blindey said:

---

Counselor, are you suggesting that Mr. Bromowich is trying to use the court of public opinion to sway the actions of a seated grand jury?

---

No counselor, my suggestion here is that the intended audience is a future jury pool. That any actual indictment is a resubmission, a do-over that isn't fair to his client as it is politically driven.

So how would that work in theory?

• Lawyers tell someone to leak to the press
• Press prints the story
• Lawyers send letter to prosecution that the press has a story they are concerned about and then put that letter out themselves to the press.

Didn't we already see this with the dossier?

If all the speculation about why this came out is true, it cannot be new to the prosecution, especially those who deal in high profile cases against Washington DC lawyers. A person would think they would or should have a response at the ready to negate or at least take the shine off anything McCabe's lawyers are attempting.

Does any of that matter? In what way does leaking this kind of BS prevent a prosecutor from seeking an indictment?

FriscoKid said:

---

So how would that work in theory?

• Lawyers tell someone to leak to the press
• Press prints the story
• Lawyers send letter to prosecution that the press has a story they are concerned about and then put that letter out themselves to the press.

Didn't we already see this with the dossier?

---

Yeah. They arrange the leak and then cite the story as proof. And that's exactly what they did with the dossier.

aggiehawg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

So how would that work in theory?

• Lawyers tell someone to leak to the press
• Press prints the story
• Lawyers send letter to prosecution that the press has a story they are concerned about and then put that letter out themselves to the press.

Didn't we already see this with the dossier?

---

Yeah. They arrange the leak and then cite the story as proof. And that's exactly what they did with the dossier.

---

Same playbook, it's all the Dems have.

Let's also remember this is Bromwich who was Blasey-Ford's lawyers. How many false stories were planted before her testimony? Her two front doors? Fear of flying? PTSD? And the like?

i am so sick of these lawyers having zero consequences for their shady dealings.

that's all DC is. lawyers making messes so other lawyers can come clean up (while making their own messes). it seems so slimy, underhanded and incestuous. all they seem to do is skirt the rule of law and play legal games which might as well be called "**** the american people" because as far as i can tell, that's always the result of their shenanigans.

RiskManager93 said:

---

I'll go a step further. Is it possible that Aggiehawg actually IS Sydney Powell?

---

Obviously we all know they aren't the same person, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that sees significant similarities in the two. I love them both.

VegasAg86 said:

---

RiskManager93 said:

---

I'll go a step further. Is it possible that Aggiehawg actually IS Sydney Powell?

---

Obviously we all know they aren't the same person, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that sees significant similarities in the two. I love them both.

---

Well I don't think Sydney is as big of a college football fan as I am, so there's one difference.

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

RiskManager93 said:

---

I'll go a step further. Is it possible that Aggiehawg actually IS Sydney Powell?

---

Obviously we all know they aren't the same person, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that sees significant similarities in the two. I love them both.

---

Well I don't think Sydney is as big of a college football fan as I am, so there's one difference.

---

Well,.....it's clear that Sydney can't hold a candle to you then.

DOJ Watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to Barr, source says...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-inspector-general-submits-report-on-alleged-fisa-abuses-to-attorney-general

I truly hope that the story is slightly incorrect and the classification review is not just starting now. That could take 2-6 weeks. I don't think Barr can pull off a classification review in just a few days like he did on the Mueller report.
Will Barr do a summary of findings first?

Guess we'll see.

aggiehawg said:

---

I truly hope that the story is slightly incorrect and the classification review is not just starting now. That could take 2-6 weeks. I don't think Barr can pull off a classification review in just a few days like he did on the Mueller report.
Will Barr do a summary of findings first?

Guess we'll see.

---

Yeah, I know what the reporting is saying but since Horowitz has worked so closely with Barr and Durham, I was hoping some of that declass review was already happening along the way. Lindsay has indicated he and Barr have already talked about it in terms of the maximum possible declass.

Point being, it should have already started based upon earlier reporting.

Remember the extracted Russian spy story we were discussing about 5 pages previously? Well, it looks like things have become more interesting.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7461363/Was-Kremlin-mole-seduced-WIFE-spy-CIA-Ex-husband-says-wanted-luxury.html

Quote:

---

Was the Kremlin mole honeytrapped by his WIFE to spy for the CIA? Ex-husband says she sexted her boss who 'spied on Putin' - and that she wanted 'money, comfort and luxury'

• Oleg Smolenkov's wife Antonina might be at heart of his becoming the CIA's alleged mole at the heart of the Krelmlin, according to speculation in Moscow
• Her first husband has revealed he found sexts she sent to Smolenkov who had apparently become her lover while she was married
• Evgeny Agafonov claimed Antonina was driven by greed and 'wanted money, comfort and luxury' - and had parents working in the U.S.
• The scorned first husband said her mother, a dentist, was posted to the Russian delegation at the United Nations, while her father worked as a security guard
• Antonia's ex-husband said that she had made several trips to the U.S. to see her parents - and in 2008 was greeted by Smolenkov at the airport
• Then in 2009 Smolenkov returned to the Kremlin as an aide to Putin adviser Yuri Ushakov - and Antonina got a job as his secretary, sharing his office
• The disclosure sparked questions over whether she was the real CIA agent and he was turned by her
• Sergei Kanev,a secret services expert, posted: 'Now it's clear why Oleg Smolenkov began working for the CIA.'

