captkirk said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Mueller can't be this stupid, can he?

---

His whole team was a bunch of democrats. He certainly can be that stupid.

Hello #800...now this really is a gorilla of a thread!!

BigBrother said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Solomon is good. However, I have to ask that if you are posting a youtube that opens with Hannity talking please give us a warning.

---

I don't like Hannity either, but his collection of coverage on all of this has been pretty impressive. It doesn't hurt that he likely has a direct line to Trump from time to time. As long as you understand that he'll be over-the-top in defense of the President, he usually puts out pretty accurate stuff on these investigations.

---

It has been rumored that Donald and Hannity speak on almost a daily basis.

scottimus said:

---

BigBrother said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Solomon is good. However, I have to ask that if you are posting a youtube that opens with Hannity talking please give us a warning.

---

I don't like Hannity either, but his collection of coverage on all of this has been pretty impressive. It doesn't hurt that he likely has a direct line to Trump from time to time. As long as you understand that he'll be over-the-top in defense of the President, he usually puts out pretty accurate stuff on these investigations.

---

It has been rumored that Donald and Hannity speak on almost a daily basis.

---

Hannity makes enough references to his conversations with Trump to know they do speak frequently.

Hannity is annoying and full of himself, but John Solomon and Sara Carter have been all over this since the beginning, and they are on his show all the time.

Hannity has great guest. He needs to let them speak.

BeachRanger said:

---

Hello #800...now this really is a gorilla of a thread!!

---

It's an easy number to remember. Maybe the crap will finally hit the fan today.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Quote:

---

Washington-based Judicial Watch suspects Mueller's office may have farmed out work to the private Washington research firm Fusion GPS or its subcontractor Steele, both of whom were paid by the Clinton camp during the 2016 presidential election. Several law enforcement and Hill sources who spoke with RCI also believe Steele and Fusion GPS were deputized in the investigation.

---

That would not surprise me, given Weissman's history of abusing the law.

---

That would certainly explain why the Steele dossier & Fusion GPS are noticeably absent from Mueller's Report.

drcrinum said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Quote:

---

Washington-based Judicial Watch suspects Mueller's office may have farmed out work to the private Washington research firm Fusion GPS or its subcontractor Steele, both of whom were paid by the Clinton camp during the 2016 presidential election. Several law enforcement and Hill sources who spoke with RCI also believe Steele and Fusion GPS were deputized in the investigation.

---

That would not surprise me, given Weissman's history of abusing the law.

---

That would certainly explain why the Steele dossier & Fusion GPS are noticeably absent from Mueller's Report.

---

Add another question for Republicans to ask Mueller when he testifies.

My image of Mueller is someone who follows the law, but is extremely rigorous in that task. He has zero sympathy for anyone on his list, and will stretch said law not only to it's breaking point, but would be guilty of breaking the law if the law wasn't open for interpretation. Between the Bulger fiasco, his time at the FBI, and others I'm not aware of, I don't have a good view of him.

IF this accusation was true, I would also wonder about his mental acuity. NO matter what, he's responsible for the actions of his "committee".

I see lots of stuff come across the boards here, so we'll see.

fasthorses05 said:

---

My image of Mueller is someone who follows the law, but is extremely rigorous in that task. He has zero sympathy for anyone on his list, and will stretch said law not only to it's breaking point, but would be guilty of breaking the law if the law wasn't open for interpretation. Between the Bulger fiasco, his time at the FBI, and others I'm not aware of, I don't have a good view of him.

IF this accusation was true, I would also wonder about his mental acuity. NO matter what, he's responsible for the actions of his "committee".

I see lots of stuff come across the boards here, so we'll see.

---

Agree but if that were true, Rosenstein would have had to go along with it and I don't think Barr would have tolerated that, without disclosing it. Unless he's preparing indictments against Steele? Margot Cleveland hit the nail on the head when she asked the question of why Steele wasn't indicted for lying to the FBI? No collusion, nor conspiracy, despite what Steele said.

BeachRanger said:

---

Hello #800...now this really is a gorilla of a thread!!

---

I bet it hits 1000! Again, much thanks to all who contribute on this thread!

will25u said:

---

---

I have doubts about Mueller's team paying, especially with a contract, to have Steele, Fusion GPS or Perkins Coe write any of the report. Why would they, Mueller's team appears to be providing cover for them, especially in regards to Clinton. Any one or all of the bad actors would be more than willing to assist in the destruction of Trump for free (re: the real cynic in me would bet they would pay to have input with "the team", especially Weismann.).

