|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 7:10:05 GMT -6
So, the media overplayed another nothingburger? Say it's not so:
Rep. Ratcliffe: Ambassador Taylor again today I found him to be forthright. He had very strong opinions on Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But again the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. Under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 8:39:48 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/23/house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-gop-john-ratcliffe-impeachment-witness-testimony/Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday that the GOP dismantled a suggestion from Ukrainian Envoy William Taylor during his closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that President Donald Trump had tied aid to Ukraine to an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. “In 90 seconds, we had [Republican Texas Rep.] John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor’s whole argument,” McCarthy told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle.” Numerous media reports suggested Taylor’s testimony was devastating and provided ammunition for the impeachment inquiry. However, McCarthy claimed those reports are based on leaks coming from the committee chairman, Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff, and do not reflect Ratcliffe’s efforts to disprove Taylor’s testimony. (RELATED: House Minority Leader Blames Pelosi’s ‘Pattern Of Behavior’ For Breakdown In Communication) The House minority leader told Ingraham that he cannot get into specifics about the questioning because of the veil of secrecy that Schiff has placed over the impeachment inquiry. “Adam Schiff won’t let us talk about what happened,” he said in reference to the closed-door session. “There is no quid pro quo.” Ratcliffe told Fox News after listening to Taylor that the envoy brought up some interesting information but said nothing “worthy of impeachment.” McCarthy also said the GOP members of the intelligence committee are being treated like children by Schiff’s people. (RELATED: Kevin McCarthy Scolds Nancy Pelosi After Democratic Freshman Lawmaker Makes Vulgar Comment) “What happened in the Intel committee, even the members cannot read any information unless one of Adam Schiff’s own staffers are in the room next to them.” McCarthy noted that the impeachment inquiry continues to be based on the testimony of people who have no primary information of any alleged misconduct on behalf of the president. “The one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower … everything is second, third, and fourth-hand information,” he said. “They go out to the press and say Taylor is terrible and Adam Schiff won’t let us talk about what happened. In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy his whole argument. We are finding just his questioning refuted everything of what Adam Schiff leaves out there; there is no quid pro quo.” The congressman said Schiff has turned the impeachment inquiry into a secretive process that relies on selective leaks to the media to promote its work. “What they are doing [is] they are changing every rule we ever had,” he said. Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham will introduce a resolution this week to condemn the impeachment inquiry as “illegitimate,” arguing that it is denying Trump his essential legal rights and should be ignored by the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 8:46:09 GMT -6
Sounds like Barr & Durham are getting closer to the truth. Soundcloud file at link: www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/22/hans-von-spakovsky-fbi-cia-fear-criminal-prosecutions-over-durhams-spygate-probe/Employees of intelligence agencies may be “very scared and very worried” of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation of the origins of the Obama administration’s surveillance of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2015 and beyond, speculated Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, in a Monday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host David Ng. www.heritage.org/staff/hans-von-spakovskyUnder James Comey’s former directorship of the FBI, the federal government surveilled Trump’s political associates as early as 2015, ostensibly as a “counterintelligence” operation on alleged Russian “interference” in 2016’s presidential election. In May, Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. attorney John Durham to head the aforementioned investigation of the Obama administration’s surveillance of Trump’s campaign, including the use of surveillance warrants via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Von Spakovsky said, “If these CIA analysts were providing false information or false and fraudulent assessments in order to get a counterintelligence operation started against the president, then boy, they’d better get lawyers, because they not only engaged in an abuse of their authority, but they probably broke federal law in what they were doing.” “We know there’s a problem in the intelligence agencies,” said von Spakovsky of political and partisan functionaries within the intelligence agencies. “All you have to do is look at the ridiculous whistleblower complaint filed by the non-whistleblower against the president in a phone call in the Ukraine to understand that there is a lot of bias inside of our intelligence agencies, which does not give one a great deal of confidence in the accuracy and credibility of the work they’re supposed to be doing, which is analyzing the national security threats to the United States.” Von Spakovsky contrasted Durham’s investigation with a forthcoming report from the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz regarding possible abuses of power by the FBI in its obtainment of a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign official Carter Page. “The inspector general only has the power to report on any wrongdoing, fraud, [or] abuse that he finds,” von Spakovsky stated. “An inspector general can make a recommendation at the end of the report [that] the Justice Department prosecute someone, but he has no power to do it. John Durham, on the other hand, as a U.S. attorney, can also issue a report just like the IG did, but if he finds criminal wrongdoing, he can impanel a grand jury and criminally prosecute anyone that he believes may have broken the law.” Von Spakovsky added, “Everyone should remember it is against the law for the CIA to operate domestically, and if they were engaging in domestic operations to spy on American citizens, including people working inside the Trump campaign, then they did break federal law and they are in a lot of trouble, or they should be in a lot of trouble.” “If [the CIA] discovers foreign espionage going on inside the United States, they have to turn that over to the FBI,” continued von Spakosvky. “The FBI has a huge counterintelligence division whose only job it is to stop foreign espionage going on inside the United States. The CIA cannot do that. Their task is to operate abroad and to gather intelligence for the United States. Counterintelligence [is] the FBI’s responsibility.” Von Spakovsky went on, “If the CIA handed over false information or information they had not checked and verified to the FBI, then the CIA people are potentially in trouble, as would be the FBI if they then did not verify or check the information they were getting from the CIA. We know they didn’t do that when it came to the Steele dossier. The FBI didn’t check any of that information.” “I think … maybe folks in the intelligence agencies [are] very scared and very worried about the investigation that John Durham is doing, and hoping that this distracts the public and distracts Congress,” estimated von Spakovsky. Comey has mocked concernsabout the FBI’s surveillance of Trump’s campaign as “conspiracy theories.” He also denied that the FBI — under his directorship — “spied on the Trump campaign” or engaged in “corruption.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 9:46:05 GMT -6
