will25u said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

will25u said:

---

A question I have is...

What could they negotiate about? The only thing left to be unredacted in the 6e(I think this is right?) information, and it is illegal to do that?

---

Correct. The democrats want to hold Barr in contempt of Congress because he is refusing to violate the law. That's what being an ethically bankrupt political party does to the rule of law.

---

I understood that. But Barr has no wiggle room without breaking the law. So what exactly is there to negotiate on?

---

They also want to see the underlying evidence, too.

I guess who outside the gang of 8 can review the less redacted version?

akm91 said:

---

Love the closing paragraph! Basically go read the less redacted version of the report before we commence negotiating.

---

This. I love reading all the veiled (and not so veiled) innuendo in these letters. Basically, saying "you hypocrites and double-standard ignoramuses. Before you get all puffy-chested and weepy-eyed with your fake indignation, why don't you at least make the attempt to not look like a dunce?

Also, what about the line that says...

"Furthermore, the Committee has not articulated any legitimate basis for requesting the law enforcement documents that bear upon more than two dozen criminal cases and investigations, including ongoing matters..."

What are these two dozen other criminal cases that could be hindered or whatever if the GJ information was made public? Are these cases not related to the Mueller probe?

will25u said:

---

Also, what about the line that says...

"Furthermore, the Committee has not articulated any legitimate basis for requesting the law enforcement documents that bear upon more than two dozen criminal cases and investigations, including ongoing matters..."

What are these two dozen other criminal cases that could be hindered or whatever if the GJ information was made public? Are these cases not related to the Mueller probe?

---

I think that references all of the indictments and informations already brought by Team Mueller and the 14 referrals. Two of which we know about, Cohen and Craig.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019-05-06%20RHJ%20CEG%20to%20IC%20IG%20(leaks).pdf

Grassley/Johnson letter to IG Atkinson about leaks.

Nancy Pelosi? Pick up the white courtesy phone please.

Quote:

---

The vote is expected to occur at 10 a.m. on Wednesday. During a congressional contempt proceeding, the contempt resolution and report will be debated and voted on by committee members. If the vote passes, the resolution and report would move to the floor for a full vote in the House to authorize legal proceedings.

---

So, does it pass or not before the full house?

The arguments will be awesome. Just keep asking the dems if they have even read what is currently available

Tomorrow would be a great day for an OIG report to drop.

backintexas2013 said:

---

The arguments will be awesome. Just keep asking the dems if they have even read what is currently available

---

How do you vote to coerce the Attorney General to break the law?? That's guaranteed campaign material for 2020, right there.

Pelosi can't possibly want that. Well, unless she has truly gone 'round the bend, as the saying goes.

The Maria Bartalomo / George Papa
Interview is really good.

It seems the dims are to the point where they 'can't let go' and will potentially go down with the ship. They'll just keep spinning to the sheeple until one/some of them 'hang', a Walter Cronkite moment ensues (assuming such a person exists today) or until 2024 when Trump wraps up his 2nd term ;-). Not a sane one in the bunch anymore.

Thought this thread was funny. @drawandstrike

Good listen.

Missed that last night. Thanks for posting. Both Gowdy and Starr are correct. DOJ policy should prohibit Mueller from going on a bash Trump rant in any testimony. (Of course, DOJ policy prohibited Comey from doing what he did in regards to Hillary and Obama should have fired him then, just on principle.)

Starr's point about the leak of the Mueller letter being a disservice to Barr is correct, too. Was a very dirty thing to do. Even writing that letter in the first place after Barr afforded Mueller ample opportunity to review his summary of the principle conclusions, was crappy and likely a set-up. Mueller was playing pure politics there.

But I think Starr didn't quite go far enough in his criticism of Mueller. The issue is how much of a wildcard Mueller is at this point. Obviously his legacy is of little concern to him, nor is following the rule of law or the DOJ policies. He didn't perform his duties under his appointment. He refused to make any charging decision on the obstruction, while simultaneously denying that the OLC letter (indicting a sitting President is a no-no) played a role in his non-decision making. I have repeatedly made that same point, although Gowdy was more blunt:"Indict or shut up."

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed that last night. Thanks for posting. Both Gowdy and Starr are correct. DOJ policy should prohibit Mueller from going on a bash Trump rant in any testimony. (Of course, DOJ policy prohibited Comey from doing what he did in regards to Hillary and Obama should have fired him then, just on principle.)

---

Comey's stunt would've never flown with Barr. Luckily we have him and not political hacks like Lynch and Holder in office.

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed that last night. Thanks for posting. Both Gowdy and Starr are correct. DOJ policy should prohibit Mueller from going on a bash Trump rant in any testimony. (Of course, DOJ policy prohibited Comey from doing what he did in regards to Hillary and Obama should have fired him then, just on principle.)

---

Comey's stunt would've never flown with Barr. Luckily we have him and not political hacks like Lynch and Holder in office.

---

A week or so ago, I read a very long article about the whole Hillary investigation. At the very end the article claimed Comey called Lynch before his presser but refused to tell her what his recommendation would be. Apparently, she was fine with that.

Guess she was basically intimidated by men. First, she couldn't summon the courage to get a rambling Bill Clinton off of her plane. Then she had a subordinate call her up and basically dare her to countermand him to not do a presser. She never was actually recused and Comey knew she could order him to stop.

