Eh, changed my mind. I like the simple logic and flow of this thread. I'll leave the fortune-telling to the crystal ball gazers.

Never fails...

drcrinum said:

---

Jill McCabe: "Meanwhile, my campaign received funding from the state Democratic Party and the governor's PAC on par with what other candidates in competitive races on both sides of the aisle received."

---

Facts are facts. Jill McCabe's political patron was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close political ally of Clinton. Strzok/Page texts clearly show FBI officials felt McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton email investigation ... moreover, it's obvious common sense.

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Jill McCabe: "Meanwhile, my campaign received funding from the state Democratic Party and the governor's PAC on par with what other candidates in competitive races on both sides of the aisle received."

---

Facts are facts. Jill McCabe's political patron was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close political ally of Clinton. Strzok/Page texts clearly show FBI officials felt McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton email investigation ... moreover, it's obvious common sense.

---

This is a 100% lie on her part

The average complete campaign budget for the state level seat she was running for is $100k The person that beat her spent less than that. Her getting $1.2MM from McAuliffe is off the charts. Her campaign receipts should be audited. She had quite the war chest left over.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Jill McCabe: "Meanwhile, my campaign received funding from the state Democratic Party and the governor's PAC on par with what other candidates in competitive races on both sides of the aisle received."

---

Facts are facts. Jill McCabe's political patron was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close political ally of Clinton. Strzok/Page texts clearly show FBI officials felt McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton email investigation ... moreover, it's obvious common sense.

---

This is a 100% lie on her part

The average complete campaign budget for the state level seat she was running for is $100k The person that beat her spent less than that. Her getting $1.2MM from McAuliffe is off the charts. Her campaign receipts should be audited. She had quite the war chest left over.

---

Exactly. No way she used all that money for legitimate political purposes. And no way a lot of it didn't make it into her pocket.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is a 100% lie on her part

The average complete campaign budget for the state level seat she was running for is $100k The person that beat her spent less than that. Her getting $1.2MM from McAuliffe is off the charts. Her campaign receipts should be audited. She had quite the war chest left over.

---

Yea, a bit of stretch.

I don't fault her for running or even taking a large contribution from a close Clinton ally ... all well before McCabe joined the Clinton Email investigation. I don't even fault Andrew McCabe for being supportive of his wife during her campaign ...there wasn't an obvious conflict of interest at the time of her 2015 campaign - only a concern about possible future conflicts of interest. After all, if Clinton was elected there'd be no conflicts.

However I do fault Andrew McCabe for exercising grossly negligent judgement for joining the Clinton Email investigation. So many possible no-win outcomes. WTF was he thinking?

When she took the payoff, Hillary's folks knew she had deliberately violated the law and they knew the FBI would have to clear her of wrongdoing. None of this was coincidence.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

When she took the payoff, Hillary's folks knew she had deliberately violated the law and they knew the FBI would have to clear her of wrongdoing. None of this was coincidence.

---

Absolutely, the contributor may have had nefarious motives .... but at the time of the contribution I don't think either of the McCabes saw the forthcoming maelstrom.

https://www.sott.net/article/377327-Inspector-general-probing-1-25-million-Jill-McCabe-received-from-Clinton-insiders-during-Andrew-McCabes-FBIs-Hillary-Investigation

Quote:

---

...From October 1 (2016) through the end of the campaign, Dr. McCabe raised $972,000, a national record for state-run senate campaigns in a single month. That accounted for 58% of the $1.669 million Dr. McCabe raised during the entire campaign.

McCabe outpaced her senate opponent by two to one for raising political contributions and still lost the race.

But Where did the money go?

Most of the money raised, $1,225,000, went to pay for television and media advertisements Just under $1,003,000 was spent with Shorr Johnson Magnus, a media company based in Philadelphia.

It is no coincidence the same firm did extensive - and expensive - work for the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton....

---

A very detailed article about the contributions made to McCabe's campaign if you are interested.

Quote:

---

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.

---

When I first read about this FOIA matter yesterday, it didn't strike me as all that sinister, more ticky tack on Mueller's part since the FOIA waiver was already in the plea deal with van der Zwaan.

At second glance, the posture here is curious, as are many of the pleadings that have emerged from the Mueller team. There's a detectable amount of emotion coming through. That's expected from defense attorneys, it's not expected from seasoned federal prosecutors.

The author of your article drcrinum has identified that emotion as fear. I detect more arrogance and condescension than I do fear. Mueller and Comey are besties. They share a trait of being sanctimonious self-righteous elites whom no one shall dare question.

Have no idea how the court will rule here, insofar as van der Zwaan is in an unique position as the SIL of a Russian oligarch. That would be Mueller's strongest argument, in my view, yet that is glossed over.

