Rockdoc said:

---

A very sad part of all of this is that it's not going to stop now or in the future. The Democrats have accepted the fact understand that lying is ok and facts, citations, and just plain ole truth just don't matter to them or most of their constituents...because they know their surrogate MSM will provide cover. Convictions and jail time is the only thing that will make them blink and I think most on here realize that's not likely to happen.

---

Made a slight modification.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.

---

It is hard to prove but I would submit that the text messages and notes are sufficient to show intent and conspiracy. I do not recall a single instance wherein someone, anyone said, "We can't do that, It's illegal."

Do you?

---

No, but it's Wisenberg, he tends to be pessimistic. He's appalled at what happened, he's just looking at it with a prosecutor's eye and sees difficulties.

Eastman was on fire though, he was pretty entertaining and did not agree with Sol.

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.

---

It is hard to prove but I would submit that the text messages and notes are sufficient to show intent and conspiracy. I do not recall a single instance wherein someone, anyone said, "We can't do that, It's illegal."

Do you?

---

No, but it's Wisenberg, he tends to be pessimistic. He's appalled at what happened, he's just looking at it with a prosecutor's eye and sees difficulties.

Eastman was on fire though, he was pretty entertaining and did not agree with Sol.

---

When Grennel showed up at Barr's office yesterday (presumably with the transcripts or a portion of them) there was a host of reasons. Perjury would be the least of them, IMO. I don't think Grennel would waste Barr's time for nothing.

---

Sure seems like popcorn time to me.

Right now, I can't imagine Barr having the time to do anything more than use the mens room. He's got about ten different irons roasting in the fire.

BTW, I'm calling both Senators offices today to tell, encourage, direct, or get after the three members of the SSCI-Warner, Burr, and Feinstein. Normally I wouldn't mention this, as I'm certain many on the Hill are quite aware of their shenanigans. However, I do have a question, do any of y'all believe there's anything in the revelations of the last two days that could be incriminating to the SSCI?

I know Graham knows about it, and possibly is involved, but my personal belief is Barr/Durham will stay away from this, due to the political largesse and corruption. It would quite literally lead to more headlines than the Chinese flue, especially since a Republican is involved.

BTW, I use largesse because I'm sure Burr is probably enriching himself. I think Warner and Feinstein do this crap because they're souls are corrupted, like most Democrats.

WH press secretary discussing it now in her presser

4stringAg said:

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Quote:

---

And one of the jewels better damn be some indictments and soon because the fallout will require a good amount of time to show the American public exactly what transpired (especially as we know Schiff will be running around screaming his "truth").

---

To just go out and indict people, even though guilty, will cause some to be enraged. They won't have the same awareness of the perp's transgressions of laws.

So, if the underlying evidence, even if only part of the whole body of evidence, is dropped in the public domain before LE actions, then the sting of surprise will not be as great, and not cause so much outrage across the country.

We got a few more weeks of evidence drops before indictments begin to surface. I haven't watch CNN or Other cable channels (except for FNC...sorry) recently, but it would be interesting to see how many minutes of broadcast time they have spent on the Flynn, Schiff stuff...because there is lots more to come...

---

Any time they have spent on it was accusing Barr of political hit jobs at the behest of his master Trump. They are taking the angle that it is Barr who is corrupting and politicizing the DOJ, not that the very reason he is investigating and overturning cases is precisely because of how politicized the DOJ had become under Obama.

---

It's the same blueprint the Democrats always use and have gone to throughout this whole charade. Falsely accuse Republicans of doing what they are actually doing - or in this case did - in abundance. However masterful they may be at flipping the script, it's not going to work this time. I believe they have met their match in Barr and Durham.

Hee hee hee

MetoliusAg said:

---

boom

---

Still waiting

Why?

Prognightmare said:

---

Why?

---

Why, what?

Cross posted from the Flynn exoneration thread.

