Quote:

---

*****-for-brains sent a letter threatening anyone that releases them. Really makes me want Grenell to release them.

---

And Schiff, unfortunately would be correct except for the vote to release.

Notice Grennel has referred to this pre-existing vote several times. The only reason his office even has them is because of the vote to release and the classified information review. Sure it is a fig leaf for Grennel if he releases them over Schiff's objections but Schiff can't really do much of anything about it.

The Papadopoulos setup has left me wondering if Trump actually had a spy in the FBI that was providing information on their operations. Was Papadopoulos tipped off on how to handle the $10,000?

Anyone with half a brain knows since 9/11, the sum $10K is a huge red flag for the handling of cash. In banking as well as traveling. Five+ digit transactions require special disclosures. The FBI got cheap and used the minimum red flag amount. Then again, he might have been naturally suspicious of any cash payment for services, particularly internationally.

VaultingChemist said:

---

The Papadopoulos setup has left me wondering if Trump actually had a spy in the FBI that was providing information on their operations. Was Papadopoulos tipped off on how to handle the $10,000?

---

I doubt it. Remember his detention was in July 2017. He'd been involved with these shady characters since 2016 and Trump/Russia collusion had been all over the news. I think something didn't sit right with him, so he was suspicious and sought legal advice. How his lawyer ended up with the cash in his safe.

For a guy who kind of comes of as a flake, he wasn't that naive.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Anyone with half a brain knows since 9/11, the sum $10K is a huge red flag for the handling of cash. In banking as well as traveling. Five+ digit transactions require special disclosures. The FBI got cheap. Then again, he might have been naturally suspicious of any cash payment for services, particularly internationally.

---

Most of the posters on this board have been well aware of the significance of that sum for some time. Someone as young as Papadopoulos might not, however. I believe that the FBI was hoping he was unaware of the law.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Anyone with half a brain knows since 9/11, the sum $10K is a huge red flag for the handling of cash. In banking as well as traveling. Five+ digit transactions require special disclosures. The FBI got cheap. Then again, he might have been naturally suspicious of any cash payment for services, particularly internationally.

---

Most of the posters on this board have been well aware of the significance of that sum for some time. Someone as young as Papadopoulos might not, however. I believe that the FBI was hoping he was unaware of the law.

Hawg, when I saw ruddyduck's post of Techno Fogs tweet stating Holder had stuck his nose into this fiasco, I thought you would have a "bingo" post.

I don't know how much Holder was involved, when he got involved, or how long he was involved, but I REALLY can't wait to find out, assuming that we do.

This is kinda like waking up to your stock doubling in price overnight.

Tailgate88 said:

---

What is stopping him from releasing the transcripts? Hopefully he'll do it ASAP or at the very least on his way out the door.

---

Read Grenell's note to Schiff.

He's basically telling Schiff to bend the knee or he'll do it for him.

This feels like what Barr did with Rosenstein - making him own his **** sandwich or else someone else will do it for him (and maybe do some other things to him off book).

My guess is Schiff won't do it, and Grenell drop's the bomb on pencil neck on his way out the door his last day on the job.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Anyone with half a brain knows since 9/11, the sum $10K is a huge red flag for the handling of cash. In banking as well as traveling. Five+ digit transactions require special disclosures. The FBI got cheap and used the minimum red flag amount. Then again, he might have been naturally suspicious of any cash payment for services, particularly internationally.

---

Time and again we're seeing what idiots this whole crew was. Bunch of reckless idealogues.

It doesn't really surprise me at all that they sent him the minimum.

Papa is either one smart guy or there was a mole in the FBI in all this keeping team Trump in the loop. Or (haven't looked at timing), Adm. Rogers and his team at NSA were watching all this and keeping Trump and co. apprised of the situation.

Grenell is clearing all these documents for unredacted release in a deliberate flow that steals the narrative space of the Dem politicians...probably directed by Barr and Durham as to sequence and content.

One or two of these a week will cause enough chaos in the news cycle to really piss off the Media lords...increasing their desperation.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Hawg, when I saw ruddyduck's post of Techno Fogs tweet stating Holder had stuck his nose into this fiasco, I thought you would have a "bingo" post.

I don't know how much Holder was involved, when he got involved, or how long he was involved, but I REALLY can't wait to find out, assuming that we do.

This is kinda like waking up to your stock doubling in price overnight.

---

Actually, I thought Holder was a little smarter than that and wouldn't have left his fingerprints to suggest active interference in such a politically charged case. LOL.

Guess I gave him too much credit.

tremble said:

---

Burr needs to get ****ing dragged into the public spotlight. Dude is neck deep in all this bull*****

---

Burr should absolutely not be a public office holder. He and Warner are tied for worst members of SSCI in my book. DiFi is my personal least favorite US Senator, though, at this time.

Great read by Cates. Still stands by his Rosenstein white hat theory and brings up good points.

Burr's constituents need to replace him. I don't care if the replacement is much more junior. Everyone gets a turn. He appears to be nothing but corrupt.

Hhmm. Not sure I share Sydney's assessment here. Those transcripts are not DOJ generated.

ETA: Which would include Team Mueller's investigation. That having been said, if those transcripts were shared with the Special Counsel's office (unclear to me) that changes things and she would be correct.

Hey man, I really enjoy disliking Rosenstein. Don't make me sit on a fence.

I would LOOOVE to know the dinner conversations between Rosenstein and his wife, Lisa Barsoomian.

Holy Cow!

I'm the same way but cates has been saying it for 2 1/2 years and has not jumped off of it. You have to appreciate that...

fasthorse05 said:

---

Hey man, I really enjoy disliking Rosenstein. Don't make me sit on a fence.

I would LOOOVE to know the dinner conversations between Rosenstein and his wife, Lisa Barsoomian.

Holy Cow!

---

Rosenstein has been on the wrong side in his actions too often to think he's a white hat. Was he a weasel just testing the winds and acting accordingly? Maybe at first but then he became an active participant with Team Mueller.

Quote:

---

ETA: Which would include Team Mueller's investigation. That having been said, if those transcripts were shared with the Special Counsel's office (unclear to me) that changes things and she would be correct.

---

I believe Schiff has blamed the delay on release partially on the ODNI review, and noted he had shared as requested many of the documents with the SC.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

ETA: Which would include Team Mueller's investigation. That having been said, if those transcripts were shared with the Special Counsel's office (unclear to me) that changes things and she would be correct.

---

I believe Schiff has blamed the delay on release partially on the ODNI review, and noted he had shared as requested many of the documents with the SC.

---

Can we really believe anything Schiff says, though? Obviously I'll defer to Sydney since she knows far more than I but that blanket statement by her was a bit misleading, IMO.

Obama Sends Private Letter to National Archives Claiming 'Confidentiality' To Not Release Biden-Ukraine Docs

Not a smidgen...

Ron Johnson responded to that farcical Obama plea for secrecy;

Quote:

---

A Republican senator has responded to Buzzfeed about its report on a letter former President Barack Obama's office sent in March which revealed that, despite objections over "presidential confidentiality interests," the Obama administration had agreed to the senator's request to provide early access to presidential records "related to certain meetings connected to Ukraine."

A spokesman for Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told Buzzfeed News on Tuesday that the document request he made in November 2019 was for the purposes of "oversight." The spokesman also said that the Obama administration's characterization of his records request as giving "credence to a Russian disinformation campaign" was "unfounded."

The spokesman added that the "real Russian disinformation" is in the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which actors in the FBI used in 2016 to help carry out part of its "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into President Donald Trump's election campaign.
...
Federal law mandates that former and current presidents are allowed to review and claim executive privilege over record requests. In this case, neither the Obama office nor the Trump office have asserted privilege over the requested records, NARA told Buzzfeed News.

---

I think that Obama isn't claiming executive privilege is an indication that either (a.) nothing incriminating is in the records, or (b.) they know the material facts revealed therein are going to wind up coming out no matter what. All the Steele/Flynn/Mueller/Pap/Rosenstein/Schiff secrets dirt coming out really is a 'walls closing in' on their ability to keep the public from knowing what they really did in 2016 and on. They may really be transitioning to 'data dump' mode so it's all "old news" toward October.

Secolobo said:

---

Obama Sends Private Letter to National Archives Claiming 'Confidentiality' To Not Release Biden-Ukraine Docs

Not a smidgen...

---

This post isn't so much about the Biden-Ukraine info, but Clinton's.

I'd be willing to bet significant sums of money that Obama has been in contact with Google regarding Clinton's 30,000 scrubbed e-mails, which I'm sure his name is mentioned.

I believe a judge told Google they have until May 12th to deliver those e-mails.

From his article two years ago.

Quote:

---

• Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Capitol Hill, June 13, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)We now have a redacted version of the deputy attorney general's guidance to the special counsel.

Eight months ago, in August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein secretly gave Special Counsel Robert Mueller specific guidance as to the crimes Mueller is authorized to investigate. The guidance came about ten weeks after Mueller's May 17 appointment. This guidance purports to describe the grounds for criminal investigations, marking the limits of the special counsel's jurisdiction.

As readers may recall, these columns have been critical of the deputy attorney general for failing to provide such guidance. Instead, I've contended, Rosenstein assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation, which is not a sound basis for appointing a special counsel; the regulations require grounds for a criminal investigation.
So . . . was I wrong? No, I was right.


We learned Tuesday morning, based on a Monday-night court filing by Mueller, that Rosenstein's amplification of Mueller's jurisdiction was set forth in a classified memorandum dated August 2, 2017. That memo was filed just one week after a July 26 column in which I comprehensively laid out the deficiencies in Rosenstein's appointment order and suggested that he could cure the problem by "specify[ing] exactly what potential crimes the special counsel is authorized to investigate." To be clear, I do not claim to be the only commentator who has criticized the deficiencies of Rosenstein's appointment order, though I doubt others have done so as consistently and pointedly, including with proposals for bringing it into compliance. (See, e.g., "Mend, Don't End, Mueller's Investigation.")