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/10-25-17%20CLC%20DNC%20Clinton%20%28Filed%29.pdf

Again. 800 pages later. Kudos to all of you that have worked hard to keep information flowing. I'm pretty amazed at the quality of this now 800 "page" account of this episode in U.S history.

In on 800!!

Also, that post by Seco above had the email shown in the first tweet hidden as "possibly objectionable" or something like that. Ridiculous.

Because this contempt action will likely be in court and Nadler let slip a reference to Judge Howell, I did some sleuthing.

Judge Beryl A. Howell (Obama appointee) is the Chief Judge for the District Courts in the DC Circuit. She is also the judge who was assigned oversight of the Mueller investigation's grand juries. Because of the subject matter of the subpoena also including 6(e) material she will be assigned the contempt case, in all likelihood.

I found this interesting:

Quote:

---

Following her service on the Judiciary Committee, Chief Judge Howell also worked, from 2003 until 2009, as executive managing director and general counsel of a cybersecurity and digital forensics consulting and technical services firm, for which she headed the largest regional office in Washington, D.C. During her tenure at the firm, Chief Judge Howell was awarded a Director's Award by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for her "valuable contributions" to the successful investigation and prosecution of a cyber-extortion case

---

LINK

Things that make you go hhmm.

Wow! 800 pages!

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4951550/House-intel-transcripts-set-to-be-released.pdf

Look at the list of transcripts that will be released (with redactions):
Farkas, John Podesta x 2, Marc Elias, Gaeta, David Kramer, Shawn Henry, Samantha Power, Sally Yates, etc.

BTW, thanks for indirectly verifying what I wanted to know.

Cleveland seems to be a good writer, and probably lawyer, but I always have questions about writers I've only read 3-4 times.

As long as you, Bllindey, and others here, approve of what she brings to The Federalist, then I'll continue to read.

When I disagree with something any of the legal commentators say, I'm usually pretty vocal about it. When I agree and find their reasoning "persuasive" I note that as well. Just calliing 'em like I see 'em.

Never try to deliberately mislead anyone. I do appreciate your confidence in me though, so thank you.

Andy McCarthy is on fire! LINK

He mad.

Quote:

---

The narrative head fakes and legal mumbo-jumbo make you wonder what's going on here. Who is running this show, Mueller or some of his notoriously aggressive staffers, recruited from the Obama Justice Department and private practice stints representing the Clintons?


On the matter of the OLC guidance, if you can follow his reasoning, the special counsel twists himself into the position that it would have been unfairly prejudicial to Trump to recommend charges when the president would not have been able to defend himself in a judicial proceeding but, somehow, it was perfectly fair to Trump for Mueller to publish his evidence in a document manifestly written for exploitation by congressional Democrats and the media.

---

Quote:

---

For what it's worth, I have always thought the OLC guidance is wrong. I do not believe the Framers intended to insulate a sitting president from indictment.

The Constitution presumes that the check on a rogue president will be impeachment. It elaborates, however, that impeachment is no impediment to indictment. Further, the Constitution does not say that indictment must await either impeachment or other departure from office. (Article I, Section 3, says a "party convicted" of impeachment is liable to court prosecution, but this does not necessarily mean prosecution may occur only after a president either has been convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, or his term otherwise ends.)

While there was significant discussion of impeachment when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787 (I outlined much of it in Faithless Execution), I doubt the Framers gave much thought to the timing of a president's indictment.

There were no federal prosecutors to speak of at the time (there was no Justice Department until 1870 and no FBI until 1908), and the federal Constitution would not have barred action by state prosecutors. The Constitution presumes it is Congress's job to check a wayward president and not a job to be delegated to a prosecutor.

---

Quote:

---

That means the OLC guidance should be irrelevant to the prosecutor investigating the case. Even if we stipulate, for argument's sake, that a president may not be indicted in the here and now, he may still be prosecuted for any indictable offense at some future point. Therefore, someone must decide if there is a crime worth charging. That someone, obviously, is the prosecutor assigned to investigate the case. Since there is no bar on investigating a sitting president, it makes no sense to refrain from making the prosecution judgment to charge or not to charge until later (potentially, years later) when witnesses' memories have faded and evidence has gone stale or missing.

If there is sufficient evidence, then it is the prosecutor's job to recommend indictment. The question of whether the OLC guidance should then be invoked to delay indictment should then be up to the attorney general. The guidance should not burden the prosecutor's analysis of whether there is an indictable case.

---

Quote:

---

Yet Mueller chose not to see it that way. His thinking on the matter, it appears, was muddled, evolving over a few weeks' time as he groped for a way to rationalize his failure to make a decision about whether obstruction should be charged.

