|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 13:33:38 GMT -6
abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-eyeing-russians-granted-unusual-access-trump/story?id=56232847Several billionaires with deep ties to Russia attended exclusive, invitation-only receptions during Donald Trump’s inauguration festivities, guest lists obtained by ABC News show. These powerful businessmen, who amassed their fortunes following the collapse of the Soviet Union — including one who has since been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department — were ushered into events typically reserved for top donors and close political allies and were given unprecedented access to Trump’s inner circle. Their presence has attracted the interest of federal investigators probing Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, three sources with knowledge of the matter said. Matthew Olsen, a former senior national security official who now serves as an ABC News consultant, said their presence at inaugural events is “very concerning.” “This reflects a Russian strategy of gaining access to our political leaders at a time when they are just forming a government,” Olsen said. “They don’t need to be spies in the James Bond sense. They are powerful people with significant wealth who are in a position to exert influence on U.S. policy makers. And they’re in a position to report back to Russian intelligence services on what they’re able to learn.” The presence of people with Kremlin ties in Washington for Trump’s inaugural celebration was first reported by The Washington Post. But the guest lists obtained by ABC News offer a new glimpse at the level of access granted to several well-connected oligarchs.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 13:37:20 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/06/28/desantis-rosenstein-recusal/During Thursday’s House Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ron DeSantis told Rod Rosenstein point-blank that he should recuse himself for his role in the Muller investigation and the dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey. DeSantis highlighted the popular notion that Donald Trump was obstructing justice when he fired James Comey under Rod Rosenstein’s recommendation. Rosenstein is a key witness in the investigation, yet he is the one conducting it. “Let me ask you this …” said DeSantis. “You know, they talk about the ‘Mueller investigation’ — it’s really the ‘Rosenstein investigation.’ You appointed Mueller, you are supervising Mueller — and then supposedly about collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia and obstruction of justice — but you wrote the memo saying Comey should be fired, and you signed the FISA extension for Carter Page. So my question is to you — seems like you should be recused from this more so than Jeff Sessions just because you were involved in making decisions affecting both prongs of this investigation. Why haven’t you done that?” “Congressman, I can assure you that if it were appropriate for me to recuse, I would be more than happy to do so and let somebody else handle this, but it is my responsibility to do it … ” Rosenstein replied. “Then how do you have obstruction of justice possibility for a president exercising his powers to fire an FBI director that you said should be fired and oh, by the way, the IG report makes it clear, Jim Comey should have been fired. So why are we still doing this with the Mueller probe?” DeSantis interjected. “Sir, I am not commenting on what is under investigation by the Mueller probe and to the best of my knowledge, neither is Mr. Muller. I know there is a lot of speculation in the media about that, but that doesn’t relieve me of my obligation not to discuss the subject matter of the investigation” Rosenstein concluded.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jun 28, 2018 13:43:26 GMT -6
Flashback of Rosenstein putting Congress on notice: So, he also committed perjury today.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2018 14:09:55 GMT -6
Some other back & forth:
GAETZ: Did you read the FISA application before you signed it?
ROSENSTEIN: I’m not going to comment about any FISA application.
GAETZ: So you won’t say to this committee whether or not you even read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign?
ROSENSTEIN: (stammering) Well, I — I — I dispute your characterization of what that FISA is about, sir. Uh, uh, I’m not —
GAETZ: Did you read it or did you not read it?
ROSENSTEIN: I’ll happy to review — I’ll be happy to discuss the details with you. Uh, uh, as I told you, sir.
GAETZ: Well, did Peter Strzok brief you on it.
ROSENSTEIN: No.
GAETZ: Did Lisa Page brief you on it?
ROSENSTEIN: No.
GAETZ: Did Sally Moyer brief you on it?
ROSENSTEIN: Let me explain the process if I may.
GAETZ: Did Trisha Anderson brief you on it.
ROSENSTEIN: No FBI personnel briefed me on it. The process, sir, is these FISA applications and renewals first come up through the FBI chain of command. They are sworn under oath by a career federal agent! We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice, all of whom review that, provide a briefing for us about what’s in it. And, sir, I’ve reviewed that one in some detail. And I can tell you, sir, that the information that’s public about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed. ..........
GOWDY: He was talking about impeachment within three days of Special Counsel Mueller being appointed! Three days! That’s even quicker than MSNBC and the Democrats were talking about impeaching! Within three days, the lead FBI agent is talking about impeaching the president. So this is where we are. More than 60 Democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before Bob Mueller has found a single, solitary, damn thing! We’ve seen the bias; we need to see the evidence. If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people.
