https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1188833266838589440.html

Quote:

---

.....Barr: "Some of the countries that John Durham thought might have some information that would be helpful to the investigation wanted preliminarily to talk to me about the scope of the investigation, the nature of the investigation, and how I intended to handle confidential info."

Barr: "I initially discussed these matters with those countries and introduced them to John Durham and established a channel by which Mr. Durham can obtain assistance from those countries."

---

Interesting short thread. Also includes that Barr thinks Wray is doing a great job, something which greatly surprised me. Maybe Horowitz's report has helped him see the light.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

stetson said:

---

Had not heard of him. Thanks for the information. Unless conservatives go on offense as trump is doing, this country is lost.

---

They won't, and it will be.

---

Not to disagree with you, but to make a point...

So, are you saying we should ride this American plane all the way to the scene of the crash? And walk away to...?

---

I'm not saying anything like that. All I get is one vote though. More and more of the rest of the country seems to be just hunky dory with socialism and giving away our rights, like free speech etc.

I am saying after Trump wins (which I think he will in a landslide), there will not be anymore republicans who are willing to fight. I certainly hope I'm wrong on that, but I just don't see it. There's a few with some fight in them, but most are spineless and will sit there and watch as the dems push the country over the cliff.

Quote:

---

My point is I believe that the American Age of Innocence has died, and it began to die following 9-11. The last three years is the turning point.

---

It began to die during the Vietnam war.

Quote:

---

Much like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, our experiences over the last 20 yrs, the political atmosphere of the last 3, and the on-going investigations into (more than likely) the criminal actions of some to take down our country has forever changed us, and the "American Experiment" as well. Remember, Ben Franklin warned us, "...if you can keep it."

And, just as the allegory concludes, we can't go back; we can't recapture that innocence, nor convince everyone that we should. The America in which we grew up has mutated; it is, and will be, different.

I don't think we will lose our country, but it will be different. And we can't go back. Walk on; and preserve our principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

---

We may not be able to capture our innocence, but there should be no reason we can't keep our Constitution in tact. Liberals and now even states are openly defying the Constitution. When we lose the Constitution, then yes. We will lose our country. The trend is STRONGLY towards changing or dumping the Constitution. The fact that politicians and states can defy the Constitution without consequence should tell you something. Unless you have any ideas of what will stop it, America the Free is done.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/27/joseph-mifsud-gave-deposition-john-durham-russia-g/

Quote:

---

.....
Mr. Mifsud is a subject on Mr. Durham's agenda. The Washington Times reported that Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, obtained two Mifsud BlackBerry cellphones. Stephan Roh, Mr. Mifsud's attorney, told The Times he provided the deposition recording to Mr. Durham's team in midsummer....
.....
In May 2018, Mr. Mifsud sat in Mr. Roh's law office in Zurich recounting his time as an academic traveling in Europe, from London to Rome to Paris to Moscow....
.....
Asked whether this is in the recording and an accompanying transcript,Mr. Roh said, "In relation to the LCILP, yes. Outside recordings, he explained us more."

LCILP is the now-defunct London Center of International Law Practice. It was the link that brought Mr. Mifsud together with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser and energy consultant.

Mr. Roh later wrote, "The LCILP was not 'real.' It was rather a cover-up for intelligence agents."

Mr. Mifsud was a director of the London center when Papadopoulos arrived....
.....
In May 2018, Mr. Mifsud spoke into a recorder in Zurich at the same time he signed over power of attorney to Mr. Roh. Mr. Roh said his client was living in Italy at the time.

Mr. Roh said he has had no direct or indirect communication with his client since special counsel Robert Mueller's report was released in March. The report branded Mr. Mifsud as an associate of sinister Russians.

"The recording outlines in general terms his work which he called 'track to diplomacy,'"Mr. Roh said. "Mifsud, non-recorded, but in front of our team, talked about some matters, missions and engagements."

