For those keeping track, this is another one under the category of "DOJ declined to prosecute."

Wozlaw said:

---

For those keeping track, this is another one under the category of "DOJ declined to prosecute."

---

No one will be prosecuted, for two reasons.

The deep state protects its own, and there is no way to get either an indictment or conviction using a DC jury.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sondlands-blocked-testimony-strong-evidence-of-obstruction-says-rep-schiff-2019-10-08

Quote:

---

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Tuesday blasted the State Department's ordering the U.S. ambassador to the European Union not to testify before lawmakers as part of the impeachment probe. Schiff said the blocking of Ambassador Gordon Sondland's testimony was "yet additional strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional functions of Congress." Sondland was scheduled to testify Tuesday about President Donald Trump's effort to press Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Trump said on Twitter that the ambassador would be appearing before a "kangaroo court."

---

I doubt Trump will permit any current State Department official to testify until the Dems have hold a formal impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee. Until then, there are no real subpoenas...they are just 'demand letters'.

We no longer control our government. We are its subjects.

Short video.

Love that Lindsay's profile pic is him and Kavanaugh.

Posting this here because it relates to Podesta.

Mark Zaid(Wikipedia) - In 1998 he founded the James Madison Project, an organization dedicated to reducing government secrecy. It is interested in the Freedom of Information Act and government whistleblowers. He is co-editor of Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws. He is a cofounder of the nonprofit law firm Whistleblower Aid.

Whistleblowers are represented by Whistleblower Aid. And Zaid is a part of both companies. Well guess who is on the Board of Advisers for James Madison Project? John D. Podesta.

Just seems like the corrupt Washington politicians get around and come back to try to insert themselves everywhere.

Rapier108 said:

---

Wozlaw said:

---

For those keeping track, this is another one under the category of "DOJ declined to prosecute."

---

No one will be prosecuted, for two reasons.

The deep state protects its own, and there is no way to get either an indictment or conviction using a DC jury.

---

Conspiracy related or not, if indictments (sealed) are issued from a variety of Federal Court locations across many states, might that not mitigate the "DC jury" effect?

I agree on the DC jury selection...probably couldn't qualify 13 individuals fit to serve and agreeable to both sides.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Wozlaw said:

---

For those keeping track, this is another one under the category of "DOJ declined to prosecute."

---

No one will be prosecuted, for two reasons.

The deep state protects its own, and there is no way to get either an indictment or conviction using a DC jury.

---

Conspiracy related or not, if indictments (sealed) are issued from a variety of Federal Court locations across many states, might that not mitigate the "DC jury" effect?

I agree on the DC jury selection...probably couldn't qualify 13 individuals fit to serve and agreeable to both sides.

---

Question for the knowledgeable... I know they've been trying for years but how the hell can this even be done if DC doesn't have states rights? How would a jury be considered "of their peers" is they don't have the rights?
Here's Why Washington D.C. Isn't a State

Federal jury = US citizens. If you want full rights of a state citizen, reside in a state. Don't move to the center of power to hop on some gravy train and then demand to have your cake and eat it also.

FBI's Use of Foreign-Surveillance Tool Violated Americans' Privacy Rights, Court Found

Quote:

---

Some of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's electronic surveillance activities violated the constitutional privacy rights of Americans swept up in a controversial foreign intelligence program, a secretive surveillance court has ruled.

The ruling deals a rare rebuke to U.S. spying activities that have generally withstood legal challenge or review.

The intelligence community disclosed Tuesday that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court last year found that the FBI's pursuit of data about Americans ensnared in a warrantless internet-surveillance program intended to target foreign suspects may have violated the law authorizing the program, as well as the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

The court concluded that the FBI had been improperly searching a database of raw intelligence for information on Americansraising concerns about oversight of the program, which as a spy program operates in near total secrecy.