Not surprisingly, the Democrats had the GOP lawmakers removed from the Star Chamber.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 9:51:16 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/23/republicans-storm-impeachment/House Republicans briefly shut down a closed-door meeting Wednesday by storming the room where lawmakers were questioning a Defense Department official involving the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Over a dozen Republican lawmakers gathered outside of the private meeting room Wednesday and told reporters that they would try to enter the closed-door deposition regarding the official impeachment inquiry into Trump. The House intelligence, foreign affairs and oversight committees are leading these proceedings after allegations that Trump asked Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. “We’re gonna go and see if we can get inside,” Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz told reporters according to a video posted on Twitter. (RELATED: What Is The Process For Impeaching A President?) The incident caused a delay in proceedings, Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly said according to Rachel Bade, a Congress reporter for the Washington Post. The Democrats were “consulting Sargent at Arms,” she tweeted. Defense department official Laura Cooper was testifying about allegations that the U.S. withheld military aid from Ukraine as Trump was allegedly trying to get officials to look into Biden. WATCH: The group also entered the room with their electronics, which is prohibited, Connolly added. The electronics were collected by Republican Texas Rep. Mike Conaway. Multiple Republicans have tried to access the depositions and get transcripts of the meetings in the past, the Washington Times reported. One Republican said that the group “got in” Wednesday but were asked to leave, Olivia Beavers, a Congress reporter for The Hill, tweeted. The group that tried to enter Wednesday’s closed door interview don’t sit on the committees that are leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Because of this, they have been barred from participating in or viewing the proceedings. The official impeachment inquiry began on Sept. 24 following an August whistleblower complaint which cited a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President —, which is when Trump allegedly asked about looking into Biden. Trump called on Republicans to “get tougher and fight” Monday against the House’s impeachment inquiry and also suggested that they need to stick together as some have openly critiqued the president. “I think they’re lousy politicians,” Trump said Monday about Democrats during a Cabinet meeting. “But two things they have: They’re vicious and they stick together. They don’t have Mitt Romney in their midst. They don’t have people like that. They stick together. You never see them break off.” Utah Sen. Mitt Romney has openly criticized some of the president’s decisions, particularly noting that the July 25 phone call was “shocking” and a “mistake” during an exclusive interview on Axios on HBO Sunday. “We certainly can’t have presidents asking foreign countries to provide something of political value. That is, after all, against the law,” Romney said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 9:56:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 11:48:01 GMT -6
dnyuz.com/2019/10/23/contradicting-trump-ukraine-knew-of-aid-freeze-before-it-became-public/Following testimony by William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, to House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the freezing of the aid was directly linked to Mr. Trump’s demand for the investigations, the president took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to approvingly quote a Republican member of Congress saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had “provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.” But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times. The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records. The timing of the communications about the issue, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than United States and Ukrainian officials had acknowledged. ........... Sounds bad, oh wait, what's this? dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/ukraine-government-trump-aid-freeze-phone-call/that President Donald Trump froze military aid to the country until a month after the phone call that was central to a whistleblower complaint. The detail further complicates allegations that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by threatening to withhold the aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The detail was first reported Monday in The New York Times, but went relatively unnoticed until after the release of the July 25 call transcript and the whistleblower complaint. The Times originally dropped the news in the 13th paragraph of a story about the aid freeze. “Mr. Trump did not discuss the delay in the military assistance on the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky, according to people familiar with the conversation. A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call,” the Times reported. www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-biden-ukraine.htmlSo, another leak to the friendly NYTimes by Schiff and company that has already been debunked.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 11:52:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 11:56:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 19:15:33 GMT -6
So, fourth hand information is now admissible as long as it's against President Trump:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 23, 2019 19:17:27 GMT -6
There once was a man named Shiff Who wished to push Trump off a cliff He left in a huff Once things got rough And said "Next time Trump's gone" with a sniff
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 24, 2019 9:50:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 24, 2019 9:59:57 GMT -6
The CIA “whistleblower” admitted that he has an extensive history of political bias.
