Wendy 1990 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

https://quodverum.com/2019/06/171/man-in-the-middle-the-importance-of-george-papadopoulos.html

---

This article both reminds me of what a scumbag Obama was and adds a lot of new info about how corrupt Obama was. Actually it goes beyond corrupt. If all this is true Obama was doing everything he could to sell us out to our enemies.

Should Obama get a pardon after all this? I'm starting to think not. This is a textbook example of when an ex president should not receive a pardon.

---

Remember - Jarrett is Iranian. Makes me wonder what her influence was on Obama.

---

Jarrett's parents are both American, She was born in Iran when her father worked there.

New status update August 30th

"There is other information."

Wow. Could it be?

Remember, the DIA supposedly has a classified document with exculpatory info on Flynn.

drcrinum said:

---

Remember, the DIA supposedly has a classified document with exculpatory info on Flynn.

---

That was in regards to Flynn's RT trip to Russia when he was seated at Putin's table. DIA gave a brief and then a debrief in accordance with procedures. The only reason that would be deemed exculpatory is if they got a FISA warrant on Flynn citing that trip as a basis for claiming Flynn was an agent of a foreign government.

Watch how Team Mueller did their indictments and guilty pleas by information. If the defendants are not charged for a particular crime, then certain information is not exculpatory (nor discoverable) because it is irrelevant to the crime charged. What they did to Roger Stone, what they did to Paul Manafort (not a word at his trial or even his plea deal about the "black ledger" and the Concord Management case.

Trump declassified it all. Let's see it.

I think that was her suggesting that there is more to be had, and putting a little subtle pressure on the court with regards to suggesting that her client might not be treated properly from an ultimately moral standpoint without the ability to consider that information. It has to bother an ethical court to be aware of the possibility the accused might not get a fair hearing even though they have technically been provided with information they have a right to see. I know it would bother me to sit in judgement of someone if I suspected that possibly relevant information wasn't provided for consideration.

I wonder if this refers to the DIA document or something else.

drcrinum said:

---

I wonder if this refers to the DIA document or something else.

---

I think that is actually the transcript of the calls with Kislyak.

My .02.

drcrinum said:

---

"There is other information."

---

Likely a stupid question...but could it be that Gen. Flynn has classified info in his possession (or access thereto) and be the "other information" that he wants to provide his new attorney and can't because she does not have necessary security clearance to view??? Might explain why the govt. attorneys stated they had not provided classified info. It seems that if she did otherwise and tried to introduce its contents as evidence, she'd be in violation of Federal law and get it thrown out???

TIA.

Quote:

---

Likely a stupid question...but could it be that Gen. Flynn has classified info in his possession (or access thereto) and be the "other information" that he wants to provide his new attorney and can't because she does not have necessary security clearance to view??? It seems that if she did otherwise and tried to introduce its contents as evidence, she'd be in violation of Federal law and get it thrown out???

---

Sort of. If Flynn has classified information in his possession, that is one can of worms. Like Comey taking his own memos and saying they aren't government records.

Lawyers can submit records ex parte and in camera that avoids having cases thrown out. Gurantee not every member of Team Mueller had top secret clearance since they came in from private practice and were slamming Manafort and his wife against the wall in their pajamas within a few weeks if not less of their recruitment.

Lastly, the time for testimony is way past over unless it is a hearing to withdraw the plea.

Memory. He might know things which he cannot discuss yet.

Bird93 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Its so crazy how much Obama did to screw up the FBI, CIA, and DOJ, his presidency used those organizations to go after political opponents

---

And don't forget the IRS

---

And they likely have dirt on judges and justices too. Same for reporters like James Rosen.

One concern I have always had about prosecution: given egos and in particular self marketing of success to create future opportunities, prosecution sometimes seems far more concerned with victory than justice. I know they have a role to play, but in the bigger picture the interests of the state and the people is justice.

From the Sundance link:

Quote:

---

Tenuous legal theories (Logan Act) and obscure laws (technical FARA violations) appear to have been exploited by DOJ administration officials, in close ideological alignment with the Lawfare Group. In association with overall Obama administration officials, the fellow travelers used the legal system to create a DC surveillance network.

At the 30,000 ft. level Obama's surveillance network looks like this:

White House identifies a target; passes request to the DOJ National Security Division (middlemen);

who then use the auspices of possible FARA violations to pass the instructions to the FBI contractors;

who data-mine the NSA database.

