Quote:

---

She really isn't very bright, as this, whitewater, travelgate, and even her disciplinary actions from clear back on the watergate committee stuff shows.

---

I always found the juxtaposition between claiming she's the most qualified person in the country to become President with this...



And then give an interview to the FBI claiming she couldn't remember anything and was an idiot when it came to how classification of materials worked.

I think better description of her problem is unbelievable hubris.

She truly believes that she is above it all and untouchable.

And so far, she's been right sadly

So SpyGate is just a variation on a theme; i.e., history has a habit of repeating itself.

I would pay good money to see an accurate history of Halper and Mifsud's contacts/contracts over the past 2 decades and how they were used reported accurately some day, not just "conspiracy theories" in twitter threads that are dismissed.

Barr could, or could have, declassified all of this months ago, as could Trump himself of course.

Agreed. The most glaringly obvious contradiction (among the many dozens) is the claim she thought a "c" with parenthesis around it meant copyrighted, not classified, in conjunction with claiming never to have taken the required basic classified handling training everyone else at state is required to, because she is HRC.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Lokhova has figured out that Halper was a source for Steele's dossier. Halper was providing the same 'intel' to Steele as he was to Brennan, another example of 'circular verification', a technique used in crafting the FISA application for Carter Page. Great investigative read.

---

When did our spies become so inept? To be unable to verify and trace sourcing in assessing the value of intelligence information is just mind-boggling to me.

---

I've wondered this same thing many, many, times. I'm pretty certain Peru's top spy services could have done a better job.

Hadn't seen the unroll on this.
Sydney retweeted this.

This is critical.

So Steele revealed the identities of at least several of his sources to the FBI...perhaps all of them? But will 'we' ever learn who they were with certainty? We think we know Leschenko was, & there is circumstantial evidence that Halper & Sater were, but...were some of them just fabricated?

We strong armed him into a guilty plea, so none of our malfeasance before or since is relevant

Quote:

---

So Steele revealed the identities of at least several of his sources to the FBI...perhaps all of them? But will 'we' ever learn who they were with certainty? We think we know Leschenko was, & there is circumstantial evidence that Halper & Sater were, but...were some of them just fabricated?

---

Steele told Kathleen Kavalec at State that two of his sources were in the Russian government, Trubnikov and Surkov. Now whether that was directly relayed from them to him or came through many other layers of people, we don't know. But those names were in her hand written notes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Steele revealed the identities of at least several of his sources to the FBI...perhaps all of them? But will 'we' ever learn who they were with certainty? We think we know Leschenko was, & there is circumstantial evidence that Halper & Sater were, but...were some of them just fabricated?

---

Steele told Kathleen Kavalec at State that two of his sources were in the Russian government, Trubnikov and Surkov. Now whether that was directly relayed from them to him or came through many other layers of people, we don't know. But those names were in her hand written notes.

---

Read Lokhova's thread. She believes that Halper obtained info from Trubnikov.& gave it to Steele.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1199417658766172161.html

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1189485031988891648.html

Short thread on how Flynn ended up in the Steele Dossier. Hillary was terrified over the prospect that Flynn would be part of a Trump Administration.

For reference, see pp. 15-16, 10 August 2016, of the Steele Dossier:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2019/12/doj-response-to-peter-strzok-opens.html


Back on our thread page 970, there were tweets which Techno_Fog posted discussing Strzok's court case protesting his termination, wherein the final OPR letter disciplining Strzok was filed for public viewing:
https://www.scribd.com/document/435752237/Strzok-v-Barr-DOJ-DE-30-5

The above letter was similar to an earlier evaluation-letter, differing in recommended punishment & final conclusion:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.31.0.pdf

Anyway, we were distracted by Techno_Fog's tweets outlining new text messages from the above disciplinary letters wherein Strzok's wife had discovered his texts & realized he was having an affair. In actuality, these disciplinary letters relate considerable detail about Strzok's misconduct (as well as Comey & McCabe) concerning the Clinton email scandal. The above tweet & related article is the first piece I have encountered which discusses these revelations about Strzok & the Clinton email scandal. It's worth a read. You won't find any coverage in the MSM about this.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lisa-page-speaks-theres-no-fathomable-way-i-have-committed-any-crime-at-all

What a puff piece! Lisa Page, the victim. The MSM doing damage control.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/chief_justice_roberts_now_dragged_into_democrat_impeachment_process_.html

Would the legal beagles please review the above argument that Roberts cannot preside over the anticipated Trump impeachment in the Senate to see if it (the argument) is plausible.