To recap, Rosenstein appointed Mueller on May 17, 2017, days after President Trump's botched firing of FBI director James Comey a debacle in which the administration's conflicting explanations for the director's removal, coupled with the president's reprehensible comments about Comey for the consumption of Russian diplomats he hosted at the White House, intensified Democratic calls for a special counsel.

From the outset, I protested that Rosenstein's order appointing Mueller violated governing special-counsel regulations. They make the trigger for such an appointment the existence of a "criminal investigation of a person or matter," which some conflict of interest prevents the Justice Department from conducting in the normal course requiring that an attorney from outside the U.S. government be assigned to conduct the criminal investigation (see 28 CFR Sections 600.1 and 600.3). To the contrary, Rosenstein's order disclosed no basis for a criminal investigation and indicated no crimes that had allegedly been committed.

Instead, the deputy attorney general assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation. To wit, Rosenstein defined the probe as "the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017." In that testimony, Comey had quite explicitly confirmed a counterintelligence probe: "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's effots to interfere in the 2016 presidential election" (emphasis added).

---

Quote:

---

Significantly, there is a natural symmetry between the grounds for appointing a special counsel and those for requiring the recusal of top Justice Department officials. It is the latter that gives rise to the former. I had thus argued that Attorney General Jeff Sessions's recusal from the Russia investigation was premature and too sweeping. As the attorney general acknowledged, the recusal matter was controlled by 28 CFR Section 45.2. But that regulation similarly states that disqualification is necessary only if there is a criminal investigation or prosecution as to which a prosecutor has a conflict of interest.

Since the Russia investigation was a counterintelligence investigation, I contended that Sessions could have declined to recuse. There was a caveat: In the event the Russia counterintelligence probe turned up evidence of crimes that would warrant criminal investigations, Sessions because of his prominent role in the Trump campaign would likely have to recuse himself from those investigations, on a case-by-case basis (e.g., if criminal charges were brought against Michael Flynn, as ultimately happened).

---

Quote:

---

Instead of badgering his attorney general on Twitter, perhaps the president could, you know, act like a president and instruct his Justice Department to comply with federal regulations.

Sessions could be directed to consider whether his recusal complies with the regulation that limits disqualification to criminal investigations as to which there is a conflict. To the extent it does not, he should amend the recusal to conform to the regulation.

Rosenstein could be directed to consider whether his appointment of a special counsel complies with the regulations that limit such appointments to criminal investigations or prosecutions as to which the Justice Department is conflicted. He could further be directed to specify exactly what potential crimes the special counsel is authorized to investigate. [Emphasis added.]

---

It was after this column that Rosenstein crafted that memo with mostly fake and preposterous allegations of "crimes."

CSPAggie05 said:

---

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I feel like all the new information that's coming out is old information based on people here piecing it together months ago.

Now the cynic in me looks at this as probably the biggest scandal of my lifetime but nothing is going to happen. There's just too many people involved. Too much bureaucracy. The fact that we have an election later this year and none of this is resolved just goes to strength of the "deep state".

I told my wife back in January that I was 95% sure Trump was going to win reelection based on the economy alone. I'm now 100% sure he will lose and this will get swept under the rug. Just too many people working against it: 100% democrats, media, government insiders.

"Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving"

---

Second those thanks. Miss Hawg and dr, especially. Seems like most of this is more confirmation than new.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Seems like most of this is more confirmation than new.

---

Connecting dots and then having those connections revealed to be accurate is gratifying.

I love it when I'm right.

---

You have been nails the entire time Hawg. I truly appreciate all that you've brought to this thread to help understand the legal nuances going on.

The problem is the general public doesn't have this level of understanding or anyone explaining it to them. They just get hit with the echo chamber. I hope you're right and people do get held accountable but much like some other posters have said, I'm not holding my breath.

It's the "too big to jail" mantra. Too many people involved, too much time has past for those culpable to get their stories straight or claim "I don't remember". Even if all the evidence points to the conspiracy I have less than 0 faith in the government to hold itself accountable. Somehow I have even less faith in the media to truly and honestly dig into this story.

Wrong Thread!

Exactly, the DNC hack is nowhere to be found.

I find it interesting how many different setups they ran across the board: Flynn, Papa, and Trump Jr were basically setups to try to get them to commit a crime where none existed. Page and Manafort were twisting facts and spinning crimes. They tried to hose anyone and everyone tied to the campaign then Rosy writes a memo after the fact to cover all of it.

Ask the average person though and they will still say that >10 people were convicted of colluding with Russia for the benefit of Trump.

Adam Schiff needs to be hung by the neck until dead......after his conviction of course.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Hope that means Van Grack has been fired as well.