fasthorses05 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Damn this is getting great.

---

This may have already been mentioned, but assuming Clinton made her computer "available" for hacking on purpose, then it has to be part of the $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Meaning "yes, we'll give you dollars for the uranium, but we'll give you XXX dollars for access to Dalily Briefings, etc..

If so, that makes more sense to me than anything. Once again, it all comes back to money for the Clintons. Which I'm sure a lot of that money was spread around!

---

ellebee said:

---

fasthorses05 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Damn this is getting great.

---

This may have already been mentioned, but assuming Clinton made her computer "available" for hacking on purpose, then it has to be part of the $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Meaning "yes, we'll give you dollars for the uranium, but we'll give you XXX dollars for access to Dalily Briefings, etc..

If so, that makes more sense to me than anything. Once again, it all comes back to money for the Clintons. Which I'm sure a lot of that money was spread around!

---

---

I'm not sure you're mocking me, or not, (and that's fine), but $145 million is a lot of coin, even for some of the Russian Oligarchs. The only person I can think of that may not have too much of an issue would be Putin, and no one knows exactly how much he has, but the rumour is north of $100 billion.

The Russians might have seen this as the brass ring, and chose to get all they can, which I've got to admit, would have been a good time. A former American President, looking to salt away their waning years on the porch at the lake listening to the loons!

BQ78 said:

---

Oh they did it by the book that Obama gave them. That memo screams CYA.

---

When Obama said "By the book", did he use air quotes while saying it and smiling?

jjeffers1 said:

---

Help me out here - Mike Flynn has "pled" guilty to lying to the FBI - and that sentencing has been delayed.

Now there is smoke that he didn't lie, and some saying maybe some 302's were altered.

Let's take that option off of the table for a minute.

What other some other reasons he would possibly plead guilty to something he didn't do?

---

Flynn is a master spook -- 3 star general -- top man in his field.

Flynn knew there was illegal activity going on during his interview with Strzok & colleague. Flynn would have been aware that his name had been unmasked concerning his calls with the Russian Ambassador from the press reports, and he would have been well aware that there currently was a raging inferno going on in the press about Trump Russian collusion. Knowing the latter, his antennae would have quickly recognized the purpose of this unplanned FBI interview, and assuredly, his answers during the interview would have been vague in typical spook fashion. Within several days Sally Yates was in the WH legal counsel's office claiming Flynn was a liability, had lied to Pence, and could be subject to blackmail. Why was Yates out to get Flynn? She certainly was not in Trump's camp. Flynn had been fired by Obama supposedly over disagreements on how to fight ISIS & other dubious reasons, but Flynn would also be aware of all the sins committed by the Obama Administration during the years 2011-2014 when he was first Assoc Director in ODNI and then promoted to Director of DIA. Most important would be Benghazi, but there are others, especially aspects related to spying on American citizens. Remember Obama warned Trump about Flynn...confirming that Flynn had the goods on Obama.

You can be certain that Flynn left the WH because of the political atmosphere surrounding the Trump Russian collusion story that was making headlines at the time as well as being broadcasted by the Dems & HRC; they were out for blood because they had been cheated out of the election. Flynn had actually helped defuse the situation because he had prevented Sally Yates from making a case about the Logan Act -- it didn't matter that Flynn had done nothing illegal, it was a matter of how the political picture was painted. So when Mueller then came after Flynn for lying, there is good evidence that a plan was hatched to help take down the illegal activities going on it the FBI/DOJ. Plead guilty, rather than make an issue out of the illegal unmasking, and thereby become authorized to spill the beans on all the illegal activities of the Obama Admin known to Flynn. Regardless of the outcome, or whether Mueller was a white hat or black hat, Flynn eventually would be pardoned by Trump in the end.

Nope. Not mocking. Just hadn't read that theory before and it's an interesting one.

GCP12 said:

---

---

Wow, Q is right, these people really are stupid.

Flynn pled guilty b/c they were going after his son to either financially destroy him or put him in jail, that is all.

Very intriguing. It would be nice to think that Mueller is a so-called white-hat and had helped hatch such a snare. It could certainly be so. There seem to be some conservatives still giving him individually the benefit of the doubt.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

As part of that effort, the Committee sent a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between President Obama and then-FBI Director Corney regarding the FBIs investigation of allegations of collusion between associates of Mr. Trump and the Russian government....

---

Where did this come from? How would Grassley know or suspect such meetings ever occurred? Comey had testified in July 2017 before the Senate Intel Committee that he only ever had 2 meetings with Obama, and that they never talked over the phone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/comey-memos-trump-russia-fbi-2017-6

Quote:

---

Comey's remarks go on to reveal that he only had one-on-one conversations with former President Barack Obama twice both times in person, never over the phone. One of those conversations took place in late 2016 to say goodbye, and the other occurred in 2015 "to discuss law enforcement policy issues," according to the remarks.

---

I am suspicious that the OIG/Sessions tipped off Grassley about the Rice e-mail.
Remember the article below we discussed last week? It fits the pattern.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/09/big-picture-question-how-do-we-know/#more-145678

Quote:

---

Big Picture Question: How Do We Know?

---

ellebee said:

---

fasthorses05 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Damn this is getting great.

---

This may have already been mentioned, but assuming Clinton made her computer "available" for hacking on purpose, then it has to be part of the $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Meaning "yes, we'll give you dollars for the uranium, but we'll give you XXX dollars for access to Dalily Briefings, etc..

If so, that makes more sense to me than anything. Once again, it all comes back to money for the Clintons. Which I'm sure a lot of that money was spread around!

---

---

Wait you mean some people are just realizing this? OF COURSE that was it.

Just never put it together for some reason.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/12/byron-york-ponders-the-flynn-puzzle-question/

Quote:

---

...Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

It's a great question.

The Occam's Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were "colluding BFF's",. and Flynn didn't want to fuel that nonsense.

That toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview was the issue. Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to Pence's false point without clarification....

...............(many details of what transpired)

As we have shared from the beginning this is all about DC politics, not judicial crimes in the same vein as everyone else would be charged.

You cannot view action through the transactional prism of modern judicial proceedings as they relate to you and me. These are political struggles taking place inside the venue of the legal system. The players use the legal system to game out the optics and narrative of political battles for ideological wins and losses....

Nothing about the 2017 Russian dynamic was factually encompassing President Trump; it was/is all about optics, narratives and political leverage. However, everything about this dynamic was/is factually encompassing the existential threat that outsider Trump represented to the established way of life in the DC Swamp.

All of the participants were key stakeholders in keeping President Trump from draining the swamp-life that affords them power, influence and indulgence. If we drop the legal prism and review everything from the perspective of gaining political leverage against an incoming administration it all makes sense.

---

Just published at The Conservative Treehouse.

drcrinum said:

---

I am suspicious that the OIG/Sessions tipped off Grassley about the Rice e-mail. Remember the article below we discussed last week? It fits the pattern.

---

^
This.

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

As part of that effort, the Committee sent a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between President Obama and then-FBI Director Corney regarding the FBIs investigation of allegations of collusion between associates of Mr. Trump and the Russian government....

---

Where did this come from? How would Grassley know or suspect such meetings ever occurred? Comey had testified in July 2017 before the Senate Intel Committee that he only ever had 2 meetings with Obama, and that they never talked over the phone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/comey-memos-trump-russia-fbi-2017-6

Quote:

---

Comey's remarks go on to reveal that he only had one-on-one conversations with former President Barack Obama twice both times in person, never over the phone. One of those conversations took place in late 2016 to say goodbye, and the other occurred in 2015 "to discuss law enforcement policy issues," according to the remarks.

---

I am suspicious that the OIG/Sessions tipped off Grassley about the Rice e-mail.
Remember the article below we discussed last week? It fits the pattern.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/09/big-picture-question-how-do-we-know/#more-145678

Quote:

---

Big Picture Question: How Do We Know?

---

---

If you remember Susan Rice refused to testify before Lindsey Graham's committee. Sent the refusal to them in a letter from her attorney. I'm thinking that ticked Graham off and Graham went to digging deep into her communications and everything he could dig up on her.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

If you remember Susan Rice refused to testify before Lindsey Graham's committee. Sent the refusal to them in a letter from her attorney. I'm thinking that ticked Graham off and Graham went to digging deep into her communications and everything he could dig up on her.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf

---

Rice sent that e-mail to herself via a government computer. I don't think they could have obtained it other than through a valid/authorized investigation. I was thinking that this e-mail may have been discovered as part of the investigation into unmasking of names related to the FBI's unauthorized surveillance of the Trump Team via the Carter Page FISA warrant. The OIG letter from January 2017 clearly spelled out they were investigating the FBI, and even though Rice was National Security Adviser, she was unmasking people from the FBI surveillance activities.

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

If you remember Susan Rice refused to testify before Lindsey Graham's committee. Sent the refusal to them in a letter from her attorney. I'm thinking that ticked Graham off and Graham went to digging deep into her communications and everything he could dig up on her.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf

---

Rice sent that e-mail to herself via a government computer. I don't think they could have obtained it other than through a valid/authorized investigation. I was thinking that this e-mail may have been discovered as part of the investigation into unmasking of names related to the FBI's unauthorized surveillance of the Trump Team via the Carter Page FISA warrant. The OIG letter from January 2017 clearly spelled out they were investigating the FBI, and even though Rice was National Security Adviser, she was unmasking people from the FBI surveillance activities.

---

That's what they wanted her to testify on was the unmasking that was going on

Quote:

---

Graham said Tuesday that he wanted Rice to testify in order to clarify "reports" about her request that the identities of U.S. citizens be revealed in intelligence reports during probes into Russian meddling in the election.

"I'd like to ask questions of her," he told CNN. "I have seen press reports I don't know how accurate that she was involved in the unmasking of a U.S. citizen who was incidentally surveilled."

Trump accused Rice last month of improperly unmasking U.S. citizens, specifically members of his campaign, caught up in incidental surveillance. The identities of U.S. citizens are typically redacted in intelligence reports.

---

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/331826-susan-rice-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel

Martha MacCallum interviews Sen Lindsey Graham.

"An odd and disturbing e-mail"...

"What did Comey say when he was told to do it by the book?"

How does Waldman and Endeavor play into this?

Bobcat06 said:

---

How does Waldman and Endeavor play into this?

---

Waldman was who Warner was texting

Since then several people are digging into his background

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

If you remember Susan Rice refused to testify before Lindsey Graham's committee. Sent the refusal to them in a letter from her attorney. I'm thinking that ticked Graham off and Graham went to digging deep into her communications and everything he could dig up on her.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf

---

Rice sent that e-mail to herself via a government computer. I don't think they could have obtained it other than through a valid/authorized investigation. I was thinking that this e-mail may have been discovered as part of the investigation into unmasking of names related to the FBI's unauthorized surveillance of the Trump Team via the Carter Page FISA warrant. The OIG letter from January 2017 clearly spelled out they were investigating the FBI, and even though Rice was National Security Adviser, she was unmasking people from the FBI surveillance activities.

---

Are we all on the same page that Rice sent that email purposely, to be found at a later date?

texrover91 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

If you remember Susan Rice refused to testify before Lindsey Graham's committee. Sent the refusal to them in a letter from her attorney. I'm thinking that ticked Graham off and Graham went to digging deep into her communications and everything he could dig up on her.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf

---

Rice sent that e-mail to herself via a government computer. I don't think they could have obtained it other than through a valid/authorized investigation. I was thinking that this e-mail may have been discovered as part of the investigation into unmasking of names related to the FBI's unauthorized surveillance of the Trump Team via the Carter Page FISA warrant. The OIG letter from January 2017 clearly spelled out they were investigating the FBI, and even though Rice was National Security Adviser, she was unmasking people from the FBI surveillance activities.

---

Are we all on the same page that Rice sent that email purposely, to be found at a later date?

---

I think her CC to Curtis Ried is the purpose of that email, to disseminate the message from Barry to the holdovers that would be left behind once they are gone. She sent it 15 minutes after POTUS took his oath.

Could possibly be a CYA but it's suspect either way

Compels her to testify

She may have had self serving motives, but, this whole thing will come down to she and Flynn - everything will hinge on them

texrover91 said:

---

Are we all on the same page that Rice sent that email purposely, to be found at a later date?

---

There is one thing to remember. These people never thought HRC would lose. Arrogance & overconfidence do things to the thought processes. They firmly believed that Trump and the Russians colluded to win the election. That had to be what happened. Enter hatred: he cheated! If you were a zealot in this camp, would you believe that anything you did to expose this evil cheat was wrong? Only a hand full of people knew that the FISA warrant was fraudulently obtained and that the dossier was fakery. There was a plan. Trump would eventually be exposed and brought down. It was just a question of time. And with Comey running the show post Obama, the Trump Team would never discover a few underhanded tricks...these were minor compared to cheating to win an election...Comey would eventually prevail and Trump would be gone.

(All the Libs on this forum believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. Do you think those people in the WH like Rice thought any different?)

So I don't know the answer to your question. Rice was a known liar -- a major league liar. "It was a video." Can you ever trust what a liar does or says? Rice might have been saying in the e-mail: "Everything we did was by the book." -- and -- "Everyone was to follow the book after Obama left."

Do you trust liars?

drcrinum said:

---

texrover91 said:

---

Are we all on the same page that Rice sent that email purposely, to be found at a later date?

---

There is one thing to remember. These people never thought HRC would lose. Arrogance & overconfidence do things to the thought processes. They firmly believed that Trump and the Russians colluded to win the election. That had to be what happened. Enter hatred: he cheated! If you were a zealot in this camp, would you believe that anything you did to expose this evil cheat was wrong? Only a hand full of people knew that the FISA warrant was fraudulently obtained and that the dossier was fakery. There was a plan. Trump would eventually be exposed and brought down. It was just a question of time. And with Comey running the show post Obama, the Trump Team would never discover a few underhanded tricks...these were minor compared to cheating to win an election...Comey would eventually prevail and Trump would be gone.

(All the Libs on this forum believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. Do you think those people in the WH like Rice thought any different?)

So I don't know the answer to your question. Rice was a known liar -- a major league liar. "It was a video." Can you ever trust what a liar does or says? Rice might have been saying in the e-mail: "Everything we did was by the book." -- and -- "Everyone was to follow the book after Obama left."

Do you trust liars?

---

This is what sticks out to me.

By the Book to me says stick to the plan.

The series of last minute moves by the White House is very telling.

Broadening of the dissemination groups was the really key thing. Then the idiot Evelyn Farkas spills the beans in her effort to try and impress Mika Brezinski they couldn't backtrack it fast enough.

Quote:

---

"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill get as much information as you can," Farkas said, adding that her big fear was "if [Trump staffers] found out how we knew what we knew about their the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence." ..... "we have good intelligence on Russia that's why you have the leaking. People are worried."

---

Rice hands maybe dirty, but she will bring down Obama and HRC. She flipped. Yates should be worried - she hasn't been mentioned in a while. I think the MYE (mid year exam) was about the trump/Russia plan pre/post election, not Hilary/emails, but Russiagate will get back to that

Rice may be dirty but she and Flynn will be the heroes

That's what I'm seeing currently but who knows what happens

drcrinum said:

---

texrover91 said:

---

Are we all on the same page that Rice sent that email purposely, to be found at a later date?

---

There is one thing to remember. These people never thought HRC would lose. Arrogance & overconfidence do things to the thought processes. They firmly believed that Trump and the Russians colluded to win the election. That had to be what happened. Enter hatred: he cheated! If you were a zealot in this camp, would you believe that anything you did to expose this evil cheat was wrong? Only a hand full of people knew that the FISA warrant was fraudulently obtained and that the dossier was fakery. There was a plan. Trump would eventually be exposed and brought down. It was just a question of time. And with Comey running the show post Obama, the Trump Team would never discover a few underhanded tricks...these were minor compared to cheating to win an election...Comey would eventually prevail and Trump would be gone.

(All the Libs on this forum believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. Do you think those people in the WH like Rice thought any different?)

So I don't know the answer to your question. Rice was a known liar -- a major league liar. "It was a video." Can you ever trust what a liar does or says? Rice might have been saying in the e-mail: "Everything we did was by the book." -- and -- "Everyone was to follow the book after Obama left."

Do you trust liars?

---

While I agree they never thought she could lose, I disagree that they could have thought trump and Russia colluded. No one could possibly believe that. It is beyond absurd. There is no motive or incentive whatsoever for that.

Quote:

---

They bankrupted him, his attorney's were unable to keep up when he's broke. They were after his entire family and he knew he would never see a jail cell, they couldn't flip him so the burned u all his resources to fight with. It's what they do when they don't have a solid case.

---

Sadly, this is so much the truth. Once the feds lock onto you and think you are guilty, they play really really nasty. I have seen it personally, not me but close friends and associates.

Very telling

Still a head scratcher, but maybe on purpose in some theories.

With the ease Schiff lies should be criminal



Grassley isn't going for his BS though

Quote:

---

Late Sunday, Grassley spokesman Taylor Foy fired back at Schiff, saying in a statement that the Steele referral "says not one word critical of Mueller."

"If Schiff (or anyone else) is going to claim that it is Grassley's intent to undermine the Mueller probe, they should back it up with actual evidence or retract it and apologize for questioning the motives of their colleagues without any basis whatsoever," Foy said. "Otherwise, they're only exposing their own biases."

---

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/373479-buzzfeed-hired-former-fbi-white-house-cyber-officials-in-attempt-to

Quote:

---

A former FBI and cybersecurity official is leading an effort on behalf of BuzzFeed to verify allegations in the so-called Steele dossier on President Trump, Foreign Policy reported Monday.

Anthony Ferrante, who now works at FTI Consulting, has led the investigation for months, Foreign Policy reported, citing four sources. Ferrante joined the FBI in 2005, and joined the National Security Council as a cybersecurity expert in 2015.

Ferrante's team has reportedly been tracking down documents and conducting interviews in an effort to verify certain claims in the dossier, which contains allegations about Trump's ties to Russia. Much of the document remains unverified....

---

Absolutely!

Wendy 1990 said:

---

I don't see Susan Ruce flipping and giving up Obama. She's a foot solider in the "cause".

---

Agree 100% these sheep that follow Barry are like a religious cult, a Zealot to put it lightly. They will do the light sentences at Club Fed and get out and sells books. Those that they protect will pay them ten fold for falling on the sword.

You have to cut off the snake's head to get the rattling to stop