Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,746,583 Views | 49415 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by fasthorse05
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Thread

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thread.

MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They were coming after Trump from all angles. VIctoria Nuland passed along a version of the Steele garbage that Winer was filtering in, Kash Patel uncovered an internal memo from with in the State Dept that showed they knew it was garbage and pushed it anyway. Nuland, Winer and Ohr all had prior relationships with Steele and knew this wasn't his intel that WIner was pushing. But Nuland and Winer were dirty and Sidney Blumenthal had them leveraged to push this propaganda. Nuland tried to CYA herself and leave a few bread crumbs but they were all in.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thread(s).


will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We fixed the keg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Will it be accompanied by another set for "assault with a deadly weapon (car)"?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Xiden won't have to order Garland to do anything. He will shut it down as it is an 'unnecessary use of resources' or something along those lines. Garland is a partisan hack, as we all know.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
HE CAN'T DO THAT!!! HE IS A SC AND JOE BIDEN CAN'T JUST FIRE THEM WILLY NILLY! /dems(Talking about Mueller/Trump)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-mueller-factbox/factbox-can-the-new-u-s-attorney-general-shut-down-the-mueller-probe-idUSKCN1ND00S
Quote:

The special counsel regulation under which Mueller was appointed gives the attorney general or acting attorney general authority to fire Mueller only for "good cause," such as misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity or conflict of interest.
If Whitaker decided to fire Mueller, he would need to inform the special counsel in writing of the specific reason for his termination.
Good cause is a difficult thing to show, especially since Mueller's actions were approved by the deputy attorney general, said Jens Ohlin, a professor of criminal law at Cornell Law School.
"I don't think Whitaker has good cause to fire Mueller. He would have to trump up some charges," Ohlin said.
Democrats don't follow rules, so I am sure they would just fire him, and the news media would be perfectly happy with it. Not question a THING! Most politically motivated DOJ since... Obama!
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Xiden won't have to order Garland to do anything. He will shut it down as it is an 'unnecessary use of resources' or something along those lines. Garland is a partisan hack, as we all know.
You may be correct. We are in uncharted waters right now. It's not October 1973 when Nixon had the Saturday Night Massacre. Two AGs resigned instead of firing Archibald Cox as Nixon wanted. Interestingly enough, even though Nixon was about to be impeached before he resigned, the articles of impeachment were drafted but did not include anything about the firing of Cox. Jaworski thereafter proceeded untouched.

Then we were under s statutory Special Counsel regime for several years. That statute was sunsetted.

Sessions could not fire Mueller, due to his recusal. But it was widely believed that Rosenstein did have the power to terminate Mueller, with or without Trump's approval.

So it comes down to Garland's appetite for being a scape goat and who is in his ear. These subpoenas are going out to people with some powerful friends that don't want their roles to be proven. They have already been revealed in the Sussmann indictment but Durham does appear to me to be going up a food chain.

It's also a political decision. Do the powers that be in the Dem Party (Obama/Jarrett) believe the Biden/ Harris administration is a bust and 2024 will be someone completely different? If they are at that point, letting Biden/Harris/Garland take the blame to make it all go away forever. (Statute of Limitations.)
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think Garland could dismiss/shut down the investigation (or even do so quietly/piecemeal behind the scenes over many months) and it would be a fart in the wind in the media/to all but the conservative base.

This is part of why they've made "anything AND everything Trump says is a wild conspiracy/unproven" one of their main narratives. I certainly don't agree but he lacks message discipline and to much of their own base that is the case. It's why I wish he wouldn't run again and the republic would be better served with a new nominee.

But, regardless, it serves my point; there's no comparison to the public perception of what Nixon did vs. what Garland might. They'll pay a very small political price, probably toward xmas eve, if it is handled quietly. Xiden is almost certainly not running for re-election anyway, and Garland could/is likely to retire before any post-2024 stuff too, even best-case (for the CCP-Dems).

LOL, Rosenstein was obviously a participating Weisman-Mueller team member, not likely to fire/shut down any of them.
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
I've never thought very highly of Garland as a judge (although my genuine knowledge isn't good), however, I never, ever, thought he was crooked or corrupt like I do now.

Some of his actions since he took office tell me how well Obama and his staff did their homework when they chose Garland for SCOTUS.

Garland is a smarmy, sly, crooked, judge, and is likely as bad as ANY judge in the southern US in the Jim Crow days.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fasthorse05 said:

aggiehawg said:

Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
I've never thought very highly of Garland as a judge (although my genuine knowledge isn't good), however, I never, ever, thought he was crooked or corrupt like I do now.

Some of his actions since he took office tell me how well Obama and his staff did their homework when they chose Garland for SCOTUS.

Garland is a smarmy, sly, crooked, judge, and is likely as bad as ANY judge in the southern US in the Jim Crow days.
Yes, when, like O'Rourke, he had to put on a cloak of 'moderate' to see if they could bait people into believing the facade/lie, he tried to appear quite different. Note the NRA recently spiking the football over how differently he apparently sees the 2nd Amendment in reality.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210927/biden-administration-asks-the-us-supreme-court-to-judicially-nullify-the-right-to-bear-arms

Quote:

The government's brief, filed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice, also gives complete vindication to the NRA's opposition to now Attorney General Merrick Garland's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, when he was a federal appellate judge. Anti-gun pundits had mocked that opposition at the time, falsely claiming there was no legal basis for it, even though Garland had voted to rehear a case that had ruled an outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment.

Yet, as we had explained, the only plausible reason to support such a "do-over" was that the court had come to the wrong conclusion. Why repeat something already done correctly?

Now, as AG, Garland is advocating that the U.S. Supreme Court effectively remove the right to "bear arms" from the U.S. Constitution. The administration's brief additionally argues for what it calls a "reasonable regulation" standard for other types of gun control and for its implementation via "intermediate scrutiny." Activist and anti-gun courts have used this standard to uphold not just may-issue licensing schemes but sweeping bans on some of America's most popular types of firearms and magazines.

Fortunately, the United States Senate blocked Garland's Supreme Court appointment in 2016. Thus, while his noxious view of the Second Amendment will still be put forth before the court, he at least won't have the opportunity to cast a vote against the right to bear arms himself, as he undoubtedly would have.

While no outcome at the Supreme Court is ever guaranteed, Second Amendment advocates should if anything be in an even stronger position this time around than during the court's prior visitations of the Second Amendment in 2008 and 2010.

And Merrick Garland --Barack Obama's handpicked choice to replace the legendary Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller will have to watch from the sidelines as just another lawyer.
I also notice no 'concerned moderates' have posted any surprise thoughts as to his clearly political hack positions as AG.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:


Answer? That would be hard NO.

They protect each other.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sounds like a good reason for recusal...but I don't see the Dems doing that.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So if there are any Q lurkers here, this should hit on something Q has said in the past, but still is relevant here as well...


nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was Nellie Ohr, Bruce's wife, Stalin apologist (no, really), fluent Russian speaker and Fusion GPS employee, who got one most suspiciously in the midst of this, to broadcast from their DC home. You don't have to be a Q nut job to see the links.

Anyway, long piece, but some below is excerpted;
Quote:

That brings us to Nellie Ohr, holder of amateur radio call sign KM4UDZ. Ohr graduated from Harvard University in 1983 with a degree in history and Russian literature. She studied in the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained a PhD in Russian history in 1990.

For those of you who may be tempted to read her 400-plus page PhD thesis, here's a spoiler alert: in murdering untold millions, Joseph Stalin may have engaged in some "excesses" which, in her words, "sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country." Translated into simple English, she meant, "Hey, cut the guy some slack. Creating a proletarian paradise can be tough and anybody can get carried away."

She is said to be fluent in the Russian language and an expert on cybersecurity. Her husband is Bruce Ohr, the former number four official in President Obama's Justice Department.

According to a sworn court filing by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, she was hired by that firm to conduct opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign against candidate Donald Trump. In his statement, Simpson acknowledged bank records reflect that Fusion GPS contracted with her "to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump."

At the same time, Fusion GPS retained the services of former British spy and FBI informant Christopher Steele to obtain derogatory information from his Russian sources about Trump. The final Fusion GPS product became the now-discredited eponymous Steele dossier, which James Comey's FBI and Obama's DOJ used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants to spy on a Trump campaign member.

Who Are Nellie and Bruce Ohr?

The so-called Nunes memorandum by the Republican majority on the House Intelligence Committee states Nellie Ohr was "employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump" and added that her husband "later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research." Sen. Lindsey Graham has stated publicly that she "did the research for Mr. Steele."

We now know that, before the House Intelligence Committee, Simpson disclosed that he met personally with Bruce Ohr "at his request, after the November 2016 election to discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election." That committee also learned that during the election campaign, Bruce Ohr met with Steele, the dossier's author.

It has also come out that Bruce Ohr failed to report the source of his wife's income from Fusion GPS on his DOJ ethics disclosure forms. Such disclosure is mandatory, and Ohr's omission raises many questions.

For example, under the law, such an omission could be considered evidence tending to prove his consciousness of guilt. Why would he, in effect, conceal by omission his wife's employment by the firm that produced the meretricious Steele dossier that his own employer, the Obama DOJ, submitted under oath to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for authorization to spy on the Trump campaign and presidency? Was he trying to hide his connections with Fusion GPS? If so, why? And what inference should a jury draw from such concealment?

He is not alone in this regard. What about Nellie Ohr's ham radio license?

Why Did Nellie Ohr Suddenly Become a Ham in 2016?

Ohr is a member of Women in International Security, which describes itself as supporting "research projects and policy engagement initiatives on critical international security issues, including the nexus between gender and security." She has done cybersecurity consulting for Accenture, a politically connected firm, for which she gave a presentation on "Ties Between Government Intelligence Services and Cyber Criminals Closer Than You Think?"

Did she develop an overwhelming middle-aged desire to talk to geeks over the radio?

It is apparent that, between her own professional experience and her marriage to a top DOJ official, she was well aware of the ability of the National Security Agency to intercept and store every communication on the Internet. Did this knowledge have anything to do with her mid-life decision to become a ham radio operator and communicate outside cyberspace?

I got into amateur radio because I was a horny, zit-infested teenager with no hope of ever successfully interacting with members of the opposite sex. Faced with that reality, I sublimated my priapic energies into learning electronics and building radios. My sublimated adolescent urges were so strong that, on several occasions, I almost invented the Internet 20 years before the Pentagon and Al Gore got around to it.

That's why I became a ham. So what's Nellie's excuse? Did she develop an overwhelming middle-aged desire to talk to geeks over the radio? Was this a case of Sudden Onset Geek Syndrome? Or is there some other less benign explanation?

What Was Happening When Nellie Ohr Got Her License

On May 23, 2016, she received a technician-level amateur radio license. The timing is significant. The presidential campaign was underway and she and her employer, Fusion GPS, were digging for dirt in Russia to use against Trump. Given her cybersecurity knowledge, was Nellie Ohr hoping to use non-cyber short wave communications to hide her participation in that nefarious effort from the NSA?

Recall that, in early 2016, NSA head Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of "ongoing" and "intentional" violations and abuse of FISA surveillance, which he subsequently exposed in testimony before Congress. Thereafter, pressure mounted within the Obama administration to fire him.

The week after the presidential election, when he was facing removal from his post, Rogers visited the president-elect at Trump Tower. On November 19, 2016, Reuters reported that Rogers' decision "to travel to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday without notifying superiors caused consternation at senior levels of the [Obama] administration."

The day following Rogers' visit, the president-elect's transition team vacated Trump Tower and moved its operations to New Jersey. Was this because Rogers had warned Trump that he and his transition team were being subjected to illegal government surveillance? While that is unknown, it is clear that Rogers was not and had never been an Obama team player, such that he and his agency posed a potential threat to Fusion GPS's operation as well as the anti-Trump elements at the FBI and DOJ.

So, was Nellie Ohr's late-in-life foray into ham radio an effort to evade the Rogers-led NSA detecting her participation in compiling the Russian-sourced Steele dossier? Just as her husband's omissions on his DOJ ethics forms raise an inference of improper motive, any competent prosecutor could use the circumstantial evidence of her taking up ham radio while digging for dirt on Trump to prove her consciousness of guilt and intention to conceal illegal activities.

This type of circumstantial evidence can be quite powerful. For example, a video of a nun buying a bustier at Victoria's Secret would not be direct evidence that she was having an affair. But it most assuredly would prompt a jury to seriously wonder about her motives and commitment to celibacy. The same can be said for Nelly's ham license. Just what was she up to?

Undoubtedly further information on this topic will be forthcoming. But, in the meantime, it is fair to ask in the ham vernacular of yesteryear, "Dit-dah-dah; dah; dit-dit-dah-dit?" That's Morse code for "WTF?"
This is the obvious type of conduct Durham should have deposed her/Bruce about, by now, but of course that will never happen.
BillYeoman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Entire thread.

whatthehey78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
God forbid...nothing substantial comes of Durham's investigation, but AT LEAST some individuals are having to cough up big $ as they try to scamper out from under his "high beam".
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him. - Napoleon Bonaparte
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like things are starting to heat up.

So as not to give CNN clicks...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210930182353/https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/durham-subpoenas-probe-russia-fbi-sussman/index.html

Quote:

In seeking additional documents from Sussmann's former law firm, Perkins Coie, investigators from the special counsel's office appear to be sharpening their focus on the Democratic political machinery during the 2016 campaign and efforts to tie Trump to Russia.

ETA: Andrew McCarthy article. Surmises that Durham is going after the Clinton campaign since he is targeting Perkins Coie.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/durham-subpoena-report-consistent-with-investigative-focus-on-clinton-campaign/amp/



nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Optimistic tweets to CNN articles that don't support the emotion are...par for the course.

Quote:

Still, more than two years after being commissioned by then Attorney General William Barr to investigate whether federal authorities improperly targeted the Trump campaign, Durham has little to show for his efforts. His special counsel probe, which has lasted longer than Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, has so far brought only two lying charges against little-known figures, including the case against Sussmann, who has pleaded not guilty.

The results have underwhelmed Trump supporters who had hoped former top FBI and intelligence officials would be prosecuted for "spying" on Trump and his campaign.

Already the scope of Durham's probe has narrowed after Barr announced last year that investigators had found no wrongdoing by the CIA. Yet Durham has continued his investigation, largely in secrecy, working out of a non-descript office building near trendy Washington's Union Market.
Expect the scope to be narrowed further by Garland if in fact any additional indictments are made. Quietly, of course. Any final report would come out somewhere around December 2023.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also, NYT has confirmed that Tech Executive 1 is indeed Rodney Joffe. I think it is in the below article, but don't pay for NYT so don't know for sure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Optimistic tweets to CNN articles that don't support the emotion are...par for the course.

Quote:

Still, more than two years after being commissioned by then Attorney General William Barr to investigate whether federal authorities improperly targeted the Trump campaign, Durham has little to show for his efforts. His special counsel probe, which has lasted longer than Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, has so far brought only two lying charges against little-known figures, including the case against Sussmann, who has pleaded not guilty.

The results have underwhelmed Trump supporters who had hoped former top FBI and intelligence officials would be prosecuted for "spying" on Trump and his campaign.

Already the scope of Durham's probe has narrowed after Barr announced last year that investigators had found no wrongdoing by the CIA. Yet Durham has continued his investigation, largely in secrecy, working out of a non-descript office building near trendy Washington's Union Market.
Expect the scope to be narrowed further by Garland if in fact any additional indictments are made. Quietly, of course. Any final report would come out somewhere around December 2023.
I also added Andrew McCarthys article to my post above.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok, and I like McCarthy, but let's face it, he has committed to demonstrating his inside knowledge of DoJ politics/procedures. Which is fine, but it hasn't produced any results to his...predictions the past few years. In fact, he's admitted to being shocked at the conduct of folks in places like the SD NY office he used to work at.

Let's look at this piece;

Quote:

As Brittany notes, the new grand jury subpoenas could indicate that Durham is contemplating additional charges against Sussmann, and perhaps others. Potential prosecution is always the first consideration when a prosecutor is using the grand jury to compel the production of evidence.

It is also worth noting that, as a special counsel (which Durham was designated to be by former Trump attorney general Bill Barr in an arrangement that has continued under Biden attorney general Merrick Garland), it is expected that Durham will write a narrative report as, for example, special counsel Robert Mueller did outlining the findings of his investigation, including misconduct that may indicate corruption but not merit prosecution.
Fine, but you know what, that report will be to the AG. As in Garland. Does anyone think Garland will publish, within days, as Barr did an accurate public summary of the report, or even ever release it's details? That's not how communists work.

Even accepting arguendo such a report is allowed to be completed/delivered, it will not be released by the CCP-Dems. And that assumes (which I contest highly per the previous couple months of posts on this thread) Durham is intent on going up the food chain. There's no real evidence this is the case beyond people extrapolating from one indictment (Sussman) being lengthy/wordy.

Show me a federal institution that has actually gone after it's own corruption substantially, especially under a Democrat political appointee, and I'll listen. That's not gonna happen though.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Sully Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Explain this part to me like I'm 5.
Deplorable Neanderthal Clinger
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sully Dog said:

Explain this part to me like I'm 5.
I am pretty sure it is laying out who is who in the Sussman indictment that was redacted. Like Tech Executive 1 = Robert Joffe, etc.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:

Sully Dog said:

Explain this part to me like I'm 5.
I am pretty sure it is laying out who is who in the Sussman indictment that was redacted. Like Tech Executive 1 = Robert Joffe, etc.
To be more precise, they were described by classification and number. They were not "redacted" as in blacked out. Nor were they designated as "unindicted co-conspirators." There's a difference.

I said at the time that no prosecutor would take 27 pages to allege one false statement charge, unless it was a placeholder indictment for the named defendant or others mentioned by the classification numbering system were in legal jeopardy, with the expectation of possible future indictments.

I also laid out the difficulties of getting to law firms when their clients are involved and the time involved to have taint teams, separate from the prosecutors to make determinations of what is or is not privileged communications...that is until the crime/fraud exception is in play and nothing is privileged anymore.

Is Durham at that point? The direct subpoenas to Perkins, Coie suggests he could be.

Stay tuned.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whatthehey78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh wait! Is that Lady Justice with Hell at the door?
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires; but upon what foundation did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force! But Jesus Christ founded His upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him. - Napoleon Bonaparte
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?


sam callahan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
no one "connected" is sweating a drop, including Podesta
First Page Last Page
Page 1304 of 1412
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.