Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,558,157 Views | 49302 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by policywonk98
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:50p, 1/14/18
Now this is a bit of a reach but this is something to think about. I think Bill Priestap was turned when Comey threw him indirectly under the bus, after he was fired and then called before the Judiciary Oversight Committee. I'm sure we all remember the famous March 20th 2017 under oath congressional testimony where Comey bragged about the memos and giving them to his buddy to give to the press, etc etc., but more important Comey was asked why then he being the FBI chief, did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016. Pay close attention now, Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating then candidate Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. This is a VERY important detail. Deliberately Comey doesn't call Priestap by name, but he only refers to him by position and title. Specifically oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence Gang of Eight of any and all counterintelligence operations. Gang of Eight has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. So in July 2016 at the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight, and they were completely blacked out of this so called "counterintelligence" investigation, and Comey indirectly threw Bill Priestap under the bus without calling him by name. I think then and there, that Bill Priestap went into survival mode. I think he went straight to Horowitz and started laying the groundwork to save his own ass. He has been absent for the most part of all these open hearings, other than being briefly mentioned. He pretty much went underground since March 2017. It's just a theory and it's a bit of a reach, but I'm going to stay along these lines until I see something different. I'd mentioned it back on page 37 of this thread when I was in the penalty box for bumping threads, and I still believe it.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/50961223
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Olegraysock • 11:50p, 1/14/18
Olegraysock said:
Mark my words Priestap is going to have a much bigger role in this. He's been flying under the radar in all this partially.
Still applies
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 12:06a, 1/15/18
Bobcat06 said:
One thing I don't get:

If FBI was working with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike(?) back in April 2016 to surveil Trump (and other candidates?) and collect data that eventually went into the Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant, why get a FISA warrant?

A FISA warrant just lets them do what they were already doing. Why go thru the motion to get one?
Because if they don't get a FISA warrant they are in DIRECT violation of the 4th amendment, and they will go to jail if it is proven they are surveilling US Citizens without FISA in place to justify the "incidental capture" which is BS anyway. There's no such thing as "incidental capture"

If what is being reported is to be believed, they were using Steele/FGPS/Crowdstrike as a cutout to surveil the Trump campaign using the NSA fiber and methods. That is some really sketchy stuff right there. It circumvents the FISA court and is a completely different argument on whether it violates the 4th Amendment. IMHO is does, but lawyers have ways of changing the way that is perceived.

Without FISA in place in order to surveil the Trump campaign they'd have to get a standard warrant which would include them having to show probable cause. Tougher to get and harder to keep it under wraps that they are targeting a presidential campaign.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
4
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 12:22a, 1/15/18
AG
Bobcat06 said:
One thing I don't get:

If FBI was working with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike(?) back in April 2016 to surveil Trump (and other candidates?) and collect data that eventually went into the Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant, why get a FISA warrant?

A FISA warrant just lets them do what they were already doing. Why go thru the motion to get one?
Mike Rogers cut off access to the honeypot in March 2016 (may have been april) after seeing that it was getting totally abused by the FBI and their lackeys. So they needed to go get access to the database again, and that was why they needed to create the Steele Dossier.

I also think I read somewhere that there was a way to retroactively make their pre-April 2016 spying legal by getting the FISA warrant.
Reply Quote
1
Bobcat06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 12:27a, 1/15/18
AG
reb, said:
Bobcat06 said:
One thing I don't get:

If FBI was working with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike(?) back in April 2016 to surveil Trump (and other candidates?) and collect data that eventually went into the Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant, why get a FISA warrant?

A FISA warrant just lets them do what they were already doing. Why go thru the motion to get one?
Mike Rogers cut off access to the honeypot in March 2016 (may have been april) after seeing that it was getting totally abused by the FBI and their lackeys. So they needed to go get access to the database again, and that was why they needed to create the Steele Dossier.

I also think I read somewhere that there was a way to retroactively make their pre-April 2016 spying legal by getting the FISA warrant.
Roger's audit of 702 abuse was around 20 October 2016, not March/April. I believe the FISA warrant was issued on October 6
Reply Quote
1
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 1:00a, 1/15/18
AG
Bobcat06 said:
reb, said:
Bobcat06 said:
One thing I don't get:

If FBI was working with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike(?) back in April 2016 to surveil Trump (and other candidates?) and collect data that eventually went into the Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant, why get a FISA warrant?

