aezmvp said:

---

TexAgsAnon said:

---

For me it's Gowdy's praise of Comey. From what we know today, Comey looks like a traitor. What does Gowdy know to make him think otherwise?

---

I think Gowdy is afraid of pushing this line too far. Once leaders in Congress start calling these people traitors, which for the record they may be, then we start crossing lines it's hard to back down from.

It seems pretty clear that Gowdy thinks of himself as a statesman. And there are a lot of lines that have been crossed. Look at the Scalise/baseball field assassination attempt. That rhetoric, coming from someone like himself will push things further down that road and I think he really wants to avoid that. Just a guess, but a good one I bet.

---

Trey Gowdy is a decent person and a really good litigator. However Gowdy has a blind spot, and it the DOJ. The DOJ is like the girl he lost his virginity to. No matter how crappy she becomes or no matter what she does, he will remain loyal to her. This past week is the first time I can recall in his career that he had anything slightly derogatory in the direction of the DoJ. So for him to take that step what he's seen and can't talk about is scary.

I think the current turn of events is what made him step down from the ethics committee, I think he's given up on ethics

I cannot imagine a scenario where Comey is a white hat...

VaultingChemist said:

---

Did Mueller make a deal with Trump, Rosenstein, and Sessions before he was appointed? Who has more dirt on whom.....Mueller or Trump?

---

Well, we know Strzok didn't think there was much on trump and he had been investigating him for over a year. I have a hard time believing there is any considerable dirt on trump. If there was, we'd know about it.

Trust me, I have a hard time imagining it too. The videos anon linked to are interesting, though. And his behavior during his testimony and since being fired is so bizarre, I just wonder if it's not just a massive distraction to keep the black hats from realizing it.

GCP12 said:

---

I will also add that Comey's tweeting make me lean to him being a white hat. I mean, this can't be serious, right? I don't think even trump has quoted himself in a tweet

---

Remind me again why Comey reopened the Hillary investigation, er, matter?

Tailgate88 said:

---

Proc92 said:

---

These recovered texts is a set up. Been cleaned up and their production will be splashed all across the msm will Be a big nothing burger.

---

I hope they match the ones the NSA has.

---

Exactly. Thank you.

GCP12 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Did Mueller make a deal with Trump, Rosenstein, and Sessions before he was appointed? Who has more dirt on whom.....Mueller or Trump?

---

Well, we know Strzok didn't think there was much on trump and he had been investigating him for over a year. I have a hard time believing there is any considerable dirt on trump. If there was, we'd know about it.

---

Not only Strzok but all surveillance going back God knows how many years and nothing substantial except Access Hollywood tape and what, two scoops of ice cream?

Mueller is totally all in on obstruction now. He's gonna crap when trump says "I fired them because I wanted to, and I like saying, YOURE FIRED"

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

Interesting article about Mueller being on Trump's side

Biggest Sting in History

Quote:

---

Trump's famous "because you'd be in jail" line is constantly rotated throughout the Internet via memes and videos on social media to this day; however, what many seem to have forgotten is the first part of Trump's statement: he promised to assign a special prosecutor to look into Clinton's crimes.

Fast forward to May 16, President Trump is now in the White House and meets with Robert Mueller. CNN reported that Trump interviewed him as a potential replacement for fired FBI Director James Comey.

So what was the meeting really about? I believe Trump was finalizing his decision to appoint Mueller as his special prosecutor to investigate Clinton. Don't believe it? Keep reading.

---

unmade bed said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

---

A few things...

How do you know that Rice has a clearance? It's not exactly public knowledge, or at least it shouldn't be. In fact, anyone that has one shouldn't let uncleared people know they have one.

Also, why would she need a clearance? You don't just get to have one "because". You actually have to have a need to access classified information in order to have one. What is she doing now that requires access to classified information?

BTW, McMaster wouldn't be in charge of renewing a clearance. That's done by one of the security agencies tasked with that (there's several of them depending upon what kind of clearance you're needing).

Troll on!

It's not worth it. The poster Never answers any questions. Just straight deflection. I guess if an idiot like Schiff was on the side I was defending I would deflect too.

backintexas2013 said:

---

It's not worth it. The poster Never answers any questions. Just straight deflection. I guess if an idiot like Schiff was on the side I was defending I would deflect too.

---

How and why the mods here allow this continual trolling and deflection is beyond me. Just one reason I quit paying for stars after a decade plus.

I am talking about your history in general not this one post. You got posts deleted for trolling so it's prettyy clear you are seen as one.

I don't know if you guys are calling me a troll or not (probably, that along with "lib" seems to be the names posters get called for posting things that don't fall 100% in line with the prevailing world view of the posters on this forum), but I wasn't "trolling."

I was directly responding to another poster who was pontificating that perhaps the info Nunes saw at the white house was the basis for the Nunes memo and that Schiff couldn't respond because he had never seen the info.

