drcrinum said:

---

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/458478-the-road-not-taken-another-fbi-failure-involving-the-clintons

You can read it if you like. Just shows how incompetent the Sessions/Rosenstein/Wray run DOJ/FBI have been regarding the Clintons.

---

How could Trump have been SO wrong on Jeff Sessions. He turned out to be a worthless POS and should be given a Scarlett letter. That ******* needs to see the inside of a jail cell because I'll bet that he has dirty hands in a lot of things.

drcrinum said:

---

New interview today with Byrne on Fox Business. That's where the $1 Billion dollar bribe & the Warren Buffet warning come from. He was taking direct orders from Peter Strzok & didn't know it at the time. This is really worth listening to. He's definitely a marked man.

---

Every time I click on that video my phone slows down, then locks up entirely. I've had to reboot twice.

Rapier108 said:

---

According to Fox News (reported last hour on F&F), CNN has hired Andrew McCabe.

---

I just LOL'd!

I know folks here are skeptical about Spygate, Deep State shenanigans, et al, but I'm more confident now than ever that the indictments WILL be delivered. I can't speak to Horowitz' report, as far as referrals to AUSA's, but I'm pretty certain the Durham investigation will deliver a fairly lengthy list of criminal goofballs for indictment. By "fairly lengthy", I'm guessing 20-25 minimum, and Mr. CNN above will be on the list.

Who knows whether they'll be found guilty, but I'm pretty sure there's going to be a significant amount of evidence. As the attorneys here know, all Durham really needed was one strong criminal target to turn, and the house foundation will be damaged irreparably. Not worried about Clinton and Obama. Bill and Hillary are too old, but if this goes the way I think, their political actions will be squashed forever. Obama is plenty young, and I don't think they'll get him or Valerie Jarrett, but I'm very hopeful the Obama's reputation will be damaged in perpetuity.

I haven't seen this posted at Big Cases Bot, but this chap is Politico's Senior Legal Affairs Contributor.

Does this mean the government doesn't have to respond to her appeal about Brady Material? i.e., so perhaps the issue becomes a moot point?


Edit: (moot, not mute) Sorry, not fully awake yet.

Moot: rendered without relevance or purpose or meaning
Mute: cannot speak or make sound

tsuag10 said:

---

---

Thank you tsu! That worked.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Moot: rendered without relevance or purpose or meaning
Mute: cannot speak or make sound

---

Even smart people like the good Doctor are allowed occasional mistakes. I sure appreciate BOTH of your input. Two smart fellas.

I just now watched his interview with Martha. He says that he "set up X, Y, and Z officials [in the Obama admin] for felony charges."

He seems a little cooky, but I think if he was a complete nutjob he would have spewed out a lot more wild conspiracy theory stuff. He seems just stable enough to be telling the truth....

Synopsis said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Moot: rendered without relevance or purpose or meaning
Mute: cannot speak or make sound

---

Even smart people like the good Doctor are allowed occasional mistakes. I sure appreciate BOTH of your input. Two smart fellas.

---

I edited it. Just on my first cup of coffee. Was up late last night.

Here's our boy Roscoe....

No problem. Figured maybe an autocorrect error was to blame.

JB!98 said:

---

If menmory serves Obama was never a big fan of Hillary's to begin with. I know this may not be popular, but I think Obama was and is a bigger threat to our Republic than the Clintons would ever be. In my opinion the Clintons are just grafters, where Obama and the folks behind him were evil.

---

Ageed 100%.

tsuag10 said:

---

I just now watched his interview with Martha. He says that he "set up X, Y, and Z officials [in the Obama admin] for felony charges."

He seems a little cooky, but I think if he was a complete nutjob he would have spewed out a lot more wild conspiracy theory stuff. He seems just stable enough to be telling the truth....

---

Listen first at 11:45 through 14:00 (says the "orders" came from "X, Y, and Z" people in the "Obama Administration"....."people whose names you know..."

Then a little after 15:30, explains more and says "don't misunderstand,....I'm not saying President Obama was involved..."

Then start at 17:30 and listen through 19:50. He talks about lying to "them" and setting them up for felony charges.





