will25u said:

---

---

The American public deserves another complete document dump as with Snowden.

So why didn't Victoria Nuland face one question from the GOP committee members this week about her roll on the Steele Dossier? Is this story accurate? I didn't watch the hearing to confirm the story.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/16/victoria-nuland-christopher-steele-dossier/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=getemails&pnespid=2OxypqAEAxCN_iaoO60V5c1xpKIhVUOGq3lUSBM8

Quote:

---

Nuland coasted through her Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday without facing any questions about her role disseminating information from former British spy Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign.

---

policywonk98 said:

---

So why didn't Victoria Nuland face one question from the GOP committee members this week about her roll on the Steele Dossier? Is this story accurate? I didn't watch the hearing to confirm the story.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/16/victoria-nuland-christopher-steele-dossier/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=getemails&pnespid=2OxypqAEAxCN_iaoO60V5c1xpKIhVUOGq3lUSBM8

Quote:

---

Nuland coasted through her Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday without facing any questions about her role disseminating information from former British spy Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign.

---

---

Nuland, to her credit, recognized a Hatch Act violation and ordered her office to back off having anything to do with Steele. Not that all of her employees followed her instructions and they might have been delivered in a wink, wink, nod, nod manner but she effectively did a CYA for herself. It was her employee a woman, whose name escapes me at the moment, who did interview Steele, determined he was FOS and notified the FBI of same. Nuland called a halt after that.

ETA: Kavalec was her name. Just remembered.

richardag said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

The American public deserves another complete document dump as with Snowden.

---

I wish Trump had pushed this harder. He should have fired Wray and kept going until he had a patriot in the position who would have done away with the "embarrassing to someone" redactions.

Especially after he lost the election. It was clear then no one would be held accountable. At least the truth would be known.

SMDH.

NEW - Declassified FISA Court Opinion:

The FISA abuses have continued.

Crime victims went to the FBI for help. The FBI used the FISA database to spy on them.

They even used the FISA database on gov't officials.

Our latest:https://t.co/efj9f4Ki1T

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 26, 2021

Who is watching the watchmen?

Answer: nobody

will25u said:

---

SMDH.

NEW - Declassified FISA Court Opinion:

The FISA abuses have continued.

Crime victims went to the FBI for help. The FBI used the FISA database to spy on them.

They even used the FISA database on gov't officials.

Our latest:https://t.co/efj9f4Ki1T

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 26, 2021

---

Be careful what you say or post, a FISA maybe performed on anyone for any reason, especially if you are a conservative.

McCord.

NEW: Government Official Who Approved Improper Spying On Trump Aide Is Tapped For Advisory Role For Spy Court
https://t.co/Edh6bYDpvk

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) April 28, 2021

will25u said:

---

McCord.

NEW: Government Official Who Approved Improper Spying On Trump Aide Is Tapped For Advisory Role For Spy Court
https://t.co/Edh6bYDpvk

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) April 28, 2021

---

Full on retribution against anyone who speaks out against the Democratic Party leadership is escalating.

How can this happen? Seriously?

I've always been told "not even the perception/appearance of impropriety" related to ethics.

Tapping this guy consult on FISA crosses that line by a mile. Who is making these decisions?

Nothing will change until proper consequences happen

So they were spying on Trump prior to and after his election. And with this bomb, they were probably spying on Trump again through guliani.

It’s troubling that, in late 2019, during the impeachment of President Trump, the Southern District of New York executed a “covert warrant” on @RudyGiuliani’s iCloud account. So they secretly had access to privileged private communications between the president and his lawyer

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) April 30, 2021

Wow, the flogging will continue until morale improves.

Interesting email in ref to the Biden Crime Family. And Manafort.

Interesting @jsolomonReports email just released. Cc: @AndriyUkraineTe https://t.co/owumvnuqy7 pic.twitter.com/as0nqKgYTD

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) May 3, 2021

Born&Raised said:

---

Did you know... that Biden Jr gave sensitive information about specific demographic areas to the Chinese to target for social media and phy-op's and he gave them to THE CCP intelligence service

O wait that was Trumps oligarch loving campaign manager... manafort. Yawn!

LIBS!

---

Lolwut?

Quote:

---

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release a March 2019 legal memo that advised then-Attorney General William Barr that the special counsel's investigation did not support prosecuting former President Trump, issuing a scathing decision that accused Barr and department lawyers of deceiving the public.

District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Monday ordered the DOJ to release the legal memo in two weeks in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW).

The DOJ had argued in court that the full memo, portions of which have already been released, should be withheld because it fell under exceptions to the public records law for attorney-client privilege and deliberative government decision making.

---

Quote:

---

But Jackson said on Monday that those claims were not consistent with her own review of the unredacted memo nor the timeline revealed by internal emails among top Justice Department officials.
Jackson, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Obama, wrote in a 41-page decision that "not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege."

"The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time," she added.

---

Link

Of course it is Jackson and CREW.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Jackson, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Obama, wrote in a 41-page decision that "not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege."

"The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time," she added.

---

Link

---

Barr did not make the decision not to prosecute Trump for obstruction and prosecuting Trump for obstruction was never even considered.

I'm at a loss for how Barr was disingenuous.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Jackson, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Obama, wrote in a 41-page decision that "not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege."

"The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time," she added.

---

Link

---

Barr did not make the decision not to prosecute Trump for obstruction and prosecuting Trump for obstruction was never even considered.

I'm at a loss for how Barr was disingenuous.

---

No idea. Need to read it when it is released. But is DOJ really going to file obstruction of justice charges against Trump based on the Mueller crap? That's what this suggests to me.

aggiehawg said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Jackson, who was appointed to the federal district court in D.C. by former President Obama, wrote in a 41-page decision that "not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege."

"The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time," she added.

---

Link

---

Barr did not make the decision not to prosecute Trump for obstruction and prosecuting Trump for obstruction was never even considered.

I'm at a loss for how Barr was disingenuous.

---

No idea. Need to read it when it is released. But is DOJ really going to file obstruction of justice charges against Trump based on the Mueller crap? That's what this suggests to me.

---

But she says "no such decision was on the table at any time."

It seems to me she is upset with DoJ for claiming privilege because of the deliberative process re obstruction against Trump, but the documents show there was no such deliberative process.

Definitely need to see the whole opinion.

I don't think its saying the DOJ is going to bring obstruction charges against Trump.

I read it as saying saying DOJ can't use the "deliberative process privilege" exception to FOIA if Barr was not deliberating whether to bring charges. So the disingenuous for DOJ to argue this document was part of the deliberations on how to act.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/show_public_doc.pdf

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think its saying the DOJ is going to bring obstruction charges against Trump.

I read it as saying saying DOJ can't use the "deliberative process privilege" exception to FOIA if Barr was not deliberating whether to bring charges. So the disingenuous for DOJ to argue this document was part of the deliberations on how to act.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/show_public_doc.pdf

---

Oh. I was thinking it was about Barr and Mueller talking about whether Mueller was recommending obstruction charges.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think its saying the DOJ is going to bring obstruction charges against Trump.

I read it as saying saying DOJ can't use the "deliberative process privilege" exception to FOIA if Barr was not deliberating whether to bring charges. So the disingenuous for DOJ to argue this document was part of the deliberations on how to act.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/show_public_doc.pdf

---

Thanks for the link.

I love this one:

Quote:

---

In sum, while CREW had never laid eyes on the document, its summary was considerably more accurate than the one supplied by the Department's declarants.

---

@ p 24.

CREW is getting some help from someone on the inside.

Or DOJ just lied?

Isn't that their SOP?

Quote:

---

CREW is getting some help from someone on the inside.

---

CREW is just another arm of the DNCCP.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Or DOJ just lied?

Isn't that their SOP?

---

Absolutely. That certainly explains them being wrong. It doesn't explain how CREW got it right. It's probably both lying and inside help.

12 days since last post. Whew.

The case is still in its early stages even though we filed it in Nov 2020 because of the procedural rights given to the govt & former govt officials in federal court. This coming week, however, the defendants will be filing their responses to our Complaint. /2

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) May 17, 2021

We are expecting this procedural move by the defendants & are fully prepared to respond to the arguments the defendants will make. We will be presenting our arguments in opposition in our publicly filed court papers. /4

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) May 17, 2021

The rules of the federal court provide for the briefing of legal arguments to the court in a series of filings and normally with a hearing, so there will be no rulings on any arguments raised by the defendants for quite some time. Federal litigation is a marathon, not a sprint./6

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) May 17, 2021

Quote:

---

12 days since last post. Whew.

---

What's the significance of that?