Which would be the more persuasive argument to you as the judge? The one Mueller makes in the pleadings about "resources" or one that goes roughly like this:"Your honor, I am investigating Russian efforts and acts to interfere in a federal election. Mr. van der Zwaan is the SIL of a Russian oligarch connected to Putin. Putin would like to know what information I have and the future direction of my probe. You would be essentially ordering me to hand over information to the Russian government."

The other significance here is the pattern that is developing. First with Flynn and now potentially with van der Zwaan. And that is a failure (alleged/implied) to be forthcoming with exculpatory evidence prior to a plea deal being entered. I won't go so far as to say those plea deals are being fraudulently obtained but it is certainly trending in that direction.

Thank you.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The other significance here is the pattern that is developing. First with Flynn and now potentially with van der Zwaan. And that is a failure (alleged/implied) to be forthcoming with exculpatory evidence prior to a plea deal being entered. I won't go so far as to say those plea deals are being fraudulently obtained but it is certainly trending in that direction.

---

---

This is what is really nagging me (and what nags me about prosecutors in general (and what caused me to withdraw from being considered for a spot at the U.S. Attorney's office)).

It seems like Muller is looking wins but there aren't really any meaningful wins to be had. It almost feels like while it is true that he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, they're out of ham.

Looks like Rosenstein is pretty much authorizing Mueller to do whatever he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/rosenstein-memo-on-mueller-gives-ok-to-probe-manafort-russia-collusion.html

Rapier108 said:

---

Looks like Rosenstein is pretty much authorizing Mueller to do whatever he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/rosenstein-memo-on-mueller-gives-ok-to-probe-manafort-russia-collusion.html

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rod-rosenstein-outlined-scope-for-special-counsel-probe-in-august-2017/

The 'Memo' is embedded in this article, but I don't know how to extract it. (Need Roscoe's help) A large part is redacted, but this thing appears very nefarious on first impressions. I am really questioning Rosenstein's intentions at this point. Seems like he is operating entirely independent and above anyone else's oversight.

Rapier108 said:

---

Looks like Rosenstein is pretty much authorizing Mueller to do whatever he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/rosenstein-memo-on-mueller-gives-ok-to-probe-manafort-russia-collusion.html

---

Timing. Rosenstein gives a letter authorizing Mueller to go after Manafort's activities in the Ukraine after the pre-dawn, no-knock raid in July 2017.

That's a CYA.

Victor Davis Hansen on Lou Dobbs.

Listen when you have six minutes to kill.

LINK

VDH has always been the calmest in the room, while all others are losing their heads!

He's a wise soul.

VDH's perception of the issue(s) and the players...couldn't agree more. Thanks for the link Ms. Hawg!

(Somehow, i would prefer to emphasize "Aggie" versus "Hawg" in your username/handle.)

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Looks like Rosenstein is pretty much authorizing Mueller to do whatever he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/rosenstein-memo-on-mueller-gives-ok-to-probe-manafort-russia-collusion.html

---

Timing. Rosenstein gives a letter authorizing Mueller to go after Manafort's activities in the Ukraine after the pre-dawn, no-knock raid in July 2017.

That's a CYA.

---

Looks like fodder for an argument to be raised on the motion to dismiss that's on the docket.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probe-into-u-a-e-influence-broadens-1522718922

I have no clue if this is significant or not. I don't see any connection other than to Erik Prince and that dubious claim about a back channel to Russia.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/alex-van-der-zwaan-sentenced-to-30-days-in-prison-for-lying-to-federal-investigators-in-special-counsel-probe.html

Quote:

---

Alex van der Zwaan sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to federal investigators in Special Counsel probe

Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan, the son-in-law of Russian oligarch German Kahn, was sentenced Tuesday to 30 days in prison and must pay a $20,000 fine for lying to federal investigators about his contacts with senior Trump campaign official Rick Gates as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.

Van der Zwaan, 33, received the first sentence in Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election.

"What I did was wrong. I apologize to my wife and my family," van der Zwaan said in court Tuesday prior to receiving his sentence from Judge Amy Berman Jackson in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. "I await your judgment."

Jackson sentenced van der Zwaan to 30 days in prison, the $20,000 fine and two months of supervised release. It is unclear, at this point, whether van der Zwaan will be able to leave the country after the two months. Currently, he does not have his passport and is not allowed to leave the U.S.

Van der Zwaan was charged by Mueller's team with making false statements to investigators in an interview about his time working for a law firm hired by the Ukraine Ministry of Justice in 2012, when he helped produce a report on the trail of Ukrainian politician Yulia Tymoshenko.

Van der Zwaan is accused of lying about his last communication with former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates, who was indicted in October along with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on charges related to their work in Ukraine.

