VaultingChemist said:

---

Here is another picture. Zoom in on Rice. If looks could kill, the photographer would be dead.

---

3rd from the left fighting back tears makes me happy.

But yeah, that pic of Rice is all kinds of strange. She has a "tell me about the rabbits, George" look on her face.

Roscoe, it's always interesting to me how much those guys sound just like the Leninites. They always believed that the "academians" knew everything.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Roscoe, it's always interesting to me how much those guys sound just like the Leninites. They always believed that the "academians" knew everything.

---

There is a part in the film where Rhodes tells Powers that "we have to keep a tight leash on Rice to keep her on message and not to let her take spontaneous questions, nothing not pre-approved in advance." Powers laughs she's use to it, I have to do the same with Kerry. If he gets more than two question I begin to get nervous or what's next" The film isn't flattering to Rice or Kerry, they are stooges, like the Carnival chicken playing tic tac toe. Rhodes laughs "he can't trust Rice to call bingo at the senior center, much less anything policy related." It's very telling who ran the Foreign policy part of the administration.

Libs all over FB thinking they've got Trump now with the Gates plea deal

4stringAg said:

---

Libs all over FB thinking they've got Trump now with the Gates plea deal

---

FB is their alternative reality. Serves them right.

4stringAg said:

---

Libs all over FB thinking they've got Trump now with the Gates plea deal

---

If Gates is truly flipping on Manafort, which I am very skeptical about, he will have to put his entire family in witness protection and grow tomatoes in Oregon or something. Manafort isn't a choir boy. I guarantee he has numbers to initiate wet work.

Safe at Home said:

---

I haven't posted much here because I usually don't have any new information to add. But I want to let you all know how much I appreciate what you bring here. I keep up with this thread to such an extent that last week on National Signing Day, I kept forgetting to go to the Premium board to see what recruits were signing. That's saying something.

I'll admit, Trump was about my last choice during the Republican primary, maybe just ahead of Christie. But I'm coming to see that we were really lucky he won. When he talked about draining the swamp, I assumed he meant getting rid of inefficient government bureaucracy (and maybe he was), but I can't see how anyone else would have a chance of dealing with this mess. For whatever else you can say about him, he's not afraid of a fight and that's what is needed.

Several Republicans have said lately that this FISA investigation has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. Is this perhaps their way of reinforcing the fact that Rosenstein's not in charge, and Sessions is not recused from this stuff?

---

Start at about the 5:00 mark. Sessions gives you the answer. Then later on he talks about some things from which he is recused (rather vaguely), but clearly regarding the actual FISA Court application/warrant accuracy business and the unmasking/leaks he is not recused.

4stringAg said:

---

Libs all over FB thinking they've got Trump now with the Gates plea deal

---

Which is hilarious. Gates was a literal nobody in the Trump campaign.

That would be something if McCabe made the changes to the 302s...but that doesn't exactly jive with the S&P text messages where they talk about changing 302s. Perhaps it was a joint venture between McCabe & Strzok to change the 302s so they could cover for each other if questioned. That still leaves out who else was present during the Strzok - Flynn interview; I've never seen anyone else's name mentioned other than there was at least one other person present. Priestap maybe? Or perhaps there were more than 2 agents present. I think we will eventually find out, and I suspect the OIG might have the answer.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Two points of importance I picked out:
1) Nunes doesn't believe Samatha Power regarding her claim that someone was using her name to unmask people in the intel reports. Nunes doesn't see how that would be possible.
2) Nunes said that FISA Court abuse has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, and if people abused the FISA Court to get warrants on Americans, they they are going to go to trial.


So if FISA Court abuse doesn't fall under the prerogative of Mueller, then does it follow that the Trump dossier doesn't fall under Muller's jurisdiction as well???

---

Conflating issues doesn't end well. FISA abuse has nothing to do with the Russia/Trump investigation other than it happened to be one in a long line of Fourth Amendment violations.

