brownbrick said:
To address the earlier Hillary clip, I'll provide a summary:
"Well we know the russians were helping the republicans last time around, so what if this time around the democrats get the chinese involved. What if this time the democrat nominee goes onto a news show and wonders allowed, "boy wouldn't it be something if the chinese pulled Trumps tax records from the IRS, I bet the US media would handsomely reward any chinese official who gave them Trumps tax records...." She goes on to say that what they learned from the Mueller investigation is that something like that couldn't be a conspiracy because it is out in the open....
I think even Maddow was a little uncomfortable with the suggestion Clinton was making.
I agree and if Trump is re-elected, those "allies" would rather be nuked than what Trump is likely to do to them economically.akm91 said:
Think it may be easier to identify the "allies" that weren't in on this collusion hoax.
Quote:
Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.
"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News.
"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in positions of authority, accountable," he added.
Quote:
Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.
"We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said.
Agree. If it were a past employee (well I'm sure that employee is now a former one) he would have specified that.akm91 said:
I'm assuming it is a current ODNI employee and that would rule out Clapper.
Not that I wouldn't want Clapper in an orange jumpsuit behind bars. It would have to be indictment from Durham's investigation for that to happen.aggiehawg said:Agree. If it were a past employee (well I'm sure that employee is now a former one) he would have specified that.akm91 said:
I'm assuming it is a current ODNI employee and that would rule out Clapper.
President Reagan deployed a man named Marvin Runyon to the Tennessee Valley Authority and the US Postal Service to clean up the waste and make the agencies more responsive to the needs of the public. In both cases, he identified a bloated personnel set-up heavy in management positions and weak in customer service-level staffers. He was probably the most effective bureaucrat Reagan had in his ability to actually get a government bureaucracy to work more efficiently and be more responsive to the public it served.drcrinum said:
Generally speaking, no. What got Assange into trouble was that he actually tried to help Manning break a passcode on a classified computer system.Line Ate Member said:
So what are the charges for acquiring the leaked classified information? For example, if a journalist asks for a piece of classified information and receieves it via a leaked, is the journalist charged with anything?
That is unfortunate. It would have made excellent TV having journalists removed while on airaggiehawg said:Generally speaking, no. What got Assange into trouble was that he actually tried to help Manning break a passcode on a classified computer system.Line Ate Member said:
So what are the charges for acquiring the leaked classified information? For example, if a journalist asks for a piece of classified information and receieves it via a leaked, is the journalist charged with anything?
A journalist simple asking for the information without further assistance doesn't violate the law.
Quote:
Conclusion: What do these three scandals mean, individually and collectively?
The first, accessing the NSA database, is the largest violation of basic constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure in American history.
The second, surveillance of the Trump campaign, involves illegally using of the government's most powerful tools of national intelligence and law enforcement against an opposition political party. These crimes directly attack two pillars of constitutional democracy: (1) elections should be free and fair, not corrupted by the party in power, and (2) law enforcement and intelligence should never be used as partisan instruments.
The third scandal attacks yet another pillar of constitutional democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a new administration. Handing government authority to the opposition party is a hallmark of stable democracy. Much as the Obama administration hated to see Hillary Clinton lose, it was obliged to transfer power seamlessly to Donald Trump. On the surface it did so. Beneath the surface, it erected every obstacle it could.
Obama officials worked especially hard to remove incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Because Gen. Flynn was an experienced intelligence officer, he would surely uncover the surveillance of Trump's campaign and transition and stop its continuation against the new administration. He had to go. Now we know just how low the Obama administration and Comey FBI sunk to make that happen: spying, unmasking, leaking classified phone calls, discarding FBI protocols to set up an entrapment interview based on a meaningless "legal violation," and telling Trump directly, as Obama did, not to hire Flynn.
Beyond this destructive mission, Brennan loyalists at the CIA burrowed into Trump's National Security Council while the FBI tried to plant agents in the White House itself. Most important of all, the Obama team and their congressional allies helped launch multiple, full-scale investigations of "Russian collusion" with no solid basis, plenty of contrived "evidence," and breathless media headlines. It all failed, but not before it damaged Trump's presidency and the basic tenets of liberal democracy.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.fasthorse05 said:
I used to hate Hahn, but realized all of the Lefties on the tele are there TO debate the opposite position. As a human, he ain't that bad a guy. It's just some of the Lefties are exceptional with the talking points, like "there wasn't intent, so it's not illegal", and beat them to death. Naturally, they're all lawyers. There are many on that side of the aisle who are just genuinely bad folks, certainly their cause is bad. Whether it's Whitmer, or Newsome, etc., they're all showing the true colors of the Left by taking our Rights when they can. If we let them, that's on us.
Hate is how progressives sustain themselves. Without hate, introspection begins to slip into the progressive's consciousness, threatening the progressive with the truth: that their ideas and opinions are illogical, hypocritical, dangerous, and asinine.
This is backed by data.
Quote:
"Mueller's scheme was the same one captured in the (newly released) FBI set-up notes pertaining to Flynn. They knew they had nothing, but using their official power they created and perpetuated the facade of an investigation," said Dowd.
In an extensive interview on Tuesday, Dowd explained to me how his commitment of cooperation and transparency in dealing with Mueller was eventually turned against the president, as the special counsel "misled" Trump's legal team in order to manufacture a crime where none existed.
Quote:
"As I look back, we had the most perfect trusting relationship with Mueller based on his word and handshake, which held throughout. No paper. Word was solid. They received everything they asked for without a hitch or page missing, including the most intimate notes of conversations with and by POTUS (President of the United States). Every witness they requested testified truthfully. No lying. No grand jury testimony. Mueller affirmed all of this in our March 5 (2018) meeting. How could there be a whisper of obstruction under these circumstances?"
Quote:
But obstructing what? Mueller readily acknowledged that there was no underlying crime. Moreover, Trump had encouraged every witness connected to his campaign and the White House to testify. He voluntarily produced more than a million pages of documents. The special counsel's investigation had proceeded unimpeded.
As Mueller persisted, Trump's lawyer realized that he had been conned all along. On Tuesday, Dowd was unsparing in his scorn for Mueller and his unscrupulous tactics:
"That is when I knew he had lied to me in our original meeting (June 16, 2017) and every meeting thereafter. Robert Mueller 'D.C.'s great man' completely and deliberately misled us in order to set up a perjury/false statement trap for POTUS. It was a monstrous lie and scheme to defraud."
Dowd shared with me numerous documents and letters supporting his accusations against Mueller. They paint a vivid picture of a special counsel determined to damage the president with an investigation bereft of any credible evidence.
Quote:
"They acted like crybabies who were offended that someone dared to criticize them, so they instinctively labeled it obstruction," Dowd told me last year. He added, "It was insane."
Quote:
.....Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent......
.....
First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a "To" and a "From" line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a "From" line; it is from a part of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire......
.....
Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law -- in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf -- that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated......
.....
Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn't, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed......
benchmark said:
Good read.
RealClearPolitics: What the 'Obamagate' Scandals Mean and Why They MatterQuote:
Conclusion: What do these three scandals mean, individually and collectively?
The first, accessing the NSA database, is the largest violation of basic constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure in American history.
The second, surveillance of the Trump campaign, involves illegally using of the government's most powerful tools of national intelligence and law enforcement against an opposition political party. These crimes directly attack two pillars of constitutional democracy: (1) elections should be free and fair, not corrupted by the party in power, and (2) law enforcement and intelligence should never be used as partisan instruments.
The third scandal attacks yet another pillar of constitutional democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a new administration. Handing government authority to the opposition party is a hallmark of stable democracy. Much as the Obama administration hated to see Hillary Clinton lose, it was obliged to transfer power seamlessly to Donald Trump. On the surface it did so. Beneath the surface, it erected every obstacle it could.
Obama officials worked especially hard to remove incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Because Gen. Flynn was an experienced intelligence officer, he would surely uncover the surveillance of Trump's campaign and transition and stop its continuation against the new administration. He had to go. Now we know just how low the Obama administration and Comey FBI sunk to make that happen: spying, unmasking, leaking classified phone calls, discarding FBI protocols to set up an entrapment interview based on a meaningless "legal violation," and telling Trump directly, as Obama did, not to hire Flynn.
Beyond this destructive mission, Brennan loyalists at the CIA burrowed into Trump's National Security Council while the FBI tried to plant agents in the White House itself. Most important of all, the Obama team and their congressional allies helped launch multiple, full-scale investigations of "Russian collusion" with no solid basis, plenty of contrived "evidence," and breathless media headlines. It all failed, but not before it damaged Trump's presidency and the basic tenets of liberal democracy.
Just insane. But there was a reason why he had to do it that way, we just don't know it yet.Quote:
Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
I also loathe Chris Hahn, he deflects constantly.VegasAg86 said:
I loathe Chris Hahn:
May. 26, 2020 - 5:57 - The judge overseeing the Michael Flynn case reportedly hires a high-powered attorney to defend his decisions; Chris Hahn and Karl Rove weigh in on 'The Story.'
Oh, and Strzok composed the EC on July 31, 2016, a Sunday, when likely no one else was around in the office. Sounds rather clandestine, doesn't it? Everyone comes to work on Monday, & viola, we have an new investigation on the books.aggiehawg said:Just insane. But there was a reason why he had to do it that way, we just don't know it yet.Quote:
Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
Agree. My spidey senses tell me the hurried and secretive opening of Crossfire Hurricane was likely FISA related.drcrinum said:Oh, and Strzok composed the EC on July 31, 2016, a Sunday, when likely no one else was around in the office. Sounds rather clandestine, doesn't it? Everyone comes to work on Monday, & viola, we have an new investigation on the books.aggiehawg said:Just insane. But there was a reason why he had to do it that way, we just don't know it yet.Quote:
Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
