coyote68 said:

---

Something is really amiss about the Papadop FBI interviews.

Why did they want to interview him? What is so important about the timing of his meeting with the professor? Smells like he was setup to lie.

---

I have a suspicion there is more to it than that. His truth skews the timeline they'd already used to open an investigation then secure a FISA warrant. Him pleading guilty cleans up the timeline for Mueller.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

coyote68 said:

---

Something is really amiss about the Papadop FBI interviews.

Why did they want to interview him? What is so important about the timing of his meeting with the professor? Smells like he was setup to lie.

---

I have a suspicion there is more to it than that. His truth skews the timeline they'd already used to open an investigation then secure a FISA warrant. Him pleaing guilty cleans up the timeline for Mueller.

---

Until that sentencing recommendation. That blew the timeline all to hell.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

coyote68 said:

---

Something is really amiss about the Papadop FBI interviews.

Why did they want to interview him? What is so important about the timing of his meeting with the professor? Smells like he was setup to lie.

---

I have a suspicion there is more to it than that. His truth skews the timeline they'd already used to open an investigation then secure a FISA warrant. Him pleaing guilty cleans up the timeline for Mueller.

---

Until that sentencing recommendation. That blew the timeline all to hell.

---

I find it curious that the day after the Wife of Papadopoulos starting seeking new counsel and talking withdrawing the guilty plea, Mueller hussles this into public view, fully knowing the dates don't match up with the original garbage to set the counter intel in motion. And the rest of the puzzle lies behind the black ink on the 20 pages Nunes wants, I have a strong suspicion


And am I right to feel really strange in the last move by Mueller in trying to limit the discovery in this case only usable in this case?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

coyote68 said:

---

Something is really amiss about the Papadop FBI interviews.

Why did they want to interview him? What is so important about the timing of his meeting with the professor? Smells like he was setup to lie.

---

I have a suspicion there is more to it than that. His truth skews the timeline they'd already used to open an investigation then secure a FISA warrant. Him pleaing guilty cleans up the timeline for Mueller.

---

Until that sentencing recommendation. That blew the timeline all to hell.

---

I find it curious that the day after the Wife of Papadopoulos starting seeking new counsel and talking withdrawing the guilty plea, Mueller hussles this into public view, fully knowing the dates don't match up with the original garbage to set the counter intel in motion. And the rest of the puzzle lies behind the black ink on the 20 pages Nunes wants, I have a strong suspicion


And am I right to feel really strange in the last move by Mueller in trying to limit the discovery in this case only usable in this case?

---

Honestly, IDK what the reason for that is from Mueller's standpoint. Only thing I can come up with is a previously secret FISA warrant or Strzok's text about leaving Patriot Act and going to live wire on CHS for entrapment purposes.

He would have reason to conceal both.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-08-17%20Waldman%20to%20Grassley%20-%20Follow%20Up.pdf

The above is a rather snarky response to Grassley's requests. I don't see how Waldman can claim attorney client privilege regarding his relationships with Steele, Assange & Warner...he didn't represent them. I think Grassley should subpoena him, but I suppose Feinstein wouldn't agree to it. Waldman clearly is attempting to shield Warner.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-08-17%20Waldman%20to%20Grassley%20-%20Follow%20Up.pdf

The above is a rather snarky response to Grassley's requests. I don't see how Waldman can claim attorney client privilege regarding his relationships with Steele, Assange & Warner...he didn't represent them. I think Grassley should subpoena him, but I suppose Feinstein wouldn't agree to it. Waldman clearly is attempting to shield Warner.

---

Waldman should have engagement letter from all of those people if he is asserting attorney client privilege as to them. And billing records (with subject matter redacted) to prove that claim. It isn't his privilege to assert, it is theirs.

????????

Fake account?

aggiehawg said:

---

????????

Fake account?

---

Could be but it goes back over a year with a lot of personal pics of he and his wife. Who the hell knows with all the LARPers out there.

Someone get that guy a pink hat... what an embarrassment.

Prosperdick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

????????

Fake account?

---

Could be but it goes back over a year with a lot of personal pics of he and his wife. Who the hell knows with all the LARPers out there.

---

Over a year? He was arrested in the end of July 2017.

He supposedly wiped his FB account in late January-early February of 2017, according to Mueller. How is that timeline working?

I would put money on fake, unless his wife is running it.

It's hilarious that he now claims to be a private citizen too. Newsflash! We don't get CIA security clearances idiot!