But the attempt to conflate them is an appeal to Trump haters to ignore what actually happened here. I'm sure I'll get bashed over this but here it is...Snowden was not being traitorous. He was pointing out the defects in the existing system. And I am not confident in the slightest that had he tried to go the whistle-blower route, he had been successful. He would be dead. Killed on Obama's order. That's how high the stakes were when Obama decided to weaponize the NSA meta data operation, not for national security threats (which I could almost stomach if it prevented another 9/11 or larger attack)...no no no. Obama weaponized it for an agenda...one world order.

Getting Hillary elected was the next step. And if one thinks about it, that was a big threat to Russia. They want one world order but they want to control the shots...Bernie would have given them that shot...perhaps Hillary was already on their payroll, too.

So why even try to help Trump?? Makes no sense for them to do so, given their geopolitical goals.

---

I am in the same camp about Snowden. I do not find him to be a traitor.

Wendy 1990 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I am in the same camp about Snowden. I do not find him to be a traitor.

---

---

---

Perhaps Snowden is not what he appears to be. Ever consider the possibility that he is a deep CIA operative, a form of double agent? I wonder how he is regarded in Russia?

Quote:

---

Yet issuing a report to this effect would call thousands of FBI investigations into question.

---

What ever happened to the Benghazi scapegoat that made the anti-Muhammad video?

stetson said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet issuing a report to this effect would call thousands of FBI investigations into question.

---

What ever happened to the Benghazi scapegoat that made the anti-Muhammad video?

---

That video guy got the Susan Rice special.

For those who are interested in the Flynn case, this is a good article.

LINK

Explains the significance of Judge Sullivan's sua sponte* order on discovery from last Friday.

*Sua sponte means "on his own," as in not in response to a motion from a party. Judge Sullivan, as normal course of conducting business in his court, issues what are called Brady orders. (See article.) He revised his standard order on Friday for the Flynn case. (Hint: Not good for Mueller.)

Just saw some chatter about the revised Brady order. Looks like he set out the authority for withdrawing a guilty plea when it's made while exculpatory evidence is withheld.

That's not a good look for Muller and his crew.

For the casual readers on this board, Sullivan issues a Brady order in every case as a result of the special investigation in the corrupt Ted Stevens prosecution where government lawyers continually hid (or worse) exculpatory evidence. Since Sullivan hadn't specifically ordered the government to turn over the evidence, they avoided criminal contempt. So now at the beginning of every criminal case in his court, he issues a Brady order so that criminal contempt is immediately in play.

With Weissmann's track record to boot, that's ugly

blindey said:

---

Just saw some chatter about the revised Brady order. Looks like he set out the authority for withdrawing a guilty plea when it's made while exculpatory evidence is withheld.

That's not a good look for Muller and his crew.

For the casual readers on this board, Sullivan issues a Brady order in every case as a result of the special investigation in the corrupt Ted Stevens prosecution where government lawyers continually hid (or worse) exculpatory evidence. Since Sullivan hadn't specifically ordered the government to turn over the evidence, they avoided criminal contempt. So now at the beginning of every criminal case in his court, he issues a Brady order so that criminal contempt is immediately in play.

---

Is this the reason Holder made the decision he did on Stevens?. It was one of the things he did at the beginning of the Obama term that made me think he may not be as bad as I thought he was at the end of the Clinton Presidency.

Now I'm not so sure. Personally, I was no Ted Stevens fan, but since the law is "a living" set of rules for the left, I'm kind of surprised, since I'm now certain Holder is corrupt.

Quote:

---

Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor and author of "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice," writes that Flynn should withdraw his guilty plea and suggests that Sullivan, as "the country's premier jurist experienced in the abuses of our Department of Justice, . . . is the best person to confront the egregious government misconduct that has led to and been perpetrated by the Mueller-Weissmann 'investigation' and to right the injustices that have arisen from it."

---

Who appointed Sullivan to take over Flynn's case? By all accounts, Sullivan seems to be a hired gun to clean up the abuses by the Mueller-Weissmann investigation.

