Jumping Jack Flash it's a gas, gas, gas.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

---

Wow they are getting desperate.

So what if they did have contact with Wikileaks? It's a private company/organization. It's not government run. How is it any different than Steele?

backintexas2013 said:

---

So what if they did have contact with Wikileaks? It's a private company/organization. It's not government run. How is it any different than Steele?

---

Because... Russians

Cepe said:

---

Really different tone this week and higher level names coming out. Also the bigger picture is starting to be revealed with Brennan and the Brits.

Seems like it's about to hit the fan.

---

Is tomorrow not the anniversary of the Mueller investigation? Hmmm...

To be fair Wikileaks was an organization publishing US classified information after the Manning fiasco. Anyone in the government with a security clearance was instructed not to go to the site due to not having a need to know and it was grounds for getting your clearance revoked. Dumb with the press reporting everything of real interest but nonetheless the threat.

The NYT article is the beginning of the narrative that I and many others have been predicting since December of '16

GCP12 said:

---

The NYT article is the beginning of the narrative that I and many others have been predicting since December of '16

---

The guilty members of the FBI/DOJ basically penned this NYT piece of propaganda trying to justify everything they did and trying to get out front of the IG report. And still they are withholding the redacted name of their "Source" inside the campaign that is SO sensitive they can't give it to Congress, but then they give this mockingbird press piece to the NYT, referring to British catchy code names for ops. As hard as a push there is on this I look for the report to drop Friday late.

Quote:

---

But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump's campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.

---

"They never thought she would lose..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane-trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Totally agreed. I can't wait for eric and the other defenders of the IC to parrot the NYT article for weeks/moths to come. Just as we said they would a year and a half ago.

"We had to spy on the opposing party's candidate! National security! What, are you a Russian or something?"

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump's campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.

---

"They never thought she would lose..."

---

There are some days when it seems like this thread and the Q thread are separated by a razor thin boundary. Today is one of those days.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump's campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.

---

---

Yup, more of the same.

"We would have been transparent, but Trump would have called us out for our police state tactics! Damn you Trump!"

blindey said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Quote:

---

But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump's campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.

---

"They never thought she would lose..."

---

There are some days when it seems like this thread and the Q thread are separated by a razor thin boundary. Today is one of those days.

---

And I think (hope) going forward that the line becomes thinner and thinner.

GCP12 said:

---

Totally agreed. I can't wait for eric and the other defenders of the IC to parrot the NYT article for weeks/moths to come. Just as we said they would a year and a half ago.

"We had to spy on the opposing party's candidate! National security! What, are you a Russian or something?"

---

You already see it. McCain was a patriot for turning over the dossier to the fbi is the first step in justifying all the actions

So the spin will be he did something illegal but they can't indict. Wait for it.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So the spin will be he did something illegal but they can't indict. Wait for it.

---

I guess so. The jig is up. Now all they can sell is spin and nonsense to try to escape the oncoming fallout.

GCP12 said:

---

---

No **** CNN. Mueller said that almost a year ago.

I don't think this is a big revelation. He always knew that. He can still try to set him up for impeachment.

Yep, that was my first thought, too. Esp since it's CNN reporting it.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So the spin will be he did something illegal but they can't indict. Wait for it.

---

Oh, of course. They will attempt to use it as a reason to legitimize impeachment, too.

"He did something illegal, but they can't indict. So, we have to do it."

They won't even have to tell us the crime. Just, "RUUUUUUSSSSSIIIAAAAA!!!"

GCP12 said:

---

---

So much screeching!

Rockdoc said:

---

I don't think this is a big revelation. He always knew that. He can still try to set him up for impeachment.

---

Agreed. This might be a signal that the investigation is coming to an end though.

GCP12 said:

---

---

GCP12 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

I don't think this is a big revelation. He always knew that. He can still try to set him up for impeachment.

---

Agreed. This might be a signal that the investigation is coming to an end though.

---

That would be nice. It would really be nice to get back to governing the country.

Quote:

---

---

Another no **** moment for CNN. This has always been the legitimate job of a special council investigation, to make a report to Congress so they can follow the Constitution in addressing any possible issues.

GCP12 said:

---

---

Wait...but Thomas Ford 91 informed us all he would be perp walked out of the White House. I'm confused.

So, the matter of compelling trump to interview with mueller is settled then as well? They have no options if he refuses to.

GCP12 said:

---

---

This is so much bullshiit. She say right there and said oh but there is still the report to come, and then frames it that there may be possible referrals to congress for impeachment. That is 100% crap. Special Council has no authority to refer the POTUS for impeachment, his job is to prosecute crimes, that's it. And of course Wolf Blitzer laps it up like to labradoodle he is.

Rockdoc said:

---

If anybody thinks muellers high powered team of Hillary donators is going to go quietly into the night, better think again.

---

If they end up being looked at for possible disbarment because of unethical practices in federal court, they'll go away quietly and quickly. They keep playing games with Ellis and they very well might.