Since Mueller's under oath testimony on Bengazi we now know for certain that there was spying on Trump tower and FISA abuses. Mueller testifies under oath this can't/doesnt happen.....he is so quick to say "no", "no".

thirdcoast said:

---

Since Mueller's under oath testimony on Bengazi we now know for certain that there was spying on Trump tower and FISA abuses. Mueller testifies under oath this can't/doesnt happen.....he is so quick to say "no", "no".

---

Hmmm.

Well, that appears to present a big problem.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This sumbeach ought to be in full halo and back brace from this 180 flip

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030992945284087810.html

Interesting thread on the DNC server 'hack'. Very suspicious for a CrowdStrike coverup.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/14/media-conspiracy-theories-devin-nunes-getting-control/

Good read in support of Nunes.

Good interview. Ratcliff (NE Texas) is impressive.
Was Bruce Ohr a rogue DOJ employee or was he acting under authority/knowledge of his superiors? Especially Sally Yates, or possibly even Loretta Lynch. Rosenstein has testified that he had no knowledge of Ohr's activities.

Quote:

---

Good interview. Ratcliff (NE Texas) is impressive.

Was Bruce Ohr a rogue DOJ employee or was he acting under authority/knowledge of his superiors? Especially Sally Yates, or possibly even Loretta Lynch. Rosenstein has testified that he had no knowledge of Ohr's activities.

---

As to Rosenstein, he was US Attorney in Maryland in 2016. So it is plausible he wouldn't have been in position to know.

The problem with the 'he went rogue' narrative on Ohr is that apparently the FBI actually promulgated 302s on their conversations with Ohr. There's a paper trail with a lot of fingerprints on it.

Let's go back to Papadop and Mifsud for a moment. This article from August 2, 2018:

Quote:

---

Mifsud was the Maltese professor connected to the London Centre of International Law, where former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos served a short stint in the spring of 2016. In April of that year, upon returning from a trip to Russia, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary.

The FBI later claimed that it launched Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016, after learning that Papadopoulos had repeated Mifsud's claim to an Australia diplomat in London over drinks. Mifsud denied Papadopoulos' version of the events and claimed that he told the FBI as much during a February 2017 interview with federal agents while in DC for the conference.

---

LINK

Are there other reports of Mifsud talking to the FBI in February 2017? Because Mueller just claimed they didn't in a court filing.

Hhhmm:

Quote:

---

An associate also told CNN that he repeatedly bragged about how Moscow had "compromising material" on the Clinton campaign in spring 2016, contradicting Mifsud's assertion that he never talked about Russian "dirt" on the Democratic presidential bid.

At that time, according to US officials and independent analysts, Russian agencies or proxies were rummaging around the stolen emails of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The intrusion would not become public for several months.

The associate, who spoke to CNN at length, also said that Mifsud told him that he had been interviewed by the FBI while on a visit to the US earlier this year. That chimes with Mifsud's own account -- in an interview last week with Italian newspaper La Repubblica, he refers to a discussion with the FBI.
Mifsud was in Washington in February -- he spoke at an event organized by Global Ties, which describes itself on its website as a non-profit partner organization of the US State Department.

Last week, Mifsud described Papadopoulos' claim that he knew about Russia's material on Clinton as "baloney."

---

CNN

Is this a major oops by Team Mueller?

(Sorry, at an airport on an old phone.)
Strange things about Mifsud. He had definite ties to Italian & UK Intel services, which doesn't fit the Russian narrative. Regarding his subsequent disappearance, it becomes very suspicious that his disappearance may have been coordinated to cover up possible associations with US Intel. One would think if it were important to locate him, contacting Interpool would have been appropriate as well as the Italian & UK Intel agencies.

LINK

Team Mueller is claiming Papadop did not substantially assist their investigation and thus the FBI was not able to get information from Mifsud in February 2017. That appears to be an outright lie to the court, if they did interview him in DC in February 2017. They could make a 302 disappear I guess but a person who could contradict them?

This is very weird.

What is Mifsud's goal in arguing Pops version of events?

redline248 said:

---

What is Mifsud's goal in arguing Pops version of events?

---

He disputed that he ever knew about Russia and dirt on Hillary, so he isn't exactly corroborating Papadop.

Of course, Mifsud has been in hiding since last fall when Papadop was indicted. His only goal at this point seems to be a continuing ability to fog a mirror.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Good interview. Ratcliff (NE Texas) is impressive.

Was Bruce Ohr a rogue DOJ employee or was he acting under authority/knowledge of his superiors? Especially Sally Yates, or possibly even Loretta Lynch. Rosenstein has testified that he had no knowledge of Ohr's activities.

---

As to Rosenstein, he was US Attorney in Maryland in 2016. So it is plausible he wouldn't have been in position to know.

