|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 19:28:46 GMT -6
Feinstein related: The Chinese government murdered or imprisoned 18-20 CIA sources from 2010 to 2012 while Feinstein had a Chinese spy as her office manager. www.businessinsider.com/r-china-killed-cia-sources-hobbled-us-spying-from-2010-to-2012-nyt-2017-5China killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 CIA sources from 2010 to 2012, hobbling U.S. spying operations in a massive intelligence breach whose origin has not been identified, the New York Times reported on Saturday. Investigators remain divided over whether there was a spy within the Central Intelligence Agency who betrayed the sources or whether the Chinese hacked the CIA’s covert communications system, the newspaper reported, citing current and former U.S. officials. The Chinese killed at least a dozen people providing information to the CIA from 2010 through 2012, dismantling a network that was years in the making, the newspaper reported. One was shot and killed in front of a government building in China, three officials told the Times, saying that was designed as a message to others about working with Washington. The breach was considered particularly damaging, with the number of assets lost rivaling those in the Soviet Union and Russia who perished after information passed to Moscow by spies Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, the report said. Ames was active as a spy in the 1980s and Hanssen from 1979 to 2001. The CIA declined to comment when asked about the Times report on Saturday. ..... I’m certain it was just a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 19:32:42 GMT -6
articles.latimes.com/1997-03-28/news/mn-43046_1_china-connectionsOn Capitol Hill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has emerged as one of the staunchest proponents of closer U.S. relations with China, fighting for permanent most-favored-nation trading status for Beijing. At the same time, far from the spotlight, Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, has expanded his private business interests in China–to the point that his firm is now a prominent investor inside the communist nation. For years, Feinstein and Blum have insisted that they maintained a solid “firewall” between her role as an influential foreign policy player and his career as a private investor overseas. But such closely coinciding interests are highly unusual for major figures in public life in Washington. And now, as controversy heats up over improper foreign influence in the U.S. political process, the effectiveness of the firewall between those interests could be called into question. On Thursday, after he was interviewed by The Times about his China business, Blum announced that he will donate future profits from his personal investments there to his nonprofit foundation to help Tibetan refugees. “This should remove any perception that I, in any way, shape or form benefit from or influence my wife’s position on China as a U.S. senator,” Blum said. In 1992, when Feinstein entered the Senate, Blum’s interests in China amounted to one project worth less than $500,000, according to her financial disclosure reports. But since then, his financial activities in the country have increased. In the last year, a Blum investment firm paid $23 million for a stake in a Chinese government-owned steel enterprise and acquired sizable interests in the leading producers of soybean milk and candy in China. Blum’s firm, Newbridge Capital Ltd., received an important boost from a $10-million investment by the International Finance Corp., an arm of the World Bank. Experts said that IFC backing typically confers legitimacy and can help attract other investors.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 22:19:00 GMT -6
Judge Ellis & Mueller’s team get into it again,(this makes three out of five days they have got into it): www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/06/manafort-prosecutors-judge-ellis-engage-in-10-minute-courtroom-spat.htmlU.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III specifically pushed Andres on why the prosecution was moving slowly with Rick Gates – the former Manafort business partner who testified on Monday – and specifically to describe the link between wealthy Ukrainian politicos and Manafort. Ellis argued that the connection was not the basis of the case. “What matters are the allegations that he made money from them and didn’t report it,” Ellis said. “You don’t need to throw mud at these people.” Ellis again compared the Ukrainians in question to American billionaires and “Mr. Koch and Mr. Soros” as political contributors. “I don’t know why you keep bringing (up) these people,” Andres said, referring to the Ukrainians. “These people are not like any Americans. These people are oligarchs and that means they control a segment of the economy based on the governments allowing them to do that.”’ “These are not really political contributions,” he continued. “They are self-serving payments with respect to what oligarchs do.” “That makes it even clearer to me that it doesn’t have anything to do with the allegations in this case,” Ellis responded. “It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it. I don’t know – and I don’t care.” At another point in the exchange Andres could be heard challenging Ellis on a technicality. “Respectively, judge, that is not what the law is,” Andres responded bluntly at one point. The most heated moment of the debate, however, took place when Ellis got perturbed by Andres not looking up at him while speaking. “Look at me! Don’t look down,” Ellis demanded. Then, when Andres responded that he was looking at a relevant document, the exchange grew testier. “You looked down as if to say ‘that’s B.S.!’” Ellis said. “I’m up here!”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 1:35:42 GMT -6