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed that last night. Thanks for posting. Both Gowdy and Starr are correct. DOJ policy should prohibit Mueller from going on a bash Trump rant in any testimony. (Of course, DOJ policy prohibited Comey from doing what he did in regards to Hillary and Obama should have fired him then, just on principle.)

---

Comey's stunt would've never flown with Barr. Luckily we have him and not political hacks like Lynch and Holder in office.

---

A week or so ago, I read a very long article about the whole Hillary investigation. At the very end the article claimed Comey called Lynch before his presser but refused to tell her what his recommendation would be. Apparently, she was fine with that.

Guess she was basically intimidated by men. First, she couldn't summon the courage to get a rambling Bill Clinton off of her plane. Then she had a subordinate call her up and basically dare her to countermand him to not do a presser. She never was actually recused and Comey knew she could order him to stop.

---

I don't buy that one bit. My source said Lynch was calling the shots on Hillary and I tend to believe it.

Okay, I'll bite. Without identifying your source, can you give some hints as to why you believe said source to be solid?

aggiehawg said:

---

Okay, I'll bite. Without identifying your source, can you give some hints as to why you believe said source to be solid?

---

He's worked under every FBI director since Hoover (recently retired). Was on the 7th floor last part of his career. Submitted dozens of FISA applications. Was even in The Russian counterintelligence group (I think).

He knows of a lot of the players. Met personally with Mueller and Comey and probably most of the others on a few occasions.

Our conversations are delicate though and there is no way he would go too far with what he says or even get close. We never get too deep in conversation about the topic BUT I WOULD LOVE TO.

I don't think he knows anything directly because he was gone before this all went down. He defends the FBI with a passion when I say there were some bad cops at the top. He's really upset that both sides are "playing politics " with this though and still doesn't believe half of the "corruption rumors". For example, I said something once about the FISA being based primarily on the dossier. He rejected that completely and said that's impossible. It doesn't work that way.

Anyways, Lynch came up a couple weeks ago and he thought the fix was in. He had the feeling that she told Comey that DOJ wasn't going to do anything with the e-mails.

Again, our conversation are really superficial for obvious reasons, but I every once in a while I get nods of good cop bad cop from him. He thought Lynch was definitely a bad cop.

Thanks.

I don't know who his boss was and he probably wouldn't tell me anyways.

FriscoKid said:

---

I don't know who his boss was and he probably wouldn't tell me anyways.

---

The fact that he was on the 7th floor at all puts him pretty high up in the food chain. Next time you talk with him, ask him why Lisa Page and McCabe needed a "high level push" from the White House to get DOJ to sign off on the Carter Page FISA and if that was unusual or even unheard of?

I think you know what he would say. "It doesn't work that way. Impossible "

FriscoKid said:

---

I think you know what he would say. "It doesn't work that way. Impossible "

---

LOL. You are probably correct.

He does think that Pete and Lisa are probably in trouble though.

FriscoKid said:

---

He does think that Pete and Lisa are probably in trouble though.

---

For what? Lying about their affair?

aggiehawg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

He does think that Pete and Lisa are probably in trouble though.

---

For what? Lying about their affair?

---

Probably for their text messages. He's never said if he thought they were trying to frame Trump and I didn't ask. I suspect he thinks they were acting outside of FBI policy.

I'm waiting for stuff to be exposed so I can "rub his nose in it". After the FISA application is released I can't wait to ask him about it. I'd like him to say that something really went wrong here and people should be punished.

FriscoKid said:

---

He does think that Pete and Lisa are probably in trouble though.

---

Yeah, well my source...(FoxNews Radio ) just said that the OIG report is going to drop and to expect criminal referrals on Comey, Page, Storzk, Baker, McCabe, and others.

You should ask him what he thinks about that..(probably say impossible) ....but if it does happen, that may put into perspective the value of his opinions.

The leaking, lying to investigators, and passing incomplete or improperly qualified information off to a FISA court, or selectively withholding part of the evidence.

I really can't tell who was acting out of spite or personal animosity or who was more self delusional and had decided a crime had to have taken place and any means was justified to find it because of who it was that was presumed to be guilty of it. I think some of the FBI falls into this latter category, but the intelligence and state department types and private contractors and legal persons that were doing the very early investigation don't seem so plausibly naive about its contrivance.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The leaking, lying to investigators, and passing incomplete or improperly qualified information off to a FISA court, or selectively withholding part of the evidence.

I really can't tell who was acting out of spite or personal animosity or who was more self delusional and had decided a crime had to have taken place and any means was justified to find it because of who it was that was presumed to be guilty of it. I think some of the FBI falls into this latter category, but the intelligence and state department types and private contractors and legal persons that were doing the very early investigation don't seem so plausibly naive about its contrivance.

---

This is probably true. I wouldn't be surprised if Comey just goes down for mishandling classified information. I do think the group think was strong though in the FBI. I bet the majority thought they were doing the right thing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/07/white-house-tells-don-mcgahn-not-to-give-mueller-documents-to-congress.html

Quote:

---

I bet the majority thought they were doing the right thing.

---

A higher calling? Horse puckey. Trump has been in the public eye for 40 years. He's been on state federal governments' radar for most of that time. After several months of trying to track down the allegations of the Steele dossier, it should have occurred to someone that it was Russian disinformation. These were supposedly the best of the best counter-intel people.

And they were so easily horn swoggled? Not buying it.