ROSENSTEIN: I certainly share your views about those text messages, and, uh, nobody is more offended than I about what’s reflected in those messages. With regard to the investigation, uhh, I’ve heard suggestions that we should just close the investigation. I think the best thing we can do is finish it appropriately, uh, and reach a conclusion. And I certainly agree with you, sir, people should not jump to conclusions without seeing the evidence. .........
So Jim Jordan from Ohio accused Rosenstein of withholding information. Rosenstein got on his high horse about that. Jordan said, “Why did you hide the fact that Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?” FISA judge. “Why did you redact that in the document you gave to us? Judge Contreras is kind of important, a FISA court judge. More importantly, the judge that heard Mike Flynn’s case. Why did you try to hide that from us?”
ROSENSTEIN: I am the deputy attorney general of the United States, okay? I’m not the person doing the redacting. My job is to make sure we address your concerns. We have, sir! Now, I’ve appointed, Mr. Lausch, who is managing that production, and my understanding is it’s actually going very well. So I —
JORDAN: Again, I think the House of Representatives is gonna say otherwise.
ROSENSTEIN: But your use of this to attack me personally is wrong!
JORDAN: It’s not personal. We just want the information. ......
JORDAN: Why did you tell Peter Strzok not to answer our questions yesterday? When I asked Peter Strzok if he’d ever communicated with Glenn Simpson, he gave us the answer he gave us dozens of times: “On advice of FBI counsel, I can’t answer that question.” Why couldn’t he answer that question?
ROSENSTEIN: Mr. Jordan, I appreciate your sincere concerns. But I didn’t have give Peter Strzok any instructions. If there was some problem with the instructions he had, I’ll be happy to let you —
JORDAN: No, but —
ROSENSTEIN: When you find some problem with a production or with questions, it doesn’t mean that I’m personally trying to conceal something from you. It means we’re running an organization that’s trying to follow the rules.
JORDAN: Why couldn’t he answer that question?
ROSENSTEIN: I appreciate you saying it isn’t personal. (chuckles) Sometimes it feels that way. How do I know, sir? You interviewed Mr. Strzok; I didn’t. Uhhh, so I can’t answer that.
JORDAN: He works for you! He doesn’t work for us.
ROSENSTEIN: There are 115,000 people who work for me.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 28, 2018 16:18:13 GMT -6
Some other back & forth: GAETZ: Did you read the FISA application before you signed it? ROSENSTEIN: I’m not going to comment about any FISA application. GAETZ: So you won’t say to this committee whether or not you even read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign? ROSENSTEIN: (stammering) Well, I — I — I dispute your characterization of what that FISA is about, sir. Uh, uh, I’m not — GAETZ: Did you read it or did you not read it? ROSENSTEIN: I’ll happy to review — I’ll be happy to discuss the details with you. Uh, uh, as I told you, sir. GAETZ: Well, did Peter Strzok brief you on it. ROSENSTEIN: No. GAETZ: Did Lisa Page brief you on it? ROSENSTEIN: No. GAETZ: Did Sally Moyer brief you on it? ROSENSTEIN: Let me explain the process if I may. GAETZ: Did Trisha Anderson brief you on it. ROSENSTEIN: No FBI personnel briefed me on it. The process, sir, is these FISA applications and renewals first come up through the FBI chain of command. They are sworn under oath by a career federal agent! We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice, all of whom review that, provide a briefing for us about what’s in it. And, sir, I’ve reviewed that one in some detail. And I can tell you, sir, that the information that’s public about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed. .......... GOWDY: He was talking about impeachment within three days of Special Counsel Mueller being appointed! Three days! That’s even quicker than MSNBC and the Democrats were talking about impeaching! Within three days, the lead FBI agent is talking about impeaching the president. So this is where we are. More than 60 Democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before Bob Mueller has found a single, solitary, damn thing! We’ve seen the bias; we need to see the evidence. If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people. ROSENSTEIN: I certainly share your views about those text messages, and, uh, nobody is more offended than I about what’s reflected in those messages. With regard to the investigation, uhh, I’ve heard suggestions that we should just close the investigation. I think the best thing we can do is finish it appropriately, uh, and reach a conclusion. And I certainly agree with you, sir, people should not jump to conclusions without seeing the evidence. ......... So Jim Jordan from Ohio accused Rosenstein of withholding information. Rosenstein got on his high horse about that. Jordan said, “Why did you hide the fact that Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?” FISA judge. “Why did you redact that in the document you gave to us? Judge Contreras is kind of important, a FISA court judge. More importantly, the judge that heard Mike Flynn’s case. Why did you try to hide that from us?” ROSENSTEIN: I am the deputy attorney general of the United States, okay? I’m not the person doing the redacting. My job is to make sure we address your concerns. We have, sir! Now, I’ve appointed, Mr. Lausch, who is managing that production, and my understanding is it’s actually going very well. So I — JORDAN: Again, I think the House of Representatives is gonna say otherwise. ROSENSTEIN: But your use of this to attack me personally is wrong! JORDAN: It’s not personal. We just want the information. ...... JORDAN: Why did you tell Peter Strzok not to answer our questions yesterday? When I asked Peter Strzok if he’d ever communicated with Glenn Simpson, he gave us the answer he gave us dozens of times: “On advice of FBI counsel, I can’t answer that question.” Why couldn’t he answer that question? ROSENSTEIN: Mr. Jordan, I appreciate your sincere concerns. But I didn’t have give Peter Strzok any instructions. If there was some problem with the instructions he had, I’ll be happy to let you — JORDAN: No, but — ROSENSTEIN: When you find some problem with a production or with questions, it doesn’t mean that I’m personally trying to conceal something from you. It means we’re running an organization that’s trying to follow the rules. JORDAN: Why couldn’t he answer that question? ROSENSTEIN: I appreciate you saying it isn’t personal. (chuckles) Sometimes it feels that way. How do I know, sir? You interviewed Mr. Strzok; I didn’t. Uhhh, so I can’t answer that. JORDAN: He works for you! He doesn’t work for us. ROSENSTEIN: There are 115,000 people who work for me. What an arrogant SOB this guy is. Clearly, he's forgotten that his job is to protect us from the government, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 10:41:54 GMT -6
Some other back & forth: GAETZ: Did you read the FISA application before you signed it? ROSENSTEIN: I’m not going to comment about any FISA application. GAETZ: So you won’t say to this committee whether or not you even read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign? ROSENSTEIN: (stammering) Well, I — I — I dispute your characterization of what that FISA is about, sir. Uh, uh, I’m not — GAETZ: Did you read it or did you not read it? ROSENSTEIN: I’ll happy to review — I’ll be happy to discuss the details with you. Uh, uh, as I told you, sir. GAETZ: Well, did Peter Strzok brief you on it. ROSENSTEIN: No. GAETZ: Did Lisa Page brief you on it? ROSENSTEIN: No. GAETZ: Did Sally Moyer brief you on it? ROSENSTEIN: Let me explain the process if I may. GAETZ: Did Trisha Anderson brief you on it. ROSENSTEIN: No FBI personnel briefed me on it. The process, sir, is these FISA applications and renewals first come up through the FBI chain of command. They are sworn under oath by a career federal agent! We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice, all of whom review that, provide a briefing for us about what’s in it. And, sir, I’ve reviewed that one in some detail. And I can tell you, sir, that the information that’s public about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed. .......... GOWDY: He was talking about impeachment within three days of Special Counsel Mueller being appointed! Three days! That’s even quicker than MSNBC and the Democrats were talking about impeaching! Within three days, the lead FBI agent is talking about impeaching the president. So this is where we are. More than 60 Democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before Bob Mueller has found a single, solitary, damn thing! We’ve seen the bias; we need to see the evidence. If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people. ROSENSTEIN: I certainly share your views about those text messages, and, uh, nobody is more offended than I about what’s reflected in those messages. With regard to the investigation, uhh, I’ve heard suggestions that we should just close the investigation. I think the best thing we can do is finish it appropriately, uh, and reach a conclusion. And I certainly agree with you, sir, people should not jump to conclusions without seeing the evidence. ......... So Jim Jordan from Ohio accused Rosenstein of withholding information. Rosenstein got on his high horse about that. Jordan said, “Why did you hide the fact that Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?” FISA judge. “Why did you redact that in the document you gave to us? Judge Contreras is kind of important, a FISA court judge. More importantly, the judge that heard Mike Flynn’s case. Why did you try to hide that from us?” ROSENSTEIN: I am the deputy attorney general of the United States, okay? I’m not the person doing the redacting. My job is to make sure we address your concerns. We have, sir! Now, I’ve appointed, Mr. Lausch, who is managing that production, and my understanding is it’s actually going very well. So I — JORDAN: Again, I think the House of Representatives is gonna say otherwise. ROSENSTEIN: But your use of this to attack me personally is wrong! JORDAN: It’s not personal. We just want the information. ...... JORDAN: Why did you tell Peter Strzok not to answer our questions yesterday? When I asked Peter Strzok if he’d ever communicated with Glenn Simpson, he gave us the answer he gave us dozens of times: “On advice of FBI counsel, I can’t answer that question.” Why couldn’t he answer that question? ROSENSTEIN: Mr. Jordan, I appreciate your sincere concerns. But I didn’t have give Peter Strzok any instructions. If there was some problem with the instructions he had, I’ll be happy to let you — JORDAN: No, but — ROSENSTEIN: When you find some problem with a production or with questions, it doesn’t mean that I’m personally trying to conceal something from you. It means we’re running an organization that’s trying to follow the rules. JORDAN: Why couldn’t he answer that question? ROSENSTEIN: I appreciate you saying it isn’t personal. (chuckles) Sometimes it feels that way. How do I know, sir? You interviewed Mr. Strzok; I didn’t. Uhhh, so I can’t answer that. JORDAN: He works for you! He doesn’t work for us. ROSENSTEIN: There are 115,000 people who work for me. What an arrogant SOB this guy is. Clearly, he's forgotten that his job is to protect us from the government, not the other way around. Not only that, but it’s become abundantly clear that he and the others have forgotten that they answer to Congress and the people/citizens, & not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 10:45:43 GMT -6
abc3340.com/news/local/did-security-set-up-secret-clinton-lynch-tarmac-meetingClinton and Lynch have maintained the meeting was not planned. However, the IG’s report may suggest otherwise. Or at least that not all parties were aware. On page 203 of the report, “The OPA (Office of Public Affairs) Supervisor said that he later learned that former President Clinton’s Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch’s FBI security detail to let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch.” Lynch’s staff members maintain in the report they had no knowledge of the request and were surprised by the former President’s visit. As I’ve stated in previous reports, sources tell me the confidential meeting between Lynch, her husband and Clinton lasted 30-minutes. Lynch has maintained the meeting was purely social. The former Attorney General has said publicly that she and Clinton talked about the day’s news, Brexit, grandkids, West Virginia coal and golf. In the IG’s report, Lynch mentioned the same topics, including golf. “He mentioned that he had been there for several meetings, he had played golf. I made a reference to the heat, because it was still incredibly hot while we landed, which was why we were still on the plane,” Lynch stated in the report. Two years later and I have not found a person who can confirm that former President Clinton played golf during that trip to Phoenix.[/i] The discrepancies regarding what was discussed continues in the report involving the tarmac meeting. “Former President Clinton also said that he did not recall mentioning West Virginia coal policy to Lynch, but that he would not be shocked if he had done so because he thought a lot about it, and he frequently talked about the issue.” ........ Also, according to the Inspector General report, Bill Clinton was not alone. He approached the stairs to the airplane with another man. The mystery man was not allowed to attend the private meeting and was turned away: According to the IG report, former President Clinton was not alone as he approached Lynch’s plane shortly after it touched down in Phoenix. On page 203 of the report, as Clinton approached the stairs of the plane, someone was with him, but not allowed to join the conversation. “The Senior Counselor told the OIG that she was waiting in the van with the three other Department employees on the trip, and she saw two people walking toward Lynch’s plane. She said that as the two people went up the stairs to the plane, she realized that one of them was former President Clinton. The Senior Counselor said that she saw the head of Lynch’s security detail turn away the second person at the door and allow former President Clinton to board the plane.” It’s unknown who was with Clinton as the former President approached the plane. It could have been a staffer with the former President, but that question is not answered in the report. ....... One of Lynch’s staffers tried to get back onto the airplane to break up the meeting and she was stopped by security at the door, resulting in a fiery exchange: “The Senior Counselor said that when she tried to go back on the plane, she was stopped by the head of Lynch’s security detail, who was at the door of the plane. The Senior Counselor said that she told him that Lynch’s meeting with former President Clinton was not a good idea, and that she needed to get back on the plane, but he still would not let her on. The Senior Counselor said that she then asked him to convey to Lynch that she was advising that the meeting was a bad idea. According to the Senior Counselor, he told her, “All right, why don’t you tell her yourself,” and finally allowed her to board. “ The move essentially ended the private meeting, but the way the meeting started may lead to renewed questions as well. ...... And finally this bombshell revelation: Paul Sperry @paulsperry_ BREAKING: IG Horowitz NEVER interviewed head of Lynch's FBI security detail OR Bill Clinton's SS detail & just took Lynch's & Clinton's WORD that their 2016 tarmac meeting was "UNPLANNED"! WTF? SS wd never let ex-POTUS have chance tarmac meeting w/o doing ADVANCE security checks 11:35 PM - Jun 25, 2018 9,174 6,357 people are talking about this .....
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 11:18:56 GMT -6
^^^^ Neither Clinton or Lynch could "just happen" to run into each other. Their schedules are tightly controlled and every detail is planned out by their security details. The only way they met each other was if it was planned ahead of time. No one has believed any of this from the beginning. Why not just pick up the phone? ^^^^
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 14:29:11 GMT -6
Conversation Brooke Singman Brooke Singman @brookefoxnews #BREAKING: #SpecialCounsel #Mueller team delays sentencing of former NatSec adviser #MichaelFlynn -- this is the THIRD time #specialcounsel has delayed Flynn's sentencing "due to the status" of investigation. Special Counsel will file another joint-status report by Aug. 24 2:47 PM · Jun 29, 2018 124 Retweets 126 Likes
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jun 29, 2018 15:02:50 GMT -6
Conversation Brooke Singman Brooke Singman @brookefoxnews #BREAKING: #SpecialCounsel #Mueller team delays sentencing of former NatSec adviser #MichaelFlynn -- this is the THIRD time #specialcounsel has delayed Flynn's sentencing "due to the status" of investigation. Special Counsel will file another joint-status report by Aug. 24 2:47 PM · Jun 29, 2018 124 Retweets 126 Likes Unless the judge (who is probably incahoots with Mueller and #TheResistance) puts a stop to these delays, Flynn's trial is going to get delayed until after the midterms. These people are truly despicable human beings.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 18:58:40 GMT -6
Eric Holder ✔ @ericholder The unprecedented disclosure of ongoing investigative material, FISA and national security documents to the complicit and unprincipled House Republicans sets a dangerous precedent and impacts the Mueller inquiry. It must stop. Lines have to be drawn. 3:34 PM - Jun 29, 2018
12.7K
5,454 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 19:02:53 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/manafort-raid-tip/Associated Press reporters might have provided the tip that led the FBI to search a storage unit used by former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, an FBI agent said in federal court on Friday. Jeff Pfeiffer, the FBI agent, said in a pretrial hearing that AP reporters asked about the storage unit during an April 2017 meeting with Department of Justice attorneys and FBI agents to discuss an investigation into Manafort. Manafort, who faces charges of tax evasion and bank fraud related to his Ukraine lobbying work, has challenged the search warrant used to access his storage unit. He has also accused DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissmann, a member of the special counsel’s team, of leaking information about his case to reporters. Weissmann was at the April 2017 meeting with the AP. (RELATED: Manafort’s Lawyers Say Mueller Has Yet To Produce Evidence Of Collusion) Pfeiffer said the DOJ met with AP reporters in order to gain information about the wire service’s investigation into Manafort, according to Politico, which had a reporter present at Friday’s pretrial hearing. The agency’s attorneys offered no information in return, Pfeiffer said. “Generally, no comment,” was the DOJ’s response to questions posed by the AP, Pfeiffer testified. Pfeiffer and other FBI agents took part in a May 2017 search of Manafort’s storage unit. An assistant to the longtime Republican consultant granted them access to the facility. Manafort’s trial in Alexandria, Virginia, is scheduled to start on July 25. He has also been indicted in Washington, D.C., on similar charges related to his consulting work. That trial is expected to begin in September. So far, the special counsel’s office has yet to produce evidence about Manafort’s activities as a member of the Trump campaign. The indictments center on work that Manafort did from 2005 through 2014 on behalf of a Ukrainian political party affiliated with former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 19:19:35 GMT -6
Eric Holder ✔ @ericholder The unprecedented disclosure of ongoing investigative material, FISA and national security documents to the complicit and unprincipled House Republicans sets a dangerous precedent and impacts the Mueller inquiry. It must stop. Lines have to be drawn. 3:34 PM - Jun 29, 2018 12.7K 5,454 people are talking about this Wonder how that contempt of Congress is going for Eric? Just think. Had Hillary won this crook may have been on SCOTUS.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 2, 2018 20:54:41 GMT -6
www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article214075459.htmlFor months, the National Rifle Association has had a stock answer to queries about an investigation into whether Russian money was funneled to the gun rights group to aid Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The NRA, which spent $30 million-plus backing Trump’s bid, has heard nothing from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency, spokesman Andrew Arulanandam reiterated in an email the other day. Legal experts, though, say there’s an easy explanation for that. They say it would be routine for Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators, who are looking at the NRA’s funding as part of a broader inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections, to secretly gain access to the NRA’s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service. On the returns, the group was required to identify its so-called “dark money” donors — companies and wealthy individuals who financed $21 million of the group’s publicly disclosed pro-Trump spending, as well as its multimillion-dollar efforts to heighten voter turnout. The NRA’s nonprofit status allows it to shield those donors’ names from the public, but not the IRS.