Asked whether the audio recording was given to Mr. Durham, Mr. Roh said, "We provided the audio tape of Mifsud's declaration, and our own working transcript."...
.....
He (Roh) wrote a 2018 book about his and Mr. Mifsud's saga, "The Faking of Russia-Gate: The Papadopoulos Case." In the fall of 2017, arriving at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on a vacation with his wife and three children, the FBI and an "armed police force" awaited.

"There followed hours of interrogation and search by the FBI, a team of Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating Russia-Gate," Mr. Roh wrote. "Released, he and his family, during all their holiday stay in New York, were observed, followed and taped, at every moment and every place in New York, permitting a huge number of following FBI officers to enjoy the same tourist attractions as well. The family was assigned to special rooms at the hotel, and security personnel patrolled in the corridors."...
.....
Mr. Roh profiled Mr. Mifsud: "The Professor, who was wrongly and offensively styled as a shady and dark personality, suspected to be even a Russian spy, is an elder statesman, former foreign policy officer, European activist, a diplomat, but also a long serving academic, who was teaching at many European universities, being a political analyst and commentator, invitee at European, US and global think tanks, with international contacts on highest level. The Professor, most importantly, is an employee and a missionary of Clintonian and U.S. Democrats' institutions and a close co-operator and an 'asset' of Western intelligence services."...
.....
"Mifsud was deeply thankful with us for writing the book," he said. "Mifsud confirmed the content and appointed thereafter our law firm as his lawyers. We also understand that this book, which was distributed April 2018 to 400+ journalists and news outlets, helped to save Mifsud's life."...

---

.....


An interview + correspondence with Mifsud's lawyer, Stephan Roh, the latter who was 'interrogated +' by Team Mueller.

Quote:

---

The Professor, most importantly, is an employee and a missionary of Clintonian and U.S. Democrats' institutions and a close co-operator and an 'asset' of Western intelligence services."

---

Wish there was some more explanation of that "Clintonian" reference.

will25u said:

---

---

Of course they are appealing that decision. Judge Howell's rationale for her decision is inconsistent with the holding in McKeever case. That decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal judges have no inherent authority to release grand jury materials other than the exact exceptions contained in Rule 6(e) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Here's the rule. LINK

TexAgs91 said:

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

stetson said:

---

Had not heard of him. Thanks for the information. Unless conservatives go on offense as trump is doing, this country is lost.

---

They won't, and it will be.

---

Not to disagree with you, but to make a point...

So, are you saying we should ride this American plane all the way to the scene of the crash? And walk away to...?

---

I'm not saying anything like that. All I get is one vote though. More and more of the rest of the country seems to be just hunky dory with socialism and giving away our rights, like free speech etc.

I am saying after Trump wins (which I think he will in a landslide), there will not be anymore republicans who are willing to fight. I certainly hope I'm wrong on that, but I just don't see it. There's a few with some fight in them, but most are spineless and will sit there and watch as the dems push the country over the cliff.

Quote:

---

My point is I believe that the American Age of Innocence has died, and it began to die following 9-11. The last three years is the turning point.

---

It began to die during the Vietnam war.

Quote:

---

Much like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, our experiences over the last 20 yrs, the political atmosphere of the last 3, and the on-going investigations into (more than likely) the criminal actions of some to take down our country has forever changed us, and the "American Experiment" as well. Remember, Ben Franklin warned us, "...if you can keep it."

And, just as the allegory concludes, we can't go back; we can't recapture that innocence, nor convince everyone that we should. The America in which we grew up has mutated; it is, and will be, different.

I don't think we will lose our country, but it will be different. And we can't go back. Walk on; and preserve our principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

---

We may not be able to capture our innocence, but there should be no reason we can't keep our Constitution in tact. Liberals and now even states are openly defying the Constitution. When we lose the Constitution, then yes. We will lose our country. The trend is STRONGLY towards changing or dumping the Constitution. The fact that politicians and states can defy the Constitution without consequence should tell you something. Unless you have any ideas of what will stop it, America the Free is done.

---

Let's keep this thread on topic. Start a new one for this debate.

goatchze said:

---

Let's keep this thread on topic. Start a new one for this debate.

