Gateway Pundit has a tendency to sensationalize things and get over their skis at times. So I normally look to see if other outlets are running with similar stories. That's not to say they are a trash site, just don't rely solely on them.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/434054-the-damning-proof-of-innocence-that-fbi-likely-withheld-in-russian-probe

John Solomon piece.

The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe

Quote:

---

If President Trump declassifies evidence in the Russia investigation, Carter Page's summer bike ride to a Virginia farm and George Papadopoulos's hasty academic jaunt to London may emerge as linchpin proof of FBI surveillance abuses during the 2016 election.

The two trips have received scant attention. But growing evidence suggests both Trump campaign advisers made exculpatory statements at the very start of the FBI's investigation that undercut the Trump-Russia collusion theory peddled to agents by Democratic sources.

The FBI plowed ahead anyway with an unprecedented intrusion into a presidential campaign, while keeping evidence of the two men's innocence from the courts.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WOW! The Q drop was true? Barr is pulling the Trump children indictments??

---

Hawg following the Q thread?

Keep an eye on it mostly out of curiosity and don't even try to pretend I understand half of it. Occasionally I get surprised, like today.

aggiehawg said:

---

WOW! The Q drop was true? Barr is pulling the Trump children indictments??

---

with all of the testimony being released the two threads appear to be converging again.

captkirk said:

---

---

"Status Review", eh?

Not to bring Q over here, but...

Quote:

---

AG BARR "DISGUSTED" BY WHAT HE'S DISCOVERED (SO-FAR).
"IN ALL MY YEARS, IN ALL MY LIFE, I NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT [ ] BE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE HALLS OF THESE PRESTIGIOUS FEDERAL AGENCIES."
PRESS CONF COMING?
THEY WILL CLAIM POLITICAL ATTACK.
Q

---

Threads converging, indeed.

Andy McCarthy is not impressed by Manhattan DA, Cyrus Vance, Jr.'s new state indictment of Manafort.

His take

Some tidbits

Quote:

---

The New York state charges, announced shortly after Manafort's second federal sentencing, raise some interesting legal and strategic questions about double jeopardy and pardons.

Most of the time, a federal prosecution is no impediment to a subsequent state prosecution based on the same conduct or charges. Under the so-called dual sovereignty doctrine, there is no double-jeopardy protection because that constitutional safeguard only prevents the same sovereign from prosecuting a person twice for the same offense. In our system, the federal government and the states are deemed to be different sovereigns. It is a dubious proposition since it is supposed to be the people who are sovereign, regardless of whether we're talking about federal or state government matters.

For now, though, the dual sovereignty doctrine is a settled part of our jurisprudence. I say "for now" because, during this term, the Supreme Court is considering Gamble v. United States, a case challenging that doctrine. Recently retired Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) even filed an amicus brief asking the court to end the federal-state distinction.

Dual sovereignty is unpopular because we recognize at least when we are not in a highly charged political case that the same fundamental unfairness is involved whenever a person is prosecuted multiple times for the same offense, no matter who is doing the prosecuting.

Because of this unfairness, some states have taken curative action. New York is one of them. New York follows a doctrine of equitable double jeopardy: A person may not be prosecuted if he already has been prosecuted for crimes based on the same factual transaction regardless of whether the prior prosecution was by New York State or some other sovereign.

So how might this work in Manafort's case?

Well, as the New York Times notes, the New York state charges filed Wednesday are based on bank loans that were part of the fraud charges brought by Robert Mueller in the Virginia case. The Times says that "the Manhattan prosecutors deferred their inquiry in order not to interfere with Mr. Mueller's larger investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election." Having been in these tussles, I don't buy that. The Manhattan prosecutors stood down because, once Mueller's federal case went forward, they were out of luck.

And now, gamesmanship is the order of the day: The state prosecutors have brought a case they otherwise never would waste time on not because the case should be done, but to try to block a pardon.

This raw politicization of prosecutorial power ought to frighten everyone. Yet, solely because of Donald Trump and Paul Manafort, New York Democrats have been pushing to water down state double jeopardy protection shamefully, as if civil rights were only for the ruling class's political friends.

