Flynn was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama for 2 years and then fired. He must have a lot of dirt on the filthy Democrats and could be using it to his advantage. Remember Trump threateningly said recently in response to Nadler & Schif's investigations " I know more than they do " . Oh, and Pelosi saying " Impeachment is not worth it " . Something is up !
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,546,852 Views |
49289 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by VegasAg86
Who will get thrown under the bus for this?
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
oysterbayAG said:
Flynn was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama for 2 years and then fired. He must have a lot of dirt on the filthy Democrats and could be using it to his advantage. Remember Trump threateningly said recently in response to Nadler & Schif's investigations " I know more than they do " . Oh, and Pelosi saying " Impeachment is not worth it " . Something is up !
He's trying to push his book but he's telling it all. Who, why, Turkey, he knows...
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1105252673954168832&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftexags.com%2Fforums%2F16
I hate to do this here, but it's all laid out...
Quote:
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI9 Mar 2019 - 6:30:35 PM
DmDOqxgU0AAUigu.jpg
Patriots stand at the ready, and prepared, for what is about to come.
THE GREAT AWAKENING!
Q
Can I go to sleep Looch?
For whatever Q is, he/she/they laid out the last 72 hours of events fairly accurately months ago.
So we can charge the senior members of Obama's DOJ with obstruction of justice?
You don't think that is already ongoing? They are all under surveillance. Let them talk.
He's not going to play that card.
He's not going to play that card.
Can I go to sleep Looch?
In the Day Two testimony of Lisa Page, pages 33- 37 is a very interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) which is the mishandling of classified information statute where the legal term gross negligence comes into play.
She has to tap dance to try to distinguish between using a grand jury to obtain subpoenas and search warrants under that statute but not being permitted to indict anyone under it because of DOJ's opinion that it is unconstitutional, in particular, the gross negligence part.
It is counter-intuitive to say a statute is unconstitutional for one purpose but not for another purpose. She has to really parse the statute and consult with the FBI counsel to try to explain it, while it would have been far easier to just say, "You need to ask the DOJ attorneys why they took those actions. I don't know."
I found that quite curious as some times she seems far removed with the day to day decisions on MYE and then turns around and gets deep into the weeds of what was and wasn't found by the investigation and battles with DOJ in obtaining Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson's laptops which presumably had the 30,000 deleted emails on them.
At the end of the day, the Obama Justice Department followed Obama's lead when he publicly stated Hillary committed no wrong-doing, twice. That could be construed as obstruction, I guess.
She has to tap dance to try to distinguish between using a grand jury to obtain subpoenas and search warrants under that statute but not being permitted to indict anyone under it because of DOJ's opinion that it is unconstitutional, in particular, the gross negligence part.
It is counter-intuitive to say a statute is unconstitutional for one purpose but not for another purpose. She has to really parse the statute and consult with the FBI counsel to try to explain it, while it would have been far easier to just say, "You need to ask the DOJ attorneys why they took those actions. I don't know."
I found that quite curious as some times she seems far removed with the day to day decisions on MYE and then turns around and gets deep into the weeds of what was and wasn't found by the investigation and battles with DOJ in obtaining Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson's laptops which presumably had the 30,000 deleted emails on them.
At the end of the day, the Obama Justice Department followed Obama's lead when he publicly stated Hillary committed no wrong-doing, twice. That could be construed as obstruction, I guess.
What surveillance would be needed for that charge? None
She tried to explain that Comey had already decided to keep DOJ in the dark as to his intentions to exonerate Hillary in a press conference the first week of July. To her credit, she was very critical of Lynch's non-recusal/recusal after the tango on the tarmac. Page said that in her opinion it was not a legal recusal.Quote:
But Bill Clinton's plane meeting with Loretta Lynch was innocent.
IOW, had Comey come to a different conclusion, Lynch would have still been in place to stop charges from going forward.
Here's what my gut tells me.
The FBI wanted to charge Hillary. They drafted the original memo to say "gross negligence." They got word from Justice that Justice wouldn't do it. Also, Lynch met with Clinton, and that looked terrible.
Comey is an amazingly conceited and self-righteous guy. He didn't like getting shutdown by Lynch, but he thought the institutional damage that would result if it became known that justice had shut them down was too great. He couldn't blow the whistle.
But he also couldn't stomach the politicization of the justice department.
So, he went out and gave his little press conference.
