Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,706,618 Views |
49381 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by nortex97
That sheepskin stained with iron gall ink has withstood a lot
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
OneNightW said:RoscoePColtrane said:Quote:
I confess to being more weary than dizzy from the Dr. Gowdy and Mr. Trey routine. Just three weeks ago, Representative Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee, assured us that everything was peachy with the FBI no way, no how did the bureau "spy" on the Trump campaign when it deployed an "informant" to pry information from Trump-campaign officials. As Mollie Hemingway pointed out at the time, Gowdy had not seen relevant documents the FBI and Justice Department have been withholding from Congress in fact, his spokeswoman said he did not even know what documents and records have been subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee (on which Gowdy also sits).
This week, Gowdy did a 180: back on the warpath, slamming the politically biased Feebs over "prejudging" the outcomes of the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia investigations and delivering a chest-beating vow that the House would "use its full arsenal of constitutional weapons to get compliance" with its subpoenas a threat that includes holding recalcitrant FBI and DOJ officials in contempt.
Whatever. ~ Andrew McCarthy
Gowdy's "good friend" Schumer would agree: all cattle, no hat.
When Gowdy decides to simply sit back and bi+ch about the world he's lived in for many years, he's part of the problem and in my opinion complicit with the corruption on display.
The US govt has been hijacked by sleezy ass lawyers that will prostitute, lie, and cover up anything to keep them on the gravy train. Take Rosenstien for example. Extremely sharp, but will sit there with a smile on his face and tell the American people to go ***k themselves. It's just evil.
Someone please educate me on what Gowdy can do on his own. I thought that any moves or requests for the AG to bring indictments had to come from more than one person on the committee?
I'm really sick of seeing this talking point about Gowdy. Can he do anything on his own other than ask questions in which people can lie or refuse to answer?
No, main reason he's leaving Congress. As a former prosecutor it has to be galling to him that he's powerless to use a court to compel sanctions for people who perjure themselves while under oath.Quote:
Can he do anything on his own other than ask questions in which people can lie or refuse to answer?
aggiehawg said:No, main reason he's leaving Congress. As a former prosecutor it has to be galling to him that he's powerless to use a court to compel sanctions for people who perjure themselves while under oath.Quote:
Can he do anything on his own other than ask questions in which people can lie or refuse to answer?
Thank you! Why do so many think he has any power to do anything? Just not educated on the process?
Primarily, yes. Cruz is similarly hamstringed by Senate rules. Unless one is Speaker or Senate Majority Leader, one is quite restricted in the possible or practical use of power to get results.marble rye said:aggiehawg said:No, main reason he's leaving Congress. As a former prosecutor it has to be galling to him that he's powerless to use a court to compel sanctions for people who perjure themselves while under oath.Quote:
Can he do anything on his own other than ask questions in which people can lie or refuse to answer?
Thank you! Why do so many think he has any power to do anything? Just not educated on the process?
marble rye said:aggiehawg said:No, main reason he's leaving Congress. As a former prosecutor it has to be galling to him that he's powerless to use a court to compel sanctions for people who perjure themselves while under oath.Quote:
Can he do anything on his own other than ask questions in which people can lie or refuse to answer?
Thank you! Why do so many think he has any power to do anything? Just not educated on the process?
I think he let people down because he defended the Russia investigation.
He said there was no evidence of spying and it was confirmed that he hadn't reviewed all the documents in making that statement.
If you are trying to find the truth in perhaps the biggest political scandal in our nation's history and then quit ( retire) after all of the theater over the years, it smells like that's exactly what it was (theater) and you really aren't concerned about the future of the nation. Seems like he was in it for himself or they have something on him.
Disagree. I have been the CEO of a company where the Board contained a few contrarians who saw things differently for their own reasons. Gowdy can go to Ryan but Ryan has his own agenda. Surprised he has even backed Nunes and Gowdy as far as he has. If Ryan were running again maybe he wouldn't.Latigo said:
If you are trying to find the truth in perhaps the biggest political scandal in our nation's history and then quit ( retire) after all of the theater over the years, it smells like that's exactly what it was (theater) and you really aren't concerned about the future of the nation. Seems like he was in it for himself or they have something on him.
Gowdy is just tired of beating his head against a wall, in his own leadership.
Hmmm.
You can take the man out of the idiots, but you can't take the idiot out of the man. Or something like that.
He is either for open borders or closed borders. There are no other choices. He is not for closed borders.
He reminds me of our pet donkey Max.
You can take the man out of the idiots, but you can't take the idiot out of the man. Or something like that.
He is either for open borders or closed borders. There are no other choices. He is not for closed borders.
He reminds me of our pet donkey Max.
Does Max lie constantly, too?coyote68 said:
Hmmm.
You can take the man out of the idiots, but you can't take the idiot out of the man. Or something like that.
He is either for open borders or closed borders. There are no other choices. He is not for closed borders.
He reminds me of our pet donkey Max.
RoscoePColtrane said:
Can this idiot really be trying to play the victim card?
"We're battling misinformation". This from the man who claims he's seen the FISA applications on Carter Page and that Trump's joke asking Russia to find Hillary's emails is evidence of collusion. Is he delusional or sociopathic?
🤡 🤡 🤡
VegasAg86 said:
Is he delusional or sociopathic?
My money is on both!
"I never used the words 'open borders', therefor I'm not for open borders."VegasAg86 said:RoscoePColtrane said:
Can this idiot really be trying to play the victim card?
"We're battling misinformation". This from the man who claims he's seen the FISA applications on Carter Page and that Trump's joke asking Russia to find Hillary's emails is evidence of collusion. Is he delusional or sociopathic?
PatentMike, J.D.
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology
BS Biochem
MS Molecular Virology
aggiehawg said:Disagree. I have been the CEO of a company where the Board contained a few contrarians who saw things differently for their own reasons. Gowdy can go to Ryan but Ryan has his own agenda. Surprised he has even backed Nunes and Gowdy as far as he has. If Ryan were running again maybe he wouldn't.Latigo said:
If you are trying to find the truth in perhaps the biggest political scandal in our nation's history and then quit ( retire) after all of the theater over the years, it smells like that's exactly what it was (theater) and you really aren't concerned about the future of the nation. Seems like he was in it for himself or they have something on him.
Gowdy is just tired of beating his head against a wall, in his own leadership.
He's also said that congressional investigations "leak like the Gossip Girls." He wants to find out the truth, but people even in his own party won't allow it. The swamp is just too wide and deep for one man to take on.
A modern day Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Was true back then and is still true to this day.HTownAg98 said:aggiehawg said:Disagree. I have been the CEO of a company where the Board contained a few contrarians who saw things differently for their own reasons. Gowdy can go to Ryan but Ryan has his own agenda. Surprised he has even backed Nunes and Gowdy as far as he has. If Ryan were running again maybe he wouldn't.Latigo said:
If you are trying to find the truth in perhaps the biggest political scandal in our nation's history and then quit ( retire) after all of the theater over the years, it smells like that's exactly what it was (theater) and you really aren't concerned about the future of the nation. Seems like he was in it for himself or they have something on him.
Gowdy is just tired of beating his head against a wall, in his own leadership.
He's also said that congressional investigations "leak like the Gossip Girls." He wants to find out the truth, but people even in his own party won't allow it. The swamp is just too wide and deep for one man to take on.
<sigh>
To date and after more than a year of investigations, Horowitz's only known criminal referral was McCabe's process crime ... and he found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias directly affected the Clinton Email investigation. Notwithstanding, Horowitz and others have also carefully tip-toed around "ongoing investigations" - presumably Huber.
So the question now is this; will Horowitz (or Huber) consider the full body of circumstantial evidence? (i.e. Strzok/Page texts, press leaks, Weiner lap-top, FISA abuse, unmasking, campaign spies, etc, etc.) And the follow up question; is there sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove there was an organized effort by 2 or more people (conspiracy) to clear Clinton and tank Trump?
Minus irrefutable evidence, will they build a case based on mountains of circumstantial evidence? If not, the only crimes we're likely to see are process crimes.
So the question now is this; will Horowitz (or Huber) consider the full body of circumstantial evidence? (i.e. Strzok/Page texts, press leaks, Weiner lap-top, FISA abuse, unmasking, campaign spies, etc, etc.) And the follow up question; is there sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove there was an organized effort by 2 or more people (conspiracy) to clear Clinton and tank Trump?
