Page 242 of 243 FirstFirst ... 142192232234235236237238239240241242243 LastLast
Results 6,026 to 6,050 of 6067
  1. #6026
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,296
    Quote Originally Posted by uncle junior View Post
    even if he has to throw jr. under the bus
    jr must also know this.

  2. #6027
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    27,151
    Trump has now fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replaced him with an unqualified sycophant, Matt Whitaker, to head the Department of Justice. It appears Trump is trying to suppress the Mueller probe.

    Judges order Mueller to explain impact of Sessions-Whitaker DOJ shakeup

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...shakeup-979657

  3. #6028
    Thailand Expat
    Klondyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:33 AM
    Posts
    3,437
    We want to believe: ‘Russian hacking’ memo REVEALS how US intel pinned leaks to Kremlin
    Published time: 10 Nov, 2018



    If you ever thought the endless search for “Russian hackers” sounded very X-Files, that's because both used variations of the motto “I want to believe.”

    A newly-out memo containing the Obama admin’s talking points about “Russian hacking” in the 2016 election reveals how US spy agencies attributed email leaks to Kremlin by saying it’s “consistent” with what they think Russia does.

    The seven-page document was contained within the 49 pages published on Friday by BuzzFeed, which obtained them through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiry from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in late October. At the root of it is a November 29 letter by several Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asking then-President Barack Obama to declassify documents concerning “Russian Active Measures.”

    The claim that Russia directly interfered in the 2016 US presidential elections – by first hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta, and then releasing them through DCLeaks, WikiLeaks and the hacker known as “Guccifer 2.0” – was all the rage in Washington at the time, as Democrats sought to explain the fact that Clinton just lost to Donald Trump.

    Obama did not declassify the documents. Instead, he apparently instructed DNI James Clapper to respond to the senators. Moving at the speed of government, the ODNI responded on January 27 – a week after Trump’s inauguration – saying that their inquiry resulted in the January 6 release of the intelligence community assessment (ICA) on “Russian activities and intentions.”

    This ended up as the infamous report making all sorts of claims and accusations but offering no evidence – and prominently featuring an annex about RT dating back from 2012.

    The talking points memo sent by ODNI to the Senate Democrats has not been previously published. Reading through it, one is struck by the circular reasoning of the US “intelligence community” – or rather, Clapper’s hand-picked group of CIA, FBI and NSA people charged with coming up with the assessment.

    The US intelligence community is “confident” that the Russian government was behind the “compromises” of emails, because their release is “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the talking points say. In other words, this fits what US spies believe are Russian objectives, therefore it had to be the Kremlin doing it!

    “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the memo goes on to say. Again, inference based on assumption, not evidence.

    Blaming Russia for the hack of the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCC) was based on “the forensic evidence identified by a private cyber-firm” – meaning CyberStrike, a DNC contractor led by Atlantic Council fellow Dmitry Alperovich – and the spies “own review and understanding of cyber activities by the Russian Government.”

    In plain English, the evidence CrowdStrike gave the intelligence community fit its preconceived notions about Russian cyber operations, which sounds quite convenient.

    Remember the accusations that several state election systems were also “hacked” by the Russians? Here is the ODNI, saying that they “are not definitively attributing the intrusions into state elections systems to the Russian Government.” But “the fact that they are consistent with Russian motivations and intent behind the DNC and DCCC intrusions, strongly suggests that Russia is responsible.”

    Answering its own question whether Russia is trying to alter the outcome of the election, the ODNI says: “The Kremlin probably expects that publicity surrounding the disclosures will raise questions about the integrity of the election process and would undermine the legitimacy of the President-elect.”

    At this point, any TV legal drama would have a charming courtroom lawyer shout out “Objection, speculation!” Except that passage is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. It wasn’t the disclosures of Democrat emails, however, that sowed doubts about the legitimacy of US elections, but rather the absurd conspiracy theory about Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin and “Russian hacking,” which the ODNI memo reveals was based on nothing more than the spies wanting to believe it was true.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/443644-russia-hacking-methods-election-memo/ (Mueller's Russian Interference investigation)

    Thanks to a friend of comrades below, sorry for the wrong link before... (hackers again)
    Last edited by Klondyke; 11-11-2018 at 05:02 PM.