In recent Senate testimony, Attorney General Bill Barr related that he and his staff met with the Mueller team a couple of weeks before the report was completed. Mueller surprised them with the news that he would not be resolving the obstruction question. When asked to explain, Mueller said his rationale for this non-decision was not yet fully developed such temporizing, of course, is often the sign of handwringing as one tries to rationalize a determination one knows is wrong. Nevertheless, Barr reports that Mueller was emphatic that the OLC guidance was not what drove his decision to abdicate.

Yet when we finally saw the Mueller report, we found that the obstruction volume begins with a discussion of the OLC guidance. It is, by turns, vaporous and preposterous. It is no wonder Barr has said he does not know exactly what Mueller was thinking.

---

He was great on the latest McCarthy Report podcast. I highly recommend it!

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged

Quote:

---

.....
In her typed summary, Kavalec wrote that Steele told her the Russians had constructed a "technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the election" that recruited emigres in the United States to "do hacking and recruiting."

She quoted Steele as saying, "Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami," according to a copy of her summary memo obtained under open records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United. Kavalec bluntly debunked that assertion in a bracketed comment: "It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami."
.....
Kavalec's handwritten notes clearly flagged in multiple places that Steele might be talking to the media.

"June -- reporting started," she wrote. "NYT and WP have," she added, in an apparent reference to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Later she quoted Steele as suggesting he was "managing" four priorities -- "Client needs, FBI, WashPo/NYT, source protection," her handwritten notes show.
Those same notes suggest Steele spun some wild theories to State, including one that the Russians had a "plant in DNC" and had assembled an "HRC dossier," apparent references to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
She expounded in her typed memo. "The Russians have succeeded in placing an agent inside the DNC," she quoted Steele as saying.
Steele offered Kavalec other wild information that easily could have been debunked before the FISA application -- and eventually was, in many cases, after the media reported the allegations -- including that:

• Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with Russians;
  
• Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort owed the Russians $100 million and was the "go-between" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Trump;
  
• Trump adviser Carter Page met with a senior Russian businessman tied to Putin;
  
• The Russians secretly communicated with Trump through a computer system.

---

No links posted to either Kavalec's email memo or her handwritten notes.

Great comments by Louie Gohmert on the Barr contempt charge.

Louie is a great Aggie representative. Give 'em hell Louie!

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/louie-gohmert-fires-back-at-dems-the-real-scandal-is-attempted-coup-against-president-trump/

The man himself...

BenFiasco14 said:

---

But the libs told us this was a completely clean and non partisan "investigation"?

Quote:

---

Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the Justice Department's Russia collusion investigation, removed an FBI agent from the case over possible anti-Trump text messages, Fox News confirmed Saturday.

The agent has been identified as Peter Strzok, one of the agency's most experienced and trusted counterintelligence investigators, said the New York Times, which first reported the dismissal.
The allegations came to light after the Justice Department's inspector general started examining Strzok's messages.

"Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation," Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, confirmed to Fox News.
Strzok also worked on the FBI investigation last year into whether then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information through her use of private email servers while secretary of State.
During this investigation, Strzok was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, according to The Washington Post.
"Lisa Page completed her brief detail and had returned to the FBI weeks before our office was aware of the allegations," Carr also said in his statement, though it was not immediately clear to which allegations he was referring.


Snip


Strzok was reportedly reassigned this past summer from the Mueller investigation to the FBI's human resources department, according to The Times.
A lawyer for Storzok declined to comment.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/02/mueller-dismisses-top-fbi-agent-in-russia-probe-over-possible-anti-trump-texts.html

Political sycophants in this witch hunt?? No way!

---

In at 800 with the OP quoted, honored.

Unverified my ass. It was completely made up trash and should be described as such.

Some funnies from the AG and outgoing DAG

K188Ag said:

---

Great comments by Louie Gohmert on the Barr contempt charge.

Louie is a great Aggie representative. Give 'em hell Louie!

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/louie-gohmert-fires-back-at-dems-the-real-scandal-is-attempted-coup-against-president-trump/

---

I've got a question about this demand they have to release the completely redacted report.

Since it would be illegal for Barr to do that, doesn't this mean that the House Dems are guilty of incitement? They are trying to coerce, through threats of subpoenas and contempt, the AG to break the law.

Isn't it illegal to do that?

This guy's pretty perceptive.

This was in the above thread.

March 28 - not new

With all the revelations coming out now, about who knew what and when, does Mueller actually go to the house hearing? It seems like there's a lot of new information out recently that seems pretty bad for Mueller's investigation.