Perhaps. Mark Levin has unloaded both barrels on Gowdy the last couple of days. He sure doesn't think Gowdy is playing some other hand.jjeffers1 said:
I have no doubt Gowdy is in line for some sort of big DOJ/FBI job. I thought he might be the special prosecutor but that's looking less-likely.
Gowdy is planting the seeds to refute democrat objections to his confirmation to a Trump appointed post.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,494,625 Views |
49269 Replies |
Last: 11 days ago by aggiehawg
The above is an obvious smear to distract from the significance of McCabe's firing, and it is no coincidence that ABC was chosen to run point. There are a number of important factors though hidden in the background. Here is an insightful analysis:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/976584904304668673.html
Is there a good article or set of articles I can read to get caught up on what's going on here? I read the last couple pages and am pretty lost as I stopped paying attention right after the Grassley memo came out.
The big gist is DC is corrupt beyond most of our comprehension. Obama so packed government with activist, not patriots, that breaking the law by the ruiling elites is common place.
Don't feel lost. Since the Grassley Memo in mid February, there have been lots of interesting side details and tidbits, but other than the McCabe firing and learning that Sessions has been working in secret with an outside prosecutor, we are pretty much marking time until the OIG Report is released -- that is the Main Event -- then the real fireworks will start. And the OIG report may come out in pieces because it is so massive and because Congressional committees keep requesting Horowitz to investigate more people/incidents.ccaggie05 said:
Is there a good article or set of articles I can read to get caught up on what's going on here? I read the last couple pages and am pretty lost as I stopped paying attention right after the Grassley memo came out.
drcrinum said:Don't feel lost. Since the Grassley Memo in mid February, there have been lots of interesting side details and tidbits, but other than the McCabe firing and learning that Sessions has been working in secret with an outside prosecutor, we are pretty much marking time until the OIG Report is released -- that is the Main Event -- then the real fireworks will start. And the OIG report may come out in pieces because it is so massive and because Congressional committees keep requesting Horowitz to investigate more people/incidents.ccaggie05 said:
Is there a good article or set of articles I can read to get caught up on what's going on here? I read the last couple pages and am pretty lost as I stopped paying attention right after the Grassley memo came out.
Any clue on when the OIG report comes out?
I think it's a moving target because of the additional questions that keep coming up.ccaggie05 said:drcrinum said:Don't feel lost. Since the Grassley Memo in mid February, there have been lots of interesting side details and tidbits, but other than the McCabe firing and learning that Sessions has been working in secret with an outside prosecutor, we are pretty much marking time until the OIG Report is released -- that is the Main Event -- then the real fireworks will start. And the OIG report may come out in pieces because it is so massive and because Congressional committees keep requesting Horowitz to investigate more people/incidents.ccaggie05 said:
Is there a good article or set of articles I can read to get caught up on what's going on here? I read the last couple pages and am pretty lost as I stopped paying attention right after the Grassley memo came out.
Any clue on when the OIG report comes out?
Two of the more important statements from the thread:
Watergate will no longer be the go-to standard for measuring corruption, after all the illegal activity of the Obama administration is revealed.
Quote:
at the exact time McCabe, Strzok, Yates, Ohr, Page, Preistap, Baker, Comey, Rybicki were *actively* spying on Team Trump via the 702 queries & Carter Page title 1 FISA warrant, they were actively running a case to frame the Attorney General of the US.
Quote:
OPR *does not* allow legal counsel to FBI personnel under OPR review *unless* they are being reviewed for criminal conduct. McCabe throughout the OPR review, triggered by @JusticeOIG has had Counsel present.
Watergate will no longer be the go-to standard for measuring corruption, after all the illegal activity of the Obama administration is revealed.
^drcrinum said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/976584904304668673.html
31. Andrew McCabe was permitted a lawyer bc he's almost certainly under indictment; Horowitz has a prosecutor & a grand jury empaneled. The way OPR handled McCabe proves it.
This
I don't know what historians will say, but just what we know makes it much worse.VaultingChemist said:
Two of the more important statements from the thread:Quote:
at the exact time McCabe, Strzok, Yates, Ohr, Page, Preistap, Baker, Comey, Rybicki were *actively* spying on Team Trump via the 702 queries & Carter Page title 1 FISA warrant, they were actively running a case to frame the Attorney General of the US.Quote:
OPR *does not* allow legal counsel to FBI personnel under OPR review *unless* they are being reviewed for criminal conduct. McCabe throughout the OPR review, triggered by @JusticeOIG has had Counsel present.
