It really is amazing. And the lunatic left hasn't missed a beat. It's no big deal at all to them. For the president's "good."
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,269,310 Views |
49226 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by nortex97
Did anybody wake Sessions and read him Grassley letter?
I seem to recall that one of you legal beagles said that Adm. Rogers' resigning his position would make it possible for him to testify as a witness.drcrinum said:
Rather odd timing, no?
Well, could the same be said about this guy testifying against P-C?
He may have caught wind of an indictment, and he chose to sing (or Compose) against P-C?
aggiehawg said:
Holy Crap!!!!!
Grassley is not known for throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks! He has back-up for those questions. And likely already knows the answers.
do you know if response time is legislated for a committee chairmans letter? or can Rothstein sit on
Yeah right, these idiots echo chamber is amazing
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
RoscoePColtrane said:
Yeah right, these idiots echo chamber is amazing
The informant is the worst kept secret ever. No way in hell can they legitimately claim danger to him. The only explanation is they're lying to protect themselves again.
RoscoePColtrane said:
SO VERY impressed with Grassley, he's setting a trap and daring them to lie to him.
I defer to those with formal knowledge on the regs / rules regarding this, but just reading the questions regarding the granting of Mueller's authority, it seems like there may be rules and regs that allow him to have those powers (FISA approval, US Attorney powers, and the ability to conduct a counterintelligence investigation) ?
Or is it simply Grassley saying hey you can't grant all this because you didn't consider these other limitations / regs on special counsel or in other words, please try to explain how you justify granting all this to Mueller when you can't legally do so?
Sorry if this is a dumb question but the mention of other regs in conjunction with the questions without knowing what those regs cover Is confusing.
I'm thinking that Judge Ellis is now very carefully reviewing the Grassley Letter. Hopefully, Mueller will receive a one / two knock out punch !
They are obfuscating the attempt to "legitimize" spying they were obviously already doing by manufacturing a legal pretext for it.
I am like the the cows out in our pastures. I love Grass(ly).
Messiers Rosenstein and Mueller appear to be like our bull calves. They are about to be castrated.
Messiers Rosenstein and Mueller appear to be like our bull calves. They are about to be castrated.
So now we have gone from there was no spying to well there was spaying but it's ok. I think a bunch of us made the claim that this was going to happen.
Agree. And as soon as their lie is exposed, it will be replaced with another.
It is like my ex sister is n law trying to cover up her fat. It just pops out in another place.
It is like my ex sister is n law trying to cover up her fat. It just pops out in another place.
No pics please.
#RespectMyDecision
#RespectMyDecision
Simply stated, 'statutory laws' (used to appoint Mueller) are enacted by Congress. 'Administrative Laws' are regulations authorized by Congress - and violating a regulation is, in effect, breaking the law that created it. In other words, one could argue that Mueller's appointment was illegal because it violated regulation 600.1.HeardAboutPerio said:
I defer to those with formal knowledge on the regs / rules regarding this, but just reading the questions regarding the granting of Mueller's authority, it seems like there may be rules and regs that allow him to have those powers (FISA approval, US Attorney powers, and the ability to conduct a counterintelligence investigation) ?
Rosenstein's end-around appointment was so obvious it was being openly discussed by Marty Lederman over 9 months ago. Shocking to me that it's taken Congress (Grassley) 12 months to question - after all, Rosenstein plainly spelled it out openly 12 months ago in his appointment letter.
No question the appointment authorization should be challenged in court ... it should have been challenged a year ago.
I was one of those who made the claim early on but I thought they would justify it as "wouldn't you spy on Hitler if you had the chance." I didn't even consider the "we were doing it for his own good as we were tracking those ruthless Russians."
Of course as more evidence surfaces (likely with the 3rd OIG drop) I bet they move to the Hitler camp quickly. Of course by doing it this way it's not as monumental of a transition. It's still 10,000 times worse than Watergate but they'll never let themselves believe it.
Of course as more evidence surfaces (likely with the 3rd OIG drop) I bet they move to the Hitler camp quickly. Of course by doing it this way it's not as monumental of a transition. It's still 10,000 times worse than Watergate but they'll never let themselves believe it.
Grassley is absolutely questioning the appointment of Mueller, he's accusing Rosenstein of misleading the public, Congress and the courts about the Special Counsel's scope of the investigation. He's accusing Rosenstein of failing to comply with DOJ regulations on appointing a Special Counsel, which require specific factual statements of what is to be investigated. in other words name a specific crime committed. Special Counsel isn't used for counterintelligence operations, Special Counsel is a criminal investigation mechanism used to avoid conflict, and this one does the exact opposite. Rosenstein was just picking and choosing the regs that fit his cause and completely the complete requirements spelled out in the regulations. Basically instead off meeting the complete list of points necessary to justify the appointment. Accusing Rosenstein of just skipping over the first three required elements, and then takes him out behind the barn and wears his ass out for his total lack of cooperation with documentation and redaction abuses. It's a real nice piece of work by Grassley and staffers that wrote this for him. Whoever is Grassley's CoS is needs to be very commended, his staff have made the old grey beard shine in this.HeardAboutPerio said:
I defer to those with formal knowledge on the regs / rules regarding this, but just reading the questions regarding the granting of Mueller's authority, it seems like there may be rules and regs that allow him to have those powers (FISA approval, US Attorney powers, and the ability to conduct a counterintelligence investigation) ?
