Christopher Wray's current job, in which he is not performing as an attorney, doesn't require him to take the position of prohibiting technology that protects citizens maintain confidentiality and defend against unreasonable search and seizure for the mere convenience of the government. If you do believe that Wray is acting as an attorney in his capacity as FBI director then his client is supposed to be justice and the Constitution. Wray is a disgrace.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,730,362 Views |
49406 Replies |
Last: 23 hrs ago by Garrelli 5000
Ulysses90 said:
Christopher Wray's current job, in which he is not performing as an attorney, doesn't require him to take the position of prohibiting technology that protects citizens maintain confidentiality and defend against unreasonable search and seizure for the mere convenience of the government. If you do believe that Wray is acting as an attorney in his capacity as FBI director then his client is supposed to be justice and the Constitution. Wray is a disgrace.
I agree he's a disgrace. I just don't think that's a good example of situational ethics. Law enforcement agencies have been fighting encryption for a long time. Private companies have been pushing it for a long time. It's not surprising which side he takes based on who is paying him. I don't see an ethically "correct" position here.
Thank you a for posting that. I recommend everyone read it in it's entirety. He lays out exactly what happened to Flynn in detail up until the point of his firing.
It is a travesty what the FBI did to that man. I sincerely hope the perpetrators are brought to justice for their crimes.
It is a travesty what the FBI did to that man. I sincerely hope the perpetrators are brought to justice for their crimes.
This action illustrates the FBI's disregard for the law and proper procedure in order to maintain the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.Quote:
And since this was going to be their only shot at Flynn, they had to try to make it a kill shot. They'd do a perjury trap. Flynn would be grilled about his conversations with Kislyak that had become such a media-driven controversy. But the bureau would not play the recordings for him. They would not refresh his recollection. They would not ask him to go line-by-line to help them understand the conversation. That is what they would do in a normal investigation, if they were really trying, say, to figure out what Russia was up to. The goal here was not to advance anyone's understanding.
The goal was to get Flynn to lie. Not to lie so they'd have leverage to threaten a prosecution and thus pressure Flynn to reveal vital evidence he'd been concealing. They wanted him to lie for the sake of lying so they could get rid of him.
It is one thing to cover up spying as in Watergate. It is an entirely different one when the political party losing power uses the resources of the government to frame an innocent man to undermine the incoming administration from discovering their malfeasance.
Political party over country.
They should all hang together.
Maybe one of McCarthy's best yet .... he clearly articulates both motive and intent. My only complaint - he didn't name the crime. I still think "Conspiracy to Defraud the Government" fits best ... Bill Priestap's testimony would be critical here.VaultingChemist said:
This action illustrates the FBI's disregard for the law and proper procedure in order to maintain the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
ETA
Under the "Conspiracy to Defraud the Government" statute .... probably no question that gov employees can be prosecuted if they conspired to cheat the gov out of money or property. Also no question private citizens can be prosecuted if they conspired to defraud the gov for the purpose of obstructing legit gov activity.
The tricky legal question with this statute... can the leadership of a government agency (i.e. FBI) be prosecuted for conspiring to defraud/obstruct the government (i.e. Office of the President). If so, where do you draw the line? What about any gov agency/branch conspiring to defraud another gov agency/branch? Tricky.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,878
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is the best Flynn summary I've read as well. Only issue is it leaves out (or doesn't address due to the focus on Jan 17 the trash legal tactics (blackmail, and corrupt attorney client practices of his first legal team) of weissman and van grack that led to the bogus plea.benchmark said:
Another great read by Andrew McCarthy.
The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia ProbeQuote:
The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the TrumpRussia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump's capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump's campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia's election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier the bogus compendium of TrumpRussia collusion allegations in its report assessing Russia's meddling in the campaign.Quote:
The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.
That is why Flynn had to go.
President Trump was a political phenomenon but a novice when it came to governance. He was not supported by the Republican foreign-policy and national-security clerisy, which he had gone out of his way to antagonize in the campaign. The staff he brought into the government consisted mainly of loyalists. There were some skilled advisers, too, but their experience was not in the national-security realm.
The exception was Flynn. The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew how the spy agencies worked. He knew where and how they kept secrets. He had enough scars from tangles with the intelligence bureaucracy that he knew how the game was played how intelligence officials exploited information, or selectively withheld it.
I will go with Andrew McCarthy's version. He is a straight shooter although I vehemently disagreed with his take on the Ukranian Phone fiasco.ruddyduck said:
i've seen similar thoughts from a few other former federal prosecutors on twitter. read the comments. we truly live in two different realities.
Glenn Kirschner sounds like your typical leftist hack.
Durham came close to prosecuting Mueller during the Whitey Bulger probe into FBI malfeasance. I am hoping he won't make the same mistake twice.
Mueller's Hands Dirty in Old FBI Frameup
Mueller's Hands Dirty in Old FBI Frameup
Quote:
This is the world of "law enforcement" that Robert Mueller operated in. Not everyone was crooked just everyone who mattered.
He wasn't. But the left knows that if they get their media arm (the MSM) to say it often enough, the sheople will believe it. Which is why the MSM is the enemy of the people, and must be reigned in. Freedom of Press should not extend to spreading deliberate disinformation.Quote:
How was Flynn "dirty?"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1256564764655812609.html
Quote:
...the Supervisory Intel Analyst (SIA) was on Crossfire Hurricane team at its inception, was at Steele Oct 2016 interview and Primary Sub-Source and Ohr interviews in Jan 2017. Was primary author of several key documents....
Excellent sleuthing by Stephen McIntyre. Another unknown key individual from Horowitz's Report identified:
Supervisory Intel Analyst = Dennis Thrasher.
The Supervisory Intel Analyst is frequently mentioned in Horowitz's Report. For example (in addition to the above), here is one of the partially unredacted footnotes (Footnote 342) that Grassley was keen to have unredacted (concerns Russian intel infiltrating Steele's business):
Quote:
[FN 342] (U) In late January 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane team received information [REDACTED] that RIS may have targeted Orbis [REDACTED] and research all publicly available information about it. [REDACTED] However, an early June 2017 USIC report indicated that two persons affiliated with RIS were aware of Steele's election investigation in early July 2016. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us he was aware of these reports, but that he had no information as of June 2017 that Steele's election reporting source network had been penetrated or compromised.
CyclingAg82 said:I will go with Andrew McCarthy's version. He is a straight shooter although I vehemently disagreed with his take on the Ukranian Phone fiasco.ruddyduck said:
i've seen similar thoughts from a few other former federal prosecutors on twitter. read the comments. we truly live in two different realities.
Glenn Kirschner sounds like your typical leftist hack.
They are skipping the part where they presumed he was dirty because it was a political necessity. They didn't know he was dirty at all, and the evidence specific to Flynn kept making him look more and more NOT dirty, so they had to try to set him up to reestablish some sort of appearance of legitimacy. It didn't help that Flynn's lawyers were all but conspiring with the government against their own client to save themselves from punishment.
Good point. There is so much to this case and how profound the corruption ran in the DoJ run by obama.MouthBQ98 said:CyclingAg82 said:I will go with Andrew McCarthy's version. He is a straight shooter although I vehemently disagreed with his take on the Ukranian Phone fiasco.ruddyduck said:
i've seen similar thoughts from a few other former federal prosecutors on twitter. read the comments. we truly live in two different realities.
Glenn Kirschner sounds like your typical leftist hack.
They are skipping the part where they presumed he was dirty because it was a political necessity. They didn't know he was dirty at all, and the evidence specific to Flynn kept making him look more and more NOT dirty, so they had to try to set him up to reestablish some sort of appearance of legitimacy. It didn't help that Flynn's lawyers were all but conspiring with the government against their own client to save themselves from punishment.
Flynn's former lawyers need to be sued for malpractice.
Two things come to mind...nortex97 said:This is the best Flynn summary I've read as well. Only issue is it leaves out (or doesn't address due to the focus on Jan 17 the trash legal tactics (blackmail, and corrupt attorney client practices of his first legal team) of weissman and van grack that led to the bogus plea.benchmark said:
Another great read by Andrew McCarthy.
