aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Well I was picturing more of her Randi King character than Julia Sugarbaker but still smooth as "Tennessee Whiskey" in the words of Dean Dillon

Some guys are Joan Collins type but in my eyes Joan can't hold a candle to Dixie Carter

---

Apropos of nothing but you aren't the first poster to compare me to Dixie Carter. Kentucky Mustangs did during the realignment saga in 2010-2011. Great poster and very knowledgeable about college sports, conference structure and media contracts.

Miss that guy.

---

I met Dixie Carter at a John Cornyn political get together for his first Senate run in 2002. She was delightful and talented. Fantastic person.

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/982097087725690880.html


A detailed analysis of S&P texts regarding the Strzok London trip. McIntyre, whom I greatly admire, doesn't think Strzok met with Papadopoulos; he thinks 'George' refers to George Toscas of DOJ. Worth a read.

---

Great thread there. McIntyre provides some context to the texts between these two.

nm

Quote:

---

A detailed analysis of S&P texts regarding the Strzok London trip. McIntyre, whom I greatly admire, doesn't think Strzok met with Papadopoulos; he thinks 'George' refers to George Toscas of DOJ. Worth a read.

---

My guess is that Strzok was meeting with British intelligence, maybe even Hannigan himself. Have doubts that Steele would have elicited the shock and surprise from Lisa Page. Had to be somebody bigger.

But those texts serve another purpose, they are putting things in the White House, implicating Obama in August of 2016, IMO.

If Lisa Page has been singing like a canary to Horowitz, or even just pointing him in the right directions, that OIG report will be a blockbuster.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

A detailed analysis of S&P texts regarding the Strzok London trip. McIntyre, whom I greatly admire, doesn't think Strzok met with Papadopoulos; he thinks 'George' refers to George Toscas of DOJ. Worth a read.

---

My guess is that Strzok was meeting with British intelligence, maybe even Hannigan himself. Have doubts that Steele would have elicited the shock and surprise from Lisa Page. Had to be somebody bigger.

But those texts serve another purpose, they are putting things in the White House, implicating Obama in August of 2016, IMO.

If Lisa Page has been singing like a canary to Horowitz, or even just pointing him in the right directions, that OIG report will be a blockbuster.

---

Your last sentence.....what odds do you give it?

Quote:

---

Your last sentence.....what odds do you give it?

---

As I understand it, the report we are anticipating deals with the Hillary email case being sabotaged by DOJ and FBI. That is not say it is the only matter the report will include however.

The overly chatty "love birds" were positioned to know where all the bodies are buried on both the Hillary email case and the Trump/Russia matter. A two-fer for Horowitz.

Feeling pretty good it will contain some bombshells that at least touch on Obama, if not implicating him outright.

My biggest fear is Comey, and whether Mueller has granted him some type of immunity and for what. If that POS skates because his bestie gave him a sweetheart immunity deal, I'll come unglued.

I love you Hawg, but prepare to come unglued

MROD92 said:

---

I love you Hawg, but prepare to come unglued

---

Yeah well, I'll be in good company, I'd wager.

The OIG report can't drop soon enough.

Also: Page 250 of this thread. Impressive.

Absolutely, I don't care to say much. But I once worked in a department Mueller was in charge of, he's every bit a POS as Comey

If he's giving Comey immunity, he has to be getting something from him. What?

Tailgate88 said:

---

The OIG report can't drop soon enough.

Also: Page 250 of this thread. Impressive.

---

Rome wasn't built in a day. The drip, drip, drip is aggravating but laying the foundation for what is to come.

Comey basically handed out immunity deals to key witnesses in the Hillary server "investigation" to get them NOT to talk, and help bury the matter. Who is to say the same isn't happening now in some ways?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Comey basically handed out immunity deals to key witnesses in the Hillary server "investigation" to get them NOT to talk, and help bury the matter. Who is to say the same isn't happening now in some ways?

---

Exactly my thought. These people are corrupt to the core. They are just trying to run out the clock on Trump to keep right on doing what they've been doing.

Is double jeopardy or some form of it in play for the email investigation? Or is it off the table because she was never tried in a court setting?

I know she will never be tried anyway, but the way Comey came out and addressed the charges seems like there would be something else that would go wrong even if they opened and started a new investigation.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Your last sentence.....what odds do you give it?

---

As I understand it, the report we are anticipating deals with the Hillary email case being sabotaged by DOJ and FBI. That is not say it is the only matter the report will include however.

The overly chatty "love birds" were positioned to know where all the bodies are buried on both the Hillary email case and the Trump/Russia matter. A two-fer for Horowitz.

Feeling pretty good it will contain some bombshells that at least touch on Obama, if not implicating him outright.