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 2, 2018 20:57:30 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog · 13h Replying to @techno_Fog It's likely, but not guaranteed, that this filing will satisfy Judge Sullivan's concerns about departing from the Court's"usual practice of ordering a presentence report, scheduling a sentencing date, and establishing a sentencing briefing schedule at the same time." Techno Fog @techno_Fog This is big: in response to today's motion, the Court has, on its own, set the matter for a status hearing. General Flynn will be in attendance. July 10. Mark your calendars. pic.twitter.com/oeuuOKR9O9 3:11 PM - Jul 2, 2018 Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Likely subject matter: Why did the Special Counsel secure a plea deal in December of 2017 when it wouldn't be ready for sentencing in August of 2018? 🤔 3:13 PM - Jul 2, 2018 574 275 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 2, 2018 21:05:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 3, 2018 5:13:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 3, 2018 12:38:27 GMT -6
Bob Goodlatte ✔ @repgoodlatte Just Announced 🚨: Peter Strzok has been subpoenaed to testify publicly before a joint @housejudiciary & @gopoversight hearing on Tuesday, July 10, at 10AM. 1:16 PM - Jul 3, 2018
1,486
927 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 4, 2018 21:20:06 GMT -6
Andrew McCarthy explains why Flynn's guilty plea will stand (if the plea is removed, all bets are off, and Mueller will then go after Flynn's son, also): Michael Flynn’s Guilty Plea Isn’t Going Away Flynn probably won't spend any time in jail, but Trump should immediately pardon him anyway. Flynn should then write a book, tell his story and make more than enough to cover legal expenses.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 5, 2018 11:08:22 GMT -6
Mueller hiring more prosecutors: www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2018/07/05/mueller-said-to-tap-more-career-prosecutors-as-trump-probe-grows Special Counsel Robert Mueller is tapping additional Justice Department resources for help with new legal battles as his year-old investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 election continues to expand. As Mueller pursues his probe, he’s making more use of career prosecutors from the offices of U.S. attorneys and from Justice Department headquarters, as well as FBI agents — a sign that he may be laying the groundwork to hand off parts of his investigation eventually, several current and former U.S. officials said. Mueller and his team of 17 federal prosecutors are coping with a higher-than-expected volume of court challenges that has added complexity in recent months, but there’s no political appetite at this time to increase the size of his staff, the officials said. Investigators in New York; Alexandria, Virginia; Pittsburgh and elsewhere have been tapped to supplement the work of Mueller’s team, the officials said. Mueller has already handed off one major investigation — into Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen — to the Southern District of New York.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 5, 2018 11:11:07 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/04/judge-tosses-suit-alleging-trump-campaign-conspired-with-russians-in-hack-report.htmlA federal judge on Tuesday tossed a lawsuit claiming that the Trump campaign and former adviser Roger Stone colluded with WikiLeaks and the Russian government to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the presidential election. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle said in a ruling that the allegations of conspiracy were insubstantial to proceed in a court, Politico reported. “The Trump Campaign’s efforts to elect President Trump in D.C. are not suit-related contacts for those efforts did not involve acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracies to disseminate emails that harmed plaintiffs,” wrote the Clinton-appointed judge. “Campaign meetings, canvassing voters, and other regular business activities of a political campaign do not constitute activities related to the conspiracies alleged in the complaint.” She noted that her ruling is based on the technicalities of the lawsuit and doesn’t take a position on whether the Trump campaign and its officials actually conspired with the Russians during the election… …The lawsuit was brought by two DNC donors, Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, and former DNC staffer Scott Comer, who alleged that the publication of the emails violated their privacy and that the Trump campaign and Stone engaged in an illicit activity, according to Politico.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 6, 2018 16:04:35 GMT -6