/video/1
“There is exculpatory evidence that we have seen in the classified documents that need to be declassified –the Carter Page FISA, the judges should have been presented with this exculpatory evidence the FBI and DOJ had,” Nunes told Hannity.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 7, 2018 5:09:23 GMT -6
/video/1 “There is exculpatory evidence that we have seen in the classified documents that need to be declassified –the Carter Page FISA, the judges should have been presented with this exculpatory evidence the FBI and DOJ had,” Nunes told Hannity. I imagine that there is quite a bit in those blacked out pages.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 13:43:07 GMT -6
So, the Judge made Mueller’s prosecutors cry: Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Did Judge Ellis make the Special Counsel lawyer cry??? Judge: "There's tears in your eyes right now." Govt: "There are not tears in my eyes, Judge." Judge: "Well, they're watery." 12:47 AM - Aug 7, 2018 1,041 668 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 13:44:29 GMT -6
Techno Fog Techno Fog @techno_Fog · 14h Replying to @techno_Fog Special Counsel makes the mistake of arguing with the Judge. Judge: That's a different matter. Govt: It's not a different matter. Judge: I say it's different.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 14:52:42 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/07/christopher-steele-congress-interview-chuck-grassley/Christopher Steele dodged all requests to meet with Congress about his dossier. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley found a solution. Lawyers for a Russian businessman suing over the dossier have agreed to provide Grassley with a deposition Steele gave in June. A lawyer for a Russian businessman suing BuzzFeed News over the infamous Steele dossier says he will provide the Senate with a video of a deposition that Christopher Steele, the document’s author, gave as part of the BuzzFeed lawsuit in June. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the judiciary panel, asked Val Gurvits, a lawyer for Boston Legal Group, to provide a transcript and video of a deposition that Steele gave in London on June 18 as part of a lawsuit against BuzzFeed in a July 25 letter. Gurvits’s client, Aleksej Gubarev, is suing the media company for defamation for publishing the dossier. The 35-page document, which Steele wrote while working for the Clinton campaign and DNC, accuses Gubarev of being a Russian spy and using his web hosting companies of stealing information from the DNC’s computer systems. (RELATED: Russian Suing BuzzFeed Over The Dossier Calls Mueller Indictment An ‘Utter Vindication’) BuzzFeed published the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017. Gubarev has accused the outlet of failing to investigate the dossier’s claims before publishing the report. Gurvits tells The Daily Caller News Foundation that the Gubarev legal team plans to comply with Grassley’s request. “My client has instructed me from the very beginning of this lawsuit to fully cooperate with all US government requests,” he said. Congressional committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have failed so far to interview Steele, a former MI6 officer based in London. “It is my understanding that Mr. Steele has refused all Congressional attempts to interview him. Thus, this information is otherwise unavailable,” Grassley wrote to Gurvits. Using a middleman in 2017, Steele sought to meet with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss his investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russian government officials. North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intel panel, recently said the committee has been unable to get an interview with Steele despite being in frequent contact with him. The Senate Judiciary Committee is interested in finding out more about Steele’s contacts with the FBI and the FBI’s use of the dossier to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Grassley and his fellow Judiciary Committee member, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, have also referred Steele to the Department of Justice for investigation over what they claim are the ex-spy’s misleading statements to the FBI about his contacts with the media. “The consistency of sworn descriptions of Mr. Steele’s dossier project and attendant media contacts is particularly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry,” Grassley wrote.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 16:31:01 GMT -6
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6036143/Rick-Gates-says-Paul-Manafort-set-offshore-banking-network.htmlPaul Manafort’s former deputy Rick Gates admitted to using offshore bank accounts to pay for a secret extramarital affair, including providing a London apartment for his mistress and luxury trips through Europe, during Manafort’s tax and bank fraud trial on Tuesday afternoon. Manafort’s defense attorneys accused Gates of embezzling money from the former Trump campaign chairman to fund his ‘secret life’ and overseas mistress during an explosive exchange at the trial on Tuesday. Gates also told the court he might have stolen money from the Trump inauguration committee while he was a staffer there after the election.