Or is it simply Grassley saying hey you can't grant all this because you didn't consider these other limitations / regs on special counsel or in other words, please try to explain how you justify granting all this to Mueller when you can't legally do so?
Sorry if this is a dumb question but the mention of other regs in conjunction with the questions without knowing what those regs cover Is confusing.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
VERY WELL SAIDbenchmark said:Simply stated, 'statutory laws' (used to appoint Mueller) are enacted by Congress. 'Administrative Laws' are regulations authorized by Congress - and violating a regulation is, in effect, breaking the law that created it. In other words, one could argue that Mueller's appointment was illegal because it violated regulation 600.1.HeardAboutPerio said:
I defer to those with formal knowledge on the regs / rules regarding this, but just reading the questions regarding the granting of Mueller's authority, it seems like there may be rules and regs that allow him to have those powers (FISA approval, US Attorney powers, and the ability to conduct a counterintelligence investigation) ?
Rosenstein's end-around appointment was so obvious it was being openly discussed by Marty Lederman over 9 months ago. Shocking to me that it's taken Congress (Grassley) 12 months to question - after all, Rosenstein plainly spelled it out openly 12 months ago in his appointment letter.
No question the appointment authorization should be challenged in court ... it should have been challenged a year ago.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
SeMgCo87 said:I seem to recall that one of you legal beagles said that Adm. Rogers' resigning his position would make it possible for him to testify as a witness.drcrinum said:
Rather odd timing, no?
Well, could the same be said about this guy testifying against P-C?
He may have caught wind of an indictment, and he chose to sing (or Compose) against P-C?
Quote:
Profile submitted by Robert F Bauer
Career
Founder of the Political Law Group at Perkins Coie. His more than 30 years of practice includes counseling and representation before courts and administrative agencies of: national party committees, candidates, political committees, individuals, federal officeholders, corporations and trade associations, and tax-exempt groups on matters involving regulation of political activity. He has served as White House Counsel to President Barack Obama, and he was counsel to the United States Senate Majority in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Bob is the author of numerous articles and books about campaign finance and election law, and speaks publicly on the subject.
He is not going to sing against himself.
So, the government is now admitting that it has been investigating/spying the trump campaign, to include inserting at least one spy into the campaign/administration, on the suspicion of colluding with Russia for more than at least two years and Mueller has been investigating it for a year and after all of this time...
they have nothing??
they have nothing??
Haven't read everything, so sorry if this is known:
Was someone placed in the campaign? Or
Was there a source that came from the campaign? Or
Both? Or
Still not clear?
Was someone placed in the campaign? Or
Was there a source that came from the campaign? Or
Both? Or
Still not clear?
A year ago, nobody knew about all of this internal corruption. Maybe they let the conspirators reveal themselves by letting it go so long?
Just think about this...there is more "evidence" that someone in Hillary's camp, likely her campaign chair Podesta, had a DNC staffer murdered but yet, not a peep after almost 2 years while they continue to chase Russian ghosts for a crime of collusion that actually isn't a crime.
You literally couldn't make this up if you tried.
You literally couldn't make this up if you tried.
Halper was apparently assigned to set up plausible Russian contacts or links to targeted vulnerable campaign members to establish pretext for surveillance. (By the FBI or more probably the C I A possibly via British intelligence or a private contractor intermediary)
Carter Page was formerly an FBI informant. He was suggested to the campaign as a foreign policy expert, and may or may not have known he was subject to surveillance due to his connections to foreign persons of interest. He seems more likely to be someone described as an informant inside the campaign, as Halper was not associated with it.
There are possibly others, as multiple informants within the campaign has been suggested or hinted at. This might include Popadopolous himself, possibly, though perhaps unwittingly.
Carter Page was formerly an FBI informant. He was suggested to the campaign as a foreign policy expert, and may or may not have known he was subject to surveillance due to his connections to foreign persons of interest. He seems more likely to be someone described as an informant inside the campaign, as Halper was not associated with it.
There are possibly others, as multiple informants within the campaign has been suggested or hinted at. This might include Popadopolous himself, possibly, though perhaps unwittingly.
When does Hilary go to prison!!
So much time and so many resources being into this. Start filing charges!!
So much time and so many resources being into this. Start filing charges!!