thehill.com/hilltv/rising/395776-memos-detail-fbis-hurry-the-f-up-pressure-to-probe-trump-campaignMemos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence. They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.[/i] One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election. The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow. The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak. “At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016. Within weeks, that “pretext” — often a synonym for an excuse — had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.[/i] ....... In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant. “Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election. “At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.” “Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts. “Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.” ... It gets worse… The day after Donald Trump won the election, the FBI went into overdrive to “scrub” all people in Trump’s transition team.: “We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas. “Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.” “That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 7, 2018 12:51:40 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/07/trumps-legal-team-demands-factual-basis-for-mueller-probe-before-agreeing-to-interview.htmlPresident Trump’s lawyers have told FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller that they want him to produce evidence that Trump has committed a crime before they agree for the president to be interviewed as part of Mueller’s Russia investigation. Rudy Giuliani, the top lawyer on the legal team, told Fox News on Saturday he is asking Mueller for a “factual basis for the investigation” before the team considers allowing Trump to be interviewed by Mueller’s team. Trump and his team have become increasingly frustrated with how long Mueller’s probe is taking to complete, and Trump in particular has taken a more aggressive stance toward Mueller since the Department of Justice criticized the FBI’s actions in 2016 in relation to the Hillary Clinton email probe. The new demands by Trump’s legal team indicate that it is likely to take a more aggressive and combative stance toward Mueller going forward.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 7, 2018 12:52:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 7, 2018 13:08:34 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2018/07/07/mueller-manafort-collusion/Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing Friday that his prosecutors will not present evidence regarding Trump campaign collusion with Russia at an upcoming trial for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. “The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government,” reads a filing submitted by Mueller’s team in federal court in Virginia on Friday. The filing sheds light on one of the largest questions looming over the Manafort case. Mueller’s prosecutors have indicted Manafort in federal court in Virginia and Washington, D.C., on a slew of charges related to his consulting work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. (RELATED: Manafort Lawyers Say Mueller Team Unable To Provide Evidence Of Collusion) Manafort ended the work in 2014, and it has been unclear whether Mueller’s team planned to reveal evidence about President Donald Trump or the campaign. Manafort is accused in the unverified Steele dossier of directing the Trump campaign’s efforts to coordinate with the Kremlin to help Trump in the 2016 election. The dossier, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC, claims that Manafort worked with former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on the effort. Both Page and Manafort have said they have never met each other.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Jul 7, 2018 13:45:08 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/07/trumps-legal-team-demands-factual-basis-for-mueller-probe-before-agreeing-to-interview.htmlPresident Trump’s lawyers have told FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller that they want him to produce evidence that Trump has committed a crime before they agree for the president to be interviewed as part of Mueller’s Russia investigation. Rudy Giuliani, the top lawyer on the legal team, told Fox News on Saturday he is asking Mueller for a “factual basis for the investigation” before the team considers allowing Trump to be interviewed by Mueller’s team. Trump and his team have become increasingly frustrated with how long Mueller’s probe is taking to complete, and Trump in particular has taken a more aggressive stance toward Mueller since the Department of Justice criticized the FBI’s actions in 2016 in relation to the Hillary Clinton email probe. The new demands by Trump’s legal team indicate that it is likely to take a more aggressive and combative stance toward Mueller going forward. Trump demands.... He reminds me of kids when I was in school who claimed they'd fight someone but couldn't because they'd get in trouble by their parents: "I'd love to talk to Mueller but my lawyers won't let me." Yes, the reason they won't let you is because you're a pathological liar and will tell 10 different versions of the same story within 2 minutes of Mueller's interview. But of course, that would be Mueller's fault and "entrapment". Geez. I don't see whyhe should get any special treatment that you and I wouldn't get if being investigated for something. Neither of us could hand the lead investigator a list of questions we will or won't answer and a time limit to do it in. But hey, I guess if it's "my guy", I'm willing to change the rules to my own detriment.
