Quote:

---

Mifsud must think someone wants him dead. Now who would that be?

---

Russians don't give people new identities, they just whack 'em, instead.

That's a Western intelligence agency if he has been given a new identity and likely some plastic surgery.

https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18-Letter-from-MRM-to-DAG-Rosenstein.pdf

Secolobo said:

---

https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18-Letter-from-MRM-to-DAG-Rosenstein.pdf

---

Article already about the above letter:

Quote:

---

...
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, disclosed in a letter Monday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that, in April 2017, Strzok and Page discussed a specific media-leak strategy about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Carter Page, of course, was subjected to a year-long FBI surveillance warrant but never has been charged with any wrongdoing yet, somehow, nearly all the FBI's suspicions about his ties to Russia made it into media reports.
Meadows' letter suggests a possible reason why and how that happened.
On April 10, 2017, Strzok texted Lisa Page the following message: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."
The next day, according to Meadows, the Washington Post broke a story on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application against Carter Page.
And then, on April 12, 2017, Strzok texted regarding two articles coming out about Carter Page whom he refers to as Lisa Page's "namesake" and that one is more damaging than the other.
Strzok, according to Meadows, then congratulated his FBI colleague Lisa Page, with whom he allegedly was having an affair. "Well done, Page," he texted.
Meadows, who has led the charge against the FBI's conduct in the Russia probe, told Rosenstein the "text exchange should lead a reasonable person to question whether there was a sincere desire to investigate wrongdoing or to place derogatory information in the media to justify a continued probe."...

---

Trying to locate the referenced letter. I remember the letter it was from Ron Johnson and it address missing Strzok Page texts that were missing and were left out of a trove of around 400 texts they'd gotten released just days prior. They were trying to find out if they were destroyed or being withheld for other reasons if I remember right.

Sounds like the ghost of Sandy Berger has been up to some hanky-panky again.

Since Obama has flatly refused to allow NARA to touch any of his Presidential records, Mr. Transparency is likely having 24/7 shredding and deleting sessions happening in the basement of his DC home with Jarrett cracking the whip. With all of the shenanigans happening between the election and inauguration, I wouldn't be in the least surprised that Obama had a back door installed in the computer systems so he could still access and alter them.

Perhaps a part of Farkas' statements about if the Trump people knew about how they were getting information, they would cut off the sources? Seems to fit, instead of Trump randomly whacking human sources.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sounds like the ghost of Sandy Berger has been up to some hanky-panky again.

Since Obama has flatly refused to allow NARA to touch any of his Presidential records, Mr. Transparency is likely having 24/7 shredding and deleting sessions happening in the basement of his DC home with Jarrett cracking the whip. With all of the shenanigans happening between the election and inauguration, I wouldn't be in the least surprised that Obama had a back door installed in the computer systems so he could still access and alter them.

Perhaps a part of Farkas' statements about if the Trump people knew about how they were getting information, they would cut off the sources? Seems to fit, instead of Trump randomly whacking human sources.

---

I remember the letter it is referencing, it was from Ron Johnson and it address missing Strzok Page texts that were missing and were left out of a trove of around 400 texts they'd gotten released just days prior. They were trying to find out if they were destroyed or being withheld for other reasons if I remember right.

Found it, knew I had it stashed somewhere

aggiehawg said:

---

Well, both Strzok and Page are screwed now. Intentionally leaked highly classified information. She was an accessory after the fact. Plus that will come back on McCabe and Comey too.

Give Page immunity to spill her guts to testify against Strzok, McCabe and Comey.

---

Agree, but as important, why did the DOJ/FBI sandbag this intel for almost 18 months ... and was this known to Horowitz before his last report? Begs the question; what else are they slow-walking?

I'm sure Jeff Sessions is jumping right on this !,

benchmark said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Well, both Strzok and Page are screwed now. Intentionally leaked highly classified information. She was an accessory after the fact. Plus that will come back on McCabe and Comey too.

Give Page immunity to spill her guts to testify against Strzok, McCabe and Comey.

---

Agree, but as important, why did the DOJ/FBI sandbag this intel for almost 18 months ... and was this known to Horowitz before his last report? Begs the question; what else are they slow-walking?

---

Best case scenario is that they are wrapping up grand jury indictments. Worst case scenario is that they are covering it up because the American people can't handle the truth in their small minds. And small minds they have.

Quick question about DOJ/FBI obstructors.

While those departments apparently have every right to put information behind an arsenal, and sometimes it's legitimate, if it's not legitimate, can the Rosensteins of the world be hit with obstruction?