Probably yes. If you're walking into a judicial smack down, it's best to cut your losses and walk away.

Sullivan was a random draw after the recusal.

The way district courts work is that they are divided into geographical divisions and each division has at least one judge assigned. So if you file in the southern district of Texas but in the Victoria division, you're basically choosing the one judge assigned there.

But if you file in the Houston division, there's a large list of judges that could randomly be assigned to your case. The judges themselves have a "work order" that divides up the percentage of cases filed in each court (and sometimes by subject matter because of a certain judges expertise (ie admiralty cases)).

Quote:

---

Just saw some chatter about the revised Brady order. Looks like he set out the authority for withdrawing a guilty plea when it's made while exculpatory evidence is withheld.

---

Or illegally obtained evidence is presented to the grand jury.

Remember, Mueller went grand jury shopping on the Flynn case.* DOJ was proceeding with presenting evidence to a grand jury in Virginia. Then Mueller sweeps in and takes it away from that grand jury and presents the case to another one he had convened in D.C.


*So much for any "obstruction" Trump committed in the Flynn case. DOJ went ahead with the presentation to the grand jury, until Mueller intervened. That is a very bad look for Mueller at this point. There would not have been any harm in allowing the first grand jury to complete its work, except if Flynn had been no-billed, Mueller would have lost leverage over Flynn to get him to flip on Trump. Too calculated a move, in my view. Not to mention damning on the question of Mueller's ill-intent. Hope the DOJ attorneys who were presenting the case in Virginia have had a sit down with Horowitz's team on the reasons given for removal of the case.

If you ever want to find a reference involving the Clinton e-mail scandal, Russia, e-mail hacking, Ukraine, DNC, spies, cybersecurity, FBI/DOJ/DNC Russian Collusion Plot, etc., it can be found in the document below. It's the most comprehensive collection I have ever encountered, and it's catalogued by timeline. I assume it's regularly updated. The author is:
Shana Lin
@ShanaLin4

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZY97q1r3Z6PZAHAoPrFwnZPqJAn50JscTiihC34Ekpc/edit


I happened upon this by chance from a twitter response.
The above individual replied to a speculation on my part that I have posted on this thread: I suspect that Deripaska was one of Steele's sources for the dossier. The above individual replied that the dossier originally was begun as an opposition research piece focused upon Manafort, and that perhaps Deripaska partially funded it for revenge purposes. Deripaska is a name you will want to remember; it keeps popping up. You may not be aware that Manafort and Derispaska were involved in some shady business dealings years ago, one of which went south, leaving Deripaska holding an empty bag supposedly containing millions of dollars. Deripaska has sued Manafort several times over this, the latest one being in January 2018 where he even cited materials listed in Mueller's indictment of Manafort. See:

http://www.businessinsider.com/oleg-deripaska-sues-paul-manafort-rick-gates-using-mueller-indictment-2018-1

Hawg, IMO, it would be nice if Horowitz would interview ALL DOJ employees.

After the debacle that was the Obama administration for eight years, the whole damned thing needs to be reviewed. Of course, I'm kidding, because it's unreasonable, but that's how I felt from 2010 on, as the inumerable reports of "we're gettig that information to you" went on forever. Nothing ever came from any request that I know of.

Quote:

---

The above individual replied to a speculation on my part that I have posted on this thread: I suspect that Deripaska was one of Steele's sources for the dossier. The above individual replied that the dossier originally was begun as an opposition research piece focused upon Manafort, and that perhaps Deripaska partially funded it for revenge purposes.

---

Well, Glenn Simpson's and wife's hard-on for Manafort has been well documented. The timing lines up from when Manafort officially joined the campaign (first as a head counter before campaign manager) and when Steele was approached. (April 2016.)

Ties between the named defendants and possible Steele's "Russian sources" would close that circle nicely, wouldn't it??