No wonder Shifty Adam Schiff does not to reveal this clown’s identity!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 24, 2019 12:16:50 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-acknowledged-additional-layer-of-potential-anti-trump-bias-sources-sayThe whistleblower at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry acknowledged to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) that bias against President Trump might be alleged against him or her for a third, previously unreported reason, sources familiar with the ICIG investigation tell Fox News. Fox News has previously reported the whistleblower is a registered Democrat and had a prior work history with a senior Democrat. Though Fox News has learned that an additional element of possible bias was identified by the whistleblower, its nature remains unclear.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 24, 2019 12:21:28 GMT -6
www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-s-legal-work-romania-raises-new-questions-about-n1071031According to NBC News, Popoviciu became the target of a criminal investigation back in 2005 when another businessman filed a complaint against him and the rector of a Romanian University for the sale of a plot of land near Bucharest. Popoviciu had reportedly purchased the land for “significantly less money than it was actually worth,” according to the documents and it was alleged that the plot of land was actually owned by the Romanian government, not the University of Agronomy. Popoviciu was hit with a bribery charge and convicted in 2016, however he filed an appeal — this is when Joe Biden’s drug-addled son Hunter was brought in as legal counsel. Makes sense. It is important to note, from 2009 to 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden was very involved in Romania and had many connections to the country, including a close friend and former staffer, Mark Gitenstein, who was the US Ambassador to Romania. ...... Excerpt: Hunter Biden’s work for Popoviciu in 2016 went unreported at the time, but Joe Biden’s involvement in Romania was very much public. The vice president was among the leading voices pushing the government to crack down on corruption. There’s no evidence that Hunter or his father acted improperly or violated any laws. But the arrangement, government ethics experts say, raises concerns that Hunter Biden was used as a prop in Popoviciu’s effort to dodge criminal prosecution. “We don’t know what [Hunter Biden] was paid or what he was paid for but it does raise questions of whether this Romanian individual facing criminal charges was actually paying for a connection to the American vice president,” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in government ethics. Romania was by then a familiar place to the Biden family. A close friend and former staffer of Joe Biden, Mark Gitenstein, held the position of U.S. ambassador to Romania from August 2009 to December 2012. In March 2012, Hunter’s brother, Beau, was asked to do the ribbon-cutting at the new U.S. embassy in Bucharest. Vice President Biden visited Romania in 2014 and delivered a forceful speech against graft. “Corruption is a cancer, a cancer that eats away at a citizen’s faith in democracy,” he said. “Corruption is just another form of tyranny.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 24, 2019 12:24:27 GMT -6
Steve Forbes was recently interviewed by CNBC in India on the current impeachment proceedings and coup attempt of President Donald Trump.
Steve told the interviewer impeachment will not happen. He then fired a warning shot at Democrats.
Steve Forbes: “Impeachment is not gonna happen. They are doing it for political purposes… The thing to watch for is what our Attorney General in the US is doing, Attorney General Barr is going to be releasing in the next few weeks in terms of his investigations on what was happening with the CIA, the FBI, and cerain White House officials leading up to the 2016 election and afterwards… A lot of bad things were done. That’s going to dominate the news. It is a big scandal coming. And it’s going to take all this other stuff off the pages.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 24, 2019 12:29:39 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/24/nolte-gordon-sondland-says-william-taylors-most-damning-testimony-never-happened/U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland disputes the most damning portions of Acting Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor’s impeachment testimony. And here we go again… Welcome to Russia Collusion 2: The Star Chamber, where Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) holds secret basement impeachment hearings hoping to overturn a presidential election using selective leaks, and our corrupt media play right along. Who didn’t see this coming…? Hey, raise your hand if you slept through all three years of the Russia Collusion Hoax. Time and time and time again, this is how it works… Some Deep State Never Trumper delivers a “bombshell” testimony that is certain to see the Orange Bad Man removed from office, and then it appears to fall apart once all the facts come to life, once the full context becomes clear… This is even worse than Russia Collusion, though. This process is somehow more corrupted, because this time Democrats and their media allies are coordinating impeachment testimony in secret, and then running for a touchdown carrying selective leaks chosen by Schiff — the serial liar who looked America in the eye for three years to tell us he had concrete evidence Trump colluded with Russia. We already know that the only thing leaked from Taylor’s testimony was his opening statement, while not one moment of the cross examination he faced from Republican congressmen has been made public. And we now have three congressmen who were there saying Taylor’s allegations fell apart as soon as they were challenged.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 4:10:47 GMT -6
** The Change in Status Gives Investigators Ability to Subpoena Witnesses, Use Grand Jury, etc.(now we see why the CIA people started lawyering up). www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.htmlFor more than two years, President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel closed it. Now, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began. Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges. …] The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself. Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice. It was not clear what potential crime Mr. Durham is investigating, nor when the criminal investigation was prompted. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. […] Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 4:18:46 GMT -6
General Flynn’s attorney, the great Sidney Powell, released a number of pages of information that are totally damning to Obama’s Deep State actors and villains. We know that the 302 was doctored by Lisa Page per prior notes from Powell and now we know that the 302 was doctored by adding an entire question and answer of the General that was later used to criminally indict the him.
