That's the thing. There's just SO much to deal with. At least start on the major items and work your way down the list.

drcrinum said:

---

https://spectator.org/nellie-ohr-woman-in-the-middle/

Quote:

---

Is it a surprise to find a Stalin apologist at the center of the Steele dossier scandal?

---

---

Thanks for linking that article. It is fascinating and the author makes some excellent points.

GCP12 said:

---

---

Faux distention

GCP12 said:

---

---

Do you think he let's Sessions know first or just calls him laughing after he tweets these.

On my way to the office I was listening to Fox News and missed who the congressman was answering the questions on the fisa issue and the schiff memo. He was very forthright in his answers: "the facts are indisputable that opposition research paid by Clinton campaign was used in FISA app." His other answers raised some questions for me and hoping for clarification from the more knowledgeable folks on this thread. He indicated:

-the "masking" of Fusion GPS and Clinton Campaign is the rule of law in FISA apps. Had the app disclosed the persons / entities behind the dossier the judge would have indicated that they were needlessly unmasking US Citizens / companies. In other words, the followed the law in the application by hiding names and sources.

- So he indicates that the real question is whether there was bias in the application and the issuing of the warrant which is going to be extremely hard to prove. According to him, they followed the application process by keeping those involved masked and disclosed that this was derived by a campaign rival trying to dig up dirt on a candidate. He indicated that the judges in the initial app and further renewals were all republicans so it would be hard to prove they were biased.

Again, I don't know the congressman's name or affiliation but i suspect he's a democrat and this may be the new talking points to countermand that the fisa application was not abused. If he's right about not revealing the actual names / sources and bias must be proven, where does that leave the outrage about how this was accomplished? The use of something unverified and essentially presenting it as verified to the judge? That's what I suspect, but if this guy has oversimplified this scenario, I'd live to hear the judicial scholars expound in this.

He's wrong. And a liar.

GCP12 said:

---

---

Classic Trump disinformation tweet, designed to throw the MSM off the trail of what is really happening.

I'll let Andy McCarthy address the masking issue.

Quote:

---

"Unmasking" refers to the revelation of American identities in intelligence reports. These are Americans who, though not targeted as foreign agents, are incidentally intercepted in surveillance. In marked contrast, we are talking here about a FISA warrant application, not an intelligence report. In a warrant application, it is the DOJ's honorable practice, and the judiciary's expectation, that the court must be informed about the material biases of the sources of the factual allegations that the DOJ claims amount to probable cause.

As the Democrats' own excerpt from the FISA application illustrates, unmasking has nothing to do with it, because there is no need to use names at all: Note that Simpson is referred to as "an identified U.S. person"; Perkins-Coie is referred to as "a U.S.-based law firm." The dispute here is not about the failure to use the words "Hillary Clinton." They could have referred to "Candidate #2."To state that "Candidate #2" had commissioned Steele's research would have been just as easy and every bit as appropriate as the DOJ's reference to a "Candidate #1," who might have "ties to Russia." Had DOJ done the former, it would not have "unmasked" Hillary Clinton any more than Donald Trump was unmasked by DOJ's description of him as "Candidate #1"; but it would have been being "transparent" with the FISA court. By omitting any reference to Clinton, the DOJ was being the opposite of transparent.

---

LINK

Rep. Jim Himes was the congressman, I found the video:.

Rep. Jim Himes on the Democratic FISA memo http://video.foxnews.com/v/5742235346001/

These interactions between the AG and president are getting confusing to me. I hope outward appearances are just part of the plan, but getting concerned.

Thanks!

There is a conflict for DOJ investigating itself on FISA abuse, since the highest levels of the DOJ have to sign off on FISA warrants. Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein each signed off on the Page warrant applications.

Remember, before Sessions was confirmed, Yates was Acting Attorney General. She thwarted IG Horowitz from any investigation of the National Security division of DOJ (the unit responsible for FISA applications.) Sessions has now reversed that, if he hadn't done it before.