The court ruling identifies tens of thousands of improper searches of raw intelligence databases by the bureau in 2017 and 2018 that it deemed improper in part because they involved data related to tens of thousands of emails or telephone numbersin one case, suggesting that the FBI was using the intelligence information to vet its personnel and cooperating sources. Federal law requires that the database only be searched by the FBI as part of seeking evidence of a crime or for foreign intelligence information.

In other cases, the court ruling reveals improper use of the database by individuals. In one case, an FBI contractor ran a query of an intelligence databasesearching information on himself, other FBI personnel and his relatives, the court revealed.

The Trump administration failed to make a persuasive argument that modifying the program to better protect the privacy of Americans would hinder the FBI's ability to address national-security threats, wrote U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who serves on the FISA Court, in the partially redacted 167-page opinion released Tuesday.

"The court accordingly finds that the FBI's querying procedures and minimization procedures are not consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment," Mr. Boasberg concluded.

---

Justice Department asks judge to block House from obtaining Mueller grand jury material

Quote:

---

Lawyers for House Democrats on Tuesday urged a federal judge to release grand jury testimony from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as Congress conducts an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Douglas Letter, an attorney for the Judiciary Committee, said the materials are needed to investigate what Trump knew about Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. The committee is seeking access to grand jury witness transcripts that could demonstrate obstruction of justice, among other things.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice, however, told Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell that the House Judiciary Committee has not gone through the correct legal process necessary to obtain the secret material, which was redacted in the version of Mueller's report given to Congress and released to the public.

Howell heard arguments Tuesday, but did not immediately rule on the requests.

---

Again... Obama judge.

Quote:

---

The court ruling identifies tens of thousands of improper searches of raw intelligence databases by the bureau in 2017 and 2018 that it deemed improper in part because they involved data related to tens of thousands of emails or telephone numbersin one case, suggesting that the FBI was using the intelligence information to vet its personnel and cooperating sources. Federal law requires that the database only be searched by the FBI as part of seeking evidence of a crime or for foreign intelligence information.

---

2017 and 2018? Can you say Team Mueller?

What is wrong with these people?

will25u said:

---

Justice Department asks judge to block House from obtaining Mueller grand jury material

Quote:

---

Lawyers for House Democrats on Tuesday urged a federal judge to release grand jury testimony from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as Congress conducts an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Douglas Letter, an attorney for the Judiciary Committee, said the materials are needed to investigate what Trump knew about Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. The committee is seeking access to grand jury witness transcripts that could demonstrate obstruction of justice, among other things.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice, however, told Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell that the House Judiciary Committee has not gone through the correct legal process necessary to obtain the secret material, which was redacted in the version of Mueller's report given to Congress and released to the public.

Howell heard arguments Tuesday, but did not immediately rule on the requests.

---

Again... Obama judge.

---

And as always, it will have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court.

Looks like Sessions and Kelly were black hats from the get go.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-25th-amendment-rod-rosenstein

Rosenstein needs to hang with the rest of the coup plotters.

Don't know about Kelly, but I'm 100% in support of Sessions and Rosenstein.

Rosenstein's send-off alone and tacit approval of Trump the entire way should be the end of it.

Unless y'all think Barr is in on it too...

And to be honest, @drawandstrike is the source of my certainty. I made up my own mind, but had plenty of supporting evidence provided by him.

The reason for his "turn" is because they had his b**** in a noose. This is not hard.
Him standing behind Barr sweating bullets was the charade he was asked to deliver. He is not out of danger.

houag80 said:

---

The reason for his "turn" is because they had his b**** in a noose. This is not hard.
Him standing behind Barr sweating bullets was the charade he was asked to deliver. He is not out of danger.

---

Totally fine with that if that's the case. I'll take a black hat turned white over the the generic dreck who's still obedient to the old master.

B2Ag05 said:

---

houag80 said:

---

The reason for his "turn" is because they had his b**** in a noose. This is not hard.
Him standing behind Barr sweating bullets was the charade he was asked to deliver. He is not out of danger.

