aggiehawg said:

---

Didi Snavely's House of Used Weapons: If we can't kill it, it's immortal!

---

I'll not derail after this, but your first comment made me guffaw! I haven't thought about those plays in years.

But, OMG, it's rare to go to a play and have your gut hurt from laughing too much. "3rd smallest town in Texas"!

"eyes only" envelopes? Any idea?

WTH????

Get ready for the report to drop

I don't buy it but who knows.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Well this is all good and fine, but we need to get Rosenstein out of the equation or it will all be for naught.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

"eyes only" envelopes? Any idea?

---

IIRC, those envelopes were for Obama to be kept up with the goings-on of the investigation into the Trump campaign, but they were given to more people than something like that would normally be (or something similar). Basically, too secret info normally intended for the president, but Brennan made sure several more people were aware of what it was.

They've been mentioned in this thread more than once, but I couldn't begin to tell you where.

Rockdoc said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Well this is all good and fine, but we need to get Rosenstein out of the equation or it will all be for naught.

---

Assuming it's true -

If Rosenstein is dirty then they likely have something indictable against him, problem solved.

If Rosenstein is clean but being blackmailed somehow (e.g., threats against family), then they likely have that detail too.

Far more likely it's the former, but feels like we're going to find out.

Rockdoc said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Well this is all good and fine, but we need to get Rosenstein out of the equation or it will all be for naught.

---

What does he have to do with any of that? This is all above his pay grade

Quote:

---

Well this is all good and fine, but we need to get Rosenstein out of the equation or it will all be for naught.

---

If there have been that many criminal referrals, chances are he might be one of them or be too conflicted out.

Investigating Mueller without another Special Counsel being appointed is curious to me.

What would be the predicate crime to justify that? Something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok observed or were involved in during their short time on Mueller's team? Comey related perhaps? Horowitz agreed to redact their texts during their time on Team Mueller but he still knew the contents.

Hhmm.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

I wish that were true, but it smells a bit. If it were that many it would have leaked by now.

I love your enthusiasm Roscoe! I really hope you're right, but I also don't want to set myself up for disappointment....

This is a link to the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress, OCTOBER 1, 2017 -- MARCH 31, 2018:
https://oig.justice.gov/semiannual/1805.pdf

It is 78 pages long, but there are 2 items of interest to us under the section Ongoing Work. The first (page 8) is the OIG Report on the Hillary email investigation we currently are awaiting:

Actions by the Department of Justice and the FBI in Advance of the 2016 Election.
The review will examine whether DOJ and the FBI followed policies or procedures in connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016, and the Director's letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016, and whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations. The review also will examine allegations that the FBI Deputy Director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters; that DOJ's Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs improperly disclosed non-public information and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters; that other DOJ and FBI employees improperly disclosed nonpublic information; and that decisions regarding the timing of the FBI's release of certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents on October 30 and November 1, 2016, and the use of a Twitter account to publicize this release, were influenced by improper considerations. The review will not substitute the OIG's judgment for the judgments made by the FBI or the Department regarding the substantive merits of investigative or prosecutive decisions. If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review.

The second (page 10) is the investigation of FISA abuse involving Carter Page's FISA warrant:

Examination of the Department's and the FBI's Compliance with Legal Requirements and Policies in Applications Filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Relating to a certain U.S. Person.
The OIG, in response to requests from the Attorney General and Members of Congress, is examining the Department's and the FBI's compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person. As part of this examination, the OIG is also reviewing information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source. Additionally, the OIG is reviewing the DOJ's and FBI's relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications. If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review.

Unrelated to Roscoe's posts: 1 week from today is the follow-up hearing in Manafort's E.D. Va. case with Judge Ellis. Should at least be interesting.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Well this is all good and fine, but we need to get Rosenstein out of the equation or it will all be for naught.

---

What does he have to do with any of that? This is all above his pay grade

---

What I'm referring to is the inability to count on sessions for anything thus far.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Get ready for the report to drop

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1002535507656519680.html

Here is the threadreader on Rex's thread. I certainly hope he is correct on what he says.

I understand exactly what you were getting at. But I've said it here 100 times, there are going to be a lot of people that owe Henry Gibson an apology, and this kabuki theater the POTUS is pulling off on twitter is masterful. He beating the left at their own game.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Well this is all good and fine, but we need to get Rosenstein out of the equation or it will all be for naught.

---

If there have been that many criminal referrals, chances are he might be one of them or be too conflicted out.

Investigating Mueller without another Special Counsel being appointed is curious to me.

What would be the predicate crime to justify that? Something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok observed or were involved in during their short time on Mueller's team? Comey related perhaps? Horowitz agreed to redact their texts during their time on Team Mueller but he still knew the contents.

Hhmm.

