I don't recall any of the allegations being made by that Pelosi handout actually being supported by the evidence presented in the report itself.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I don't recall any of the allegations being made by that Pelosi handout actually being supported by the evidence presented in the report itself.

---

Correct

I'm so old, I remember when Bill Barr attempting to summarize the findings was vilified as a horrible offense.

Weisman/Honest Bob were plenty upset their 'report' wasn't dribbled out over a period of weeks for dramatic effect (but of course they'd refused to submit for declassification/review ahead of time).

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I don't recall any of the allegations being made by that Pelosi handout actually being supported by the evidence presented in the report itself.

---

Not much of Volume Two of the Mueller Report is supported by the evidence either.

So are the soyboys and usual dorkulon leftists going to be meeting for craft beers in lieu of working on their blogs, barristaing, or just generally collecting un/funemployment checks to watch the hearings?

nortex97 said:

---

I'm so old, I remember when Bill Barr attempting to summarize the findings was vilified as a horrible offense.

Weisman/Honest Bob were plenty upset their 'report' wasn't dribbled out over a period of weeks for dramatic effect (but of course they'd refused to submit for declassification/review ahead of time).

---

And the way Mueller wrote the report was insubordination in the first place. He had been repeatedly instructed by his boss Rosenstein and then his subsequent boss, Barr to flag the grand jury material for easy redaction.

Yet another question Mueller should be asked. How could he justify his refusal to identify grand jury material as directed by his superiors? Of course his answer will be his office prepared Executive Summaries that did not contain grand jury materials. But is that actually true? And did said Executive Summaries contradict Barr's summary of findings in any material manner?

blindey said:

---

So are the soyboys and usual dorkulon leftists going to be meeting for craft beers in lieu of working on their blogs, barristaing, or just generally collecting un/funemployment checks to watch the hearings?

---

Hey! Good to see you! You must have been very busy for the last few weeks.

Technically, Mueller is no longer an employee of DOJ and thus not constrained by their rules or risk termination.

Practically, what Nadler is missing is the fact that Mueller asked for this letter to back up his own prior conclusions as to the scope of his testimony. He stated so himself in his May presser.

If he deviates he risks perjury type issues or simply contradicting the report and calling its already highly questionable validity into question.

Margot Cleveland's latest.

Quote:

---

But during a status hearing last month, federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, who had also handled the case for Mueller before the special counsel team disbanded, toldJudge Sullivan that "in terms of the information the government produced, there's nothing that the government produced that's classified." Flynn's new attorney Powell, though, told the long-time federal judge that she believed "most of the information I will need to review may be classified."

This exchange raised the specter that the special counsel team had withheld evidence from Flynn's former attorneys, because we know from Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley that the Defense Intelligence Agency held "a key piece of information" about Flynn that was classified, the disclosure of which "would be in the public interest, and in the interest of fairness to Lt. General Flynn." Evidence "in the interest of fairness to Lt. General Flynn" would qualify as favorable evidence for purposes of sentencing Flynn, and would thus fall within Sullivan's mandate that it be turned over. But since no classified evidence was provided, we know that it wasn't.

Now, it may be that Flynn's former defense counsel acquiesced in the special counsel's desire to limit the information provided, and a defendant may waive access to required discovery. That scenario, however, would raise other questions, such as whether Flynn received ineffective assistance of counsel.

---

They had a massive conflict of interest and potential malpractice to cover up. But I digress.

Quote:

---

While Mueller will obviously (and appropriately) refuse to detail the classified information he received from intelligence agencies during tomorrow's five-hour long public hearing, that should not stop Republicans from asking some foundational questions.

"Mr. Mueller, did you ask the CIA and DIA and other intelligence community officials for access to all information relevant to the special counsel investigation? Or did you rely on the intelligence community to provide what they believed relevant to your investigation? Do you believe you were provided access to all potentially relevant information? If so, how do you explain the belated disclosure in the Rafiekian trial?"

---

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Technically, Mueller is no longer an employee of DOJ and thus not constrained by their rules or risk termination.

Practically, what Nadler is missing is the fact that Mueller asked for this letter to back up his own prior conclusions as to the scope of his testimony. He stated so himself in his May presser.

---

That just screams desperation by Nadler to keep the Republicans on the committee from asking questions that would make the left look bad. As soon as the GOP starts asking questions Nadler doesn't like he can cut them off.

Quote:

---

As soon as the GOP starts asking questions Nadler doesn't like he can cut them off.

---

If he does that, look out for a gigantic food fight to commence.

I think we' about to find out who on the right is REALLY interested in getting to the bottom of this and is as scared as the Dems.

MooreTrucker said:

---

I think we' about to find out who on the right is REALLY interested in getting to the bottom of this and is as scared as the Dems.

---

We already know that. Meadows, Nunes, Jordan, Collins, Ratcliffe, Gaetz.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If he deviates he risks perjury type issues or simply contradicting the report and calling its already highly questionable validity into question.

---

The irony of which would be delicious.

pagerman @ work said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If he deviates he risks perjury type issues or simply contradicting the report and calling its already highly questionable validity into question.

---

The irony of which would be delicious.

---

The Mueller Report was not submitted under oath. Had it been required to be under oath and verified the wording, "upon information and belief," would have been recited thousands of times in both the body and the footnotes.

So he can't say what is in it is the truth, but if he is under oath about what is in it, as it is written, he can't lie about that. Doesn't matter what is in the report, if they ask him what it reads or states under oath, he is bound to be accurate about that, or simply to read from it.

What he could do is say content in it was erroneous or false as submitted, undermining its validity and his own credibility.

It should be easy to point out the errors or omissions already identified, and as if it is wrong or not given other evidence that contradicts it.

6 pages of projection
ETA: referring to Pelosi's handout.

Bout freaking time, Lindsay.

Ty still at it.

DNC and CrowdStrike refuse to provide records about alleged Russian email hack

will25u said:

---

---

Let the games begin!

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Let the games begin!

---

??? I don't understand.

So I haven't been paying a lot of attention recently. What did Comey and Mueller do that is worthy of indictment?

Also.

What that means is that grand jury materials can never be disclosed unless it falls under one of the stated exceptions within the federal rules. So that remains the law inside the DC circuit.

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Let the games begin!

---

Clearly proof of Russian "collusion" so must impeach.

will25u said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Let the games begin!

---

??? I don't understand.

---

The judge took the motion to dismiss filed by the defense after the end of the government's case in chief under advisement as opposed to denying it outright. So in theory, the judge could still dismiss the case irrespective of the jury's verdict. (Doubtful that happens but still possible.)

If the judge doesn't dismiss, then the appeal will be filed. Those jury instructions will be at the forefront of any appeal.

will25u said:

---

---

Zebley has followed Mueller around for years. He was Mueller's top aide at the FBI. Came as a package deal along with Mueller to Wilmer, Hale law firm, resigned from Wilmer, Hale to join Mueller in the Special Counsel's office.

Zebley is either Mueller's support dog or he's another Clyde Tolson.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454409-robert-mueller-soon-may-be-exposed-as-the-magician-of-omission-on-russia

Quote:

---

While most of the political world focused its attention elsewhere, special prosecutor John Durham's team quietly reached out this summer to a lawyer representing European academic Joseph Mifsud, one of the earliest and most mysterious figures in the now closed Russia-collusion case.

An investigator told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham's team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election.

The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller's final report.

The evidence I reviewed suggests Mueller's handiwork may be exposed for glaring omissions that, when brought to public light, leave key questions unanswered, especially about how the FBI's unprecedented probe of the Trump campaign started.

Roh told me the information he is preparing to share with Durham's team from his client will accentuate those concerns......

---

John Solomon spoke with Stephan Roh about Mifsud. Read the remainder of the article for details. In particular, Mifsud received instructions from his Link Campus superiors to meet with Papadopoulos, to set him up with Russian contacts, & to have Papadopoulos meet with the alleged Putin's niece.

Annndd, Mifsud is still not a Russian agent but Mueller is still a POS.