Made a slight modification.Rockdoc said:
A very sad part of all of this is that it's not going to stop now or in the future. The Democratshave accepted the factunderstand 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.
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.aggiehawg said: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."Quote:
Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.
Do you?
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.VegasAg86 said: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.aggiehawg said: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."Quote:
Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.
Do you?
Eastman was on fire though, he was pretty entertaining and did not agree with Sol.
Sure seems like popcorn time to me.aggiehawg said: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.VegasAg86 said: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.aggiehawg said: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."Quote:
Sol's response was basically, sure, but it's too hard to prove.
Do you?
Eastman was on fire though, he was pretty entertaining and did not agree with Sol.
Both are to different degrees. The admission by Shawn Henry founder of CrowdStrike that they were never able to make a definite conclusion that the Russians exfiltrated the material from the DNC and DCCC servers, is a jaw dropping admission.drcrinum said:
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.4stringAg said: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.SeMgCo87 said: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.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").
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...
Ha! Ha!will25u said:
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/8/supreme-court-halts-democrats-access-mueller-grand/
Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday put a temporary hold on the release of secret materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to a Democrat-led House committee.
The order stops the clock on a lower court's order requiring the Justice Department to turn over confidential grand jury materials underlying the Russia probe to the House Judiciary Committee.
MetoliusAg said:
boom
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.
It goes on and on, lots of detail.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.
You must not be paying attention.....backintexas2013 said:MetoliusAg said:
boom
Still waiting
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.backintexas2013 said:
Look at the poster who I was replying to. He was all in on Trump Russia and impeachment.
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.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.
That's certainly what I inferred from the transcript. He's not claiming, "Mission accomplished," not by a long shot.VegasAg86 said: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.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 love this quote from the interview:aggiehawg said:
Complete transcript of Herridge's interview with Barr HERE.
For the "BUT HE ADMITTED HE LIED!!!" crowd.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.
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.aggiehawg said:That's certainly what I inferred from the transcript. He's not claiming, "Mission accomplished," not by a long shot.VegasAg86 said: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.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.
And Barr swatted away the lie to Judge Sullivan in the guilty plea as not material.VegasAg86 said:I love this quote from the interview:aggiehawg said:
Complete transcript of Herridge's interview with Barr HERE.For the "BUT HE ADMITTED HE LIED!!!" crowd.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.
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.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?