Bunkhouse96 said:aggiehawg said:There are a few problems with that. Executive Privilege for one.ruddyduck said:
According to the Dems, it's obstruction of justice to asset Executive Privilege.
Yeah, he's on Maria Bartoromo's Sunday show quite often and she has progressively become a little more aggressive with asking him (multiple times) if he is going to take action on whichever subject. It's always the same, tough talk about hearings as soon as ........Ellis Wyatt said:Lindsey hasn't been in favor of doing anything other than talking about doing something for years.Pinche Abogado said:
Graham just issued a statement showing that he is not receptive to calling Obama, for obvious reasons, like executive privilege.
I'd like to see the communications rooms in Obama's DC home and how much bandwidth it uses. Was a spying center set up since the WH was only a few blocks away?fasthorse05 said:
And under the useless comment section: let's get a FISA on Obama, or some kind of unmasking.
It's just routine, after all.
LINKQuote:
Attorney General William Barr may be subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify next month before Congress over the decision to drop the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Barr initially was scheduled to testify in front of the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee at the end of March, but that was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
"Now that the District of Columbia has extended the stay-at-home order until June 8, we expect to see Barr in front of our committee on June 9, the very next day," Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told MSNBC during an interview Wednesday.
Nadler noted that Barr has not yet agreed to testify before the committee and said the panel will issue a subpoena should Barr choose not to cooperate.
Unless Flynn knows what happened BEFORE Durham's scope. Like 2008-2012.SamjamAg said:I had this same question. Why the need to get Flynn at any cost at this point in time? I doubt Flynn will bring anything new for the Durham investigation at this point which has been going on for at least 18 months. I think its all about public perception. they view it as their last line of defense against the wave that is about to hit. They can say they were right about Flynn and Barr is political and you can't trust any future actions by him.goatchze said:Others have mentioned maybe Flynn knows something right now. If he did, he would be in a position of power in negotiating. He wouldn't be treated this way.TurkeyBaconLeg said:
One thought I have on the actions by Sullivan. It sure seems like the deep state wants to drag this out a bit longer. I wonder if they are fearful of Flynn rejoining the Trump Admin.
It sure seems like all of the actions of declass were waiting on Flynn to be exonerated. Once the DOJ dropped the case, then all hell was released on ObamaGate and the storm is upon us. With more to come.
Perhaps, Flynn is supposed to play a role in what is coming next and the swamp knows it. Thus, the delay tactic...
My hunch is that he doesn't know something now, but if free with his clearances intact, he can piece together the puzzle quickly (and would have a strong desire to do so).
He's dangerous for them if he doesn't have the millstone around his neck.
Apparently so. Remember during the impeachment when Nadler and Schiff attempted to call out Dershowitz? That didn't work our so well.akm91 said:
Do those idiots in congress think that with the transcripts released and the unmasking released, they really want to go on camera against Barr?
LINKQuote:
"According to McCabe, after the January 24 interview with Flynn, the interviewing agents returned to the FBI and briefed McCabe," the Mueller memo stated. "The agents believed Flynn seemed very credible in his interview. Everyone in the room thought it was amazing that the agents believed that Flynn seemed credible since he denied something that everyone else knew to be true."
"McCabe and then-acting assistant attorney general Mary McCord had many subsequent discussions about the Logan Act," according to the memo. "They believed prosecuting a Logan act violation was a long shot."
Then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Matthew Axelrod also was interviewed by the Mueller team about the Flynn interactions and disclosed that the FBI agent heading the Russia case, Peter Strzok, "provided Axelrod and others a readout of the interview."
"Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview," the memo recounted Axelrod as saying. "Strzok based his assessment more on Flynn's mannerisms and lack of hesitation when answering questions as opposed to what Flynn actually said."
"Additionally Strzok shared the FBI's view that Flynn agreeing to the interview without legal representation carried weight," Mueller's team wrote.
For months now, Flynn's new lawyer Powell has made such claims in court filings. And others, like former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, have raised the troubling prospect that Flynn was set up to be charged. It appears those claims have now found support in the testimony Mueller collected.