A FISA warrant just lets them do what they were already doing. Why go thru the motion to get one?
Mike Rogers cut off access to the honeypot in March 2016 (may have been april) after seeing that it was getting totally abused by the FBI and their lackeys. So they needed to go get access to the database again, and that was why they needed to create the Steele Dossier.

I also think I read somewhere that there was a way to retroactively make their pre-April 2016 spying legal by getting the FISA warrant.
Roger's audit of 702 abuse was around 20 October 2016, not March/April. I believe the FISA warrant was issued on October 6
This is what I was thinking of. So my mistake, only off by a year...I meant April 2017.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/12/the-fix/

Quote:
NSA Director Admiral Rogers took specific action to stop FISA-702(17) "About Queries" and posted the NSA notification in April 2017.
Reply Quote
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 1:05a, 1/15/18
AG
reb, said:
Has to be FBI since DOJ folk aren't referred to as agents I don't believe. Technically FBI folk are "special agents" but whatevs.

"Himself", so, male. Strzok or McCabe?



British "agent", duh! STEELE!

I hate to bring up the Q thing on this thread again but Steele wouldn't necessarily jive with the coded message section that goes:

"WHO IS TALKING?
THINK BIG.
THINK BIGGER.
THINK BIGGEST".

If that segment even refers to this. I wouldn't necessarily believe Jack either on the fact something is going on, he may have been asked to tweet this just to rattle the cages of the corrupted DOJ/FBI to get one to break. Which is definitely worth a try, if you are the good guys, considering it would be a "free" attempt to psych them out and force them to make a gutcheck re-evaluation of the prisoner's dilemma. So who knows whats really going on.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:12a, 1/15/18
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:28a, 1/15/18
Steele isn't an agent he's just a political hack that works for FGPS. His agent days are over...

Bill Priestap is the FBI Director of Counterintelligence
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
5
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RoscoePColtrane • 1:38a, 1/15/18
AG
RoscoePColtrane said:
Steele isn't an agent he's just a political hack that works for FGPS. His agent days are over...

Bill Priestap is the FBI Director of Counterintelligence
Former agent, current agent, I don't think it matters here.

Anyway, per this guy on quora who claims to be a criminal justice professor, the FBI Director is not even a special agent, so that would rule out Comey since he's a former FBI Director, it would seem. There's no way Jack would refer to him as an "agent".

https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-does-a-FBI-director-have-Is-he-superior-to-local-police

https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure

So is the Assistant Director of CI of the National Security Branch an agent? Or could it be the "agent" Jack is referring to?
Reply Quote
4 edits
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 2:02a, 1/15/18
I'm sticking with it being Priestap as I explained above
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
7
reb,
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RoscoePColtrane • 5:00a, 1/15/18
AG
RoscoePColtrane said:
I'm sticking with it being Priestap as I explained above
It's a solid bet. Did some more searching and thinking on him, and this page was helpful

https://americandigitalnews.com/2017/12/15/fbis-bill-priestap-important/



Quote:
12/2015 FBI Director James B. Comey named E.W. "Bill" Priestap as the assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, D.C. Mr. Priestap most recently served as the deputy assistant director of the Intelligence Operations Branch in the Directorate of Intelligence at FBIHQ.


Interesting to note that the dude was running the New York counterintelligence office starting in 2013. New York is a notable location as that is in proximity to Hillary Clinton's residence in Chappaqua. It was in 2015 that the Hillary email scandal hit. Given that there are obvious national security concerns with the former secretary of state having a private email server that was ripe for attack for everyone from your run-of-the-mill script kiddy to state actor advanced persistent threats, it seems logical that Priestap, the head of Counter-Intelligence in New York, would be very involved in that investigation. No doubt that he is familiar with Huma Abedin because of her problematic husband Anthony Weiner, who had Hillary emails on his laptop. The FBI investigated that laptop then and currently still has it. That means Priestap was (likely) involved. And then in December 2015, Comey brings Priestap from New York to Washington. Why?