.....

---

FriscoKid said:

---

It's pretty unlikely that the New York Times and Washington Post would publish misleading or even made up stuff to control the public perception. I'm inclined to believe that their sources are probably pretty solid.

---

Thats pretty much all they do now

If Pete the cheat was banging that we would all understand why he did what he did

Quote:

---

• Oleg Smolenkov's wife Antonina might be at heart of his becoming the CIA's alleged mole at the heart of the Krelmlin, according to speculation in Moscow
• Her first husband has revealed he found sexts she sent to Smolenkov who had apparently become her lover while she was married
• Evgeny Agafonov claimed Antonina was driven by greed and 'wanted money, comfort and luxury' - and had parents working in the U.S.
• The scorned first husband said her mother, a dentist, was posted to the Russian delegation at the United Nations, while her father worked as a security guard

---

I am reminded of this.

backintexas2013 said:

---

If Pete the cheat was banging that we would all understand why he did what he did

---

'Pete the cheat'...then you'd have to be referring to his banging the husband, not the broad on the left. I'm pretty sure that smirking fruit loop is a starter on 'the other team'.

ruddyduck said:

---

i am so sick of these lawyers having zero consequences for their shady dealings.

that's all DC is. lawyers making messes so other lawyers can come clean up (while making their own messes). it seems so slimy, underhanded and incestuous. all they seem to do is skirt the rule of law and play legal games which might as well be called "**** the american people" because as far as i can tell, that's always the result of their shenanigans.

---

I agree, unless it's perfectly acceptable for Bromo to do what I consider very unethical. OTOH, I'd hire him in a second if its normal procedure. He probably wouldnt take me as a client because of the belief in freedom and liberty.

I haven't been on TA since 2 PM, or so, but when I got off, this information had just come out. It's pretty amazing what this POS has done in three hours.

Short video. Whitaker seems upbeat. Says Barr can act now.

I'd really enjoy personally kicking his ass.

Prognightmare said:

---

I'd really enjoy personally kicking his ass.

---

Uhmm, I know Schiff4brains doesn't have a freakin clue about law, nor the Constitution, nor the quite recent binding precedent in the DC Circuit that says that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure set out the only exceptions to Rule 6 regarding grand jury material.

Psst, he's lying again.

Liars lie, snakes are snakes. From my pespective I knew there was corruption and darkness in politices, the National law enforcement and the CIA and the media, and billionaires. What I was not sure of was the incredible coordination between them.

About or 15 years ago I received a draft of what I will call an 'elite 300' that were basically had a kind of an uneasy alliance with each other. I thought it was some what a stretch, now I believe it 100% to be accurate.

For the legals: Given the number of judges that are partisan and the makeup of future juries (we know how they will lean), how can we possibly expect justice to be served on any of these bad actors? Sorry to be such a downer.

Prognightmare said:

---

I'd really enjoy personally kicking his ass.

---

For some reason, hearing, or seeing written text, by Schiff, always leads me to jump the turnstile and think I am hearing this guy...

...as tanks rolled by behind him...

Short video, start at 1:40 minutes. Raises some interesting arguments on McCabe.

The left is arguing that the primary issue in the case isn't the actual lying by McCabe but his 'intent' in lying. Sounds like the same argument regarding Hillary: It wasn't that she had classified documents on her unsecured bathroom server but what was her 'intent' in doing this. Seems to me 'intent' is irrelevant here and is a new phrase to replace what we previously called 'motive' in order to confuse the public (jury).

Second point: One cannot compare the litigation of Flynn, Papadopoulos & Van der Zwaan to McCabe. The former pleaded guilty & no grand jury was involved, but McCabe has not pleaded guilty.

In other words, if you plead guilty to an offense, your motive/intent behind committing the offense becomes irrelevant -- that's what the DOJ is currently arguing in the Flynn proceedings. Whereas if you commit an offense and go to trial, than your motive/intent becomes the overriding issue even in cases where motive/intent is not specifically mentioned/part of the law.

Am I presenting this correctly?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/why-its-unlikely-the-mccabe-grand-jury-voted-against-indictment/

Good read per our recent discussions about whether or not a grand jury had no-billed McCabe.

Hannity interview with Trey Gowdy. He statements that the punishment for these offenses are disbarment and contempt (re: which may include jail time)

Later, after Hannity rudely interrupts Gowdy(very annoying) Trey Gowdy brings up other possible charges. But I now doubt any of these seditious participants in the FBI, DOJ, CIA etc. will face any jail time at all.

Unfortunately, I believe the two tiered justice we have is here for the long haul, I feel bad my generation is leaving such a horrible mess for my children and their children.



ETA: forgot the link

so two years of fervor and buildup with no climax.

quite the blue balls for the q movement.

Swamp thinks they keeping eye on the ball. Probaly just Statue of Liberty playcall by QB President Trump.

Are Grand Juries and Trial Juries in DC part and parcel of the corrupt Deep State ? We will be finding out soon !

Great summary of events from letter he sent in February of 2018.

Rockdoc said:

---

For the legals: Given the number of judges that are partisan and the makeup of future juries (we know how they will lean), how can we possibly expect justice to be served on any of these bad actors? Sorry to be such a downer.

---

I'm fine just bankrupting them with legal fees