Gates, a 46-year-old married father of four and the government’s key witness in the case, appeared to wither under cross examination from Manafort’s attorneys, twitching and fumbling with his words when questioned about what the defense described as his ‘secret life.’[/i][/u] ‘I acknowledge I had a period of time when I had another relationship,’ admitted Gates. The woman was not named. He acknowledged that as part of this relationship he purchased a ‘flat in London’ and flights to Ukraine, using money from foreign accounts that the defense says Gates stole from Manafort. Gates acknowledged he also paid for ‘fancy hotels’ and ‘trips to Europe’ with around $2.5 million the defense claimed he embezzled. He said he also used money to travel to Las Vegas for an unrelated work meeting with a movie producer, which he admitted could be considered embezzlement. ..... www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/07/manafort-trial-latest-rick-gates-defence-lawyers-question'The secret Rick Gates': ex-Trump aide is evasive at Manafort trial Under cross examination at the tax evasion and bank fraud trial of his ex-boss Paul Manafort, Gates struggled to give clear answers ..... As well as being a senior aide on Trump’s election campaign, Gates served as the deputy chairman of the US president’s inaugural committee. On Tuesday, he admitted it was possible he had sought to cheat the committee with false expenses claims. “Did you submit personal expenses to the inaugural committee for reimbursement?” Downing asked. Gates answered: “I don’t recall. It’s possible.” Gates appeared nervous on the witness stand at the court in Alexandria, Virginia, blinking frequently, his throat apparently dry as he spoke. He frequently used the phrases “It’s possible” and “I don’t recall” as Downing challenged him about inconsistencies in testimony he gave to the special counsel’s office. “When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel’s office?” the defence counsel asked bluntly. Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene. “Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory?” he asked. Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement. “I did, to one count, your honour,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 18:42:53 GMT -6
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/07/manafort-trial-latest-rick-gates-defence-lawyers-question“When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel’s office?” the defence counsel asked bluntly. Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene. “Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory?” he asked. Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement. “I did, to one count, your honour,” he said. He has already admitted embezzling some funds from Manafort. Downing pressed him on the specifics of their business relationship: which payments to Gates were authorised and which were not. Regarding a trading company Manafort had started with a partner in 2011, he asked with deep scepticism: “You’re asking the jury to believe Mr Manafort authorised another $250,000 as a bonus?”
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 7, 2018 20:49:51 GMT -6
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/07/manafort-trial-latest-rick-gates-defence-lawyers-question“When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel’s office?” the defence counsel asked bluntly. Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene. “Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory?” he asked. Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement. “I did, to one count, your honour,” he said. He has already admitted embezzling some funds from Manafort. Downing pressed him on the specifics of their business relationship: which payments to Gates were authorised and which were not. Regarding a trading company Manafort had started with a partner in 2011, he asked with deep scepticism: “You’re asking the jury to believe Mr Manafort authorised another $250,000 as a bonus?” This guy is like when OJ was on the stand. The longer he's there the better it gets.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 21:02:13 GMT -6
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/07/manafort-trial-latest-rick-gates-defence-lawyers-question“When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel’s office?” the defence counsel asked bluntly. Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene. “Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory?” he asked. Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement. “I did, to one count, your honour,” he said. He has already admitted embezzling some funds from Manafort. Downing pressed him on the specifics of their business relationship: which payments to Gates were authorised and which were not. Regarding a trading company Manafort had started with a partner in 2011, he asked with deep scepticism: “You’re asking the jury to believe Mr Manafort authorised another $250,000 as a bonus?” This guy is like when OJ was on the stand. The longer he's there the better it gets. Agreed. Once the defense attorneys got ahold of him, he went to crud quick. Fumbling his words, not giving clear/concise answers, etc. Mueller’s “star witness “ wilted big time.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 7, 2018 21:16:21 GMT -6
