Hawg, blindey, BMX, if ANY FBI agent who's no longer employed at the FBI, appears before Congress, does FBI counsel have to be there?

I wasn't sure if Page would have FBI counsel, but based on the post above, they were there. I kind of understand, but it's a closed hearing.

Could she have flipped? Or could she be signally that she is ready to flip, especially after watching that crazy man yesterday who was once her lover...perhaps she saw him for what he was for the first time. Love is generally blind, and sociopaths excel at manipulating people.

Quote:

---

Perhaps If she had an immunity deal?

---

Depends on exactly with whom she has such an immunity deal. Congressional immunity is enough to screw up any future DOJ prosecution because of the Oliver North problem.

OTOH, she was McCabe's closest assistant. He is likely under grand jury investigation and she could have a binding DOJ immunity agreement. Sing, sister, sing!

ETA: If she does have an immunity agreement with DOJ, FBI counsel would be present to ensue she doesn't compromise grand jury proceedings.

Hey I got one right

But she has to be subject to sufficient threat from someone and is afraid of jail time. Do you think any of these jokers are worried about jail time?

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, blindey, BMX, if ANY FBI agent who's no longer employed at the FBI, appears before Congress, does FBI counsel have to be there?

I wasn't sure if Page would have FBI counsel, but based on the post above, they were there. I kind of understand, but it's a closed hearing.

---

Isnt she a lawyer. The attorney client privilege is held by the client--the DOJ or FBI. The DOJ/ FBI is entitled to protect their privilege.

Even in private orgs, it's not uncommon to have company counsel present when former employees are deposed about their employment--particularly managers and certainly executives.

Michael Barnhart said:

---

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, blindey, BMX, if ANY FBI agent who's no longer employed at the FBI, appears before Congress, does FBI counsel have to be there?

I wasn't sure if Page would have FBI counsel, but based on the post above, they were there. I kind of understand, but it's a closed hearing.

---

Isnt she a lawyer. The attorney client privilege is held by the client--the DOJ or FBI. The DOJ/ FBI is entitled to protect their privilege.

Even in private orgs, it's not uncommon to have company counsel present when former employees are deposed about their employment--particularly managers and certainly executives.

---

Agree. I was sent as a legal beagle to monitor trials when insurance counsel was actually trying the case just to ensure they were not directing the trial outside of coverage parameters.

Not that unusual as opposed to keeping Strzok on the payroll with the DOJ having veto authority over his testimony.

I can't take a firm position yet but my hope is that Lisa is a vomiting mass at this point.

aggiehawg said:

---

coyote68 said:

---

Hmmm.

Putin will respond. What would serve his interests best?

Just a guess. He embarrassed Mueller in the previous indictments and we can expect round 2 with these indictments. Crowdstrike is a clintonista organization. Mueller will probably be forced to allow the Russian defense team to examinine the DNC server.

---

Is Snowden still in Moscow?

---

And Putin will know more about the DNC server than Mueller?

Smart move Bobby!

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

coyote68 said:

---

Hmmm.

Putin will respond. What would serve his interests best?

Just a guess. He embarrassed Mueller in the previous indictments and we can expect round 2 with these indictments. Crowdstrike is a clintonista organization. Mueller will probably be forced to allow the Russian defense team to examinine the DNC server.

---

Easy money is those servers don't exist anymore

---

And that might be a problem?

Again another stroke of genius by Bobby???

I'm very curious about these so called laundering money charges to these 11 Russians.

First off normally money laundering is done to avoid being taxed or to hide the source of the money.

That being said, avoiding taxes isn't in play since these are Russians outside the country that likely have never set foot in this country and never will.

So we are now assuming they were using bitcoin to hide the source of money. Okay did the US DAG just make using bitcoin illegal? I mean that was the entire premise of bitcoin to begin with was the ability to use it as currency world wide anonymously and secure correct? Sounds to me like just using bitcoin in general is being tagged by these indictments as being illegal. I personally know very little about bitcoin and have zero dollars involved in it, but I do know there are people on TA that claim to deal with it and have money tied up in bitcoin, perhaps this is a question for them.

I have no clue what the "mining bitcoin" is about, but it is talked about in the indictment.

If I had money in bitcoin I'd likely be cashing out.

Bitcoin is an enigma. I'm interested in the details of how it can be used to laundry money. It is my understanding that each bitcoin has its unique history in the fabric of the bitcoin similar to an abstract of deed for real estate in Texas. There is a digital history embedded in each bitcoin. That helps in keeping counterfeit bitcoins from being made and sold. If that is true, why would someone be stupid enough to laundry wealth with bitcoin?

If you turn the electricity off, there is no bitcoin.

If you put all the criminals in DC in prison, there would be no liberals in DC.

What a load of crap this is....

"despite the efforts of a top U.S. cybersecurity firm"

Crowdstrike isn't a "top U.S. cybersecurity firm" if they are we are in a whole different level of trouble.

Crowdstrike appears to be similar to the CGI Group from Canada that took a $93 million government contract and turned it into a $500 million bill to the Feds for Obamacare.

