nortex97 said:

---

Another infuriating McCarthy piece (part 3);

What I don't understand is why Clinesmith's guilty plea is satisfactory to the Justice Department to the Durham team, which negotiated the plea and is poised to drop any other potential charges against Clinesmith in exchange for the admission of guilt as he has farcically articulated it.

---

Cooperating witness?

I've got to think most of us on the outside aren't privy to what's really going on. At least I hope that.

No you can't, but the folks on this thread are sitting somewhere in between. The general public has no clue who Clinesmith is, we do, but we know enough here to surmise fairly accurately many of the actions of investigators.

Durham/Barr has run an incredibly tight ship regarding information, so it's been more difficult.

I'm hopeful Clinesmith's information is worth his lousy 3 month sentence, or whatever it will be. However, our friend nortex could be correct, although I can't imagine the incentive for a whitewash. The ramifications are horrendous.

fasthorse05 said:

---

No you can't, but the folks on this thread are sitting somewhere in between. The general public has no clue who Clinesmith is, we do, but we know enough here to surmise fairly accurately many of the actions of investigators.

Durham/Barr has run an incredibly tight ship regarding information, so it's been more difficult.

I'm hopeful Clinesmith's information is worth his lousy 3 month sentence, or whatever it will be. However, our friend nortex could be correct, although I can't imagine the incentive for a whitewash. The ramifications are horrendous.

---

Hmmmm...I heard it was a 20 yr sentenced reduced to 5, with future adjustments down depending on the subsequent take-downs.

Or was it 5 years' probation? I don't recall 3-months anything, other than the sum total of Biden's benefit to American Society in his 47 years of swimming in The Swamp...

You know, I've read so much about this topic in the last week, I've forgotten where I read the "0 to 6 month" sentence, which I split to 3.

I do remember Hawg saying something to the effect of "hope the sentence reduction is worth it". I'll see if I can find the article, but I've pretty well accepted the sentence won't be a big deal. As long as I know that SOB true believer Clinesmith has a felony on his record, I'll be happy.

Doesn't a felony cancel ones right to practice law?

fasthorse05 said:

---

You know, I've read so much about this topic in the last week, I've forgotten where I read the "0 to 6 month" sentence, which I split to 3.

I do remember Hawg saying something to the effect of "hope the sentence reduction is worth it". I'll see if I can find the article, but I've pretty well accepted the sentence won't be a big deal. As long as I know that SOB true believer Clinesmith has a felony on his record, I'll be happy.

Doesn't a felony cancel ones right to practice law?

---

The original (read as Interim) DOJ sentence recommendation was 0-6 months. At the allocution, Judge Boasberg remarked that he is not bound by same and could impose the full 5 years as statutorily allowed. (Remember, Boasberg is the Chief Judge of the FISA court, he'd have a more jaundiced eye towards Clinesmith's actions than another federal district court judge not on a FISC. His possible bias was fully discussed in the same hearing and neither prosecution nor defense asked for his recusal. That issue is now moot.)

The reason I use the term "interim" is that it is not written in stone that 0-6 months will be the final sentencing recommendation at the formal sentencing hearing, currently scheduled for December. Clinesmith still has the duty to cooperate fully with Durham in the meantime. If they are displeased with his effort, they can recommend more or pull the whole plea deal off the table and go after him for the 20 year sentence felonies he committed.

Clinesmith has been handed a gift, a big one. So I'll repeat that I hope the information he is providing warrants such generosity.

ETA: Yes, a felony conviction can result in loss of a law license.

Thanks Hawg.

"Allocution" still sounds like a drug for acne!

aggiehawg said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

This makes it sound like they arranged to take Manafort out once he went to work for team Trump and they might have suspected he had a little inside knowledge of Obama administration dealings in Ukraine, or they knew from their own relationships pre 2016 election he would make a good patsy to smear Trump with.

---

Manafort worked for Yanukovych. The coup a/k/a "The Maidan Revolution" that removed him from power was more than likely a CIA operation. Manafort and Kiliminik would have a front row seat to some of what was going on.

---

In a thread full of interesting details, this is the most interesting detail I have read here in a while.

What's going on with my tweet posts? mobile and pc don't work...

Secolobo said:

---

What's going on with my tweet posts? mobile and pc don't work...

---

TexAgs Glitch

It's a TexAgs cover up for Kerry!

Paul Sperry reporting about financial ties between Kerry, Simpson and Steele to a Russian oligarch.

Did that work?

Guess not.

I got it. Reading now.

Hopefully, that's what you intended.

Now that sounds like a Logan Act infraction.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/25/top_kerry_aide_key_conduit_for_dossier_worked_for_russian_oligarch_as_did_steele_124962.html

Secolobo said:

---

What's going on with my tweet posts? mobile and pc don't work...

---

I think it's actually related to twitter; has anyone seen confirmation it's a TA issue? I've noticed if I copy a twitter link from TA it adds a "where it's been copied from" tail to the url lately; my suspicion is they are tracking/limiting conservative sites further.

Quote:

---

APCO's 2011 Foreign Agents Registration Act filing names Techsnabexport as the "foreign principal" for which it was working. The firm described their client as "an open joint stock company wholly owned by the JSC Atomenergoprom." In the fine print, one discovers that company in turn is "wholly owned by State corporation for Atomic Energy, 'Rosatom,' which is wholly owned by the Russian government."

A "Contract for Lobbying Services and Consulting Services" was drawn up by APCO in April 2010, a copy of which was attached as a secondary appendix to the FARA filing. The "Scope of Work" includes "Creating and promoting a new image of State Atomic Energy corporation 'Rosatom,'" supporting "the interests of Rosatom in the USA," and overcoming "existing political and trade barriers."

In October 2010, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved Rosatom's controversial acquisition of Uranium One, a Canadian company with extensive mining projects in the U.S.

---

The Federalist

BOOM!

benchmark said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Another infuriating McCarthy piece (part 3);

What I don't understand is why Clinesmith's guilty plea is satisfactory to the Justice Department to the Durham team, which negotiated the plea and is poised to drop any other potential charges against Clinesmith in exchange for the admission of guilt as he has farcically articulated it.

---

Cooperating witness?

---

That just doesn't explain why they let him put it that way in the plea. He clearly didn't think his submission was honest, and intended to mislead the SSA who was calling him on it. He had motive, and documentary evidence proved his bad faith.

Now, he might get no jail sentence and even keep his law license. It's preposterous.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

APCO's 2011 Foreign Agents Registration Act filing names Techsnabexport as the "foreign principal" for which it was working. The firm described their client as "an open joint stock company wholly owned by the JSC Atomenergoprom." In the fine print, one discovers that company in turn is "wholly owned by State corporation for Atomic Energy, 'Rosatom,' which is wholly owned by the Russian government."

A "Contract for Lobbying Services and Consulting Services" was drawn up by APCO in April 2010, a copy of which was attached as a secondary appendix to the FARA filing. The "Scope of Work" includes "Creating and promoting a new image of State Atomic Energy corporation 'Rosatom,'" supporting "the interests of Rosatom in the USA," and overcoming "existing political and trade barriers."

In October 2010, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved Rosatom's controversial acquisition of Uranium One, a Canadian company with extensive mining projects in the U.S.

---

The Federalist

BOOM!

---

But I thought Trump was Colluding with Russia?

Is what Tracy is saying legit? Or just an untrained eye?

Thread

So we can expect a ruling from the DC Circuit by Monday. I hadn't heard there was a justice retiring.

she seems to just be guessing.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, does anyone know why Clinesmith plea doesn't have the broad cooperation clause like Flynn has?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-flynn-plea-agreement-documents

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-0950-dac0-adf5-1bf481a00000

I think I'll take Andy McCarthy's analysis over Tracy Beanz.

She's a decent conservative writer, but clearly has no legal expertise/understanding of federal prosecutions.

PSA. With conventions wrapping up and the 60 day pre-election window closing .... odds increase significantly for a noteworthy Barr/Durahm event next week. Just say'n.

Grenell is impressive!

A Mueller lying to Congress charge sounds nice.

not following something. how does Mueller saying he didn't go there to interview mean he was not under consideration for the job? Sounds like he is saying he discovered he was under consideration. And then based on the Rosenstein email, he withdrew from being considered.

Is there another tweet that shows Mueller saying he was not under consideration?

I don't know where Perry gets his info, but he has some well placed people.

If Trump wins re-election does that change the trajectory of Barr and Durham's investigation?

I think they are up against time in getting this work done. There is still too much not known or not tied up and that is a problem. The resistance is still at work. The resistance is on the clock too, that being the replacement of Trump. One side will be successful and either the investigation can continue or the investigation is shut down.

I do think Barr wants to get to the bottom of things and does want truth and justice. He knows how important this is to the country and to the proper workings of the system of our country.

I may just be naive. This has been on my mind.

I believe in Barr. I wonder if the clock (time) is just too much to overcome verses the hurdles still in place and at work denying Barr a complete path to a solid successful indictment of the crimes.

More time would change the outlook considerably. Wray could be removed. The resistance could be crushed.