The court document notes that van der Zwaan said he "did not know why an email between him and Person A in September 2016 was not produced to the Special Counsel's Office" and that his last communication with Gates was in August 2016. It also says he claimed that his last communication with an unidentified "Person A" was in 2014.

But Mueller's team said that van der Zwaan spoke with Gates and Person A in September 2016, and that he deleted "and otherwise did not produce emails" sought by Mueller's office -- including an email between him and "Person A" in September 2016.

---

BFD.

drcrinum said:

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/03/alex-van-der-zwaan-sentenced-to-30-days-in-prison-for-lying-to-federal-investigators-in-special-counsel-probe.html

Quote:

---

Alex van der Zwaan sentenced to 30 days in prison for lying to federal investigators in Special Counsel probe

...

Van der Zwaan is accused of lying about his last communication with former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates, who was indicted in October along with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on charges related to their work in Ukraine.

The court document notes that van der Zwaan said he "did not know why an email between him and Person A in September 2016 was not produced to the Special Counsel's Office" and that his last communication with Gates was in August 2016. It also says he claimed that his last communication with an unidentified "Person A" was in 2014.

But Mueller's team said that van der Zwaan spoke with Gates and Person A in September 2016, and that he deleted "and otherwise did not produce emails" sought by Mueller's office -- including an email between him and "Person A" in September 2016.

---

BFD.

---

Funny how politicians lie all day/every day to their constituency with little (if any) repercussions...not to mention FBI/DOJ personnel lying to each other and us as well...BUT lie to them regardless of when or the degree of severity/consequence and Justice magically appears out of nowhere. What a system!

More like LFD. What's next, go after people for unpaid library fines?
Mueller Is really cleaning out some real bad hombres.

Quote:

---

The court document notes that van der Zwaan said he "did not know why an email between him and Person A in September 2016 was not produced to the Special Counsel's Office" and that his last communication with Gates was in August 2016. It also says he claimed that his last communication with an unidentified "Person A" was in 2014.

---

Wait a minute... That seems like there was no intent. Seems like van der Swaan just needs to get Comey on the phone to explain the rules to Mueller.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probe-into-u-a-e-influence-broadens-1522718922

I have no clue if this is significant or not. I don't see any connection other than to Erik Prince and that dubious claim about a back channel to Russia.

---

As complicit as WSJ is in a lot of this nonsense any article coming from them concerning the Mueller probe is highly suspect. They've been in Mockingbird mode for some time. It's convenient all of their leaks/sporces all have the same political slant to them.

It's really misleading as well how this guy lied

He never claimed an exact date, he said very broadly that his last contact was "in the fall, perhaps late Aug '16" when the email was found it was the first week of September '16 so his recollection was off by a few days but they are making it out like he was off 6 mos or a year. It's complete garbage, and Mueller/Weismann was just trying to get any kinda process crime.

Would have been great to see this same amount of scrutiny on Hillary, Huma, Mills who all lied their asses off to the FBI, and not just a few days in a timeline either.

Thank you.
Regarding the redacted areas, Trump & Flynn would have been covered in the original, so what is hiding there besides Tony Podesta? DNC hacking? It wouldn't be Uranium One or Hillary's email server or FISA abuse.

Justice goes both ways. It is to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Mueller is obstructing justice by not protecting the innocent.

One of our District Judges who was a former prosecutor got his butt in a crack because of this principal.

drcrinum said:

---

Thank you.
Regarding the redacted areas, Trump & Flynn would have been covered in the original, so what is hiding there besides Tony Podesta? DNC hacking? It wouldn't be Uranium One or Hillary's email server or FISA abuse.

---

nope. probaly Kushner, Trump Jr, and a few other folks.

drcrinum said:

---

Thank you.
Regarding the redacted areas, Trump & Flynn would have been covered in the original, so what is hiding there besides Tony Podesta? DNC hacking? It wouldn't be Uranium One or Hillary's email server or FISA abuse.

---

According to some liberals on this board they knew about stuff PM did in the past but just didn't have time to go after him. Now it's a big deal. I guess justice is just slow.

Bird93 said:

---

Comey and McCabe have both lied under oath. Where's their jail time? HRC made a career of it. Where's her's. This **** pisses me off.

---

You didn't read the CNN article it was just a misunderstanding. Nothing sinister at all.

Dallas82 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Thank you.
Regarding the redacted areas, Trump & Flynn would have been covered in the original, so what is hiding there besides Tony Podesta? DNC hacking? It wouldn't be Uranium One or Hillary's email server or FISA abuse.

---

nope. probaly Kushner, Trump Jr, and a few other folks.

---

Keep hoping!