Minus irrefutable evidence, will they build a case based on mountains of circumstantial evidence? If not, the only crimes we're likely to see are process crimes.
Although abominable and an abuse of power, exonerating Hillary still falls under prosecutorial discretion, IMO. A difficult case to make absent bribes or threats. Why Horowitz struggled with it.benchmark said:
To date and after more than a year of investigations, Horowitz's only known criminal referral was McCabe's process crime ... and he found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias directly affected the Clinton Email investigation. Notwithstanding, Horowitz and others have also carefully tip-toed around "ongoing investigations" - presumably Huber.
So the question now is this; will Horowitz (or Huber) consider the full body of circumstantial evidence? (i.e. Strzok/Page texts, press leaks, Weiner lap-top, FISA abuse, unmasking, campaign spies, etc, etc.) And the follow up question; is there sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove there was an organized effort by 2 or more people (conspiracy) to clear Clinton and tank Trump?
Minus irrefutable evidence, will they build a case based on mountains of circumstantial evidence? If not, the only crimes we're likely to see are process crimes.
It is the same prosecutorial discretion that is keeping Mueller's cases against Manafort alive. (That and Manafort is a sleazy guy and not a Boy Scout.)
Flynn might be a different matter however. When that "discretion" becomes prosecutorial misconduct if the 302s were altered.
Now as to the repeated attempts to entrap Trump campaign members and FISA abuse, there are issues of lying to a federal court. But we are not quite there yet.
Michael Barnhart said:"I never used the words 'open borders', therefor I'm not for open borders."VegasAg86 said:RoscoePColtrane said:
Can this idiot really be trying to play the victim card?
"We're battling misinformation". This from the man who claims he's seen the FISA applications on Carter Page and that Trump's joke asking Russia to find Hillary's emails is evidence of collusion. Is he delusional or sociopathic?
Beat me to it. All politicians play games with words. This guy is just like the rest. FOS
All true. And circumstantial evidence is more difficult than direct evidence. Obvious to me now that Horowitz won't take that road ... and unless Huber considers the full body of circumstantial evidence, we're probably just talking about process crimes, lying to a FISA judge, etc .... basically innuendo type stuff in the grand scheme of things.Quote:
Although abominable and an abuse of power, exonerating Hillary still falls under prosecutorial discretion, IMO. A difficult case to make absent bribes or threats. Why Horowitz struggled with it.
Horowitz didn't find any direct evidence, obviously. That is not to say it isn't out there, however. Grant immunity to the right person and the House of Cards could fall down.benchmark said:All true. And circumstantial evidence is more difficult than direct evidence. Obvious to me now that Horowitz won't take that road ... and unless Huber considers the full body of circumstantial evidence, we're probably just talking about process crimes, lying to a FISA judge, etc .... basically innuendo type stuff in the grand scheme of things.Quote:
Although abominable and an abuse of power, exonerating Hillary still falls under prosecutorial discretion, IMO. A difficult case to make absent bribes or threats. Why Horowitz struggled with it.
You can't believe any hee haw he says. He is a total jackoss.Whens lunch said:Does Max lie constantly, too?coyote68 said:
Hmmm.
You can take the man out of the idiots, but you can't take the idiot out of the man. Or something like that.
He is either for open borders or closed borders. There are no other choices. He is not for closed borders.
He reminds me of our pet donkey Max.
I want to introduce a video that is addressing the Mueller appointment, you have to endure a few minutes of Kamala Harris trying to run the committee but gets shut down by Burr eventually, however listen really closely to Rosenstein's answers, and he's choosing his words very carefully, but how he explained the appointment and why he was rejecting Harris' request. He also explains the difference in the old way the independent counsel was appointed and the way the Special Counsel is now appointed. Not saying it's of really huge significance, but it could be down the road. He was very deliberate in refusing to let Kamala Harris into talk him into losing control of the Special Counsel. I think that is a little interesting.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
America really did have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/1/us-really-did-have-manchurian-candidate-white-hous/
Quote:
After returning from a tour of some of the war zones in the Middle East which ended with the Free Iran Gathering 2018 in Paris I am struck by the realization that America really did have a Manchurian Candidate in The White House for eight years. If you look at the evidence, there really is no other conclusion. The calamitous consequences of the Obama presidency will be felt for the foreseeable future.
