Posted in its own thread, but will post it here as well...

His name was Seth Rich!

New York Judge Requests Testimony from Julian Assange in Seth Rich Case

Quote:

---

A New York magistrat judge is requesting testimony from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a case involving slain DNC voter data director Seth Rich.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn requested the international assistance in order to get the testimony.
The parents of Seth Rich are suing FOX News and Judge Netburn wants Assange to testify on Seth's role in the leaked DNC documents.

Julian Assange has repeatedly said the documents did not come from Russia. And Robert Mueller interviewed hundreds of witnesses in his anti-Trump witch hunt but never got around to questioning Julian Assange who was the source of leaked DNC documents.

The parents of Seth Rich believe he had nothing to do with the leaked documents to Wikileaks.
They may not like what they find out.

---

going to need to hear it from someone else besides papa.

even then...i'll still need to actually see it.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

If there are indictments, it will be after Durham talks to Comey, Yates, Brennan, and Rice.

Now you know why Rice wants on the ticket, and why team Obama is trying to place her there. They are trying to push pause on Durham.

---

Yep. They want the "OMG, THE FASCIST TRUMP WANTS TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT AGAIN!!!!" Talking point.

ruddyduck said:

---

going to need to hear it from someone else besides papa.

even then...i'll still need to actually see it.

---

If Assange from Wikileaks talks it's over ... the Fake Russia investigation by Mueller just got Nuked ... Assange has been subpoenaed by a New York Judge in the Fox News case

Bar will have justification for arrest of top Obama officials .. the media can't cry wolf or wrong doing when Assange nukes their entire fabricated 3 1/2 yr witch hunt

That's assuming Assange doesn't get Arkancided first.

akm91 said:

---

That's assuming Assange doesn't get Arkancided first.

---

I am also concerned about his physical and mental condition. The guy just might be completely fried after all these years. Hope the people still at wikileaks have supporting documentation.

akm91 said:

---

That's assuming Assange doesn't get Arkancided first.

---

Yeah no chit... he's prob at the top of the Arkanside list right now?

fullback44 said:

---

akm91 said:

---

That's assuming Assange doesn't get Arkancided first.

---

Yeah no chit... he's prob at the top of the Arkanside list right now?

---

It would be the Clintons wet dream to get him and Ghislaine in the same room somewhere without cameras

Promising.

Quote:

---

While much speculation inside the Beltway says U.S. Attorney John Durham will punt the results of his so-called Spygate investigation past the election to avoid charges of political interference, sources who have worked with Durham on past public corruption cases doubt he'll bend to political pressure and they expect him to drop bombshells before Labor Day.

Durham's boss, Attorney General Bill Barr, also pushed back on the notion his hand-picked investigator would defer action. Under Democratic questioning on Capitol Hill last week, he refused to rule out a pre-election release.

"Under oath, do you commit to not releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election?" Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) asked Barr, citing longstanding Justice Department policy not to announce new developments in politically sensitive cases before an election.

"No," the attorney general curtly replied.

---

My favorite below:

Quote:

---

Justice Department policy prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases typically within 60 days of an election. Accordingly, Durham would have to make a move by the Friday before Labor Day, or Sept. 4.

---

Quote:

---

A low-profile prosecutor, Durham has kept a tight lid on his investigation into the origins of the specious Russiagate investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign, leading to rampant speculation about who he might prosecute and whether he would take action ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

---

Tight ship. Like I said before.

Quote:

---

"I would find it hard to believe that he punts under any circumstances," said former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker, who knows Durham personally and has worked with the hard-nosed prosecutor on prior investigations.

He pointed out that Durham would risk throwing away 16 months of investigative work if he delayed action beyond the election.

---

Quote:

---

"There's no question that if Biden is elected, everything Durham has done at that point will be canceled out," Swecker explained, adding that Biden would replace Barr and possibly even Durham. But by putting indictments and reports "into the public arena" before the election, Durham would put a Biden administration in the position of either taking further action or closing down his probe.

"It would make it very difficult for Biden's appointees to undo his charges or bury the results of his probe," he said. "John knows this and I fully expect he will take action before the election."

Swecker, who's also a former prosecutor, anticipates Durham will deliver criminal charges, a written report or some combination of the two around the first week in September, if not sooner. "He must get his work done and out to the public by Labor Day," he said. "That way he avoids any accusations that he was trying to impact the election."

Democracy 21, a liberal Washington watchdog group, has already cited the department policy in recent complaints to Barr demanding he suspend Durham's investigation and place on hold any further actions or public comments about it until after the election.

"If Barr allows indictments from the Durham investigation to come out during the presidential election campaign, he would be abandoning longstanding DOJ policy by misusing the department's prosecutorial power to support Trump's reelection campaign," Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer argued.

