Why on earth is the Hill turning on Mueller

It's John Solomon. He has been on this story with Sara Carter

Ok. Gotcha. I have seen a few of The Hill stories performing fellatio on Mueller. That's why I was shocked.

Yeah. The Hill is definitely liberal, but they have allowed Solomon to continue the reporting on it

Such a great story, but F them all.

Sounds like the beginning of de-legitimitizing Muller.

Must not have all the results anticipated by the Swamp Denizens.

Read the comments of that hill tweet. The TDS'ers are stirred up into a froth over things like this, and they are incredibly good at dismissing all the holes in the sinking Russia collusion ship even as it begins listing very noticeably.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Yup. It read like he's a poster here.

---

It was damn good! FBI and CIA are in deep *****

---

Dang it. Anywhere to catch a replay?

---

Quoting myself to share the link to the replay:

Russians aren't going away. Now they are trying to get an in camera review of the instructions given to the grand jury for one of the counts in the indictment against Concord. It is rare for that to be granted but the core allegation is that Team Mueller misstated the law and thereby misled the grand jury.

Here's the pleading for those who are interested. It's a complicated area of law so I have no immediate take on the merits of their motion just yet. Just thought it was interesting that the allegations once again are about the poor quality of Team Mueller's legal work.

Do you think there will be more of this? Seems like they are trying to slowly make Mueller look sloppy.

Worth a read. Hilarious. Basically, they say that the indictment fails to state the required mens rea required for the crime accused. So the next logical step is for the court to take a peek at the instructions given to the grand jury to make sure they were accurate.

Basically, this is just some Reed Smith lawyers (likely paid for by a pro-Trump PAC) just having a field day with the true believers working for Mueller.

And I would guess the judge grants this. Since it's already clear that team Mueller indicted a ham sandwich, the judge might be a little more than just curious as to what on earth they told the grand jury.

jimmo said:

---

I listened to Rush.. it wasn't earth shattering. Like someone said, if you follow this thread - you already pretty much up to speed. Rush never said precisely how he confirmed the facts tho..
the basic point - all the collusion/ special counsel/ investigation/ wire tapping, etc, etc .. its all been manufactured. all of it. just to get Trump.
ETA
everything Rush said - it all lined up with whats been here. it checks out.
Rush does have media content/ website - but its a pay site
ETA2
The "operative" was described but not named
the operative/ mole set up papadoupolous ... w/ info about HRC emails that Russians had hacked; then arranged for Pappadoupolous to "spill it" to the Aussie ambassador. all arranged to enable another piece of actionable evidence to use (think FISA) vs Trump

---

Respectfully disagree. It is earth shattering when Rush gets involved. He has a few million more listeners than what are on this board. He has the ears of enough people that lets the lion out of the cage. The perpetrators of this coup attempt will not sleep good tonight.

blindey said:

---

Worth a read. Hilarious. Basically, they say that the indictment fails to state the required mens rea required for the crime accused. So the next logical step is for the court to take a peek at the instructions given to the grand jury to make sure they were accurate.

Basically, this is just some Reed Smith lawyers (likely paid for by a pro-Trump PAC) just having a field day with the true believers working for Mueller.

And I would guess the judge grants this. Since it's already clear that team Mueller indicted a ham sandwich, the judge might be a little more than just curious as to what on earth they told the grand jury.

---

I posted the link before I had finished reading the entire motion. And I agree that the judge may grant it in light of the ham sandwich boo-boo in the same case. The ridiculous delay tactic of arguing the service of process when the attorneys are present and not contesting service in the slightest, as well. Also. I felt it was telling that Concord's lawyers pointed out they tried to resolve the question with a letter a few weeks back to Team Mueller and Team Mueller refused to reply. Guess they are scrambling and reluctant to step into another cowpatty of sinkhole proportions of their own making.

Parting question: Will Manafort's lawyers piggy-back off of this move to make the same request before Judge Ellis? In some respects the superceding indictment of Manafort cleaned some of the hot mess issues in the first one but not all of them. Have to wonder how those grand jurors were instructed as well.

aggiehawg said:

---

Russians aren't going away. Now they are trying to get an in camera review of the instructions given to the grand jury for one of the counts in the indictment against Concord. It is rare for that to be granted but the core allegation is that Team Mueller misstated the law and thereby misled the grand jury.

Here's the pleading for those who are interested. It's a complicated area of law so I have no immediate take on the merits of their motion just yet. Just thought it was interesting that the allegations once again are about the poor quality of Team Mueller's legal work.

---

Have you ever cited Casablanca in a pleading? I love it! Why go after the grand jury instructions instead of moving to dismiss that charge? Maybe to better f--- with team Mueller?

Quote:

---

Respectfully disagree. It is earth shattering when Rush gets involved. He has a few million more listeners than what are on this board. He has the ears of enough people that lets the lion out of the cage. The perpetrators of this coup attempt will not sleep good tonight.

---

Coyote, true.. but to be fair - he's been 'involved' all along.

I guess i was referring to the context.
but your point is well made; after all, he is the The BIG Voice, on the right!
the MacDaddy as they say

That and he flies around in a G550. Badass.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Russians aren't going away. Now they are trying to get an in camera review of the instructions given to the grand jury for one of the counts in the indictment against Concord. It is rare for that to be granted but the core allegation is that Team Mueller misstated the law and thereby misled the grand jury.

Here's the pleading for those who are interested. It's a complicated area of law so I have no immediate take on the merits of their motion just yet. Just thought it was interesting that the allegations once again are about the poor quality of Team Mueller's legal work.

---

Have you ever cited Casablanca in a pleading? I love it! Why go after the grand jury instructions instead of moving to dismiss that charge? Maybe to better f--- with team Mueller?

---

Casablanca? Me? No, unless you consider an appellate brief as a pleading.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised they went that route because there is a judge who was supervising the grand jury and I just assumed the uniform jury instructions had been used. Then again Mueller does seem to be <ahem> "inventive" when he's bootstrapping crimes and thus no uniform jury instructions would have been promulgated for a heretofore unknown crime.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Russians aren't going away. Now they are trying to get an in camera review of the instructions given to the grand jury for one of the counts in the indictment against Concord. It is rare for that to be granted but the core allegation is that Team Mueller misstated the law and thereby misled the grand jury.

Here's the pleading for those who are interested. It's a complicated area of law so I have no immediate take on the merits of their motion just yet. Just thought it was interesting that the allegations once again are about the poor quality of Team Mueller's legal work.

---

Have you ever cited Casablanca in a pleading? I love it! Why go after the grand jury instructions instead of moving to dismiss that charge? Maybe to better f--- with team Mueller?

---

I know you're asking this in jest, but you raise a really good point. When I'm writing a brief dealing with serious pettifoggers on the other side, I include all the snark I want and then have my colleagues and secretary convince me to remove it because it can come across as unprofessional.

When they let me leave it in, it means that opposing counsel deserves it and they're all on board with me staking some credibility on it.

So the quote from Casablanca -- as cutting as it may be -- is also telling on its own and it communicates to the judge what counsel thinks about their adversary. The ham sandwich they indicted, the service of process non-issue they pressed, etc. You can't stumble that many times out of the gate and then ask to be taken seriously.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOl!

Are you and I on the same page!! My sense of humor always came out in my briefs, if not my oral arguments. Make a judge laugh and you've got a leg up on being persuasive.

I think the best I've gotten past the censors and critics is a quote from Rambo. Wasn't included for humor's sake but it was effective. The one I got close to leaving in (but -- wisely -- ultimately nixed by a named partner) was a transcription of the Chewbacca defense from South Park. What sucks is that the judge was a total nerd that would have been all over it.

As a baby lawyer, my mentor always insisted that a brief should be "entertaining." I've held tight to that advice and it's served me well.

blindey said:

---

I know you're asking this in jest, but you raise a really good point. When I'm writing a brief dealing with serious pettifoggers on the other side, I include all the snark I want and then have my colleagues and secretary convince me to remove it because it can come across as unprofessional.

---

This is my new favorite word.

Quote:

---

So the quote from Casablanca -- as cutting as it may be -- is also telling on its own and it communicates to the judge what counsel thinks about their adversary. The ham sandwich they indicted, the service of process non-issue they pressed, etc. You can't stumble that many times out of the gate and then ask to be taken seriously.

---

No doubt. Hell, just showing up to a hearing against a Defendant making a general appearance and worrying about proper service should get you to the "not be taken seriously" point. If a defendant waives service issues by making a general appearance, you do your happy dance.

I'm in total agreement with you and desire for you to know I respect you and your message.

Pretty sad they're crafting an alternative reality to exploit the fantastical delusions of the deranged, but they've seen how people can easily adopt fiction as reality.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Pretty sad they're crafting an alternative reality to exploit the fantastical delusions of the deranged, but they've seen how people can easily adopt fiction as reality.

---

Yeah they didn't bother to share that within 24 hrs it was revealed Avenatti had posted records of 4 different Michael Cohen's

Regarding the article in the Hill about Mueller's connection to Deripaska posted earlier today, the above is an older post from 2 months ago, and it has resurfaced on the Internet. Just to reinforce your memory:
Andrew McCabe admitted to FBI agents that Deripaska was a friend.
Just a coincidence...
(And if you read the entire excerpt above, you will learn McCabe worked with Bruce Ohr while in NY.)

I guess no OIG report today...knew I shouldn't trust those corn dog eating dunces.

I swear... I looked all over rush's Facebook page. I be danged if I could find that replay you posted.
Admittedly, I ain't that swift with FB.
Checked recent posts.. Videos. Is there a trick to it? Subscribers only maybe?

Prosperdick said:

---

I guess no OIG report today...knew I shouldn't trust those corn dog eating dunces.

---

I honestly wouldn't expect it until after the NK Summit

If you follow inside/unproven sources (Q) then you've been told this is bc the FBI/DOJ/CIA houses are being cleaned so indictments can go forward with results.

I don't know what to believe anymore. Our govt is bussshil.

Is this the Rush material you're looking for?

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/05/14/know-name-spy-fbi-put-trump-campaign/

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/05/14/mueller-investigation-set/

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

I guess no OIG report today...knew I shouldn't trust those corn dog eating dunces.

---

I honestly wouldn't expect it until after the NK Summit

---

During the Summit. Melania's surgery affected the timeline, I'd wager.

The above is the excerpt (Page 175) from Glenn Simpson's testimony before the Senate Intel Committee on August 22, 2017 which revealed that the FBI had a source in the Trump Campaign.

Here is the latest from TCTH which goes into detail about the significance of the above, events surrounding it, and where we are today. It's an important read. Feinstein is a snake.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/14/mueller-probe-might-not-survive-much-longer-intelligence-connections-highlight-sketchy-origin-to-special-counsel/

In the above article, TCTH extracts pertinent information from the podcast below:

https://www.bongino.com/may-14-2018-ep-719-the-swamp-is-panicking/

This is a remarkable podcast by Dan Bongino. I wish it had a transcript. Listen to the segment: 20:00min to 41:00 min. Yeah, it's 21 minutes, but it is well worth it.

1) The FBI had HUMINT, a source into the Trump Campaign, and the info from that source was being communicated to Steele = August 22, 2017 Simpson testimony.
2) January 9, 2018 Feinstein released Simpson's transcript exposing Simpson's testimony. Same day sources close to Simpson said he was referring to Papadoupolos. However, no public info about Papadopoulos' involvement in the scheme was revealed until he was indicted in late October 2017. Therefore Simpson couldn't have known about Papadopoulos in August 2017 = Simpson is lying...or Simpson was privileged to confidential FBI records. (Note: Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the dossier.)
3) Since the dossier didn't kick off the FBI counterintelligence investigation, you can see there is a major problem.

I have started to follow Bongino on twitter.