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

7,765,769 Views | 49426 Replies | Last: 20 sec ago by robprall
captkirk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarkTwain • 10:25p, 4/22/22
AG
sicandtiredTXN said:
Pay close attention folks Durham is fixing to drop the hammer.
It is beginning to feel like he set the trap and they walked right into it
Reply Quote
10
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:10p, 4/22/22
Reply Quote
7
MarkTwain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:38a, 4/23/22
And there it is, the word I was waiting to hear

Late night filing by Durham






https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.94.0.pdf
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply Quote
16
CyclingAg82
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarkTwain • 6:10a, 4/23/22
AG
sicandtiredTXN said:
And there it is, the word I was waiting to hear

Late night filing by Durham






https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.94.0.pdf
It is time to....

Reply Quote
9
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:14a, 4/23/22
Reply Quote
14
MarkTwain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:19a, 4/23/22
Sussmann's lawyers are accusing Durham over "overreach" in the brief, saying:
Quote:
"he seeks to prove unduly prejudicial allegations he has not charged, and he seeks to prove conduct that is utterly irrelevant to the one discrete crime he has charged."

Also:
Quote:
"And, at the same time that he seeks to admit endless irrelevant evidence, he also seeks to prevent Mr. Sussmann from introducing relevant indeed essential exculpatory evidence in the form of testimony from his former client, Rodney Joffe,"
Sussmann's filing is still insisting that evidence and testimony Durham seeks to bring to court is protected by attorney-client privilege and therefore inadmissible. That's yet to be ruled on by the judge.

Durham called there bluff yesterday which I found hilarious basically saying "y'all want to argue admissibility and privilege you're going to do it under oath" and that's like kryptonite to them. No way do they want to appear under oath.

Quote:
"The Special Counsel's words and deeds make clear that he intends to offer evidence of particular clients' assertions of attorney-client privilege," the briefing reads. "But no matter how much he tries to style this evidence as 'highly probative,' it simply is not permitted by law."
This is where Durham is going to start to tie the whole conspiracy together and Sussmann is desperately trying to block it all from the Jury:


Quote:
"The Special Counsel seeks to invite the jury to infer that because Mr. Steele separately shared information with the government, allegedly in coordination with agents of the Clinton Campaign, that necessarily means Mr. Sussmann also shared information with the FBI on the Clinton Campaign's behalf,"


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.93.0.pdf
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:27a, 4/23/22
Reply Quote
11
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 8:14a, 4/23/22
AG
I always enjoy reading McCarthy's pieces. This one included some good humor, imho;

Quote:
The is of the moment is the attorneyclient privilege. It had to happen eventually. The Clintons are Yale-educated lawyers, with Hillary having made her bones as a young Hill staffer in the Democrats' no-holds-barred Watergate investigation.

As masters of creating and surviving scandal, the Clintons' MO has always been a rule of lawlessness amid a ubiquity of attorneys. Mafia dons do this too: Make sure to have Family counsel at all the meetings where the nasty stuff gets planned, so when the FBI comes snooping around, you can start blathering about the Sixth Amendment and the sacred right to $1,000/hour confidentiality. Indeed, when the FBI did come calling about her home-brew email-server escapade, Mrs. Clinton even managed to talk the bureau's complaisant higher-ups into letting her bring her suspected co-conspirators along for her interview by the case agents after all, they were lawyers!
Quote:
The theory is straightforward: The Clinton campaign, working through its lawyers at Perkins Coie and its "oppo" gourmands at Fusion GPS, ginned up a smear that the Republican presidential nominee and his campaign were Vladimir Putin's own little KGB cell attempting to take control of the United States government. The Clinton campaign not only peddled this narrative to the media-Democrat complex, which dutifully hyped it; Team Clinton also had operatives, such as Sussmann (a former Justice Department cybersecurity specialist and man-about-Washington), exploit their deep government ties to project the collusion story onto the radar of national-security agencies. This enabled the campaign to claim that concerns about Trump's nefarious Russia relationship had blossomed into a criminal investigation.

When people are doing something sneaky and potentially illegal and we should note that defrauding the government is a felony they often take pains to conceal their connection to it. In miniature, that is what the Sussmann prosecution is about. His alleged lie was the claim that he was bringing derogatory Trump/Russia information to the government not on behalf of any client just as a good, patriotic citizen and former U.S. national-security official who was trying to help the FBI protect Americans. In reality, Durham alleges, Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign and Rodney Joffe, a pro-Clinton tech executive who was hoping to score a cybersecurity gig in the anticipated Hillary administration.
Quote:
Well, as is standard before a criminal trial, the parties are now arguing about what evidence the jury will be permitted to hear. On that score, Durham has subpoenaed lots of information from the Clinton campaign, but it has declined to produce it, citing all together now! the attorneyclient privilege.

That's an amusing touch in a case where the central allegation is Sussmann's insistence that he was not acting as an attorney for the Clinton campaign.

While Team Clinton's gambit is at Durham's expense, the prosecutor is trying to make sure the joke is on Sussmann. For purposes of the trial, Durham has told the court, he may not need the underlying information he has subpoenaed; he just wants to show the jury that Sussmann's collaborators have tried to withhold it based on the exact attorneyclient relationship that Sussmann told the FBI he didn't have with them.

It's a tight spot for Sussmann: Unless the court finds some reason to rule in his favor, his only way around this evidence would be to stipulate that he was working for the Clinton campaign when he told the FBI he wasn't working for the Clinton campaign. That would make for an awfully quick false-statements trial.

The more intriguing thing is the continuing effort by the Clinton camp to conceal relevant communications hundreds of which, Durham reports, do not even involve a lawyer, much less pertain to confidential legal advice or preparation for litigation. Why the secrecy? If they really believed Trump was Putin's puppet, you'd think they'd be anxious for people to see those discussions. They could then say they were just trying to help the FBI with the Alfa Bank story and the Steele dossier you know, like Sussmann was just trying to help the FBI.
Anyway, that's all my conscience thinks I should copy/paste as a fair use excerpt; I left out his conclusion. Hint; it's really good news, to me.
Reply Quote
11
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:38a, 4/23/22
Durham seems to be on a role. And seems like we may see this conspiracy.

There is more after the last tweet here.




Reply Quote
7
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:49a, 4/23/22

Reply Quote
6
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:04p, 4/23/22

Reply Quote
9
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:11p, 4/23/22
Reply Quote
8
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 2:16p, 4/23/22
AG
will25u said:
RICO as a criminal matter still is not an easy case to make, using the language of a "joint venture" usually denotes a common goal. Was that goal criminal in nature?

If yes, you have RICO. That's the question I have.
Reply Quote
11
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:10p, 4/23/22
Reminder.

Reply Quote
15
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:53p, 4/23/22
Reply Quote
12
Secolobo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:21p, 4/23/22
AG
Now that's juicy!
Reply Quote
8
MarkTwain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:21p, 4/23/22
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply Quote
7
MarkTwain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:29p, 4/23/22
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply Quote
9
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44p, 4/23/22



Reply Quote
8
1 edit
VaultingChemist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:23a, 4/24/22
AG
The best is yet to be revealed.

Reply Quote
8
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:02a, 4/24/22
Reply Quote
8
redline248
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:08a, 4/24/22
AG
so many people replying to Strzok that believe him. No wonder they get away with so much
Reply Quote
7
captkirk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:14a, 4/24/22
AG
will25u said:
I guess technically it was 'legal', but they had to lie to the FISA court and manufacture evidence to obtain it.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:12p, 4/24/22
Reply Quote
10
We fixed the keg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to redline248 • 12:23p, 4/24/22
AG
redline248 said:
so many people replying to Strzok that believe him. No wonder they get away with so much
It is near impossible to determine which 'twits' are bots vs which are your everyday idiots. Social media is absolutely a cesspool.
Reply Quote
8
richardag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VaultingChemist • 12:37p, 4/24/22
VaultingChemist said:
The best is yet to be revealed.

It infuriates me that information for "supposed" classified reasons is redacted. I doubt much if any of the information should be redacted.

These people are criminals and using the system to protect themselves. They dishonor our country and its citizens.

edit spelling
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
whatthehey78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:52p, 4/24/22
AG
I realize it's just one person's opinion...but, I can't fathom ANYONE being willing to break the law to help hilldawg become POTUS and/or attempt a coup because she lost. There are a number of corrupt individuals who need to be staring at iron bars on their window.
Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:46p, 4/24/22
Good Thread.

Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:57p, 4/24/22

Reply Quote
6
MarkTwain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 2:40p, 4/24/22
will25u said:
If you remember the left loved to pivot by parsing words when Trump claimed his wires were "tapped" back in 2016. Their response was "the don't "tap" wires anymore, which is technically true. In the old days they had to physically 'tap the circuit", but as we all know since the late 80's the NSA vacuums up everything and they just get warrants and pull from data bases and get what they want.

In Trump's case what everyone's forgetting and not talking about is the UK was dipping into the backdoor via FVEY and the GCHQ where they didn't need a warrant, but in order to cover their tracks and give it the appearance of legal surveillance vis two hop rule, they manufactured a lie to tie into Carter Page with the FISC, not forgetting they had three prior attempts at a FISA warrant denied, and in a last ditch effort literally the day before Admiral Rogers was going to report his 2016 findings to the FISC, and get the FISC shut down for a 90 day audit, they attached the Dossier to the Sept application and pushed it through on a late Friday FISA warrant.

Recall Napolitano was pulled from the air indefinitely from FNC (which actually lasted only two weeks) after he claimed that a British intelligence agency wiretapped Trump Tower. That set off a firestorm of CYA claiming Napolitano was crazy and spreading a conspiracy theory, but as time passed there was evidence coming forward that as big a blowhard Napolitano is he wasn't lying. Where Napolitano screwed up was he exploited his deep friendship with Bossie and spoke out of turn, and it likely cost him a Judge appointment by Trump, because he couldn't be trusted anymore. If you recall Bossie was removed from the inner circle to the second tier as well.




Remember what Snowden told Greenwald when he described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that does not answer to the known laws of its own countries".

And remember the suspicious exit of Hannigan after only two years on the job and three days after Trump was sworn it on 23 January 2017, Hannigan announced that he had decided to resign once a successor to his role as GCHQ director had been found, explaining in a letter to the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, that his resignation was for personal reasons.

They parsed words and laughed at Trump using the same line that they don't "tap wires" anymore, yeah but they sure pull databases of files on anything they want and give themselves cover under the Patriot Act and the FISC. Strzok likely has another book coming out since his first one was a flop, who knows, he's not relevant really anymore.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 2:56p, 4/24/22
AG
will25u said:

Just like I said a few days ago. What was the "common goal"? If that goal was criminal, the RICO box gets checked.
Reply Quote
9
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:25p, 4/24/22
AG
Something interesting to file away. Dagan communicating with Dan Jones.




Reply Quote
5
benchmark
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:27p, 4/24/22
AG
aggiehawg said:
Just like I said a few days ago. What was the "common goal"? If that goal was criminal, the RICO box gets checked.
I'll bite. Spitballing ...what could be a few criminal possibilities?
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to benchmark • 3:44p, 4/24/22
AG
benchmark said:
aggiehawg said:
Just like I said a few days ago. What was the "common goal"? If that goal was criminal, the RICO box gets checked.
I'll bite. Spitballing ...what could be a few criminal possibilities?
In this case, the first is obviously manufacturing phony evidence (the white papers) and making false statements to law enforcement. Defrauding the government.

But there's something else from the timing that intrigues me. The FBI was employing contractors to conduct illegal FISA queries until Admiral Rogers shut it down in April 2016. Who were those contractors? GA Tech? Fusion? Perkins, Cooie? When they no longer had that access, did they manufacture evidence to pass to the FBI to continue to spy on Trump and those around him?

When Trump first filed that massive lawsuit against Hillary, I thought it didn't have a chance in hell from surviving a motion to dismiss. Still think it will likely be tossed but this stuff coming out from Durham provides so back up for that case.
Reply Quote
5
MarkTwain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:57p, 4/24/22
These time lines all line up too closely to be coincidental. All this outside and third party surveillance being used so that there would be no American fingerprints on this until they had no choice, so they spoofed the FISC with garbage to exploit the Section 702 program.

It's obvious they fabricated communications between trump and Russia to try and justify using Section 702 about queries

Remember the FISC audit results.

Quote:
  • In March 2017, the FBI, against the advice of the FBI's Office of General Counsel, conducted queries using 70,000 identifiers "associated with" people who had access to FBI facilities and systems.
  • On a single day in December 2017, the FBI conducted over 6,800 U.S. person queries using Social Security Numbers.
  • Between December 7-11, 2017, an FBI official improperly reviewed raw FISA information resulting from 1,600 U.S. person queries.
  • On more than one occasion, the FBI conducted dozens of U.S. person queries to gather information about potential informants.

    • https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/2018_Cert_FISC_Opin_18Oct18.pdf


    The DOJ told the FISA Court that these errors stemmed from "fundamental misunderstandings by some FBI personnel [about] what the standard 'reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information' means."
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
    Reply Quote
    5
    First Page Last Page
    Page 1355 of 1413 ▼
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.