  4. #6029
    Thailand Expat
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Posts
    8,143
    they have no fooking evidence, it's always a question of believe

    that's also the Mueller investigation, projecting their ideas of what happened to criminal charges, so they can get Trump

    suddently talking to Russians billionaires is a crime, and so is doing business

    the world is upside down, no wonder nothing get done properly, eveything is upside down

  5. #6030
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,296
    ^^

    comrade, are you embarrassed to put the link to RT?

    because that's where you're copy and pasting that propaganda from.

  6. #6031
    Thailand Expat
    thailazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Posts
    1,940
    Looks like Whitaker's tenure will be short-lived. Saw some news blurbs where he was already under investigation for illegal behavior. If it wasn't fake news, it'll be yuge.

  7. #6032
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:54 AM
    Location
    NAKON SAWAN
    Posts
    4,520
    Quote Originally Posted by thailazer View Post
    Looks like Whitaker's tenure will be short-lived. Saw some news blurbs where he was already under investigation for illegal behavior. If it wasn't fake news, it'll be yuge.

    Are you talking Whitaker under investigation or World Patent Marketing?

  8. #6033
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,296
    is this the week?


  9. #6034
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:34 AM
    Posts
    52,906
    WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - An associate of Roger Stone, a longtime ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, expects to be indicted by the U.S. special counsel probing Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, he said on Monday.



    Jerome Corsi, a right-wing commentator, said in a livestream posted to YouTube he expected to be criminally charged after two months of cooperation with federal authorities.


    "I fully anticipate that in the next few days I will be indicted by Mueller for some form or other of giving false information to the special counsel or ... (however) they want to do the indictment. But I'm going to be criminally charged," Corsi said in the video.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...ted-by-mueller

  10. #6035
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    27,151
    ^^ Could be!

  11. #6036
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    27,151
    Whoop whoop.

    Mueller expected to issue more indictments soon: report

    Special counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue more indictments in the coming days as Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker settles into his new role overseeing Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference, CBS News reported Tuesday.

    “I’ve spoken with many sources with knowledge of the Special Counsel investigation, and we do expect new indictments to be coming as soon as today,” CBS correspondent Paula Reid reported Tuesday.

    MORE. https://thehill.com/policy/national-...ts-soon-report

  12. #6037
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,296
    ^
    stone and corsi seem likely and would be great. ....but please, please, please include jr.

  13. #6038
    Thailand Expat misskit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    27,151
    This little tidbit from Corsi today.

    Mueller seeking more details on Nigel Farage, key Russia inquiry target says



    Robert Mueller is seeking more information about Nigel Farage for his investigation into Russian interference in US politics, according to a target of the inquiry who expects to be criminally charged.


    Jerome Corsi, a conservative author, said prosecutors working for Mueller questioned him about Farage, the key campaigner behind Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, two weeks ago in Washington.


    Corsi said investigators for the special counsel also pressed him for information on Ted Malloch, a London-based American academic with ties to Farage, who informally advised Donald Trump and was interviewed by FBI agents earlier this year.


    “They asked about both Nigel and Ted Malloch, I can affirm that they did,” Corsi told the Guardian on Tuesday. “But I’m really not going into detail because I respect the special counsel and the legal process.”


    Mueller’s interest in Farage comes amid questions in the UK about whether Russia attempted to influence the June 2016 vote to leave the European Union, and Brexit’s most vocal political supporters.


    A spokesman for Farage said of Corsi’s allegations: “This is ill-informed, intentionally malicious gossip and wholly untrue.”

