RoscoePColtrane said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

---

Glad you posted that video. Very interesting discussions & info.

Ratcliffe brought out that the Schiff Memo contains sources and methods, so that is going to be a problem to address at the HPSIC. Perhaps it will lead to declassifying and releasing all the documents, but Ratcliffe made the comparison of condensing 4 phone books into the 4 page Memo, so it sounds like there is a huge pile of source & methods documents.

One other thing popped into my mind: That Isikoff letter from September 23, 2016 that was the supporting 'document' for the dossier as presented to the FISA Court -- could Isikoff have been one of the journalists that was on the payroll of Fusion GPS; i.e., a journalist paid to publish a story by Fusion GPS. We know there apparently were some such journalists as well as media outlets. I've got my suspicion antenna up.

FriscoKid said:

---

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

1:08 mark about Rosenstein

---

Holy **** if true that rosenstein threatened intelligence committee members he would subpoena their text messages and emails because he was tired of their investigation.

---

Well, that's a huge nugget!

---

Now another source has come forward.

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

---

Glad you posted that video. Very interesting discussions & info.

Ratcliffe brought out that the Schiff Memo contains sources and methods, so that is going to be a problem to address at the HPSIC. Perhaps it will lead to declassifying and releasing all the documents, but Ratcliffe made the comparison of condensing 4 phone books into the 4 page Memo, so it sounds like there is a huge pile of source & methods documents.

One other thing popped into my mind: That Isikoff letter from September 23, 2016 that was the supporting 'document' for the dossier as presented to the FISA Court -- could Isikoff have been one of the journalists that was on the payroll of Fusion GPS; i.e., a journalist paid to publish a story by Fusion GPS. We know there apparently were some such journalists as well as media outlets. I've got my suspicion antenna up.

---

The four phonebooks he's referring to I believe is the IG report. I've heard it's 2800+ pages plus the 1.2 million supporting documents.

Isikoff is linked to the Clintons for certainty, he sat on the Lewinsky story or a long time to try and protect Bill. He claimed Newsweek killed the story, but he was able to spin that into a top selling book.

He now hangs his shingle at the Huffington Post, pretty sure pro trump reporters don't last long there if at all. And somehow he's also pushing his short film about the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Imagine that, so I hold his word as suspect.

Quote:

---

BREAKING: On The Same Day Trump Releases the Nunes Memo A Federal Judge Keeps The Comey Memos Secret

On the same day the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the Nunes memo showing the FBI relied on the salacious and unverified Trump dossier to obtain a surveillance warrant on Carter Page, a federal judge ruled to withhold the Comey memos. The memos, authored by former FBI Director James Comey, are about his nine private conversations with President-elect and President Trump.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled in favor of the FBI's request to keep the Comey memos secret, also sits on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISA court is the same court that approved the surveillance on Trump associates.

Boasberg refused to release the documents on the basis they were still being used by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of the alleged Russian collusion with Trump associates.

The judge ruled, "the Comey Memos, at least for now, will remain in the hands of the Special Counsel and not the public."

---

Let's revisit this for a second. Very peculiar way in which this was done:
From Powerline

Quote:

---

Both sides put the issue to Judge James Boasberg of the DC federal district court. Judge Boasberg himself reviewed the memos. He took evidence in the form of two affidavits from David W. Archey, a Deputy Assistant Director with the Counterintelligence Division, who currently supervises all FBI personnel assigned to the investigation into Russia's interference with the election. He also heard from Mueller attorney Michael R. Dreeben. The affidavits and testimony were submitted to the judge outside the presence plaintiffs' counsel (ex parte) and have been sealed.

---

Ex parte?? WTH??

Its not peculiar at all. in fact, the judge did this because he didnt feel the FBIs affidavit was sufficient.



In a FOIA case, the Court may accept an "agency's affidavits, without pre-summary judgment discovery, if the affidavits are made in good faith and provide reasonably specific detail concerning the methods used to produce the information sought." Broaddrick v. Exec. Office of the President, 139 F. Supp. 2d 55, 64 (D.D.C. 2001). "Agency affidavits are accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents." SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Summary judgment may not be appropriate without in camera review," however, "when agency affidavits in support of a claim of exemption are insufficiently detailed." Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 97 F.3d 575, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In such a circumstance, "district court judges [have] broad discretion in determining whether in camera review is appropriate." Id. at 57778.

n/m, already posted by drcrinum.

There is very little question remaining in my mind, now. Mueller is full tilt bore on obstruction of justice and Comey is his star witness.

He's going to the mat to protect him. Mueller most definitely is not acting as a white hat.

Tailgate88 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

1:08 mark about Rosenstein

---

Holy **** if true that rosenstein threatened intelligence committee members he would subpoena their text messages and emails because he was tired of their investigation.