Watergate will no longer be the go-to standard for measuring corruption, after all the illegal activity of the Obama administration is revealed.
Queue libs saying "well, why isn't anyone in jail?!"
So those statements about the IG having no real power to bring charges were off base, I take it.benchmark said:^drcrinum said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/976584904304668673.html
31. Andrew McCabe was permitted a lawyer bc he's almost certainly under indictment; Horowitz has a prosecutor & a grand jury empaneled. The way OPR handled McCabe proves it.
This
Slightly misleading. On his own, the IG can't empanel a grand jury. But he's working with a DOJ prosecutor who does have the power to empanel a grand jury.Quote:
So those statements about the IG having no real power to bring charges were off base, I take it.
Exactly. And the implications of what this may mean are mind blowing because a DOJ prosecutor and grand jury would leverage Horowitz's investigative powers 100 x's and fast track likely indictments immediately following the release of the OIG report.aggiehawg said:
....... On his own, the IG can't empanel a grand jury. But he's working with a DOJ prosecutor who does have the power to empanel a grand jury.
Fingers crossed this is true.
I really think the inflammatory statements by Brennan, Comey, and others is their last ditch attempt to create the narrative that Trump/Sessions are only going after them as retribution.
They know the media won't inform you that the investigation has been conducted for well over a year...they'll flash a graphic of some of Brennan's tweets and openly speculate why is the President so childishly seeking revenge when he should be worried about latest newsworthy topic they never bothered to cover before (as Russia and Stormy dominated every news cycle).
They'll end it by painting the indicted as heroes who were courageously fighting the evil Trump from ruining our country. They might even use a "wouldn't you spy on Hitler if you had the chance" (icing on top will be if GDP is at 5% by then and they completely ignore it).
I pray enough Americans are "woke" enough to realize they're witnessing Watergate on steroids.
They know the media won't inform you that the investigation has been conducted for well over a year...they'll flash a graphic of some of Brennan's tweets and openly speculate why is the President so childishly seeking revenge when he should be worried about latest newsworthy topic they never bothered to cover before (as Russia and Stormy dominated every news cycle).
They'll end it by painting the indicted as heroes who were courageously fighting the evil Trump from ruining our country. They might even use a "wouldn't you spy on Hitler if you had the chance" (icing on top will be if GDP is at 5% by then and they completely ignore it).
I pray enough Americans are "woke" enough to realize they're witnessing Watergate on steroids.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So its starting to look like the real "insurance policy" that Strzok was texting about was a network of players that were working together to make sure that any Trump appointee would be effectively neutered before being able to look under the hood at the DOJ or FBI.
This is probably more of a line of thought for the Qanon thread, but all of the chatter about Franken asking Sessions loaded questions at his confirmation hearings makes me want to go back and look a little closer at his ouster from the Senate. Is there some chance that the public #metoo humiliation was a deal he made to credibly resign in disgrace for his part in the plot in exchange for skating away from the IG and DOJ prosecution?
This is probably more of a line of thought for the Qanon thread, but all of the chatter about Franken asking Sessions loaded questions at his confirmation hearings makes me want to go back and look a little closer at his ouster from the Senate. Is there some chance that the public #metoo humiliation was a deal he made to credibly resign in disgrace for his part in the plot in exchange for skating away from the IG and DOJ prosecution?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/22/mccabes-bogus-witch-hunt-of-jeff-sessions-confirms-worst-fears-about-fbi-doj-politicization/#.WrOq4y_p9dk.twitter
Quote:
...McCabe didn't just oversee the investigation into the attorney general, but authorized it after Sens. Leahy and Franken asked the bureau "to investigate 'all contacts' Sessions may have had with Russians, and 'whether any laws were broken in the course of those contacts or in any subsequent discussion of whether they occurred.'"
Such a far-reaching investigation would be an unprecedented attack on Sessions, who had already recused himself from anything Russia-related. As Glenn Reynolds puts it, it makes sense as "an insurance policy." Just as Comey kept publicly intimating a nefarious Russia collusion narrative at the same time he was privately admitting to Trump he was not under investigation, McCabe had a back-up plan to keep Sessions from finding out too much about FBI leadership's problematic behavior.