Complete timeline of the Flynn case HERE

Nvm, I misinterpreted it

It's just a temporary order from the Supreme Court.

Excellent article that gives a timeline to the new revelations and what they meant:

The Federalist

Quote:

---

Information released in the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case it brought against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn confirms the significance of a January 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration's utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.

---

Quote:

---

January 4: Following the closure of a pretextually dubious and politically motivated FBI investigation of Flynn at the beginning of January, the leadership of the FBI scrambled to reopen a case against Flynn, the man who in his role as National Security Advisor would have to review their Russia collusion investigation. FBI officials openly discussed their concern about briefing the veteran intelligence official on what they had done to the Trump campaign and transition team and what they were planning to do to the incoming Trump administration. Flynn had to be dealt with. The FBI's top counterintelligence official would later memorialize discussions about the FBI's attempts to "get [Flynn] fired." No reopening was needed, they determined, when they discovered they had failed to close the previous investigation. They found this mistake "amazing" and "serendipitously good" and said "our utter incompetence actually helps us." Even more noteworthy were texts from FBI's #2 counterintelligence official Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page noting that the "7th floor," a reference to Comey and his deputy director Andrew McCabe, was running the show.
January 5: Yates, Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed Obama on Russia-related matters in the Oval Office. Biden and Rice also attended. After the Obama briefing, the intelligence chiefs who would be leaving at the end of the term were dismissed and Yates and Comey, who would continue in the Trump administration, were asked to stay. Not only did Obama give his guidance about how to perpetuate the Russia collusion theory investigations, he also talked about Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to both Comey and Yates. Interestingly, Clapper, Comey, and Yates all said that they did not brief Obama about these phone calls. Clapper testified he did not brief Obama on the calls, Yates learned about the calls from Obama himself during that meeting, and Comey also testified he didn't brief Obama about the calls, even though the intelligence was an FBI product. Rice, who publicly lied but later admitted under oath to her widespread use of unmasked intelligence at the end of the Obama administration, likely briefed Obama on the calls and would have had access to the intelligence. Comey mentions the Logan Act at this meeting.
It was this meeting that Rice memorialized in a bizarre inauguration-day email to herself that claimed Obama told the gathered to do everything "by the book." But Rice also noted in her email that the key point of discussion in that meeting was whether and how to withhold national security information, likely including details of the investigation into Trump himself, from the incoming Trump national security team.

---

Quote:

---

January 12: The next part of the strategy was the explosive leak to David Ignatius of the Washington Post to legitimize the use against Flynn of the Logan Act, a likely unconstitutional 1799 law prohibiting private individuals, not public incoming national security advisors, from discussing foreign policy with foreign governments. Ignatius accepted the leak from the Obama official. He wrote that Flynn had called Kislyak. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about "disputes" with the United States. Was its spirit violated?" Flynn's routine and appropriate phone call became fodder for a developing grand conspiracy theory of Russia collusion. In discussions with investigators, both DOJ's Mary McCord and Comey conspicuously cite this Ignatius column as somehow meaningful in the approach they would take with Flynn. "Nothing, to my mind, happens until the 13th of January, when David Ignatius publishes a column that contains a reference to communication Michael Flynn had with the Russians. That was on the 13th of January," Comey said of the column that ran online on January 12. In fact, quite a bit had happened at the FBI prior to that leak, with much conversation about how to utilize the Logan Act against Flynn. And the leak-fueled Ignatius column would later be used by FBI officials to justify an illegal ambush interview of Flynn in the White House.

---

It goes on and on, lots of detail.

backintexas2013 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

boom

---

Still waiting

---

You must not be paying attention.....

Look at the poster who I was replying to. He was all in on Trump Russia and impeachment.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Look at the poster who I was replying to. He was all in on Trump Russia and impeachment.

---

Oh yeah, sorry. I was away for a bit and just got back into the thread. I do remember his comment, and thinking how dumb it was.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Complete transcript of Herridge's interview with Barr HERE.