    MORE. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e_iOSApp_Other

  14. #6039
    peckerwood SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    gone down the rabbit hole
    Posts
    5,109
    November Surprise

    Q



  15. #6040
    Thailand Expat
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Posts
    8,143
    now with the Nigel angle, this is getting interesting and fun

  16. #6041
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:54 AM
    Location
    NAKON SAWAN
    Posts
    4,520

    Joseph E. diGenova is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, LLP. He received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and his J.D. from Georgetown University. He has served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel of the United States, Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee).
    The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 25, 2018, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
    Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.
    In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.
    I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.
    The Case of the Clinton Emails

    The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.
    Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.
    One tool at their disposal was the grand jury—the sine qua non of a criminal investigation. Grand juries are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor’s case against an alleged criminal. The subject of the investigation is not present during the entire proceeding, which can last up to a year. A grand jury provides investigators with the authority to collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses. FBI agents and prosecutors cannot themselves demand evidence. Only a grand jury can—or a court, in cases where a subpoena recipient refuses a grand jury’s command to provide documents or to testify.
    Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.
    Comey claims he negotiated the immunity deals because of his concern about time. Yet the investigation was opened in the summer of 2015, nearly a year before he cut these deals. Compare this to the DOJ’s handling of four-star Marine General James E. Cartwright, who pleaded guilty in October 2016 to a false statement about leaking classified information to The New York Times. In that case, the DOJ bragged about its use of subpoenas and search warrants.
    Not only was there no grand jury, the FBI never issued a search warrant—something it does when there is concern a person will destroy evidence. Clinton deleted half her emails and then claimed, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over to the government all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related. The FBI later found email chains classified as “secret” or “confidential” that she had not turned over. Still no search warrant was issued.
    Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct:

    • Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony.
    • After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. He claimed he could not control who sat in on the “voluntary” interview. That’s nonsense. He could have convened a grand jury, subpoenaed Clinton, and compelled her to appear and be questioned without a lawyer or else plead the Fifth Amendment.
    • Comey authorized the destruction of laptop computers that belonged to Clinton’s aides and were under congressional subpoena.
    • Comey ignored blatant evidence of culpability. It is ridiculous to the general public and risible to those who have security clearances for Clinton to claim she thought that “(c)” placed after paragraphs in her emails meant the material was in alphabetical order rather than meaning it was classified. If she thought (c) indicated alphabetical order, where were (a) and (b) on the documents? Clinton and her supporters touted her vast experience as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, positions requiring frequent use of classified information and presumably common sense. Yet neither experience nor common sense informed her decisions when handling classified materials.
    • Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.
    • Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed. He justified his actions saying that he no longer trusted Attorney General Lynch after her June 27, 2016, meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. This meeting took place at the height of the so-called investigation—just days before Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton on July 2. Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. We also know that the FBI’s reaction to the impropriety of the tarmac meeting was not disgust, but rather anger at the person who leaked the fact of the meeting. “We need to find that guy” and bring him before a supervisor, stated one (name redacted) FBI agent. Another argued that the source should be banned from working security details. Not one email expressed concern over the meeting. An FBI director who truly had his trust shaken would have questioned the members of Lynch’s FBI security detail for the Arizona trip about how the meeting came to be. Comey didn’t bother.

    Comey described Clinton’s handling of classified information as “extremely careless,” a clumsy attempt to avoid the legal language of “gross negligence” for criminal mishandling of classified information—and we later learned that Peter Strzok, again, was responsible for editing this language in Comey’s statement. But practically speaking, the terms are synonymous. Any judge would instruct a jury to consider “gross negligence” as “extremely careless” conduct.
    Comey claimed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case against Clinton. I have spent many years investigating federal crimes, and I can tell you that a reasonable prosecutor would have utilized a grand jury, issued subpoenas and search warrants, and followed standard DOJ procedures for federal prosecutions. In short, Comey threw the case. He should have been fired long before he was.
    In late spring 2016, just weeks prior to Comey’s July 5 press conference clearing Clinton of any crime, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI agents in New York to shut down their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Their objections were overruled. Sources have told me that McCabe also shut down an additional Clinton investigation. This is the McCabe who, while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, had a wife running for the Virginia State Senate and receiving more than $460,000 in campaign contributions from a longtime Clinton loyalist, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Moreover, it was only after the news of Clinton’s private server became public in The New York Times that McAuliffe recruited McCabe’s wife to run for office. McCabe eventually recused himself from the Clinton probe, but that was one week before the 2016 election, after the decisions to clear Clinton and to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had already been made. So his recusal was meaningless.
    In clearing legal impediments from Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination, Comey and his senior staff thought they had helped Clinton clinch the presidency. Their actions put an end to a decades-long tradition of non-political federal law enforcement.
    The Case of Trump-Russia Collusion