Their work on the DNC computer appears to be just as competent. Although, I suspect competency wasn't the issue with Crowdstrike, intentional incompetency was likely the issue.

https://themarketswork.com/2018/07/13/insulation-strzoks-testimony-muellers-indictment/

Quote:

---

Insulation Strzok's Testimony & Mueller's Indictment


.....
It also appears that certain investigative areas are disappearing into the bowels of the DOJ -- never to be seen or heard from again.

Insulation....

---

Very interesting read by Jeff Carlson. He & TCTH have both essentially come to the same conclusion. The FBI/DOJ/Mueller/Rosenstein are manipulating investigations so that the latter end up where the evidence/info is shielded from scrutiny via FISA/FISC proceedings. In other words, 'insulating' the FBI/DOJ from public knowledge about the nefarious scheming pertaining to the 2016 Election.

I see Crowdstrike as the Perkins, Coie of tech forensics.

When you brought up Rogers, it dawned on me that he probably had a hell of a lot more information to share with Trump when they met at the Towers. Since the NSA/Rogers discovered the shenanigans, he had about 3 months to dig further using his talents and the avaiable power.

So, when Trump moved his offices immediately after the Rogers visit, it's likely he began to gather his long time business, and clandestine associates, to form some kind of a plan.

Whether it works, time will tell, but I suspect we'll know something before the end of the year. Of course, if Trump believes he'll lose the house, he may act before.

Mindless speculation.

Mueller>Shawn Henry>Crowdstrike

Follow the money......Google to Warburg Pincus (President is Timothy Geithner) to Crowdstrike.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/951514214530781185.html

If you ever wanted to know anything about Crowdstrike & the DNC server breach, read the above threadreader from January 2018. Then there is an additional 30 tweets that were added in March 2018 but not available for threadreader; click on the thread below and scroll down to where the above tweets end to continue. If the Russians had this info and went to court, the judge would throw Mueller et al out onto the street.

They were warned and didn't listen

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

They were warned and didn't listen

---

LOL. Okay, I'll say this again: Dems this cycle were dumb bred of overconfidence and a complete misreading of her ability to GOTV with the Bernie factor.

The ultimate irony here. (Some may say divine intervention, I wont' go there but nevertheless.) is that DWS and Hillary thought that Bernie was the cardboard candidate she would run right over. Massive underestimation.

Page 11, #29. of the indictment states between May 25 & June 1, 2016, is when they breached the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails.
Someone ought to inform Papadopoulos about this...or maybe something doesn't compute about Papadopoulos supposedly claiming Mifsud told him that the Russians had thousands of HRC's emails. There is something fishy going on here IMO.

drcrinum said:

---

Page 11, #29. of the indictment states between May 25 & June 1, 2016, is when they breached the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails.
Someone ought to inform Papadopoulos about this...or maybe something doesn't compute about Papadopoulos supposedly claiming Mifsud told him that the Russians had thousands of HRC's emails. There is something fishy going on here IMO.

---

I have been saying this for months.. The entrapment attempt was never about the DNC "hacks."

It was only about her private server being used to conduct State Department operations and for the Clinton Foundation to extort tens of millions.

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Page 11, #29. of the indictment states between May 25 & June 1, 2016, is when they breached the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails.
Someone ought to inform Papadopoulos about this...or maybe something doesn't compute about Papadopoulos supposedly claiming Mifsud told him that the Russians had thousands of HRC's emails. There is something fishy going on here IMO.

---

I have been saying this for months.. The entrapment attempt was never about the DNC "hacks."

It was only about her private server being used to conduct State Department operations and for the Clinton Foundation to extort tens of millions.

---

Also when this next IG report shakes out I think we are going to find out they had FISA surveillance on Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen. The three mentioned in the "dossier".

Quote:

---

Then there is an additional 30 tweets that were added in March 2018 but not available for threadreader; click on the thread below and scroll down to where the above tweets end to continue. If the Russians had this info and went to court, the judge would throw Mueller et al out onto the street.

---

Then it should be given to them by this guy.

This is a really good read

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1018201228067647488.html

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is a really good read

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1018201228067647488.html

---

Yes, an excellent read. I was following this last night as McIntyre was writing it, but I went to bed before he finished. I followed McIntyre for many years during the Climate Wars at Climate Audit; he is one of the most thorough investigators I have ever encountered.

Summary: The spearphishing attack was not sophisticated as Crowdstrike claimed, & Crowdstrike was ineffective in removing the malware, thus allowing the hacking of the DNC emails to occur; Mueller covered up for Crowdstrike's incompetence in the indictment; the probable real purpose of the spearphishing attack was financial in origin; there are some unexplained aspects remaining.

I agree wholeheartedly about the financial nature of the hack. In fact, I'm certain it involves HRC, Mills, etc., not to mention Wasserman-Schultz and her acolytes.

We'll never know, but it's likely tied into the Uranium 1 deal.

Ratcliff is a former prosecutor. Good interview.