This might wind up with another Special Counsel being appointed. We'll see.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/yet-another-way-obamas-spies-apparently-exploited-the-trump-dossier/

Quote:

---

The much-hyped Obama intelligence report that determined "Vladimir Putin ordered" Hillary Clinton's campaign emails hacked and leaked "to help Trump's chances of victory" has been accepted as gospel among DC punditry and given the investigations besieging the Trump presidency their legs. To date, no evidence has publicly emerged to corroborate the report, and the reason may have a lot to do with that sketchy dossier bought and paid for by Clinton.

Suspiciously, Barack Obama's Intelligence Community Assessment matches the main allegations leveled by the Clinton-paid dossier on Trump, which wormed its way into intelligence channels, in addition to the FBI, Justice Department and State Department, during the 2016 campaign.

In fact, the shady dossier makes exactly the same claim that Putin personally "ordered" the cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign and leaked embarrassing emails to "bolster Trump," as part of "an aggressive Trump support operation." Like Obama's ICA, Clinton's dossier provides no concrete evidence to back up the claim.

After learning Obama Justice and FBI officials relied heavily on unsubstantiated rumors in the dossier to wiretap a Trump adviser during the election, congressional leaders now suspect the dossier also informed Obama intelligence officials who compiled the ICA.

The report was released Jan. 6, 2017 the same day intelligence officials attached a written summary of the dossier to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave Obama about the dossier, and the day after Obama held a secret White House meeting to discuss the dossier with his national security adviser and FBI director.

Staff investigators for GOP Rep. Devin Nunes' intelligence committee, for one, are now going over "every word" of the ICA including classified footnotes to see if any of the analysis was pre-cooked based on the dossier. On Tuesday, Nunes sent letters to Obama intel officials responsible for the report. He demanded former top spook John Brennan and intel czar James Clapper provide answers about how they used the dossier in intel reports and when they learned the Clinton camp paid for it....

---

And it's all tied into the secret meeting revealed in Susan Rice's belated e-mail. So was Susan Rice incredibly stupid and arrogant, or was she throwing Obama, Brennan & Clapper under the bus? Looks to me like a win-win scenario.

The job of the OIG is to investigate fraud abuse etc in the DoJ. Wouldn't make any sense for Sessions to use "normal" DoJ lawyers.

Very odd criticism from Trump.

BMX Bandit said:

---

The job of the OIG is to investigate fraud abuse etc in the DoJ. Wouldn't make any sense for Sessions to use "normal" DoJ lawyers.

Very odd criticism from Trump.

---

Agree it seems odd. Why I speculated a Special Counsel could be appointed, if it appears Sessions can't do it.

Is that the optic Trump is going for here??

aggiehawg said:

---

There is a conflict for DOJ investigating itself on FISA abuse, since the highest levels of the DOJ have to sign off on FISA warrants. Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein each signed off on the Page warrant applications.

Remember, before Sessions was confirmed, Yates was Acting Attorney General. She thwarted IG Horowitz from any investigation of the National Security division of DOJ (the unit responsible for FISA applications.) Sessions has now reversed that, if he hadn't done it before.

This might wind up with another Special Counsel being appointed. We'll see.

---

Trey Gowdy. I'm telling you. Book it.

jjeffers1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

There is a conflict for DOJ investigating itself on FISA abuse, since the highest levels of the DOJ have to sign off on FISA warrants. Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein each signed off on the Page warrant applications.

Remember, before Sessions was confirmed, Yates was Acting Attorney General. She thwarted IG Horowitz from any investigation of the National Security division of DOJ (the unit responsible for FISA applications.) Sessions has now reversed that, if he hadn't done it before.

This might wind up with another Special Counsel being appointed. We'll see.

---

Trey Gowdy. I'm telling you. Book it.

---

I'm not sure Gowdy would take it, though.

He'd be fabulous since he's already up to speed and could hit the ground running, convene a grand jury and start handing down subpoenas like Halloween candy. He already knows who to target, where the bottlenecks are thwarting the Congressional investigations. As Special Counsel, backed by a grand jury, those same bottlenecks could face contempt of court instead of just contempt of Congress.

Interesting read.

The Judge who makes the decision damn well can know all the actual names.

aggiehawg said:

---

jjeffers1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

There is a conflict for DOJ investigating itself on FISA abuse, since the highest levels of the DOJ have to sign off on FISA warrants. Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein each signed off on the Page warrant applications.

