" All professions are conspiracies against the laity "------- George Bernard Shaw

Thanks for posting that, Roscoe.

aggiehawg said:

---

Thanks for posting that, Roscoe.

---

"The committee wrecked the relationship with the FISA court"

Not the fact that they submitted crap and lies to spy on the POTUS

Did you pickup on that left eye of Comey, what is going on there? I'm pretty good at picking up tics and tells and this is the first I've noticed his eye looking a little lazy and a little shuttered.

I'm thinking stress is building on him.

He's always had that. It's his verbal tics that I pay closer attention to. Uses a ton of qualifiers, as most lawyers are wont to do, his however go much further. He seldom admits to actually knowing anything. It's all media reports for instance. Like the sourcing of the dossier. He doesn't know the DNC and Hillary campaign hired Fusion to hire Steele? Even sitting there now?

Let's see Jim, have you read any media reports where the DNC and the Hillary campaign denying reports that they paid for it?? No? Can you wrap your head around that they very likely did pay for it?

He doesn't clearly remember conversations, meetings (except those with Trump) and when he gets stumped he refuses to answer throwing the "that's classified" flag. He would be exhausting to depose.

Todd softballed that interview, almost came across as canned. Let him off the hook way too many times with vague and evasive answers.

Most laughable moment: Comey said in response to the Collins statement, "This book is not about the investigation or Trump..." The man is delusional

Dumb question, I'm sure...but wouldn't Anthony Weiner have considerable knowledge about the contents stored on his computer and want to comment accordingly? I can't stand the pompous jerk, but I'd think someone would want his input (good/bad) given everything that's been placed in the public domain.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Dumb question, I'm sure...but wouldn't Anthony Weiner have considerable knowledge about the contents stored on his computer and want to comment accordingly? I can't stand the pompous jerk, but I'd think someone would want his input (good/bad) given everything that's been put in the public domain.

---

You can bet your life he was offered as a plea deal to getting his light prison sentences he is now serving to keep his mouth shut. Just the opposite of what a prosecutor would normally want from him

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

It's either that or the Awan's have so much dirt on the left, and likely the right, that they are radioactive and have to remain quarantined from any media. If they had that much free access to the Dem network on Capitol Hill, you can likely bet your backside that they found a way in the backdoor if the Republicans too.

---

This time last year I was following George Webb closely. I seem to remember Webb saying that Awans' access to information wasn't a hack, but instead the Dems in Congress all used Blackberries which the head Awan set up and administered, and which Awan synched to several different servers. In other words, no hack was necessary.....instead every time the Dems used the devices, they "willingly" (via not knowing they were doing it) provided all messages / data to the Awans. Webb indicated the Awans, by doing this, had the ultimate "insurance policy".

I got the impression from Webb that the Republicans were NOT caught up in this because the Awans were only working for the Dems. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of Repubs compromised and blackmailed by other means and by individuals other than the Awans.

I don't follow Webb nearly as close as I used to. Whether right or wrong, he is so thorough and passionate that I simply don't have enough time to follow him nor do I want to "waste" as much time as I did for 2 months last year. It can get addicting and I have other stuff to do.

Mind boggling interview. Comey has some form of antisocial personality disorder -- is very manipulative and has distinct problems in handling the truth. Probably is a non-violent sociopath. Needs a psychiatric evaluation.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Dumb question, I'm sure...but wouldn't Anthony Weiner have considerable knowledge about the contents stored on his computer and want to comment accordingly? I can't stand the pompous jerk, but I'd think someone would want his input (good/bad) given everything that's been put in the public domain.

---

You can bet your life he was offered as a plea deal to getting his light prison sentences he is now serving to keep his mouth shut. Just the opposite of what a prosecutor would normally want from him

---

That's why I think the links from CTH this morning about Weiner's lawyer voluntarily turning over the "emails" as opposed to his laptop as some sort of leverage to be dubious.

Weiner knew the fix was in on Clinton and Comey and Lynch had closed the investigation in July. There wasn't an appetite at SDNY nor EDNY nor Main Justice to nail Hillary on anything. Hence, no leverage there.

I still they had the laptop pursuant to a search warrant for Weiner's activities on it, not Huma's. (This is despite Huma supposedly turning over all her devices to the FBI months before, but put that aside for a moment.) Everyone was agreed that another search warrant was necessary to access Huma's communications on that laptop. An assessment with which I agree.

Why it took over a month to get one is just evidence they were deliberately slow walking it, until the existence of the emails was leaked to the media. Containment was lost.

Now let's come back to Huma. It should have been apparent that she lied when her emails were found on the laptop that she shared with her husband. Again, the FBI that I have known would have jumped on that like a duck on a june bug but not this time. They let her skate. Again, that is clear obstruction of justice by Lynch with Comey's acquiescence.

If Weiner has a NDA with the DOJ, will that be revealed in the IG Report along with the immunity agreements given to all the Clinton stooges ?

oysterbayAG said:

---

If Weiner has a NDA with the DOJ, will that be revealed in the IG Report along with the immunity agreements given to all the Clinton stooges ?

---

I seriously doubt there's a paper trail on such a NDA. But because of the nature of his crime, he likely doesn't have any access to a computer or cell phone. Even if he was inclined to "spill the beans" he doesn't have the capability. And his lawyer likely doesn't wish to be Arkancided.

Interesting thread on Tash and Toscas and their roles in the FISA scam:

aggiehawg said:

---

He's always had that. It's his verbal tics that I pay closer attention to. Uses a ton of qualifiers, as most lawyers are wont to do, his however go much further. He seldom admits to actually knowing anything. It's all media reports for instance. Like the sourcing of the dossier. He doesn't know the DNC and Hillary campaign hired Fusion to hire Steele? Even sitting there now?

Let's see Jim, have you read any media reports where the DNC and the Hillary campaign denying reports that they paid for it?? No? Can you wrap your head around that they very likely did pay for it?

He doesn't clearly remember conversations, meetings (except those with Trump) and when he gets stumped he refuses to answer throwing the "that's classified" flag. He would be exhausting to depose.

---

That's a primer on how to give information to the FBI..."my recollection is that media sources are reporting..."

drcrinum said:

---

Another name concerning the dossier has dropped, Pablo Miller, former MI6 agent who worked with Steele (Russia & Estonia) and is a current employee of Orbis Business Intelligence (Steele's business). He has connections to the Russian spy/UK double agent Sergei Skripal who was recently poisoned.

Here is an interesting write-up about Miller & I've posted an excerpt:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/spy-posions-spy-and-the-anti-trump-campaign.html

Quote:

---

...
Steele was an MI6 undercover agent in Moscow around the time when Skripal was recruited and handed over Russian secrets to the MI6. He also ran the MI6 Russia desk so anything about Skripal will have passed through him. It is very likely that they personally knew each other. Pablo Miller, who worked for Steele's private company, lived in the same town as Skripal and they seem to have been friends since Miller had recruited him. Miller or someone else attempted to cover up the connection to Steele by editing his LinkedIn entry.

Here are some question:

• Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
• Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about Trump dirt?
• Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?

If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me, then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
Update: Steele's company issued a weak denial of Skripal's involvement in the dossier:

Quote:

---

Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.
...

---

---

Just absolutely amazing how deep this rabbit hole is.

---

The rabbit hole is like 6 degrees of separation. After a few hops, it becomes more arduous to establish ties.

How many hops from Steele is this guy?

Think of it as a descendant chart from Hillary, or even the CF. You're 4 or 5 links removed. At what point do some say it's a conspiracy theory?

drcrinum said:

---

Mind boggling interview. Comey has some form of antisocial personality disorder -- is very manipulative and has distinct problems in handling the truth. Probably is a non-violent sociopath. Needs a psychiatric evaluation.

---

He's a danger to himself and others and requires immediate hospitalization.

An insanity defense is his best bet !

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Comey absolutely knew the Weiner/Clinton email investigation was being slow-walked. Anyone with half a brain knows they wanted to keep a lid on it until after the election. They lost containment and got caught.

---

Comey was on Meet the Press a half hour ago. When questioned about the Weiner matter he said something like this:" I sort of recall Deputy Director McCabe mentioned something to me about Weiner in early October but I never indexed it in my mind as being related to Clinton. Didn't see any connection between them."

WTH? He didn't know Weiner was married the Hillary's top aide? How plausible is that? In his efforts to put himself above the fray he is painting himself as so far removed from his job as to be incompetent and deserving of termination.

---

He's a liar. We talked about it at great length right here. I assume Comey had a few more investigational assets at his disposal than we do.

Quote:

---

He's a liar. We talked about it at great length right here. I assume Comey had a few more investigational assets at his disposal than we do.

---

It was Priestap that said the vetting of the dossier was in "its infancy" at the time the Title I FISA warrant for Carter Page was applied for in October 2016. The FBI had possession of at least one of Steele's reports since July yet didn't even inquire into its origin besides Steele just decided willy-nilly on his own to do that?

Yeah, right.

Quote:

---

CNN walked away with a prestigious journalism award at Saturday night's White House Correspondent's Association dinner for their role in making public a briefing by intelligence officials to then President-elect Donald Trump. CNN reported the briefing "included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." But the information briefed to the President was also leaked to the media by one of the same senior Obama administration officials who orchestrated the briefing and was hired by CNN months later as a paid analyst.

Some are questioning now if this was ethical a pay for play of sorts as it raises serious questions about the role and responsibility that U.S. intelligence officials have when taking on paid positions as analysts for news organizations, while still retaining their high-level security clearances. It also raises similar questions about news organizations and their role of remaining objective and not paying their sources.

Reporters Jake Tapper, Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez and Carl Bernstein won the Merriman Smith Award for their broadcast work and reporting on the dossier. But as first reported here it was former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was suspected by Congress of leaking the information to CNN, after he asked now fired FBI Director James Comey to give Trump the private briefing on Jan. 6, 2017.

By August 2017, Clapper was hired by CNN as an analyst but the network never disclosed that Clapper was a major source behind the leak of an unproven and salacious dossier when he joined the network. News agencies and reporters never disclose their sources, it would be unethical, but isn't it also unethical to pay sources for information or give sources jobs as analysts for your news outlet after they've been illegally leaking classified information?...

---

Ethics???

I can't remember when exactly, but EARLY on....either before Trump's election, or shortly thereafter, people on this board had already identified Brennan and Clapper for what they were. I doubted them, I thought they went too far out on the fringe.

I'm guilty. They were right, and I was wrong.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/29/an-updated-review-of-details-within-lisa-page-and-peter-strzok-text-messaging/

Quote:

---

...Another important revelation is the scale of influence of Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare blog group. There are multiple times within the Page/Strzok discussions were Page references Lawfare blog as a resource to generate ideas for their efforts. It seems highly likely that James Comey's friend Benjamin Wittes is connected to the activity of like-minded DOJ and FBI people. Indeed Wittes also wrote of the need for an "insurance policy" against President Trump in October of 2016.

Also remember, back in May 2017 Benjamin Wittes admitted he was one of the primary sources for the New York Times Comey Memo article (Michael Schmidt); and in so doing he outlined the severity of the political nature of the former FBI Director:

Quote:

---

[] I called Schmidt Friday morning after reading his earlier story, which ran the previous evening, about Comey's dinner with President Trump and the President's demands at that dinner for a vow of loyalty. (link)

---

The gist of Benjamin Wittes outline is that he interpreted his friend - the magnanimous harbinger of truth, justice and the American way - James Comey, as expressing a feeling of undue potential influence by horrible Trump that Comey did not feel with the more well regarded Obama. etc. etc. {insert pearl-clutching/couch-fainting violin music here}

It is no wonder that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok turned to Benjamin Wittes for ideas on their ongoing efforts to help Clinton and eliminate Donald Trump....

---

Someone else we have heard little if anything about -- Benjamin Wittes -- the OIG can't interview him & Mueller won't for obvious reasons. Maybe after the indictments commence.

Yeah i posted about the Lawfare thing the other day, didn't know anything about it and Hawg came in and mentioned the Wittes name and said take it with a grain of salt. I had never heard of it until I kept running across it in the texts. It's heavily slanted left and definitely anti Trump. They (Page/Strzok) practically worshipped him.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Yeah i posted about the Lawfare thing the other day, didn't know anything about it and Hawg came in and mentioned the Wittes name and said take it with a grain of salt. I had never heard of it until I kept running across it in the texts. It's heavily slanted left and definitely anti Trump. They (Page/Strzok) practically worshipped him.

---

There's a few posters that cite Lawfare a lot on this forum. As you can guess those posters are mostly left of centerand take an expansive view of the law, particularly in the 4th Amendment area. And generally stay off of this thread since the bloodbath a few weeks ago.

Ben Wittes is not only a slavish sycophant of Comey's, he's also been the source on behalf of Comey for various news stories designed to slam Trump. It is unclear what, if any, potential liability Wittes may have. He was in and out of the FBI building so often, he might be another SGE with clearance, like Richman was. IOW, Comey sharing info with him would not violate laws on Comey's part but once Wittes and Richman leaked said info to the press, they may have incurred legal jeopardy. Hard to tell at the moment.

Feel free to read LawFare as it is generally well-written but just bear in mind the biases of the author and that it is slanted towards the view of the law that encourages judicial activism.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Just one? I would think several "major news" companies are deep sixing stories often at this point.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Just one? I would think several "major news" companies are deep sixing stories often at this point.

---

Like the last year and a half!!!!!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/showdown-builds-between-comey-house-just-what-did-fbi-director-say-about-michael-flynn/

Quote:

---

Showdown builds between Comey, House: Just what did FBI director say about Michael Flynn?

---

House members claim that Comey told them that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he had lied, and they have the transcripts to prove it -- Comey on the other hand has stated in three recent public interviews that he never said that. The HPSIC even reported this in its Final Report on Russia (Finding #22), but the DOJ had redacted the portion covering Comey's testimony during the reclassification process. Fireworks expected.

It also has a direct bearing on Mueller's indictment of Flynn as well. Was Flynn provided with such info prior to his guilty plea? Exculpatory evidence.

Why would they redact that? Because it's considered an ongoing investigation? That seems strange.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Why would they redact that? Because it's considered an ongoing investigation? That seems strange.

---

This issue, Comey testimony before Congress, vs suspected Strzok -- McCabe editing of 302 on Flynn & subsequent Mueller prosecution may well be significant part of the upcoming OIG report. Coordinated scheme or was Comey left out of the loop? Lots to speculate about here, but until the rats cease ratting on each other and we have more facts...