McCabe's decision to launch an investigation of Sessions happened just a few months after the Justice Department's internal watchdog announced it was investigating the FBI's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. McCabe was a "key figure" in the Clinton email investigation. While the IG report has not been released, it has been widely understood to paint an extremely unflattering portrait of McCabe's handling of the probe....
Very good detailed write-up about the history surrounding McCabe's investigation of Sessions.
Yup, it was designed to prevent the AG from finding out about how the FBI/DOJ had become politically weaponized. Actually, the ultimate goal was not only to impeach Trump or to render him completely ineffective, but to also remove the AG or render him completely powerless while all the Scheme Team's nasty deeds were buried in a deep backyard pit.
I started the same way. Trust me, just fix a pot of coffee or pour "anything" on the rocks and start reading. That is all that will get you caught up and give you the full depth of what is going on.ccaggie05 said:
Is there a good article or set of articles I can read to get caught up on what's going on here? I read the last couple pages and am pretty lost as I stopped paying attention right after the Grassley memo came out.
You "have to" do the same with the Q thread to see how they both
Both are simply fascinating and what makes them fascinating is the banter and research that makes a blog a blog.
Can I go to sleep Looch?
Been pushed to May. But, originally it was January, then February, then March. So, who knows.ccaggie05 said:drcrinum said:Don't feel lost. Since the Grassley Memo in mid February, there have been lots of interesting side details and tidbits, but other than the McCabe firing and learning that Sessions has been working in secret with an outside prosecutor, we are pretty much marking time until the OIG Report is released -- that is the Main Event -- then the real fireworks will start. And the OIG report may come out in pieces because it is so massive and because Congressional committees keep requesting Horowitz to investigate more people/incidents.ccaggie05 said:
Is there a good article or set of articles I can read to get caught up on what's going on here? I read the last couple pages and am pretty lost as I stopped paying attention right after the Grassley memo came out.
Any clue on when the OIG report comes out?
<sigh> Benjamin Wittes, a Comey bestie, is giving some advice to Mueller in this lawfare blog post.
Fairly long piece focusing on whether Mueller's findings become public and in which form. Although full of historical facts, what is striking to me is the plethora of available options to Mueller and Rosenstein. My comments are hypothetical from Mueller's POV.
Fairly long piece focusing on whether Mueller's findings become public and in which form. Although full of historical facts, what is striking to me is the plethora of available options to Mueller and Rosenstein. My comments are hypothetical from Mueller's POV.
Quote:
The question of whether and how the public will learn what Mueller knows is actually complicatedcomplicated legally, complicated historically, and complicated as well with respect to another variable: How Mueller imagines his role as special counsel.
There are a number of possible models for Mueller in that self-imagination, each of which would imply an entirely different approach to reporting, either to the public or to Congress, on his findings. His predecessors have taken radically different approaches to the question of the role of the special prosecutor as a reporter of his findingsand they have operated as well under different legal obligations and constraints, different both from each other and from Mueller.
Ooops! That's a trip wire. Other options?Quote:
If Mueller follows the orthodox pathand the reaction to Comey's behavior might well militate towards orthodoxywe will only learn what Mueller knows if it produces indictments. We will learn about the extent of "collusion" or about possible obstructions of justice only to the extent his team concludes that the activity violated some federal criminal law and to the extent the team believes it can prove that violation beyond a reasonable doubt using admissible evidence.
Pass. Next?Quote:
Short of that, the investigation will wind down and shut up and we'll have to rely on congressional investigators, civil litigation, and historians for a narrative account of what actually happened. Those who were outraged by Comey's disclosure and evaluation of the evidence in the Clinton matter should pause a moment to understand that this same behavior is precisely what they are now seeking from Mueller.
Aaahh, There it is! About time! Proceed please.Quote:
But there are, of course, other models. In the past, special prosecutors have issued reports of various sorts detailing their findings, including their findings as to unindicted subjects. Broadly speaking, at least in the modern era, these reports have taken two forms: final reports of the investigation, and referrals to Congress of material that might be grounds for impeachment.
Duly noted. Please continue.Quote:
In 1974, the office of Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski transmitted a referral of impeachment material related to President Richard Nixon to the House Judiciary Committee. Jaworski later characterized the document as a "road map": 55 pages of bare-bones factual information intended to point committee members to the relevant evidence so they could draw their own conclusions.