If that is true, then wouldn't Justice Thomas be appointed as he is the senior associate judge?

Currently, the senior associate justice is Clarence Thomas.

will25u said:

---

If that is true, then wouldn't Justice Thomas be appointed as he is the senior associate judge?

Currently, the senior associate justice is Clarence Thomas.

---

The Constitution specifically says the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial of the President.

Unless the office is currently vacant, which it isn't, there is probably no way to replace Roberts.

Fascinating interview with Svetlana Lokhova. It's 40 minutes long. She would make a great witness for Sidney Powell in the defense of Flynn -- the 'kill shot against Flynn'. Thoroughly nails Halper. Interesting that she was never contacted by Mueller.

https://time.com/5742108/ukraine-zelensky-interview-trump-putin-europe/

Quote:

---

.....During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.....

---

aggiehawg said:

---

That's quite a stretch to call Roberts a material fact witness, in this instance. Doubt anything comes from this argument.

---

I've already asked your opinion about Guiliani's professional status today, and I don't remember anything you ever said about Roberts during the SCOTUS decision to F over the country on Obamacare.

Even though I doubt it will get tn actual trial, due to Schiff refusing to release any document that exculpates Trump, is Robets a decent judge?

Quote:

---

Even though I doubt it will get tn actual trial, due to Schiff refusing to release any document that exculpates Trump, is Robets a decent judge?

---

This will be unpopular but overall, yes Roberts is a decent Chief Justice. His ObamaCare decision, although the outcome was an abomination was supported by credible legal authority and a judgment call. Instead of legislating from the bench, he felt it was up to the voters to express their displeasure with ObamaCare.

Now an argument can be made that he trusted the American politic too much, but I understand his reasoning.

I think Roberts gets a bad rap because he is the polar opposite in personality than Rehnquist was as Chief Justice. But he's a solid jurist, in my view. He's not crazy dumb like Sotomayor, for instance.

I never understood Roberts, and had no professional means (other than the Obamacare decision) to do so, since genuine legal decisions are often beat to death, and I never really knew who to trust (I learned).

I understood Scalia. Once he said he saw the Constituion as a dead document, then I could generally see how he arrived at his decision.

As long as I know the chances aren't good that Roberts will say his decision is "blue", when there's enough "red" to blind the country, then I'll be fine.

fasthorse05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Lokhova has figured out that Halper was a source for Steele's dossier. Halper was providing the same 'intel' to Steele as he was to Brennan, another example of 'circular verification', a technique used in crafting the FISA application for Carter Page. Great investigative read.

---

When did our spies become so inept? To be unable to verify and trace sourcing in assessing the value of intelligence information is just mind-boggling to me.

---

I've wondered this same thing many, many, times. I'm pretty certain Peru's top spy services could have done a better job.

---

Well we know the when pre-dates 9/11. But how far?

I can't read it as it is paywalled to me.

We all knew Horowitz was going to be a coverup.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Even though I doubt it will get tn actual trial, due to Schiff refusing to release any document that exculpates Trump, is Robets a decent judge?

---

This will be unpopular but overall, yes Roberts is a decent Chief Justice. His ObamaCare decision, although the outcome was an abomination was supported by credible legal authority and a judgment call. Instead of legislating from the bench, he felt it was up to the voters to express their displeasure with ObamaCare.

Now an argument can be made that he trusted the American politic too much, but I understand his reasoning.

I think Roberts gets a bad rap because he is the polar opposite in personality than Rehnquist was as Chief Justice. But he's a solid jurist, in my view. He's not crazy dumb like Sotomayor, for instance.

---

That's good enough then. He won't overthrow decades of cases and say hearsay is valid evidence.

drcrinum said:

---

I can't read it as it is paywalled to me.

---

Well, don't like the sound of this.

Wasn't paywalled for me.

Rapier108 said:

---

We all knew Horowitz was going to be a coverup.

---

I don't want to have to agree with you. Insert emogi here!

I really hold off on theories of everyone being a political ******* just because they're a Democrat, and Horowitz has only given a brief glint, or two, of being that kind of Dem. But damn, if this is true, then you were dead on the whole time!

I do have a question. All of the principle targets, or subjects, involved in the IG report had an opportunity to rebut, and did so. Does Barr have the same chance to rebut?

He's not a subject, but it still needs to be corrected, so is that what he's doing??