Hannity just said there will be big news tomorrow with a big smile on his face

I wouldn't expect much from a senate report. So far, legislative reports have been riddled with unsubstantiated or even disproven data mixed in so that they're largely only useful as political smears and if the press is not your ally, you don't get much mileage.

HarryBJatm33 said:

---

Hannity just said there will be big news tomorrow with a big smile on his face

---

Man this is HUGE news....


For the 2,678th time


Wake me when there are perp walks.

Sir Yacht says today is the day. Per sources.

valvemonkey91 said:

---

HarryBJatm33 said:

---

Hannity just said there will be big news tomorrow with a big smile on his face

---

Man this is HUGE news....


For the 2,678th time


Wake me when there are perp walks.

---

Bombshell I'm telling you, bombshell breaking news. Day 2678.

Here is the big news.

All of which will continue to be ignored by the media and the Trump hating democrat base.

I don't think the Bidens will face justice, which is the unfortunate reality of our two-tiered justice system.

However, I sure hope the committee issues criminal referrals to the DOJ for any bureaucrats that violated the law by turned blind eye or enabled such behavior. Need to root out the corruption within the swamp.

I don't see this going anywhere. This is a republican report with no democrat support that will be easily dismissed by the left snd their toadies in the media as purely (and crassly) political in an election year. This has no teeth ; it's a long winded gotcha meme.

Indictments are all that will matter.

I really think that Trump has the election in the bag. So, I don't expect any big revelations or indictments until after he wins. There is no reason to galvanize any Dem votes over what THEY will portray as abuse of power.

$3.5MM Russian payment to a Biden vs $5k Russian Facebook ad buy supporting President Trump.

Rudy taking on the Mob will be a walk in the park compared to the evil MSM.

drcrinum said:

---

And yet, less than 9 months ago, there was a Democrat led impeachment of the President over a Ukrainian phone call. Typical pattern: Whenever the Dems are guilty of "something", they preemptively accuse the Reps of that "something" in order to confuse & distort reality from the public's eye...and the MSM goes along with the Dem narrative.

---

Exactly right.

Tailgate88 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

And yet, less than 9 months ago, there was a Democrat led impeachment of the President over a Ukrainian phone call. Typical pattern: Whenever the Dems are guilty of "something", they preemptively accuse the Reps of that "something" in order to confuse & distort reality from the public's eye...and the MSM goes along with the Dem narrative.

---

Exactly right.

---

As they say in AA/12 step programs: You spot it, you got it.

That's why they won't allow him to win. Only huge voter turnout will re-elect Trump.

RCI has a good piece today, even mentions Ciaramella when discussing Brennan's sham ICA:

Quote:

---

The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded conflicting evidence about Putin's motives from the report, despite objections from some intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump as a "wild card."

The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state, Clinton tried to "reset" relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a threat.

These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring.

"They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though they said it didn't have any real substance behind it," said a senior U.S intelligence official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which President Obama ordered after the 2016 election.

He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back Brennan's judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures" against the Clinton campaign to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was "weak."

No Input From CIA's 'Russia House'

The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from experts from CIA's so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the election to benefit Trump.

"It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence] community or even with experts in Russia House," the official said. "It was just a small group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself and Brennan did the editing."

The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the 17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion.

The official said the NSA's departure was significant because the agency monitors the communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan's preferred conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump "didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources," reportedly has been cooperating with Durham's probe.

The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White House.

"It wasn't 17 agencies and it wasn't even a dozen analysts from the three agencies who wrote the assessment," as has been widely reported in the media, he said. "It was just five officers of the CIA who wrote it, and Brennan hand-picked all five. And the lead writer was a good friend of Brennan's."
Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the assessment reflected the "consensus of the entire intelligence community." His unilateral role also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.

---

Isnt brennan a sip?

who?mikejones said:

---

Isnt brennan a sip?

---

I mean, he was a legit registered commie at one point....even if not explicitly a sip he was never far off.

who?mikejones said:

---

Isnt brennan a sip?

---

LOL, yes he got a masters degree from that crappy school.

Quote:

---

Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut assigned by Mr. Barr to review the Russia inquiry, has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Durham's team members have suggested to others that they are comparing the two investigations as well as examining whether investigators in the Russia inquiry flouted laws or policies. It was not clear whether Mr. Durham's investigators were similarly looking for violations in the Clinton Foundation investigation, nor whether the comparison would be included or play a major role in the outcome of Mr. Durham's inquiry.

The approach is highly unusual, according to people briefed on the investigation. Though the suspected crimes themselves are not comparable one involves a possible conspiracy between a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary to interfere in an election, and the other involves potential bribery and corruption and largely included different teams of investigators and prosecutors, Mr. Durham's efforts suggest the scope of his review is broader than previously known.

---

MF Barnes but still, interesting crap that Sullivan is continuing with his charade after appointing his own prosecutor.

nortex97 said:

---

MF Barnes but still, interesting crap that Sullivan is continuing with his charade after appointing his own prosecutor.

---

I think most observers anticipated he'd be appearing in full at the hearing next week.

But Barr's sending in the A-team for opposing counsel.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

I really think that Trump has the election in the bag. So, I don't expect any big revelations or indictments until after he wins. There is no reason to galvanize any Dem votes over what THEY will portray as abuse of power.

---

Some of the allegations may have exceeded SoL, and there may also be sealed indictments sitting our there that extend them...we can't know that.

HOWEVER, if all that dirt and political filth is dropped out the Public Domain and becomes part of the public record, it certainly can influence voters / citizens choices and opinions in the future.

Sometimes that may be enough...

Although I still hold out hope that someone is gonna get flayed and have their spine removed...

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Although I still hold out hope that someone is gonna get flayed and have their spine removed...

---

Too many on "our" side don't have spines, so......

At this point, the question is whether or not Durham and Barr have the "spines" to do it. Given Durham's track record, I wouldn't question his "spine".