In the short year and a half that President Trump has been in office, he has put in place policy that has mitigated the damage that President Obama inflicted on our national security and on our allies. The speed with which Trump has been able to turn things around points to the diabolical depths the Obama administration went to in order to undermine our national strength and way of life. All Trump had to do was stop doing things that hurt America; America could then take care of itself. The results are plain as day. However, it will take decades for the Obama damage to be completely undone. The deviousness of the Obama sedition runs deep.
Think about it or a moment. If you wanted peace in the Middle East, why would you throw away the trillions of dollars spent, as well as the lives of thousands of American souls, by irresponsibly pulling out ALL American troops from Iraq? No matter your thoughts on starting the war, pulling out was an irresponsible thing to do. We still have troops in Germany, Korea and Japan, for God's sake. Why? For stability, that's why. As Colin Powell said, we broke it, now we own it. It was a given that instability would follow the force withdrawal. When you combine this act with the reality that Obama never really did try to defeat the Islamic State, what conclusion can you come up with? Trump defeated them in a few months. The conclusion is obvious: Obama really didn't want to destroy them.
Why did Obama and Hillary take down Moammar Gadhafi, who had already given up his nuclear weapons? Was it to destabilize Libya, where ISIS could gain another foothold? Why did Obama help install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? What was the agenda behind the so-called Arab Spring?
However, the coup-de-grace of anti-American activity was the JCPOA, or, to say it another way, the agreement to give Iran everything it wanted, including nuclear weapons and money lots of money which it immediately used to further destabilize the region, and existentially threaten the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. To take it a step further, why didn't Obama support the opposition against the Mullahs in 2009 when there was an obvious chance for regime change in Iran? Why didn't Obama confront Bashar Assad's chemical weapons use? One of the main unanswered questions is what ties did Valerie Jarrett really have to the Iranian regime?
I won't go into why Obama ran up more debt for the United States than all previous presidents combined. I won't ask why he weakened our armed forces. I won't ask why he used tyrannical policies, like using the agencies of the federal government to go after his political opposition. I won't ask why he politicized our security apparatus in an attempt to frame President Trump.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/1/us-really-did-have-manchurian-candidate-white-hous/
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
This is interesting -- "...ongoing criminal investigation that is neither public nor known to all the subjects of the investigation." I don't know where @DawsonSField obtained this info; I inquired and did not receive an answer. I assume it relates to the section below from the OIG Report, page 80:
Quote:
Based on the 2703(d) results, the FBI was able to confirm that classified information continued to reside in just one of these five accounts -- the account belonging to Combetta. Thus, on June 20, 2016, the FBI sought a search warrant for this account. According to the search warrant, the FBI initially sought the 2703(d) order for Combetta's account after observing numerous emails containing metadata for Combetta's dummy email account in the original 30,490 emails provided to the State Department and determining that many of these emails contained classified information. Combetta told the FBI that he created the dummy email account to transfer Clinton's archived emails from the Archive Laptop to the PRN Server. Based on the results of the 2703(d) order, the FBI determined that 820 of Clinton's emails, dated between October 25, 2010, and December 31, 2010, remained in the dummy email account. The Midyear team obtained a search warrant to view the content of these emails and search for other emails relevant to the investigation.
Given the extreme Trump animus, I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone to flip on a process crime. IMO, Huber should go after grand jury indictments for Obstruction of Justice ... then try to flip someone.aggiehawg said:
Horowitz didn't find any direct evidence, obviously. That is not to say it isn't out there, however. Grant immunity to the right person and the House of Cards could fall down.
Intimidation and aggressive legal maneuvers haven't bothered Mueller.
Well, that answers my question about the tango on the tarmac. Lynch and Clinton didn't even need to talk about any of the investigations, just the fact that Lynch agreed to take the meeting told Bill all he needed to know.
If Lynch was on the fence or not sure what was gong to happen with Hillary, she would have begged off of that meeting saying her schedule was too tight or something along those lines.
If Lynch was on the fence or not sure what was gong to happen with Hillary, she would have begged off of that meeting saying her schedule was too tight or something along those lines.