I'm asking because whether or not you think Rosenstein is a crook, I'm sure he knows what he's doing. Not to mention he has an outstanding information source in his wife. IF he knew these unreleased docs he's holding are exculpatory (damning to him), then he's only putting off the inevitable. Or is he just hoping the Dems win the house (likely), and they'll make it all go away?

fasthorses05 said:

---

Quick question about DOJ/FBI obstructors.

While those departments apparently have every right to put information behind an arsenal, and sometimes it's legitimate, if it's not legitimate, can the Rosensteins of the world be hit with obstruction?

I'm asking because whether or not you think Rosenstein is a crook, I'm sure he knows what he's doing. Not to mention he has an outstanding information source in his wife. IF he knew these unreleased docs he's holding are exculpatory (damning to him), then he's only putting off the inevitable. Or is he just hoping the Dems win the house (likely), and they'll make it all go away?

---

Honestly, I have no idea how their mental processes are working. Taking the House without also taking the Senate doesn't get any of them off of the hook for past illegal behavior nor does it end the inquiries.

My honest assessment right now is that an approaching hurricane on the East Coast will take the news cycle for the week and during the aftermath. Announcing anything now gets buried. Assuming they have anything to announce.

T&P for those in the hurricane's path. Stay safe.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Quick question about DOJ/FBI obstructors.

While those departments apparently have every right to put information behind an arsenal, and sometimes it's legitimate, if it's not legitimate, can the Rosensteins of the world be hit with obstruction?

I'm asking because whether or not you think Rosenstein is a crook, I'm sure he knows what he's doing. Not to mention he has an outstanding information source in his wife. IF he knew these unreleased docs he's holding are exculpatory (damning to him), then he's only putting off the inevitable. Or is he just hoping the Dems win the house (likely), and they'll make it all go away?

---

Which brings up a strategy question...expose the Dems and use that to win, or wait until you win and then unleash hell?

MooreTrucker said:

---

fasthorses05 said:

---

Quick question about DOJ/FBI obstructors.

While those departments apparently have every right to put information behind an arsenal, and sometimes it's legitimate, if it's not legitimate, can the Rosensteins of the world be hit with obstruction?

I'm asking because whether or not you think Rosenstein is a crook, I'm sure he knows what he's doing. Not to mention he has an outstanding information source in his wife. IF he knew these unreleased docs he's holding are exculpatory (damning to him), then he's only putting off the inevitable. Or is he just hoping the Dems win the house (likely), and they'll make it all go away?

---

Which brings up a strategy question...expose the Dems and use that to win, or wait until you win and then unleash hell?

---

Use it to win and then unleash hell.

I like your idea the best!

We are always talking about EO 12333 and its impact on the 4th amendment


Tonight I want to talk about EO 13526 signed December 29, 2009

Specifically

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
(b) Basic scientific research information not clearly related to the national security shall not be classified.
(c) Information may not be reclassified after declassification and release to the public under proper authority unless:

(1) the reclassification is personally approved in writing by the agency head based on a document-by-document determination by the agency that reclassification is required to prevent significant and demonstrable damage to the national security;
(2) the information may be reasonably recovered without bringing undue attention to the information;
(3) the reclassification action is reported promptly to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor) and the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office; and
(4) for documents in the physical and legal custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (National Archives) that have been available for public use, the agency head has, after making the determinations required by this paragraph, notified the Archivist of the United States (Archivist), who shall suspend public access pending approval of the reclassification action by the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed by the agency head to the President through the National Security Advisor. Public access shall remain suspended pending a prompt decision on the appeal.
(d) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.5 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order. The requirements in this paragraph also apply to those situations in which information has been declassified in accordance with a specific date or event determined by an original classification authority in accordance with section 1.5 of this order.
(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that:

(1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and
(2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.


https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html

aggiehawg said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Agree, but as important, why did the DOJ/FBI sandbag this intel for almost 18 months ... and was this known to Horowitz before his last report? Begs the question; what else are they slow-walking?

---

Best case scenario is that they are wrapping up grand jury indictments. Worst case scenario is that they are covering it up because the American people can't handle the truth in their small minds. And small minds they have.

---

I prefer the most logical explanation ... GJ evidence firewalled from Horowitz and Congress .... and indictments may be coming out soon.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is why it needs to be asked, why are there any redactions in these texts messages. There are no sources and methods or national security secrets in them. There are only embarrassing talk and evidence of corruption. Whoever signed of on or requested these redactions, in direct violation of EO 13526 Sec 1.7, need to be brought up on the carpet and have to answer for their actions. EO 13526 spells it out specifically and needs to be answered for.

Grassley needs to crank up the subpoenas and get these people under oath.

---

Doubtful EO 13526 have any teeth except for termination.

Several other pearls in this audio:
James Baker is now a cooperating witness against Comey.
The January 5, 2017 meeting in the WH -- Obama, Yates, Comey, + -- memorialized by Susan Rice, was all about how to get General Flynn.
Mueller will write a report to Congress attempting to nail Trump for interfering with the Flynn investigation.