Remember, before Sessions was confirmed, Yates was Acting Attorney General. She thwarted IG Horowitz from any investigation of the National Security division of DOJ (the unit responsible for FISA applications.) Sessions has now reversed that, if he hadn't done it before.

This might wind up with another Special Counsel being appointed. We'll see.

---

Trey Gowdy. I'm telling you. Book it.

---

I'm not sure Gowdy would take it, though.

He'd be fabulous since he's already up to speed and could hit the ground running, convene a grand jury and start handing down subpoenas like Halloween candy. He already knows who to target, where the bottlenecks are thwarting the Congressional investigations. As Special Counsel, backed by a grand jury, those same bottlenecks could face contempt of court instead of just contempt of Congress.

---

I don't think Gowdy would work. Democrats would cry foul, he's too political, too biased in favor of Republicans. Needs to be non-partisan.

I posted an article by Victor Davis Hanson a couple of weeks ago that I thought contained a great suggestion.

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/scandal-corruption-lawbreaking-and-so-what/

Toward the end he suggests

Quote:

---

What is needed?

Attorney General Sessions must find muscular, ambitious, and combative prosecutors (preferably from outside Washington, D.C., and preferably existing federal attorneys), direct them to call a Grand Jury, and begin collating information from congressional investigations to get to the bottom of what is likely one of gravest scandals in post-war American history: the effort to use the federal government to thwart the candidacy of an unpopular presidential candidate and then to smear and ruin his early tenure as president.

Only another prosecutorial investigation, one way or another, will lead to resolution, take the entire mess out of the partisan arena, and keep the anemic Mueller investigation honest with the full knowledge that if its own investigators have violated laws or used tainted evidence or in the past obstructed justice, then they too will be held to account.

---

My concerns with a special prosecutor is the nature of these investigations and how they can go on forever and so secretly. I want visibility and transparency and publicity. Hanson's suggestion of getting Federal Attorneys from outside the swamp seems like a good idea.

I know hawg believes that Mueller is working against Trump. But there is still the possibility that he is white hat. None of his moves have jeopardized Trump while still building a case/investigating.

The media has borderline anointed the guy. He is the messiah to lead them to impeachment. It would be Armageddon in DC if he started dropping indictments against the Podesta wing of the scandal.

hbtheduce said:

---

I know hawg believes that Mueller is working against Trump. But there is still the possibility that he is white hat. None of his moves have jeopardized Trump while still building a case/investigating.

The media has borderline anointed the guy. He is the messiah to lead them to impeachment. It would be Armageddon in DC if he started dropping indictments against the Podesta wing of the scandal.

---

Not for lack of trying on Mueller's part to get something on Trump.

Meanwhile there is proof of Hillary conspiring with Russians to affect the election and not a peep nor a perp walk.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/968859205053636609.html

Quote:

---

1) Expect the OIG report to drop ASAP, this is the usual 'plausible deniability' play. If everyone sees a wedge between Horowitz, Sessions, and Trump, they can't scream that Trump is using the DoJ to go after political adversaries.

---

Quote:

---

2) People seem to like Q so much. So fine. F*** it. Let's read this like a Q post.

3) Why IS Sessions asking the OIG to investigate FISA abuses with no prosecutorial power? Why remind us the OIG is from the Obama administration? Because the OIG can recommend prosecution to the DoJ. The OIG's impartiality is basically unquestionable.

4) Horowitz' OIG was straight up BLUEBALLED by the Obama Administration from investigating ANYTHING in the DoJ. heritage.org/crime-and-just

5) There is no love lost between Horowitz and Obama. THAT'S why the OIG is investigating. Why are DoJ lawyers not being used for this investigation?

6) Because they CAN'T without getting reamed for being partisan actors. Also, there might still be a few bad actors within the DoJ. So, go to the OIG, who were sidelined and had their power diminished/ignored.

7) The OIG has no prosecutorial power, correct. What power DO they have? law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/us

8) "to have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material available to the applicable establishment which relate to programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this Act"

9) "to make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the applicable establishment as are, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary or desirable"

10) "to require by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act"

11) "to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which oath, affirmation, or affidavit when administered or taken by or before an employee of an OIG"

12) The OIG get access to EVERYTHING. They can subpeona G****MN EVERYTHING. They can take oaths from G****MN ANYONE.

