https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/buckle-up-for-more-robert-mueller-russia-revelations-key-senate-democrat-says

Quote:

---

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told more than 100 people at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee event that they should "buckle up" for more revelations in the Russia investigation in the coming months, boastfully joking that there was information only known to himself and and special counsel Robert Mueller.

"If you get me one more glass of wine, I'll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know," Warner quipped to the crowd, according to Politico, referring to Mueller's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether President Trump obstructed justice.

"If you think you've seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. It's going to be a wild couple of months," Warner added....

---

When snakes speak...

That is nothing more than help with midterm elections, he knows nothing more than anyone else.

Drinking at a fund raiser? I'll take that as seriously as Trump's "Russia, if you have the emails release them," during the campaign.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

No Bias tho

captkirk said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

No Bias tho

---

If any reasonable person would see bias there, why wouldn't Horowitz see bias? Is he biased?

So there's another deadline for the FBI and DOJ to produce documents. Given their history, I'm really surprised the FBI and DOJ doesn't fake the documents. If they actually do produce documents, how do we have any confidence that they're legitimate?

Sure they'll be busted if it's proved to be fake, but who would bust them? Congress has only the FBI's and DOJ's word that the documents are legitimate. And even if they did find out, it's not like Congress would do anything. "Busted" in this context means that a few angry senators would get on Hannity and voice their outrage.

The FBI and DOJ may have gambled and lost thinking that Hillary would become president, but thinking that Congress would do nothing if it's ever shown that the documents are false is probably a sure thing right?

TexAgs91 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

No Bias tho

---

If any reasonable person would see bias there, why wouldn't Horowitz see bias? Is he biased?

---

You have to look at his carefully placed words. "No documented proof that their biases effected the conclusion they came to."

You have to under stand, law is gray on a good day. There is no real black and white. Too much room for subjective opinions, laws are written that way on purpose. Horowitz doesn't deal in speculation, and it's the nature of the structure of the IG not to deliberate their legal opinion. No where does he "agree" with their decision and outcome. He gathered facts as he could find them, organized them in a report so they are in context and made sense. His job is not that of a prosecutor, his job is a fact finder and put forward facts and evidense that withstand scrutiny and their veracity beyond question. He doesn't deal in maybes and what ifs. He doesn't speculate. He questions witnesses and documents their response, it's not his job to question their motives or veracity of their answers as long as it's not a provable lie.

Hillary's email case is being looked at again by the DOJ and they have this catalogue of evidense to use, to justify them reopening it. Horowitz was quick to label the original investigation a counter intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. SO the current investigation will be the first real criminal investigation into her email scandal. The first one obviously wasn't. Horowitz did that on purpose, so no one can scream that the Trumps are reopening an investigation the last administration closed. The current one is a criminal investigation. I'm curious to see if the original immunity deals apply for this current investigation.

This revelation of a possible FISA warrant on the HRC camp is very curious. Some have said it was incidental 702 gathering and unmasking, well that may be true, but you don't need a FISC judge for that. This talk of a FISA warrant is a different ballgame. I find it a stretch that Lynch would go along with that, perhaps it was a different kind of insurance policy for those wanting to keep their jobs after Hillary won. That's TBD, in so much it's still not clear the FISA warrant talk is actually correct. But if it ism it's a whole different ball game.

Bottom line is Horowitz is going his job. This next report on FISA abuses is going to be a kill shot for a bunch of people.

dreyOO said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

So HRC was never gonna be indicted unless they found a smoking gun while trying NOT to find it OR if they caught her in a bold faced lie...but they did, and still ignored it. Just beautiful.

---

You have to remember that Mills was wearing a variety of hats, State Department employee making her a fact witness, worked as a lawyer for Clinton Foundation and as Hillary's personal lawyer.

The FBI, with DOJ approval, negotiated an agreement with Mills (And Samuelson, another Hillary lawyer) regarding their electronic devices and the scope of a singular interview. Part of the agreement. Highly unusual arrangement but that's what they did. (Of course, now we know that there was no specific criminal investigation of Hillary, it was a counter-intel hybrid probe without a subject nor target.)

And Mills walked out of her interview when she was asked a question she didn't perceive as within that agreement, returning a few minutes later. Meaning she was a hostile witness.

But Strzok definitely needs to be questioned closely about this among many other acts of obstruction.

TexAgs91 said:

---

So there's another deadline for the FBI and DOJ to produce documents. Given their history, I'm really surprised the FBI and DOJ doesn't fake the documents. If they actually do produce documents, how do we have any confidence that they're legitimate?

Sure they'll be busted if it's proved to be fake, but who would bust them? Congress has only the FBI's and DOJ's word that the documents are legitimate. And even if they did find out, it's not like Congress would do anything. "Busted" in this context means that a few angry senators would get on Hannity and voice their outrage.

The FBI and DOJ may have gambled and lost thinking that Hillary would become president, but thinking that Congress would do nothing if it's ever shown that the documents are false is probably a sure thing right?

