cbr said:

---

with mueller mumbling in some crusty elder care center, and the report all dudded out, i vote we start a new thread called

"swamprats v trump and the good guys" to carry this forward.

what do you guys think?

---

Maybe we could ask staff to rename the thread, so we don't loose the history in the depths of Texags like we would with a new thread.

Zemira said:

---

cbr said:

---

with mueller mumbling in some crusty elder care center, and the report all dudded out, i vote we start a new thread called

"swamprats v trump and the good guys" to carry this forward.

what do you guys think?

---

Maybe we could ask staff to rename the thread, so we don't loose the history in the depths of Texags like we would with a new thread.

---

I'd rather rename it. I still go back and check earlier posts to refresh my memory from time to time.

We still have the Flynn drama going on, further there is still a slight possibility Pelosi finds a way to return to the Mueller Report for additional article(s) of impeachment.

ETA: Not to mention the epic incarnations that M.F. Barnes employed in this thread. Still come across Roscoe being linked on other sites from time to time. Still weirds me out.

gazelle01 said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

But the libs told us this was a completely clean and non partisan "investigation"?

---

Yes, he was REMOVED from the investigation last summer, after it barely had even begun, yet this somehow proves the investigation was partisan?!

Great analysis, OP.

---

This aged well.

e=mc2 said:

---

This is all blowing up in these dishonest low life's faces. I'm talking to you libs. This whole sham is cratering. You fell for it. You believed so hard in the MSM. Too bad. So sad. Such fools.

---

Let me know when you want to go to Vegas.

will25u said:

---

---

That is referencing the Renteria email, right? The one Grassley was after:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-06-22%20CG%20DF%20LG%20SW%20to%20Renteria%20(Lynch%20Email).pdf

(I can't read NYTs articles as they are usually paywalled to me.)

I can't read them either but I think you are correct given the context.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6631447-RM-Nunes-Ltr-to-ICIG-Atkinson-Followup-to-30-Sep.html#document/p4

Nunes is actively going after IC IG Atkinson.

Quote:

---

Nunes is actively going after IC IG Atkinson.

---

Good. Now we need Barr, Durham and Trump's lawyers to go after him if they allow live witnesses during the Senate trial.

Hunter Biden would be a very entertaining witness but there are more salient witnesses I would call over him if the witness list is limited in number for each side to like 4 each.

I want to hear from Geoffrey Pyatt, former Ambassador to Ukraine, still Ambassador to Greece (IIRC) since he was there when Biden made his threats to Poroshenko and then left a few months later. He was there during the Chalupa dust up.

AG 2000' said:

---

richardag said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/15/sketchy-changes-to-ig-fisa-report-cover-up-major-discrepancy-in-first-version/

Oh my! Look what Sundance has discovered:
Page 312 of Horowitz's report -- no CHSs were used by the FBI prior ro the opening of CrossFire Hurricane.
Page 400 of Horowitz's report -- CHSs were used by the CrossFire Hurricane Team against both Page & Papadopoulos before & after they were affiliated with the Trump Campaign.
Unbelievable.

---

The evidence is mounting that no one will be held accountable, and our multi-tiered justice system will remain intact. Very disappointing and disturbing. My faith in Barr & Durham is declining rapidly.

---

What evidence is that?

And it shouldn't. Barr's made it pretty clear in some recent public statements he's not okay with how this all down. I'm not sure what everyone is expecting at this point. He already stated that Durham's investigation will be concluding early summer.

Assuming Barr is in lock step with Trump, this is all planned out, and more specifically planned for maximum damage to the Democratic Party in the lead up to the election. Think about it. They start rolling indictments out from July through election day, it's going to be front and center for the American public. And they start squeezing some of those arrested, who turn against others to save their own hides, it's going to spiral out of control for the Dems quickly.

---

The 1st paragraph of the article:
Quote:
"There was a major discrepancy in the Inspector General report on FISA abuse, that appears to have been overlooked and casts a considerable cloud upon the DOJ Office of Inspector General and Michael Horowitz."

In Horowitz' 1st report he made a criminal referral for prosecution of James Comey which came to nothing.

I hope you're right & Barr/Durham are going to do the right thing, but at this point I am not expecting any criminal prosecutions at all.

Wildcat said:

---

e=mc2 said:

---

This is all blowing up in these dishonest low life's faces. I'm talking to you libs. This whole sham is cratering. You fell for it. You believed so hard in the MSM. Too bad. So sad. Such fools.

---

Let me know when you want to go to Vegas.

---

Ready!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-oversight-committee-steps-in-demands-answers-from-fisa-court

Quote:

---

House Oversight Committee Republicans on Thursday sent a series of interrogatories directly to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), Fox News has learned, in a major new intervention that highlights the secret court's growing credibility crisis following Department of Justice Inspector General (DOJ IG) Michael Horowitz's damning report earlier this year.

In a letter to FISC Presiding Judge James Boasberg, obtained by Fox News, House Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., demanded to know whether the FISC feels it "bears any responsibility" for the surveillance of former Trump aide Carter Page, the details of whatever "disciplinary action" the FISC intends to pursue against attorneys who knowingly deceived the court, and the timing of when the FISC learned of the first "indication" that materials in the Page warrant application were false or incomplete.

Additionally, Jordan and Meadows asked the FISC to explain whether it "conducted any internal review to examine the accuracy or validity of information contained in the FBI's surveillance applications for Carter Page," and if so, to explain the steps taken. Further, the Republicans asked whether the FISC would review FBI filings "in other matters" to ensure that they were completed accurately....

---

This indicates they either could not support such a claim or believed or knew it not to be true.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/16/covington-lawyers-conflict-of-interest-may-land-michael-flynn-in-jail/

Quote:

---

...Although this is an essential element of a false statement charge, the language of Flynn's Statement of Offense is not crystal clear on this point. Rather, it uses standard legal jargon that an experienced lawyer or judge would understand to encompass this element, but that a lay person probably would not, unless the counsel advising him in the plea process had explained it to him....

---

Legal discussion regarding Flynn's case & the conflict of interest involving his previous legal counsel, something that Aggiehawg pointed out long ago.

I highlighted the above segment, because, as a lay person, I appreciate how legal mumbo-jumbo can be very confusing to a lay person, & I suspect Flynn was caught up in it.

Quote:

---

Legal discussion regarding Flynn's case & the conflict of interest involving his previous legal counsel, something that Aggiehawg pointed out long ago.

---

The moment it came out that Flynn's (now former) Covington lawyers had been going back and forth with government (administrative not criminal) regarding the contents of the FARA filing in January-February of 2017, I sensed the lawyers were in an untenable position to thereafter also serve as his defense counsel.

To be more blunt, Flynn was subsequently to be charged for something his lawyers had actually done regarding the FARA filing. So any plea deal that omitted a FARA charge benefited his counsel tremendously from a potential malpractice case.

To be fair, FARA cases until Mueller had been handled as administrative penalties, not criminal matters. So his Covington counsel may have been slow to see the emerging conflict of interest until after Mueller's appointment. But once Mueller, Van Grack and Co. came calling screaming about FARA, they should have immediately sent Flynn to other criminal counsel and offered to testify (with Flynn's assent) for the defense.

Also in today's pleading from Powell, she notes that Van Grack has been playing hide the 302s in massive document dumps which as late as last month included Brady material that was not previously produced. I hope Sullivan takes acute notice of that and gets angry that his orders have not been followed by the prosecution.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/exclusive-crime-does-pay-fbi-hiding-dirty-cop-joe-pientka-who-set-up-general-flynn-and-his-wife-connected-to-trump-tower-meeting-but-we-found-him/

Nothing new on Pientka's whereabouts (probably still in California), but guess for whom Pientka's wife now works? Baker & Hostetler LLP, the legal firm who represented Prevezon & who hired Fusion GPS to investigate Bill Browder.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

This indicates they either could not support such a claim or believed or knew it not to be true.

---

I don't know what you are saying. That the defense or prosecution?

will25u said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

This indicates they either could not support such a claim or believed or knew it not to be true.

---

I don't know what you are saying. That the defense or prosecution?

---

Prosecution.

Thread

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/6660265-Memorandum-in-Opposition/

Quote:

---

...The facts that (1) no person or entity has ever before been prosecuted on the theory of liability utilized here, (2) the government has not previously, in any case, ever, interpreted or applied statutory and regulatory provisions as it has done here, and (3) the government has not, previous to the alleged conduct in this case, provided any guidance consistent with its novel applications of relevant statutes and regulations here, are critically relevant to whether Concord and the other defendants would have had any ability to know that the alleged conduct here would be viewed by the government as a violation of any law, let alone the defraud clause prong of 18 U.S.C. 371.

Moreover, the government considerably over-plays what has previously transpired. Just because the Court denied Concord's motion to dismiss the indictment does not mean as a matter of law at trial that this case is not about a make-believe crime. Further, the government does not cite to a single case that holds that all facts relating to the government's actions in bringing an indictment are inadmissible at trial....

---

Submitted on behalf of Concord Management by the flamboyant Eric Dubelier.

Quote:

---

...Despite the litigation, until Friday it remained unclear just who at Justice gave the final OK to give about 375 Strzok-Page texts to journalists -- including a POLITICO reporter -- on the evening of December 12, 2017.

In a formal declaration submitted as part of the government's defense to Strzok's suit, Rosenstein owned up to being the one who made the call. He said he did so in part because the texts' public release by members of Congress was inevitable in connection with testimony he was set to give to the House Judiciary Committee the following day.

"With the express understanding that it would not violate the Privacy Act and that the text messages would become public by the next day in any event, I authorized [Justice's Office of Public Affairs] to disclose to the news media the text messages that were being disclosed to Congressional committees," Rosenstein wrote in a five-page statement signed Friday....

---

So, it was Rosenstein who released the Strzok-Page texts. I would never have guessed that. I had assumed it was a Republican staff member on the HPSCI.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-exclusive-general-flynns-first-law-firm-hired-deep-state-fbi-attorney-at-same-time-they-were-repping-flynn-did-they-share-with-flynn-this-conflict-of-interest/

Quote:

---

General Flynn's first set of attorneys were from the firm Covington. The DOJ's Trisha Anderson went to work for Flynn's attorney law firm while they were repping for General Flynn. Did Covington tell General Flynn about hiring one of the individuals at the DOJ involved in the Russia collusion sham?

Trisha Anderson is a member of Covington as a partner and joined the firm in September of 2018...

---

Is this potentially significant? Anderson's boss was James Baker. She was fully aware of CrossFire Hurricane from the start, signed off on Carter Page's FISA Application, read Bruce Ohr's 302's, read Comey's memos, knew all about Hillary's emails, etc.

Technically, the hiring of an attorney at the firm doesn't automatically raise a conflict unless she worked directly on Flynn's case while at DOJ. During the hiring process, that specific question should have been posed to her as well as any other current clients with federal criminal charges.

Although her fingerprints are all over Page's FISA and she worked with Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, it isn't that clear how involved she was with the Flynn/Kislyak matter nor the FARA issue. At least not to me just yet. If she was involved, then yes there is a conflict that would have needed to be disclosed to Flynn at the time of her hiring.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1218592576019845122.html?refreshed=1579374054

Interesting thread. Papa & Mueller -- both liars.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/strong-paper-trail-has-john-durham-investigating-the-months-before-mueller-appointment

A trail of documents has reportedly led Attorney General William Barr's handpicked federal prosecutor to focus his inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation on the first several months of President Trump's tenure.

John Durham, a U.S. attorney from Connecticut, is zeroing in on the period spanning from January 2017, when Trump took office, to May of that year. A "strong" paper trail, as CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge put it on Friday, has led the investigation into possible misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials to that time frame.

will25u said:

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/strong-paper-trail-has-john-durham-investigating-the-months-before-mueller-appointment

A trail of documents has reportedly led Attorney General William Barr's handpicked federal prosecutor to focus his inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation on the first several months of President Trump's tenure.

John Durham, a U.S. attorney from Connecticut, is zeroing in on the period spanning from January 2017, when Trump took office, to May of that year. A "strong" paper trail, as CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge put it on Friday, has led the investigation into possible misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials to that time frame.

---

I honestly don't know how Comey and the rest of the cabal sleep at night knowing the no knock pre-dawn raid could happen at any time. And this time, CNN won't be there as they would tip off the targets. The POS CNN is.

Quote:

---

investigation into possible misconduct by federal law enforcement and intelligence officials to that time frame.

---

I think this falls into the "no sh-t" category

That makes me pretty happy, and fits with everything gathered here by crinum, Hawg, etc. Of course, I wish we'd be able to make a couple of Mueller appointees a little nervous, but I'll take what I can get.


I can't imagine Ukraine, the Ukrainian documents, visitors to and from, various Dem contractors, Biden's (both of them), Yovanovitch, and many, many, State and DOJ actors, not being involved. There are just so many to choose from............Oh, and IC IG's named Atkinson.

Posted without comment...

Thread

Well, he does get credit for one thing, he seems to dig and distribute relentlessly, even if he doesn't attribute sources ethically.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Well, he does get credit for one thing, he seems to dig and distribute relentlessly, even if he doesn't attribute sources ethically.

---

Thats the thing. If he'd just call himself and aggregator it would be fine. If this thing starts to actually happen, rest assured, the twitter feeds that are from fraudulent people will be doxxed in an effort to slow this down. And he is Exhibit A.