My biggest fear is Comey, and whether Mueller has granted him some type of immunity and for what. If that POS skates because his bestie gave him a sweetheart immunity deal, I'll come unglued.

---

Wanted to circle back around to this for a moment.

Although both Strzok and Page were the equivalent of first responders on the ground, they were in positions high enough to be within the broadened loop of the complete PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefing) under Obama.

This is crucial to understand. In past administrations the individual agencies wrote their portions of a PDB but didn't always see all of the other portions that were assembled for the President's eyes. Obama changed that. The finished product was more broadly distributed.

Quote:

---

The PDB as a whole product would only exist in the White House compartment. Parts of the PDB would be hosted by the originating participant, ex. NSA, FBI, DOJ, DoD, CIA State Dept. etc., but only the White House would have the fully assembled product. After all, it's assembled for the President.

Putting the "Oversight" structure together with the "Compartmented" intelligence security you will note that only a few people 'could' traditionally access the full PDB. However, under President Obama the President's Daily Brief went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:

Quote:

---

[] But while through most of its history the document has been marked "For the President's Eyes Only," the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama's PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president's top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

<snip>

During an MSNBC interview about her unmasking U.S. citizens within 2016 intelligence reports, in April 2017, President Obama's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, defined the Obama national security departments to include: "State" "Defense" (Pentagon includes NSA) and "CIA". Other national security departments include FBI (counterintelligence) and DOJ (National Security Division).

---

---

Another link

Presumably, Strzok could waltz into the FBI's SCIF and see them all. Likely Lisa Page could as well.

When I said the chatty "lovebirds" knew where all of the bodies were buried, I was referring to their access to intelligence across the board under Obama.

Mr. aggiehawg

Can a prosecutor be charged with obstruction of justice if they give immunity to a person to cover up that person's crime?

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Mr. aggiehawg

Can a prosecutor be charged with obstruction of justice if they give immunity to a person to cover up that person's crime?

---

More to the point, how can a prosecutor grant immunity without getting something in return. Such as a conviction for someone else. Otherwise it sounds more like amnesty than immunity to me and it shouldn't be legal.

Line Ate Member said:

---

Is double jeopardy or some form of it in play for the email investigation? Or is it off the table because she was never tried in a court setting?

I know she will never be tried anyway, but the way Comey came out and addressed the charges seems like there would be something else that would go wrong even if they opened and started a new investigation.

---

No. Jeopardy didn't attach. Grand jury was never convened, indictment wasn't handed down nor a no bill issued.

There is still a Statute of Limitations problem however. That isn't all encompassing because destroying evidence, etc. might still be within the standard 5 year SOL.

I have long maintained the best way to get Hillary is to go RICO on her butt.

FYI: she's a Mrs.

Is Mueller under the umbrella of the OIG? Maybe not the right way to ask the question.

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Mr. aggiehawg

Can a prosecutor be charged with obstruction of justice if they give immunity to a person to cover up that person's crime?

---

If they lied to a federal court to obtain its blessing on the deal, yes. The precise crime may not be couched in terms of obstruction of justice, however. All sorts of other crimes would be possible in that scenario.

Accessories after the fact, misprision of a felony, etc.

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Is Mueller under the umbrella of the OIG? Maybe not the right way to ask the question.

---

No. (Although technically he should be.)

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Mr. aggiehawg

Can a prosecutor be charged with obstruction of justice if they give immunity to a person to cover up that person's crime?

---

Charged? Crime? Come on. Our big swamp creatures call all that "another day at the office"

Speaking of swamp creatures, I heard author Peter Sweitzer (sp) say on the radio today...... when folks in DC jump into the swamp, they consider it a cesspool. When they've been there a while and raked in its benefits, they consider it a hot tub.

ntxVOL said:

---

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Mr. aggiehawg

Can a prosecutor be charged with obstruction of justice if they give immunity to a person to cover up that person's crime?

---

More to the point, how can a prosecutor grant immunity without getting something in return. Such as a conviction for someone else. Otherwise it sounds more like amnesty than immunity to me and it shouldn't be legal.

---

Yes and no. When a prosecutor goes before a judge requesting their approval for an immunity deal there is usually a statement that the person's testimony is required for a pending or soon to be empaneled grand jury. The deal requires them to testify truthfully through court proceedings.

However, if the grand jury no bills the target, that's not the witnesses' fault, as long as they testified truthfully. Deal holds.

The problem with limited or transactional immunity is the Oliver North problem. He was given by Congress limited immunity during Iran Contra. When he was tried and convicted subsequently to his testimony the convictions were thrown out on appeal. Reason? The immunity deal made it nearly impossible to separate out what North did against the law that they could prove without his immunized testimony.

Comey isn't in the exact same position as North of course. Comey freely admitted to taking government records and leaking them to the press. Mueller could still give him immunity for it (with a judge's approval.) And attempting to charge Comey with most of the crimes we know he committed would still be complicated by such a grant of immunity from an evidentiary standpoint.

(Didn't mean to get so far into the weeds, there. Sorry. Complicated issues.)

I like it when you get in the weeds. This is very interesting.

I have seen Joe Didenova(sp) a couple of times. He seems very bright. Do you know anything about him?

coyote68 said:

---

I like it when you get in the weeds. This is very interesting.

I have seen this Joe Didenova(sp) acouple of times. He seems very bright do you know anything about him?

---

DiGenova is a little too flamboyant in presentation for my tastes but he's usually solid on the applicable law, IMO.

ETA: He's now in private practice and a defense attorney. They are usually flamboyant as part of their presentation to a jury. That wasn't intended as a knock or any other interpretation. Just meant animated and prone to dramatics.

Rockdoc said:

---

Speaking of swamp creatures, I heard author Peter Sweitzer (sp) say on the radio today...... when folks in DC jump into the swamp, they consider it a cesspool. When they've been there a while and raked in its benefits, they consider it a hot tub.

---

I believe Schweitzer is the guy who has written about Biden and Kerry's sons and their (likely) corrupt ties to China, as well as Mitch McConnell's close ties to China that, at the very least, influence his judgment.

Yep. The millions that Mitch and wife got infuriates me.

aggiehawg said:

---

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Hey Is Mueller under the umbrella of the OIG? Maybe not the right way to ask the question.

---

No. (Although technically he should be.)

---

Does the fact that he is under RR at least allow him to see the communication between RR and Mueller? Can the OIG therefore investigate how RR appointed, managed and communicated with the Mueller team? Would he be privy to all communications to and from the Mueller team if they went to RR?

SCIF's under the Obama administration appear to have been a complete joke. I've read countless accounts of Hillary, Huma, Strzok, Holder, being in SCIFs with cell phones. The Hillary SCIF in Chappaqua, NY, with the maid going in and out of it, and it being unsecured. And with all the other documented breeches of Classified Material Protocols, nothing surprises me with that bunch.

I somehow have a feeling mueller knows there is no way he can grant Comey immunity and survive this. Comey is such a lightning rod now with all his post firing antics, and all the lying under oath moments, lord knows what we haven't seen that has transpired in the shadows. Mueller is on such shakey ground IMHO, this Flynn fiasco may ruin Mueller's legacy anyway. Him having Weissmann involved is his own fault, knowing well what he's capable of.

I've come to grips that Barry will never see a courtroom, there is just no way regardless of what they find, that they go after the first black POTUS period. Worst thing that will ever happen to him is a tarnished reputation and possibly fewer speaking engagements and book sales, but that's about it, bonus if they were able to tie some offshore funds into wrongdoing and they lose it, but that's a reach at best. Barry set up a buffer zone around himself with enough true believers that will fall on their swords to protect him.

I honestly think Hillary will not live long enough to be tried, and if convicted and clearing the appeal process to actually ever have to stay in the Martha Stewart suite. She's so frail and propped up these days, the strain alone if she was actually indicted would likely put her in the ground before she ever saw a courtroom. I'll settle for the Clinton fortune to be exhausted and/confiscated and Chelsea to actually have to get a real job.

But I'm feeling pretty good that there will be a list of people getting convicted, My lofty members on the wish list are Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCade, Jarrett, and any underlings that don't flip on the higher ups. Main Goal being, get our system back on track, because the wheels came off the truck.

You and I and a few others here, grew up in an era that the establishment was a good thing, and the system really did work. It's been *******ized so badly in the last 25-30 years, it's hard to look at. And by establishment I don't mean all the politicians, because crooked politicians have been around forever, but our judicial system as a whole use to work, it had problems but overall it worked. Now days you can hardly recognize it anymore.

I'm obviously not Hawg, but no. Mueller doesn't answer to the OIG.

Line Ate Member said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

KCRanchero16 said:

---

Hey Is Mueller under the umbrella of the OIG? Maybe not the right way to ask the question.

---

No. (Although technically he should be.)

---

Does the fact that he is under RR at least allow him to see the communication between RR and Mueller? Can the OIG therefore investigate how RR appointed, managed and communicated with the Mueller team? Would he be privy to all communications to and from the Mueller team if they went to RR?

---

From Rosenstein's end, sure. But I don't think Horowitz can just summon Mueller to his office and demand answers. Reason being that the Special Counsels are meant to be independent. Subjecting them to another level of Executive Branch oversight like the DOJ's IG would seem to defeat that purpose. Or that's the prevailing argument right now.