I simply posted a couple of facts. #1 Schiff has seen that info. And #2 McMaster and Trump's NSC have seen the info as well, and having seen it, they still granted Rice continued high level security clearance. It seems that if that info is the info that is the basis of Nunes' memo, it's doubtful that Rice would retain security clearance if her actions were "worse than watergate" or "destructive to very pillars of democracy our country is built upon" etc etc as the activity in the Memo apparently is.

So I think it's plausible to rule out the white house info given to Nunes last March as being the basis for this Nunes memo. Hence my post.

Sorry for confusing Ags with Kids by just typing McMaster as short hand and not specifying the National Security Council, yes I realize McMaster personally is not tasked with reviewing, renewing, and granting security clearance. I will try to be more clear if that is what caused my post to be a "troll."

Nobody is calling you a troll.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

---

A few things...

How do you know that Rice has a clearance? It's not exactly public knowledge, or at least it shouldn't be. In fact, anyone that has one shouldn't let uncleared people know they have one.

Also, why would she need a clearance? You don't just get to have one "because". You actually have to have a need to access classified information in order to have one. What is she doing now that requires access to classified information?

BTW, McMaster wouldn't be in charge of renewing a clearance. That's done by one of the security agencies tasked with that (there's several of them depending upon what kind of clearance you're needing).

---

Google?

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/03/politics/susan-rice-keeps-top-secret-security-clearance-hr-mcmaster-letter-says

---

Awesome fake letter.

They need to work harder on the letterhead though so it looks a bit more official.

Ag with kids said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

---

A few things...

How do you know that Rice has a clearance? It's not exactly public knowledge, or at least it shouldn't be. In fact, anyone that has one shouldn't let uncleared people know they have one.

Also, why would she need a clearance? You don't just get to have one "because". You actually have to have a need to access classified information in order to have one. What is she doing now that requires access to classified information?

BTW, McMaster wouldn't be in charge of renewing a clearance. That's done by one of the security agencies tasked with that (there's several of them depending upon what kind of clearance you're needing).

---

Google?

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/03/politics/susan-rice-keeps-top-secret-security-clearance-hr-mcmaster-letter-says

---

Awesome fake letter.

They need to work harder on the letterhead though so it looks a bit more official.

---

So you are accusing Sara Carter of putting out fake info? Interesting

unmade bed said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

---

A few things...

How do you know that Rice has a clearance? It's not exactly public knowledge, or at least it shouldn't be. In fact, anyone that has one shouldn't let uncleared people know they have one.

Also, why would she need a clearance? You don't just get to have one "because". You actually have to have a need to access classified information in order to have one. What is she doing now that requires access to classified information?

BTW, McMaster wouldn't be in charge of renewing a clearance. That's done by one of the security agencies tasked with that (there's several of them depending upon what kind of clearance you're needing).

---

Google?

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/03/politics/susan-rice-keeps-top-secret-security-clearance-hr-mcmaster-letter-says

---

Awesome fake letter.

They need to work harder on the letterhead though so it looks a bit more official.

---

So you are accusing Sara Carter of putting out fake info? Interesting

---

I have no ****ing idea who Sara Carter is.

I just know that the letterhead from that "letter" is fake as **** if it's from the White House.

This is the kind of **** that got Dan Rather fired...

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Question: How do you know Rice has clearance?

Answer: Here is a link.

That's trolling? You guys are pretty sensitive.

---

Oh....you just need a link? It doesn't even need to be verified or relevant?

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

My 65 year old motor skills work slower than my pea brain..

---

My 59 year old skills are hampered by my increasing loss of eyesight. Need a cornea transplant at some point in the future. (Genetic issue.)

Guess we are even.

---

Whitsett Vision Group - Houston - Jeffrey Whitsett

May be worth the trip

unmade bed said:

---

I don't know if you guys are calling me a troll or not (probably, that along with "lib" seems to be the names posters get called for posting things that don't fall 100% in line with the prevailing world view of the posters on this forum), but I wasn't "trolling."

I was directly responding to another poster who was pontificating that perhaps the info Nunes saw at the white house was the basis for the Nunes memo and that Schiff couldn't respond because he had never seen the info.

I simply posted a couple of facts. #1 Schiff has seen that info. And #2 McMaster and Trump's NSC have seen the info as well, and having seen it, they still granted Rice continued high level security clearance. It seems that if that info is the info that is the basis of Nunes' memo, it's doubtful that Rice would retain security clearance if her actions were "worse than watergate" or "destructive to very pillars of democracy our country is built upon" etc etc as the activity in the Memo apparently is.

So I think it's plausible to rule out the white house info given to Nunes last March as being the basis for this Nunes memo. Hence my post.

Sorry for confusing Ags with Kids by just typing McMaster as short hand and not specifying the National Security Council, yes I realize McMaster personally is not tasked with reviewing, renewing, and granting security clearance. I will try to be more clear if that is what caused my post to be a "troll."