---

All of the pigs are squealing. That's a good sign. Durham is as smart as "Chuck Rhoades" but not as blinded by his personal issues as "Chuck."

But wait there's more!!!!

Quote:

---

Swecker, who served 24 years with the FBI before retiring as assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division, said he expects Durham to take more action "than just issuing a report" similar to the 500-page document issued in December by Justice's inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The IG made criminal referrals to Durham, including against an FBI attorney accused of altering evidence used to support a surveillance warrant on a former Trump adviser.

"I know John Durham. I worked under him on the Whitey Bulger case, which resulted in indictments of (corrupt FBI) agents," Swecker said. "I don't think he's the least bit squeamish about bringing indictments if there is criminal exposure."

Swecker says he's confident Durham has uncovered crimes. "He's onto something, I'm convinced of it, otherwise he would have folded up his tent by now," he asserted in a RealClearInvestigations interview.

The lack of media leaks coming from Durham's office is another sign he is building a serious corruption case, Swecker said. Targets and witnesses have largely been kept in the dark about the scope and direction of his investigation, encouraging cooperation and possible plea deals. And the secrecy of grand jury proceedings has been fiercely protected.

"I'm impressed with the discipline his team has shown," Swecker said. "There's been no leaks. The investigation has been very close-hold."

Durham, a Republican, has been known to threaten to polygraph investigators whenever he suspected a leak.

His team is led by his deputy, Nora Dannehy, who specializes in the prosecution of complex white-collar and public corruption cases. A Democrat with a reputation for integrity, she left a high-paying corporate job to rejoin Durham's office in March 2019, the month after Barr was confirmed.

---

Quote:

---

Swecker named former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith among officials most vulnerable to possible criminal charges in Durham's investigation of the investigators. Justice's watchdog made a criminal referral pertaining to his conduct specifically, that Clinesmith forged an email in a way that hid the fact that former Trump adviser Carter Page had been a cooperating CIA source on Russia. The information, if disclosed to the FISA court, would have weakened the FBI's case that Page was a "Russian agent."

On the other hand, Swecker does not expect Durham to indict former FBI Director James Comey, nor former CIA Director John Brennan or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

None of these central figures in the scandal has been interviewed by Durham's office, according to recent published reports, though Durham reportedly is working out details with Brennan's lawyer for a pending interview. Durham's investigators have already reviewed Brennan's emails, call logs and other records.

"It's hard to prove criminal intent at their level, and unless there's a smoking gun, like an email or text, they'll probably get off with a damning report about their activities," Swecker said.

---

Sorry to end with that slight bummer, but overall? Not all is lost.

Quote:

---

Barr has publicly acknowledged the policy. "The idea is you don't go after candidates," he said in an April radio interview. "You don't indict candidates or perhaps someone that's sufficiently close to a candidate within a certain number of days before an election."

The former prosecutor, who's worked with Durham, said his old colleague may start revealing developments from his case weeks in advance of the 60-day cut-off, or ideally right after the political conventions. The GOP convention, which follows the Democrats' gathering, ends Aug. 27.

"They are nervous about affecting the election, so timing is everything," he said. "It will be tricky."

At the same time, the former Justice official said Durham could exploit a loophole in the department rule, memorialized in memos dating to 2008, that allows for action closer to the election. It states that "law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department's mission." (Emphasis added.)

The operative phrase "for the purpose of" leaves leeway for actions close to an election that aren't taken "for the purpose" of affecting the election. In other words, Durham wouldn't necessarily have to lie low for the two months in the run-up to the election.

---

Hoo boy!!

Break out the popcorn!

ETA: Crap! Forgot the link. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/06/ex-colleagues_see_durham_dropping_bombshells_before_labor_day_124753.html

Two minute video. Grenell is an impressive chap IMO.

Whatever happened to Huber?

Quote:

---

Justice Department policy prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases typically within 60 days of an election. Accordingly, Durham would have to make a move by the Friday before Labor Day, or Sept. 4.

---

Shaping up to be the best opening weekend of dove season ever.

Quote:

---

Durham, a Republican, has been known to threaten to polygraph investigators whenever he suspected a leak.

His team is led by his deputy, Nora Dannehy, who specializes in the prosecution of complex white-collar and public corruption cases. A Democrat with a reputation for integrity, she left a high-paying corporate job to rejoin Durham's office in March 2019, the month after Barr was confirmed.

---

lol

Friday's a solid prediction IMO. It used to be that you dumped stories on Friday to die. But what do you do with a DNC controlled media?

You let your internet soldiers spread the word all weekend and set the narrative.

I've pondered Swecker's comments on Clapper, Brennan, and Comey. I'm not questioning his comment about the difficulty to find intent, but i suspect it may be easier to get Comey and Clapper, than Brennan, even though I believe he was the ring leader, but not the idea man. It was probably members of the Clinton campaign who brought Brennan into the fold, knowing they had the Comey, Clapper, Brennan trio in place to pursue the all-star corruption.

Comey and Brennan are arrogant enough to have covered their tracks, but maybe not enough to make sure their surrogates destroyed the evidence. Clapper isn't that devious, just naive. I strongly suspect Mike Rogers was able to find information on Clapper that will be indictable.

Speaking of Rogers, if Durham is REALLY successful, and gets 2 of 3, or all 3, Mike Rogers would have my support to replace some of these damned statues the benighted, dumb ass Left have destroyed. None of this would have ever happened if not for him.

Just my thoughts. As usual, I could be wrong.

This is stupid but relevant, lol

benchmark said:

---

Quote:

---

Justice Department policy prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases typically within 60 days of an election. Accordingly, Durham would have to make a move by the Friday before Labor Day, or Sept. 4.

---

Shaping up to be the best opening weekend of dove season ever.

---

If nothing happens by 4 September, I'm removing the giant Q sign that is in my yard.

ruh roh

Can't say this is surprising, but will she be punished or has there been a precedent set that private server is no big deal?

ruddyduck said:

---

ruh roh

---

Was she planning a wedding too?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/07/sally-yates-testimony-showed-shes-either-ignorant-or-lying-about-russiagate/

Professor Cleveland gives Sally Yates a good spanking.

captkirk said:

---

How the hell does indicting Brennan, Comey, Clapper etc. violate the rule? They aren't running for anything

---

Hopefully, Barr takes the same position in a narrow view of the policy. Actually running for national office is the standard.

OTOH, indicting senior members including cabinet level of an Obama/Biden administration could also tarnish Biden, the actual candidate. Judgment call.

nortex97 said:

---

Lack of a defensive briefing is the proof. McCarthy today:

Quote:

---

The exploitation of executive power to monitor the opposition party's presidential candidate is a Watergate-level abuse of power. That is why Obama and FBI apologists have steadfastly refused to cop to it.

A major element of their story is that the faux briefing given to Trump was actually a defensive briefing. We are to believe its purpose was to warn Trump that his campaign could be infiltrated by covert agents working for Russia.

The significance of the "defensive briefing" canard, and the importance of refuting it, still seems lost on many of Trump's Russiagate defenders.

Political spying is an impeachable offense. Democrats have countered with the ridiculous "defensive briefing" yarn because they understand this. As I demonstrate in Ball of Collusion, the decision not to give Trump a defensive briefing is ironclad proof that he was the target of the investigation, and therefore that the Obama-Biden administration was guilty of political spying.

That "defensive briefing" lie should now be put to rest, thanks to the recently declassified FBI report about the session. Yes, one big takeaway is that the FBI used the "briefing" as an investigative operation. But don't miss the forest for the trees. Even on its own deceptive terms, the faux briefing was neither portrayed nor conducted by the FBI as defensive to warn the Trump campaign; it was a standard counterintelligence and security briefing for presidential candidates.

Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Trump never got a defensive briefing. Common sense tells you why: Our intelligence agencies do not give defensive briefings to someone they consider the main suspect. The main suspect is deemed the agent of a foreign power against whom others need defending. You don't warn the main suspect that you are trying to catch him; you investigate the main suspect to try to make the case. It is the people around the main suspect who need a warning, not the other way around.

I first encountered the gambit to depict the August 2016 session as a defensive briefing a couple of years ago, as a panelist on a Fox News program. Floated by one of the ubiquitous, self-described "Democratic strategists," it seemed out of left field. I countered that this was wrong, that the session was a standard intelligence briefing given to presidential candidates. But there wasn't enough time to explain the difference between that and a defensive briefing.

Given all that is now publicly known, the defensive-briefing claim should be so discredited that even partisan Democrats refrain from invoking it. But no. A little over a week ago, I was invited to discuss Russiagate on Martha MacCallum's Fox News program. The format had me following Representative Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.), a slippery partisan who put so much stock in the bogus Steele dossier that he has seamlessly become one of the last of the "collusion" dead-enders. When the question of why Trump's campaign had not been given a defensive briefing came up, Swalwell insisted that it had gotten one.

---

Obama Biden and House Democrats are an enemy of the republic.

---

Another quote from the article

Quote:

---

On April 10, 2019, under questioning by Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) at an Appropriations Committee hearing, Attorney General Bill Barr observed that the Trump campaign had not been given a defensive briefing. Senator Graham noted it was odd that the Justice Department never alerted the Trump campaign that it might be "targeted by a foreign entity." AG Barr responded, "That is one of the questions I have. . . . I feel normally the campaign would have been advised of this. . . . They had two former U.S. attorneys . . . Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani involved in the campaign and I don't understand why the campaign was not advised."

---

It appears AJ Barr is interested.

retweeted by sidney.