---

The only thing I can think of for investigation "of Mueller" would be related to conflicts of interest or some other violation of the regulations for appointing a SC. That would be within the IG's purview, I think.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

"eyes only" envelopes? Any idea?

---

Did a little looking. It is thought that "eyes only" is how Brennan got the dossier introduced into the WH.

Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings.

From December 22, 2017:

Quote:

---

"An envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried 'eyes only' instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides," the Washington Post reported on June 23, 2017.

"So was the Steele dossier in the envelope?" Tablet asks.

The Post writes that inside that envelope "was an intelligence bombshell" a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detained Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the presidential race, defeat or at least damage Hillary Clinton, and help elect Donald Trump.

The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad."

But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?"

---

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/22/fusion-gps-obama-administration-weaponized-trump-dossier/

Here's the way I look at this, has IRex been accurate in the past?

If so, then he knows his stuff.

Anyone who reads my post, knows about 8-10% of the time, I get get overwhelmed with the cynics disease, but otherwise, I expect many elected officials I'm familiar with to do their job. We'll see, but to my knowledge, Rex is still connected, and hasn't been wrong, so it's full steam ahead.

Not all Republicans are limp-wristed "feckless c****" (call out to S. BEE)!

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Donald J Trump is fixing to lock some muthaf***ers up. He will face these head winds head on, and weather the storm to save the ship. That's what leaders do.

---

I too like your enthusiasm. It's just the number of people quoted: 30+ from the Obummer administration and 150+ criminal referrals seems like a lot.

But related to this...what ever happened to all of the unmasking requests? At one time a few months ago there was info leaking out about hundreds of these requests from Obamaites and that Samantha Power (or someone using her access) had made a metric crap-ton of these requests. Anyone have any updates? I also thought there is a scandal/crime in that...bigly.

Quote:

---

The only thing I can think of for investigation "of Mueller" would be related to conflicts of interest or some other violation of the regulations for appointing a SC. That would be within the IG's purview, I think.

---

Fair point. If Horowitz had some questions about the appointment letter and conveyed those questions to Rosenstein, was the August 2, 2017 secret memo to Mueller an attempt to remedy Horowitz's concerns?

IDK. The way the appointment happened so fast after Comey was fired, in part because of Rosenstein's critique of Comey's handling of the Hillary's emails, the very subject of a five month old IG investigation, suggests to me that Rosenstein at least spoke with Horowitz before drafting his letter to Trump regarding Comey.

When Sessions showed his cards and revealed the existence of a separate investigation being overseen by Huber, he specifically said Rosenstein was in the loop. I remember because it pissed me off at the time.

Quote:

---

But related to this...what ever happened to all of the unmasking requests? At one time a few months ago there was info leaking out about hundreds of these requests from Obamaites and that Samantha Power (or someone using her access) had made a metric crap-ton of these requests. Anyone have any updates? I also thought there is a scandal/crime in that...bigly.

---

That subject would be within the purview of Inspector Generals for the CIA, NSA and DNI. Not Horowitz.

That is not to say those Inspector Generals wouldn't be conducting their own investigations and communicating with Horowitz on their findings, however.

Ha Henry Gibson. Now you're dating yourself! I remember tho because I'm old.

Rockdoc said:

---

Ha Henry Gibson. Now you're dating yourself! I remember tho because I'm old.

---

I was partial to Arte Johnson, myself.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But related to this...what ever happened to all of the unmasking requests? At one time a few months ago there was info leaking out about hundreds of these requests from Obamaites and that Samantha Power (or someone using her access) had made a metric crap-ton of these requests. Anyone have any updates? I also thought there is a scandal/crime in that...bigly.

---

That subject would be within the purview of Inspector Generals for the CIA, NSA and DNI. Not Horowitz.

That is not to say those Inspector Generals wouldn't be conducting their own investigations and communicating with Horowitz on their findings, however.

---

Would Horowitz have jurisdiction to look at whether unmasking requests made by a DOJ employee were proper?

fasthorses05 said:

---

Here's the way I look at this, has IRex been accurate in the past?

If so, then he knows his stuff.

Anyone who reads my post, knows about 8-10% of the time, I get get overwhelmed with the cynics disease, but otherwise, I expect many elected officials I'm familiar with to do their job. We'll see, but to my knowledge, Rex is still connected, and hasn't been wrong, so it's full steam ahead.

Not all Republicans are limp-wristed "feckless c****" (call out to S. BEE)!

---

Go to Page 64 and look at the stats. I can't copy & paste it, but the info and footnotes are encouraging regarding number of indictments:
https://oig.justice.gov/semiannual/1805.pdf

Forgive my stupidity. What is the January 17 letter?

Quote:

---

Would Horowitz have jurisdiction to look at whether unmasking requests made by a DOJ employee were proper?

---

That would be part of his FISAGate investigation. So yes.

Damn!

The "Fines and restitutions" section of $76 million and change is amazing!