She is in the very tough position of having a client that already plead guilty and made a deal with a duplicitous previous legal team, and with a prosecution with a history of underhanded dirty trickery and gamesmanship. The odds were already long. Her best bet may to ensure that the public applies pressure to the DOJ to see if they can crack into any corruption or at least impropriety on the part of the investigation and prosecution of the case and see where that goes.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

She is in the very tough position of having a client that already plead guilty and made a deal with a duplicitous previous legal team, and with a prosecution with a history of underhanded dirty trickery and gamesmanship. The odds were already long. Her best bet may to ensure that the public applies pressure to the DOJ to see if they can crack into any corruption or at least impropriety on the part of the investigation and prosecution of the case and see where that goes.

---

This.

Given the complicated nature of her strategy and the overwhelming media bias against her client and his former boss, being a public as possible is her best strategy.

Not Mueller, but thought some of y'all might enjoy reading this.

FriscoKid said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

---

That's a big ****ing deal.

---

Haven't you heard? According to Dems and the media, Biden was investigated and cleared so this is all a Trump conspiracy theory.

Seriously though, when you combine this with Biden admitting to a quid pro quo on video, this is a lot more than anything they have on Trump.

Hunter Biden said in his interview with ABC, or whoever, that he had "just as much O&G experience as anyone else on the board."

Who else was on the board!?!?!?

ATMTWS said:

---

Hunter Biden said in his interview with ABC, or whoever, that he had "just as much O&G experience as anyone else on the board."

Who else was on the board!?!?!?

---

Just found this out, but apparently my 11 year old nephew, for one.

Also im sure any number of people that were associated with politicians that needed bribing.

Wildcat said:

---

Why is Flynn's new defense attorney fighting this battle on Twitter?

---

For the same reason as Trump; she is not going to see the light of day or get a fair shake with the MSM.

stetson said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Why is Flynn's new defense attorney fighting this battle on Twitter?

---

For the same reason as Trump; she is not going to see the light of day or get a fair shake with the MSM.

---

Bingo .. the lying cheating left wing media won't tell the real story so she's going to drag them through the mud on Twitter ...

MSM- propaganda arm of the left

ATMTWS said:

---

Hunter Biden said in his interview with ABC, or whoever, that he had "just as much O&G experience as anyone else on the board."

Who else was on the board!?!?!?

---

Cofer Black, for one. I suspect there might be a name, or two, you'll recognize. I gurantee you Cofer Black is a hell of a lot more legit on that Board than Hunter Biden.

Now, just because C. Black was Mitt Romneys '12 campaign manager, doesn't mean ol' Mitt is connected, but it doesn't look good.

Link to Yovanovitch's testimony (316 pages):
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D003.pdf

I don't believe there were any 'major' revelations; she wasn't there when Biden interfered with the prosecution of Burisma nor when Trump placed the telephone call to Zelensky in July. I spent about 2 hours reading/scanning the above & here's a few things I noted:

1. Most questioning on the Dem side was conducted by staff investigators, not Committee members.
2. Lots of negative commentary about Giuliani & people with whom he associated, but Yovanovitch was uncertain exactly what Giuliani was doing.
3. Yovanovitch denied ever sending a list of persons not to be prosecuted to Ukrainian officials (Lutsenko), & that Lutsenko had withdrawn the allegation.
4. The press department section of Yovanovitch's embassy was definitely scanning social media accounts & news media for reports/comments about Ukraine in conjunction with the State Department, but Yovanovitch wasn't familiar with whom was being monitored & professed ignorance of CrowdTangle.
5. Then there was this section below that was interesting (beginning near bottom of p 189; Q = Nicolas Mitchell, senior investigative counsel for HPSCI; A = Yovanovitch):

Quote:

---

...
Q Then immediately after President Zelensky mentions the Javelins, on the top of page 3, President Trump mentions CrowdStrike, and then he also says, The server, they say Ukraine has it.

A Yeah.

Q Do you have any understanding of what the President was talking about there?

A Well, I didn't at the time that I first read this summary, but obviously, there has been explanation in the news.

Q And what's your understanding?

A Well, that the server that was used to hack the DNC was somehow in Ukraine or moved to Ukraine, controlled by the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians then put out some sort of disinformation that it was Russia. And that this is what the President is referring to that it's important to get to the bottom of it.

Q In that same paragraph he continues, and I'm not starting at the beginning of the sentence, but he mentions Robert Mueller and he says: They say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Do you have any understanding of what the President is referring to there?

A I think it's the belief that Ukraine was behind interference in our 2016 elections.....

---

I don't understand why the Dem 'inquisitor' would ask the questions in the 5. section above. That seems to me to be something positive for the good guys.

Short video.

nm (Brain fart)

These are social media accounts allegedly monitored per Yovanovitch's press corps for Ukrainian comments/content. Per her testimony though, everything being monitored was open source material (unclassified). It still remains to be disclosed if they were using CrowdTangle tool for monitoring social media platforms.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/04/reconstructing-justice-flynn-defense-submits-outstanding-sur-surreply-to-counter-prosecution/

If you haven't read Sidney Powell's sur-surreply, the above is a very good summary read by Sundance.

dreyOO said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

---

And why can't other Republicans do the job themselves? Why does Jordan need to come in?

I'm fine with the tactic, but this is pathetic. Every elected R needs to do their ****ing job.

---

Agreed in general, but he's one of the best in the House from a legal perspective. They want him in there to be able to cross.

Sir Richard Dearlove, former Head of MI6, has close ties to Hakluyt & should not be overlooked. He would know all the UK players involved in SpyGate, including (not mentioned in the above tweets) Arvinder Sambei, Claire Smith, & Christopher Steele & his partner at Orbis, Christopher Burrows. Dearlove may have know Mifsud as well.

Link to the indictment of the Russian military officers indicted by Mueller:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

There appears to be circumstantial evidence that "The Server" per Trump & then Yavanovitch's testimony, which the Ukrainian's apparently possess, may be the overseas "middle server" referenced by Mueller in the above indictment involving the hacking of the DNC server.

Trump doesn't just throw things out there about the DS without knowing. I STILL believe he knows more than most people think.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-michael-flynn-smoking-gun-fbi-headquarters-altered-interview-summary

Good read. CNN legal analyst & former FBI agent sees the light after reading Sidney Powell's memo in the Flynn case.

The only thing I hate in that article is his continued lie about the Clinton Email Scandal. It wrong that criminally exposing classified materials requires "gross negligence".

The statute has no intent barrier, and even then the FBI is not the one who determines intent. A prosecutor at DOJ would decide that. It was dirty non-prosecution by Loretta Lynch, who wanted to spike the investigation without getting her hands dirty.

Interesting tie-in to a certain "other" thread.

It's there. page 32 of 32
https://www.scribd.com/document/433411005/Flynn-Reply-Docket-Entry-135

What does Trump know? Does he know it all? Is this taking so long so admissible evidence can be gathered? Many of the black hats seem arrogant and stupid. Certainly there are enough white hats in the intelligence community to supply Barr with all the ammo he needs. I hope they are listening in on communications by Schiff, both Bidens, Ciaramella, the Podestas, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Obama, Clinton, etc. I can see these people believing their network and superior intelligence makes them untouchable. I hope there's enough white hats to show them this is not true.

ETA: Sorry about my subject/verb agreement

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-michael-flynn-smoking-gun-fbi-headquarters-altered-interview-summary

Good read. CNN legal analyst & former FBI agent sees the light after reading Sidney Powell's memo in the Flynn case.

---

I wonder if CNN will cross post that article on their site?

I mean he is a legal analyst for them, and this is certainly an opinion within his realm of expertise.

Eventful Day 1 of Roger Stone trial

Quote:

---

First, Stone got up and asked his wife to join him as he left the courtroom. With the defendant absent, the packed room got quiet while the judge appeared confused.

Then a spectator sitting in the back row moaned loudly and collapsed. Jackson adjourned the proceedings and cleared the courtroom while medical personnel and Stone's daughter, a trauma nurse, attended to the sick man. After about 15 minutes, the man walked out of the courtroom on his own and the D.C. fire department took him out of the building on a stretcher.

---

Quote:

---

But Stone never made it through the day. After a lunch break, he went to the courtroom lectern and said he wanted the proceedings to continue without him.
"I have, apparently, some food poisoning," Stone told U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson. "I don't want to waste the court's time or the time of the jurors."
Jackson told him he wasn't obliged to explain further. "I don't need more details," the judge said.
After making sure he understood his "absolute constitutional right" to be present for all parts of his trial, Jackson agreed to continue with one-by-one-questioning of potential jurors, which seemed likely to continue through Tuesday and perhaps into Wednesday.

---

Quote:

---

Outside the courthouse Tuesday morning, protesters chanted "Roger Stone did nothing wrong!" as the longtime Trump associate entered the courthouse.
As the public lined up outside the courtroom, Bill Christensen, a local political activist who has been holding up signs at Mueller-related hearings for the last two-plus years (this guy needs a hobby) called out to Stone as he walked past: "Hey, you're going to get to see Manafort."
Stone supporters like Yiannopoulos and former Trump 2016 campaign adviser Michael Caputo attended the first day of jury selection, as well.

---

hbtheduce said:

---

The only thing I hate in that article is his continued lie about the Clinton Email Scandal. It wrong that criminally exposing classified materials requires "gross negligence".

The statute has no intent barrier, and even then the FBI is not the one who determines intent. A prosecutor at DOJ would decide that. It was dirty non-prosecution by Loretta Lynch, who wanted to spike the investigation without getting her hands dirty.

---

I agree, but this:

Quote:

---

Here's me, acknowledging my mistake. I was dead wrong. It now seems there was a concerted effort, though isolated, within the upper-echelons of the FBI to influence the outcome of the Flynn investigation. By "dirtying up" Flynn, Comey's FBI headquarters team of callow sycophants shortcut the investigative process. Arm-twisting Flynn through the "tweaked" version of his interview afforded him criminal exposure. The cocksure Comey team felt supremely confident that would inspire him "flipping" and give them the desperately sought-after evidence of Trump-Russia collusion that the wholly unverified Steele dossier was never remotely capable of providing.

---

is damning.

I would really like him to take the next obvious step and understand what this means to the broader impeachment push as a whole.

A lot of that IMF money vaporized into foreign (not Ukranian) bank accounts.