Covington & Burling gets the award for worst job representing a defendant in 2017.aggiehawg said:LINKQuote:
"According to McCabe, after the January 24 interview with Flynn, the interviewing agents returned to the FBI and briefed McCabe," the Mueller memo stated. "The agents believed Flynn seemed very credible in his interview. Everyone in the room thought it was amazing that the agents believed that Flynn seemed credible since he denied something that everyone else knew to be true."
"McCabe and then-acting assistant attorney general Mary McCord had many subsequent discussions about the Logan Act," according to the memo. "They believed prosecuting a Logan act violation was a long shot."
Then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Matthew Axelrod also was interviewed by the Mueller team about the Flynn interactions and disclosed that the FBI agent heading the Russia case, Peter Strzok, "provided Axelrod and others a readout of the interview."
"Strzok provided his view that Flynn appeared truthful during the interview," the memo recounted Axelrod as saying. "Strzok based his assessment more on Flynn's mannerisms and lack of hesitation when answering questions as opposed to what Flynn actually said."
"Additionally Strzok shared the FBI's view that Flynn agreeing to the interview without legal representation carried weight," Mueller's team wrote.
For months now, Flynn's new lawyer Powell has made such claims in court filings. And others, like former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, have raised the troubling prospect that Flynn was set up to be charged. It appears those claims have now found support in the testimony Mueller collected.
John Solomon's latest. Team Mueller knew the false statement charge was bogus before they strong armed Flynn.
Since it now appears there was some level of surveillance of Flynn going on in 2016 and likely 2017. During the entire time Covington & Burling was his counsel. So what kind of electronic surveillance was turned on them?Quote:
Covington & Burling gets the award for worst job representing a defendant in 2017.
Quote:
Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up," Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report in their book, "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign."
"For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public," wrote Allen, who works for NBC News Digital, and Parnes, who reports for The Hill. "Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign," and it clearly succeeded. After the election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel. TDIP's dossier reboot put the influence operation into overdrive.
Quote:
A month after TDIP was formed in 2017, former Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri summed up the post-election strategy in a Washington Post column comparing "Russiagate" to Watergate and encouraging the press and other Democrats to "turn the Russia story against Trump."
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us," she advised. "Polls show that voters are now concerned about the Russia story and overwhelmingly support an independent investigation."
Though the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory was officially debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report in March 2019, it has tied up Trump presidency. A separate report released late last year by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz also debunked many of the theories propagated by the dossier, while uncovering misconduct by the FBI in using the dossier to obtain warrants to electronically eavesdrop on a Trump campaign adviser.
Podesta's and Sullivan's recently released testimony provides evidence that the Clinton team and other Democrats never stopped campaigning against Trump. Hillary Clinton didn't just pay for the Russian-sourced opposition research on candidate Trump before the election; her top aides helped bankroll continuing efforts to cast the now sitting president as a Russian agent.
Quote:
Mimicking the Clinton campaign, TDIP hired Fusion GPS and Steele to conduct the new opposition research, paying them millions of dollars. Podesta steered his repurposed partners to donors at a time when the Clinton campaign had not yet closed its books; the campaign was still open. In 2017 alone, TDIP raised more than $7 million with his help.
The well-funded project's work which dwarfs the original work done for the Clinton campaign, both in budget and scope -- has been largely shrouded in mystery. But a months-long examination by RealClearInvestigations, drawn from documents and more than a dozen interviews, found that the organization is running an elaborate media-influence operation that includes driving and shaping daily coverage of the Russia "collusion" theory, as well as pushing stories about Trump in the national media that attempt to tie the president or his associates to the Kremlin. For instance, TDIP was behind stories keeping alive the dossier's discredited claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had met during the 2016 campaign with Kremlin officials in Prague, a rumor that has now been thoroughly debunked by inspector general and special counsel reports.
Paging Christopher Wray! That crap should not still be going on.Quote:
The group also feeds information to FBI and congressional investigators, and then tells reporters that authorities are investigating those leads. The tactic adds credibility to TDIP's pitches, luring big media outlets to bite on stories. It mirrors the strategy federal authorities themselves deployed to secure FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign: citing published news reports of investigative details their informants had leaked to the media to bolster their wiretap requests.
nortex97 said:
Russian collusion narrative post-election '16 started with, of course team Clinton and Fusion GPS. From RCP:Quote:
Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up," Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes report in their book, "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign."