<snip>
The "road map" has never become public, as it contained grand jury information, which prosecutors are forbidden from disclosing under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
Quote:
Jaworski's decision to issue the referral in the first place was likewise entirely his own. The Justice Department order under which he was appointed by Acting Attorney General Robert Bork mentioned nothing about an impeachment referral, though it did allow the special prosecutor to "from time to time make such public statements as he deems appropriate" and required the prosecutor to submit a final report to Congress at the end of the investigation. (That report was eventually released in 1977, after Jaworski's departure.)
Jaworski instead received approval to transmit the referral from the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, John Sirica, who relied on the common law powers of the grand jury to issue reports in allowing the referral to go forward. Because the referral contained grand jury information, Sirica also had to rule that "principles of grand jury secrecy do not bar this disclosure" in order for the document to be released.
Note to self: Need to talk to Rod about this. Back to Jaworski and Starr.Quote:
Mueller, like Jaworski, has no specific obligation to report impeachable material to Congress. The regulation governing his activities under his appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein says nothing about impeachment referrals one way or the other, only requiring Mueller to write a final report to Rosenstein and leaving to the latter the decision whether and how to make anything public.
Heh, hehe, heh. Dodged that bullet, didn't I?Quote:
Presumably, he, like Jaworski, would have to go through the judge presiding over the grand jury to release information protected by grand jury secrecy rules. But note that Mueller appears to have conducted a large percentage of the current investigation not in front of the grand jury but by FBI interview. This might make him freer, as Comey was on the Clinton email matter, to discuss his findings without the permission of the court.
Wish I had that statute now. Anything else Starr did that might prove useful?Quote:
Then there's the Ken Starr model. Starr had a particularly grandiose vision of the truth-reporting role of the special prosecutor. But separate from Starr's particular understanding of the law, the role itself had morphed by the time he investigated Bill Clinton. For one thing, the final report was now a matter of law: It required that the independent counsel to "before the termination of the independent counsel's office . . . file a final report . . . setting forth fully and completely a description of the work of the independent counsel, including the disposition of all cases brought." What's more, a different provision of the independent counsel law required that Starr refer to Congress any information that might be grounds for an impeachment
Note to self. Have lunch with Adam Schiff soon. He's a reliable leaker. Don't ever stand between him and a microphone.Quote:
The key point is that he adopted a deeply different vision of his role than Jaworski tookone that was much further from the orthodox view of the federal prosecutor's function. Starr saw the public reporting function as integral to the function of the independent counsel. And critically, he didn't merely report to Congress on the President's conduct. He crafted the report as a detailed narrative that also contained lengthy evaluations of the evidence with reference as possibly impeachable offenses. Starr did not make this report publica fact long forgottenand its transmission to Congress, along with the mountain of grand jury information it contained, was authorized by the special courtthat appointed him under the old law. But Congress quickly released the document in its entirety. And the result was that the impeachment referral provisionmeant to enshrine in law a requirement that independent counsels behave as Jaworski didcame to function in a very different way: as a vehicle for the special prosecutor to issue a detailed, evaluative narrative document that both reported the truth as the investigation found it and evaluated it against the law.
Note to self: Find out what is Rod's favorite wine or liquor and buy him a case of it.Quote:
Neither of these reporting requirements remain in the regulations that govern Mueller, but neither do the relevant regulations preclude Mueller from behaving as Starr did. As we read the regulations, rather, Mueller can do any kind of reporting that he wants, provided that Rosensteinwho, by the way, worked for the Starr investigation once upon a timeis comfortable with his activity and the district court approves the release of any grand jury material. In other words, if Mueller has a truth-commission view of his role and Rosenstein tolerates it, a capacious report or set of reports, either to Congress or to the public, is certainly a possibility. It is neither required nor forbidden under the rules in force today.
That sounds like a PITA, not to mention I could lose control. Preet is gone, replaced by a Trump appointee.Quote:
There's still another possibility if Mueller is truth-commission oriented. Writing on Lawfare, both Paul Rosenzweig and Andrew Kent have proposed the use of a special grand jury under 18 U.S.C. 3331 to issue a public report on Russian election interference. Unlike regular grand juries, special grand juries have the power not only to examine misconduct but also to make their findings public, albeit with court approval and after notifying the individuals named in the report and allowing them to respond. While convening a special grand jury usually requires an order from the attorney general or acting attorney general, such a jury may also be empaneled independently in "a judicial district containing more than four million inhabitants"which, as Kent notes, describes the Southern District of New York, where Trump Tower is located.
Thanks, Ben. Keep these articles coming! Later, pal!Quote:
Yet if any situation has ever begged for a truth-commission understanding of the role,L'Affaire Russe cries out for a capacious public reporting function. The questions it raises are sweeping and implicate not just presidential conduct but the integrity of an American presidential election. The question may boil down to how urgent Mueller feels the need is for Congress, or the public, to understand what happenedand also the extent to which he can play the needed public education role simply using the tools of the conventional prosecutor.
I have serious doubts about that. Franken isn't that smart. Plus he's a true believer. He'd never turn on his fellow travelers.Quote:
This is probably more of a line of thought for the Qanon thread, but all of the chatter about Franken asking Sessions loaded questions at his confirmation hearings makes me want to go back and look a little closer at his ouster from the Senate. Is there some chance that the public #metoo humiliation was a deal he made to credibly resign in disgrace for his part in the plot in exchange for skating away from the IG and DOJ prosecution?
I don't care to speculate too much, as it's a waste of time, and certainly space on this thread, but I do have a question about any possible "flippers" at the FBI or DOJ (well, anyone, for that matter).
While I don't believe McCabe will follow through on his "take everyone with me", comment (or whatever it was), if the players involved believe the tide has turned against them, someone, somewhere, will turn, if they haven't already.
For you and Hawg, what WOULD happen if one, or two, players with supposed knowledge, did specifically identify Obama, and his acolyte Jarrett? Would Obama be indicted like anyone else, or do you have to launch another investigation? Couldn't he just put everything under "executive privilege" like he successfully did with Fast and Furious?
While I don't believe McCabe will follow through on his "take everyone with me", comment (or whatever it was), if the players involved believe the tide has turned against them, someone, somewhere, will turn, if they haven't already.
For you and Hawg, what WOULD happen if one, or two, players with supposed knowledge, did specifically identify Obama, and his acolyte Jarrett? Would Obama be indicted like anyone else, or do you have to launch another investigation? Couldn't he just put everything under "executive privilege" like he successfully did with Fast and Furious?
Hate is how progressives sustain themselves. Without hate, introspection begins to slip into the progressive's consciousness, threatening the progressive with the truth: that their ideas and opinions are illogical, hypocritical, dangerous, and asinine.
This is backed by data.
This is backed by data.
I'm obviously not Hawg but I think Obama was a master of plausible deniability and I think Jarrett is the highest ranking member we'll see go down, if at all.fasthorses05 said:
I don't care to speculate too much, as it's a waste of time, and certainly space on this thread, but I do have a question about any possible "flippers" at the FBI or DOJ (well, anyone, for that matter).
While I don't believe McCabe will follow through on his "take everyone with me", comment (or whatever it was), if the players involved believe the tide has turned against them, someone, somewhere, will turn, if they haven't already.
For you and Hawg, what WOULD happen if one, or two, players with supposed knowledge, did specifically identify Obama, and his acolyte Jarrett? Would Obama be indicted like anyone else, or do you have to launch another investigation? Couldn't he just put everything under "executive privilege" like he successfully did with Fast and Furious?
I still don't see how Hillary goes down...I pray I'm wrong but I just can't envision a scenario where she's indicted. She and Bill have WAY too much dirt on too many people and unlike McCabe, I think they will take everyone down with them (and everyone knows it). Also, I'm sure it includes a lot of RINO's too, who are deathly afraid (yes McCain, I'm looking at you).
Obama is out of office. He can be indicted. Ironically, if Obama tried to invoke Executive Privilege it would be up to the Trump Administration's Solicitor General to do that. (The same way Nixon did to protect LBJ during the Pentagon Papers case. Which failed, BTW.)Quote:
For you and Hawg, what WOULD happen if one, or two, players with supposed knowledge, did specifically identify Obama, and his acolyte Jarrett? Would Obama be indicted like anyone else, or do you have to launch another investigation? Couldn't he just put everything under "executive privilege" like he successfully did with Fast and Furious?