Agreed. Once the defense attorneys got ahold of him, he went to crud quick. Fumbling his words, not giving clear/concise answers, etc. Mueller’s “star witness “ wilted big time. I'm not familiar. Is he getting immunity? Seems to me he's broken quite a few laws himself. This isn't a mob trial where the witnesses are hit men and such. Mueller needs to have people that are credible. Hopefully Trump will declassify those documents and then this entire charade will just go away.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 21:46:37 GMT -6
Agreed. Once the defense attorneys got ahold of him, he went to crud quick. Fumbling his words, not giving clear/concise answers, etc. Mueller’s “star witness “ wilted big time. I'm not familiar. Is he getting immunity? Seems to me he's broken quite a few laws himself. This isn't a mob trial where the witnesses are hit men and such. Mueller needs to have people that are credible. Hopefully Trump will declassify those documents and then this entire charade will just go away. He did not get immunity. He struck a plea deal back in February to help Mueller’s case against Manafort.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 21:50:58 GMT -6
Mark Meadows ✔ @repmarkmeadows Critical development: NEW emails obtained by Congress show Chris Steele was secretly funneling information to the FBI in 2017 through senior DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, even after the FBI claimed Steele was 'terminated' for leaking to the media in November 2016 9:28 PM - Aug 7, 2018 6,927 5,143 people are talking about this ......... thehill.com/hilltv/rising/400810-opinion-how-a-senior-justice-official-helped-dems-on-trump-russia-caseYet, Steele asked Ohr in the Jan. 31 text exchange if he could continue to help feed information to the FBI: “Just want to check you are OK, still in the situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues.” “I’m still here and able to help as discussed,” Ohr texted back. “I’ll let you know if that changes.” Steele replied, “If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can’t allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous.” Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to. FBI officials now admit they continued to receive information from Steele through Ohr, identifying more than a half-dozen times its agents interviewed Ohr in late 2016 and 2017, to learn what Steele was saying. That continued reliance on Steele after his termination is certain to raise interest in Congress about whether the FBI broke its own rules. But the memos also raise questions about Ohr’s and the Justice Department’s roles in the origins of building a counterintelligence case against the Republican presidential nominee, based heavily on opposition research funded by his rival’s campaign, the DNC, and the DNC’s main law firm, Perkins Coie. Some of the more tantalizing Ohr contacts occurred in the days when Steele made his first contacts with the FBI in summer 2016 about the Russia matter. “There is something separate I wanted to discuss with you informally and separately. It concerns our favourite (sic) business tycoon!” Steele wrote Ohr on July 1, 2016, in an apparent reference to Trump. That overture came just four days before Steele walked into the FBI office in Rome with still-unproven allegations that Trump had an improper relationship with Russia, including possible efforts to hijack the presidential election. Ohr scheduled a call with Steele over Skype a few days later. But then the two men met in Washington on July 30, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel. Ohr brought his wife, Nellie, who was working at Fusion GPS on the Trump-Russia research project. “Great to see you and Nellie this morning Bruce,” Steele wrote shortly after their breakfast meeting. “Let’s keep in touch on the substantive issues/s (sic). Glenn is happy to speak to you on this if it would help.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 7, 2018 21:51:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 7, 2018 22:31:12 GMT -6
When the shit hits the fan it's going to go everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 8, 2018 2:58:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 8, 2018 6:24:15 GMT -6
Boots, & other lawyers, I’d like your own thoughts on this after reading these court transcripts: Techno Fog @techno_Fog Reading through the cross-examination of Rick Gates in the Manafort case.. One thing is clear: Gates is lying and the Special Counsel has suborned perjury with their star witness. Haven't seen a witness with this bad a selective memory in a while. Transcript to follow. 9:32 PM - Aug 7, 2018 1,557 930 people are talking about this ..... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Defense: "Do you recall when you first started giving false and misleading information to the Office of the Special Counsel?" Gates avoids directly answering the question - indicating how he was coached by the Special Counsel. 10:04 PM - Aug 7, 2018 330 179 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Manafort's lawyer persists, and here we catch Rick Gates in his first lie: "I didn't provide false and misleading information to the Special Counsel's office." Their star witness just committed perjury. 10:06 PM - Aug 7, 2018 724 496 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Defense: If you didn't lie, then why did you plead guilty to providing false information? Gates backtracks: "Under one instance I did." Judge Ellis calls Gates out: "Well, so previously, you said you didn't provide false information." 10:10 PM - Aug 7, 2018 536 318 people are talking about this ....... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Now Gates is blaming his "bad recollection" on why he pleaded guilty to lying to the Special Counsel. 10:12 PM - Aug 7, 2018 321 187 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 8, 2018 6:31:12 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog The patience of Judge Ellis is wearing thin. Judge: "You just said you just had a bad memory. Did you provide false information or did you have just a bad memory?" Gates: "Your Honor, I provided false information to the Special Counsel prior to my plea agreement." 10:14 PM - Aug 7, 2018 466 309 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Who confronted Gates about his lies? The equally crooked Andrew Weissmann. The Special Counsel was in a bind and had to charge their witness with lying or they'd lose all credibility with the jury. 10:17 PM - Aug 7, 2018 372 226 people are talking about this ..... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Remember Gates blaming his memory on why he was charged with lying to the Special Counsel? Manafort's lawyer now gets him to admit that he "knowingly and intentionally lied." 10:19 PM - Aug 7, 2018 429 253 people are talking about this .... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Defense: Was that the $125K you stole from a SunTrust account? Gates: "I don't know what you're referring to." Did the Special Counsel question you about closing the SunTrust account? Gates: "I don't recall" This guy has ZERO credibility. 10:45 PM - Aug 7, 2018 379 210 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Manafort's lawyer has the notes from the Special Counsel's interviews with Gates. It seems like Weissmann caught Gates in another lie, this time about the SunTrust account. Conveniently, Gates can't recall being confronted by Weissmann. 10:48 PM - Aug 7, 2018 292 166 people are talking about this ....... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog I feel like I'm taking crazy pills - Gates keeps contradicting himself. Here he switches from "I don't recall" to "it's possible" when asked about submitting expenses to the inaugural committee. 10:54 PM - Aug 7, 2018 339 179 people are talking about this .......
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 8, 2018 6:33:37 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Gates denies embezzling money to pay for his "secret life" that was mentioned in the bench discussion at the start of this thread. Another lie. 10:56 PM - Aug 7, 2018 276 137 people are talking about this ....... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Now Manafort's lawyer goes for blood. Defense: After all the lies you told and fraud you've committed, you expect this jury to believe you? Gates: Yes. Defense: Uncorroborated? Gates: Yes. 11:36 PM - Aug 7, 2018 410 223 people are talking about this .......
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 8, 2018 8:11:54 GMT -6
I didn't do anything wrong. Except for this time. and that time. And this other time.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 8, 2018 9:17:19 GMT -6
Giuliani says they'll respond to Mueller's request for interview today.
Can't wait to hear this one: "We'll answer ANY questions...Trump is chomping at the bit to answer your questions, Bobby....but none of them can be about Russia or Comey or obstruction of justice and they must all be written because we don't want Trump to perjure himself when he most assuredly "misspeaks" as he has numerous times in the past. Do we have an accord, Bobby?
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Aug 8, 2018 9:40:24 GMT -6
Giuliani says they'll respond to Mueller's request for interview today. Can't wait to hear this one: "We'll answer ANY questions...Trump is chomping at the bit to answer your questions, Bobby....but none of them can be about Russia or Comey or obstruction of justice and they must all be written because we don't want Trump to perjure himself when he most assuredly "misspeaks" as he has numerous times in the past. Do we have an accord, Bobby? If you were an attorney, would you let your client, the Prez, interview? In any format?
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 8, 2018 9:58:44 GMT -6
Giuliani says they'll respond to Mueller's request for interview today. Can't wait to hear this one: "We'll answer ANY questions...Trump is chomping at the bit to answer your questions, Bobby....but none of them can be about Russia or Comey or obstruction of justice and they must all be written because we don't want Trump to perjure himself when he most assuredly "misspeaks" as he has numerous times in the past. Do we have an accord, Bobby? If you were an attorney, would you let your client, the Prez, interview? In any format? If my client was Donald Trump? Heck no!!! He has diarrhea of the mouth and is unable to tell the truth. If his best defense was my mission, as it should be, then no. And....I wouldn't let him do because I think there might be some truth to the OOJ and we know that Trump would perjure himself (and that's not a "trap" set by Mueller....it's simply not telling the truth when you're asked questions about what you said or did).