---

Totally fine with that if that's the case. I'll take a black hat turned white over the the generic dreck who's still obedient to the old master.

---

Weasels can change sides at the drop of a hat.

aggiehawg said:

---

B2Ag05 said:

---

houag80 said:

---

The reason for his "turn" is because they had his b**** in a noose. This is not hard.
Him standing behind Barr sweating bullets was the charade he was asked to deliver. He is not out of danger.

---

Totally fine with that if that's the case. I'll take a black hat turned white over the the generic dreck who's still obedient to the old master.

---

Weasels can change sides at the drop of a hat.

---

Sure, but I trust Trump. Guessing there's a "no take backs" clause in whatever they've worked out. I trust Trump more than I distrust Rosenstein.

B2Ag05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

B2Ag05 said:

---

houag80 said:

---

The reason for his "turn" is because they had his b**** in a noose. This is not hard.
Him standing behind Barr sweating bullets was the charade he was asked to deliver. He is not out of danger.

---

Totally fine with that if that's the case. I'll take a black hat turned white over the the generic dreck who's still obedient to the old master.

---

Weasels can change sides at the drop of a hat.

---

Sure, but I trust Trump. Guessing there's a "no take backs" clause in whatever they've worked out. I trust Trump more than I distrust Rosenstein.

---

My guess is that Barr has Rosey and Sessions hands down. Rosey on the weasel moves, Sessions on his incompetence and stupidity.

Surprising about Sessions. I thought he and trump were truly friends when it started. I guess he could be feeble minded.

Rockdoc said:

---

Surprising about Sessions. I thought he and trump were truly friends when it started. I guess he could be feeble minded.

---

Sessions, at heart, is a courtly Southern gentleman, I believe. Way too soft to be AG as he got railroaded way too often. And his recusal basically meant that few people had to interact with him as much of the upper level of the FBI and DOJ were all hell bent on getting Trump. And he was recused. They could ignore him and go around him way too easily.

Hawg, when this grand jury case does go to the SC, do you think any of the four libs will vote for disclosure of the material?

I'm asking because I've seen that statute, and it's pretty damned solid in favor of keeping the grand jury information secret. I have a poor view of attorneys who "practice the law progressively, which means I believe many attorneys/judges see law where it doesn't exist, in lieu of a new constitutional amendment.

Wouldn't it be really ballsy for one of the supremes to vote to release?!!

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, when this grand jury case does go to the SC, do you think any of the four libs will vote for disclosure of the material?

I'm asking because I've seen that statute, and it's pretty damned solid in favor of keeping the grand jury information secret. I have a poor view of attorneys who "practice the law progressively, which means I believe many attorneys/judges see law where it doesn't exist, in lieu of a new constitutional amendment.
of Por
Wouldn't it be really ballsy for one of the supremes to vote to release?!!

---

Honestly, I don't think it goes to SCOTUS as it won't make it past the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The McKeever case was very specific. Federal courts possess no inherent power to release grand jury material unless the request falls squarely with the specified exceptions as written in the statute. (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure)

To be a broken record on this, the McKeever decision in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals truly did throw a huge monkey wrench into Pelosi's plans on how to proceed with impeachment. Barr holds the upper hand there, in the absence of a floor vote for official and formal impeachment inquiry decision.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-investigation-trump-campaign-surveillance-expanded-scope

Quote:

---

.....Fox News previously reported that Durham would be reviewing the days leading up to the 2016 election and through the inauguration.

However, based on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel......

---

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-investigation-trump-campaign-surveillance-expanded-scope

Quote:

---

.....Fox News previously reported that Durham would be reviewing the days leading up to the 2016 election and through the inauguration.

However, based on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel......

---

---

Gonna be waiting a while for Durham's report.

Who else is ready for another round of blue balls?

Never mind, I see it was Horowitz that's completed 2 reports. One was specifically in Comey's memos. What was the second one?