---

Well, that's a huge nugget!

---

Now another source has come forward.

---

Rosenstein needs to be fired.

---

It better be rock solid.

random question for the tweeps

is chillum now @overchill ?

https://twitter.com/overchiII

A few weeks ago I found i was for some reason blocked by chillum. Now I saw this new account with chillum's avi RT'd into my TL.

aggiehawg said:

---

There is very little question remaining in my mind, now. Mueller is full tilt bore on obstruction of justice and Comey is his star witness.

He's going to the mat to protect him. Mueller most definitely is not acting as a white hat.

---

Yep. Comey's tweets are so smug in this whole affair as if coming from a man who knows he has protection from someone.

Not buying that. Ex parte are restricted to emergency situations. There is nothing emergency about a FOIA request. Pretty straight forward stuff.

Also, it seems the quality of the legal work done by Mueller's team is lacking if they can't get the FBI affidavit right.

Procedure besides, what is the true motive here?? Protecting his star witness, Comey in an obstruction of justice charge against Trump?

That seems the most likely, since he's interceding on Comey's behalf.

aggiehawg said:

---

Not buying that. Ex parte are restricted to emergency situations. There is nothing emergency about a FOIA request. Pretty straight forward stuff.

Also, it seems the quality of the legal work done by Mueller's team is lacking if they can't get the FBI affidavit right.

Procedure besides, what is the true motive here?? Protecting his star witness, Comey in an obstruction of justice charge against Trump?

That seems the most likely, since he's interceding on Comey's behalf.

---

That Powerline article you linked is certainly interesting.

Quote:

---

In any event -- and this is my point -- Judge Boasberg's opinion provides a preview of coming repulsions. The rationale of the Mueller investigation is the removal of Trump from office. Whatever collusion there was with the friends of Vladimir Putin among the presidential campaigns, Democrats were doing the colluding. Mueller has moved his chips to obstruction of justice and now guards the evidence from Trump. If one reads between the lines here, one can see quite clearly the train that is hurtling down the tracks toward the president.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Not buying that. Ex parte are restricted to emergency situations. There is nothing emergency about a FOIA request. Pretty straight forward stuff.

Also, it seems the quality of the legal work done by Mueller's team is lacking if they can't get the FBI affidavit right.

Procedure besides, what is the true motive here?? Protecting his star witness, Comey in an obstruction of justice charge against Trump?

That seems the most likely, since he's interceding on Comey's behalf.

---

thats not true at all as it relates to this. the proffer can't be done in front of the other party.

when you have documents that the government (or any party in different settings) is saying should not be produced to the other side, thats the typical procedure.

how else would you propose that procedure work?

aggiehawg said:

---

Not buying that. Ex parte are restricted to emergency situations. There is nothing emergency about a FOIA request. Pretty straight forward stuff.

Also, it seems the quality of the legal work done by Mueller's team is lacking if they can't get the FBI affidavit right.

Procedure besides, what is the true motive here?? Protecting his star witness, Comey in an obstruction of justice charge against Trump?

That seems the most likely, since he's interceding on Comey's behalf.

---

Dumb question, I'm sure...but having lied and perhaps obstructed justice, could Mueller just be trying to protect Comey from future prosecution?

PS - No intent (on my part) to defend SC Mueller

reb, said:

---

random question for the tweeps

is chillum now @overchill ?

https://twitter.com/overchiII

A few weeks ago I found i was for some reason blocked by chillum. Now I saw this new account with chillum's avi RT'd into my TL.

---

She got hacked, made a new handle, and got on with her life.

whatthehey78 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Not buying that. Ex parte are restricted to emergency situations. There is nothing emergency about a FOIA request. Pretty straight forward stuff.

Also, it seems the quality of the legal work done by Mueller's team is lacking if they can't get the FBI affidavit right.

Procedure besides, what is the true motive here?? Protecting his star witness, Comey in an obstruction of justice charge against Trump?

That seems the most likely, since he's interceding on Comey's behalf.

---

Dumb question, I'm sure...but having lied and perhaps obstructed justice, could Mueller just be trying to protect Comey from future prosecution?

PS - No intent (on my part) to defend SC Mueller

---

. I have the same questions. Comey IMO lied to Congress. Whatever credibility he or Mueller thinks he had, is no more. Comey should be very concerned about his future freedom.

Here is an interesting Read on Carter Page by one of the most liberal rags in the business. Vox rails on Trump constantly so take a peek at this and respond. I was really surprised

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/2/16956014/nunes-memo-carter-page

I love the liberal argument that,

Quote:

---

"If the FISA warrant was bogus how did they keep getting renewals, they have to show evidense to get it renewed?"