The problem with the 'he went rogue' narrative on Ohr is that apparently the FBI actually promulgated 302s on their conversations with Ohr. There's a paper trail with a lot of fingerprints on it.

---

Problem with that is, Ohr was the most active after Mueller was in place, as was Rosenstein and his office being three doors down from Rosey is problematic. The new emails between Ohr and Steele really ramped up in the middle of 2017, Ohr stepped up after Strzok was removed and sent to HR. And the fact that Ohr had zero to do with Counter-Intel in jis job description, yet he was right in the middle of it. Rosey's deniability is really in question.

aggiehawg said:

---

redline248 said:

---

What is Mifsud's goal in arguing Pops version of events?

---

He disputed that he ever knew about Russia and dirt on Hillary, so he isn't exactly corroborating Papadop.

Of course, Mifsud has been in hiding since last fall when Papadop was indicted. His only goal at this point seems to be a continuing ability to fog a mirror.

---

Still laughing!! Good one.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Good interview. Ratcliff (NE Texas) is impressive.

Was Bruce Ohr a rogue DOJ employee or was he acting under authority/knowledge of his superiors? Especially Sally Yates, or possibly even Loretta Lynch. Rosenstein has testified that he had no knowledge of Ohr's activities.

---

As to Rosenstein, he was US Attorney in Maryland in 2016. So it is plausible he wouldn't have been in position to know.

The problem with the 'he went rogue' narrative on Ohr is that apparently the FBI actually promulgated 302s on their conversations with Ohr. There's a paper trail with a lot of fingerprints on it.

---

Problem with that is, Ohr was the most active after Mueller was in place, as was Rosenstein and his office being three doors down from Rosey is problematic. The new emails between Ohr and Steele really ramped up in the middle of 2017, Ohr stepped up after Strzok was removed and sent to HR. And the fact that Ohr had zero to do with Counter-Intel in jis job description, yet he was right in the middle of it. Rosey's deniability is really in question.

---

Excellent point. Ohr and Steele's activities in 2016 (after Steele was supposedly fired) aren't the main focus, their activities in 2017 are. It's always the cover-up.

Which once again raises the question of what's in it for Rosenstein to aid in the cover-up on something that started way before he even got there?

Has Ohr been questioned by Team Mueller?

That's a good question. I think that a lot more is going on than what is being portrayed in the media.

And I'm back to that sticking point we have talked about numerous times. That meeting in the oval the day before Mueller was appointed.

This guys videos are great and they make you think. He's a Q advocate

aggiehawg said:

---

LINK

Team Mueller is claiming Papadop did not substantially assist their investigation and thus the FBI was not able to get information from Mifsud in February 2017. That appears to be an outright lie to the court, if they did interview him in DC in February 2017. They could make a 302 disappear I guess but a person who could contradict them?

This is very weird.

---

This smells of Wiessmann, that would be a huge misstep and Mueller seems to be way more buttoned up to make that level of a blunder.

Unless they know Mifsud has been put on ice, in the literal sense.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Good interview. Ratcliff (NE Texas) is impressive.

Was Bruce Ohr a rogue DOJ employee or was he acting under authority/knowledge of his superiors? Especially Sally Yates, or possibly even Loretta Lynch. Rosenstein has testified that he had no knowledge of Ohr's activities.

---

As to Rosenstein, he was US Attorney in Maryland in 2016. So it is plausible he wouldn't have been in position to know.

The problem with the 'he went rogue' narrative on Ohr is that apparently the FBI actually promulgated 302s on their conversations with Ohr. There's a paper trail with a lot of fingerprints on it.

---

Problem with that is, Ohr was the most active after Mueller was in place, as was Rosenstein and his office being three doors down from Rosey is problematic. The new emails between Ohr and Steele really ramped up in the middle of 2017, Ohr stepped up after Strzok was removed and sent to HR. And the fact that Ohr had zero to do with Counter-Intel in jis job description, yet he was right in the middle of it. Rosey's deniability is really in question.

---

Excellent point. Ohr and Steele's activities in 2016 (after Steele was supposedly fired) aren't the main focus, their activities in 2017 are. It's always the cover-up.

Which once again raises the question of what's in it for Rosenstein to aid in the cover-up on something that started way before he even got there?

Has Ohr been questioned by Team Mueller?

---

Jeff Carlson has an interesting take

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1030931788724457472.html

Off topic but these people are off the rails in the ditch upside down and on fire

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Off topic but these people are off the rails in the ditch upside down and on fire

---

What the absolute ****! Angela friggin Merkel is Leader of the free world? That woman who said that is so uncomfortable with any favorable acknowledgment regarding trump it has turned into a form of tourette's syndrome.