...and ended up in the same place.

Even Rubini is retweeting Roscoe.... Not going to do it.

Is someone going to tell him about Fox ownership?

Adding

This has to be a joke right?

will25u said:

---

---

keystone feds

Amy Berman Jackson still doing work for the coup plotters.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/in-midst-of-2016-election-state-department-saw-burisma-as-joe-bidens-issue-memos-show/

Quote:

---

.....
But whatever the Biden family recollections, the Obama State Department clearly saw the Burisma Holdings investigation in the midst of the 2016 presidential election as a Joe Biden issue.

Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about "Burisma and Hunter Biden."

In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch's Senate confirmation hearing, the department's Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.

"Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President's son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?," the draft Q&A asked.

The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: "For questions on Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden's office." .....

---

Now, you want to talk about impeachment, this appears to be a better case!!

Gawd, I could possibly stomach allowing her to be on the jury, and our legals here can give a professional opinion, but damn, knowing what her husband does, and DID, should prohibit her from voting (JK).

Honestly, it's not terribly different from our black hat buddy Rosenstein, and y'all know who his wife is, who she has respresented, and likely still represents.

drcrinum said:

---

https://johnsolomonreports.com/in-midst-of-2016-election-state-department-saw-burisma-as-joe-bidens-issue-memos-show/

Quote:

---

.....
But whatever the Biden family recollections, the Obama State Department clearly saw the Burisma Holdings investigation in the midst of the 2016 presidential election as a Joe Biden issue.

Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about "Burisma and Hunter Biden."

In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch's Senate confirmation hearing, the department's Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.

"Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President's son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?," the draft Q&A asked.

The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: "For questions on Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden's office." .....

---

---

Is anyone still wondering why BHO has not endorsed Biden for POTUS?

How material to the case is it that the government misidentified the written notes on the Flynn meeting?

Any resident lawyers have any idea what the effects on the case could be?

hbtheduce said:

---

How material to the case is it that the government misidentified the written notes on the Flynn meeting?

Any resident lawyers have any idea what the effects on the case could be?

---

I was wondering the same thing. Seems like a big deal and not just an honest mistake.

hbtheduce said:

---

How material to the case is it that the government misidentified the written notes on the Flynn meeting?

Any resident lawyers have any idea what the effects on the case could be?

---

I'm not who you want to hear from, but Powell answered by saying the defense will have to obtain handwriting experts to verify which docs are which, and who belongs to which corrupt FBI agent.

Check out Lou Dobbs tonight around the 45 minute mark.

backintexas2013 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

How material to the case is it that the government misidentified the written notes on the Flynn meeting?

Any resident lawyers have any idea what the effects on the case could be?

---

I was wondering the same thing. Seems like a big deal and not just an honest mistake.

---

Digging through twitter I'm having several thoughts.

1. Strozk's exit interview now makes sense (saying Pinketa took most of the notes and wrote the bulk of the 302).
2. Strozk is now the one who makes no mention of the lie, and says he doesn't remember at key parts.
3. Why was Strozk and Page making alterations several weeks after the fact when his notes were less complete?


This throws the key evidence veracity into doubt but I don't know if this is enough to convince the judge to make the prosecution turn everything over to the defense.

I have suspected that the reason Pientka has never gone public is that he didn't stand by the 302s, but didn't want to be a snitch. We will see how he does in front of Judge Sullivan.

What could be more shocking, did the government screw up before, or are they lying now to protect Strozk? This entire case just got turned on its head in my mind.

If you look at the Flynn 302s, they are signed by both Pientka & Strzok. Here's one of them (02/15/2017), where Pientka's name is redacted:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5633496-181217-Flynn-302.html

So the 302 was a compilation. One would assume that Pientka wrote the original & then Strzok later edited it likely more than once.

But since it's a compilation, what difference does it make about whose handwritten notes are whose? What is important is the tracking of the edits, when the edits were made, & who made the edits. That information supposedly could be made available.

Another issue is how does Pientka fit into the scheme? Pientka & Strzok felt that Flynn didn't lie during the interview per Comey. Later Flynn plead guilty to lying during the interview. Did Pientka know that Strzok (& Page) had edited the 302? Did Pientka check his notes & compare them with the statement of offense in Flynn's guilty plea to see if there was agreement? Did Pientka read the transcripts of Flynn's calls with Kislyak & compare them with his notes? What did Pientka know & when did he know it? Pientka is an unknown factor here.

And then the final factor: Barr. Powell wrote him a lengthy letter concerning the Flynn proceedings. Is Barr purposely not involving himself in the case for political reasons? Flynn's prosecutors are guilty of horrendous unethical conduct in the case in OUR opinion, not to mention the fraudulent 302s via Strzok & Co., but...Is Barr just going to stand by & allow this miscarriage of justice to continue? What, if anything, is Barr going to do?

I think the hole Van Grack has been digging just got deeper.

Quote:

---

Amy Berman Jackson still doing work for the coup plotters.

---

If being against Trump is a reason to strike jurors for cause, than pro Trump juror would also have to be stricken for cause.

The story is light on details about the lady's husband How big is that "division"? What is/was his role there with regard to Russia investigation (I know from different story is an attorney)? If he had anything even tangentially related to Stone, then she should have been let got for cause.

Dang, with all this legal stuff coming out yesterday, we missed you Hawg.

hbtheduce said:

---

How material to the case is it that the government misidentified the written notes on the Flynn meeting?

Any resident lawyers have any idea what the effects on the case could be?

---

From my understanding of the Sentinel system (largely informed by K.T. McFarland's explanation) is that the raw handwritten notes (302s) are entered and then subsequently typed up and entered. Every entry and ever revision made has metadata showing who, when and how the docs were modified.

So, even if the notes were originally misidentified when entered, the mistake would have been caught long before now. But that is assuming Strzok, Page and McCabe were actually following the mandated procedure.

Since it was a frame job from the get-go, as Comey has virtually admitted, following procedure was the last thing they cared about.

But this flip-flop by Van Grack raises another question and that is deliberate tampering with government records. And as has been stated above requires document examiners of the originals and forensice examination of all of the metadata. Not sure how big of a file that is by now, nor how long that might take to complete but Horowitz as DOJ IG should be the one doing it and not the FBI.

Sydney retweeted.

Quote:

---

At the hearing, Burr asked: "I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?"

"I did not," Nuland replied. "I actively chose not to be part of that briefing."

"But were you aware of that briefing?" Burr asked.

"I was not aware of it until afterwards," Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele's briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton's administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton's State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

---

AG 2000' said:

---

I chose not to attend the meeting I knew nothing about.

Obama really had some mensa candidates working for him, didn't he?

---

Nuland was trying to deflect from a Hatch Act violation. She knew from the outset that Steele was a paid political hack but his British intelligence background provided a fig leaf for some interaction with him by State Department employees. By the time of the October 2016 meeting (which ended up being Kathleen Kavalec) Nuland was in CYA mode knowing Steele was so far off of the reservation from any semblance of an actual intel based product that just innocuous questions would trip him up.

And indeed that is what happened. Kavalec asked a simple question and he revealed he was working for a political entity that had a Presidential election date deadline. He also elaborated some wild story about money laundering happening through a State Department office in Miami when no such office even exists. And then he revealed all of the efforts he was making and being coached to make contacts with multiple media outlets.

Kavalec determined he was FOS and to her credit, tried to alert the FBI that they had a crackpot on their hands.

Secolobo said:

---

---

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Nuland & the State Department, as well as Ciaramella, were well aware of the Hunter Biden-Ukraine deal from its inception. That's why there again is a coordinated effort to stymie any investigation of this dirty deed/political payola. Protecting Biden = protecting Obama = protecting the Democratic Party.