---

You mean about Mueller dismissing Strzok? No, I gotcha. Sorry for the deviation.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying anything like that. All I get is one vote though. More and more of the rest of the country seems to be just hunky dory with socialism and giving away our rights, like free speech etc.

I am saying after Trump wins (which I think he will in a landslide), there will not be anymore republicans who are willing to fight. I certainly hope I'm wrong on that, but I just don't see it. There's a few with some fight in them, but most are spineless and will sit there and watch as the dems push the country over the cliff.

Quote:

---

Much like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, our experiences over the last 20 yrs, the political atmosphere of the last 3, and the on-going investigations into (more than likely) the criminal actions of some to take down our country has forever changed us, and the "American Experiment" as well. Remember, Ben Franklin warned us, "...if you can keep it."

And, just as the allegory concludes, we can't go back; we can't recapture that innocence, nor convince everyone that we should. The America in which we grew up has mutated; it is, and will be, different.

I don't think we will lose our country, but it will be different. And we can't go back. Walk on; and preserve our principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

---

We may not be able to capture our innocence, but there should be no reason we can't keep our Constitution in tact. Liberals and now even states are openly defying the Constitution. When we lose the Constitution, then yes. We will lose our country. The trend is STRONGLY towards changing or dumping the Constitution. The fact that politicians and states can defy the Constitution without consequence should tell you something. Unless you have any ideas of what will stop it, America the Free is done.

---

As I said in my first sentence, I was not disagreeing with you, but your point provided a lane to make my point, that of not being able to go back to an America in which we grew up.

Quote:

---

It began to die during the Vietnam war.

---

I chose 9-11 as an inflection point because I had always felt that we were safe from an attack due to our geographical separation from potential enemies. Unlike Europe, which inherently had some common borders between aggressors and peace abiding nations. Germany and France, for instance. That was the point of lost innocence; that our very creation, use and continued evolution of technology, coupled with our ideals of individual freedom and pursuit of happiness made us vulnerable to a heinous attack. That was the loss of innocence of which I emphasized. Whether all of us agree with that, we as a free society gave up a tremendous amount of individual freedom and rights of privacy. All because of an expressed desire to "protect us".

Right.

As for Vietnam, we really need to go back into the late 40's when the CIA began to believe that they would be the best arbiters of what was safe. Not to get into conspiracy, but Project Bluebook comes to mind, Majestic12 does as well. All in the pursuit of protecting the American society from the unknown. Other than Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon and Commando Cody, all who whipped alien butt, scary alien stuff didn't appear in cinema until early 50's, I believe.

And MKULTRA? How about the drug radiation experiments? Bomb shelters? Air Raid drills?

Yeah, I'd go back pre-Vietnam for that but still, we had not yet experienced a direct attack on us, on our soil. Pearl Harbor? Wasn't a State yet, and the Japanese did not pursue it as conquest, merely to get an opposing force out of the way. But 9-11 WAS. Perhaps naivete is a better word.

I apologize if my words led you to believe that I wanted to go back to "innocence". We just cannot go back to "the way it was". We must walk on. And hold to our convictions.

Quote:

---

Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.

---

While there is some dispute as to the origin of the quote, Curran, Jefferson or Phillips, whatever, I think it is still true, and you have correctly translated it into our lack of that vigilance and willingness to sacrifice to keep that liberty.

All that said, I still agree with your critical point; perhaps a violent agreement, but agreement still. Thanks!

LINK

From WaPo so take the snark as the usual from them. But I hadn't heard about Ron Johnson doing an investigation.

Quote:

---

In an interview this week, Andrii Telizhenko said he met with Johnson (Wis.) for at least 30 minutes on Capitol Hill and with Senate staff for five additional hours. He said discussions focused in part on "the DNC issue" a reference to his unsubstantiated claim that the Democratic National Committee worked with the Ukrainian government in 2016 to gather incriminating information about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Telizhenko said he could not recall the date of the meeting, but a review of his

Facebook page revealed a photo of him and Johnson posted on July 11

---

Chasing down the Alexandra Chalupa story. Good.

But then there's this:

Quote:

---

More significantly, testimony from two blockbuster witnesses in the impeachment probe place Johnson at episodes that will be critical in assessing whether Trump was withholding nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced pressure to announce investigations into the Bidens and the debunked conspiracy theory that a hacked DNC server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that it was that country, not Russia, that interfered in the presidential election.

Johnson's knowledge of key events could make him a person of interest to House impeachment investigators, as well as complicate his role as a juror in a trial by the Senate, if one occurs. There are no rules forcing senators with possible conflicts of interest to recuse themselves during impeachment proceedings, and Johnson, through a spokesman, declined to comment on what he would do.

---

Recusal? As a fact witness? So the dumb Ukraine story is the basis for articles of impeachment under a theory of abuse of power?

Reading a tweet from Ivan Pentchoukov of Epoch Times that the judge in the Flynn case has cancelled the briefing on the motion to produce exculpatory evidence "in view of the parties comprehensive briefing".
Can the legal beagles decipher this?

nm

Abuse of an article 2 power? They appropriate funds. POTUS does foreign policy negotiation with it. The Dems are on very shaky ground if their fundamental argument is "the president made some of us look bad"

EKUAg said:

---

Reading a tweet from Ivan Pentchoukov of Epoch Times that the judge in the Flynn case has cancelled the briefing on the motion to produce exculpatory evidence "in view of the parties comprehensive briefing".
Can the legal beagles decipher this?

---

I'm no legal genius, but if I have any mastery of the English language, I'd say that a ****load of very compelling evidence was submitted in the briefing...

Quote:

---

More significantly, testimony from two blockbuster witnesses in the impeachment probe place Johnson at episodes that will be critical in assessing whether Trump was withholding nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced pressure to announce investigations into the Bidens and the debunked conspiracy theory that a hacked DNC server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that it was that country, not Russia, that interfered in the presidential election.

---

There was no announcement of investigations and there was no ultimate withholding of funds

Also, how was the "conspiracy theory" debunked exactly?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Abuse of an article 2 power? They appropriate funds. POTUS does foreign policy negotiation with it. The Dems are on very shaky ground if their fundamental argument is "the president made some of us look bad"

---

I didn't say it was a good argument but the only way I can see where Johnson would be a fact witness is if they proceeded in that direction. (And that would be just as risky for Schiff and his staffers who also went to Ukraine and met with Taylor. They could be called as witnesses too.)

EKUAg said:

---

Reading a tweet from Ivan Pentchoukov of Epoch Times that the judge in the Flynn case has cancelled the briefing on the motion to produce exculpatory evidence "in view of the parties comprehensive briefing".
Can the legal beagles decipher this?

---

Judge doesn't need to see additional legal authority, he just needs some factual evidence is my best guess. But Sidney didn't just file a motion to produce, she also filed for a show cause hearing as to why the prosecution should not be held in contempt of court. That would usually require the taking of some testimony, even if it is just the judge asking questions of the lawyers.

captkirk said:

---

Quote:

---

More significantly, testimony from two blockbuster witnesses in the impeachment probe place Johnson at episodes that will be critical in assessing whether Trump was withholding nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced pressure to announce investigations into the Bidens and the debunked conspiracy theory that a hacked DNC server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that it was that country, not Russia, that interfered in the presidential election.

---

There was no announcement of investigations and there was no ultimate withholding of funds

Also, how was the "conspiracy theory" debunked exactly?

---

Because everyone in the MSM is declaring it debunked, therefore, it is.

Kind of like the entire MSM declared Trump colluded with Russia or when the entire MSM declared Levin was crazy to assert Obama's Justice Department had a FISA warrant on someone associated with the Trump campaign.

Their declarations are facts, no proof necessary.

aggiehawg said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

Reading a tweet from Ivan Pentchoukov of Epoch Times that the judge in the Flynn case has cancelled the briefing on the motion to produce exculpatory evidence "in view of the parties comprehensive briefing".
Can the legal beagles decipher this?

---

Judge doesn't need to see additional legal authority, he just needs some factual evidence is my best guess. But Sidney didn't just file a motion to produce, she also filed for a show cause hearing as to why the prosecution should not be held in contempt of court. That would usually require the taking of some testimony, even if it is just the judge asking questions of the lawyers.

---

So is that a benefit to Flynn?

Maybe. Don't know yet. I have seen cases in the past where a federal judge just gets fed up and issues an order sua sponte without any further hearing. If that's what is happening with Sullivan, that would appear to be good for Flynn.

It is up to Judge Sullivan whether to hold a hearing, and how that hearing will proceed. So until there is a minute order entered that addresses it, we won't really know.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

They have moved "mainstream" thinking in their preferred direction using exactly this approach. Like boiling the frog...slow temperature increases make it acceptable; we don't mind, until the cumulative result is where we are...

---

And those of us who DO mind are quickly insulted and dismissed and powerless to make any difference.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure that I agree, but who knows. If there is a show cause motion included, I think it's very unlikely that the judge would find the prosecution in contempt without having a hearing and allowing them to explain. In fact, it might be reversible error.

But what do I know?

---

Sorry, I was unclear. As to the show cause motion, he can simply say, "Denied" and that's it. Not that he would hold them in contempt without a hearing.

As to the motion to dismiss and/or compel production, he can just rule without a hearing, in either direction as those are more questions of law and not fact.

I was involved on a case that was going to mediation and on the eve of mediation, the judge fired off a sua sponte order that basically told the defendants to settle the matter in mediation or he was going to give the Plaintiffs everything they wanted. It was settled the next day.

But here's the uncertainty with Judge Sullivan: there have been so many sealed filings and ex parte proceedings in this case, that we don't know what Sullivan has and hasn't seen. But he can make rulings on the basis of that evidence that is not in the public record. Even to the point where he potentially could have evidence to support holding the prosecution in criminal contempt. We just don't know what Sullivan has seen.

How tall is Sydney Powell? She seems to tower over everyone she's in a picture with

Edit: Internet says 6 feet. Add heels and she's tall

This a telling tweet....

Sidney seems awfully confident.

I guess we are about to find out what the Judge is made of

She sounds optimistic.

Just a friendly refresher.......

From Politico on Dec. 7, 2017:

Quote:

---

President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, will face a different judge to be sentenced than the one who took Flynn's guilty plea to a felony false statement charge last week, court records show.
Judge Emmet Sullivan was randomly assigned to take over the case after Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself.

A court spokeswoman confirmed to POLITICO that the reassignment was due to Contreras' recusal, but said the court generally does not disclose the reason that a judge begged off the case.

---

Sullivan replaces Contreras. Powell becomes Flynn's attorney. Sullivan and Powell were the prominent figures in "License to Lie."

How convenient.

Whatever happened to ol' Judge Contreras?

captkirk said:

---

Whatever happened to ol' Judge Contreras?

---

Still a judge and still on the FISC.

drcrinum said:

---

---

So...more meaningless delays. Again, not impressed with today's Justice System. It answers to no one while expediency and the people be damned...not to mention, it can bought by the wealthy/influential.

whatthehey78 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

So...more meaningless delays. Again, not impressed with today's Justice System. It answers to no one while expediency and the people be damned...not to mention, it can bought by the wealthy/influential.

---

A VERY cynical take. We don't know why the judge is delaying, so we can't really say it's "meaningless".

Understandably cynical perhaps, but we shall see....

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1188986728712998913.html

The latest whistleblower has come forward to testify before Schiff, Lt. Col. Vindman, a National Security Advisor who overheard Trump's call to the Ukraine. He is likely the one who fed information to Schiff's original whistleblower. Of course its a paywalled article in the New York Slimes, but above is a thread which dissects the article in rather unkind terms.

Just for references, if you want to check with the transcript of what Trump said vs this chap, here is the pdf:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf