aggiehawg said:

---

Reading through Mifsud's 302, very little of it lines up with the time line. He's being interviewed in February 2017 but says he met Papadop "about 8 months" before. That would be June or late May 2016. Then he says about two months later he saw Papadop again, which would be July or August 2016. Finally he says he was in email communication with Papadop in December 2016 and says Papadop told him he was leaving the Trump campaign.

Then in his follow-up email to the FBI he does not narrow down or correct his earlier representations as ato any dates after reviewing his emails and notes?

This really doesn't look like a push/pull op to me, or if it was, Mifsud failed miserably on his end. Mueller just fabricated a lot of narrative to get to a desired conclusion.

Obligatory: Aaaaannnnd Mueller is still a POS.

---

Keep in mind Mifsud was obviously a CIA asset. In an NSD investigation the FBI also had access to basically anyone's emails (including certainly Mifsud) thru the Utah data center. (Not for criminal prosecution purposes, but certainly for investigatory reasons).

So did all of the FBI contractors (like Fusion GPS). Nevermind that Mueller to this day doesn't know anything about Fusion GPS, or the Ohr family.

Claiming files were lost, can't remember that information, didn't check on this or that is just...bs. There's no point in trying to build a comprehensive flow chart of the assertions/lies; they're not even trying to hide it is the truth.

They (meaning the FBI/CIA/Obama) were/are working to defeat, then impeach, then defeat for re-election Donald J Trump. Full stop.

techno-ag said:

---

richardag said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Really lost faith over our "system". Doesn't bode well for the future.

---

You're not alone.

---

Democrats have ruined corrupted the judicial system.

---

I have faith in Barr and I have faith in most of the US Attorneys (SDNY excluded) and I have faith in the rank and file, but there is a huge rotten layer in between that needs to be purged.

Quote:

---

They (meaning the FBI/CIA/Obama) were/are working to defeat, then impeach, then defeat for re-election Donald J Trump. Full stop.

---

It ALWAYS comes back to this comment. There's been so much in the way of "information cleansing" during this coup attempt, there HAD to be a full time "cleaner" to either destroy, remove, or deceive investigators.

nortex97 said:

---

They (meaning the FBI/CIA/Obama) were/are working to defeat, then impeach, then defeat for re-election Donald J Trump. Full stop.

---

Intuitively. Still, the question ...who committed what crime(s) that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A bit concerning to me that most knowledgeable bloggers (McCarthy, Turley, et al) aren't speculating beyond process crimes.

Tick tock.

BTW, a question for legals here.

Will the inevitable lawsuits against NY nursing homes/government of NY by State suits? I would think so. I'm asking because there have been several instances of Cuomo's office deleting/destroying evidence in that case. Obviously, few seem to suffer penalties for doing this, so it's likely to be effective.

Oh, Spygate related because Cuomo almost certainly knew everything going on since August of 2016

fasthorse05 said:

---

BTW, a question for legals here.

Will the inevitable lawsuits against NY nursing homes/government of NY by State suits? I would think so. I'm asking because there have been several instances of Cuomo's office deleting/destroying evidence in that case. Obviously, few seem to suffer penalties for doing this, so it's likely to be effective.

Oh, Spygate related because Cuomo almost certainly knew everything going on since August of 2016

---

Originally I didn't think civil liability would attach because of sovereign immunity and his dealing with a pandemic and under declared state of emergency.

Now I'm not so sure since DOJ is looking into it. I didn't know there was a separate federal statute that specifically addressed elder abuse in nursing homes.

I wondered about that to, since I figured the suits would have to be against the nursing homes/care facilities.

If they go after the nursing homes, it's staggeringly unfair, but there has to be some kind of restitution. I wonder if the care facilities could have legally said "NO" to Cuomo's demand to put Covid patients there?

This is finally a good piece at CTH (which has gone off the rails lately). I dunno, as I hold little faith in Durham honestly given the timelines today, but it is incredible how Brennan continues to spout his lies. He's an old man and unafraid of prison, yes, but it is brazen.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/02/brennan-transmits-his-durham-briefing-to-the-crew/

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In my more than 30 years of government service, I had witnessed some members of both political parties engage in unethical behavior by misusing intelligence, and I wanted to avoid that happening on the eve of a closely contested presidential election. Obama understood my concerns, but he said he wanted Congress briefed as appropriate and as required.

---

Quote:

---

Congress was already on summer recess at the time, but three members of the Gang of Eight Democrats Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.) and Sen. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) made arrangements to receive the briefing in August in person or by secure phone.

---

---

Well isn't that just peachy??

Brennan was concerned because of the closely contested race?

July 28-August 1 Clinton was polling anywhere from 8-15 points higher than Trump.

What measurement was Brennan using?

These people are such lieing POS.

policywonk98 said:

---

Brennan was concerned because of the closely contested race?

July 28-August 1 Clinton was polling anywhere from 8-15 points higher than Trump.

What measurement was Brennan using?

These people are such lieing POS.

---

What if he was concerned because he knew public facing polls were little more than disinformation? The more we see such a huge gap in polls vs results, it makes sense why they all have "internal polliing."

With the case of Clinton, I think they new how unpopular she was and no matter how much they trotted out the huge "leads", they new it wasn't true. They were not going to take the chance.

Another good read by Andrew McCarthy. Mueller thread related because racketeering was once mentioned as a possible avenue for Durham (Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, Steele-Orbis, etc.).

McCarthy: Meet the Travel Act

Quote:

---

Third, Travel Act offenses tend to be compelling evidence that a racketeering enterprise exists. In organized crime cases, there are all sorts of conspiratorial arrangements. Some are highly formal (e.g., a corporation or other ostensibly legitimate association that is a front for criminal activity). Some are illegitimate but very regimented (e.g., a mafia family, which is a criminal business but has a formal structure). And, at the other end of the spectrum, there are conspiratorial endeavors that are very loosely organized in time and space. These, too, can qualify as RICO enterprises because the statutory definition is very broad: An enterprise is just an association in fact. When people are traveling across state lines to commit crimes, furtively communicating with or recruiting out-of-town participants, shipping supplies in interstate commerce, transferring funds electronically to back the venture all of these things can form convincing proof that an enterprise exists. That is so even if its activities appear to be cobbled together ad hoc, without much in the way of prior connections or planning for future operations.

---

Possible avenue! These smart people should be WAAAAAY past planning steps.

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

---

So to those non lawyers, what does this actually mean?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

---

You're going to have to Hawgsplain this one for us please, milady.

Zemira said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

---

So to those non lawyers, what does this actually mean?

---

Barr and DOJ are going after the funding sources for the Antifa and BLM and by using RICO they can seize their assets. It's a big deal.

There are 35 specific RICO predicate offenses. Generally,

• Bribery
• Counterfeiting
• Mail, wire, and financial institution fraud
• Obstruction of justice
• Trafficking; humans, drugs, or illegal or counterfeit goods
• Tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims, informants

The gov't has to prove two predicates and a step taken to accomplish the crimes, and

• That an enterprise existed; "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." (this is actually easy; it isn't a requirement for articles of incorporation etc)
• The enterprise affected interstate commerce; this is even easier
• The defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise, and effectively engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity within a 10-year period

Rico in short is a powerful tool when the DoJ does want to use it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Zemira said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

---

So to those non lawyers, what does this actually mean?

---

Barr and DOJ are going after the funding sources for the Antifa and BLM and by using RICO they can seize their assets. It's a big deal.

---

Thanks that makes sense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Zemira said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

---

So to those non lawyers, what does this actually mean?

---

Barr and DOJ are going after the funding sources for the Antifa and BLM and by using RICO they can seize their assets. It's a big deal.

---

. . . and the travel act makes it easier. Those yahoos crossing state lines to commit crimes and transfering funding and materials across state lines to commit those crimes was a huge mistake.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Biden's war chest took in tens of millions of dollars from What is determined to be organized Crime?

aggiehawg said:

---

Zemira said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Second, the Travel Act concerns what's known as a "predicate crime" or "predicate act of racketeering." When prosecutors try to neutralize a criminal organization, the objective is to establish the existence of a racketeering enterprise (under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971). This requires proving a pattern of racketeering activity, which (by statute) means at least two predicate acts. Thus, a single Travel Act violation can get you halfway home. Plus, as a practical matter, many if not most Travel Act cases involve multiple instances of cross-border travel and/or uses of interstate facilities. The Travel Act is a rich vein of racketeering activity.

---

Yeeee Haaaw!

---

So to those non lawyers, what does this actually mean?

---

Barr and DOJ are going after the funding sources for the Antifa and BLM and by using RICO they can seize their assets. It's a big deal.

---

Do the funds raised to provide bail money to the rioters that crossed state lines repeatedly affected? I hope so.

Quote:

---

. . . and the travel act makes it easier. Those yahoos crossing state lines to commit crimes and transfering funding and materials across state lines to commit those crimes was a huge mistake.

---

Exactly. Made it a federal and not a state matter. Can by-pass those Soros funded local DAs. And by deputizing the State Police they too can effectuate federal arrests. Meaning the extra manpower is needed because of the plethora of potential targets.

The first evidence of the heavy involvement of the feds was the involvement of US Marshals in the Riot Kitchen arrests in Kenosha.

ETA: What that meant is that the feds were tracking them.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Wouldn't it be interesting if Biden's war chest took in tens of millions of dollars from What is determined to be organized Crime?

---

Not sure they are that stupid. OTOH, I have no evidence to indicate they are not.

Good. Hope that *sshole gets what he so richly deserves for ruining the lives of so many people with his unethical shenanigans.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sounds to me like Clinesmith was flipped.

Weissmann was squealing like a stuck pig for good reason.

---

Mama always said guilty dogs bark the loudest

Does this potentially mean Weissman will be having a very very long federally mandated quarantine?

As a non-legal simpleton, what all charges could he be looking at?

RulesForTheNotForMe said:

---

Does this potentially mean Weissman will be having a very very long federally mandated quarantine?

As a non-legal simpleton, what all charges could he be looking at?

---

I don't know/just guessing...but isn't Weissman the 'type' of person (character wise) that would likely take others down with him...instead of taking all/most of the blame himself? Seems more like a sewer rat rather than a 'stand up/heroic' kind of guy. Dirty to the core???

If so, that is even better. Burn them all down... EVERYONE INVOLVED.

This is actual LAW and ORDER.

RulesForTheNotForMe said:

---

Does this potentially mean Weissman will be having a very very long federally mandated quarantine?

As a non-legal simpleton, what all charges could he be looking at?

---

That email was a government record. So at the very least tampering with government records but the recent revelation that the Carter Page Woods file was "missing" and recreated by Team Mueller is a target rich environment for multiple charges.