The FBI results are then passed back to the DOJ-NSD; who weaponize the information for FISA applications (becomes legal cover); and pass the authorized surveillance (spying) results back to the White House etc.

It's a circle of surveillance activity that could encompass almost every politician in Washington DC as they network with foreign lobbyists and special interests.

---

And when that didn't produce the desired results, they ran push pull operations directed at said targets.

Not all of the dots connect on the Innovo-Flynn Intel Group-Turkish government contract to prove it was a set-up...yet. The Iranian Turkish pipeline angle fills in some blanks and may reveal some subtle statecraft to appease Erdogan at a time of tension. While still protecting Dem donor Gullen from extardition, a large visible PR campaign for Gullen's extradition would give the Obama administration cover to say they were still analyzing Erdogan's request as new information was being developed. A stall.

Using Flynn to do it (with an op-ed under his name, no less) could have been a two-birds-one-stone approach, I guess. With Flynn under an active FISA, his business partner's (Rafiekian) contacts with Innovo (Alpetkin) would be known and utilized.

Lindsay grills Yates and Clapper on whether there is a record of who unmasked Flynn under 702. Yates dances around the question as does Clapper, saying only in theory the system would have that information if that had been done. (It wasn't.)

Sally Yates can go to hell

MouthBQ98 said:

---

One concern I have always had about prosecution: given egos and in particular self marketing of success to create future opportunities, prosecution sometimes seems far more concerned with victory than justice. I know they have a role to play, but in the bigger picture the interests of the state and the people is justice.

---

Man, you've touched on a topic with many questions.

If you have an incompetent defense attorney, who is poorly representing his/her client, isn't it the prosecutors job to win the case anway? I'm asking because if the prosecutor knows the defendent is innocent, how many prosecutors would convict the defendent?

I'm certain the prosecutor would win on defense incompetence, but not defense innocence.

Sorry for the derail, I'll blame Mouth!

BTW Hawg, in reference to the Sundance article, and your comment, it's obvious the perps involved thought SOMEONE in the targeted group would be much dirtier than initially thought. Even though this is a hypothetical question, IMO, if the same trot line drag net were used on all of the characters involved, how many felonies would be found to be actionable?

Most Dems believe this to be the case about Repbulicans, and I hope I'm correct, but everyday seems to be more and more lilkely that there have been 50-100 midemeaners and felonies from about 75 to 100 people.

The most extensive use of investigatory powers have been used, and nothing was found. Sorry, I guess it still amazes me!

fasthorses05 said:

---

BTW Hawg, in reference to the Sundance article, and your comment, it's obvious the perps involved thought SOMEONE in the targeted group would be much dirtier than initially thought. Even though this is a hypothetical question, IMO, if the same trot line drag net were used on all of the characters involved, how many felonies would be found to be actionable?

Most Dems believe this to be the case about Repbulicans, and I hope I'm correct, but everyday seems to be more and more lilkely that there have been 50-100 midemeaners and felonies from about 75 to 100 people.

The most extensive use of investigatory powers have been used, and nothing was found. Sorry, I guess it still amazes me!

---

It should amaze you. Imagine if a FISA warrant had been issued on Huma Abedin in 2016, at the height of the Hillary email investigation? How many instances of obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, witness tampering would have been revealed? Not to mention her role with the Clinton Foundation and the campaign. The bribes to the Clinton Foundation, the violations of federal election laws that Hillary committed with her financial takeover of the DNC??

Forget Carter Page and Papdop and focus on the FISAs on Trump's campaign manager Manafort and Trump's campaign intelligence official Michael Flynn. Trump's entire inner circle could then also be under surveillance. Don, Jr., Lara Trump, Ivanka, Jared, Melania.

They weren't just spying on the campaign, they were spying on the entire Trump family and still came up with nothing but process crimes and unrelated conduct.

My hope now is that Barr loves the DOJ enough to suffer a tremendous black eye before rebuilding it, instead of hiding the transgressions and trying to fix it going forward. (Fingers crossed.)

aggiehawg said:

---

fasthorses05 said:

---

BTW Hawg, in reference to the Sundance article, and your comment, it's obvious the perps involved thought SOMEONE in the targeted group would be much dirtier than initially thought. Even though this is a hypothetical question, IMO, if the same trot line drag net were used on all of the characters involved, how many felonies would be found to be actionable?

Most Dems believe this to be the case about Repbulicans, and I hope I'm correct, but everyday seems to be more and more lilkely that there have been 50-100 midemeaners and felonies from about 75 to 100 people.

