Had to be IG, don't you think?aggiehawg said:
Have we ever known who revealed the Page/Strzok texts, right after Flynn's guilty plea? Talk about dropping a turd in the Dem's punch bowl.
aggiehawg said:
Have we ever known who revealed the Page/Strzok texts, right after Flynn's guilty plea? Talk about dropping a turd in the Dem's punch bowl.
Remember that this is not Durham's first rodeo with Mueller and Weissman.aggiehawg said:
It's clear to me that Sidney is connected with Durham and Barr. They are feeding each other. Her pleading indicates to me that Durham is very close to or already has probable cause to ask a federal judge for a search warrant for Clapper's phone records.
Durham sent one FBI agent to prison for ten years, but Mueller escaped prosecution.......Quote:
In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of "four other FBI informants because they'd been framed by Robert Mueller's FBI.
I don't believe Barr and Durham will make the same mistake this time.Quote:
Robert Mueller was knee-deep in this scandal, along with Andrew Weissman and the agent sent to prison, but because Reno gave him very limited authority, Durham was not able to prosecute Mueller, who was not in the FBI at the time.
Secolobo said:
Quote:
.....The announcement that this is now a criminal investigation means that anyone, including FBI agents and CIA officers, who try to hold back information or hide information will be vulnerable to obstruction of justice charges. Criminal penalties attach.
Faced with possible charges of obstruction, FBI Director Christopher Wray and his sycophants last night folded like a cheap tent in a hurricane in terms of blocking release of the Inspector General report on FISA abuses. They also withdrew the FBI objections to the Exhibits that Sidney Powell had attached to her brief explaining why the FBI had engaged in criminal activity against her client, General Mike Flynn.
When Durham goes to the CIA, the DIA and the NSA asking questions and demanding documents they must cooperate or face criminal charges. That is the game changers. President Trump granted Bill Barr full authority to declassify any classified information. That includes anything collected by the CIA or the NSA. Neither intelligence agency can hide behind the claim that something is classified. If they try, they will face being charged with obstruction of justice.
Bill Barr has a spine of steel and plays by the book. He does not color outside the lines. I do not think the Deep State fully understands or appreciates the depth of peril they now face. The lies and the withholding of key documents that have been common practice over the last two and a half years will come to a screeching halt.
At some point the lawyers for the media companies will wake up and realize that spreading lies on behalf of people facing criminal charges could expose them to obstruction charges as well.
That is what last night means......
I like Johnson and consider his perspective interesting and valuable.Quote:
Bill Barr has a spine of steel and plays by the book. He does not color outside the lines. I do not think the Deep State fully understands or appreciates the depth of peril they now face. The lies and the withholding of key documents that have been common practice over the last two and a half years will come to a screeching halt.
At some point the lawyers for the media companies will wake up and realize that spreading lies on behalf of people facing criminal charges could expose them to obstruction charges as well.
Turnabout is fair play springs to mind. For almost 3 years we heard "Obstruction of justice!" if anybody questioned Mueller or any part of the anti Trump narrative.aggiehawg said:I like Johnson and consider his perspective interesting and valuable.Quote:
Bill Barr has a spine of steel and plays by the book. He does not color outside the lines. I do not think the Deep State fully understands or appreciates the depth of peril they now face. The lies and the withholding of key documents that have been common practice over the last two and a half years will come to a screeching halt.
At some point the lawyers for the media companies will wake up and realize that spreading lies on behalf of people facing criminal charges could expose them to obstruction charges as well.
I do think he's overestimating how far obstruction can extend to the press, however. Like it or not, our First Amendment gives them protection if they knowingly publish a cover story that is patently false. IOW they can participate in a fraud as a co-conspirator but seldom if ever be charged for it.
Again, that's my opinion based on the Pentagon Papers case. That was top secret information that was stolen and leaked. But the newspapers, who are in receipt of stolen highly classified information were free to publish with impunity. The only time they might face peril is if they induce or participate in the theft itself. The step too far that enabled the DOJ to indict Assange for assisting Manning. (Assange tried to break the code on the passwords to another cache of highly classified info Manning was trying to illegally access.)
As to Barr's authority to overrule agency heads on declass I have noted before. As for Wray, Barr is his boss. As for Haspel at the CIA, Trump has expressly devolved unto Barr the authority to do the same. The threat of obstruction of justice charges sounds like a great deal of leverage but in the overall scheme of things, not a huge one. (I am assuming a good faith disagreement on the necessity for classification to be upheld between an agency head and Barr. If in bad faith to protect bad actors, then such a threat would be much more of a factor.)
The bad faith redactions and witholding of info are the only thing I care about. Case in point the redactions on those Page/Strzok texts posted above. Pure nonsenseQuote:
The threat of obstruction of justice charges sounds like a great deal of leverage but in the overall scheme of things, not a huge one. (I am assuming a good faith disagreement on the necessity for classification to be upheld between an agency head and Barr. If in bad faith to protect bad actors, then such a threat would be much more of a factor.)
Which order? Some context and I might be able to help you.Secolobo said:
Especially after that Obama executive order. Can someone find it?
Isn't that interesting? Admissible evidence, eh? How about the illegally obtained evidence being inadmissible? Is that the other way to say that?Quote:
The Justice Department also released a memo that Robert Mueller submitted to Attorney General William Barr on April 19, a day after a partially redacted version of the special counsel's report had been made public. Mueller said in the memo that investigators had closed an investigation into whether an unidentified individual acted as an unregistered agent of a foreign country.
The name of the person is redacted, making it unclear who is being referenced in the previously unreleased document.
"The Special Counsel's investigation closed its investigation of [redacted] for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government because there was not admissible evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction," Mueller wrote.
The memo stated Rosenstein authorized the investigation of the individual in an Aug. 2, 2017, document laying out the scope of the special counsel's probe.
The special counsel's report stated that four Trump associates were identified in the memo: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
Quote:
I was chatting last night with a retired CIA colleague, a person well connected to many folks still working at our former employer, and he dropped a bombshell--he had learned that John Brennan set up a Trump Task Force at CIA in early 2016.
This is definitely something Prosecutor John Durham should explore. A "Task Force" normally is a short term creation comprised of operations officers (i.e., guys and gals who carry out espionage activities overseas) and intelligence analysts. The purpose of such a group is to ensure all relevant intelligence capabilities are brought to bear on the problem at hand.
While a "Task Force" can be a useful tool for tackling issues of terrorism or drug trafficking, it is not appropriate or lawful for collecting on a U.S. candidate for the Presidency. But Brennan did it, so I'm told, and it had the blessing of the Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper.
The Task Force members were handpicked. The job was not posted. Instead, people were specifically invited to join up. Not everyone accepted the invitation, and that is now a problem for John Brennan. If those folks are talking to Durham's folks then Brennan's days are numbered.
Brennan reportedly took it upon himself to recruit foreign intelligence organizations, such as MI-6, the Aussies, the Italians and the Israelis, to help in spying on Trump and his campaign. He sold it as a "counter-intelligence" mission citing his fear that Trump was a Russian puppet. And these foreign services agreed to help. But they did more than passive collection. They helped create and implement covert actions, such as entrapping Michael Flynn as a foreign agent and cultivating and ensnaring George Papadopoulos.
The case officers on the task force managed the tasking and monitoring of actions with the foreign services. This included travel overseas.
The Task Force also apparently was involved in working with Ukraine to help manufacture intel that could be used against Paul Manafort.
The point is, this Task Force was working furiously on a broad front to go after Donald Trump and his campaign team. Most importantly, there is documentary evidence on specific task officers were directed to carry out. And there are also financial records--e.g., money was spent to fund travel overseas and to pay cooperating assets.
Good to know that Haspel was kept out of the loop. She's a white hat and not a black hat.Quote:
I am also hearing that CIA Director Gina Haspel is cooperating. She was the CIA Chief of Station in London when this Task Force was up a running but my friend says she was kept out of the loop. She and Brennan have a history and it is not friendly. Brennan blocked her from getting a top assignment in what used to be known as the "Directorate of Operations." So no love lost between the two.
I don't know who recommended Wray for the FBI job. One possibility though, might have been Mueller but passed on to Trump through Rosenstein and Sessions?dreyOO said:
Why in the world would they appoint Wray if he's this difficult to reign in. It takes a criminal investigation for him to listen to his boss?
There have been way too many misses re: appointments.
Are you referring to Brennan's task force? The rumors and some sketchy reporting (sketchy because it was a lot of speculation matching disparate dots) have been out for awhile. There were some texts between Strzok and Page that referenced a lunch or maybe a dinner with the CIA big wigs. What is usually referred to as a "Principals Meeting" yet Strzok was going and not as a briefer. He was there to be briefed.MouthBQ98 said:
If that is true, especially the recruitment of foreign governments to participate, that could actually possibly be characterized as treasonous, versus just seditious. What a mess. It absolutely would be an attempt to subvert an election, then an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government in a desperate attempt to cover up the conspiracy. The greatest constitutional crisis since the civil war.
On the nosecaptkirk said:Smells like obstructionRockdoc said:
Trying to remove Barr and Durham because they have evidence against you? Not a good look.