The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia ProbeQuote:
The objective of the Obama administration and its FBI hierarchy was to continue the TrumpRussia investigation, even after President Trump took office, and even though President Trump was the quarry. The investigation would hamstring Trump's capacity to govern and reverse Obama policies. Continuing it would allow the FBI to keep digging until it finally came up with a crime or impeachable offense that they were then confident they would find. Remember, even then, the bureau was telling the FISA court that Trump's campaign was suspected of collaborating in Russia's election interference. FBI brass had also pushed for the intelligence community to include the Steele dossier the bogus compendium of TrumpRussia collusion allegations in its report assessing Russia's meddling in the campaign.Quote:
The only way the bureau could pull that off would be to conceal from the president the fullness of the Russia investigation in particular, the fact that Trump was the target.
That is why Flynn had to go.
President Trump was a political phenomenon but a novice when it came to governance. He was not supported by the Republican foreign-policy and national-security clerisy, which he had gone out of his way to antagonize in the campaign. The staff he brought into the government consisted mainly of loyalists. There were some skilled advisers, too, but their experience was not in the national-security realm.
The exception was Flynn. The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency knew how the spy agencies worked. He knew where and how they kept secrets. He had enough scars from tangles with the intelligence bureaucracy that he knew how the game was played how intelligence officials exploited information, or selectively withheld it.
- First, he supposedly lied to Pence, for which Trump removed him from his position of NSA.
- Second, even though he pled guilty to "lying" to the FBI, he was never "indicted" or tried for that process crime...they let him hang around for possible future testimony in some other Mueller/Weissman scheme.
So, what if, Trump, Pence, Adm Rogers, and others, had met with him, and indicated they knew some poop was happening, and they asked him to play along...the first step being Pence would say he lied, in order to get him out of the splatter zone...or vice versa. And Trump also promised he would protect him...
But Mueller/Weissman went too far, well beyond what Trump & Co. expected, and forced the plea to get him out...but he was never charged or tried...
And Pence recently indicated that perhaps Flynn didn't lie.. and now all of the crap pouring out of his original Defense team's document vault...
Could he have been a decoy, or a "honey pot" if you will, to entangle a whole bunch of evil people in a web of lies, deceit and corrupt legal practices, as a start to the DECLAS and rollout of Durham's Work product?
Nah. Coincidence.
Shoulda put this on the Q thread...
ruddyduck said:
i've seen similar thoughts from a few other former federal prosecutors on twitter. read the comments. we truly live in two different realities.
They're entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Their take is not a different reality that is equally legitimate.
This tweet describes it as the FBI went to Flynn to see if he would lie or tell the truth. i.e. they were agnostic on the outcome and would just see what happens.
BS. That's what this memo blows out of the water: What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
No, I don't care what CNN or MSNBC said this time
Yeah, he was so "dirty", that they were closing the investigation - then the "7th floor" intervened.
If Wray had never represented WhatsApp and made a legal defense of end to end encryption his stance as FBI director opposing it would still be wrong. The article highlighting his past work representing WhatsApp only goes to show that as an attorney he was perfectly willing to take a position that he now claims is in opposition to national security. That's not in any way an ethical violation of his responsibilities as an attorney but it goes to show that Wray's current position is one that he can't claim he would not oppose if paid to do so as a member of the bar.
Quote:
Flynn's former lawyers need to be sued for malpractice.
Malpractice falls short of what they did. Corruption would be more accurate.
In the end, this will go down as one of the best examples of "hunter becomes the hunted" in all of Spygate.
Ask subject if he discussed sanctions on the phone call.
1. If yes, got him on bs LOGAN Act charge.
2. If no, got him on perjury since the general topic was known to have been mentioned on the call.
By answering with option 3, saying that he "did not recall," he forced them into having to adjust the official record of what was actually said in the interview. His reply went from "did not recall" to "no", and they were back in business with option 2.
Perjury committed by many to set a perjury trap of one.
Ask subject if he discussed sanctions on the phone call.
1. If yes, got him on bs LOGAN Act charge.
2. If no, got him on perjury since the general topic was known to have been mentioned on the call.
By answering with option 3, saying that he "did not recall," he forced them into having to adjust the official record of what was actually said in the interview. His reply went from "did not recall" to "no", and they were back in business with option 2.
Perjury committed by many to set a perjury trap of one.
James Baker reputedly has been cooperating with Durham since at least last June.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-fbi-lawyer-james-baker-cooperating-with-doj-inspector-generals-fisa-abuse-investigation
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-fbi-lawyer-james-baker-cooperating-with-doj-inspector-generals-fisa-abuse-investigation
I remember that, so I also know to take DeGenova with a grain of salt.
One of the wonderful things about this thread is you (mainly) digging up information, and over time, learning the validity of that information. I don't hate Di Genova, I quite like he and his wife, but unless he's playing a Sun Tzu type of game, which I can't figure out, then he's just not reliable.
However, in all fairness, it's possible Di Genova might be making a comment about Baker having turned within the last 12 months,, but his comment was reported as Baker having turned recently.
BTW, I read the Examiner piece from last June, and it stated Baker had written for Lawfare, but also "R Street Institute", which is supposedly a "conservative think tank". I'm a little surprised I've never heard of all of the conservative think tanks, but apparently I haven't.
One of the wonderful things about this thread is you (mainly) digging up information, and over time, learning the validity of that information. I don't hate Di Genova, I quite like he and his wife, but unless he's playing a Sun Tzu type of game, which I can't figure out, then he's just not reliable.
However, in all fairness, it's possible Di Genova might be making a comment about Baker having turned within the last 12 months,, but his comment was reported as Baker having turned recently.
BTW, I read the Examiner piece from last June, and it stated Baker had written for Lawfare, but also "R Street Institute", which is supposedly a "conservative think tank". I'm a little surprised I've never heard of all of the conservative think tanks, but apparently I haven't.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1256683202384666625.html
Interesting analysis, one of a handful of reasons why the Brits would like to wash their hands of SpyGate.
Steele testified that Alfa Bank owned Cambridge Analytica via an intermediary company (Cambridge Analytica reputedly assisted Trump during the Election), but his source was fake news published by Louise Mensch on her blog. So, was Louise a subsource? After all, she was born in London, educated at Oxford, & was a former member of Parliament before moving to the US.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1256898409405075457.html
Worth a read. One of the more disturbing threads you will read about SpyGate. This is the culture of the FBI that has evolved under the leadership of Mueller & Comey over the last 2 decades.
redsquirrelAG said:Rapier108 said:
Can we please keep the "Q" junk on its thread.
Very troubled mindset to be that threatened. What will happen to your world when it becomes even more clear? Holier than...arrogance. time to be humbled.
I'm in total agreement. I've seen similar trolls before. People are reading into the cryptic messaging what they will, using confirmation bias to see the guesses or vague references as actual predictions, and rationalizing away or ignoring all the misses, or simple junk by saying they are cover or their meaning isn't revealed yet or whatever, plus the fact that almost all the hinted information are guesses that almost anyone who has been closely following this could infer. Very Barnes-like.
Personality types that are attracted to conspiratorial conjectures will be inclined to give it much more benefit of the doubt, but in
My view Occam's razor suggests a well read troll that's carefully following all the public sources and is making cryptic conjectures and getting enough right given the limited possibly players involved and all the knowns to be convincing to those who want to believe.
And it belongs on its dedicated thread. Q isn't going to hold up in court. Documents and testimony will. I'm not going to completely dismiss it is an insider somewhere leaking out bits of information in all the junk I keep hearing about but I also think a clever troll is extremely much more likely.
That's not the role... if you're ignorant of "its" role don't post about it.
Can I go to sleep Looch?
Clever troll huh? Anonymous couldn't even crack them and has even confirmed or saluted it. Still a larp though, got it.
redsquirrelAG said:Rapier108 said:
Can we please keep the "Q" junk on its thread.
Very troubled mindset to be that threatened. What will happen to your world when it becomes even more clear? Holier than...arrogance. time to be humbled.
No one is threatened.
The Q nerds cried and got a safe space for themselves. Go over there if you want to keep up the fantasy.
The hard work done by the people often linked on this thread (and some posters here also) is why all of this is exposed.
Not a picture of a donut from 2018 with the words "red October"
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
'Pretty Aggressive': Trisha Ford aims to build on success in 2025
by Kolton Becker
68:03
1d ago
8.7k
31:42
12h ago
1.4k
Francis Macomber
***Official 2024 - 2025 Dallas Mavericks Season Thread***
in NBA & Other Basketball
10