You can still watch it on alternate sites.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f37fcc2df77c4044ee2eb03

notex said:

---

You can still watch it on alternate sites.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f37fcc2df77c4044ee2eb03

---

Thanks. If it's of use you can use the instructions in the link below to say Youtube videos offline without relying on a web service that may be loaded with adware.

https://fossbytes.com/how-to-download-youtube-videos-using-vlc-media-player/

drcrinum said:

---

---

WHOA! I would expect Boasberg to recuse himself since Roberts has assigned him clean-up duty on the FISA courts. Surprised by this.

I have really started digging and following the Millie Weaver, the creator of Shadow Gate, after she was arrested on the even of releasing the documentary.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f37fcc2df77c4044ee2eb03

This is very sketchy stuff, nasty actually, It appears to be the kind of stuff that was pulled on Flynn and Assange.

Robert Barnes did a 14 min interview on the issue. (The you tube link says 'invalid')

She's been "Flynned"

fasthorse05 said:

---

Okay guys, does criminal intent only count for government employees, or are the fines and imprisonment just worse for intent?

In going back to the Clinton email fiasco, the country was beat to death with "no intent", and as a result, seemingly no crime, and certainly no punishment. I understand intent would suggest premeditation for any crime, but I saw intent mentioned with the Clinesmith news on Friday. His attorneys statements don't count, since he was being a representative attorney, and his public statements were horse crap.

I'll give you my benighted legal view, which means a crime according to US statute is just that, a crime. So does intent extend and enhance the indictment? If intent is included in the indictment, is it more difficult to convict? I would think so.

---

OMG flashbacks of hearing "extreme carelessness" instead of the statute she broke "gross negligence" as if there is (1) any difference, and (2) that it somehow exonerates her.

K188Ag said:

---

She's been "Flynned"

---

What are the charges?

We fixed the keg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

Okay guys, does criminal intent only count for government employees, or are the fines and imprisonment just worse for intent?

In going back to the Clinton email fiasco, the country was beat to death with "no intent", and as a result, seemingly no crime, and certainly no punishment. I understand intent would suggest premeditation for any crime, but I saw intent mentioned with the Clinesmith news on Friday. His attorneys statements don't count, since he was being a representative attorney, and his public statements were horse crap.

I'll give you my benighted legal view, which means a crime according to US statute is just that, a crime. So does intent extend and enhance the indictment? If intent is included in the indictment, is it more difficult to convict? I would think so.

---

OMG flashbacks of hearing "extreme carelessness" instead of the statute she broke "gross negligence" as if there is (1) any difference, and (2) that it somehow exonerates her.

---

Again I'd note that intent wasn't required under the statute. That was all a Comey bull crap facade for the dunces.

This is law 101; not part of the statute, and not an element of the crime.

Quote:

---

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

---

Tossup between Brennan vs/ Weismann as #1 on my 'most wanted' list.

Waiting for Durham May Be Over

Quote:

---

No, Mueller was just the public face of the investigation that bore his name, much as Joe Biden would be the public face of the administration bearing his name were (per imposssible) he to be elected in November. The real power behind the Mueller investigation was Andrew Weismann, a left-wing poster boy for prosecutorial abuse (he figures prominently in Sidney Powell's scathing "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice")
.
Writing about Mueller's appointment of Weismann to be his chief aide, Jonathan Turley noted that it raised eyebrows because of Weismann's notorious record. Weismann, Turley noted, "has been widely criticized for a pattern of 'prosecutorial overreach' in cases like Enron."

"Weissmann's work against the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen is one such example. The convictions that he secured at any cost in that case were unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. [Too late! Some 18,000 people lost their jobs because of Weismann's overreach.] Likewise, Weissmann secured convictions against four executives with Merrill Lynch by stretching the criminal code beyond recognition. The Fifth Circuit reversed them. He also resigned from the Enron task force in the midst of complaints over his tactics."

I would not doubt that it was Weismann who recommended those pre-dawn raids against Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, who engineered the use of Manafort's own lawyer against him, or who saw to it that Manafort was kept in solitary confinement while repeatedly being dragged out and asked whether he didn't remember anything incriminating about his friend Donald Trump.

Disgusting behavior by a disgusting human being. Nor has Andrew Weismann learned any lessons. Today, when he is not holding fundraisers for Joe Biden, he is penning op-eds for The New York Times urging Justice Department officials not to cooperate with the Durham investigation or Tweeting nonsensical protestations that Kevin Clinesmith really did nothing wrong in doctoring evidence and lying about it.

As Jonathan Turley notes, Weismann was "completely distorting both the law and the facts to disregard the significance of [Clinesmith's] guilty plea."

But that is precisely what Andrew Weismann does: distort the law and the facts in order to destroy people he doesn't like and feed his appetite for power. I noted above that Kevin Clinesmith came rather low down on my "little list" of reprobates. Andrew Weismann comes much higher up and I know I am not the only one who hopes he has attracted the interest of John Durham.

---

Quote:

---

Andrew Weismann comes much higher up and I know I am not the only one who hopes he has attracted the interest of John Durham.

---

The squealing pig always gets some attention. Weissmann would have been well-advised to keep his mouth shut about Clinesmith, since he was under Weissmann's control at the time the crimes were committed. I don't GAS about what some footnote in the Mueller Report said otherwise. Weissmann was running the show, not the FBI nor Main Justice.

redline248 said:

---

K188Ag said:

---

She's been "Flynned"

---

What are the charges?

---

If you are being "Flynned", the charges don't matter.

Quote:

---

"And suddenly Peter realized that the strange after taste of Lisa's kisses was not smoked oysters after all..."

---

Laughing while having a gag response is not recommended. Especially while sipping a martini.

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/08/17/crossfire-hurricane-was-never-a-counterintelligence-investigation/

Interesting read.

Perhaps Manafort or Stone? Naw, they aren't 'very, very important' people.

drcrinum said:

---

Perhaps Manafort or Stone? Naw, they aren't 'very, very important' people.

---

Stone has already had his sentence commuted. Pardon right now seems overkill before the election.

Ag00Ag said:

---

Julian Asange?

---

Interesting answer.

drcrinum said:

---

Perhaps Manafort or Stone? Naw, they aren't 'very, very important' people.

---

Keep in mind she's as loathe some a CCP 'fake reporter' as anyone in the WHCA. If he said that, it wouldn't certainly have been around her.

Lisa Page hasn't tweeted in August after almost daily tweets in Up to July 30...

Good lord the 7th floor of the FBI was a bunch of former high school nerds chasing "the lovely" page.

captkirk said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

Lisa Page took a page from the Kamala Harris playbook

---

the Kama sutra, apparently.

drcrinum said:

---

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/08/17/crossfire-hurricane-was-never-a-counterintelligence-investigation/

Interesting read.

---

This is a good article. It clearly articulates why the actions of the cross fire team was anything but a true CI Investigation. Yet, all along they insisted it was so that they could justify spying and create perception of Russian collusion. Weisman's tweet was just the latest.

The more I learn about this, the evidence of lies and deceit becomes crystal clear. I'll be surprised if we don't see some major indictments in the coming weeks.

Maybe Warner too.

drcrinum said:

---

Perhaps Manafort or Stone? Naw, they aren't 'very, very important' people.

---

Assange? That might make some people sweat

From the thread with the old Washington times article.

A lot of people are joining in on the "Trump will pardon Assange" bandwagon. To me, that just means it won't be Assange.

It will probably be someone more practical and less "nuclear".

Assange would certainly eat up headlines over the DNC. I wonder if the pardon happens in the late afternoon just before prime time.

Also, if all the DNC speeches are pre-recorded, do they have anyone going live to give any rebuttal to Trump as he campaigns and creates headlines during the DNC convention?

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Interesting timing on the release of this 'investigation'...circa 950 pages long...vary detailed...just in time for the Election to continue fueling the Russian hoax narrative. Slanted as one would expect from the SSCI snakepit. (I've only scanned the section on Flynn...doesn't distinguish between 'sanctions' and 'expulsions'...paints him as a Russian operative IMO.) If Trump pardons Assange & it comes out definitely that the Russians didn't hack the DNC, then it all goes 'poof'.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-says-he-will-pardon-womens-suffrage-leader-susan-b-anthony-2020-08-18?mod=bnbh

Trump is going to pardon Susan B. Anthony.....