drcrinum said:

---

They're really worried, especially Brennan. Durham's expertise is investigating CIA activities; he's been chief investigator in two high profile instances involving the CIA. If you recall, back in December Durham requested to review all of Brennan's emails & communications --

---

Scruffy said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

It seems rather dumb for them to go messing with Senators and such.

---

I prefer the term "brazen".

They don't fear anything.
They do what they want and can even control what messages the government and officials can publish/put forth for public consumption.

---

will25u said:

---

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But an index of the messages compiled by the unnamed foreign ally showed that they included emails from President Barack Obama as well as members of Congress. Mr. Obama's White House counsel, W. Neil Eggleston, decided that investigators should not open the drives, citing executive privilege and the possibility of a separation-of-powers uproar if the F.B.I. sifted through lawmakers' private messages.

---

How rich is that? After this whole obstruction of Congress impeachment? White House Counsel "decided" that investigators could not open the drives and then the invocation of separation of powers?

Schiff should be made to choke on that article.

ETA: Thanks, Tailgate!! MMMWWWHHHAAA! Big kiss!

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

Assuming the drive(s) are considered to be executive privilege, could Trump still look at the drive? I know a President can declassify anything, but I assume executive privilege is different.

Of course, I'm only saying this so the current President can be enlightened, not notorious or political!!!

---

3 Toed Pete said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

They're really worried, especially Brennan. Durham's expertise is investigating CIA activities; he's been chief investigator in two high profile instances involving the CIA. If you recall, back in December Durham requested to review all of Brennan's emails & communications --

---

Yeah, when the NYT gets one of these off-the-record stories, someone is getting ahead of info that is about to break soon.

---

Quote:

---

Notably, Adm. Mike Rogers, who at the time was director of the National Security Agency, publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it only a moderate confidence level.

---

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1228310383246630913.html

Thread by Jeff Carlson elaborating on the NYTs article we have been discussing.

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

My first reaction is that these aides should not be uniformed military if they have been there since 2017. Even if they arrived when Trump was inaugurated they should have rotated by now so my guess would be that these are probably civilians in the DoD liaison office. If the Pentagon is detailing officers to the White House staff for 3+ years at a time the SecDef should knock that **** off. After three years in the White House or the Pentagon those officers should be getting a re-greening or re-bluing in the operating forces and not embedding deeper into the malignant tissue of the beltway..

---

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why were these people so desperate to find incriminating evidence on the Trump Campaign that they willfully & frequently violated the law?

---

Probably to hide all the illegal crap they were doing under Obama.

---

Quote:

---

The furor over U.S. Department of Justice leaders openly intervening in the Roger Stone prosecution to overrule line prosecutors' sentencing recommendation has led some commentators to report that Attorney General William Barr may have played a role in the government's shifting sentencing recommendations for retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.

In Flynn's case, prosecutors have twice reversed course on their sentencing recommendation. The latest reversal in the government's position, however, was more likely caused by the line prosecutors' own mistake in changing position in the first instance than because Barr is attempting to help Flynn.

To set the stage: The government originally recommended probation for Flynn a year ago. Recently, however, the government reversed course and recommended a jail sentence but soon reverted back to its original position. Flynn's counsel has now filed two separate motions seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. One is based on his former lawyers having a conflict of interest in his case. The other is on the ground that the government breached his plea agreement by changing its sentencing recommendation.

...

---

Secolobo said:

---

From the "other" thread.

Durham scrutinizing John Brennan's handling of Russian interference in 2016

---

will25u said:

---

---

Quote:

---

...Scott also believes, as do I, that the story was leaked because John Brennan and his associates knew that they were deliberately marketing phony intelligence on Russia to undermine Trump and are trying to preempt any investigation by Attorney General William Barr on the provenance of the Russiagate story. If it can be demonstrated somehow that the claims of Kremlin interference came from a highly regarded credible Russian source then Brennan and company can claim that they acted in good faith. Of course, that tale might break down if anyone bothers to interview Smolenkov....

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

DOJ will not pursue criminal charges against Andre McCabe.

Breaking per Fox

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

DOJ will not pursue criminal charges against Andre McCabe.

Breaking per Fox

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

DOJ will not pursue criminal charges against Andre McCabe.

Breaking per Fox

---

Quote:

---

Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump, will not face charges in an investigation into whether he lied to investigators about a media leak, his defense team said on Friday.

The decision by prosecutors in Washington ends a case that had left Mr. McCabe in legal limbo for nearly two years. It also appears to be a sign that Attorney General William P. Barr wants to show that the Justice Department is independent from Mr. Trump: The notification came a day after Mr. Barr publicly challenged the president to stop attacking law enforcement officials on Twitter and said the criticisms were making his job more difficult.

The prosecutors informed Mr. McCabe's lawyers of their decision by phone on Friday morning, the lawyers, Michael R. Bromwich and David Schertler, said in a statement.

"We said at the outset of the criminal investigation, almost two years ago, that if the facts and the law determined the result, no charges would be brought," they said. "We are pleased that Andrew McCabe and his family can go on with their lives without this cloud hanging over them."

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

DOJ will not pursue criminal charges against Andre McCabe.

Breaking per Fox

---