AG 2000' said:

---

akm91 said:

---

At this point, it's hard to keep track of all the criminals involved in this treasonous enterprise.

Comey
Rosenstein
Brennan
Clapper
Yates
Ohr
Lynch
Powers
Rice
Strzok
Priestap
Baker
Page
Carlin
Mueller (?)

Who is missing from the list?

---

You forgot Hillary, Jarrett, and Obama.

---

The more I study this, I'm not sure you couldn't add John McCain as well. He has lots of connections to all the players.

Quote:

---

Now take the above article from April which implied CNN was 'colluding' with Comey/FBI about briefing Trump on the dossier & then publishing details about the dossier, based upon Comey's Memos...and combine it with the letter (see previous Page 394) from Senator Johnson concerning the just-revealed emails involving McCabe/Comey/Rybiki/etc, the 'sensitive matter team', and I think there is ample evidence to include CNN as a co-conspirator in the scheme.

---

Not sure "co-conspirator" is the correct term in the legal sense, unless they were paying the government leakers as an inducement to commit a crime.

After The Pentagon Papers case, the publication of classified material by a legitimate news outlet is not a crime. The person(s) who provided the information is the criminal.

What these revelations prove, OTOH, is that the oft used "We don't comment on pending investigations," used by the FBI and DOJ is pure BS. They comment all of the time, just anonymously.

I said before it is time to lock some reporters up for contempt until they reveal their sources on highly classified material. They are the witness to a crime. Free speech grants them criminal immunity but not full immunity from contempt of court charges.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Now take the above article from April which implied CNN was 'colluding' with Comey/FBI about briefing Trump on the dossier & then publishing details about the dossier, based upon Comey's Memos...and combine it with the letter (see previous Page 394) from Senator Johnson concerning the just-revealed emails involving McCabe/Comey/Rybiki/etc, the 'sensitive matter team', and I think there is ample evidence to include CNN as a co-conspirator in the scheme.

---

Not sure "co-conspirator" is the correct term in the legal sense, unless they were paying the government leakers as an inducement to commit a crime.

After The Pentagon Papers case, the publication of classified material by a legitimate news outlet is not a crime. The person(s) who provided the information is the criminal.

What these revelations prove, OTOH, is that the oft used "We don't comment on pending investigations," used by the FBI and DOJ is pure BS. They comment all of the time, just anonymously.

I said before it is time to lock some reporters up for contempt until they reveal their sources on highly classified material. They are the witness to a crime. Free speech grants them criminal immunity but not full immunity from contempt of court charges.

---

God it would be fantastic if they could lock up some CNN reporters, Maggie from the NYT and others.

Prosperdick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Now take the above article from April which implied CNN was 'colluding' with Comey/FBI about briefing Trump on the dossier & then publishing details about the dossier, based upon Comey's Memos...and combine it with the letter (see previous Page 394) from Senator Johnson concerning the just-revealed emails involving McCabe/Comey/Rybiki/etc, the 'sensitive matter team', and I think there is ample evidence to include CNN as a co-conspirator in the scheme.

---

Not sure "co-conspirator" is the correct term in the legal sense, unless they were paying the government leakers as an inducement to commit a crime.

After The Pentagon Papers case, the publication of classified material by a legitimate news outlet is not a crime. The person(s) who provided the information is the criminal.

What these revelations prove, OTOH, is that the oft used "We don't comment on pending investigations," used by the FBI and DOJ is pure BS. They comment all of the time, just anonymously.

I said before it is time to lock some reporters up for contempt until they reveal their sources on highly classified material. They are the witness to a crime. Free speech grants them criminal immunity but not full immunity from contempt of court charges.

---

God it would be fantastic if they could lock up some CNN reporters, Maggie from the NYT and others.

---

It would be. Can you imagine the screams from the media would escalate, especially after hearing how unhinged they have been since yesterday just because Trump directed his team to investigate allegations into spys planted in his campaign? If it's not already there, it would certainly become an all out war.

Quote:

---

God it would be fantastic if they could lock up some CNN reporters, Maggie from the NYT and others.

---

The entire DC based desks at the Times and WaPo could be cell mates.

Quote:

---

It would be. Can you imagine the screams from the media would escalate, especially after hearing how unhinged they have been since yesterday just because Trump directed his team to investigate allegations into spys planted in his campaign? If it's not already there, it would certainly become an all out war.

---

Muh First Amendment! would replace Muh Russia.

Is it even a crime for a Reporter to take bribes to plant false stories? Obviously you could get them for failure to report income.

Cow Hop, that post just made my day.

Well done!

So many ingredients in this corruption cake finally ready for the oven.


Will we have a souffle or a soufail?


Comey, Clapper and the like still tweeting about the "institutions that must survive/endure" and leaving out the survival and duty to our Republic and The Constitution. I find it strange to read their words in such plainness. I suppose its just blind hubris. Maybe that's too simple an explanation,

aggiehawg said:

---

What these revelations prove, OTOH, is that the oft used "We don't comment on pending investigations," used by the FBI and DOJ is pure BS. They comment all of the time, just anonymously.

---

I don't know whether CNN was properly "conspiring." But I do agree that they were implicit in the anonymous commentary. My real suspicion is that the "anonymous commentary" was actually sponsored content. The content came from one source (FBI/DOJ/etc.) and the sponsorship came from another: the DNC/DNC-related PACs.

The reason that they've completely lost it is because there is a good chance that this is either (1) already known or (2) likely to become known in the near future.

The First Amendment grants the right of Freedom of the Press, but it seems to me that it should come with the understanding that you aren't intentionally deceiving your readership. The idea was for the press to be able to report when the government was behaving badly, not to HIDE the bad behavior of half the government from the people.

If you go back to Page 394 and read Senator Johnson's letter: "The Committee recently received documents that contain references to several "sensitive" matters,..."

Who sent the documents to the Committee? Guess: Horowitz & Sessions.
Why? Guess: Informing Congress (& eventually the public) that an investigation is ongoing.
How were these documents (emails) discovered? Guess: McCabe is singing like a canary.

A coordinated leak.

blindey said:

---

But I do agree that they were implicit in the anonymous commentary. My real suspicion is that the "anonymous commentary" was actually sponsored content. The content came from one source (FBI/DOJ/etc.) and the sponsorship came from another: the DNC/DNC-related PACs.

---

That said, would CNN be in legal jeopardy? I suspect not.

So basically they've got the right people by the balls and can now gain access to material needed to force narrative in a direction that CNN/NYT/WaPo/anyone else really doesn't want to go (or has to work overtime to deflect, spin, and downplay just to keep their eyeballs above water)?

benchmark said:

---

blindey said:

---

But I do agree that they were implicit in the anonymous commentary. My real suspicion is that the "anonymous commentary" was actually sponsored content. The content came from one source (FBI/DOJ/etc.) and the sponsorship came from another: the DNC/DNC-related PACs.

---

That said, would CNN be in legal jeopardy? I suspect not.

---

Potentially.

If the government starts trying to prosecute the leakers, their people can at least be held in contempt for refusing to comply with judges instructions re answering who gave them information. See Hawg's posts above.

The more interesting question is on the payment side. Depends where the money came from, where the money went, if and how it was reported and booked, and -- frankly -- how much cash we're talking about. That part could get really hairy really fast. If it's the typical DNC MO, money was funneled from donor -> superPAC -> Perkins Coie -> superPAC -> recipient (or something similar).

fasthorses05 said:

---

Cow Hop, that post just made my day.

Well done!

---

Thanks. I was happy to see his email. Especially that he is donating to help others.

Tailgate88 said:

---

The First Amendment grants the right of Freedom of the Press, but it seems to me that it should come with the understanding that you aren't intentionally deceiving your readership. The idea was for the press to be able to report when the government was behaving badly, not to HIDE the bad behavior of half the government from the people.

---

I'd say that the press is insistent that they have access to the WH, and given the deliberate intent to spread falsehoods, they are guilty of slanderous libel atthe very least.

Mrs. Hawg,

I agree that Mueller seems to wielding immunity like presidential pardons, but wouldn't this be signed off on by Rosenstein?

I thought that he(Rosenstein) was the final arbiter of what is or isn't in-scope for the SC. As in the case with the Russian court date and Manafort, it seems the only way to challenge the SC is when that venue is in a courtroom and the SC memos are brought up. Rosenstein so far seems all to eager to abdicate any oversight or restraint to this SC beast.

Short of Rosenstein going away(fired or resigns) what avenue is their to bridle the SC? If Rosenstein does go, can the SC memo/scope be reworked or reworded by the new DAG?

pedro_martinez said:

---

Thread by @_VachelLindsay_: "1. I have no doubt that Obama will be indicted and found guilty of at least THREE major felonies, just from his central involvement in the f []" #ObamaGate #MAGA

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/998757150720589825.html

---

There will be riots in the streets the likes of which we have never seen.

Immunities have to be signed off on by a judge or magistrate

Tailgate88 said:

---

The First Amendment grants the right of Freedom of the Press, but it seems to me that it should come with the understanding that you aren't intentionally deceiving your readership. The idea was for the press to be able to report when the government was behaving badly, not to HIDE the bad behavior of half the government from the people.

---

I would love to see a test case where CNN was sued for defamation with the allegation that CNN uses sufficient sponsored content that it doesn't qualify as "press" for purposes of New York Times v Sullivan.

so a little judge shopping would be needed

edit: but also, how did DOJ grant Cherly Mills and the others immunity?

I'm just trying to understand the difference, was there a Judge that singed off on the Clinton email Immunity deals?

marble rye said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

The First Amendment grants the right of Freedom of the Press, but it seems to me that it should come with the understanding that you aren't intentionally deceiving your readership. The idea was for the press to be able to report when the government was behaving badly, not to HIDE the bad behavior of half the government from the people.