After 895 pages, do we have any solid guesses of the names??

I'm gonna go with: Brennan, Rice, & Jarrett.... Maybe sub Rice or Jarrett for Clapper.

If we have heard the last of the Imran Awan issue, I'll be extremely shocked. Nothing seemed right about how quietly that went away.

I'm not sure if it connects to the RussiaGate stuff though...

He did an interview earlier this summer (maybe a few weeks ago?) on Fox Business with Varney. He identifies Brennan and McCabe in that interview.

Synopsis said:

---

How could Trump have been SO wrong on Jeff Sessions. He turned out to be a worthless POS and should be given a Scarlett letter. That ******* needs to see the inside of a jail cell because I'll bet that he has dirty hands in a lot of things.

---

Trump picked Sessions because Sessions was Trump's first supporter in the Senate when Trump ran for the Republican nomination. Sessions wanted to be AG. Trump rewards loyalty. Sessions got the job he wanted because of Sessions early support. I don't think there was ever a "who would be the best pick for AG" type discussion before Sessions was named AG.

Why would Comey, Brennan, Clapper and Lynch want blackmail material on Hillary? To keep their cushy jobs in what they were sure would be her administration.

Puts the Bill and Loretta tango on the tarmac in a different perspective, doesn't it?

They could help her or hurt her. All they would have to do is drop a hint about what they were privy to, and she would pretty much have to treat them generously in exchange for their bureaucratic protection. It would be a cooperative arrangement and they'd be bound to eachother by their common knowledge and suppression of the same. It's very Hoover-like. Or mafioso-like.

JB!98 said:

---

If menmory serves Obama was never a big fan of Hillary's to begin with. I know this may not be popular, but I think Obama was and is a bigger threat to our Republic than the Clintons would ever be. In my opinion the Clintons are just grafters, where Obama and the folks behind him were evil.

---

I dont disagree, but I also wonder if he knew what the Clintons were up to and studied them so he could eventually start his own "Foundation" in the future and remove them from the equation.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

They could help her or hurt her. All they would have to do is drop a hint about what they were privy to, and she would pretty much have to treat them generously in exchange for their bureaucratic protection. It would be a cooperative arrangement and they'd be bound to eachother by their common knowledge and suppression of the same. It's very Hoover-like. Or mafioso-like.

---

When Comey was testifying about his first briefing with Trump on the Steele Dossier, Comey admitted he was "concerned" that Trump would think he was "holding it over his head."

Then Comey turned to the Trump-asked-me-if-I-was-loyal narrative. Well, gee whiz, imagine that! Comey drops a steaming pile of crap in Trump's lap implicitly suggesting to Trump that it's blackmail material and Trump asks him what his intentions are?

tsuag10 said:

---

If we have heard the last of the Imran Awan issue, I'll be extremely shocked. Nothing seemed right about how quietly that went away.

I'm not sure if it connects to the RussiaGate stuff though...

---

Didnt they service/run all the IT for all Congress members? I bet they have access to the goods on some people and therefore those people didnt push to investigate. DWS is a shady C***.

Byrne's interview with Fredo.

Starts at 13:00

Listen at 36:00.
He says that "Republicans are wrong that the Russia Investigation was fabricated out of nowhere, but what they are right about is that it was politicized."

Quote:

---

He says that "Republicans are wrong that the Russia Investigation was fabricated out of nowhere, but what they are right about is that it was politicized."

---

Byrne and I obviously have different interpretations of what "fabricated," means. You direct a walking FISA Virus towards people in the Trump campaign to establish enough contact to use 702 to/from and about queries.

Procedure would have been to provide a defensive briefing, not aim a loaded FISA gun at their heads. Ditto for Kislyak, the former Russian ambassador.

My working theory is that there might have been a tiny ounce of legitimacy to the very beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation (not saying Team Trump did anything wrong, but maybe they just spoke to someone who our IC thinks is fishy), but when the corrupt higher-ups realized they could weaponize the investigation and entrap people and use the entire thing for political purposes.