Secolobo said:

---

https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18-Letter-from-MRM-to-DAG-Rosenstein.pdf

---

Looks like treason, sounds like treason...

benchmark said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

This is why it needs to be asked, why are there any redactions in these texts messages. There are no sources and methods or national security secrets in them. There are only embarrassing talk and evidence of corruption. Whoever signed of on or requested these redactions, in direct violation of EO 13526 Sec 1.7, need to be brought up on the carpet and have to answer for their actions. EO 13526 spells it out specifically and needs to be answered for.

Grassley needs to crank up the subpoenas and get these people under oath.

---

Doubtful EO 13526 have any teeth except for termination.

---

I'm more interested in exposing and changing the behavior, not looking for criminal prosecution. If termination is determined necessary so be it.

However if any documents were destroyed or suddenly come up missing, obstruction is in order.

I agree 100% with the behavior comment. IF I had to choose between convictions, and changing behavior, it's not close, I'd choose behavior for the country's sake. It's just the two often go hand -in- hand.

When it comes to destroying docs, etc., I'd prefer I much wider net, and would rather include peripheral players to be implicated and convicted to stop future acts. Right now, I don't see why everyone in the Obama camp, Hillary camp, alphabet agencies, don't burn, destroy, or hammer, their phones and e-mails, since no one seems to give a *****

drcrinum said:

---

---

He's tweeting from his jail cell?

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

He's tweeting from his jail cell?

---

My bet is he's never going to see a cell. If anything he does a walkthrough processing at FCI Petersburg

Quote:

---

Several other pearls in this audio:
James Baker is now a cooperating witness against Comey.
The January 5, 2017 meeting in the WH -- Obama, Yates, Comey, + -- memorialized by Susan Rice, was all about how to get General Flynn.
Mueller will write a report to Congress attempting to nail Trump for interfering with the Flynn investigation.

---

I am on record as being somewhat skeptical of DiGenova's sources. But I want to point out that James Baker went to LawFare blog owned by Comey's bestie, Wittes. He might be talking but I would doubt he's giving the serious dirt on Comey. Repeated memory lapses as to details is more what I would expect from Baker.

Nor do I believe Mueller has said he was "handed a pile of crap" on collusion. He acted way too fast against Manafort after his appointment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Several other pearls in this audio:
James Baker is now a cooperating witness against Comey.
The January 5, 2017 meeting in the WH -- Obama, Yates, Comey, + -- memorialized by Susan Rice, was all about how to get General Flynn.
Mueller will write a report to Congress attempting to nail Trump for interfering with the Flynn investigation.

---

I am on record as being somewhat skeptical of DiGenova's sources. But I want to point out that James Baker went to LawFare blog owned by Comey's bestie, Wittes. He might be talking but I would doubt he's giving the serious dirt on Comey. Repeated memory lapses as to details is more what I would expect from Baker.

Nor do I believe Mueller has said he was "handed a pile of crap" on collusion. He acted way too fast against Manafort after his appointment.

---

Yeah had he said Bill Priestap I might have listened, but just not buying Baker, given the same reasons you listed , plus by reading the texts, he was not in a s deep as the others.They aren't going to need a lot to go after Comey, he's neck deep by his own doing. Bill Priestap has a lot more leverage on a lot of people I'd think, and he still has a job, and hasn't been transferred or demoted. And Bill Priestap name in in hundreds if not thousands of texts. Strzok reported directly to him. I think Joe Pientka has more than just Flynn to talk about, he was with the HRC stuff too. I think that Michael Biasello has a ton to say about the CIO on the Trump campaign. Carl Ghattas name comes up a lot in the texts, and he got promoted. There are people that are cooperating but I'm just not buying Baker.

Hey fellers, when someone cooperates, is there a NDA the person has to sign? I'm asking because as many folks as there appear to be involved, no one--not a single one (so far)--has leaked to anybody.

If those exist, they must be damned binding, or the consequences must be awful. It seems like we should have a few employees in the government sign something similar, since some government employees appear to be as chatty as a blue jay!

Has any entrepreneur gone to the trouble of putting the faces of these chuckleheads on a deck of cards like the MNF Iraq deck of most wanted fugitives? There are so many in the cabal that a deck of cards with a summary of their role in the frame-up would be very helpful. If it exists I would like to buy one for game night.



Fifty two cards is probably not enough to include all the conspirators but it would be a good start (Uncle Joe would definitely be one of the Jokers). The mental picture of a fully bearded HRC being apprehended in a foxhole in the woods near Chappaqua by Jeff Sessions' successor is an amusing thought.