---

I'd say that the press is insistent that they have access to the WH, and given the deliberate intent to spread falsehoods, they are guilty of slanderous libel atthe very least.

---

As much as I despise what they do, when it is alleged to be "journalism", caveat emptor. Nobody ever believes journalists are really completely objective and honest.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/998937116284420096.html

Quote:

---

...
BURIED BOMBSHELL 1: There was "at least one" informant (er, spy) targeting the Trump campaign

The NYT drops into paragraph 42 that there many have been additional spies other than Stefan Halper (who they don't name but leak biographical information they know can identify him)

---

Quote:

---

...
BURIED BOMBSHELL 2: National Security Letters (NSL's) were used against the Trump campaign

This is the second huge story in para 42, which has almost no details & is never mentioned again. NSL's come with gag orders & even JUDGES can't expose them except for limited reasons...

---

Quote:

---

...
BURIED BOMBSHELL 3: The FBI confirmed the existence of the Counterintelligence Investigation (CI) into the Trump campaign to the NYT on Oct 31

This one is in para 68 - whoever leaked it is confirming someone probably committed a felony or major DOJ/FBI rule violation on Oct 31

---

Quote:

---

...
BURIED BOMBSHELL 4: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signed the first FISA warrant against @carterwpage

It was known that Yates, Boente and Rosenstein had signed the FISA warrants on the DOJ side, but not WHICH ORDER. This was only known to DOJ and Congressional investigators

---

Quote:

---

...
BURIED BOMBSHELL 5: The initial FBI engagement with Alexander Downer "broke diplomatic protocol"

Why did the FBI have to break any "protocol"? What are they? Exactly when did Downer first talk to someone about this conversations with PAPADOUPOLOS? Is Downer ever going to talk?

---

Quote:

---

...
BURIED BOMBSHELL 6: The CI investigation was ONLY opened on the Trump campaign, not the Russia attack on the US in general

This is right in the headline, but totally downplayed. Why did the FBI, which should have been investigating RUSSIA, ONLY investigate the Trump campaign?

---

Interesting tweet thread, an analysis of the NYT's article on "Crossfire Hurricane". There are 6 major revelations buried in this article concerning previously unknown public information...leaks. Clearly the NYT's article could not have been written without major input from someone who was in the FBI/DOJ (current or former) and who possessed intimate knowledge of the scheme, likely a member of the "sensitive matter team".

No. as I stated clearly, a federal judge has to sign off on immunity grants for them to become effective. In the normal course of things, such orders may or may not be sealed, depending on the scope and progress of the investigation. (Which is why it made so little sense to me that DOJ was leaking immunity grants as they were occurring in the Hillary email case. Just dumb.)

okay, I think you just answered my edit too

Sarge 91 said:

---

pedro_martinez said:

---

Thread by @_VachelLindsay_: "1. I have no doubt that Obama will be indicted and found guilty of at least THREE major felonies, just from his central involvement in the f []" #ObamaGate #MAGA

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/998757150720589825.html

---

There will be riots in the streets the likes of which we have never seen.

---

Say when

Remember this

Old article from 2017 by Atkisson. Remember when the Obama DOJ spied on Congress and journalists. Its like the main stream media has forgotten that he weaponized the DOJ for political purposes before.

Sarge 91 said:

---

pedro_martinez said:

---

Thread by @_VachelLindsay_: "1. I have no doubt that Obama will be indicted and found guilty of at least THREE major felonies, just from his central involvement in the f []" #ObamaGate #MAGA

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/998757150720589825.html

---

There will be riots in the streets the likes of which we have never seen.

---

What would be great is if somehow there is digital evidence that Soros is involved in all this and they seize his assets. Probably enough to pay for the wall.

But I agree if they lock Obama up Soros and his merry band of agitators will be in overdrive.

FriscoKid said:

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

pedro_martinez said:

---

Thread by @_VachelLindsay_: "1. I have no doubt that Obama will be indicted and found guilty of at least THREE major felonies, just from his central involvement in the f []" #ObamaGate #MAGA

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/998757150720589825.html

---

There will be riots in the streets the likes of which we have never seen.

---

Say when

---

I'd almost prefer he flees to a non-extradition country and lives out his life in shame. I think the cost to the country would be too great if he's indicted and found guilty.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a totally different story.

Which judge would have jurisdiction over this? A FISA judge?

aggielee03 said:

---

Remember this

Old article from 2017 by Atkisson. Remember when the Obama DOJ spied on Congress and journalists. Its like the main stream media has forgotten that he weaponized the DOJ for political purposes before.

---

They didn't forget. Obama attempted to destroy anyone who disagreed with him. Most of them lick his boots.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Which judge would have jurisdiction over this? A FISA judge?

---

Rudy Contreras?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Which judge would have jurisdiction over this? A FISA judge?

---

Military tribunal? Might be another reason for BHOs purge of flag officers.