Was it not the New York FBI office (that Priestap recently vacated) that got shut out of investigating Hillary's emails so the investigation could be run from FBI HQ instead, what Andrew McCabe called a "HQ Special"? Was it not deemed to be outside normal procedures for an FBI investigation to do this, as SOP would have been to let the New York office handle the email scandal? Was the investigation basically MOVED to Washington along with Priestap? Did anyone else come with? Where was Strzok at this time?

Was Bill Priestap's appointment by Comey to Assistant Director of CounterIntelligence in the National Security Branch a result of, or because of his familiarity with the email scandal? We know that the Washington office, with all our bad actors (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, etc), is where the Hillary investigation was being run out of. Was Priestap brought to Washington to run point on it, AS IF he was still in New York, with the difference being he was under the watchful eye of Comey and McCabe?

The time and place of important events happening seem to line up in a way with the time and place of where ol Bill Priestap was. He is always exactly where the bad **** is happening with Hillary and the email scandal. I bet his fingerprints are all over that investigation.
Reply Quote
10
5 edits
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:48a, 1/15/18


Someone or group of individuals must have been living at the FBI headquarters.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
stetson
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:00a, 1/15/18
AG
The key to this are the subcontractors, e.g., Crowdstrike, Fusion GPS. Who recommended that they become subcontractors to the FBI and why and who approved it?
Reply Quote
2
benchmark
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:18a, 1/15/18
AG
Bobcat06 said:
Roger's audit of 702 abuse was around 20 October 2016, not March/April. I believe the FISA warrant was issued on October 6
reb, said:
This is what I was thinking of. So my mistake, only off by a year...I meant April 2017.
FBI's abuse of FISA-702 first came to light in March/April 2016 per DOJ's oversight report on March 9, 2016. As a result, the FBI suspending private contractor access to raw FISA data on April 18, 2016. So it's reasonable to assume this oversight reprimand resulted in the FBI attempting to cover their tracks with FISA court approvals and later using the Steele dossier as probable cause.
Reply Quote
6
drcrinum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to benchmark • 7:58a, 1/15/18
benchmark said:
Bobcat06 said:
Roger's audit of 702 abuse was around 20 October 2016, not March/April. I believe the FISA warrant was issued on October 6
reb, said:
This is what I was thinking of. So my mistake, only off by a year...I meant April 2017.
FBI's abuse of FISA-702 first came to light in March/April 2016 per DOJ's oversight report on March 9, 2016. As a result, the FBI suspending private contractor access to raw FISA data on April 18, 2016. So it's reasonable to assume this oversight reprimand resulted in the FBI attempting to cover their tracks with FISA court approvals and later using the Steele dossier as probable cause.
Don't forget the "insurance" aspect...it all ties together.
Reply Quote
5
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to reb, • 7:58a, 1/15/18
AG
reb, said:
I'm definitely willing to believe he's dirty as hell but as yet he's been skating by without his name being implicated in anything besides his proximity though...right?
Wrong.

Comey testified that he hid the investigation into the Trump campaign from Congressional oversight on Priestap's recommendation. (Although Comey used his position and did not use his name, it was Priestap.)
Reply Quote
4
benchmark
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:12a, 1/15/18
AG
aggiehawg said:
Comey testified that he hid the investigation into the Trump campaign from Congressional oversight on Priestap's recommendation. (Although Comey used his position and did not use his name, it was Priestap.)
Based only on Comey's March 2017 testimony, if I were Priestap I'd be squealing like a stuck pig (hawg pun intended). Hence Priestap's glaring absence from Congressional hearings.
Reply Quote
5
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:24a, 1/15/18
aggiehawg said:
reb, said:
I'm definitely willing to believe he's dirty as hell but as yet he's been skating by without his name being implicated in anything besides his proximity though...right?
Wrong.

Comey testified that he hid the investigation into the Trump campaign from Congressional oversight on Priestap's recommendation. (Although Comey used his position and did not use his name, it was Priestap.)
And as I wrote in my midnight ramblings last night, I think that is when Preistap went into survival mode.

