aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The fix was clearly in when you saw it was Boasberg and then he appointed David Kris. Add a few meaningless sentences to the guidelines so that "never again" but ignore that there were already strict procedures and laws that were intentionally violated.

---

Agree. The Woods Procedures were not followed in the Carter Page case. Trisha Andersen admitted that years ago. Her normal duties in vetting the applications were truncated by Baker, her superior and testified to that.

---

Tom Fitton has basically been saying that the FISC didn't need to be "fixed", as much as the rules outstanding needed to be followed and adhered to.

I agree with that assessment, so I'm not in favor of an overhaul, just indictments, jail, and large men as their cell mates. Unless, of course, my information if flawed.

fasthorse05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The fix was clearly in when you saw it was Boasberg and then he appointed David Kris. Add a few meaningless sentences to the guidelines so that "never again" but ignore that there were already strict procedures and laws that were intentionally violated.

---

Agree. The Woods Procedures were not followed in the Carter Page case. Trisha Andersen admitted that years ago. Her normal duties in vetting the applications were truncated by Baker, her superior and testified to that.

---

Tom Fitton has basically been saying that the FISC didn't need to be "fixed", as much as the rules outstanding needed to be followed and adhered to.

I agree with that assessment, so I'm not in favor of an overhaul, just indictments, jail, and large men as their cell mates. Unless, of course, my information if flawed.

---

Well, they were clearly not followed and adhered to, and there is nothing to force future swamp rats to follow the rules. It needs to be shut down.

The enforcement mechanism needs to involve more than the dubious and unlikely faux shame of getting caught not following the process.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The enforcement mechanism needs to involve more than the dubious and unlikely faux shame of getting caught not following the process.

---

Disbarment for the lawyers involved. For non-lawyers, termination from government employment. Pension benefits TBD at a later date. (Once disbarred, those people couldn't remain in the positions at FBI/DOJ anyway.)

aggiehawg said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The enforcement mechanism needs to involve more than the dubious and unlikely faux shame of getting caught not following the process.

---

Disbarment for the lawyers involved. For non-lawyers, termination from government employment. Pension benefits TBD at a later date. (Once disbarred, those people couldn't remain in the positions at FBI/DOJ anyway.)

---

In their positions as attorneys, but they could be shuffled off to other jobs. I think the baseline is termination with harsher penalties for lawyers (i.e. disbarment or loss of pension).

I think if you are found to be working for the Department of Justice and are found to be playing fast and loose with the law you should have the book thrown at you. That to me at its core is conspiring to take away someone's civil rights which should bring about severe consequences. Government employees at all levels must be held to the highest standards because of the power they can wield and the damage they can do with that power.

Governmental abuse of power particularly when that abuse is directed at the citizenry should be just below child abuse and murder in terms of seriousness for all levels of government, but particularly at the federal level.

Quote:

---

In their positions as attorneys, but they could be shuffled off to other jobs. I think the baseline is termination with harsher penalties for lawyers (i.e. disbarment or loss of pension).

---

A cubicle in HR when OPR is processing their termination. They do have civil service protections so all of the t's have to be crossed and i's dotted.

Frankly I am surprised that Strzok took his HR assignment for as long as he did. Then again, he's not a lawyer.

Quote:

---

They do have civil service protections

---

That should be addressed also.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

They do have civil service protections

---

That should be addressed also.

---

I think they actually would have to be charged and convicted of a felony to void those protections completely. But I haven't really researched the issue for federal employees.

Court Memo:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PHfUd0BqceqxEPUxGN9n2dkFy9LTBw-j/view

BuzzFeed FOIA suite against DOJ over unredacted copy of Mueller's Report. Sounds like Judge Walton (app. by Reagan/H.Bush/G.Bush) wants to determine for himself that Barr made the right decisions.

That's an interesting way to frame it. When a federal judge says:

Quote:

---

Although Attorney General Barr can be commended for his effort to expeditiously release
a summary of Special Counsel Mueller's principal conclusions in the public interest, the Court is troubled by his hurried release of his March 24, 2019 letter well in advance of when the redacted version of the Mueller Report was ultimately made available to the public.

---

And...

Quote:

---

These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr's lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr's credibility and in turn, the Department's representation that "all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by [ ] Attorney General [Barr]" is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions. Brinkmann Decl. 11 (emphasis added).

---

...that would normally be interpreted as less than ideal for Barr.

I'm curious what the judge sourced for his "lack of candor" comment. Sounds like a shot buried in the larger memo.

Really good thread...

drcrinum said:

---

Court Memo:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PHfUd0BqceqxEPUxGN9n2dkFy9LTBw-j/view

BuzzFeed FOIA suite against DOJ over unredacted copy of Mueller's Report. Sounds like Judge Walton (app. by Reagan/H.Bush/G.Bush) wants to determine for himself that Barr made the right decisions.

---

Ties to the Bush's = Red Flag as to Judge's real intent and whether a puppeteer is plying his trade.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1235715934158901248.html

Thread demonstrating that Mueller was a black hat -- he could have squashed the rhetoric about the Trump Tower Meeting within days but didn't.

Added tidbit concerning the above from Techno_Fog:

Of course it was dubious legal theory. Andrew Weissman was running the show.

Mueller should be put in the same 'quasi senile' old persons prison as Biden.

We didn't cover this regarding the recent FISA Court memo -- there was a glaring error:

Quote:

---

"The FBI speculates that the [person who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used discredit [Clinton's] campaign."

---

The FISA Court has issued a correction:

Stealing Horowitz's rhetoric?

How Freudian of them.

Potentially Interesting

That is interesting. Like a Queen for a Day, anything revealed by Flynn's Covington, Burling lawyers can't be used against Flynn.

But they can be used against Covington, Burling in a civil suit by Flynn, I'd assume. Sooo, how do the lawyers react? If they minimize the damage to Flynn, would they still face possible discipline from the State Bar over the conflict of interest and the ineffectiveness of counsel claim?

Seems to me Covington, Burling's malpractice insurer has been involved with these negotiations, or maybe a side deal with Flynn has already been agreed to in principle?

IIRC, Kelner (one of the lawyers) testified in the Rafekian trial that Flynn and his company had instructed Covington, Burling to assess and prepare disclosure filings for whichever federal statutes applied to their deal with Inovo, meaning there was no intent not to comply with FARA. It was upon their lawyer's advice that a filing under FARA was not made until they were contacted by DOJ demanding one.

To my way of thinking, Covington has already fallen on one sword. Will they fall on another?

This is pretty interesting...

Remember Dimitri (hates Russia on a personal level) left Crowdstrike last month. That's the guy who requested the personal meeting with me in 2018 after I had been trashing them on here for months.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/dmitri-alperovitch-crowdstrike-co-founder-steps/

Deats said:

---

Remember Dimitri (hates Russia on a personal level) left Crowdstrike last month. That's the guy who requested the personal meeting with me in 2018 after I had been trashing them on here for months.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/dmitri-alperovitch-crowdstrike-co-founder-steps/

---

Must have missed that. What was his issue with you?

I've noticed it is common for journalists to say "that theory, which has been debunked" quite a bit. Yet they ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary.

I recently saw it when referencing the theory that Biden got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because of his son. They nonchalantly toss it out with zero sourcing in order to perpetrate the lies or flimsy stories they're peddling.

But Mueller's report did prove collusion and obstruction.....

will25u said:

---

This is pretty interesting...

---

Quote:

---

So if Crowdstrike now claims they didn't confirm that Russians gave emails to WikiLeaks, then who the hell did?"

---

Assange has said repeatedly they did not come from another country. He said they were physically handed over by a disgruntled DNC staffer.

Quote:

---

Assange has said repeatedly they did not come from another country. He said they were physically handed over by a disgruntled DNC staffer.

---

I don't think that is entirely accurate. From what I have read, Assange said he wasn't given the DNC materials by any state actor. But other than that he refused to identify or otherwise describe who did transmit the material.

Would love to be wrong. Do you have a link?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Assange has said repeatedly they did not come from another country. He said they were physically handed over by a disgruntled DNC staffer.

---

I don't think that is entirely accurate. From what I have read, Assange said he wasn't given the DNC materials by any state actor. But other than that he refused to identify or otherwise describe who did transmit the material.

Would love to be wrong. Do you have a link?

---

Dang, looks like my memory gave me what I wanted it to be. From the Hannity interview:

First the not from Russia part:

Quote:

---

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia...
ASSANGE: Yes.
HANNITY: ... or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly...
HANNITY: Right.
ASSANGE: ... over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.

---

I got the handed over part from this, but Assange doesn't actually confirm it:

Quote:

---

HANNITY: There was one report in The Daily Mail that suggested somebody that you are friendly with actually was handed the documents at American University in a wooded area by a disgruntled Democrat who felt betrayed because they -- the revelations showed that Bernie Sanders had been betrayed and they didn't like the corruption of the Clinton Foundation.
Can you confirm or deny that? Is that story true?
ASSANGE: Well -- well, that statement came from Craig Murray. He is a friend of mine...
HANNITY: Friend of yours?
ASSANGE: He's been -- been here several times. But WikiLeaks is a source protection organization. We are famous for never having exposed one of our sources over 10 years. That's why sources trust us and they come to us.
So I can't comment on other people's statements about our sources, except to say what we have said, which is that our sources are not a state party.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/julian-assange-our-source-is-not-the-russian-government

Sorry for the mistake.

Could it be that Crowdstrike knows that Durham's investigation is getting hot ?

oysterbayAG said:

---

Could it be that Crowdstrike knows that Durham's investigation is getting hot ?

---

Possible but personally I think CrowdStrike more likely has a Securities Exchange Commission problem directly related to their intervening IPO. I wondered when the IPO was announced for them the wisdom of doing that in the midst of the Mueller investigation. Very risky given their high profile role in starting that investigation.

Now, founder leaves, PR firm is hired to do damage control? Smells like SEC is coming after them, to me.

My .02.

oysterbayAG said:

---

Could it be that Crowdstrike knows that Durham's investigation is getting hot ?

---

i don't think anyone is worried about that.