ccaggie05 said:

---

Anybody here recommend any of the books that look to touch on these topics, mainly The Russian Hoax by Gregg Jarrett or Spygate by Dan Bongino? I know Jason Chaffetz has a recent book too but it looks to be more about democrats in the beurocracy working against Trump vs any sort of "conspiracy".

I'm always skeptical of these sorts of things, but there is a hell of a lot of smoke that something fishy is going on with this investigation so I'd like to read more.

---

Russian Hoax was a decent book, Working on Spygate currently.

Chaffetz book is more a look into all the red tape and deep state corruption in general, and all the crap he had to put up with that finally drove him out of politics in DC.

In chapter 1 Bongino explains the the pre dossier build up of the Russia narrative. The Chalupa sisters are neck deep in it. It's a pretty compelling read thus far.

All of them are worth their money.

I also thoroughly enjoyed Shell Game by Scott Bennett

Some interesting commentary on the article you posted from the WaPo:

I would think that this WaPo article's unnamed sources would be: McCabe, Page & Strzok. Baker would be another possibility.

its gonna piss our boy Jarrett off if RR isn't one of satan's lieutenants on earth. I've long since grown weary of him potbanging for his firing.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

It's becoming a little confusing.

Why was Rosenstein working so hard to block the
memos?

OneNightW said:

---

Why was Rosenstein working so hard to block the
memos?

---

Simple answer.... Timing.

In due time a truckload will be revealed.

So RR is a white hat now? Didn't see that coming.

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

It's becoming a little confusing.

---

We had a really good discussion a few months back when we all dissected the Rosey testimony. And that one line at the end of his back and forth with Gaetz really stuck out and I think it's still key.

Quote:

---

Somewhere around June 29, 2017, Rosenstein signed the final Page FISA renewal. Later, during June 28, 2018 Congressional testimony, Rosenstein made some specific comments regarding the FISA signing:

"We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice. All of whom review that and provide a briefing for us for what's in it. And I've reviewed that one in some detail, and I can tell you the information about that doesn't match with my understanding of the one that I signed."

What Rosenstein was formally briefed on was different than the FISA materials put before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees by the DOJ. While some have made much of the fact Rosenstein didn't actually read the materials himself I've been told this is the normal process. What is not normal is receiving a deceptive briefing from DOJ lawyers.

---

We all talked about it and one thing was pretty clear to most of us in here, was the Rosey didn't make that remark as just some off-handed remark, it was deliberate and for a reason. At that point there I started having a different opinion on Rosey. And even Dixie called me nuts for my theory on the Mueller Rosey Trump meeting the day before Mueller was appointed SC. I'm still not convinced my theory isn't correct yet. We will see.

Quote:

---

So RR is a white hat now? Didn't see that coming.

---

I am yet to be convinced that he's a white hat. However, if the publicly released information was a deliberate attempt to cast Rosenstein as part of the never-Trump deep state and to have the press breathlessly running stories about him being in the President's crosshairs only to reveal at an opportune moment that he was countering the illegal activities of Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr and the whole rotten to the core top tier of the FBI would be an amazing feat of 4D chess.

It would be encouraging (if not truly inspiring) to think that the cancer deep-state politicization was largely confined to the FBI and that there were some apolitical committed professionals at DoJ working to foil the partisans. The evidence to support that scenario is not yet fully visible. If the evidence isn't revealed publicly before the mid term election then I doubt that it is actually the case. The hypothetically apolitical DoJ leadership might be nonpartisan but the Trump administration is not. Keeping such information hidden from the public until after the election would be the political equivalent of Truman not using the A-bomb until after trying aninvasion of mainland Japan with conventional forces. Either the biggest October surprise in history is about to be sprung or the DoJ and other cabinet agencies are every bit as politicized and leftist as they appear to be.

Quote:

---

We all talked about it and one thing was pretty clear to most of us in here, was the Rosey didn't make that remark as just some off-handed remark, it was deliberate and for a reason. At that point there I started having a different opinion on Rosey. And even Dixie called me nuts for my theory on the Mueller Rosey Trump meeting the day before Mueller was appointed SC. I'm still not convinced my theory isn't correct yet. We will see.

---

I just wasn't persuaded that Rosy was actually telling the truth about that. "That was not my understanding," is evasive lawyer-speak.

There's some news on the Manafort front:

And an explanation why Judge Ellis may be a bit miffed at the whole thing:

Hah!

I'm so glad you posted. I never would have known that.

Those little things, strangely enough, make my day better.

SIAP

Here's an interest read on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Awan

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here's an interest read on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Awan

---

Regarding BNP Paribas, even Beto O'Rourke is on the dole. Must be one of the reasons he keeps going to California for fund raising.

A complicated thread followed by a second thread. It's all about FBI sting operations involving the Swamp, Russian oligarchs, & the Clintons = money laundering. The Trump Russian hoax was a secondary outgrowth.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1050705165517578241.html

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1050723243584311297.html

I don't have time to read all those right now, but are they suggesting Comey is somehow helping take down the swamp? That would be one of the most Oscar worthy performances of all time.

Sounds like you need to make time to read them...

I will try later, but a simple yes or no to my question is helpful in the meantime.

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Hah!

---

Cool. That means Simpson's lawyers know a grand jury is looking into his client.

---

They claimed he's protected under the fifth and FIRST. Why cite the first as protection?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

redline248 said:

---

I will try later, but a simple yes or no to my question is helpful in the meantime.

---

They try to relate Comey's stand in Ashcroft's hospital room 15 years ago to him not being swamp and some kind of white hat, however that James Comey that is not who he turned out to be when he was given the keys to the FBI. His own actions alone in clearing Hillary alone and his purposely ignoring white hot evidence right in front of his face, from the hard coloring outside the policy lines of Bureau Policy and basic investigation common sense.

Not buying anyone's theory that Comey is any kind of good guy at the present. Comey flat out broke the law and is going to be indicted.

---

Coney also sandbagged the administration he worked for and testified to Congress on the Ashcroft issues without notifying the White House. Conspired to do that with Chuck Schumer and Schumer's chief of staff (I think) Preet Bharara.

Comey was angling for working for Hillary. RR might have been just doing his job.

AG 2000' said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Hah!

---

Cool. That means Simpson's lawyers know a grand jury is looking into his client.

---

They claimed he's protected under the fifth and FIRST. Why cite the first as protection?

---

His lawyers have some goofy idea that he is still a member of the press or should be treated that way. They have floated that theme in the past, that he engages in political speech or some sort. TBH, it is pretty convoluted and I have a hard time drilling down to what they are actually claiming.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

We all talked about it and one thing was pretty clear to most of us in here, was the Rosey didn't make that remark as just some off-handed remark, it was deliberate and for a reason. At that point there I started having a different opinion on Rosey. And even Dixie called me nuts for my theory on the Mueller Rosey Trump meeting the day before Mueller was appointed SC. I'm still not convinced my theory isn't correct yet. We will see.

---

I just wasn't persuaded that Rosy was actually telling the truth about that. "That was not my understanding," is evasive lawyer-speak.

---

This still bugs me too. Why would McCabe want Rosey to recuse himself? Was it about power? McCabe knew the succession chain. Was Rosey actually just doing his job and was getting in McCabe's way?
The evasive statement that dixie posted from Rosey sounds like if anyone changed the wording in the fisa application it was McCabe (if even possible) and Rosey knows it but doesn't want to out him since he is gone anyway. Mueller would know it too. Has the "shift" in focus occurred to remove the remaining black-hats (the ones listed on the thread we can't mention)?
Do we, along with Mueller have to wait on the IG report before that happens?

No wonder I couldn't understand that First Amendment crappola from Glenn Simpson's lawyers.

Quote:

---

Making a heretofore unknown objection to a lawful congressional subpoena, Simpson asserts that the committee's object is "not to discover the truth." According to his attorneys, Simpson will accordingly invoke his constitutional rights not to testify "under the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution."

As a general matter, there is no First Amendment right to defy a congressional subpoena. Invoking a First Amendment right not to testify was a popular tactic of former Communists called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. See footnote 1 in the letter submitted by Simpson's lawyers below. These former Communists who refused to testify have been lionized in liberal lore. Simpson apparently seeks to appropriate the sheen of these former Communists in the eyes of his friends in the media.

---

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/glenn-simpson-would-prefer-not-to.php

The McCarthy hearings were a bit before my time.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dirty-avenatti-tied-to-major-clinton-donor-and-professor-linked-to-russia-dossier/

Avenatti linked to Mifsud? Hmmm.... Who is paying Avenatti and who is providing him with confidential government info? Interesting read.