Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,482,847 Views |
49269 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by aggiehawg
Will someone grow a pair and serve some cold hard justice? So much BS. Enough is enough.
Congress members are only given a limited number of minutes, thus the normal trial or deposition process of handing witness a document and have them skim it is precluded in an open hearing.
Closed hearing? Not so much.
Closed hearing? Not so much.
To me, this whole ordeal looks like one big thumbing of the nose by DOJ to the rule of law in our country. Something has to change.
redline248 said:
To me, this whole ordeal looks like one big thumbing of the nose by DOJ to the rule of law in our country. Something has to change.
You got the nail on the head.
The DOJ/FBI do not want to be held accountable by Congress or the Executive Branch,
I suspect the reason Mueller has not proceeded with the Flynn sentencing related. If Flynn was coerced into guilty plea and sentenced based on false evidence that Rosenstein/Mueller knew was false, I don't know what that would mean for the DOJ. I suspect it is a trap for Mueller and Rosenstein. Patience!
I think Trump and his people are letting the DOJ / FBI dig themselves into a deeper and deeper hole. Then when the political time is right, Trump will " Declassify " and blow them all the hell up !
They've forgotten what that "J" actually stands for.
Let's revisit this for a moment. The Podesta Group as specifically named in the Manafort search warrant. The Podesta Group is widely believed to be Company A in the Manafort indictments.aggiehawg said:
Hello! What do we have here?
Ellis' order denying Motion to SuppressQuote:
f. Records related to, discussing, or documenting the Podesta Group
That is from an attachment to the May 27, 2017 search warrant for Manafort's storage unit. Yet the Podesta Group was allowed to quietly dissolve and disappear some months later.
Soo, is Mueller pursuing the Podesta Group? Or does his "jurisdiction" not extend that far and he outsourced it to a US Attorney's office in DC or wherever??
Here's a thread on the multiple dossiers
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1016765360534482944
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1016765360534482944
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 may not end well for Glenn Simpson
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
Circular sourcing. Steele dossier haz it.
Another point made in the Ellis order denying the motion to suppress the evidence from the search of the storage unit. Order Here
Recall that that a Manafort employee with access to the unit and also was on the lease was sought out by FBI agents at his home. The FBI agents talked with him about what was in the unit, took him to the unit and had the storage facility manager pull the lease records to confirm. They then had the employee sign the consent form for the search BUT when the agents called DOJ they were told not to open any boxes, to wait until a warrant could be secured.
IOW, the agents could enter the unit under the consent form but could only observe and not search actual documents. And that is the distinction that upheld the search against the Motion to Suppress. Had documents been read and seized under the "consensual search" the result likely would have gone the other way.
Recall that that a Manafort employee with access to the unit and also was on the lease was sought out by FBI agents at his home. The FBI agents talked with him about what was in the unit, took him to the unit and had the storage facility manager pull the lease records to confirm. They then had the employee sign the consent form for the search BUT when the agents called DOJ they were told not to open any boxes, to wait until a warrant could be secured.
IOW, the agents could enter the unit under the consent form but could only observe and not search actual documents. And that is the distinction that upheld the search against the Motion to Suppress. Had documents been read and seized under the "consensual search" the result likely would have gone the other way.
Comey admitted under oath they didn't interview Weiner about it either
I just looked at Corn's twitter. It's just full of lies about Trump, huh?
The guy still works for Mother Jones. He hasn't been a credible journalist for decades.redline248 said:
I just looked at Corn's twitter. It's just full of lies about Trump, huh?
Corn got lit up with questions
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017089605609316353.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017089605609316353.html
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
aggiehawg said:
Another point made in the Ellis order denying the motion to suppress the evidence from the search of the storage unit. Order Here
Recall that that a Manafort employee with access to the unit and also was on the lease was sought out by FBI agents at his home. The FBI agents talked with him about what was in the unit, took him to the unit and had the storage facility manager pull the lease records to confirm. They then had the employee sign the consent form for the search BUT when the agents called DOJ they were told not to open any boxes, to wait until a warrant could be secured.
IOW, the agents could enter the unit under the consent form but could only observe and not search actual documents. And that is the distinction that upheld the search against the Motion to Suppress. Had documents been read and seized under the "consensual search" the result likely would have gone the other way.
Bingo. This is what many don't get or chose to willfully ignore.
Totally incompetent or totally biased?
Insert "why not both" meme hereMouthBQ98 said:
Totally incompetent or totally biased?
I don't know if it is SOP for Special Agents to call and check before all consensual searches or just ones where they are not sure a flunky employee has the requisite authority to grant a valid consent. The answer to that is apparently, "No, they don't."
Of course not. But this isn't our typical case either. And Team Mueller may have still won that argument because the 4th Amendment has pretty much been thrown in the trash, and we have justices on SCOTUS who've never met a search warrant they didn't like.
<sigh> Have to agree with you there but maybe the tide is very slowly turning and beginning to roll back.HTownAg98 said:
Of course not. But this isn't our typical case either. And Team Mueller may have still won that argument because the 4th Amendment has pretty much been thrown in the trash, and we have justices on SCOTUS who've never met a search warrant they didn't like.
That's why I think the Carter Page Title 1 FISA warrant is ground zero for a thorough reexamination of FISA procedures and unmasking under 702.
I like How Simpson avoided answering who is paying them now to keep digging for dirt on Trump
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
Libs you are an entertaining bunch.
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: No lie, Moss needs to keep balling as Ags face Tigers
by Olin Buchanan
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Best Seats In The House Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
32:54
5h ago
910
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 6
by Matthew Dawson
12:10
6h ago
2.0k
Juicy
"Kyle Field homefield advantage is fairly significantly overrated"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
328
Bag
"Kyle Field homefield advantage is fairly significantly overrated"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
105
DTP02
"Kyle Field homefield advantage is fairly significantly overrated"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
85