    Rumors of collusion with Russia by Trump or the Trump campaign surfaced during the primaries in 2015, but gained in strength soon after Trump secured the Republican nomination in July 2016. Thanks to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, we now know that high-level FBI officials were involved in promoting these rumors. Among Horowitz’s discoveries were text messages between FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest an illegal plan to utilize law enforcement to frame Trump. The most revealing exchange we know of took place on August 15, 2016. Concerned about the outcome of the election, Strzok wrote:
    I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.
    No amount of sugar coating or post hoc explanation of this and other texts can conceal the couple’s animus against Trump and support for Clinton. Strzok’s messages illustrate his commitment to Clinton’s victory and Trump’s defeat or, if Trump won, to an “insurance policy.”
    The term “insurance policy” obviously refers to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which to this day remains a probe with no underlying crime. This is not the talk of professional investigators, but of corrupt agents who have created two standards of justice based on their political leanings. It looks like a reprise of the schemes undertaken during an earlier era, under FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, that led to the creation of the Church Committee—a committee on which I served, and which tried to reform the FBI to prevent it from meddling in domestic politics.
    At the heart of the Russia collusion scheme is the FBI’s utilization of a document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Called the Steele Dossier because it was written by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele, this document contains unsubstantiated information designed to taint Trump and his presidency. While Clinton partisans point out that candidate Clinton never referred to the Steele Dossier in her speeches, the fact is that she did not have to—the FBI hierarchy was doing it for her! Indeed, FBI General Counsel James Baker was recently reassigned because of his having leaked information about the Steele Dossier to the magazine Mother Jones.
    Not one claim concerning Trump in the Steele Dossier has ever been verified by the FBI, according to Andrew McCabe himself in recent testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. The only confirmed fact is unsurprising: former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page traveled to Moscow on his own dime and met with various Russians—all perfectly legal.
    Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan laundered the Steele Dossier through the U.S. intelligence community to give it an aura of credibility and get it to the press. It was also used by the FBI and senior DOJ officials to secure wiretap warrants from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Then its contents, via court-authorized FISA warrants, were used to justify the illegal unmasking of the identities of wiretapped Trump officials. The contents of these National Security Agency intercepts were put on spreadsheets and presented to members of President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC)—specifically Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes—and subsequently leaked to the press. According to former NSC staff, President Obama himself read the FISA intercepts of Trump campaign personnel. Unsurprisingly, there was no request for a leak investigation from either the FBI or the DOJ.
    In sum, the FBI and DOJ employed unverified salacious allegations contained in a political opposition research document to obtain court-sanctioned wiretaps, and then leaked the contents of the wiretaps and the identities of political opponents. This was a complex criminal plot worthy of Jason Bourne.
    The Pall Over the Special Counsel and the FBI

    Layered over this debacle is a special counsel investigation unfettered by rules or law. Not surprisingly, James Comey triggered the special counsel’s appointment—and he did so by design. According to Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, having been fired on May 9, 2017, he leaked official documents to his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, with the specific intent that Richman would leak them to the press. Reportage on that leak is what led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller—a former FBI director and Comey’s good friend—as special counsel to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.
    Mueller’s reputation has been damaged by a series of decisions that violate the ethical rules of appearances. For instance, he hired Democratic partisans as lawyers for the probe: Andrew Weissmann, who donated to Clinton and praised Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for disobeying Trump’s lawful Presidential Order regarding a travel ban for residents of certain nations that harbor terrorists; Jeannie Rhee, who donated to Clinton and represented Ben Rhodes in the email probe and the Clinton Foundation investigation; and Aaron Zebley, who represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper in the email server probe.
    Mueller also staged a pre-dawn raid with weapons drawn on the home of Paul Manafort, rousing Manafort and his wife from their bed—a tactic customarily reserved for terrorists and drug dealers. Manafort has subsequently been indicted for financial crimes that antedate his campaign work for Trump and that have nothing to do with Russia collusion.
    Then there’s the fact that when Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation in July 2017, he didn’t tell anyone. The removal and its causes were uncovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Why was such vital information concealed from the public? It is not, as is often claimed now, that Strzok was a minor figure. All the major decisions regarding both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia collusion investigations had been made under Strzok.
    Significantly, Strzok also led the interview of General Michael Flynn that ended in Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI. It is important to recall that Flynn’s FBI interview was not conducted under the authority of the special counsel, but under that of Comey and McCabe. It took place during Inauguration week in January 2017. Flynn had met with the same agents the day before regarding security clearances. McCabe called Flynn and asked if agents could come to the White House. Flynn agreed, assuming it was about personnel. It was not.
    Flynn had been overheard on a FISA wiretap talking to Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. There was nothing criminal or even unusual about the fact of such discussion. Flynn was on the Trump transition team and was a federal employee as the President-Elect’s national security advisor. It was his job to be talking to foreign leaders. Flynn was not charged with regard to anything said during his conversation with Kislyak. So why was the FBI interrogating Flynn about legal conduct? What more did the FBI need to know? I am told by sources that when Flynn’s indictment was announced, McCabe was on a video conference call—cheering!
    Compare the FBI’s treatment of Flynn to its treatment of Paul Combetta, the technician who used a program called BleachBit to destroy thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton’s computer. This destruction of evidence took place after a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issued letters directing that all emails be preserved and subpoenaing them. Combetta first lied to the FBI, claiming he did not recall deleting anything. After being rewarded with immunity, Combetta recalled destroying the emails—but he could not recall anyone directing him to do so.
    The word in Washington is that Flynn pleaded guilty to take pressure off his son, who was also a subject of Mueller’s investigation. Always the soldier. But those who questioned Flynn that day did not cover themselves with law enforcement glory. Led by Strzok, they grilled Flynn about facts that they already knew and that they knew did not constitute a crime. They besmirched the reputation of federal law enforcement by their role in a scheme to destroy a duly elected president and his appointees.
    A pall hangs over Mueller, and a pall hangs over the DOJ. But the darkest pall hangs over the FBI, America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, which since the demise of J. Edgar Hoover has been steadfast in steering clear of politics. Even during L. Patrick Gray’s brief tenure as acting director during Watergate, it was not the FBI but Gray personally who was implicated. The current scandal pervades the Bureau. It spans from Director Comey to Deputy Director McCabe to General Counsel Baker. It spread to counterintelligence via Peter Strzok. When line agents complained about the misconduct, McCabe retaliated by placing them under investigation for leaking information.
    From the outset of this scandal, I have considered Comey a dirty cop. His unfailing commitment to himself above all else is of a pattern. Throughout his career, Comey has continually portrayed himself as Thomas Becket, fighting against institutional corruption—even where none exists. Stories abound of his routine retort to anyone who disagreed with him (not an unusual happening when lawyers gather) during his tenure as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Your moral compass is askew,” he would say. This self-righteousness led agents to refer to him as “The Cardinal.” Comey is no Thomas Becket—he is Henry II.
    A great disservice has been done to the dedicated men and women of the FBI by Comey and his seventh floor henchmen. A grand jury probe is long overdue. Inspector General Horowitz is an honest man, but he cannot convene a grand jury. We need one now. We need our FBI back.










    Last edited by RPETER65; 14-11-2018 at 03:30 PM.

  17. #6042
    VIP Elite Club
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,906
    ^ Jeezus. Once again confirming that you are a brainwashed old fool. That is nothing more than a bunch of utter trash form a idiotic conspiracy theorist and is all a bunch of horseshit.

    You are a gullible, brainwashed utter buffoon and once again you just proved it. SMH

  18. #6043
    Thailand Expat Humbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:27 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,865
    Can't be arsed to read some wingnut BS in black type against a dark blue background.

  19. #6044
    VIP Elite Club
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,906

    Joseph diGenova: The bizarre conspiracy theories peddled by Donald Trump's new lawyer

    This is the type of horse shit that gullible trumpanzee morons like repeater666 buy into like utter lemmings...

    Donald Trump has hired a theory-peddling lawyer who argues the President is being framed by the FBI and Justice Department.

    The addition of former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova to Mr Trump’s legal team is another indicator that the President is possibly working to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

    Here is a list of theories that Mr diGenova has pushed on right-wing media.

    January: He told Fox News that Mr Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump campaign advisers colluded with the Kremlin is “a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn’t win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime.”

    “Make no mistake about it: A group of FBI and DOJ people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime,” Mr diGenova said.

    30 January: He said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Mr Mueller to lead the Russia investigation was illegal.

    “But Rod did something worse. He created a mandate for Mueller, which had no limitations of time, money, subject matter. He didn’t even name a crime that was being investigated, which was a violation of the Department of Justice regulations. I think when all was said and done, Rod Rosenstein’s memorandum and the appointment of a special counsel will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by a Justice Department official.”

    1 February: He said in an interview with Tucker Carlson Tonight that FBI Director Christopher Wray planted stories about threatening to resign.

    “Chris Wray planted these stories himself. He is trying to show the employees of the FBI and the former agents that he is brave. He is stalwart. He is standing up for them. This is nonsensical. If he offers to resign, the president should accept his resignation. This type of behavior by an FBI director is childish. It’s immature.”

    2 February: He told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the US is headed toward “the largest law enforcement scandal in history”.

    “We are headed toward a very sad ending for the FBI and senior DOJ officials. ... I believe that several high FBI officials will be charged criminally. And it is conceivable that some DOJ people will also be charged criminally. ... I would consider this the largest law enforcement scandal in history for this reason.”

    7 March: He said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that a federal grand jury should investigate the Russia investigators

    “This is why, Lou, the only way to get these answers, once the Nunes committee is done, is to have a federal grand jury force all of these State Department people, CIA, DNI people, FBI, DOJ senior people under oath in a grand jury. It’s the only way we’re ever going to get the full story. ... This is the single most important scandal of the last 50 years because senior DOJ and FBI officials engaged in conduct that was designed to corrupt an American presidential election. It wasn’t the Russians who corrupted the presidential election; it was the American officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8265861.html

  20. #6045
    VIP Elite Club
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    Can't be arsed to read some wingnut BS in black type against a dark blue background.
    It is complete trash. See above post.

  21. #6046
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:54 AM
    Location
    NAKON SAWAN
    Posts
    4,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Humbert View Post
    Can't be arsed to read some wingnut BS in black type against a dark blue background.
    Up to you,it’e okay with me if you choose to remain in the dark.

  22. #6047
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:54 AM
    Location
    NAKON SAWAN
    Posts
    4,520
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    ^ Jeezus. Once again confirming that you are a brainwashed old fool. That is nothing more than a bunch of utter trash form a idiotic conspiracy theorist and is all a bunch of horseshit.

    You are a gullible, brainwashed utter buffoon and once again you just proved it. SMH

    Quite obvious you didn’t read the post.

  23. #6048
    Thailand Expat
    tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    He told Fox News
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    He said on Lou Dobbs Tonight
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    He said in an interview with Tucker Carlson Tonight
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    He told Fox News host Sean Hannity
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    He said on Lou Dobbs Tonight
    ......quite the circle jerk...

  24. #6049
    VIP Elite Club
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,906
    Quote Originally Posted by RPETER65 View Post
    Quite obvious you didn’t read the post.
    The post is trash and is total nonsense. Only an idiot like you would think even a sentence in that speech is real. It is a nonsensical tinfoil conspiracy theory created for morons like you who are too stupid to realize that it is a complete fabrication.

  25. #6050
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:54 AM
    Location
    NAKON SAWAN
    Posts
    4,520
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    The post is trash and is total nonsense. Only an idiot like you would think even a sentence in that speech is real. It is a nonsensical tinfoil conspiracy theory created for morons like you who are too stupid to realize that it is a complete fabrication.

    Did you read the entire post?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •