aggiehawg said:

---

An addendum to my above comments. Comey, Yates, Baker, Lisa Page, McCabe, Lynch and others are all gone. Meaning they are not within the IG's control. Rosenstein and Strzok are still there. That makes them to two witnesses with the most knowledge that Horowitz can access. Nor does Horowitz have jurisdiction over the CIA nor NSA. He can request his fellow IG's overseeing those agencies to dove-tail investigations with his but again many of the perpetrators at those agencies are gone.

Rosenstein is in place to obstruct, stonewall, obfuscate and otherwise refuse to allow a proper IG investigation. He has thus far been hostile to Congressional oversight. Lied about the scope of Mueller's investigation attempting to expand it by bootstrapping his August 2, 2017 memo to be retroactive to the date of the original appointment and has given Mueller counter-intelligence authority in secret. He has been caught lying about national security interests as the basis of massive redactions of documents sought by the House and Senate.

But Horowitz has to report back to that guy?

---

What about Priestap, as head of Counter Intelligence I've got to think he's still the main witness, right?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Everyone needs to hear this, I think Rand Paul is onto something. Gina Haspel either was fire walled from Brennan's dirty business or she's a problem and needs to be watched. Now she wasn't brought in from the field until February 2, 2017 and put under Pompeo and she may well be in the dark, but you'd think as sharp as she is she'd figure it out ex post facto. Hair on my neck is not giving me a good feeling.

Feedback anyone?

---

Hannigan of GCHQ communicated directly with and personally met with Brennan -- it was handled on a director to director level. Brennan assembled a report, but we don't know if other persons in the CIA were actually involved. Perhaps the operation otherwise was entirely conducted through the FBI/NSD and Clapper at DNI.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

It's just a coincidence that the two names side by side on this $25MM payment pledge to the other one's foundation, and of the billions of people walking this earth, one of these two was with Papadopoulos drunk in the UK.

---

Just happened to run into him in a bar. Nothing to see here, move along.

Quote:

---

What about Priestap, as head of Counter Intelligence I've got to think he's still the main witness, right?

---

The fact that he's still there indicates he has been cooperating or despite being as close to Strzok, Page and McCabe as he was, he could have been out of the loop on some things. That's hard to swallow as far as the chain of command goes but I have heard the excuse that a matter "didn't arise to my level" from Comey among others.

And we know from the Stzrok/Page texts that keeping information from specific individuals was SOP for them.

Bongino makes a point that Brennan obtained his information through "unofficial channels" involving UK intel, not "official channels" because if he had, it would have been necessary to verify it; i.e., it was political motivations that guided his plan. I think this also means that you won't find a paperwork trail outside of Brennan's office.

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

It's just a coincidence that the two names side by side on this $25MM payment pledge to the other one's foundation, and of the billions of people walking this earth, one of these two was with Papadopoulos drunk in the UK.

---

Just happened to run into him in a bar. Nothing to see here, move along.

---

I know Papp plead guilty but I always found it rather convenient that it was always a "drunk conversation." Isn't impairment due to alcohol/drugs an easy out when it comes to testimony. That always seemed odd to me, almost like a talking point "make sure to state he was drunk."

Levin had this nailed last week when he was talking about a NYT article. The NYT had a long article about the "hurricane " project. Why spill the beans now? Because the full story is about to blow and the rats know it.

They are getting in front of it and trying to muddy the water. This week is going to be awesome. Libs are getting criminal referrals.

FriscoKid said:

---

Levin had this nailed last week when he was talking about a NYT article. The NYT had a long article about the "hurricane " project. Why spill the beans now? Because the full story is about to blow and the rats know it.

They are getting in front of it and trying to muddy the water. This week is going to be awesome. Libs are getting criminal referrals.

---

I hope you're right, we need to get things moving. I don't want them to get too cute with timing this with the mid-terms, way too many moving parts. If it's as bad as we think it is let it all come out into the light.

drcrinum said:

---

VT: "The Response by Rod Rosenstein was embarrassing... it's a sham" because the IG doesn't have the power to speak with the necessary witnesses or call a grand jury.

---

The "Rosenstein problem" is best solved by replacing Sessions ... thus eliminating the AG's recusal from any campaign matters.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What about Priestap, as head of Counter Intelligence I've got to think he's still the main witness, right?