The only hearing I can find involving this entire mess, in which Priestap actually appeared was when he appeared in June last year with Manfra and Liles centered on Russia meddling. Regardless of the number of attempts by the democratic members of the committee to try and inject DJT into the conversation, they (Manfra, Liles and Priestap) avoided going down that rabbit hole, and stuck to the topic at hand. Heinrich on multiple attempts tried to pigeon hole Priestap into acknowledging or even commenting on whether or not candidate Trump helped Russia meet its goals of delegitimizing our elections with his claims that the election was rigged, in other words, was an "unwitting agent" of Russia. They tried from all angles to get Priestap to bite and he never would.

To see he was purposely careful, and none of the members EVER pressed Liles or Manfra on the same line of questioning, which I really find curious. When it came to Liles and Manfra, they stuck strictly to policy wonka stuff and facts and figures. They never tried to get them to speculate on the POTUS or the candidate Trump. It was amazing to watch. It's almost like the left knew or at least thought they knew that Priestap was a team(left) player and he dummied up on them, and it was obviously very deliberate. Either he was in full court defense/survival mode or he was instructed by the IG or mueller to not go down those lines of questioning or fall for a trap in their questioning. Now we are talking about the Asst Dir or Counterintelligence so he is no rookie to interrogations and this type of questioning and handled it just like he had been trained.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RoscoePColtrane • 8:44a, 1/15/18
AG
Quote:
And as I wrote in my midnight ramblings last night, I think that is when Preistap went into survival mode.
That may be true. And if not then, certainly when Comey just blithely announced he had created "memos" of his conversations and leaked them to the press through his friend, the Professor. Comey had a reputation as a prodigious note-taker. Not a stretch to conclude he would have kept notes of conversations with other people, including Priestap.

And we have never been afforded further explanation of what was going on with Lynch and DOJ that Comey was upset about before the tango on the tarmac became the "last brick" for him. Did he also chronicle those??
Reply Quote
2
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:26a, 1/15/18
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
And as I wrote in my midnight ramblings last night, I think that is when Preistap went into survival mode.
That may be true. And if not then, certainly when Comey just blithely announced he had created "memos" of his conversations and leaked them to the press through his friend, the Professor. Comey had a reputation as a prodigious note-taker. Not a stretch to conclude he would have kept notes of conversations with other people, including Priestap.

And we have never been afforded further explanation of what was going on with Lynch and DOJ that Comey was upset about before the tango on the tarmac became the "last brick" for him. Did he also chronicle those??
See I have heard the same thing from multiple sources that he was known as a note taker. Yet when asked did he take notes on any meetings other than those with Trump, he said no he had not. And they asked even about Lynch specifically and he said he didn't. Very strange indeed
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RoscoePColtrane • 9:49a, 1/15/18
AG
Quote:
See I have heard the same thing from multiple sources that he was known as a note taker. Yet when asked did he take notes on any meetings other than those with Trump, he said no he had not. And they asked even about Lynch specifically and he said he didn't. Very strange indeed
My guess is not that Comey thought he was truly lying about never taking notes or creating "memos" to himself after the event but that he considered those as different from the ones involving Trump. He made the distinction between "work related", i.e. government records and his personal documents which he claimed the memos were, his personal property.

They weren't of course but he had them compartmentalized in his mind in that manner. Comey is so ideologically driven and egomaniacal in his belief he can never do anything wrong, the cognitive dissonance is lost on him.
Reply Quote
8
VaultingChemist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:45a, 1/15/18
AG
Interesting perspective on Priestap from December:

Priestap
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
backintexas2013
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:58a, 1/15/18
AG
Is the IG report due out today
Reply Quote
GCP12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to backintexas2013 • 11:01a, 1/15/18
AG
backintexas2013 said:
Is the IG report due out today
I believe that Congress is receiving the rest of the documents today, adding to the ones they received Friday. I have not seen confirmation of when a public report will be released.
Reply Quote
2
Bobcat06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GCP12 • 11:09a, 1/15/18
AG
Public release is somewhere in Feb-March, but everyone expects some Congress critter to leak it first
Reply Quote
4
RoscoePColtrane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 11:54a, 1/15/18
Bobcat06 said:
Public release is somewhere in Feb-March, but everyone expects some Congress critter to leak it first
Nunes and Schiff have had their hands on the IG investigation since Friday. They have also both had their hands on the DoJ documents for over a week. Notice how Schiff has been radio silent on the contents. If it were anything derogatory on the POTUS he's have CNN printed copies. Mind you this is the guy that was giving CNN live updates on a closed session hearings.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Reply Quote
7
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobcat06 • 11:58a, 1/15/18
AG
I'm curious to see how many **** filled anvils the IG report drops on the collective heads of the media and members of the obama administration.

Now that I think about it, it really wouldn't shock me if the DNC was using subcontractors (Fusion GPS) to launder information from the NSA/FBI to the DNC, repackage the information to make the DNC look good, and then pay every media outlet possible to run the material.

The media angle makes sense: the senior levels are in it to make money, and if subscription and ad revenue are lagging, why not fill the cash flow void with money from the DNC? At the more junior levels, journalists seem to be nearly unanimously aligned with leftist DNC-supported political views.
Reply Quote
5
SeMgCo87
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GCP12 • 11:59a, 1/15/18
AG
GCP12 said:
backintexas2013 said:
Is the IG report due out today
I believe that Congress is receiving the rest of the documents today, adding to the ones they received Friday. I have not seen confirmation of when a public report will be released.
It is, as Hawg pointed out to me, MLK day.

As it is a Fed Holiday, I doubt anything is happening; being passed or received.

Didn't some documents get released/delivered last Friday?
Reply Quote
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:05p, 1/15/18
AG
If I was the IG, I would have told Schiff and Nunes that if any of this report end up at CNN, that he would release the entire report to the public immediately. Maybe this would slow down pencil necks leaks to CNN.
Reply Quote
3
SpreadsheetAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SeMgCo87 • 12:09p, 1/15/18
AG
SeMgCo87 said:
GCP12 said:
backintexas2013 said:
Is the IG report due out today
I believe that Congress is receiving the rest of the documents today, adding to the ones they received Friday. I have not seen confirmation of when a public report will be released.
It is, as Hawg pointed out to me, MLK day.

As it is a Fed Holiday, I doubt anything is happening; being passed or received.

Didn't some documents get released/delivered last Friday?
I would expect tonight's 24-hour news stations (CNN, FoxNews, etc.) will have what you'd normally see on a Sunday - a kickoff to the week of upcoming "bombshells"
Reply Quote
2
Bird Poo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rockdoc • 12:10p, 1/15/18
AG
Rockdoc said:
If I was the IG, I would have told Schiff and Nunes that if any of this report end up at CNN, that he would release the entire report to the public immediately. Maybe this would slow down pencil necks leaks to CNN.
What's the harm in releasing the full report publicly? We're paying for it!
Reply Quote
1
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bird Poo • 12:12p, 1/15/18
AG
OneNightW said:
Rockdoc said:
If I was the IG, I would have told Schiff and Nunes that if any of this report end up at CNN, that he would release the entire report to the public immediately. Maybe this would slow down pencil necks leaks to CNN.
What's the harm in releasing the full report publicly? We're paying for it!
I think they should release it now. But pencil neck Schiff would just leak what he wants out before the full report comes out.
Reply Quote
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to gazelle01 • 12:13p, 1/15/18
AG
gazelle01 said:
BenFiasco14 said:
But the libs told us this was a completely clean and non partisan "investigation"?
Yes, he was REMOVED from the investigation last summer, after it barely had even begun, yet this somehow proves the investigation was partisan?!

Great analysis, OP.
I'm sure you're still standing by this dumb comment, but I was curious if, after 40 plus pages of discussion and revelations, you'd like to go on the record again?
Reply Quote
4
stetson
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:24p, 1/15/18
AG
So, what anti-Trump "breaking story" will the media announce as suppressive fire/distraction ahead of the IG report?

Can someone please post a link to that Excel spreadsheet timeline?
Reply Quote
1
First Page Last Page
Page 44 of 1409 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.