If Trump were to pardon Manafort, that would vitiate the federal prosecution. The point of the pardon is to excuse the offense as if it never happened. So, the idea is that if Manafort's federal prosecution were to be voided, there would be no state double jeopardy bar against a subsequent New York State prosecution.

But what if Trump gave Manafort the essence of what he wants, although not a pardon?

If I were representing Manafort, I would consider asking for a commutation, not a pardon. In a commutation, the president can reduce the sentence down to time served and spare the person any further prison time on the offense. Yet, the convictions stand.

I believe that as long as the federal convictions remain in place, Manafort would maintain his double-jeopardy protection against a future New York State prosecution based on the same conduct. So this could be the rare situation in which a commutation is better than a pardon. I'm betting Manafort, who will be 70 on April 1, cares little at this point about the stigma of felony convictions; he just wants to be out of prison.

I don't carry any brief for Manafort. Indeed, I have argued that he got a much lighter sentence than federal guidelines for his crimes called for because Mueller manipulated federal conspiracy statutes to cap his sentence at 10 years. No one, however, should be singled out for prosecution because of his political associations.

The New York district attorney did not indict Manafort because he committed mortgage fraud. The DA indicted Manafort because he worked on the Trump campaign and could be pardoned during Trump's presidency. That's disgraceful.

---

Boy o boy!! Barr better be squeaky clean, 'cause the dems are gonna be out to get him.

We may even hear that Barr was one of the Smollet attackers.


edit: sadly I may have just provided all the evidence the left needed.

Mueller is required by federal regulation to report back to his superior, formerly Rosenstein, now Barr, every 90 days. The end of February, beginning of March would have been a regularly scheduled report, by my calculations.

captkirk said:

---

---

Given Posobiec's less than stellar track record of being accurate, I wouldn't assume this is true, or that Mule Head was even going to indict Trump Jr.

And if they were, it was likely some stupid process crime like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Given Posobiec's less than stellar track record of being accurate, I wouldn't assume this is true, or that Mule Head was even going to indict Trump Jr.

And if they were, it was likely some stupid process crime like everyone else.

---

Earlier in the week, Gateway Pundit published an article claiming that Barr had given the go-ahead to Mueller to indict the Trump Kids and Kushner.

I presume this was push-back on that story. So we'll see.

After all the disgusting revelations coming out now about the criminality by the Obama Administration, to go after Trump's children for process crimes would be insane ! It would male Mueller look like a " Jackass In The Rain " to most Americans. Barr would never allow it !

aggiehawg said:

---

WOW! The Q drop was true? Barr is pulling the Trump children indictments??

---

There are too many coincidences. That's one of many.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WOW! The Q drop was true? Barr is pulling the Trump children indictments??

---

There are too many coincidences. That's one of many.

---

I'd want some PACER confirmation that sealed indictments have been nolle prossed (withdrawn) to be sure.

But that's me.

aggiehawg said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WOW! The Q drop was true? Barr is pulling the Trump children indictments??

---

There are too many coincidences. That's one of many.

---

I'd want some PACER confirmation that sealed indictments have been nolle prossed (withdrawn) to be sure.

But that's me.

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WOW! The Q drop was true? Barr is pulling the Trump children indictments??

---

There are too many coincidences. That's one of many.

---

I agree that it would have been the end of many people if anyone tried to get between a father and his son, especially when the father is President of the United States. It would have political warfare on a level I for sure have never seen, and a part of me wanted that. Because I want to see every dirty secret on all of them.

Today was the first time I gave Q a serious thought, I kept up with the thread, but more for entertainment. Now it's time to see if Q just threw enough poop at the wall and something stuck. Looking forward to see what else comes to fruition.

Did Q say Don Jr indictment was coming/pulled?

The quote above isn't enough to say Q predicted this.


(Though will need much more than Prosobiec as source)

I hate to do this, and I am a big Q Patriot, but I believe we should leave Q out of this thread. Not to mention it might turn some people off of this thread and I am really enjoying everyone talking about the Mueller SC.

But if I am out of line, just continue in.

I tend to agree, but, once again, the threads converged. I feel like most posters respect the integrity of each thread, unless the days events warrant crossover.

Quote:

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

---

Fortunately my degree program only required one stat class, and I took it during a summer session. Painful but thankfully short and I received a "B". Moving on..........

They made you do math in law school? Even at the lowly university of Houston college of home locksmith repair, shoe repair, court reporting, allied dentistry insurance billing, law, or earn your degree, we were taught that lawyers don't do math.

Undergrad.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Did Q say Don Jr indictment was coming/pulled?

The quote above isn't enough to say Q predicted this.


(Though will need much more than Prosobiec as source)

---

There has been a ton of crap thrown against the wall in the last few days. I'm trying to stick to the transcripts but contrary to many people's opinions of me on this board, I do have a life and spending time to read 300 pages and give reasoned analysis is a bit problematical for me, in real time.

I can read my own depositions and recall what my state of mind was at the time and how the structure was formed.

What House and Senate committees do are quite different. Entirely different, in fact, from what I used to do. Gowdy and Ratcliffe are pretty good. The rest? Worthless for truly boxing in a rehearsed witness.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

---

So, out of 1,000 Q-posts ... about how many are we talking about here?

will25u said:

---

I hate to do this, and I am a big Q Patriot, but I believe we should leave Q out of this thread. Not to mention it might turn some people off of this thread and I am really enjoying everyone talking about the Mueller SC.

But if I am out of line, just continue in.

---

You are not an idiot, unlike the usual derailers of this thread.

Just don't cross us, Asking true questions are fine. But having stated that you are all in on the Q thread, respect this one, that discuses court filings and media reports and not Q drops.

blindey said:

---

They made you do math in law school? Even at the lowly university of Houston college of home locksmith repair, shoe repair, court reporting, allied dentistry insurance billing, law, or earn your degree, we were taught that lawyers don't do math.

---

Some of us use trigonometry in the course of our legal duties.

MS before law school.

benchmark said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The number of POTUS tweets/Q posts within a 1 minute delta is significant. I took two statistics courses in grad school, but no longer have occasion to crunch numbers. However, it seems highly improbable that's POTUS and Q would post nearly at the same time over the course of two years.

---

So, out of 1,000 Q-posts ... about how many are we talking about here?

---

I don't know statistics, so have no idea how one would figure it out... BUT.

Since Oct. 28, 2017
Q posts - 3075
DJT Tweets - 4789
Within a minute posts - ~20

The within a minute posts are with Q posting first and Trump posting within a minute of Q's post.

I don't follow this story all that much anymore because it's become tiring to me. That said, all I've seen for weeks now in the press is that the Mueller Report is imminent. For those that follow this far more than me, is there any actual truth to this?

ccaggie05 said:

---

I don't follow this story all that much anymore because it's become tiring to me. That said, all I've seen for weeks now in the press is that the Mueller Report is imminent. For those that follow this far more than me, is there any actual truth to this?

---

With Weismann leaving, it seems likely. Mule Head wouldn't have him leave if he was planning anything new.

Rapier108 said:

---

ccaggie05 said:

---

I don't follow this story all that much anymore because it's become tiring to me. That said, all I've seen for weeks now in the press is that the Mueller Report is imminent. For those that follow this far more than me, is there any actual truth to this?

---

With Weismann leaving, it seems likely. Mule Head wouldn't have him leave if he was planning anything new.

---

I am of two minds about this. Weissmann was all about Manafort and money laundering. To that extent, he succeeded as Manafort will likely die in prison without a Presidential commutation of sentence.

My second mind is that Weissmann had a 12 mil a year job in the private sector awaiting. All he would have to do is expensive lunches and dinners. Rainmaker.

But NYU can't pay him that type of money.

Is Weissmann that rich on his own?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1106352220704903169.html

Kramer deposition transcript:
https://www.scribd.com/document/401932342/Kramer-Depositioin#from_embed?campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1xx&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate


The David Kramer transcript has been released, & Jeff Carlson has a thread on it.
Kramer certainly showed/shared the Steele Dossier with a lot of people. Steele showed Kramer a piece of paper with the names of sources for the Dossier, but these names were not revealed during the hearing.