Actually I think that notion that he resigned to enable him to testify was more or less spaghetti logic from someone else. Him being the head of the NSA wouldn't stop him from being able to testify, because it was his very position as Chief that make him so credible. He retired because he's spent his life in the navy and his act of saving the country from the most scandalous and corrupt act in the 242 years of it's existence I'm sure took it's toll on him and he deserves to retire and absolute hero. He left the NSA intact and really the shining star of the IC. He counterparts Brennan, Comey, Lynch, and his old boss Clapper are all retired in disgrace and their respective departments in tatters as far as public trust and integrity.SeMgCo87 said:I seem to recall that one of you legal beagles said that Adm. Rogers' resigning his position would make it possible for him to testify as a witness.drcrinum said:
Rather odd timing, no?
Well, could the same be said about this guy testifying against P-C?
He may have caught wind of an indictment, and he chose to sing (or Compose) against P-C?
Bauer is leaving more than likely because Barry is trying to distance himself as far from Perkins Coie as he can, and Bauer is an Obamanite. When it's all over Perkins Coie may be ground zero for a lot of fallout and Barry is going to be in enough heat on his own without being directly tied to this firm, with his former counsel on staff handling specifically Obama matters. Bauer isn't rolling over on anybody, he's running from the potential dumpster fire.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/
Quote:
Spinning a Crossfire Hurricane: The Times on the FBI's Trump Investigation
...The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady "buried the lede." Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran "at least one government informant" against the Trump campaign -- and to note that the Times learned this because "current and former officials" leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked "Extortion!" when Congress asked about it.
But that's not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party's presidential campaign.
That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.
The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That's not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump's benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton's candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.
It's a gas, gas, gas!
It's also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as "investigations" does not make them the same kind of thing....
Andrew McCarthy takes the NYT to the woodshed...a counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. Worth reading the entire article. The NYT excels at 'burying the lede".
(Buried the lede = buried the lead = "In journalism, to open a news article with secondary or superfluous information, thus relegating the central premise (the lead, which usually occupies this position) to a later part.")
Well, to be fair, we knew the Hillary email investigation was deliberately tanked. We knew Loretta Lynch was as crooked as a dog's hind leg after the tango on the tarmac. And we knew Comey had some sort of an agenda to oust Trump from his memos being planted in the press.MouthBQ98 said:
A year ago, nobody knew about all of this internal corruption. Maybe they let the conspirators reveal themselves by letting it go so long?
It wasn't until the Strzok/Page texts were released in December that we got the first peek at the depth of corruption, nay incompetence, at the FBI/DOJ.
Thanks!
You're giving the white hats too much credit IMO. The white hats were hoodwinked and they only have themselves to blame. For 12 months everyone wrongly assumed the SC appointment was compliant with DOJ regulations. Only a few picked up on the gravity of the authorization letter's nuances (Marty Lederman).MouthBQ98 said:
A year ago, nobody knew about all of this internal corruption. Maybe they let the conspirators reveal
Perkins, Coie has long been counsel to Obama for America and related entities. So, Bauer is taking all of those with him? Before the search warrants arrive?Quote:
Bauer is leaving more than likely because Barry is trying to distance himself as far from Perkins Coie as he can, and Bauer is an Obamanite. When it's all over Perkins Coie may be ground zero for a lot of fallout and Barry is going to be in enough heat on his own without being directly tied to this firm, with his former counsel on staff handling specifically Obama matters. Bauer isn't rolling over on anybody, he's running from the potential dumpster fire.
Something to consider.
I don't have a wide angle lens. BTW I meant my ex sister in law.
Pretty sure you hit the mail on the head. OFA was Bauer's baby at the firm, that's the only thing he did for them. I expect OFA to change to some other entity abruptly, just like it did when it changed from Organizing for America to Organizing for Action in 2013.aggiehawg said:Perkins, Coie has long been counsel to Obama for America and related entities. So, Bauer is taking all of those with him? Before the search warrants arrive?Quote:
Bauer is leaving more than likely because Barry is trying to distance himself as far from Perkins Coie as he can, and Bauer is an Obamanite. When it's all over Perkins Coie may be ground zero for a lot of fallout and Barry is going to be in enough heat on his own without being directly tied to this firm, with his former counsel on staff handling specifically Obama matters. Bauer isn't rolling over on anybody, he's running from the potential dumpster fire.
Something to consider.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Jesus Christo, please no Rule #1 compliance.coyote68 said:
Agree. And as soon as their lie is exposed, it will be replaced with another.
It is like my sister is n law trying to cover up her fat. It just pops out in another place.
Featured Stories
See All
2026 North Forney cornerback Ryan Gilbert commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
5:12
1d ago
2.5k
In-Home Visit: A&M's 2026 momentum keeps rolling as Gilbert commits
by TexAgs Recruiting
Around the SEC: Recruiting News & Trends
by Jason Howell
Auburn leaning on new additions to help manage 'mood shifts'
by Olin Buchanan
45:25
1d ago
7.1k