The most extensive use of investigatory powers have been used, and nothing was found. Sorry, I guess it still amazes me!

---

It should amaze you. Imagine if a FISA warrant had been issued on Huma Abedin in 2016, at the height of the Hillary email investigation? How many instances of obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, witness tampering would have been revealed? Not to mention her role with the Clinton Foundation and the campaign. The bribes to the Clinton Foundation, the violations of federal election laws that Hillary committed with her financial takeover of the DNC??

Forget Carter Page and Papdop and focus on the FISAs on Trump's campaign manager Manafort and Trump's campaign intelligence official Michael Flynn. Trump's entire inner circle could then also be under surveillance. Don, Jr., Lara Trump, Ivanka, Jared, Melania.

They weren't just spying on the campaign, they were spying on the entire Trump family and still came up with nothing but process crimes and unrelated conduct.

My hope now is that Barr loves the DOJ enough to suffer a tremendous black eye before rebuilding it, instead of hiding the transgressions and trying to fix it going forward. (Fingers crossed.)

---

I always enjoy the insights and explanations provided by aggiehawg. Thank you.

aggiehawg said:

---

It should amaze you. Imagine if a FISA warrant had been issued on Huma Abedin in 2016, at the height of the Hillary email investigation? How many instances of obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, witness tampering would have been revealed? Not to mention her role with the Clinton Foundation and the campaign. The bribes to the Clinton Foundation, the violations of federal election laws that Hillary committed with her financial takeover of the DNC??

---

This

Mark Meadows: DOJ exploring 'unbelievably unusual activity' in final months of Obama administration

Quote:

---

Rep. Mark Meadows said the Justice Department is examining irregularities in the intelligence community as part of its review of the origins of the Russia investigation.

Reacting to newly released documents on changes in U.S. procedures for sharing raw intelligence, Meadows said there was "unbelievably unusual activity" in the final months of the Obama administration.
"I can tell you that [U.S. Attorney] John Durham and Attorney General [William] Barr are going to get to the bottom of it," the North Carolina Republican said Monday evening on Fox News. "They are including in part of their surveillance really looking at the intelligence community to make sure that justice is brought."

---

https://www.theepochtimes.com/tracing-the-origins-of-congressional-democrats-obstruction-strategy_2976309.html

Interesting article by Jeff Carlson, perhaps better titled "Collusion between Nadler, Lawfare & the Brookings Institution".

Direct line from Mueller to Comey to Wittes (Lawfareblog) and works both ways.

Does anyone still believe Mueller and Weissmann (egged on by Comey, et. al.) were actively trying to manipulate and provoke Trump? They had to know collusion (conspiracy) was a bust by September 2017, when they allowed the Carter Page FISA warrant to lapse.

Everything they did after that was designed to squeeze people dry and provoke Trump's ire.

Okay, Brookings has been around since think tanks were really think tanks. I never really knew where they stood on the think tank scale, and didn't care once I found AEI, Heritage, and about 15 others. However, I saw them as a libertarian think tank, but apparently that's not the case.

It's extremely dissappointing to see them involved with that crap.

The Left has deserately wanted-and needed-think tanks forever, but they're think tanks turned out to be DNC marketing centers---all of them. One of the main reasons think tanks are conservative/libertarian, is because the facts nearly always support the Right.

aggiehawg said:

---

Direct line from Mueller to Comey to Wittes (Lawfareblog) and works both ways.

Does anyone still believe Mueller and Weissmann (egged on by Comey, et. al.) were actively trying to manipulate and provoke Trump? They had to know collusion (conspiracy) was a bust by September 2017, when they allowed the Carter Page FISA warrant to lapse.

Everything they did after that was designed to squeeze people dry and provoke Trump's ire.

---

Provoking Trump to fire Mueller was their fail safe, knowing that it would lead to impeachment.

Thankfully Trump didn't take the bait.

Quote:

---

Provoking Trump to fire Mueller was their fail safe, knowing that it would lead to impeachment.

Thankfully Trump didn't take the bait.

---

Well, thankfully he surrounded himself with people who would talk him down, at worst.

Deep into Watergate, Nixon was virtually isolated with the exception of Kissinger. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Mitchell, etc were all gone. There was more than one time Kissinger talked him back off of the ledge.

Aggiehawg or knowledgeable others, what are the chances Barr and Durham lump a large number of the coup conspirators into a giant RICO case? Could you elaborate how that would work if it is realistic possibility.