fasthorse05 said:

---

I think the answer to my coming question is the same thing we've said here over 100 times--"they never thought she would lose".

Over the last two years of this thread, there are double digit reported stories like Hyansky and Biden, and we've never heard of them before. Here's the really bad part, 95% of the regulars on this thread are VERY tuned in to news and operations of the US government, but 95% of the country (and media) isn't.

My question is how often do you think these types of things have happened with other administrations? I dont care if it's tangential employees of the Reagan, Bush I & II, Cllinton, or Obama. So many of these things are overseas, although I suspect it could have happened in the US, since 6-7 of our agencies are hell bent to ignore and obfuscate criminal activity.

---

There was a book written in the early 70's, entitled Executive Action, which us about the Kennedy assassination. Written from the perspective of the conspirators, and lays out the drivers for that plot, much if it derived from the "Military-Industrial Complex". My recollection is that the adoration for Jack, plus the burgeoning popularity of Robert, with Ted waiting in the wings as sequential Presidential Candidates, was more than enough to trigger assassination plots to take out all three.

Conspiracy theory, yes, but very interesting reading.

Quote:

---

My question is how often do you think these types of things have happened with other administrations? I dont care if it's tangential employees of the Reagan, Bush I & II, Cllinton, or Obama. So many of these things are overseas, although I suspect it could have happened in the US, since 6-7 of our agencies are hell bent to ignore and obfuscate criminal activity.

---

There are several different aspects to your question. Historically, our business and political leaders had classical educations, more often than not. Part of that included the concept of noblesse oblige. A duty to give back to those less fortunate.

That concept is largely absent now and has been since the 60s. The introduction of the airplane and then later the jet age accelerated the massive movement of people from traditionally isolated by long voyages to being able to jump the Atlantic and Pacific in considerably shorter time. When colonialism met capitalism, if you will.
Colonialism fell.

But the opportunities for crony capitalism rose considerably. The ability to wire funds all over the world put it on steroids.

For many years, most of those people were Americans exploiting other countries. The tide changed during the mid to late 70s as the American economy was reeling from the oil embargoes, loss of the gold standard, failed wage and price controls and on and on.

Eisenhower warned of what was termed "The MILITARY and INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" in the late 50s but they were largely confined to US operations at the time.

By the 70s? We put a lot of that for sale to the highest bidder. And now, the tide had changed. America was for sale. And different countries entered the feeding frenzy. Japan was one of the largest. That happened during Reagan and Bush 41.

China entered the fray on a large scale during Clinton's administration. He gave them whatever they asked for.

Then W. tried to hand a sea port to a Dubai owned company. WTH??? And the longshoreman went on strike over bar codes after 9/11. Again, WTH?


All of that said, crony capitalism is bi-partisan. But our intelligence services are not stocked with non-partisans.

You're a champ! Nicely done and well written.

Gracias.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/an-examination-of-the-irregularities-in-the-fbis-fisa-application-on-carter-page_3167310.html

Jeff Carlson was written a somewhat lengthy article discussing what is publicly known concerning irregularities in Carter Page's FISA Application on the eve of December 9th for anyone who needs a refresher for reference.

Glad to see that CBS hired a real journalist like Herridge. Maybe there is some hope that these legacy MSM companies will see the light and start making changes.

Perhaps they hired Herridge because they knew there was trouble on the horizon & they needed cover to persuade their viewing public that they weren't biased.

That's what I would do if I were them. Smart move.

Please forgive me for putting this here, as it belongs on the "impeachment" thread, but in the "having enough votes to impeach" topic, I need some legal hep to a question.

We've had many posts about the impeachment process being purey political, and I want to use a fabricated example to support my question. Let's say you're in your office from 8 am to 12 pm with plenty of witnesses. A murder takes place at your house at 10 am, and the police arrest you at your office for the murder.(assuming the police said you did it yourself).

Even though nearly all of the evidence proves you're innocent, if the jury convicts you, isn't this the same thing as the impeachment? Does the judge have the authority to overrule the jurys' decision?

To me, this example is the same as a political impeachment process. BTW, i'm sure history is replete with examples like this, I'm just trying to compare our imeachment process to my example. It seems many trials can become political.

BTW, i put this here so I won't have a bunch of Dem trolls, and there are several attorneys who hang out here.