---

Faking documents is a lot tougher than it appears on the surface. Data trails are hard to cover. The days of paper and carbon are dead. Documents are generated digitally and there is a data stream to verify it. The NSA has EVERYTHING good and bad, and it was the NSA that brought all this nonsense to light. I doubt seriously if any of them have to gonads to try and fake documents. They would never see the light of day again if they were to be caught.

Exactly

Stumbling up on that paragraph labeling this HRC investigation changed the entire view of that IG report.

Quote:

---

I'm curious to see if the original immunity deals apply for this current investigation.

---

Good question. Not officially opening an investigation with a named subject is a double-edged sword. But it depends on the wording of the specific grant of immunity. I still can't wrap my head around a federal judge signing off on immunity without a grand jury being impaneled.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm curious to see if the original immunity deals apply for this current investigation.

---

Good question. Not officially opening an investigation with a named subject is a double-edged sword. But it depends on the wording of the specific grant of immunity. I still can't wrap my head around a federal judge signing off on immunity without a grand jury being impaneled.

---

And that question may be, did they actually have immunity or was that lip service for the congressional oversight and the media. I've yet to find any committee member requesting to see these immunity agreements and I find that troubling. That would be the first thing I wanted to see once they were made public.

Quote:

---

And that question may be, did they actually have immunity or was that lip service for the congressional oversight and the media. I've yet to find any committee member requesting to see these immunity agreements and I find that troubling. That would be the first thing I wanted to see once they were made public.

---

Maybe those agreements were never presented to a judge?? Were never formalized? Immunity would only come into play if they would have been required to give testimony before a grand jury. Since that was never going to happen anyway, they just signed the agreement and stuck it in the file.

This idiot is looking to get tossed from the court so he can cry foul

Good Lord! This guy is really going off of the rails here. Twenty thousand dollars in legal fees to prep her for an interview on a subject that likely is extraneous to what is being presented to a grand jury?

never mind that's old

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

No Bias tho

---

If any reasonable person would see bias there, why wouldn't Horowitz see bias? Is he biased?

---

You have to look at his carefully placed words. "No documented proof that their biases effected the conclusion they came to."

You have to under stand, law is gray on a good day. There is no real black and white. Too much room for subjective opinions, laws are written that way on purpose. Horowitz doesn't deal in speculation, and it's the nature of the structure of the IG not to deliberate their legal opinion. No where does he "agree" with their decision and outcome. He gathered facts as he could find them, organized them in a report so they are in context and made sense. His job is not that of a prosecutor, his job is a fact finder and put forward facts and evidense that withstand scrutiny and their veracity beyond question. He doesn't deal in maybes and what ifs. He doesn't speculate. He questions witnesses and documents their response, it's not his job to question their motives or veracity of their answers as long as it's not a provable lie.

Hillary's email case is being looked at again by the DOJ and they have this catalogue of evidense to use, to justify them reopening it. Horowitz was quick to label the original investigation a counter intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. SO the current investigation will be the first real criminal investigation into her email scandal. The first one obviously wasn't. Horowitz did that on purpose, so no one can scream that the Trumps are reopening an investigation the last administration closed. The current one is a criminal investigation. I'm curious to see if the original immunity deals apply for this current investigation.

This revelation of a possible FISA warrant on the HRC camp is very curious. Some have said it was incidental 702 gathering and unmasking, well that may be true, but you don't need a FISC judge for that. This talk of a FISA warrant is a different ballgame. I find it a stretch that Lynch would go along with that, perhaps it was a different kind of insurance policy for those wanting to keep their jobs after Hillary won. That's TBD, in so much it's still not clear the FISA warrant talk is actually correct. But if it ism it's a whole different ball game.

---

You have to write to your audience though. And he knows his audience is in part the media who will gleefully see his carefully placed words and report there is absolutely no bias in the FBI.

If we know that there would never be documented evidence that the FBI was biased in their conclusions, why say that explicitly in the conclusion? Why not just report what was found? There's probably thousands of things they did not find, why state THAT finding in the conclusion? What good does it do to state something that few lawyers would expect to find anyways and that would be misinterpreted by the MSM?

Quote:

---

Bottom line is Horowitz is going his job. This next report on FISA abuses is going to be a kill shot for a bunch of people.

---

Or if not the next one, just wait until the one after that. It's sure to be a real doozy.

TexAgs91 said:

---

You have to write to your audience though. And he knows his audience is in part the media who will gleefully see his carefully placed words and report there is absolutely no bias in the FBI.

If we know that there would never be documented evidence that the FBI was biased in their conclusions, why say that explicitly in the conclusion? Why not just report what was found? There's probably thousands of things they did not find, why state THAT finding in the conclusion? What good does it do to state something that few lawyers would expect to find anyways and that would be misinterpreted by the MSM?

Quote:

---

Bottom line is Horowitz is going his job. This next report on FISA abuses is going to be a kill shot for a bunch of people.

---

Or if not the next one, just wait until the one after that. It's sure to be a real doozy.

---

But he didn't say that, the media is going to do the left talking points, that's how their machine works.

He never once said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI."

The media is going to spin that is what they do

I find the cynicism laughable personally.

bmks270 said:

---

So can an NDA be enforced for reporting illegal activity? For whistleblowing?

