Another good Ben Garrison cartoon...

Herridge was just on FNC. Her wording was interesting. She said Nunes and Gowdy were asking about information from a specific individual that was used to "renew at least one of the surveillance warrants for a Trump campaign aide."

Didn't say Carter Page's name.

She reiterated that the White House (through Chief of Staff, Kelly) got involved to broker a deal and then got on a conference with Nunes and Gowdy to set the meeting today.

MEENAGGIE09 said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

---

Doesn't this indicate that Mueller is in fact operating off of data from FISA or illegal 702?

The raid did not happen until earlier this year.

If Mueller contacted AT&T about Cohen's dealings in late 2017 - that means they had to know about it, which means they were spying on him because the the raid didn't happen until later.

Right?

ETA: clarify timeline

---

The fact that Mueller was looking into the finances of Trump's personal lawyer and then passed it off to the SDNY doesn't bode well for either the Russia collusion narrative, or the investigation as a whole

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Had to edit, luckily got a screen grab, he tweeted this at the POTUS and it was zapped by twitter post haste

Tail Number is legit

https://www.planespotters.net/photo/093323/10030-central-intelligence-agency-cia-gulfstream-aerospace-g-iv-gulfstream-iv

---

This is a photo from 2017...

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/04/cia-plane-spotted-in-wellington.html

I was thinking the same thing. They had Cohen's financial records awfully early in this timeline.

aggiehawg said:

---

Herridge was just on FNC. Her wording was interesting. She said Nunes and Gowdy were asking about information from a specific individual that was used to "renew at least one of the surveillance warrants for a Trump campaign aide."

Didn't say Carter Page's name.

She reiterated that the White House (through Chief of Staff, Kelly) got involved to broker a deal and then got on a conference with Nunes and Gowdy to set the meeting today.

---

What do you think this means?

MEENAGGIE09 said:

---

If Mueller contacted AT&T about Cohen's dealings in late 2017 - that means they had to know about it, which means they were spying on him because the the raid didn't happen until later.

---

At this point, we only know Mueller had access to Cohen's bank records in late 2017 ... why, when, and how are still unknown.

GCP12 said:

---

MEENAGGIE09 said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

---

Doesn't this indicate that Mueller is in fact operating off of data from FISA or illegal 702?

The raid did not happen until earlier this year.

If Mueller contacted AT&T about Cohen's dealings in late 2017 - that means they had to know about it, which means they were spying on him because the the raid didn't happen until later.

Right?

ETA: clarify timeline

---

The fact that Mueller was looking into the finances of Trump's personal lawyer and then passed it off to the SDNY doesn't bode well for either the Russia collusion narrative, or the investigation as a whole

---

I've said all along that I thought there was a Title I FISA warrant on Cohen, because he and Page were named in the Steele Dossier. If they had one on Carter Page, they sure as hell had one on Trump's personal lawyer.

Wonder how long it took before they realized they had the wrong Michael Cohen in the Steele Dossier but continued to surveill him anyway???

aggielee03 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Herridge was just on FNC. Her wording was interesting. She said Nunes and Gowdy were asking about information from a specific individual that was used to "renew at least one of the surveillance warrants for a Trump campaign aide."

Didn't say Carter Page's name.

She reiterated that the White House (through Chief of Staff, Kelly) got involved to broker a deal and then got on a conference with Nunes and Gowdy to set the meeting today.

---

What do you think this means?

---

There were other FISA warrants, besides Carter Page. We just don't know who and for how long.

Wasn't there supposed to be action in Judge Ellis' court yesterday? Anything happen?

Quote:

---

Wonder how long it took before they realized they had the wrong Michael Cohen in the Steele Dossier but continued to surveill him anyway???

---

Given the cabal's track record, I'm sure they surveilled him anyway.

AMF 2 AMC said:

---

Wasn't there supposed to be action in Judge Ellis' court yesterday? Anything happen?

---

For some reason I thought that he gave Mueller 2 weeks, not one.

Correct

As to why Mueller passed this off to SDNY, likely nothing Russia related and a better chance that SDNY could obtain evidence a little more legally through an Article III search warrant process, instead of trying to introduce evidence from a faulty FISA warrant.

Fruit of the poisonous tree applies to evidence that is not obtained from other sources. So, they wind up the SDNY and tell them where to look, they get the warrants and go get the evidence. Voila! The faulty FISA warrant is removed from the equation, as is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

So it's a sort of two-tier parallel construction process that they're trying to pass off as legitimate?

blindey said:

---

So it's a sort of two-tier parallel construction process that they're trying to pass off as legitimate?

---

My best guess, at this point.

When the Cohen raid first went down, remember, it was first associated with a referral from Mueller, then the story morphed into the SDNY had been investigating Cohen's business practices like the taxi medallion stuff.

But then SDNY claimed that Cohen had a non-existent law practice in defense of the cries of attorney client privilege being breached by the raid. They were specific that they had been monitoring his email accounts to bolster their contention that Trump was his only law client.

The amount of intrusion seemed more suited to a Mafia probe than a shady business practice probe. Someone was feeding them info, IMO. And that someone was Team Mueller, using secret FISA warrants and the two hop system.

aggiehawg said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

MEENAGGIE09 said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

---

Doesn't this indicate that Mueller is in fact operating off of data from FISA or illegal 702?

The raid did not happen until earlier this year.

If Mueller contacted AT&T about Cohen's dealings in late 2017 - that means they had to know about it, which means they were spying on him because the the raid didn't happen until later.

Right?

ETA: clarify timeline

---

The fact that Mueller was looking into the finances of Trump's personal lawyer and then passed it off to the SDNY doesn't bode well for either the Russia collusion narrative, or the investigation as a whole

---

I've said all along that I thought there was a Title I FISA warrant on Cohen, because he and Page were named in the Steele Dossier. If they had one on Carter Page, they sure as hell had one on Trump's personal lawyer.

Wonder how long it took before they realized they had the wrong Michael Cohen in the Steele Dossier but continued to surveill him anyway???

---

I'm still waiting for the "evidence" Mueller has that Cohen was in Prague to leak. Oh wait, it hasn't but everything else (true or not) has leaked everywhere.

They desperately need to dig up as much dirt on Cohen as possible once it's finally revealed that he's never been to Prague and the surveillance of him was highly illegal.

Prosperdick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

MEENAGGIE09 said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

---

Doesn't this indicate that Mueller is in fact operating off of data from FISA or illegal 702?

The raid did not happen until earlier this year.

If Mueller contacted AT&T about Cohen's dealings in late 2017 - that means they had to know about it, which means they were spying on him because the the raid didn't happen until later.

Right?

ETA: clarify timeline

---

The fact that Mueller was looking into the finances of Trump's personal lawyer and then passed it off to the SDNY doesn't bode well for either the Russia collusion narrative, or the investigation as a whole

---

I've said all along that I thought there was a Title I FISA warrant on Cohen, because he and Page were named in the Steele Dossier. If they had one on Carter Page, they sure as hell had one on Trump's personal lawyer.

Wonder how long it took before they realized they had the wrong Michael Cohen in the Steele Dossier but continued to surveill him anyway???

---

I'm still waiting for the "evidence" Mueller has that Cohen was in Prague to leak. Oh wait, it hasn't but everything else (true or not) has leaked everywhere.

---

Wrong Michael Cohen. Again.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This entire Avenatti debacle that he printed up hurriedly threw together stinks and I'm pretty certain where it came from. Had Avenatti found a banking insider to get this stuff for him you can bet it would have been the right Michael Cohen. This smells of a raw data mine name query that was passed to Avenatti from the DOJ and they likely fully expected this knucklehead to run them don't and verify who was who. Michael Cohen is like John Smith, pretty common name. And instead of taking the raw data and sorting through it to find out who was who, he just put them all in that bogus report on his letterhead and published them all. What a complete idiot, and someone in the DOJ is going to jail over this.

He got lucky and got the AT&T payments right, Novartis, and Columbus Nova, but all that other was garbage and there's nothing illegal about these three deals. Columbus has also disputed that they are a Russian Owned front company, which they aren't, they are US owned and they denied that any Russian Oligarchs using it for a conduit to funnel money.

This idiot has crapped all over his case....

---

There was no "case" to start with.

But as to the bolded part, I tend to agree. An "about" query on Michael Cohen and banking records with SARs.

I had a SAR filed on me when I settled a personal lawsuit and received a large payment from my attorney's trust fund. Chase Manhattan froze the deposit for two weeks (ten business days) because of it.

I wonder how long it will take for the Treasury IG to get FinCEN to run an audit on the SAR files to nail down the query.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I wonder how long it will take for the Treasury IG to get FinCEN to run an audit on the SAR files to nail down the query.

---

Considering they have Avenatti's report, my guess is not long.

Separately? What is this, a canary trap?

Daaaaaamn!!!

Man, this whole thing is such a CF. I would ask for a Reader's Digest Condensed Version, but I bet that your take several pages.

GCP12 said:

---

---

Then we'll probably see a leak within a day or two, especially if he thinks anything in the information can be used to hurt Trump.

aggiehawg said:

---

As to why Mueller passed this off to SDNY, likely nothing Russia related and a better chance that SDNY could obtain evidence a little more legally through an Article III search warrant process, instead of trying to introduce evidence from a faulty FISA warrant.

Fruit of the poisonous tree applies to evidence that is not obtained from other sources. So, they wind up the SDNY and tell them where to look, they get the warrants and go get the evidence. Voila! The faulty FISA warrant is removed from the equation, as is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

---

How did SDNY get the warrants without the FISA evidence?

If only this is true, but the swamp creatures are so slimy I can't believe it will go down like that, color me skeptical until someone of substance is indicted for anything.

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

As to why Mueller passed this off to SDNY, likely nothing Russia related and a better chance that SDNY could obtain evidence a little more legally through an Article III search warrant process, instead of trying to introduce evidence from a faulty FISA warrant.

Fruit of the poisonous tree applies to evidence that is not obtained from other sources. So, they wind up the SDNY and tell them where to look, they get the warrants and go get the evidence. Voila! The faulty FISA warrant is removed from the equation, as is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

---

How did SDNY get the warrants without the FISA evidence?

---

The same way they always do, with an affidavit by a FBI person.

AMF 2 AMC said:

---

Wasn't there supposed to be action in Judge Ellis' court yesterday? Anything happen?

---

That was Dabney Friedrich, Judge on the Russian Corporation, Concord Mgmt & Consulting, who denied Mueller an extension to prepare briefs, according to McCarthy.

I thought Friedrich gave Mueller's team until yesterday to respond to Concord's request to get all of the evidence used in the indictment.

I haven't found any updates yet... if Mueller withdraws the Indictment, I think it would be embarrassing, and is another "clang" on the doom clock for his team.

Rapier108 said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

---

Then we'll probably see a leak within a day or two, especially if he thinks anything in the information can be used to hurt Trump.

---

That was the second thing I thought of, but the first was the splitting of meeting times.

I'm sure there's a reason (hopefully a decent one), but it sounds like someone isn't acting like an adult. Besides, I suspect Nunes HATES Schiff, for several reasons.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

AMF 2 AMC said:

---

Wasn't there supposed to be action in Judge Ellis' court yesterday? Anything happen?

---

That was Dabney Friedrich, Judge on the Russian Corporation, Concord Mgmt & Consulting, who denied Mueller an extension to prepare briefs, according to McCarthy.

I thought Friedrich gave Mueller's team until yesterday to respond to Concord's request to get all of the evidence used in the indictment.

I haven't found any updates yet... if Mueller withdraws the Indictment, I think it would be embarrassing, and is another "clang" on the doom clock for his team.

---

Indicted Russian firm tied to 'Putin's chef' pleads not guilty in U.S. court

https://wapo.st/2rxslBp?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.055aaf59e34b

Quote:

---

Attorneys for a Russian company accused of funding and overseeing a troll farm operation to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election sparred with the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on Wednesday as they appeared in federal court for the first time.

Concord Management and Consulting, one of three Russian companies indicted in February along with 13 Russian individuals, pleaded not guilty at an arraignment before a federal magistrate in Washington but not before its attorneys and prosecutors insinuated the other side was engaged in legal subterfuge.

The prospect that the Russian defendants, including companies, would appear in court to face prosecution had seemed unlikely. None of the individuals were in U.S. custody at the time of indictment, and Russia does not allow its citizens to be extradited to the United States to face trial. Additionally, Mueller prosecutors said in a filing last week that Russia's prosecutor general has declined to accept summonses for the defendants, and the Russian government has taken no steps under a mutual legal assistance treaty to serve them.

The clash Wednesday revolved around the appearance of attorneys only on behalf of Concord's management business and not two related defendants under indictment a subsidiary catering company and Concord's founder, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a Russian businessman nicknamed "Putin's chef" because of his close ties to President Vladimir Putin.

Special counsel prosecutor Jeannie Rhee noted Wednesday that although Washington lawyers Eric A. Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly of the Reed Smith law firm entered an appearance in court only for Concord management, their law firm notified the U.S. Treasury Department that it had been engaged by both Concord entities. The notice was required because the companies and Prigozhin have been hit with U.S. sanctions.

---

GCP12 said:

---

Separately? What is this, a canary trap?

---

Nope, this is how Schiff-for-Brains can stand up in front of microphones and flat out deny Nunes' / Gowdy's version as an "interpretation", and not what was actually written.

His word against theirs...