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.
Bill Taylor is on Team Adam Schiff. He sent "incriminating" texts regarding Trump to Sondland immediately after meeting with Thomas Eager, Schiff staffer. If he is blocking Visa apps for the same people Yovanovitch was, he's on the take. My view.Quote:
I don't recall seeing this tweet from November 23, 2019. It's a 3.5 page letter (embedded in the tweet) from Giuliani to Lindsey Graham. In it Giuliani states that he has 3 Ukrainian witnesses with direct evidence/documents of Biden Family crimes in Ukraine & who have been attempting to come to the US to testify, but Bill Taylor (of Schiff Kangaroo Court fame) has been blocking their visa applications at the US Ukrainian Embassy. I assume these are the 3 witnesses who have been appearing on the OANN Giuliani Special interviews, so I gather it is likely that Graham made something happen in short order so that these people could come to the US.....which surprises me considering Graham's TV appearance today.
I too follow your views. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic due to you what you said about FBI/DOJ. However, there's enough in those two institutions to keep any decent IG person busy for a couple of years, although Horowitz has supposedly what, 250 lawyers?drcrinum said:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1203828736594006016.html
Here's the threadreader.
BTW, I'm not as optimistic as @drawandstrike. Remember, Horowitz had no authority beyond the FBI/DOJ. I have apprehension that he was limited in pursuing roles played by the State Department, CIA, Pentagon, etc., as well as the foreign assistance provided by the UK, etc. Durham, though, has no such limitations.
Ho Lee Chit.... this explains why the first pope in 700 years "quit" or "retired" early... World elites drove him out so they could install the new Pope who would support New World Order...wait till all the "conservative" Catholics find this all out and begin to understand it ... it appears many Catholics have already caught on and have now asked Trump to investigate this... I guess it's time to expel this pope.. I'm catholic and I wondered what he was up to... now it all makes some sense ..Secolobo said:
Long read but everyone needs to read it.
Sydney retweeted it. Conspiracy? We know she's being fed info by those that know...
Wish I would've recorded it at the time, but when this whole call/ transcript and the left and media started screeching about it, Graham was on Hannity. Hannity was on his rant and Graham was shaking his head in agreement but the look on his face was one of sheer terror. It was an "oh ****" look. I told my wife if I was playing poker against him, I'd be shoving all in because his body language was screaming insecurity. I told her at that time that he hated to see this, not because of what it would do to Trump, but because he was afraid the swamp creatures would be exposed, himself included.houag80 said:
Me thinks Lindsey may be protecting his own ***......not just thankfully departed McCain and others.
Quote:
https://www.coreysdigs.com/law-order/nader-khawaja-clintons-pope-francis-and-elite-converge-in-uae-africa/
Horowitz's Team interviewed Steele; therefore he was afforded the opportunity to review the section related to his testimony.JJMt said:
There's so much we don't know.
Why was Steele allowed to review in the first place? As a mere courtesy? If so, the IG is under no duty to allow Steele to review anything prior to release of the report.
Also, the IG may have simply not wanted to delay the report any further.
And, we can be sure that Steele will comment publicly about the report, pre-release review or not.
This seems to be a big kerfuffle about essentially nothing.
It is quite likely that Steele agreed to testify after it was publicized that Durham was leading a criminal investigation into the origins of SpyGate; i.e., he knew his goose was cooked.Quote:
Reuters has some interesting new information related to the infamous Steele Dossier. In March 2018, Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Justice Department, launched a probe into whether the FBI improperly used Christopher Steele's Clinton-financed opposition research to secure a FISA warrant on Carter Page. In Mid-April 2019 when the Mueller Report came out, Attorney General William Barr told Congress that Horowitz's conclusions would be ready by the end of May or possibly in June. Yet, reporters for Reuters have sources telling them Horowitz's office used June to interview Christopher Steele in person.After those conversations with Steele, the timeline for issuing the I.G. report was pushed back.Quote:
Three attorneys from the Inspector General's office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers' travels.
The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.Quote:
One of the two sources said Horowitz's investigators appear to have found Steele's information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.
I don't think so. Barr deciding to declassify something at the last minute was either done at Horowitz's request or Durham's. If Horowitz really needed it (he's issuing a report not an indictment) it would have been addressed before now. And yes, Steele would be afforded some opportunity to comment.Quote:
This seems to be a big kerfuffle about essentially nothing.
Aah. Okay, misunderstood.JJMt said:
The declassification may be a big deal; I meant that failing to allow Steele to review the declassified portions mentioning him is a big nothing burger.
The purpose of declassification is not so Horowitz can see it. He has clearance. Same for Durham. Declass is the decision for the information to be made public, including put before a grand jury for some purpose.drcrinum said:
At first I didn't understand your point about declassification, but now I do. Thanks.
I personally don't give a flying F whether Steele gets to review it or not. He, along with the rest of them, can get stuffed.JJMt said:
The declassification may be a big deal; I meant that failing to allow Steele to review the declassified portions mentioning him is a big nothing burger.
Quote:
he Justice Department inspector general's report into the Russia collusion investigation lays out incontrovertible evidence that the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court through false information and omissions, according to sources familiar with its findings.
The evidence that the judges were misled is so sweeping that it could provide grounds, if Attorney General William Barr chooses, to withdraw the FBI's application for the surveillance warrants that began in October 2016 to target ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, the sources added.
Such a move, while mostly legally symbolic since the probe is long since closed, would still amount to a resounding rebuke to an FBI probe that the bureau, Democrats and their media allies relentlessly defended.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Monday morning.
"The evidence of false statements, false information, deception through omission is going to raise an important debate about FISA," one source told me.
The report is expected to conclude the FBI's decision to open a counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia in 2016 was adequately predicated but that its subsequent reliance on the so-called Steele dossier and execution of FISA warrants to assist the probe were problematic.
That reliance became even more troubling in early 2017 when the FBI conducted an interview with one of Christopher Steele's sources that raised further concerns about the reliability of a dossier that was funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
One question, the sources said, is whether FBI officials with access to the facts failed to adequately divulge issues in the case to those officials who signed the warrant, which was approved Oct 21, 2016 and renewed three times in 2017.....