Quote:

---

Even though nearly all of the evidence proves you're innocent, if the jury convicts you, isn't this the same thing as the impeachment? Does the judge have the authority to overrule the jurys' decision?

---

Yes the judge does have the power to overrule the jury. Kind of rare but it happens.

So you want to know if Chief Justice Roberts is empowered to overrule if 2/3rds of the Senate votes to convict?

My initial gut instinct is the answer is no. Constitutionally, he presides over the proceedings but the 2/3rds requirement is explicit and thus controls the outcome. Period.

ETA: The above is not to say that Roberts cannot rule as a matter of law that the evidence adduced at the trial does not support a particular article of impeachment however and thus take that article out of the jury's (meaning the Senate's) hands. But that depends on how the articles are actually worded, however. Let's say the House votes out and the Senate accepts an article that states Trump's refusal to set a WH meeting with Zelensky was an official act under the federal bribery statute. Since there is a relatively recent SCOTUS decision on that precise case (McDonnell) Roberts could toss it aside as a matter of law. I doubt that happens since the Senate would be unlikely to even accept such a flawed article in the first place but just as an example.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Even though nearly all of the evidence proves you're innocent, if the jury convicts you, isn't this the same thing as the impeachment? Does the judge have the authority to overrule the jurys' decision?

---

Yes the judge does have the power to overrule the jury. Kind of rare but it happens.

So you want to know if Chief Justice Roberts is empowered to overrule if 2/3rds of the Senate votes to convict?

My initial gut instinct is the answer is no. Constitutionally, he presides over the proceedings but the 2/3rds requirement is explicit and thus controls the outcome. Period.

---

The interesting question is whether the judge (CJ Roberts) has the power to dismiss the case under a "no reasonable fact finder" or even a "no evidence" standard ( before a senate vote). Such dismissal is an accepted power of presiding judges.

Patentmike said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Even though nearly all of the evidence proves you're innocent, if the jury convicts you, isn't this the same thing as the impeachment? Does the judge have the authority to overrule the jurys' decision?

---

Yes the judge does have the power to overrule the jury. Kind of rare but it happens.

So you want to know if Chief Justice Roberts is empowered to overrule if 2/3rds of the Senate votes to convict?

My initial gut instinct is the answer is no. Constitutionally, he presides over the proceedings but the 2/3rds requirement is explicit and thus controls the outcome. Period.

---

The interesting question is whether the judge (CJ Roberts) has the power to dismiss the case under a "no reasonable fact finder" or even a "no evidence" standard ( before a senate vote). Such dismissal is an accepted power of presiding judges.

---

See my edit which I was writing while you posted.

I think everything depends on how the actual articles are worded and structured.

Well, I hadnt thought to ask when I wrote that, but I guarantee you I would have thought of it.

Right now I'm trying to see if I think Baylor actually has a chance if Brewer (the qb) has a concussion.

Because I'd like to see the Dems "get gored" in a Senate trial, I'd hate to see Roberts restrict defense witness testimony when it starts getting juicy just because it starts lacking relevance.

Patentmike said:

---

The interesting question is whether the judge (CJ Roberts) has the power to dismiss the case under a "no reasonable fact finder" or even a "no evidence" standard ( before a senate vote). Such dismissal is an accepted power of presiding judges.

---

Could. Should. Won't ... because of precedent.

The power of the presiding judge to dismiss cases is from the rules of civil procedure, not the constitution.

The Chief Justice should let the senate decide.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1203393616800030728.html?refreshed=1575766780

Here's a threadreader on Part 1 of the OANN special on Giuliani & the Ukraine. Unfortunately it's broken up into 30+ short video clips of 1-2 minutes long each. Near the end begins the first glimpse of the 3 Ukrainian officials that OANN flew to the US and then interviewed. Giuliani comes across as rather polished IMO. He & the OANN reporter do most of the talking. There is certainly misinformation being put out about Giuliani & the Ukraine -- Giuliani never visited the Ukraine for the 2 year period Dec 2017 till Dec 2019, visiting the Ukraine within the last week for the first time in a long time.
One thing I found interesting: Chalupa, working for the DNC, was instrumental in bringing the 'Black Ledger' to the US & spreading it around, resulting in the firing of Manafort & his subsequent prosecution. Something new to me (in segment J): Nellie Ohr obtained a copy of the 'Black Ledger" & gave (transmitted) it to her husband Bruce & 2 other DOJ officials.

The above threadreader on Giuliani has been updated (expanded) to include some of the interviews with the Ukrainians through segment LL; the below link contains the remainder.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s499/client/snv?noteGuid=3d2ca11c-9ede-4a34-aea8-4a2404a328fb¬eKey=4ba14c50fde3f1b2cd2e5b22bc39d40f&sn=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com%2Fshard%2Fs499%2Fsh%2F3d2ca11c-9ede-4a34-aea8-4a2404a328fb%2F4ba14c50fde3f1b2cd2e5b22bc39d40f&title=Rudy%2BSpecial%252FAll%2BSets%2B%252812%2529

Watching these videos indicates to me that the old pro Rudy Giuliani has not lost it one bit. The Democrats should be concerned that when Rudy shows up for " Old Timers Day " he will hit one to deep left out of the park, and
maybe it will be a grand slam !

Quote:

---

One thing I found interesting: Chalupa, working for the DNC, was instrumental in bringing the 'Black Ledger' to the US & spreading it around, resulting in the firing of Manafort & his subsequent prosecution. Something new to me (in segment J): Nellie Ohr obtained a copy of the 'Black Ledger" & gave (transmitted) it to her husband Bruce & 2 other DOJ officials.

---

No chain of custody. Things were being shoveled into the FBI under the doors, over the transoms, through the mail slots.

If Nellie Ohr, open source researcher, was getting the black ledger, she got it from Fusion, GPS. To me, that connects Ciaramella to Fusion as well, or we are at least one step closer.

aggiehawg said:

---

No chain of custody. Things were being shoveled into the FBI under the doors, over the transoms, through the mail slots.

If Nellie Ohr, open source researcher, was getting the black ledger, she got it from Fusion, GPS. To me, that connects Ciaramella to Fusion as well, or we are at least one step closer.

---

Connect those dots and Barr opens the Broadway play "The Case of the Runaway Corpse" staring Durham as Perry Mason.

drcrinum said:

---

The above threadreader on Giuliani has been updated (expanded) to include some of the interviews with the Ukrainians through segment LL; the below link contains the remainder.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s499/client/snv?noteGuid=3d2ca11c-9ede-4a34-aea8-4a2404a328fb¬eKey=4ba14c50fde3f1b2cd2e5b22bc39d40f&sn=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com%2Fshard%2Fs499%2Fsh%2F3d2ca11c-9ede-4a34-aea8-4a2404a328fb%2F4ba14c50fde3f1b2cd2e5b22bc39d40f&title=Rudy%2BSpecial%252FAll%2BSets%2B%252812%2529

---

Sorry, there are 2 more segments to conclude Part 2 of this OANN series, VV & WW. There will be a Part 3.

These are really damning of Biden. The connection with Firtash in this mess is not entirely clear to me, but I think it has to do with competition over natural gas deliveries/sales in Ukraine between Burisma (Bidens) & the Russian Gazprom (Firtash).

Quote:

---

These are really damning of Biden. The connection with Firtash in this mess is not entirely clear to me, but I think it has to do with competition over natural gas deliveries/sales in Ukraine between Burisma (Bidens) & the Russian Gazprom (Firtash).

---

IIRC, there was also some price fixing for O&G in Ukraine during this period. Not the monopolistic type of price fixing between competitors but the Ukrainian government getting directly involved in the O&G market.

Think of the old windfall profits tax we had that targeted oil companies.

This is worth watching -- 8 minutes.
1) Nunes is considering legal action against Schiff in California over the release of his phone records.
2) Nunes discusses his law suit against CNN over his alleged Vienna meeting with Firtash & Shokin.
3) Nunes also discusses several aspects of Horowitz's upcoming report.

I think what you'll see tomorrow is what has been reported. I think Horowitz will say the first FISA was legit, but the additional three 90 day renewals were bogus.

I don't know what penalties are available, but every single person who signed off on the three renewals should be significant and severe.

Whether I agree with this, or not, isn't important, as I have very strong feelings about my second sentence. Hopefully Durham will say differently.

Uh-oh.

fasthorse05 said:

---

I think what you'll see tomorrow is what has been reported. I think Horowitz will say the first FISA was legit, but the additional three 90 day renewals were bogus.

I don't know what penalties are available, but every single person who signed off on the three renewals should be significant and severe.

Whether I agree with this, or not, isn't important, as I have very strong feelings about my second sentence. Hopefully Durham will say differently.

---

The first FISA warrant being legit is even questionable in my mind. Carter Page was never even interviewed initially. It was based on a dnc/Hillary funded phony dossier and circular reporting by Issakoff

captkirk said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

I think what you'll see tomorrow is what has been reported. I think Horowitz will say the first FISA was legit, but the additional three 90 day renewals were bogus.

I don't know what penalties are available, but every single person who signed off on the three renewals should be significant and severe.

Whether I agree with this, or not, isn't important, as I have very strong feelings about my second sentence. Hopefully Durham will say differently.

---

The first FISA warrant being legit is even questionable in my mind. Carter Page was never even interviewed initially. It was based on a dnc/Hillary funded phony dossier and circular reporting by Issakoff

---

I think it'll say that the first fisa is legit but only from the FBIs POV. In other words, if the FBI followed protocol, then it's on the CIA for providing false info.

Above photo of Biden, McCain & Hunter was taken at the event below in 2013:

http://www.washdiplomat.com/PouchArticle/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141

https://kaygranger.house.gov/press-release/vice-president-biden-representatives-granger-and-lowey-honored-championing-us-global

Quote:

---

.....Showing the important bipartisan support that exists for U.S. engagement in the world, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) led the tribute to his longtime colleague, Vice President Biden, saying,.....

---

BTW and along your topic, if y'all were watching Bartiromo this morning, she also had Graham on before Nunes.

I'll let y'all pull it up, but there's one particular point where IMO, Graham tells us what to expect regarding the Senate trial. It's NOT going to happen. Graham basically says the impeachment is dead on arrival in the Senate, and Bartiromo pushes him a little on getting to the bottom of the entire fiasco. Graham just says "we need to make sure it's never going to happen".

I'm so convinced that Graham wants nothing to do with the Senate trial, I'm calling Cruz' and Cornyn's office in the morning. I believe Linday doesn't want it to come to trial for fear of revelations. I don't think he committed a crime, but I also don't think it would look very good.

For whatever reason, Graham REALLY doesn't want a trial in the Senate. At this point, I hope I'm wrong.

I wonder why Graham is so much against a Senate trial myself. I think that Trump is being serious when he says he wants one. I sure do.

Tomorrow is the long awaited release of the IG report and I don't see much discussion of it here. Has everyone given up hope that it's going to be anywhere near what Hannity has been hyping for so many months? Is everyone assuming that the NYT leaks are accurate? That the report will say some low level people made some mistakes, but nothing to indicate a political bias? If it does, I think I'll probably give up any hope of justice ever being done.

Safe at Home said:

---

I wonder why Graham is so much against a Senate trial myself. I think that Trump is being serious when he says he wants one. I sure do.

---

It may be he doesn't want to give any shred of legitmacy to what Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi cooked up.

It may also be he doesn't want to end up embarrassing McCain or Biden.

fasthorse05 said:

---

BTW and along your topic, if y'all were watching Bartiromo this morning, she also had Graham on before Nunes.

I'll let y'all pull it up, but there's one particular point where IMO, Graham tells us what to expect regarding the Senate trial. It's NOT going to happen. Graham basically says the impeachment is dead on arrival in the Senate, and Bartiromo pushes him a little on getting to the bottom of the entire fiasco. Graham just says "we need to make sure it's never going to happen".

I'm so convinced that Graham wants nothing to do with the Senate trial, I'm calling Cruz' and Cornyn's office in the morning. I believe Linday doesn't want it to come to trial for fear of revelations. I don't think he committed a crime, but I also don't think it would look very good.

For whatever reason, Graham REALLY doesn't want a trial in the Senate. At this point, I hope I'm wrong.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Safe at Home said:

---

I wonder why Graham is so much against a Senate trial myself. I think that Trump is being serious when he says he wants one. I sure do.

---

It may be he doesn't want to give any shred of legitmacy to what Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi cooked up.

It may also be he doesn't want to end up embarrassing McCain or Biden.

---