In addition, Powell’s filing with the court released tonight show that Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was involved in leaking the General’s discussion with Russian Kislyak before President Trump’s 2017 Inauguration!
Powell has asked the DOJ for records related to Baker [emphasis added] –
Flynn has requested records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s handler in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washing Post reporter James Ignatius. The defense has requested phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius – especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of “Take the kill shot on Flynn”. It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls the the government has denied to the defense.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 4:22:56 GMT -6
Page editing Flynn’s 302’s.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 4:26:44 GMT -6
Following the news tonight Democrat leaders Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler lashed out at the Department of Justice and President Trump on Thursday night calling the criminal probe Trump’s “political revenge.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 4:29:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 9:38:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 9:54:20 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/10/25/sidney-powell-drops-bombshell-showing-how-the-fbi-trapped-michael-flynn/Sidney Powell Drops Bombshell Showing How The FBI Trapped Michael Flynn 'Mr. Flynn will ask this Court to dismiss the entire prosecution based on the outrageous and un-American conduct of law enforcement officials and the subsequent failure of the prosecution to disclose this evidence.' Margot ClevelandBy Margot Cleveland OCTOBER 25, 2019 Earlier this week, Michael Flynn’s star attorney, Sidney Powell, filed under seal a brief in reply to federal prosecutors’ claims that they have already given Flynn’s defense team all the evidence they are required by law to provide. A minimally redacted copy of the reply brief has just been made public, and with it shocking details of the deep state’s plot to destroy Flynn. While the briefing at issue concerns Powell’s motion to compel the government to hand over evidence required by Brady and presiding Judge Emmett Sullivan’s standing order, Powell’s 37-page brief pivots between showcasing the prosecution’s penchant for withholding evidence and exposing significant new evidence the defense team uncovered that establishes a concerted effort to entrap Flynn. Along the way, Powell drops half-a-dozen problems with Flynn’s plea and an equal number of justifications for outright dismissal of the criminal charges against Flynn. What is most striking, though, is the timeline Powell pieced together from publicly reported text messages withheld from the defense team and excerpts from documents still sealed from public view. The sequence Powell lays out shows that a team of “high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president’s National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity—they already had tapes of all the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn—but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.” ‘The Upper Echelon of the FBI Met to Orchestrate It All’ First came FBI agent Peter Strzok’s text to FBI attorney Lisa Page “as news of the ‘salacious and unverified’ allegations of the ‘Steele dossier’ dominated the media.” “Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON more out. . . We’re discussing whether, now that this is out, we can use it as a pretext to go interview some people,” Strzok told his paramour. Then, quoting from a sealed statement by Strzok, Powell reveals that over next two weeks, there were “many meetings” between Strzok and [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe to discuss “whether to interview [] National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and if so, what interview strategies to use.” And “on January 23, the day before the interview, the upper echelon of the FBI met to orchestrate it all. Deputy Director McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, Lisa Page, Strzok, David Bowdich, Trish Anderson, and Jen Boone strategized to talk with Mr. Flynn in such a way as to keep from alerting him from understanding that he was being interviewed in a criminal investigation of which he was the target.” Next came “Comey’s direction to ‘screw it’ in contravention of longstanding DOJ protocols,” leading McCabe to personally call Flynn to schedule the interview. Yet none of Comey’s notes on the decision to interview Flynn were turned over to defense. Even Obama-holdover “Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates candidly opined that the interview ‘was problematic’ and ‘it was not always clear what the FBI was doing to investigate Flynn,” Powell stressed. Yet again, the prosecution did not turn over Yates’ notes, but only “disclosed a seven-line summary of Ms. Yates statement six months after Mr. Flynn’s plea.” Following Strzok’s questioning of Flynn, he exchanged more texts with Page: “Describe the feeling, nervousness, excitement knowing we had just heard him denying it all. Knowing we’d have to pivot into asking. Puzzle round and round about it. Talk about the funny details. Remember what I said that made Andy laugh and ask if he really said that.” The texts also confirmed Strzok did not believe Flynn thought he was lying: “Also have some faith in and my assessment. . . . I’m finding it hard to go out on a counterintuitive yet strongly felt ledge with so many competent voices expressing what I feel too: bullsh*t – that doesn’t make sense. [] I made some joke about what F said. Something patriotic or military.” Page responded: “It was clear that you both walked in and felt very strongly, so that obviously counts for something. [] You made a joke about a military band.” A sealed statement from Strzok confirmed that the “agents did three briefings the day of the interview,” and that Strzok had reported that Flynn “had a sure demeanor, and he was telling the truth or believed he was—even though he did not remember it all.” This led the FBI and DOJ to then write “an internal memo dated January 30, 2017, exonerating Mr. Flynn of acting as an ‘agent of Russia’” and expressing no concern of a possible Logan Act violation. Then the Switch on the 302 But then things change. “On February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to ‘senior intelligence officials’—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously.” Following this leak, “overnight,” Flynn’s 302 was changed—and substantively so. “Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘FLYNN stated he did not’—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote.” “This is a deceptive manipulation” Powell highlighted, “because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.” The overnight changes to the 302 also included the addition of a line, indicating Flynn had been question on whether “KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN.” But the agent’s notes do not include that question or answer, Powell stressed, yet it was later made into the criminal offense charges against Flynn. And “the draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not,” Powell added. Then, the day after those changes were made, Strzok texted Page asking: “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page replied: “Launch f302.” Simultaneously, David Laufman in the National Security Division of DOJ, called Flynn’s law firm, Covington and Burling, to pressure them to file the FARA registration form for Flynn Intel Group. Those FARA registration forms would later be used to press Flynn to plead guilty. Ties to Collusion against President Trump The timeline continued to May 10 when McCabe opened an “obstruction” investigation into President Trump. That same day, Powell writes, “in an important but still wrongly redacted text, Strzok says: ‘We need to lock in [redacted]. In a formal chargeable way. Soon.’” Page replies: “I agree. I’ve been pushing and I’ll reemphasize with Bill [Priestap].” Powell argues that “both from the space of the redaction, its timing, and other events, the defense strongly suspects the redacted name is Flynn.” That timing includes Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel on May 17, and then the reentering of Flynn’s 302 on May 31, 2017, “for Special Counsel Mueller to use.” That final Flynn 302 shows yet another inconsistency from the notes turned over to Powell. Both agents’ notes state: “Flynn does not remember making four to five calls to Ambassador Kislyak from the Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, but that if he did so, it was because phone service was poor and he kept getting dropped. ‘I don’t remember making 4-5 calls. If I did lousy place to call.’” Yet, Powell stressed, the final 302 stated the opposite: “Flynn remembered making four to five calls that day about this issue, but that the Dominican Republic was a difficult place to make a call as he kept having connectivity issues.” Powell pieced together this timeline and this disturbing evidence of a government out to destroy a man only after Flynn pleaded guilty and without benefit of the exculpatory evidence the prosecution was required to provide. And that’s a problem, Powell argues: “Neither Mr. Flynn nor his former counsel had any of these documents or knowledge of the plethora of information discussed above when Mr. Flynn entered his plea.” Federal prosecutors attempt to sidestep this problem by stressing that Flynn was represented by Covington and Burling, but that does not excuse the government’s withholding of evidence Judge Sullivan had ordered turned over, Powell stresses. As a backstop, Powell highlights that Covington and Burling had a conflict-of-interest that Flynn could not waive. How Judge Sullivan will rule on Powell’s motion to compel and motion for sanctions is unclear. But as Powell said in the opening of her reply brief, she has “made clear from her first appearance, [that] Mr. Flynn will ask this Court to dismiss the entire prosecution based on the outrageous and un-American conduct of law enforcement officials and the subsequent failure of the prosecution to disclose this evidence— which it had in its possession all along—either in a timely fashion or at all.” Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 9:56:24 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/10/25/gop-has-a-choice-fight-anti-trump-coup-effort-or-surrender-government-to-democrats/GOP Has A Choice: Fight Anti-Trump Coup Effort Or Surrender Government To Democrats Republicans have two choices for how to handle the Resistance's latest attempt to undo the 2016 election through dramatic means. They can sit there and take it, or they can fight. Mollie HemingwayBy Mollie Hemingway OCTOBER 25, 2019 The 2000 presidential election day ended without a clear winner between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. It all came down to Florida, which was too close to call. State law required close contests to go through a recount, and some counties handled it better than others. Miami-Dade County was identified by Democrats as a county where Gore could pick up new votes in a recount. Although state law required full recount of the county’s 654,000 ballots, the Democrat-controlled canvassers instead focused on 10,750 ballots that had been rejected for one reason or another or where no clear pick could be identified for president. Then the canvassers tried to determine “intent” using their own subjective feelings. For instance, if a voter had by and large picked Democrats for other seats, or if a canvasser could claim he saw an indentation where the chad could have been punched out for Gore, they would count that as a Gore vote. They didn’t recount Cuban-American precincts that overwhelmingly went for Bush and where he might pick up new votes. The situation was bad enough for Republicans, but then the canvassers decided to move the process to a closed room and restricted media access to 25 feet away. Republicans were livid. Rep. John Sweeney, a Republican congressman from New York, told a staffer to “shut it down” and dozens of Republican activists began causing a ruckus, pounding on the doors and shouting at the canvassers to stop their blatant attempts to push Gore into the lead. (The New York Times was forced to admit that Bush was the winner of the election and would have been named so even if Democrats had won some of their challenges.) The media were outraged. “Right-Wingers Praise Antics of Bush Thugs,” wrote Joe Conason, calling it a “lawless… white riot” and incitement of a “mob.” President Bush and other leaders were criticized for not speaking against the “disgrace done in their campaign’s name.” What’s worse, Bush and his vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney joked about it at a local hotel. The mob “lent a touch of racial irony” to Republican criticism of Jesse Jackson’s protests in Miami at the same time. Timothy Noah demanded action against Sweeney, for his role in the “siege of Miami” and “Miami mayhem,” which, he said, was “possibly” against the law. Time’s Tim Padgett wrote of the “Mob Scene in Miami,” calling it a “GOP melee.” He claimed that Americans were horrified to witness the “strong-arm tactics in what was supposed to be a showcase of democracy in action.” He quoted a Democratic chairman saying that the Republicans were using “Brownshirt tactics.” The media attacks were written, not coincidentally, after the mini-protest was shown to have worked. Within hours, the Democrat-led board admitted that they couldn’t comply with state law by the Sunday deadline and stopped their attempted vote harvesting scheme. Sweeney was later nicknamed “Congressman Kick-Ass” by President George W. Bush. If all this sounds similar to what some House Republicans did to Rep. Adam Schiff’s star chamber inquisition this week on Capitol Hill, that’s because it is similar. Showing up in mass at the location where Schiff runs his show, they sought access to House records that were denied to them by a Democrat majority intent on keeping the public in the dark, exposing the farce of what the media describe as an impeachment inquiry. Lay Down or Fight Republicans have two choices for how to handle the Resistance’s latest attempt to undo the 2016 election through dramatic means. They can sit there and take it, or they can fight it. Some Republicans can be counted on to sit there and take it. This approach entails allowing Democrats to hold secret hearings where they handpick snippets to leak to a compliant media in service of setting a narrative. After the leaks are published by the compliant corporate press, these Republicans can impotently push back on some of it. The other approach is to learn something from the previous few years. Trump’s surprising election was followed by attempts to delegitimize the Republican victory in 2016 by claiming it was due to “fake news,” desperate efforts to overturn the Electoral College, anti-Trump riots in Portland and D.C., the Clinton-directed claims that Russia “hacked” the election, the Russia collusion conspiracy theory, the release of the completely ridiculous dossier alleging that Trump was a Russian agent, the whisper campaign that the truth of Trump’s collusion was so bad that he might not be inaugurated. Yes, all this was before the inauguration. Within minutes of the inauguration, the Washington Post published that the “campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” The primary impeachment effort was the Russia collusion hoax, in which the Resistance embraced — or pretended to believe — a patently absurd theory that Trump is a secret Russian agent who stole the 2016 election in a brazen act of sedition. Corporate media outlets published and broadcast story after story supporting this theory, which was later shown to have been invented and secretly funded as a Clinton campaign operation alongside the Democratic National Committee. Foreign policy was put on hold, key administration advisors were fired and sidelined, investigations into whether former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions was a Russian spy were launched. Following the firing of the mendacious and corrupt James Comey as FBI director, the Resistance forced the launch of an intrusive and unstoppable special counsel probe, ostensibly headed by Robert Mueller. Years later — after the special counsel had stymied the Trump administration, fed the collusion conspiracy theory, rung up Trump associates for process crimes, and destroyed the lives and bank accounts of many Trump associates — the probe ended with not a single American, much less a single American tied to the Trump campaign, much less Trump himself, found to have colluded with Russia. Just Keep Throwing Crap Until Something Sticks So then the goalposts moved once again. The argument went that Trump, by being upset that he was falsely accused of being a traitor who stole the 2016 election by colluding with Russia, might have “obstructed justice.” Team Mueller couldn’t say, exactly. A report — clearly designed to be an impeachment report — was transmitted to Congress to get things going. But then Mueller testified before Congress and demonstrated that he had very little understanding of the probe that bore his name. Mueller’s role had been used by the Resistance to silence any criticism of the probe or the Russia collusion theory in general. As soon as it was obvious to the world that he had not really participated in the probe so much as been its titular head, the goalposts moved again. Following a few returning visits to the 25th Amendment fever swamps, where Resistance members fantasize that they could get Trump’s cabinet to undo the 2016 election, or speculation that Trump might resign, they have landed on something something Ukraine. Corporate media is trying to spin the Ukraine story as if it is something other than what it is. As if it were legitimate and quickly moving. Mike Allen of Axios opined of impeachment that “It’s remarkable how fast it has gotten off the ground. You can see how quickly the Ukraine phone call came out of nowhere to become the all-consuming impeachment topic — way faster than the impeachment inquiries into Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.” Yes, this is a really good talking point if you ignore literally everything that has happened since November 8, 2016. Again Republicans can either follow the Resistance, including Democrats and their corporate media supporters, or they can choose not acquiesce to the latest efforts to undo the 2016 election but somehow fight them. Just as in 2000, the media screeching over Rep. Matt Gaetz and his colleagues fighting the secret efforts — which are literally being led by a man who lied to the public for years, falsely claiming he held evidence of Trump’s treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election — is not an objection to what Gaetz and his colleagues did but anger that some Republicans have the audacity to fight back against what Democrats and the corporate media are doing. Complaints about decorum and process in 2000 were likewise complaints that Republicans weren’t sitting there and allowing Democrats to steal an election George W. Bush had rightfully won. Using Bureaucracy to Overturn Elections Is Dangerous Efforts to steal an election in 2000 or overturn one from 2016 should be met not with passive compliance but a righteous defense of the ballot box. And the Resistance members, whether in the bureaucracy, Congress, media, or the NeverTrump movement, need to know that they are playing with fire by trying to get around the ballot box. Despite the belief of many career bureaucrats that elected political leadership works for them, our system is built on the idea that the permanent bureaucracy, such as it exists, works for the elected leadership, which in turn works for and represents the American public. While it is tempting to look at the three-year-long temper tantrum from the Resistance as being entirely about Trump, it’s about something much bigger. It is about whether our elected government serves the people or whether it exists to do the bidding of an unelected cabal of unelected, taxpayer-funded bureaucrats and smug partisans of the corporate media. At some point it won’t just be marches on Capitol Hill from a few Republican congressmen that the Resistance will have to deal with. It is unclear what the proper reaction to an unrelenting campaign to overturn the result of the 2016 election should be exactly, but they should stop expecting people to be as polite as they have been in response. What we are facing now is not partisan warfare, it’s not a mystery novel, it’s not politics-as-usual. We are facing an attempt to tear down the foundations of our republic by corrupt, unelected bureaucrats who have decided the will of voters is subordinate to their will to power. It represents a fatal threat to our system of government, and if this coup succeeds — whether through impeachment proceedings, or through an election that (if the last three years are any indication) the other side is clearly willing to steal by hook or by crook — the nation will cease to be a constitutional, democratic republic. This isn’t about Trump, or Republicans, or conservatives. It is about Washington needing to learn that political differences have to be settled at the ballot box lest they instead be settled with an undermining of our constitutional norms and institutions.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 11:06:58 GMT -6
President Trump responded: It looks like it’s becoming very serious from what I see. Investigate the investigators. Whether it’s Strzok and Page. Whether it’s Clapper and Comey and all of these people. Because terrible things went on for our country. And we have a great Attorney General, highly prestigious man, a very honorable man. And they’ve been looking at it for a long time. I can’t tell you what’s happening. I will tell you this. I think you’re going to see a lot of really bad things. And a lot of people think that, and they know they have problems, because they were very dishonest. And again I leave it all up to the Attorney General. And I leave it all up to the people who are working with the Attorney General who I don’t know. But I will say this, I think you will see things that no one will believe. This was the worst hoax in the history of our country.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 12:07:27 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/10/25/cnn-andrew-mccabe-criminal-barr/CNN interviewed Andrew McCabe on Friday about developments in a Justice Department criminal investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, but the network failed to disclose that the former FBI deputy director is suing the Justice Department and is under criminal investigation himself. Interviewed by CNN’s Jim Sciutto, McCabe, a CNN analyst, was largely critical of the investigation, which is being led by John Durham, a U.S. attorney in Connecticut, and overseen by Attorney General William Barr. Durham’s investigation has recently shifted from an administrative review of U.S. intelligence activities related to the Trump campaign to a full-blown criminal investigation. Sciutto noted at the top of his interview with McCabe that the former FBI official could very well be a target of the Durham probe. But neither Sciutto nor McCabe disclosed during the interview that McCabe is under investigation for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department regarding his authorization of leaks to the media in October 2016. (RELATED: DOJ Inquiry Into Origins Of Trump-Russia Probe Is Reportedly A Full-Blown Investigation) CNN hired McCabe as a law enforcement analyst on Aug. 23. He sued the Justice Department and FBI on Aug. 8 for wrongful termination over his firing on March 16, 2018. The Justice Department’s office of the inspector general recommended that McCabe be fired because he displayed a “lack of candor” in four interviews about his authorization of leaks to the media. McCabe has denied wrongdoing. McCabe defended the FBI’s activities in the early days of the Trump-Russia investigation and said that he is not concerned that he is a target of the criminal portion of the Durham probe. “Is it your concern that that investigation is now targeting you and your work?” Sciutto asked. “No,” said McCabe. “Here’s my concern, Jim. So, if the investigation is conducted with integrity, with impartiality, if there aren’t preconceived theories or judgments brought into it, then I have no concerns about it whatsoever, whether it’s an internal investigation or conducted as a criminal probe.” “I know, because I was there, I was in the room when these decisions were made, I worked with the team that opened and initiated these cases, approved their work — I know that nothing improper was done.” The FBI during McCabe’s tenure investigated whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. Investigators relied heavily on the infamous but unverified Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against Trump aide Carter Page. The FBI’s handling of the dossier is the subject of a Justice Department inspector general’s report that is expected to be released soon. McCabe criticized Barr and President Trump in his interview with Sciutto, saying that the public “should be very concerned” that they have questioned the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Oct 25, 2019 12:10:03 GMT -6
pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/durham-investigation-going-criminal-a-disaster-for-the-msm/Durham Investigation Is Criminal: a Disaster for the MSM Winter may be coming but it's already Springtime for Lawyers in Washington, D.C. The list of people lawyering up these days would probably fill this page and lap over onto the next. It's just been announced that the John Durham investigation into the provenance of the Russia probe has turned into a criminal investigation. Subpoenas and grand juries are coming, real ones, not the Star Chamber counterfeits being orchestrated by the panicked Democrats and their junior league Southern California Torquemada. To those of us who have been watching this spectacle from the beginning, this was inevitable. After all, where'd the Mueller/Russia probe come from in the first place? Since there was absolutely no there there, it makes no sense that it wasn't a fraud from the outset. Who started it? Who are the treasonous/seditious culprits who conspired to overthrow an election? Well, we should soon be finding out, although we can make some educated guesses. But we do know absolutely who collaborated in the crime, who were the accessories to and in some cases the instigators of this most heinous plot in American history.... ... the mainstream media! They were the more than willing conduits to lies leaked to them by a long list of truly dishonest, unpatriotic Americans - some inside our intelligence agencies and no doubt some foreigners as well. The names of these institutions we all know and they are some of the most important companies on our media landscape. This is time to name the biggest miscreants: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal (front pages), the infantile BuzzFeed, the risible CNN, ABC, CBS, and the multiple sexual molesters at NBC. These are the people who have informed us, actually assured us, from the outset that Donald Trump had done things that deserved impeachment when all they did was try to overthrow an American presidential election. All that time they were harboring the real targets of the investigation, the real criminals. Now it is time to overthrow them. They no longer deserve their place in our society. Even now, within minutes actually, The New York Times is desperately trying to spin the news as legally biased in some manner, insulting Durham with no knowledge. How pathetic. How reactionary and how conformist. They really are still the paper of Walter Duranty, even though some of their more jejune reporters may never have heard of him. Someone should remind the editors of the Times that it's not the crime but the coverup. They have been the masters of the coverup. The WaPo's reputation is up for grabs as well, their vaunted Watergate fame seriously besmirched. And speaking of overthrowing, the networks deserve special opprobrium and scrutiny. They are granted licenses by the government, as it happens licenses to spew propaganda. Should these be continued? Will any of these people admit any of their culpability? It's doubtful. As I type this, we are hearing a joint announcement from Reps. Schiff and Nadler that this is all "retribution." In the words of Hans Vaihinger, "as if." Or better, Moon Unit Zappa, "Gag me with a spoon!" A minor brouhaha occurred today -- especially minor in light of the Durham announcement -- when it was announced Trump was canceling government subscriptions to the Times and the Post. If there are any of us who still have our own, we should follow suit.
|
|
|
Post by redrex on Oct 25, 2019 12:27:34 GMT -6
Can't wait for the Perp Walks
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Oct 25, 2019 13:09:05 GMT -6
I have no faith that anything will ever come of this. Nothing will happen. Everything will go on just as they've always done.
|
|