IOW, Obama may attempt to make that argument but I think it fails against actual criminal wrongdoing. (Again, see Nixon and Watergate.)
HTH.
I do. It's called RICO. She may not go to jail but their assets can be seized. As Billy Ray Valentine said, "Best way to hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people."Quote:
I still don't see how Hillary goes down...I pray I'm wrong but I just can't envision a scenario where she's indicted. She and Bill have WAY too much dirt on too many people and unlike McCabe, I think they will take everyone down with them (and everyone knows it). Also, I'm sure it includes a lot of RINO's too, who are deathly afraid (yes McCain, I'm looking at you).
Given the above commentary...I hope Madam Justice is finally "on her way and Hell is coming with her".
I would happily take that...aggiehawg said:I do. It's called RICO. She may not go to jail but their assets can be seized. As Billy Ray Valentine said, "Best way to hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people."Quote:
I still don't see how Hillary goes down...I pray I'm wrong but I just can't envision a scenario where she's indicted. She and Bill have WAY too much dirt on too many people and unlike McCabe, I think they will take everyone down with them (and everyone knows it). Also, I'm sure it includes a lot of RINO's too, who are deathly afraid (yes McCain, I'm looking at you).
This can't be terribly good. John Dowd resigned due to Trump increasingly ignoring advice on the Mueller obstruction case!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-22/dowd-resigns-trumps-lead-lawyer-mueller-probe-hes-increasingly-ignoring-advice
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-22/dowd-resigns-trumps-lead-lawyer-mueller-probe-hes-increasingly-ignoring-advice
Hate is how progressives sustain themselves. Without hate, introspection begins to slip into the progressive's consciousness, threatening the progressive with the truth: that their ideas and opinions are illogical, hypocritical, dangerous, and asinine.
This is backed by data.
This is backed by data.
More likely because of Joseph diGenova being hired. Hiring a guy like that means it is time to go on the offensive and not keep playing defense.fasthorses05 said:
This can't be terribly good. John Dowd resigned due to Trump increasingly ignoring advice on the Mueller obstruction case!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-22/dowd-resigns-trumps-lead-lawyer-mueller-probe-hes-increasingly-ignoring-advice
Well Dowd is out as the POTUS attorney in the Mueller witch hunt. Lots of BS speculation as to why. But the idiot statement he made to the press about praying Rosenstein would fire Mueller I think sealed his fate. That tied up news cycles for a week, and threats from all the RINO's and Left that they'd go after the POTUS if he did and even prompted a few trying pass legislation to protect Mueller. Not Dowd's first rodeo in stupid statements to the media. Joseph diGenova is driving this train now.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
That's a double-edged sword, though.Quote:
More likely because of Joseph diGenova being hired. Hiring a guy like that means it is time to go on the offensive and not keep playing defense.
Let me tell you, lawyers don't always get along with each other. In actuality, they seldom do, even when they are on the same team. O.J.s Dream Team despised each other.
I really like DiGenova. I hope he has enough gas left in the tank to run this truck down the road (plowing over a lot of bad actors on the way)
So, to recap. Mueller's "best" witnesses: Flynn-a liar, Gates-a liar, Manafort-still fighting, Comey-a leaking, liar, McCabe-a leaking liar who was fired for cause, Papadop-a liar, a bunch of Russians who will never set foot on American soil and now a convicted pedophile, in Nader.
Nice little investigation you got going there, Bob.
Nice little investigation you got going there, Bob.
Yeah, I remember reading about how much they could not stand one another. They got along because they were paid to get along, nothing more. It was kind of amazing they held it together for the entire trial. I guess the huge $$$ they were getting was enough to overcome everything.aggiehawg said:That's a double-edged sword, though.Quote:
More likely because of Joseph diGenova being hired. Hiring a guy like that means it is time to go on the offensive and not keep playing defense.
Let me tell you, lawyers don't always get along with each other. In actuality, they seldom do, even when they are on the same team. O.J.s Dream Team despised each other.
Wasn't this a counterintelligence investigation?
Featured Stories
See All
61:36
2d ago
17k
TexAgs Internship Program
by TexAgs
4:48
9h ago
1.1k
2025 A&M pledge Landon Rink remains hungry from week to week
by Cade Draughon
Under-the-radar storylines for Aggie hoops heading into 2024-25
by Luke Evangelist
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s 'Bad Tiger' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United