---

The fact that he's still there indicates he has been cooperating or despite being as close to Strzok, Page and McCabe as he was, he could have been out of the loop on some things. That's hard to swallow as far as the chain of command goes but I have heard the excuse that a matter "didn't arise to my level" from Comey among others.

And we know from the Stzrok/Page texts that keeping information from specific individuals was SOP for them.

---

I posted some texts this morning that I highlighted a part on Priestap. The test group was after Comey had closed the case n Hillary. Strzok and Page were talking about how nice it was "finaly put he MYE to bed" and Strzok says "Bill is ballistic about it". I think Bill Priestap has been on the right side of this all along, especially after Comey rolled him under the bus.

There was no realistic whistle blower protection for Priestap were he to have tried to expose the obstruction of justice committed by the FBI/DOJ in the Hillary email case. His only choice was to resign in protest and go to Congress back when all of that was happening in the summer of 2016.

IIRC, it was Priestap that said the verification process for the Steele dossier was in "its infancy" before the Carter Page FISA warrant application. But that would have been as far as he knew. Was he walled off from the Steele dossier? Were there actions being taken outside of his knowledge? If Priestap were outside of the "small group" how easy would it truly be to keep him in the dark? Once Strzok flew to London to meet with Brit intel, he had to know some thing was up at the very latest.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Problem with those jumping to this conclusion is they are completely ignoring John Huber and that Sessions paired them together for a specific reason and he has the power to do everything. I'm confident that's what he's doing there and running an air tight ship on what he's doing. Leaks on sealed indictments and prosecutions in a case this big are devastating and John Huber is running it the way it should be. The fact that he had already been in place for some time before we ever knew he was or knew his name, means something. Has the Congress not scared Sessions into outing him, screaming 2nd special counsel and writing letter after letter and in the press constantly daily, he would have stayed in the shadows. Notice how that has all died down, stat a few here and there that I think only say it for effect, because their base loves it. Like Trump and the 'lock her up" chants. I think people will have a new outlook one it unfolds, the media isn't helping any, John Huber is a soldier.

It'sa always talked about on here about the Dems "passing out their talking points". Is there anywhere to find the equivalent "talking points" for the white hats? Or are we not to that point yet?

I love reading this thread and the Q thread, but age/ADD won't let me retain all of that info, so I need a more Reader's Digest Condensed version, ya know, so I can put it out to libs I'm facing off and not-libs that need to hear it.

OPAG said:

---

Dang Roscoe, thanks for bringing up some very unpleasant memories.

Back in around 2003 when all these 'partiot acts' were going forward, I wrote an email letter to W and Ashcroft. I sent it to a family 'friend' who was close friends with W and part of the admin. (My family was pretty well connected as well)
I am pretty sure they got it. (W especially knew who my grandfather was). In that letter I basically urgently and vehemently begged them to not.

1. Kill the golden goose by knee jerking a 911 response.

2. Burn the haystack to find the needles\

3. Give a tremendous amount of power to un-elected and extremely powerful fed police and reg forces all in the name of finding terrorist and drug money.

4, I proceeded to 'prophesy' to them that if they passed these acts as is, (especially the international aspects of it) several things would happen and some immediately.

A. There would be major foreign investment and capital flight leaving the US? Foreign investors would look else where. And that is exactly what happened.

When did Dubai in the UAE have this big boom and why? It started around 2004 when the the International compliance and banking aspects of the 'Patirot-- any thing but patriot-- Acts' started kicking. All the foreign investment started pouring into Dubai. The capital flight out of US banks was tremendous. The 'Gestapo Acts' where the main reason for it.

B. That it would be just a matter of time before these 'Fed forces both monetary and law enforcement' begin to use and abuse those same acts. And that is exactly what they do with these NSLs.

C. That some vile Pres and admin would come into power and really use it to destroy and silence those who they saw as threats and basically reduce the US to fear and kill the middle class.

I can't tell you how much really good innovative start up tech coms have been shuttered and destroyed,by powerful elites in league with the Feds police, banking and regulatory authorities How many lives unjustly destroyed or imprisoned!! What Mueller is doing has been the norm since those acts.

Unfortunately everything I warned them about in my letter has happened. This mess we are now in, began with them. All in the name of 'peace and safety'.

Now I don't believe that either Ashcroft or W were corrupt. I would call them naive and I would also say they gave in to the pressure to "DO SOMETHING ABOUT 911" and bring justice to the perpetrators and 'secure us'!

Well Bin Laden's attack on us was so much more effective then most would ever know! We brought it on our selves, through fear and knee jerk reacting to the outrage of 911.

Hopefully part of draining the swamp will be cleaning up these ridiculous powers we have given to our alphabet agencies and banking regulators all looking for Money laundering, tax evasion and terrorist money.

We wave our gun in the air emphatically and shot ourselves in the arse!

---

Actually a newer talking point is "it wasn't spying it was an investigation so you have to expect surveillance."

MooreTrucker said:

---

It'sa always talked about on here about the Dems "passing out their talking points". Is there anywhere to find the equivalent "talking points" for the white hats? Or are we not to that point yet?

I love reading this thread and the Q thread, but age/ADD won't let me retain all of that info, so I need a more Reader's Digest Condensed version, ya know, so I can put it out to libs I'm facing off and not-libs that need to hear it.

---

When you lie as much as they do you have to pass out their version of the truth. When you are really being truthful, you don't need notes or be told what to say.

GCP12 said:

---

I would just like to say that the level of spin on this story is baffling.

We went from, "Of course the Obama admin didn't spy on Trump!"

To, "Yeah, they spied on Trump, but it was only to protect him from the Russians!" in under a week.

"Spying on Trump to protect him" is a level of spin I didn't believe was possible.

---

Not to mention the "Don Jr. met with Iranians, etc." nonsense. Like Trump himself said, they couldn't find anything with Russians so they have to go out to the rest of the world.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Actually a newer talking point is "it wasn't spying it was an investigation so you have to expect surveillance."

---

Yes, that is also a great one. "The spy was not a spy!"

MooreTrucker said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

I would just like to say that the level of spin on this story is baffling.

We went from, "Of course the Obama admin didn't spy on Trump!"

To, "Yeah, they spied on Trump, but it was only to protect him from the Russians!" in under a week.

"Spying on Trump to protect him" is a level of spin I didn't believe was possible.

---

Not to mention the "Don Jr. met with Iranians, etc." nonsense. Like Trump himself said, they couldn't find anything with Russians so they have to go out to the rest of the world.

---

They've lost it. They've got nothing and they're reeling.

GCP12 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Actually a newer talking point is "it wasn't spying it was an investigation so you have to expect surveillance."

---

Yes, that is also a great one. "The spy was not a spy!"

---

Yeah the same non spy that was implicated in a spying scandal in which CIA officials gave inside information on the Carter administration to the GOP campaign in 1980. The same GOP ticket that his former boss at the CIA was running for VP. When daddy Bush became Reagan's running mate, he brought his henchman along with him.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

It'sa always talked about on here about the Dems "passing out their talking points". Is there anywhere to find the equivalent "talking points" for the white hats? Or are we not to that point yet?

I love reading this thread and the Q thread, but age/ADD won't let me retain all of that info, so I need a more Reader's Digest Condensed version, ya know, so I can put it out to libs I'm facing off and not-libs that need to hear it.

---

When you lie as much as they do you have to pass out their version of the truth. When you are really being truthful, you don't need notes or be told what to say.

---

Absolutely. Just LOTS of info to keep up with.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Actually a newer talking point is "it wasn't spying it was an investigation so you have to expect surveillance."

---

When Rowdy heard this, he went ballistic.

He asked mes some questions to make his point. If the FBI thought someone was going to murder someone e in your family, they would come tell you. If the FBI thought someone was going to kidnap your youngest child, they would come tell you. If the FBI thought the Russians were going steal your companies technology, they would come tell you. If the IRS thought you might be not reporting your Russian income, they will tell you that they are coming to audit you.

If the FBI thought that Hilary or Trump were being infiltrated by the Russians, they would have a sit down with Hildog or Trump. The FBI was spying on a political campaign. Plain and simple. They got caught.

At least that is what Rowdy says.

MooreTrucker said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

It'sa always talked about on here about the Dems "passing out their talking points". Is there anywhere to find the equivalent "talking points" for the white hats? Or are we not to that point yet?

I love reading this thread and the Q thread, but age/ADD won't let me retain all of that info, so I need a more Reader's Digest Condensed version, ya know, so I can put it out to libs I'm facing off and not-libs that need to hear it.

---

When you lie as much as they do you have to pass out their version of the truth. When you are really being truthful, you don't need notes or be told what to say.

---

Absolutely. Just LOTS of info to keep up with.

---

I work a spread sheet and have cataloged 3 TB of pdfs and images. It's a pile to keep up with.

GCP12 said:

---

I would just like to say that the level of spin on this story is baffling.

We went from, "Of course the Obama admin didn't spy on Trump!"

To, "Yeah, they spied on Trump, but it was only to protect him from the Russians!" in under a week.

"Spying on Trump to protect him" is a level of spin I didn't believe was possible.

---

To actively trying to set Nunes and Gowdy up as the sources of the leaks for the Friday evening Times article. Rosenstein wanted another "meeting" but they refused to fall into the trap. The level of hostility Rosenstein is evincing, not to mention the outraged blathering by Brennan, indicate there is still a conspiracy afoot.

Let's go back to that amazing day in Judge Ellis's court when Team Mueller's Dreeben was tap dancing around the jurisdiction issue, regarding the redacted portions of Rosenstein's August 2, 2017 memo. Dreeben "opened the door" as what type of secret jurisdiction Rosenstein had attempted to devolve unto Mueller. Judge Ellis now has the unredacted memo under seal that he can compare to the latest media reports about Crossfire Hurricane. The ball is in his court (pun intended) and Ellis has every authority to call Rosenstein before him to explain himself.

Maybe Judge Ellis can ask the questions Grassley wants answered in a closed session. Cut through all of the bullcrap that is going on. Have Rosenstein brief the question of when a Special Counsel can be appointed to conduct a counter-intelligence operation without a predicate crime. Without the DNC server, there is no evidence nor even probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to support Mueller's appointment. If it wasn't the DNC "hack" what was it? What was the crime?

https://www.themarketswork.com/2018/04/09/john-brennans-role-in-the-fbis-trump-russia-investigation/

Quote:

---

John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation

---

Roscoe, there are specific details in this article that address Brennan's involvement with UK intel, quotes, interviews, etc. His meeting with Hannigan was also highly unusual -- Hannigan's counterpart was Rogers at NSA, not Brennan at CIA. Brennan was always elusive regarding the sources of his intel that he used in his brief(ing) that he turned over to the FBI. I think this fits very well with Bongino's claim that Brennan's UK intel was "unofficial" and did not originate through normal channels, implying it was "unverified" and potentially had political overtones. It would be very similar to the dossier -- unverified intel, with political overtones. All the roads behind the scheme appear to be leading to London.

Read a while back, and I agree, Brennan circumvented five eyes to avoid detection. This started out as 100% deep cover clandestine off the books ops. Cutouts and contractors used to avoid NSA monitors, had it not been them getting greedy on the unmasking and spreading them around, it would have stayed deep cover. Barry kept those small circles of trusted soldiers, and when Samantha Powers went from the average unmaskings by any UN Ambassador of less than 20 a year to 287 in a 6 month period, they burned their cover. John Bolton as big as a hawk he is, in his entire career never unmasked that many people total. That is where they burned themselves, and they then looked at Rice, who quadrupled her unmasking rate. The deeper they looked the found unfettered access by two contractors, betting money it's Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS. That blew the lid off of it and Rogers shut it down and blew the whistle to Trump.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This bastid is going to Prison

---

That is one angry and ugly old Commie

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5753903/FBI-spy-Trump-campaign-asked-foreign-policy-adviser-hacked-Clinton-emails.html

Quote:

---

A Cambridge University professor with CIA contacts who President Trump calls a 'spy' kept tabs on key Trump campaign contacts and once tried to establish that Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos was linked to the Russia-based hacking of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton.

The academic, Stefan Halper, had contacts with Trump campaign advisers including Papadopoulos, Carter Page and former national campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis.

He dined with Papadopoulos, bringing along his Turkish assistant, Azra Turk.

Halper, 73, cut a colorful figure as he strolled through diplomatic, academic, and espionage circles, having served in the Reagan, Ford, and Nixon administrations.

Owing to his girth, he earned the nickname 'the walrus' from some who know of his exploits.

During one of their dinners, Halper asked Papadopoulos whether he was involved in Russian hacking of Democratic emails, The Daily Caller reported.

'George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?' he asked, according to multiple news reports.

After Papadopoulos denied it, Halper grew frustrated.

---