He made himself arbiter of what was healthy for the nation. He couldn't override Lynch, but he wouldn't be the one to expose the politics and bring doubt on lady justice. He also couldn't allow Hillary to get off scot free when he knew she violated the law.
So, he had Strock re-write the memo, and he gave his press conference. Worst of all worlds. He obstructed justice and yet still shamed justice.
The FBI wanted to charge Hillary. They drafted the original memo to say "gross negligence." They got word from Justice that Justice wouldn't do it. Also, Lynch met with Clinton, and that looked terrible.
Comey is an amazingly conceited and self-righteous guy. He didn't like getting shutdown by Lynch, but he thought the institutional damage that would result if it became known that justice had shut them down was too great. He couldn't blow the whistle.
But he also couldn't stomach the politicization of the justice department.
So, he went out and gave his little press conference.
He made himself arbiter of what was healthy for the nation. He couldn't override Lynch, but he wouldn't be the one to expose the politics and bring doubt on lady justice. He also couldn't allow Hillary to get off scot free when he knew she violated the law.
So, he had Strock re-write the memo, and he gave his press conference. Worst of all worlds. He obstructed justice and yet still shamed justice.
He's just as corrupt as the rest of them. His vitriol towards the president was quite clear. Comey is part of the coup, he just had to look like he cared about justice.
I am curious how so much solid evidence of contradictory testimony before Congress by multiple current and recently former DOJ officials seems to have escaped the attention of the departmental IG office? Is the lack of review due to the apparent escape of scrutiny once they leave the department, leading to a sort of collective shutdown of the investigation because so many persons become "out of scope"? They don't at least post-mortem all of these integrity failures?
Absent hard proof of obstruction of justice and abuse of power, prosecutorial discretion is not second guessed by the IG office. At least, that's the way I understand it.MouthBQ98 said:
I am curious how so much solid evidence of contradictory testimony before Congress by multiple current and recently former DOJ officials seems to have escaped the attention of the departmental IG office? Is the lack of review due to the apparent escape of scrutiny once they leave the department, leading to a sort of collective shutdown of the investigation because so many persons become "out of scope"? They don't at least post-mortem all of these integrity failures?
I'm more concerned about 18 months of contradicting testimony by multiple persons in front of various congressional committees that we are only now slowly learning about as documents are released? I guess if they can't establish which person lied, they can't really do much with contradictory statements from two persons regarding one matter.
Not sure if this means much, but Ed Butowsky filed a couple slander/defamation suits this week in Texas about his involvement in Seth Rich media reports. Defendants are mostly media and the DNC.
I don't have a link, but the one filed yesterday was in the Eastern District and I believe the one earlier this week was in state court in Collin County. Might be worth a read if anyone is bored and wants to summarize for us.
I don't have a link, but the one filed yesterday was in the Eastern District and I believe the one earlier this week was in state court in Collin County. Might be worth a read if anyone is bored and wants to summarize for us.
BMX Bandit said:
10 is the max.
My guess is 8, concurrent.
Close!
I'm confused.... I keep seeing remarks about the FBI not charging Clinton. I thought the FBI did the investigating and the Attorney General then decides whether or not to charge/convene a grand jury. Then you may get your indictment.
Was any of this Comey's decision to make? Didn't he just overstep his authority and do the Attorney Generals job. Of course, if I remember correctly, Lynch had conveniently recused herself prior to Comey's overreach.
Who was actually supposed to make the call with Lynch recused?
Someone out there please correct me, if I'm way off base.
Was any of this Comey's decision to make? Didn't he just overstep his authority and do the Attorney Generals job. Of course, if I remember correctly, Lynch had conveniently recused herself prior to Comey's overreach.
Who was actually supposed to make the call with Lynch recused?
Someone out there please correct me, if I'm way off base.
Not when I'm done with it.
Page made clear in testimony that fbi doesn't charge people.
The senior DOJ publicly made a show of deferring that decision to Comey, probably after heavily pressuring him to not actually make a recommendation for criminal charges.
The issue has always been that this was ALWAYS the decision of a prosecutor to make, not an investigator. Comey got the heat, but it was always the very top of the DOJ (AG and then her deputies) that refused to pursue charges.
What we saw publicly was always a show intended to placate the voter and theoretically set up to minimize harm to Hillary. They were SURE they were successful until about 7pm on Election Day.
The issue has always been that this was ALWAYS the decision of a prosecutor to make, not an investigator. Comey got the heat, but it was always the very top of the DOJ (AG and then her deputies) that refused to pursue charges.