"For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public," wrote Allen, who works for NBC News Digital, and Parnes, who reports for The Hill. "Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign," and it clearly succeeded. After the election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel. TDIP's dossier reboot put the influence operation into overdrive.Quote:
A month after TDIP was formed in 2017, former Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri summed up the post-election strategy in a Washington Post column comparing "Russiagate" to Watergate and encouraging the press and other Democrats to "turn the Russia story against Trump."
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us," she advised. "Polls show that voters are now concerned about the Russia story and overwhelmingly support an independent investigation."
Though the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory was officially debunked by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report in March 2019, it has tied up Trump presidency. A separate report released late last year by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz also debunked many of the theories propagated by the dossier, while uncovering misconduct by the FBI in using the dossier to obtain warrants to electronically eavesdrop on a Trump campaign adviser.
Podesta's and Sullivan's recently released testimony provides evidence that the Clinton team and other Democrats never stopped campaigning against Trump. Hillary Clinton didn't just pay for the Russian-sourced opposition research on candidate Trump before the election; her top aides helped bankroll continuing efforts to cast the now sitting president as a Russian agent.Quote:
Mimicking the Clinton campaign, TDIP hired Fusion GPS and Steele to conduct the new opposition research, paying them millions of dollars. Podesta steered his repurposed partners to donors at a time when the Clinton campaign had not yet closed its books; the campaign was still open. In 2017 alone, TDIP raised more than $7 million with his help.
The well-funded project's work which dwarfs the original work done for the Clinton campaign, both in budget and scope -- has been largely shrouded in mystery. But a months-long examination by RealClearInvestigations, drawn from documents and more than a dozen interviews, found that the organization is running an elaborate media-influence operation that includes driving and shaping daily coverage of the Russia "collusion" theory, as well as pushing stories about Trump in the national media that attempt to tie the president or his associates to the Kremlin. For instance, TDIP was behind stories keeping alive the dossier's discredited claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had met during the 2016 campaign with Kremlin officials in Prague, a rumor that has now been thoroughly debunked by inspector general and special counsel reports.
Hello, Eric Ciaramella and Alexandra Chalupa!Quote:
According to Jordan the State Department documents also reveal that the alleged "whistleblower" who began the partisan impeachment against President Trump "also played a role in facilitating the Obama-Biden Administration's interactions with the Ukrainian government relating to Burisma and Hunter Biden."
Jordan told Pompeo that the documents reportedly detail "how the 'whistleblower,' as a National Security Council (NSC) detailee, hosted a White House meeting that took place with Ukrainian prosecutors in January 2016 regarding a concern that HunterBiden's role with Burisma could complicate a potential prosecution of the company's wrongdoing."
Moreover, "contemporaneous visitor logs confirm that numerous Ukrainian officials were present at the White House on the day of the meeting," he added.
Yep. They are claiming the law firm itself is an "interested party" under that asinine minute order of Sullivan's inviting "interested parties" to file amicus curiae briefs.texaggierm said:
Could it be the law firm that defended Flynn will be on the opposite side of him?
Yes. They have interests antithetical to their own former client at this point. There's a slight chance they are taking this action to fall on their own sword on Flynn's behalf but I wouldn't bet on it.texaggierm said:
Could it be the law firm that defended Flynn will be on the opposite side of him?
aggiehawg said:LINKQuote:
Attorney General William Barr may be subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify next month before Congress over the decision to drop the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Barr initially was scheduled to testify in front of the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee at the end of March, but that was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
"Now that the District of Columbia has extended the stay-at-home order until June 8, we expect to see Barr in front of our committee on June 9, the very next day," Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler told MSNBC during an interview Wednesday.
Nadler noted that Barr has not yet agreed to testify before the committee and said the panel will issue a subpoena should Barr choose not to cooperate.
Oh Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. Do you really want Barr to depants you on national TV? 'Cuz that's what's gonna happen.
Read the restQuote:
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan's in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum. So, whether or not one agrees with the Department of Justice's call to drop its charges against President Trump's former National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the "party presentation principle."
In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: "Courts are essentially passive instruments of government They 'do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.[They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties."