This IRS employee might be the type of guy that could really squeal on some people once his nads are in the vise.
Hopefully more heads will roll!

Sessions not having oversight was a BFD. Rosenstein is knee deep in this mess already with his signature on the FISA application. Of course he was a good person to have in charge.

It's pretty clear why the left pushed hard for Barr to recuse himself at this point. But the gig is up. Finally.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1098695778435022848.html

More on the leak of Cohen SARs. Interesting thread. There's a sub-thread worth reading on Sours Edwards, the previous leaker of SARs that is still ongoing -- Avenatti was involved in that case too (can only read the sub-thread on twitter as it covers tweets over several months). It's obvious to the author of this thread that Avenatti is not a good guy for the Dems; i.e., everything Avenatti touches turns to fecal material = Avenatti is likely a deep plant working for the good guys. Avenatti has name recognition and attracts unsuspecting Dems like rotten fruit attracts flies. Think about it.
(The author is a blogger for @Maddogpac, an anti-Trump, anti-GOP news outfit; #Resist.)

BTW, the author points out that WhatsAPP is obviously not secure.

Bump for Manafort pre-sentencing report from Team Mueller is due today. Should be the final filing from them in the case.

Just a reminder to be on the lookout for it.

This is an absolutely fascinating podcast (click on the Rough Rider Media screen -- the other link is broken), an hour's interview with John Solomon by 2 chaps who know what's been going on regarding SpyGate. If you can't spare an hour, listen to the segment from 42:15 thru 48:15 where Solomon talks about how he became involved with the Russia investigation in the spring of 2017, & how he was visited by 2 unidentified intel agents who told him about the Obama Admin using the intel agencies for political opposition purposes.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/21/the-greatest-constitutional-crisis-since-the-civil-war/

Good read for a Saturday morning.

Here's some more.
Margot Cleveland

Great podcast. Lays out a lot of the highlights in this thread very clearly.

And I will second the recommendation of a bare minimum listening to the portion that you recommended. Very interesting. I'm usually a huge skeptic about the "G-men came to see me" stories, but I think Solomon's story is legit.

"If you think this will just be a book report, you are going to be sorely mistaken," -Jake Gibson, Fox News Justice Department Producer

scottimus said:

---

"If you think this will just be a book report, you are going to be sorely mistaken," -Jake Gibson, Fox News Justice Department Producer

---

Is that in relation to the Mueller report?

Not a big fan of Turley but he is touching on a very troubling aspect of the Manafort case here.

LINK

Quote:

---

The best that Manafort can do seems to be getting worse by the day. New York politicians and prosecutors have been pursuing state charges to blunt any possible presidential pardon of the onetime Trump campaign chairman.

Various accounts describe state prosecutors, who previously stepped aside so that Mueller could investigate unimpeded, as laying the groundwork for new crimes that would avoid constitutional barriers but still send Manafort behind bars for the rest of his life.

The effort to pursue Manafort is wildly popular in New York and widely celebrated in the media as clever "insurance policy" fashioned by Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The public discussion of finding state charges against Manafort as insurance against a pardon by President Trump is becoming increasingly troubling and untoward. State prosecutors have campaigned for office on the promise to find ways to guarantee incarceration for one person. To do so, they are willing to remove constitutional protections for all New Yorkers. It is like removing all of the life preservers from an ocean liner to guarantee that one passenger does not survive a sinking.

---

Quote:

---

The problem could be the bar on double jeopardy, the guarantee that people are not punished twice for the same conduct. Such guarantees originated in ancient Rome and were made part of our Constitution under the Fifth Amendment unless, it now seems, you are Paul Manafort. While civil libertarians have long warned of the erosion of this guarantee, New York, along with a handful of other states, has been the gold standard on this issue with a more protective provision barring redundant or related state prosecutions after federal convictions.

Then Donald Trump became president. Manafort was found guilty on eight counts related to financial fraud by a federal jury in Virginia last year and then pleaded guilty to separate charges in Washington. During this period, speculation has been rampant that Trump may pardon Manafort, particularly after a series of supportive or sympathetic tweets. As a result, New York legislators called for clearing away rights that might be used by Manafort to protect himself.

James actually campaigned for office on that issue. That is right, a state attorney general was elected by campaigning to remove constitutional protections from all citizens. James was not alone. Former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, before being forced out of office over sexual assault allegations, pushed the legislature to change the constitution and his successor, Barbara Underwood, then picked up the popular cause to thwart Trump by removing reducing double jeopardy protections.

---

And the presentencing report on Manafort was due by midnight last night and is still not publicly available. Guess they filed it under seal??

It was. See below.

<sigh> All of this cloak and dagger stuff is getting tiresome. You would think Manafort was being tried for espionage or terrorism.

I hope you add that to the funny tweet thread

Quote:

---

State prosecutors have campaigned for office on the promise to find ways to guarantee incarceration for one person.

---

Running in a "I'm going to prosecute this specific person" platform is very unsettling.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

State prosecutors have campaigned for office on the promise to find ways to guarantee incarceration for one person.

---

Running in a "I'm going to prosecute this specific person" platform is very unsettling.

---

Isn't it? Eliminating one of the few laws that New York had that was following the Constitution.

This vindictive, childlike behavior of these NY prossecutors is a microcosm of, God help us, what could destroy our country if these left wing crazy nuts ever gain full power ! They are not Grownups.

Hmmm.

https://www.scribd.com/document/400336657/Manafort-Sentencing-Memo#from_embed

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6738081/GCHQ-spy-chief-quit-helped-paedophile-Catholic-priest-avoid-jail.html

Quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: Theresa May in cover-up row as it emerges GCHQ spy chief who 'was allowed to resign for family reasons' actually quit after he helped a paedophile Catholic priest avoid jail

• Robert Hannigan helped a paedophile priest avoid jail, Mail on Sunday reveals
• He stunned Whitehall with his exit after just two years in charge of GCHQ
• The MoS learned he stepped down after the NCA discovered he helped a family friend avoid a custodial sentence for possessing 174 child pornography images
• Mr Hannigan provided a reference for Father Edmund Higgins at his 2013 trial

---

So he wrote a character witness for a family friend, a pedophile priest, back in 2013...BFD. I think this is all too convenient. It's a coverup for Hannigan's participation in SpyGate. It wouldn't surprise me if Hannigan/GCHQ appears in the EC for Crossfire Hurricane, & that Hannigan met with Strzok during the latter's visit to London the first week in August of 2016, immediately following the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Hannigan even traveled to DC to meet with Brennan during the summer of 2016. Remember, Hannigan resigned from his GCHQ post immediately following the inauguration of Trump in January 2017.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/02/23/reconciling-spygate-with-the-soft-coup-five-phases-that-explain-the-behavior/

Good read. It's fairly long, dividing SpygGate events into 5 different time frames, detailing the events & providing plausible explanations as to why certain actions were taken.

aggiehawg said:

---

Hmmm.

https://www.scribd.com/document/400336657/Manafort-Sentencing-Memo#from_embed

---

800 pages?! Sheesh.

25 pages of pleadings. The rest are the exhibits.

But if anyone has some time to read what the AP believes will be the final Mueller report, HERE it is. Very long and full of half-truths and misleading innuendo.

But having read all of the Team Mueller pleadings, long on narrative, short on facts, I wouldn't be surprised if that was in the final report.

Ask Mueller , since Manafort has been committing these " felonies for over a decade " and the DOJ knew it all along, then why did the DOJ wait 10 years for a Special Council to nail him ? Could it be politics ? Connection to Tony Podesta and other Corporate Democrats ? Clintons ?

18 U.S.C. 1001 = False & fraudulent statements

Comey's testimony, HPSCI, transcript, March 20, 2017:

Quote:

---

...Director Comey, was the president's statement that Obama had his wires tapped in Trump Tower a true statement?

COMEY: With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1100054509869588480.html

Very interesting thread.
1) Trump & Page are correct about having their wires tapped.
2) Comey lied.
3) So you think you have privacy. Your phone is an open door.

Here is an interview with Rosenstein talking about the Special Prosecutor law and process at the very end of this video (last 2 or 3 minutes). He also showed a lot of support and confidence in AG Barr.

w/r/t support for/confidence in Barr (and Barr testifying re same in Rosensetin) I find it odd that people would expect public-facing statements that would indicate anything else.

Barr is Rosenstein's boss. He can't come out and bash the guy publicly unless he's prepared to hand in his resignation.

And in the confirmation process, Barr can't say anything about Rosenstien because the whole Rosenstein/Mueller hubbub is the last bastion and hope of the Democrats. To outright say, "yeah, that's a joke and a waste of taxpayer money that I'll be shutting down" would threaten confirmation.

When lawyers say, "my esteemed colleague..." we really don't hold them in any esteem. It's a lawyery way of saying, "Judge, he's FOS."

When movies capture exactly what lawyers really want to say:

blindey said:

---

When movies capture exactly what lawyers really want to say:

---

My favorite movie ever. Went with two friends from law school (shortly after we graduated). We about fell out of our seats laughing so hard.

aggiehawg said:

---

When lawyers say, "my esteemed colleague..." we really don't hold them in any esteem. It's a lawyery way of saying, "Judge, he's FOS."

---

I disappeared from this thread since just after the election, you know, depression and all. However, it was worth being woke again just to see the quote above. Well done.

The wheels of justice have moved so slowly, and I was certain that "Jowels" in the House was going to drop the case. Therefore nothing would be pursued.

I'm very happy to be wrong, or so it seems.