---

Maybe not going by the rules?

Or maybe lying to a judge?

Like not disclosing that the main piece of evidence was bought and paid for by the political opponent?

They act like we are talking about all this happening in a vacuum, and not in the middle of possibly one of the biggest scandals in American history.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I love the liberal argument that,

Quote:

---

"If the FISA warrant was bogus how did they keep getting renewals, they have to show evidense to get it renewed?"

---

Maybe not going by the rules?

Or maybe lying to a judge?

Like not disclosing that the main piece of evidence was bought and paid for by the political opponent?

They act like we are talking about all this happening in a vacuum, and not in the middle of possibly one of the biggest scandals in American history.

---

Or maybe by going before a different judge each time????? (That is unclear at the moment.)

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here is an interesting Read on Carter Page by one of the most liberal rags in the business. Vox rails on Trump constantly so take a peek at this and respond. I was really surprised

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/2/16956014/nunes-memo-carter-page

---

The (long) article concluded that Carter Page was a nobody...surprised that Vox would publish it.

Author provided many details, leaving out only 2 relevant facts IMO:
1) Did not indicate that the Isikoff article was an important document in the FISA Warrant application and had been sourced by Steele -- only indicated that the Isikoff article had led to Page being 'disassociated' from the Trump Campaign.
2) Did not relate that Page has pending defamation lawsuits against Yahoo & The Huffington Post.

Just wanted to bump this thread because it isn't at THE TOP RIGHT NOW!!!!! 5 gazillion posts and rising!

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here is an interesting Read on Carter Page by one of the most liberal rags in the business. Vox rails on Trump constantly so take a peek at this and respond. I was really surprised

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/2/16956014/nunes-memo-carter-page

---

Thanks. That was a great read. Maybe there's still hope for journalism.

Quote:

---

Either the WSJ source is incorrect, or the greater likelihood is the DOJ was strategically approaching a different FISA judge each time.

---

That's a BOOM!!!!!

Comey and all other FBI/DOJ higher ups who signed off on these have some 'splainin' to do.

(So does Mueller.)

why Would the WSJ just make this up? Seems like they were leaked something. Maybe true and maybe not, but that's an odd thing to make up IMO.

(Fake account)

Quote:

---

...During the interview, which was frequently interrupted by Baier, Nunes accused fired FBI Chief James Comey of lying to Congress about the Russia dossier.

Nunes then challenged the former FBI chief to come back to Congress and testify under oath again.

Transcript via Andrew Bostom:

---

If you want to watch it on video, go to Page 142 of this thread, it begins at the 8:25 mark.

I can't believe Mueller still has faith in Comey as a credible witness for an obstruction charge against Trump. That's some weapon's grade cognitive dissonance.

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

...During the interview, which was frequently interrupted by Baier, Nunes accused fired FBI Chief James Comey of lying to Congress about the Russia dossier.

Nunes then challenged the former FBI chief to come back to Congress and testify under oath again.

Transcript via Andrew Bostom:

---

If you want to watch it on video, go to Page 142 of this thread, it begins at the 8:25 mark.

---

Steele was meeting with Ohr (of the DOJ) during the election and Ohr was passing info to the FBI along with the info he had gotten from his wife who worked for Fusion GPS doing Clinton campaign opposition research.

DOJ and FBI knew damn well where the Dossier originated from day one. The FBI added Steele to their payroll for ****s sake!

Quote:

---

...Isikoff said on his podcast that he met Steele at a Washington, D.C. hotel in Sept. 2016. They were joined by his "old friend" Glenn Simpson, the founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion hired Steele to investigate Donald Trump's ties to Russia. The firm was working for the Clinton campaign and DNC, a fact which Isikoff was not aware of at the time of the meeting with Simpson and Steele....

---

What was Steele doing in Washington, DC in September 2016? It wasn't just to meet with Simpson in order to peddle the dossier to journalists. I'll wager he also met with the FBI/Strzok and his longtime friends, Bruce & Nellie Ohr.

Edit: Isikoff better lawyer up.

Interesting, given Comey could himself be charged with felonies at the drop of a hat. They have him dead to rights on at least 1 or 2. He only skates if someone cuts him a deal..,
Hmm....

Even Mark Penn referred to Comey as a "national embarrassment" recently. I'll try to find the clip.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Even Mark Penn referred to Comey as a "national embarrassment" recently. I'll try to find the clip.

---

Yeah, but did you know he is taller and funnier in person.

FriscoKid said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Even Mark Penn referred to Comey as a "national embarrassment" recently. I'll try to find the clip.

---

Yeah, but did you know he is taller and funnier in person.

---

People who describe themselves as funny are usually the opposite.