Senate needs to call him inbackintexas2013 said:
The more that comes out the more we are seeing why Mueller didn't want to testify. The Dems knew not to put him up there that's why they backed down.
My impression is that Barr has asked Lindsay to stand down while Durham does his work. If that is in fact what has happened, Barr has strong suspicions that Mueller and/or members of his team <cough>Weissmann<cough> has exposure of some kind.captkirk said:Senate needs to call him inbackintexas2013 said:
The more that comes out the more we are seeing why Mueller didn't want to testify. The Dems knew not to put him up there that's why they backed down.
Makes sense. Fingers crossedaggiehawg said:My impression is that Barr has asked Lindsay to stand down while Durham does his work. If that is in fact what has happened, Barr has strong suspicions that Mueller and/or members of his team <cough>Weissmann<cough> has exposure of some kind.captkirk said:Senate needs to call him inbackintexas2013 said:
The more that comes out the more we are seeing why Mueller didn't want to testify. The Dems knew not to put him up there that's why they backed down.
Publicly Barr can say he has no objections to Mueller testifying because in fact he couldn't really stop it even if he did have objections. Mueller doesn't work for him anymore.
TBH, I really don't know how that would all play out. There is still a lot we don't know yet. There are questions as to whether the government might be responsible or if these acts were ultra vires raising individual liability. That's a corollary to Barr's investigation as whether there were proper predicates for the actions taken.fasthorses05 said:
Ms. Hawg, et al, based on the Black Ledger article, it now appears that predicate for Manafort and others, appear to be erronious. You mentioned earlier that there needs to be a review of the search warrants issued.
I'd assumed General Flynn, Pappadopolous, and Page, had cause for a lawsuit. Now, it seems that several others likely have a decent case. Is my thinking correct?
Even though we're a long way away from those things happening, the thought just occured to me that Weissman is involved. IF it suits were to occur (easily 1-2 years away), and 1-3 of the suits find for the plaintiffs, it would be status quo for a Weissman catastrophe---meaning many things overturned, or tons of money exchanged from the government.
That should be interesting. Which sources other than the Steele Dossier did they have that could convey Putin's thinking?Quote:
Mr. Barr's review of U.S. intelligence gathering during the probe's early stages, announced in April, will look in particular at whether there were disagreements among the intelligence analysts who produced the findings, one of the people said. The review also is likely to look into whether the findings were motivated by political opposition to Mr. Trump, the person said, although a previous review found no evidence of that.
The spy agencies' conclusions, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned, have been affirmed by special counsel Robert Mueller and by the Senate Intelligence Committee. But U.S. intelligence officials have privately expressed concern that the Justice Department plans to "red team," or challenge, the finding of Russian interference on Mr. Trump's behalf, those familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Trump last month empowered Mr. Barr to declassify information as part of his review, a move with little if any precedent, and ordered the intelligence chiefs to cooperate. Mr. Barr tapped John Durham, the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to lead the review, and he and members of his staff have quickly gotten to work. He meets frequently with Mr. Barr at Justice Departments headquarters, where officials have set up space for him to work.
Mr. Durham has signaled that he will seek to review documents and interview Central Intelligence Agency officials, a senior congressional official said. "From what we understand, they're still in kind of a document-review mode," the official said.
I think it came out that Strozk was involved in preparing this report. This could get interestingaggiehawg said:That should be interesting. Which sources other than the Steele Dossier did they have that could convey Putin's thinking?Quote:
Mr. Barr's review of U.S. intelligence gathering during the probe's early stages, announced in April, will look in particular at whether there were disagreements among the intelligence analysts who produced the findings, one of the people said. The review also is likely to look into whether the findings were motivated by political opposition to Mr. Trump, the person said, although a previous review found no evidence of that.
The spy agencies' conclusions, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned, have been affirmed by special counsel Robert Mueller and by the Senate Intelligence Committee. But U.S. intelligence officials have privately expressed concern that the Justice Department plans to "red team," or challenge, the finding of Russian interference on Mr. Trump's behalf, those familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Trump last month empowered Mr. Barr to declassify information as part of his review, a move with little if any precedent, and ordered the intelligence chiefs to cooperate. Mr. Barr tapped John Durham, the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to lead the review, and he and members of his staff have quickly gotten to work. He meets frequently with Mr. Barr at Justice Departments headquarters, where officials have set up space for him to work.
Mr. Durham has signaled that he will seek to review documents and interview Central Intelligence Agency officials, a senior congressional official said. "From what we understand, they're still in kind of a document-review mode," the official said.
Yesakm91 said:
Was that "17 agencies" lie that was spread around?
How could it be written in any other way? They don't have the resources to verify or dispute what the IC tells them.Quote:
Either the folks who reviewed the report hated Trump, or it was written in a manner that didn't raise suspicion.
Oversight.fasthorses05 said:
"don't have the resources" sounds funny coming from a $4 trillion plus federal government, but I get your point.
That makes me want to ask why send it to the Senate for review, if they know there's not a way to verify the information.
Arrogance.drcrinum said:
This is an interesting read. It doesn't deal directly with our SpyGate thread, but it illustrates a pattern that repeats itself again & again, and plays a pivotal role in our thread: Democrats play loose with confidential/classified info. I think it's either a mental deficiency or an arrogance problem, likely the latter because we soon are going to learn just how badly the Dems abused the NSA data bases to spy on thousands of Americans, while seemingly oblivious to the consequences.
First we have Hillary's bathroom server, unsecure & loaded with classified intel, & hacked by China & who knows whatever foreign countries. Then, need I remind you about the Awan brothers... & followed by what is most important to us -- the alleged hacks of the DNC server & Podesta's server. And now the above...
From the article:will25u said:
Quote:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has been one of Mr. Barr's fiercest critics, said Wednesday that "we have very little visibility" into Mr. Barr's review.