---

That NDA is only as good as the power at large is willing to enforce it.

In other words that NDA was with Comey, Comey is in a cornfield or somewhere trying to sell his book still, not much he can do about breaking an NDA

Plus a good NDA is going to have an out for a court order.

BQ78 said:

---

Plus a good NDA is going to have an out for a court order.

---

Still, I think Rosenstein could file a motion to quash a Congressional subpoena on the basis of the NDA. Whether he is prepared to take that drastic of a step, who knows?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

You have to write to your audience though. And he knows his audience is in part the media who will gleefully see his carefully placed words and report there is absolutely no bias in the FBI.

If we know that there would never be documented evidence that the FBI was biased in their conclusions, why say that explicitly in the conclusion? Why not just report what was found? There's probably thousands of things they did not find, why state THAT finding in the conclusion? What good does it do to state something that few lawyers would expect to find anyways and that would be misinterpreted by the MSM?

Quote:

---

Bottom line is Horowitz is going his job. This next report on FISA abuses is going to be a kill shot for a bunch of people.

---

Or if not the next one, just wait until the one after that. It's sure to be a real doozy.

---

But he didn't say that, the media is going to do the left talking points, that's how their machine works.

He never once said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI."

The media is going to spin that is what they do

I find the cynicism laughable personally.

---

Laugh if you must. I never once said that he said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI". I said the media would interpret it that way. So how do you prevent the media from spinning his conclusion to say that there's no bias in the FBI? Don't include non-findings in the conclusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it cannot be a conclusion. Just state what you did find.

TexAgs91 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

You have to write to your audience though. And he knows his audience is in part the media who will gleefully see his carefully placed words and report there is absolutely no bias in the FBI.

If we know that there would never be documented evidence that the FBI was biased in their conclusions, why say that explicitly in the conclusion? Why not just report what was found? There's probably thousands of things they did not find, why state THAT finding in the conclusion? What good does it do to state something that few lawyers would expect to find anyways and that would be misinterpreted by the MSM?

Quote:

---

Bottom line is Horowitz is going his job. This next report on FISA abuses is going to be a kill shot for a bunch of people.

---

Or if not the next one, just wait until the one after that. It's sure to be a real doozy.

---

But he didn't say that, the media is going to do the left talking points, that's how their machine works.

He never once said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI."

The media is going to spin that is what they do

I find the cynicism laughable personally.

---

Laugh if you must. I never once said that he said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI". I said the media would interpret it that way. So how do you prevent the media from spinning his conclusion to say that there's no bias in the FBI? Don't include non-findings in the conclusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it cannot be a conclusion. Just state what you did find.

---

And I never once said you said it either, re read my post. I only mentioned the media in agreement to your mentioning the media.

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

TexAgs91 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

You have to write to your audience though. And he knows his audience is in part the media who will gleefully see his carefully placed words and report there is absolutely no bias in the FBI.

If we know that there would never be documented evidence that the FBI was biased in their conclusions, why say that explicitly in the conclusion? Why not just report what was found? There's probably thousands of things they did not find, why state THAT finding in the conclusion? What good does it do to state something that few lawyers would expect to find anyways and that would be misinterpreted by the MSM?

Quote:

---

Bottom line is Horowitz is going his job. This next report on FISA abuses is going to be a kill shot for a bunch of people.

---

Or if not the next one, just wait until the one after that. It's sure to be a real doozy.

---

But he didn't say that, the media is going to do the left talking points, that's how their machine works.

He never once said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI."

The media is going to spin that is what they do

I find the cynicism laughable personally.

---

Laugh if you must. I never once said that he said "there is absolutely no bias in the FBI". I said the media would interpret it that way. So how do you prevent the media from spinning his conclusion to say that there's no bias in the FBI? Don't include non-findings in the conclusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so it cannot be a conclusion. Just state what you did find.

---

I totally agree with you here. He didn't have to include non-findings at all and it served a purpose. Horowitz didn't come across as the ass kicker everyone in this thread was hoping him to be.

Quote:

---

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

---

What's on the docket on the 29th?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

---

What's on the docket on the 29th?

---

Flynn trial continuance that the Mueller team requested. Curious to his take on the camera viewed documents

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

---

I'm waiting for a cruise on the 1st

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

---

What's on the docket on the 29th?

---

Flynn trial continuance that the Mueller team requested. Curious to his take on the camera viewed documents

---

Flynn's case is in Judge Sullivan's court, not Ellis.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

---

What's on the docket on the 29th?

---

Flynn trial continuance that the Mueller team requested. Curious to his take on the camera viewed documents

---

Flynn's case is in Judge Sullivan's court, not Ellis.

---

You are correct too many venues to keep up

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's only Monday I'm waiting on Friday the 29th Judge Ellis' Court EDVA

---

What's on the docket on the 29th?

---

Flynn trial continuance that the Mueller team requested. Curious to his take on the camera viewed documents

---

Flynn's case is in Judge Sullivan's court, not Ellis.

---

You are correct too many venues to keep up

---

Update your spreadsheet. LOL.