What we saw publicly was always a show intended to placate the voter and theoretically set up to minimize harm to Hillary. They were SURE they were successful until about 7pm on Election Day.
The fallout of the tango on the tarmac spun events OOC. Read Lisa Page's testimony. It was already determined that no charges would be brought against Clinton in early May, 2016, at the latest. Comey was already circulating his draft statement that he eventually read at the July 5th presser. Page also testified that early on, the DOJ was essentially blocking the FBI from gaining access to the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. They were Hillary's lawyers who sorted out her personal emails from her State Department emails (supposedly) and the FBI thought they might be able to recover the deleted emails forensically. DOJ for whatever reasons, were very slow to move on that request, nearly six months.Whens lunch said:
I'm confused.... I keep seeing remarks about the FBI not charging Clinton. I thought the FBI did the investigating and the Attorney General then decides whether or not to charge/convene a grand jury. Then you may get your indictment.
Was any of this Comey's decision to make? Didn't he just overstep his authority and do the Attorney Generals job. Of course, if I remember correctly, Lynch had conveniently recused herself prior to Comey's overreach.
Who was actually supposed to make the call with Lynch recused?
Someone out there please correct me, if I'm way off base.
Page also testified extensively that there was a back and forth with DOJ over the statute in question, 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being unconstitutional in the view of DOJ and thus it would be against DOJ rules to even bring the matter before a grand jury for the purposes of indicting her. (However, that same 'unconstitutional' statute was used to issue search warrants and subpoenas.)
So, in a nutshell, the FBI was informed that DOJ was not inclined to prosecute early on, no matter what.
But then the Lynch/Bill tango on the tarmac hit the news. The appearance of impropriety was too great and Lynch kind of semi-recused herself but not really. Had she fully recused herself, her deputy, Sally Yates would presumably take the lead. But Comey intervened, improperly and against DOJ Guidelines.
So you have every reason to be confused. It was a mess.
OK. I have two questions. Please help me understand.
1. OK, people have been putting this information together with public data. The people don't have nearly the visibility of members of Congress/DOJ/FBI, etc. We KNOW there was corruption all around during the Obama years. So why is nothing happening? Maybe it is, and we just aren't privy to it YET. Horowitz/Huber?
2. (This may not be relevant to the Mueller Invest)Why do we give the power to these people with no true oversight? They(Congress) are their own gatekeepers in most of their benefits(maybe not the best word). They control their pay, how little they work, term limits, etc. And WE THE PEOPLE have very little control over what they do. Why would they implement term limits on themselves when it lessens their power? I feel like I can do nothing but just watch our corrupt government and hate it.
Sorry if the second question is a derail, if so just ignore it. But the first one I am really curious about.
1. OK, people have been putting this information together with public data. The people don't have nearly the visibility of members of Congress/DOJ/FBI, etc. We KNOW there was corruption all around during the Obama years. So why is nothing happening? Maybe it is, and we just aren't privy to it YET. Horowitz/Huber?
2. (This may not be relevant to the Mueller Invest)Why do we give the power to these people with no true oversight? They(Congress) are their own gatekeepers in most of their benefits(maybe not the best word). They control their pay, how little they work, term limits, etc. And WE THE PEOPLE have very little control over what they do. Why would they implement term limits on themselves when it lessens their power? I feel like I can do nothing but just watch our corrupt government and hate it.
Sorry if the second question is a derail, if so just ignore it. But the first one I am really curious about.
Because of Mueller. While that is ongoing, if the Trump administration took action against prominent members of the Obama administration the media would spin it as obstruction and retaliation and an abuse of power.Quote:
1. OK, people have been putting this information together with public data. The people don't have nearly the visibility of members of Congress/DOJ/FBI, etc. We KNOW there was corruption all around during the Obama years. So why is nothing happening? Maybe it is, and we just aren't privy to it YET. Horowitz/Huber?
The working theory is that Trump will declassify a lot of material after the Mueller probe is done.
I'm not convinced that is actually the plan, though. We'll see.
