Awww look, the left has it's own charts:

The new explanation

and the kicker:

So random readers added 65 names. That's a good source.

And after all that, the "largest federal criminal probe of the last half-century", they still have nothing.

This idiot is part of the CNN circle jerk



And here he's the amazing Kreskin! His favorite answer? "Well it could be" that type of groundbreaking legal insight is breathtaking.



And he's a perjury expert

Seth is a known leftist conspiracy kook. He's such a moron that even liberals won't touch him.

Except CNN, of course

He's feeling the Bern

A leftist Alex Jones type?

Why does every flow chart made by a leftist look like that?

Wendy 1990 said:

---

Why does every flow chart made by a leftist look like that?

---

the flow chart, or the leftist?

Quote:

---

Even with a team of 41 attorneys and investigators, we would expect Bob Mueller to need a decade to complete his investigation.

---

a decade?!

lmao!

akm91 said:

---

The OIG report can not be published soon enough.

---

Ain't that the truth. Even if not fully completed, roll it out in volumes. Or just a 50 page summary.

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

The OIG report can not be published soon enough.

---

Ain't that the truth. Even if not fully completed, roll it out in volumes. Or just a 50 page summary.

---

A bullet list would be better than nothing

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

The OIG report can not be published soon enough.

---

Ain't that the truth. Even if not fully completed, roll it out in volumes. Or just a 50 page summary.

---

How do you think Rod Rosenstein will fare with the OIG?

I think he is in deep trouble. The only reason for him still having a job is to fire him before the report would be portrayed in the media as obstruction of justice.

Worse than Glenn Beck. All of these circumstantial links but NOTHING explAining what they mean, why they would matter, what they imply, what factual data ties them together related to any illegal activity or conspiracy.

When you do these flow charts, the mere fact they once talked or met or knew the same person isn't enough to matter.

Same thing with Hillary ones. Show the details making links worth noting.

He's supposed to tie to Kevin Bacon...not Donald Trump!

Quote:

---

How do you think Rod Rosenstein will fare with the OIG?

---

Have no idea. As far as the Hillary email case is concerned, I would expect Loretta Lynch would be the bigger heat sink for blame, over Rosenstein. Likely Yates, as well.

Further, Horowitz doesn't seem to have much of a problem pointing out the sins of employees to their direct supervisors. So if Sessions is still keeping Rosenstein in the loop, it is safe to assume he hasn't been informed of any serious malfeasance that Horowitz has discovered.

Now on the still developing investigation of the FISA abuse, he could have his feet held to the fire. Or he's a fully cooperating witness with Horowitz and whomever Sessions has assigned to lead the malfeasance at the FBI.

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember when I questioned if Sessions had sandbagged Huber by revealing his name? At the time, I believed Huber was in DC under assignment by Sessions. There's little Huber can do from Utah.

But if Huber hasn't been in DC for much of the last several months, then there is someone else who is running things. At least I hope so. If there isn't a grand jury empaneled in DC or Virginia looking into all of this as we speak, Sessions has seriously dropped the ball.

McCabe has set up his legal defense fund for a reason. There has to be a bear out there somewhere that McCabe fears.

---

Yep. We've recently assumed Sessions was ahead of the curve and Huber has been working quietly with Horowitz for many months ... and this may still be true even if he hasn't empaneled a DC GJ ... or the 2nd possibility of another unnamed prosecutor.

The Occam's Razor 3rd possibility: Sessions is exactly who we've always thought he was.

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember when I questioned if Sessions had sandbagged Huber by revealing his name? At the time, I believed Huber was in DC under assignment by Sessions. There's little Huber can do from Utah.

But if Huber hasn't been in DC for much of the last several months, then there is someone else who is running things. At least I hope so. If there isn't a grand jury empaneled in DC or Virginia looking into all of this as we speak, Sessions has seriously dropped the ball.

McCabe has set up his legal defense fund for a reason. There has to be a bear out there somewhere that McCabe fears.

---

Yep. We've recently assumed Sessions was ahead of the curve and Huber has been working quietly with Horowitz for many months ... and this may still be true even if he hasn't empaneled a DC GJ ... or the 2nd possibility of another unnamed prosecutor.

The Occam's Razor 3rd possibility: Sessions is exactly who we've always thought he was.

---

Ugh! I need a scotch.

The impression I get is if you come clean and fly straight and there is a plausibly reasonable and justifiable and policy compliant explanation for anything questionable, that they don't run you over, but after that you basically are in the role of supporting witness for the investigation.

At least, it seems like those in any of these investigations who tried to cover up or mislead were really focused on harshly.

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember when I questioned if Sessions had sandbagged Huber by revealing his name? At the time, I believed Huber was in DC under assignment by Sessions. There's little Huber can do from Utah.

But if Huber hasn't been in DC for much of the last several months, then there is someone else who is running things. At least I hope so. If there isn't a grand jury empaneled in DC or Virginia looking into all of this as we speak, Sessions has seriously dropped the ball.

McCabe has set up his legal defense fund for a reason. There has to be a bear out there somewhere that McCabe fears.

---

Yep. We've recently assumed Sessions was ahead of the curve and Huber has been working quietly with Horowitz for many months ... and this may still be true even if he hasn't empaneled a DC GJ ... or the 2nd possibility of another unnamed prosecutor.

The Occam's Razor 3rd possibility: Sessions is exactly who we've always thought he was.

---

A combination of Ross Perot and Foghorn Leghorn on sedatives?

Quote:

---

The impression I get is if you come clean and fly straight and there is a plausibly reasonable and justifiable and policy compliant explanation for anything questionable, that they don't run you over, but after that you basically are in the role of supporting witness for the investigation.

At least, it seems like those in any of these investigations who tried to cover up or mislead were really focused on harshly.

---

The process to fire a long-termer is arduous and you lose their good will in being forthcoming (and those of others similarly situated.)

Remember, even Strzok and Page hated Eric Holder and considered Lynch a lightweight. The rank and file hasn't particularly liked nor admired their superiors during the Obama Administration.

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember, even Strzok and Page hated Eric Holder and considered Lynch a lightweight.

---

I still can't get one Page/Strzok text out of my head ... paraphrasing; "Do you think Clinton will ever remember it was more DOJ than FBI?" I can't fit that quip into the puzzle

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Remember, even Strzok and Page hated Eric Holder and considered Lynch a lightweight.

---

I still can't get one Page/Strzok text out of my head ... paraphrasing; "Do you think Clinton will ever remember it was more DOJ than FBI?" I can't fit that quip into the puzzle

---

My interpretation of that exchange was a concern for their own jobs with the FBI continuing after Hillary was elected. It was also said within the context of being the one to actually question her. Something Hillary would likely remember acutely. Further ascension to a political appointee position would be affected by something like that. Typical bureaucratese. "What about my job???"

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/mueller-found-a-very-dishonest-way-to-shroud-his-investigation-in-secrecy/

Quote:

---

Mueller Found a Very Dishonest Way to Shroud His Investigation in Secrecy

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his deputy Andrew Weissmann filed a three-page notice on Monday arguing that Alex Van Der Zwaan should not be allowed to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to the ongoing Russia investigation.

As the notice points out, Van Der Zwaan originally agreed to waive his rights to "request or receive" such records from the government during his plea agreement. In the notice, Mueller claims his legal arguments are being filed because the court "drew attention" to a similar waiver agreement during Richard Gates' recent arraignment.

That's likely true, but it strains credulity to think there's not at least something else going on behind the scenes here. One plausible scenario: Van Der Zwaan's attorneys have signaled their intent to challenge the government's FOIA waiver because there's not much in the way of precedent that actually binds the court to enforce the waiver.

Such waivers are generally considered enforceable, but this is a hotly contested body of law and civil libertariansas well as defense attorneysfrequently press the issue in the U.S. court system. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the exact question, so consider this all in flux. In a pointed bit of opinion from Price v. DOJ Attorney Office, where a waiver was found unenforceable, the D.C. Circuit noted:

Quote:

---

To be clear, we do not hold that FOIA waivers in plea agreements are always unenforceable. We simply hold that the government may not invoke Price's FOIA waiver as a basis for denying him access to the records he requests because, in this case, the government has given us no adequate rationale for enforcing this waiver in light of the public-policy harms Price has identified. That's it.

---

Therefore, the law on point suggests that such waivers can only be enforced when the government can articulate cognizable criminal justice concerns that outweigh the public's sacred right to information.

Mueller's notice is aware of the law hereand apparently scared of it....

---

There is considerably more in the article. Would Aggiehawg or one of the other attorneys please peruse this article and explain whether or not there is a real issue at play here.

I was just about to touch on that

If this means the way it sounds, Mueller is boxing in defendants and forcing them to forfeit their Constitutional right to discovery, even FOIA records about themselves, as a condition of their deal with him? How can that really be legal and constitutionally sound?

A good (long) article about the collusion by the obamites against Trump:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/

Quote:

---

Comey had already prepared a draft of his statement exonerating her. The FBI let Hillary Clinton skate.

But give Comey his due. If he had followed the letter of the law, the trail of guilt may have led all the way to Obama himself.

---

original article here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jill-mccabe-the-president-attacked-my-reputation-its-time-to-set-the-record-straight/2018/04/02/e6bbcf66-366b-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html

Quote:

---

Jill McCabe: The president attacked my reputation. It's time to set the record straight.

---

It's all Donald's fault. Sob story from McCabe's wife.

She wants to generate sympathy before everyone learns the truth. She needs to spend time behind bars for corruption along with Terry McAuliffe.

Her husband needs to spend the rest of his life behind bars.