---

NSC doesn't issue/renew clearances either.

hth

Ag with kids said:

---

This is the kind of **** that got Dan Rather fired...

---

That actually does look like a facsimile of the official WH letterhead with the seal cropped out. Here's the pic Q posted yesterday (wed.) which shows the letterhead...

boulderaggie said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

This is the kind of **** that got Dan Rather fired...

---

That actually does look like a facsimile of the official WH letterhead with the seal cropped out. Here's the pic Q posted yesterday (wed.) which shows the letterhead...

---

No...no, it doesn't...

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

---

A few things...

How do you know that Rice has a clearance? It's not exactly public knowledge, or at least it shouldn't be. In fact, anyone that has one shouldn't let uncleared people know they have one.

Also, why would she need a clearance? You don't just get to have one "because". You actually have to have a need to access classified information in order to have one. What is she doing now that requires access to classified information?

BTW, McMaster wouldn't be in charge of renewing a clearance. That's done by one of the security agencies tasked with that (there's several of them depending upon what kind of clearance you're needing).

---

Google?

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/03/politics/susan-rice-keeps-top-secret-security-clearance-hr-mcmaster-letter-says

---

Awesome fake letter.

They need to work harder on the letterhead though so it looks a bit more official.

---

So you are accusing Sara Carter of putting out fake info? Interesting

---

I have no ****ing idea who Sara Carter is.

I just know that the letterhead from that "letter" is fake as **** if it's from the White House.

---

Ok, well interesting take. I guess you haven't been keeping up in this thread if you have no clue who Sara Carter is.

Maybe you did sniff out a forgery. If so, most of the MSM was duped by it back in August, as were sites like Breitbart and FreeBeacon, a ton of political blogs, and even guys like Sean Hannity who went after McMaster over it. I guess they may have all been tricked, and 5 months later you spot the obvious fake document. Strange that the White House never challenges the authenticity of the letter though.

unmade bed said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

No idea what this means

---

Further read on his thread that the source very well could be the documents that Nunes saw at the White House SCIF in March 2017. Schiff was invited but refused to go see them.

---

Schiff saw the white house docs that Nunes was touting last year. McMaster saw them too. McMaster has since renewed Susan Rice's security clearance which might say a little something about how serious he thought the "nefarious" unmasking requests were.

---

A few things...

How do you know that Rice has a clearance? It's not exactly public knowledge, or at least it shouldn't be. In fact, anyone that has one shouldn't let uncleared people know they have one.

Also, why would she need a clearance? You don't just get to have one "because". You actually have to have a need to access classified information in order to have one. What is she doing now that requires access to classified information?

BTW, McMaster wouldn't be in charge of renewing a clearance. That's done by one of the security agencies tasked with that (there's several of them depending upon what kind of clearance you're needing).

---

Google?

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/03/politics/susan-rice-keeps-top-secret-security-clearance-hr-mcmaster-letter-says

---

Awesome fake letter.

They need to work harder on the letterhead though so it looks a bit more official.

---

So you are accusing Sara Carter of putting out fake info? Interesting

---

I have no ****ing idea who Sara Carter is.

I just know that the letterhead from that "letter" is fake as **** if it's from the White House.

---

Ok, well interesting take. I guess you haven't been keeping up in this thread if you have no clue who Sara Carter is.

Maybe you did sniff out a forgery. If so, most of the MSM was duped by it back in August, as were sites like Breitbart and FreeBeacon, a ton of political blogs, and even guys like Sean Hannity who went after McMaster over it. I guess they may have all been tricked, and 5 months later you spot the obvious fake document. Strange that the White House never challenges the authenticity of the letter though.

---

That document is fake.

It's even worse than the Dan Rather "Memogate" document...

Tailgate88 said:

---

I cannot imagine a scenario where Comey is a white hat...

---

I can't figure Comey out either. And this quote from stetson:

Quote:

---

Remind me again why Comey reopened the Hillary investigation, er, matter?

---

I don't know if Comey was "trying" to play it neutral and just failing miserably, or if he is just delusional or what.
Remember, Hillary and the Dems basically blamed her loss on Comey reopening the email investigation a week or two before the election.

Which brings up stetson's quote above. Did Comey feel guilty that he let his team (strzok) re-word the memo to let Hillary off the hook? Was this his version of a "do-over" to get it right? Was he playing it straight and thought he missed something and the new emails would have some dirt? In this bizarro time we live in he has gone from the Dems wanting him dead to the Dems thinking he is a knight in shining armor in the space of six months. I have no idea what is going on in Comey's head.

GCP12 said:

---

I will also add that Comey's tweeting make me lean to him being a white hat. I mean, this can't be serious, right? I don't think even trump has quoted himself in a tweet

---

Comey's a Mushroom Hat. Different category entirely.

There was an article about how Comey has no choice to reopen it because people were talking about AW's computer. The article had timelines and everything. Let me see if I can find it.