Thank you. This shows why you are so valuable here. I'm one of many trying to keep up, but I'll get lost in a world that I don't live in day to day. You have a way of trimming the vernacular so that the rest of us have a chance.aggiehawg said:The fallout of the tango on the tarmac spun events OOC. Read Lisa Page's testimony. It was already determined that no charges would be brought against Clinton in early May, 2016, at the latest. Comey was already circulating his draft statement that he eventually read at the July 5th presser. Page also testified that early on, the DOJ was essentially blocking the FBI from gaining access to the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. They were Hillary's lawyers who sorted out her personal emails from her State Department emails (supposedly) and the FBI thought they might be able to recover the deleted emails forensically. DOJ for whatever reasons, were very slow to move on that request, nearly six months.Whens lunch said:
I'm confused.... I keep seeing remarks about the FBI not charging Clinton. I thought the FBI did the investigating and the Attorney General then decides whether or not to charge/convene a grand jury. Then you may get your indictment.
Was any of this Comey's decision to make? Didn't he just overstep his authority and do the Attorney Generals job. Of course, if I remember correctly, Lynch had conveniently recused herself prior to Comey's overreach.
Who was actually supposed to make the call with Lynch recused?
Someone out there please correct me, if I'm way off base.
Page also testified extensively that there was a back and forth with DOJ over the statute in question, 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being unconstitutional in the view of DOJ and thus it would be against DOJ rules to even bring the matter before a grand jury for the purposes of indicting her. (However, that same 'unconstitutional' statute was used to issue search warrants and subpoenas.)
So, in a nutshell, the FBI was informed that DOJ was not inclined to prosecute early on, no matter what.
But then the Lynch/Bill tango on the tarmac hit the news. The appearance of impropriety was too great and Lynch kind of semi-recused herself but not really. Had she fully recused herself, her deputy, Sally Yates would presumably take the lead. But Comey intervened, improperly and against DOJ Guidelines.
So you have every reason to be confused. It was a mess.
edit: stupid laptop
Again, thanks!
Not when I'm done with it.
Not really an attempt to provide an answer to your questions...but, IMHO the players (elected officials) have learned how to "game" the system so as to benefit themselves and "be damned" the rest of us. They go to DC under the false pretense of helping America when, in fact they go their solely to enrich themselves. It (the system) apparently IS rigged. The swamp needs draining...PLEASE let it be so.will25u said:
OK. I have two questions. Please help me understand.
1. OK, people have been putting this information together with public data. The people don't have nearly the visibility of members of Congress/DOJ/FBI, etc. We KNOW there was corruption all around during the Obama years. So why is nothing happening? Maybe it is, and we just aren't privy to it YET. Horowitz/Huber?
2. (This may not be relevant to the Mueller Invest)Why do we give the power to these people with no true oversight? They(Congress) are their own gatekeepers in most of their benefits(maybe not the best word). They control their pay, how little they work, term limits, etc. And WE THE PEOPLE have very little control over what they do. Why would they implement term limits on themselves when it lessens their power? I feel like I can do nothing but just watch our corrupt government and hate it.
Sorry if the second question is a derail, if so just ignore it. But the first one I am really curious about.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him. - Napoleon Bonaparte
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/paul-manafort-indicted-by-ny-prosecutors-after-federal-sentencing.html
I hate democratsQuote:
New York prosecutors Wednesday announced the indictment of President Donald Trump's former campaign chief, Paul Manafort, only minutes after his sentencing in a federal case.
The 16 charges unveiled by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance relate to mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.
"No one is beyond the law in New York," Vance said in a statement. Manafort's alleged actions "strike at the heart of New York's sovereign interests, including the integrity of our residential mortgage market," Vance added.
Crucially, Trump does not have pardon power for state charges. Trump has not explicitly ruled out pardoning his former campaign official. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday the president would decide whether to pardon Manafort "when he's ready."
No problem.
DittoPrognightmare said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/paul-manafort-indicted-by-ny-prosecutors-after-federal-sentencing.htmlI hate democratsQuote:
New York prosecutors Wednesday announced the indictment of President Donald Trump's former campaign chief, Paul Manafort, only minutes after his sentencing in a federal case.
The 16 charges unveiled by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance relate to mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.
"No one is beyond the law in New York," Vance said in a statement. Manafort's alleged actions "strike at the heart of New York's sovereign interests, including the integrity of our residential mortgage market," Vance added.
Crucially, Trump does not have pardon power for state charges. Trump has not explicitly ruled out pardoning his former campaign official. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday the president would decide whether to pardon Manafort "when he's ready."
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him. - Napoleon Bonaparte
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
12h ago
1.6k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.6k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
35:14
10h ago
650
Reed Report: Catching up with Boots as A&M hoops is underway
by Luke Evangelist