Hint: This isn't remotely over. He's retasking Jensen on other matters and Durham is in full swing. Nor is he done with the Flynn case. Still needs to get to the bottom of what happened and why. He doesn't name names, of course but were I Van Grack, I'd be concerned as he was the most active in how the Flynn case was brought and prosecuted.

---

I think the only way to get past the cognitive dissonance of the left from their 3 year MSM brainwashing is getting the evidence to the public. Leaving things at just undoing the wrongs leaves the purely political argument on the table. Indictments, trials, something has to happen for people to see the evidence of what was done. I'm guessing there are mountains he is waiting to reveal.

---

That's certainly what I inferred from the transcript. He's not claiming, "Mission accomplished," not by a long shot.

aggiehawg said:

---

Complete transcript of Herridge's interview with Barr HERE.

---

I love this quote from the interview:

Quote:

---

But, again, because the FBI knew about the call, there was nothing wrong with the call, the FBI has the transcript of the call, whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything.

---

For the "BUT HE ADMITTED HE LIED!!!" crowd.

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Complete transcript of Herridge's interview with Barr HERE.

Hint: This isn't remotely over. He's retasking Jensen on other matters and Durham is in full swing. Nor is he done with the Flynn case. Still needs to get to the bottom of what happened and why. He doesn't name names, of course but were I Van Grack, I'd be concerned as he was the most active in how the Flynn case was brought and prosecuted.

---

I think the only way to get past the cognitive dissonance of the left from their 3 year MSM brainwashing is getting the evidence to the public. Leaving things at just undoing the wrongs leaves the purely political argument on the table. Indictments, trials, something has to happen for people to see the evidence of what was done. I'm guessing there are mountains he is waiting to reveal.

---

That's certainly what I inferred from the transcript. He's not claiming, "Mission accomplished," not by a long shot.

---

I guess it always depends on your perspective. To me, this was a passive act; giving up on a prosecution unlikely to succeed, and frankly at this point the (criminal) acts have achieved their goals; the CH investigation was kept open, Flynn dismissed, Ciaramella et al. got to create impeachment, Mueller appointed, and 3 plus years of the presidency were disrupted by the DoJ.

Barr indicating that he will hold people accountable inside DC if they can be found "beyond a reasonable doubt" by a DC jury to have committed a crime isn't telegraphing pending indictments, again to me.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Complete transcript of Herridge's interview with Barr HERE.

---

I love this quote from the interview:

Quote:

---

But, again, because the FBI knew about the call, there was nothing wrong with the call, the FBI has the transcript of the call, whether or not he remembered saying something is not material to anything.

---

For the "BUT HE ADMITTED HE LIED!!!" crowd.

---

And Barr swatted away the lie to Judge Sullivan in the guilty plea as not material.

But we also have to remember that the false statement charge was a fall back position for Team Mueller. One that benefited Covington, Burling, by dropping the threatened FARA charge.

I'm going ahead to guess that Barr is curious exactly whose idea that was. Van Grack's? Or Covington, Burling lawyers, such as say...oh just spitballin' here...ERIC HOLDER?

Quote:

---

But we also have to remember that the false statement charge was a fall back position for Team Mueller. One that benefited Covington, Burling, by dropping the threatened FARA charge.

I'm going ahead to guess that Barr is curious exactly whose idea that was. Van Grack's? Or Covington, Burling lawyers, such as say...oh just spitballin' here...ERIC HOLDER?

---

To me, the FARA and Logan Act aspects were really in the same vein as process crimes. We know the Logan Act stuff was really just "get him at all costs" and that came from the White House and James Comey, or so it would seem.

To me it would make total sense if the FARA stuff came from the top, too, and who better to do Hussein's bidding than his own wing man, Eric Holder?

Clearly, Covington (nor the DoJ) does not want (and won't) to disclose any of their emails from Eric Holder. He's so stupid he probably did put such advice in an email.