I still think that some of the mid-level folks (maybe even as high as Comey) thought they were doing their duty because they believed the fabricated intel that Brennan et al. was feeding them was legitimate.

IDK, just my current thoughts...

tsuag10 said:

---

My working theory is that there might have been a tiny ounce of legitimacy to the very beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation (not saying Team Trump did anything wrong, but maybe they just spoke to someone who our IC thinks is fishy), but when the corrupt higher-ups realized they could weaponize the investigation and entrap people and use the entire thing for political purposes.

I still think that some of the mid-level folks (maybe even as high as Comey) thought they were doing their duty because they believed the fabricated intel that Brennan et al. was feeding them was legitimate.

IDK, just my current thoughts...

---

I could almost agree with you except for one fact, they knew the Steele Dossier was paid oppo research from the DNC and Hillary campaign. That is not a sufficient predicate to open a counter-intel investigation, especially since they couldn't verify any of it.

The difference between an investigation and a preliminary assessment. FBI gets info in the form of the dossier, opens an assessment as to the veracity of the facts alleged. If some things can be corroborated, then and only then do they open a full blown investigation with all of the investigatory tools.

Lisa Page was quite clear when she said there was active discussion of which and how many high value assets they would burn to get to Trump. Only she got the timing wrong. She said it was in August 2016 but it really was several months earlier that the CIA was running Halper and Mifsud at Trump campaign people.

aggiehawg said:

---

I could almost agree with you except for one fact, they knew the Steele Dossier was paid oppo research from the DNC and Hillary campaign. That is not a sufficient predicate to open a counter-intel investigation, especially since they couldn't verify any of it.

The difference between an investigation and a preliminary assessment. FBI gets info in the form of the dossier, opens an assessment as to the veracity of the facts alleged. If some things can be corroborated, then and only then do they open a full blown investigation with all of the investigatory tools.

Lisa Page was quite clear when she said there was active discussion of which and how many high value assets they would burn to get to Trump. Only she got the timing wrong. She said it was in August 2016 but it really was several months earlier that the CIA was running Halper and Mifsud at Trump campaign people.

---

I bet there was a significant off-the-books "investigation" (surveillance) taking place well before there was sufficient evidence for the official counter-intel investigation. You're right about the Dossier - they knew it was flimsy - but I think Brennan & Co. had enough other "evidence" (*cough, cough*) to hand them to make them (mid-level FBI) believe the threat of Trump-Russia was legit.

That was certainly worth listening to. Sounds like it was a real eye opener to Chris Cuomo.

Yeah. Listen to the beginning of Lemon Head's show. Cuomo actually sounds like a rational human being. He talks about how Byrne isn't coming at this with a political agenda and he [Cuomo] has known him for a while and doesn't think he's a nutjob. Of course Lemon isn't on board, but what did we expect...

Quote:

---

I bet there was a significant off-the-books "investigation" (surveillance) taking place well before there was sufficient evidence for the official counter-intel investigation. You're right about the Dossier - they knew it was flimsy - but I think Brennan & Co. had enough other "evidence" (*cough, cough*) to hand them to make them (mid-level FBI) believe the threat of Trump-Russia was legit.

---

We already know there was unusual and likely very illegal 702 FISA abuse, even going so far as to use outside contractors. Admiral Rogers blew the whistle and Judge Collyer (head FISC judge) confirmed it.

And that was going on in 2015-early 2016, which not coincidentally aligns with Patrick Byrne's time line.

Meanwhile, in the Greg Craig trial...

I get the impression here the Byrne is a big liberal. In his mind, he can grasp that the deep state is evil, and are trying to get dirt on all politicians.

He does not seem like he is willing to believe that the deep state and the Democratic party are working together to take out a Republican president.

In my opinion, Byrne just took one for the team. Boy who cried wolf style. His story was sensationalist, and included much of the Q theory, and plenty to make him sound a few nickels short of a dollar.

If the Deep State starts to be outed, his story will be used as a way to shape minds, "We heard the same crackpot theories from former Overstock CEO Byrne who seemed to be off his meds. It wasn't credible then, it isn't credible now."