BQ78 said:

---

Added to my vocabulary, I will now say micturate instead of "peeing on."

---

I knew The Big Lebowski would come in handy.

I met Rosenstein a couple of weeks ago. It was surreal to be talking with him while all along wondering if he would have a job by the end of the evening.

Adam Ag 98 said:

---

I met Rosenstein a couple of weeks ago. It was surreal to be talking with him while all along wondering if he would have a job by the end of the evening.

---

Hair? Ankles? Subway?


(That's a Zoo reference, BTW.)

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Nunes was just on the 9am FoxBusiness with Maria Bartiromo. Maybe there will be a video product available later this morning.

So there was no official intel product from Five Eyes that was used to initiate the Russian collusion investigation, yet Papadopoulos was specifically mentioned. Wow!!! This means it came via Downer but it sounds from Nunes that the State Department was involved. Nunes indicates that there is more to the State Department involvement than is currently known, and he mentioned the Clinton cronies, Blumenthal & Shearer. This story is becoming more complex by the minute.

The story that originated from Australia was that Downer sent a cable to the home office in Australia recounting his drunken meeting with Papadopoulos -- he only did this after learning about the DNC 'hack' in July -- and that the Australian home office notified the FBI. Did they? Or did they notify the State Department?

So who did Strzok meet/interview in London on August 2-3, 2016? Downer for certain, but who else? I had assumed that he met with members of GCHQ & Hannigan which would make sense regarding the Five Eyes connection, but now this may not be a correct assumption. Downer is connected to Hakluyt, a private UK intel outfit similar to but bigger than Steele/Orbis Business Intelligence, Hakluyt having connections to the Clintons. So perhaps Strzok meet with people from Hakluyt; and based upon the latter's connections to the Clintons, could Hakluyt have been dealing with Shearer? Remember, Shearer was on a mission to obtain opposition dirt on Trump, although there has never been public access to the Shearer Memo. Steele though was reputedly given the Shearer Memo by the State Department (Winer), but this needs to be investigated -- and Nunes is doing just that.

This rabbit hole is bottomless. We need a road map, because it is becoming so confusing.

A must watch!

Another interesting tidbit from this Bartiromo interview: Nunes believes that Comey leaked his classified memos to more than just one person (admitted leaking to Columbia Law School professor Dan Richman, who spoke to the NYTs about the contents of the memos). Several immediate thoughts:

1) Wouldn't it be something if we learn that Comey had leaked the memos to Mueller before Mueller had been appointed SC? Or had discussed the memos with Mueller before Mueller was appointed SC?
2) How did Comey share his classified memos with friends? Did he scan them and then send them by email?
3) Could Comey have leaked or discussed the memos with Rosenstein before Mueller was appointed SC?

Lots of questions, not to mention the storage of classified information issues as well as potentially transmitting classified information over email/telecom.

drcrinum said:

---

A must watch!

---

Wow

Comey:

Just got a push notification on my phone from the Fox News app about the Nunes interview above.

Fusion GPS reemerged:

Quote:

---

In an op-ed published this weekend in the New York Times, Frisch and Simpson write:

Quote:

---

Put aside Russian collusion for a moment. Press pause on possible presidential obstruction of justice. Forget Stormy Daniels. The most significant recent development involving the president may be that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has subpoenaed Trump Organization business records as part of his inquiry into Russian interference in the presidential election.

Those documents and records recently seized by the F.B.I. from the president's personal lawyer Michael Cohen might answer a question raised by the president's critics: Have certain real estate investors used Trump-branded properties to launder the proceeds of criminal activity around the world?

---

---

Quote:

---

"This reporting has not uncovered conclusive evidence that the Trump Organization or its principals knowingly abetted criminal activity. And it's not reasonable to expect the company to keep track of every condo buyer in a Trump-branded building," they write.

---

The actual op-ed is behind a paywall but I got this info Here.

First, the Cohen raid was supposed to have been done by the SDNY, not Mueller. So either they are idiots or know more than what the press has been reporting.

Second, when Trump licenses the use of his name only, how does that involve him in any liability for management thereafter??

Quote:

---

This is an admission of their original intent. Make a bunch of phony noise about collusion, obstruction, stormy, etc. and then get your hands on his business records in hopes of finding something. The investigation should be shut down immediately.

---

But why tip their hand in an Op-Ed piece in the NYT?

That's what is puzzling to me. Raise your head like that and draw attention to yourselves by making unsubstantiated allegations?

Trying to get Trump to tweet at them? Or they know they are getting ready to charged with something and want it to look like it's politically motivated?

drcrinum said:

---

A must watch!

---

Holy cow this is explosive info. This is why everybody is dragging their feet to keep this info from coming out before the midterms. There's got to be a way to put this in simple terms and bring it to the general voting public. I'm beginning to think the dems have gotten to mueller and promised to make him wealthy beyond his imagination if he can fabricate something within the next few months, even if it doesn't stick.

Damnit! I'd sat on saying I'd met him for a couple of weeks, and at one point in my inner dialogue said "Adam Ag 98, you should reference his hair and ankles".

I withered in the spotlight

I'm 5'9", so he's maybe 5'11". Obvious from TV, but he's thin framed, hair is solid despite the receding line. He's early 50's, his hair is fine for his age. My speculation is he's the type that will metabolize anything, so Subway is likely the off-menu pizza sub, add-mayo extra pepperoni.

It was an event where he was a speaker and he walked the room ahead of time talking to anyone that approached him. I spent all of 30 seconds ate the most in conversation and he was very nice.

Speaking about Nunes investigating the State Department, undoubtedly Hillary continued having a linkup with the State Department long after she ceased being SOS:

Adam Ag 98 said:

---

I met Rosenstein a couple of weeks ago. It was surreal to be talking with him while all along wondering if he would have a job by the end of the evening.

---

Was he drinking soy milk?

Hillary didn't leave the State until 2013, IIRC. That was from 2010.

aggiehawg said:

---

Hillary didn't leave the State until 2013, IIRC. That was from 2010.

---

Beat me to it, but here's my real issue, all of them Hillary, Huma, Mills, etc etc all still have security clearances....

aggiehawg said:

---

Hillary didn't leave the State until 2013, IIRC. That was from 2010.

---

Undoubtedly Hillary maintained a direct link to the DOS long after she ceased being SOS. As long as Nunes is looking into links between DOS & FBI regarding the Russian collusion investigation, he should check into communications between DOS & HRC during this time frame as well. (Remember the fire at Chappaqua that destroyed her computer room? About which there has neer been any followup reported?)

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Hillary didn't leave the State until 2013, IIRC. That was from 2010.

---

Undoubtedly Hillary maintained a direct link to the DOS long after she ceased being SOS. As long as Nunes is looking into links between DOS & FBI regarding the Russian collusion investigation, he should check into communications between DOS & HRC during this time frame as well. (Remember the fire at Chappaqua that destroyed her computer room? About which there has neer been any followup reported?)

---

The servers (Platte River and Pagliano created one) were supposed to be in FBI custody from October 2015 on.

But back to the revelations from Nunes. I'm getting stuck between the FBI opening the Russia/Trump "counter-intelligence" probe in June 2016 without an intel basis.

Supposedly, the FBI gets the Steele dossier on July 5, 2016. The same day Comey exonerates Hillary.

By August 3, Brennan is in the loop and briefing Harry Reid. How did that happen? Did the FBI transmit the Steele dossier to their CIA counterparts? If so, wouldn't that have most likely been done by Strzok and/or McCabe?

Or was Brennan operating on a parallel but unrelated track? Where was DNI Clapper in all of this? Wasn't it his job to keep track of what the agencies (National Security division of the FBI) and the CIA were doing? Yet he has denied knowing about FISA warrants issued against Trump campaign members. He did that in March 2017.

All very confusing and curious.

This is all too much for me to believe, I mean really. Are all these people this stupid, Comey's memos, Adam Schiff, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, the list is seemingly endless. Just not possible.

Here's what I expect this Saturday on SNL.

President Trump walks on stage with the opening "Live from New York it's Saturday Night".

He continues his monologue:
"For all you people that can't believe the political theater unfolding, YOU ARE RIGHT. This whole thing has been scripted beginning with my entrance in the primaries. Written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. With contributions from Daniel Tosh for the pedaphelia conspiracies and Tom Clancy writing under the Q pseudonym. A special thank you to Dennis Miller for his assistance writing many of my tweets.

This has been the greatest reality series "EVER"."

Unfortunately, my dream described above is that only a dream. After I woke up, it saddened me because yes, these people are that stupid and corrupt, aided by zealots who know no bounds in using unethical behavior to further their sanctimonious beliefs.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is an admission of their original intent. Make a bunch of phony noise about collusion, obstruction, stormy, etc. and then get your hands on his business records in hopes of finding something. The investigation should be shut down immediately.

---

But why tip their hand in an Op-Ed piece in the NYT?

That's what is puzzling to me. Raise your head like that and draw attention to yourselves by making unsubstantiated allegations?

Trying to get Trump to tweet at them? Or they know they are getting ready to charged with something and want it to look like it's politically motivated?

---

They are counting on running out the clock on Trump and receiving a pass from whoever comes next. Muddy the water and depend on the fact that it will take a long time to clear things up.

Oh and "Keep the pressure on" as Saul Alinsky said.

An interesting article on Cody Shearer (Hillary's "Fixer") and Sid Blumenthal from January of this year.

Washington Times

Actuallly Richard, it's perfectly easy to believe, and it's likely still going on. Why wouldl ANYONE from the Left, or the Dems, stop acting, behaving, or planning, to coerce and steal information and knowledge for corrupt purposes.

Honestly!

Few in the press believe, in fact, quite the opposite, parts of the press may actually be involved. The staggering comments out of the elected Dems sometimes don't even have a colonel of truth. That's astounding for a politician! So, as a result, the majority of the country doesn't know, and if they do, the Left has done a fabulous job of muddying the waters.

Those who pay attention, can see the corruption, but there's few places like this. This is an amalgam of investigation and good legal opinion that would never take place on the airwaves. Due to the staggering ineptitude of the Pubs for the last ten years, I'm still overwhelmingly cynical about any results that may change their behavior. Candidly, nearly every day brings about more information that exposes how broad this is, how arrogant the Left is (for good reason), and how many of their actions suggest the entire DNC believes the law doesn't appy to them, because they rarely ever have to obey it. Law practice, indeed! It is whatever they say it is, even though I'm sure Artic doesn't see it that way.

Quote:

---

Law practice, indeed! It is whatever they say it is, even though I'm sure Artic doesn't see it that way.

---

You would be wrong in that assumption. Arctic was shocked by how little actual useful information was in the Comey memos and denounced the idea of a Special Counsel having been appointed because of them.

Arctic and I rarely agree politically but do share the same legal analyses on occasion. This was one of them and it was a big one.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/22/sunday-talks-explosive-interview-with-devin-nunes/#more-148342

Quote:

---

...Last week the FBI releases the original "electronic communication" (EC) documents, that underpinned the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation. The first half of this interview contains some stunning information: the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.

Meaning, the origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation, which was specifically started by CIA Director John Brennan sharing his 'raw intelligence product' with the FBI, was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence -as an outcome of those relationships- to the FBI.

The questions, many of which are rhetorical against the backdrop of political motives, become: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the 'five-eyes' partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?...

---

No answers here -- not enough data. What was the intel used to initiate the FBI counterintelligence investigation of Trump Campaign -- Russian collusion? All that we know is that there was no official intelligence report and that Papadopoulos was mentioned. Incidentally, Papadopoulos was not mentioned in the dossier.

So we are left to speculate until there are more revelations. IMO, they started this counterintel investigation with the intent of obtaining a FISA warrant so they could continue to surveil Trump & associates for political purposes. They likely also had it in mind to cover their tracks regarding the private contractors who had been performing illegal Queries before Admiral Rogers closed down such activities in April 2016.

Hmmm.

Slowly, the dots are being connected.

Slowly, the wheels of justice are turning.

Slowly, the liberal anal sphincters are tightening.

God bless America

This idiot is completely delusional

Quote:

---

Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, responded to Nunes' comments on Sunday, calling the information regarding Papadopoulos which led to the initiation of the investigation "well-founded."

"The majority seems to believe that if it can discredit the initiation of the investigation by attacking the FBI, Justice Department and State Department, it can get the public to ignore the growing body of evidence of illicit contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians. This approach is as disingenuous as it is destructive to our institutions," Schiff said in a statement to Fox News.

---

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/no-official-intel-used-to-start-fbi-probe-into-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-rep-nunes

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Law practice, indeed! It is whatever they say it is, even though I'm sure Artic doesn't see it that way.

---

You would be wrong in that assumption. Arctic was shocked by how little actual useful information was in the Comey memos and denounced the idea of a Special Counsel having been appointed because of them.

Arctic and I rarely agree politically but do share the same legal analyses on occasion. This was one of them and it was a big one.

---

Yeah, I know, I owe him a little bit of an apology for that comment. There are a few who view the law as it's been written, and upheld in 230 years of case law, whether I agree, or not. Thanks.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This idiot is completely delusional

---

Sadly, in 28 weeks this wingnut may be Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence .... and Nancy Poloisi may be Speaker of the House.

Let that sink in.