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on Jul 7, 2018 14:14:01 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/07/trumps-legal-team-demands-factual-basis-for-mueller-probe-before-agreeing-to-interview.htmlPresident Trump’s lawyers have told FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller that they want him to produce evidence that Trump has committed a crime before they agree for the president to be interviewed as part of Mueller’s Russia investigation. Rudy Giuliani, the top lawyer on the legal team, told Fox News on Saturday he is asking Mueller for a “factual basis for the investigation” before the team considers allowing Trump to be interviewed by Mueller’s team. Trump and his team have become increasingly frustrated with how long Mueller’s probe is taking to complete, and Trump in particular has taken a more aggressive stance toward Mueller since the Department of Justice criticized the FBI’s actions in 2016 in relation to the Hillary Clinton email probe. The new demands by Trump’s legal team indicate that it is likely to take a more aggressive and combative stance toward Mueller going forward. Trump demands.... He reminds me of kids when I was in school who claimed they'd fight someone but couldn't because they'd get in trouble by their parents: "I'd love to talk to Mueller but my lawyers won't let me." Yes, the reason they won't let you is because you're a pathological liar and will tell 10 different versions of the same story within 2 minutes of Mueller's interview. But of course, that would be Mueller's fault and "entrapment". Geez. I don't see whyhe should get any special treatment that you and I wouldn't get if being investigated for something. Neither of us could hand the lead investigator a list of questions we will or won't answer and a time limit to do it in. But hey, I guess if it's "my guy", I'm willing to change the rules to my own detriment. If the case at hand shows they have nothing on him then why play along. If someone knocked at your door telling you they ran in to the car you had parked out in the street then why should you have to go outside with the stranger if you had no car parked in the street to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Jul 7, 2018 14:57:09 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/07/trumps-legal-team-demands-factual-basis-for-mueller-probe-before-agreeing-to-interview.htmlPresident Trump’s lawyers have told FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller that they want him to produce evidence that Trump has committed a crime before they agree for the president to be interviewed as part of Mueller’s Russia investigation. Rudy Giuliani, the top lawyer on the legal team, told Fox News on Saturday he is asking Mueller for a “factual basis for the investigation” before the team considers allowing Trump to be interviewed by Mueller’s team. Trump and his team have become increasingly frustrated with how long Mueller’s probe is taking to complete, and Trump in particular has taken a more aggressive stance toward Mueller since the Department of Justice criticized the FBI’s actions in 2016 in relation to the Hillary Clinton email probe. The new demands by Trump’s legal team indicate that it is likely to take a more aggressive and combative stance toward Mueller going forward. Trump demands.... He reminds me of kids when I was in school who claimed they'd fight someone but couldn't because they'd get in trouble by their parents: "I'd love to talk to Mueller but my lawyers won't let me." Yes, the reason they won't let you is because you're a pathological liar and will tell 10 different versions of the same story within 2 minutes of Mueller's interview. But of course, that would be Mueller's fault and "entrapment". Geez. I don't see whyhe should get any special treatment that you and I wouldn't get if being investigated for something. Neither of us could hand the lead investigator a list of questions we will or won't answer and a time limit to do it in. But hey, I guess if it's "my guy", I'm willing to change the rules to my own detriment. LOL!!! Trump could shut the whole thing down in a second if he wanted to...LOL!..Dang right he and his peeps 'demands'....he's your friggin' Prez!!!
|
|
|
Post by soonerpt on Jul 7, 2018 16:27:14 GMT -6
What an arrogant SOB this guy is. Clearly, he's forgotten that his job is to protect us from the government, not the other way around. Not only that, but it’s become abundantly clear that he and the others have forgotten that they answer to Congress and the people/citizens, & not the other way around. Apparently they don't answer to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 7, 2018 18:29:22 GMT -6
Trump demands.... He reminds me of kids when I was in school who claimed they'd fight someone but couldn't because they'd get in trouble by their parents: "I'd love to talk to Mueller but my lawyers won't let me." Yes, the reason they won't let you is because you're a pathological liar and will tell 10 different versions of the same story within 2 minutes of Mueller's interview. But of course, that would be Mueller's fault and "entrapment". Geez. I don't see whyhe should get any special treatment that you and I wouldn't get if being investigated for something. Neither of us could hand the lead investigator a list of questions we will or won't answer and a time limit to do it in. But hey, I guess if it's "my guy", I'm willing to change the rules to my own detriment. If the case at hand shows they have nothing on him then why play along. If someone knocked at your door telling you they ran in to the car you had parked out in the street then why should you have to go outside with the stranger if you had no car parked in the street to begin with? Sort of like how Concord Management keeps pressing Mueller to go to trial so they can clear their name & Mueller keeps asking for delay after delay,(finally the judge is getting fed up with it).
|
|