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, IMO, it would be nice if Horowitz would interview ALL DOJ employees.

After the debacle that was the Obama administration for eight years, the whole damned thing needs to be reviewed. Of course, I'm kidding, because it's unreasonable, but that's how I felt from 2010 on, as the inumerable reports of "we're gettig that information to you" went on forever. Nothing ever came from any request that I know of.

---

Just the ones in DC and the Southern District of NY. The DC office (a/k/a "Main Justice") was handling the email case. Then the SDNY became involved because of the Weiner lap top.

blindey said:

---

Sullivan was a random draw after the recusal.

The way district courts work is that they are divided into geographical divisions and each division has at least one judge assigned. So if you file in the southern district of Texas but in the Victoria division, you're basically choosing the one judge assigned there.

But if you file in the Houston division, there's a large list of judges that could randomly be assigned to your case. The judges themselves have a "work order" that divides up the percentage of cases filed in each court (and sometimes by subject matter because of a certain judges expertise (ie admiralty cases)).

---

That certainly turned out to be a lucky draw.

Yup. That court is crawling with obama appointees.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-09%20CEG%20to%20Hauser%20(business%20with%20Mr.%20Steele%20and%20Mr.%20Deripaska).pdf

Quote:

---

Paul E. Hauser, Esq.
Partner
Bryan Cave
88 Wood Street
London, EC2V 7AJ UK

Dear Mr. Hauser:

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary has been investigating issues relating to the Russian government's disinformation efforts targeting the 2016 Presidential election, as well as the nature of the FBI's relationship with Christopher Steele. Part of that inquiry involves examining the connections between those involved and Russian interests.
In light of this, by February 23, 2018, please answer the following questions:

1. Public reports and court documents indicate that you are an attorney for Mr. Oleg Deripaska. Do you serve, or have you served, as legal counsel for Mr. Deripaska or any business associated with him?

2. Have you ever hired or otherwise worked with Mr. Christopher Steele, Orbis Business Intelligence Limited, Orbis Business International Limited, Walsingham Training Limited, or Walsingham Partners Limited? If so, when, and what was the nature of the arrangement?

3. Is it the case that Mr. Steele, through you, works or has worked on behalf of Mr. Deripaska or businesses associated with him? If so, when has such work occurred?

4. Are you otherwise aware of any business or financial relationships between Mr. Steele and Russian government officials, Russian oligarchs, or Russian businesses?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of my staff at (202) 224-5225 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

---

I overlooked this letter from Grassley (or I forgot about it -- information overload). So Grassley is suspicious that Deripaska may have had dealings with Steele. Wouldn't that be something if Deripaska helped to fund the dossier? A Russian paying for opposition research used to undermine a Presidential candidacy? Real collusion! Others are now beginning to suspect this:

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255290/christopher-steele-putin-oleg-deripaska

Quote:

---

Was Christopher Steele Paid by Russian Oligarch and Putin Ally Oleg Deripaska?

...If Steele worked for a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin, it is likely to change prevailing views of the Russia investigations of the past year and a half. The three congressional inquiries (Senate Judiciary, Senate Intelligence, and House Intelligence), as well as special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, are based largely on allegations made in the dossier. Was Steele paid by Deripaska at the same time he was paid by the Washington, D.C., communications firm Fusion GPS for his work on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee? Did his work on behalf of Deripaska influence his investigations into the Trump team's possible ties to Russia? Was Deripaska one of Steele's Kremlin-insider sourcesand what does that tell us about the contents and purpose of the Steele dossier?

---

Wouldn't it also be something if Deripaska's buddy Mark Warner knew he was funding this. Or what if Marco Rubio knew? Corruption that makes you go "hmmmmmm..."

With recent Rubio events...I think it is safe to say he wanted Trump's blood after the election....just a "Little" bit of it. He may very well be in this.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/965426793644572672.html

An interesting thread. The style and content is very similar -- I would say 'identical' -- to someone we relished from the very recent past...Imperator Rex.