13) Then, they get to drop that report into the public. Follow @OversightGov, the Inspector General twitter page where they drop public reports. Holy s*** the swamp blasting these guys do.

14) The Office of the Inspector General is the big brother of big brother. The Batman of government. They're the ones who are the first responders to corruption. And @realDonaldTrump just gave us a heads up on where the next volley against the Swamp is coming from. /end

---

Amen.

Rockdoc said:

---

These interactions between the AG and president are getting confusing to me. I hope outward appearances are just part of the plan, but getting concerned.

---

Trump could fire him if he really wanted to. I don't get the tweets either, but Trump can't be too disappointed.

Horowitz above reproach in the future? Jim Comey says hi.

drcrinum said:

---

Interesting read.

---

That seems about right. Hope it comes true.

Sidenote:

Did you know that Adam Schiff proposed a bill in 2013 to make the President the appointer of FISC Judges in an attempt to give Obama this power instead of the Chief Justice?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2761/committees

**WTF: Why was TED POE going along with this as the sole (R) with 10 (D)'s also co-sponsoring?

aggiehawg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

I know hawg believes that Mueller is working against Trump. But there is still the possibility that he is white hat. None of his moves have jeopardized Trump while still building a case/investigating.

The media has borderline anointed the guy. He is the messiah to lead them to impeachment. It would be Armageddon in DC if he started dropping indictments against the Podesta wing of the scandal.

---

Not for lack of trying on Mueller's part to get something on Trump.

Meanwhile there is proof of Hillary conspiring with Russians to affect the election and not a peep nor a perp walk.

---

I think Mueller wears a Mueller hat and will shift whichever the way the winds are blowing. I believe he is having a hard time reading which way to go at the moment. In the end, he will chose the way that makes him look the best IMO.

Trump sends these obtuse tweets out on purpose to give the illusion that he's on an island and all alone fighting with everyone around him. Always appearing to be in turmoil with everyone, so when they find what he knows is there, it makes it hard for the media to say it was orchestrated by Trump when everything by appearances is just the opposite. He then gets the biggest I told you so on the planet.

Think back to the Tillerson interview on CNN when she asked about his obtuse tweets to him about negotiations in NK and he chuckled and said "my policy objective is clear and I pay no mind to Twitter. If I need something I talk directly to the POTUS I don't worry about nonsense tweets"

Tillerson spelled it out right there what the tweets are about. No one paid attention. Too busy chasing the shine objects whose sole reason is to distract.... it's an eephus

Good read on Mueller vs Flynn and why Mueller interviewing Trump is so dangerous ...

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375545-scarlett-is-red-and-thats-no-lie

Quote:

---

To better understand the tactics Mueller may have employed to obtain a Flynn guilty plea, let's look at a typical scenario in the Mueller system to see how accusations of lying were used to decide disciplinary cases.

When "Agent Smith" made a headline-grabbing appearance at a dinner party with a guest list that included an individual connected to the defendant in a major case he was supervising, a conflict-of-interest was suggested. Subsequently, a disciplinary case was opened.

Now, let's say Mueller wanted the option to dismiss Smith even if the facts of the case did not support dismissal. To make this possible, after an investigation, the centerpiece of which would be Smith's testimony, a proposal would be made by Mueller's surrogate charging Smith with lying.

The charge would likely hinge on something as indistinct from each other as the color "scarlet" and the color "red." The charge also would be likely to misrepresent the significance of supporting evidence or omit contradicting evidence, or both.

Hence, the charge might be worded like this:

"When asked to describe the vehicle you drove to the dinner party, you said the vehicle's color is red. However, the manufacturer lists the color as scarlet. Since you attended a university whose official color is scarlet, you should have known the difference between scarlet and red. I, therefore, charge you with 'lying under oath,' and if found to be true, that you be dismissed from the FBI."

While defending himself, Smith might request to have someone from the car company explain that scarlet is just a marketing term for red. But this commonsense request would be denied.

---