But here's the thing. I'd also tell my client if you don't stop acting like a childish idiot with all of your tweeting, stop your badgering of LE agents, stop saying you want to do the interview (we all know this isn't true...if it is, it's just more evidence of how unstable and delusional he is about his own abilities), etc .etc. I'm not going to be your attorney any longer. Contrary to Trump's lies, there aren't a lot of people jumping at the chance to get on board defending him.
But that is what is so asinine about this and what I don't get about this whole thing. Say you'll do the interview or you wont, but you don't get to dictate, as "the main person of interest" in the investigation, what questions the interviewer gets to ask and how they're answered. If I'm not mistaken, Mueller is allowing this to happen to avoid subpoenaing Trump and avoid making this more of a circus than it already is. What world are we living in when the suspect gets to dictate the perimeters of the interview? And it's asinine because I don't care that you're the president whether it's Trump or Hillary, you should be treated the way the rest of us get treated.
|
|
|
Post by Cooter Brown on Aug 8, 2018 9:59:19 GMT -6
Giuliani says they'll respond to Mueller's request for interview today. Can't wait to hear this one: "We'll answer ANY questions...Trump is chomping at the bit to answer your questions, Bobby....but none of them can be about Russia or Comey or obstruction of justice and they must all be written because we don't want Trump to perjure himself when he most assuredly "misspeaks" as he has numerous times in the past. Do we have an accord, Bobby? If you were an attorney, would you let your client, the Prez, interview? In any format? Irish? Of course he would...he is Holier than the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 8, 2018 10:04:57 GMT -6
I didn't do anything wrong. Except for this time. and that time. And this other time. "But I'm not doing anything wrong now, and I never, ever will again. Also, please throw this other guy in jail for the rest of his life, because my word today is true and solid as an oak."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 8, 2018 10:24:16 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/08/steele-concerned-dossier-inquiries/Text messages between dossier author Christopher Steele and Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr have been released. Steele said in one message that he was “concerned” by a Senate Committee on the Judiciary request for records about the dossier. Ohr and Steele met in Washington, D.C., before the FBI opened its investigation of the Trump campaign. Christopher Steele expressed concern last year at a Senate committee’s request for information about the former British spy’s anti-Trump dossier, according to text messages recently provided to Congress. “Would it be possible to speak later today please? We’re very concerned by the Grassley letter and it’s possible implications for us, our operations and our sources. We need some reassurances,” Steele wrote in a March 7, 2017 text message to Bruce Ohr, who then served as deputy assistant attorney general. Steele, a former MI6 officer, was seemingly referring to a March 6, 2017 letter that Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to then-FBI Director James Comey seeking information about Steele and the dossier. The text message is part of a trove of documents that the Department of Justice recently provided to several congressional committees investigating the government’s handling of Steele’s dossier. The Hill obtained some of the records and reported on several text message and email exchanges between Ohr and Steele.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Aug 8, 2018 10:25:21 GMT -6
If you were an attorney, would you let your client, the Prez, interview? In any format? If my client was Donald Trump? Heck no!!! He has diarrhea of the mouth and is unable to tell the truth. If his best defense was my mission, as it should be, then no. And....I wouldn't let him do because I think there might be some truth to the OOJ and we know that Trump would perjure himself (and that's not a "trap" set by Mueller....it's simply not telling the truth when you're asked questions about what you said or did).
But here's the thing. I'd also tell my client if you don't stop acting like a childish idiot with all of your tweeting, stop your badgering of LE agents, stop saying you want to do the interview (we all know this isn't true...if it is, it's just more evidence of how unstable and delusional he is about his own abilities), etc .etc. I'm not going to be your attorney any longer. Contrary to Trump's lies, there aren't a lot of people jumping at the chance to get on board defending him.
But that is what is so asinine about this and what I don't get about this whole thing. Say you'll do the interview or you wont, but you don't get to dictate, as "the main person of interest" in the investigation, what questions the interviewer gets to ask and how they're answered. If I'm not mistaken, Mueller is allowing this to happen to avoid subpoenaing Trump and avoid making this more of a circus than it already is. What world are we living in when the suspect gets to dictate the perimeters of the interview? And it's asinine because I don't care that you're the president whether it's Trump or Hillary, you should be treated the way the rest of us get treated.
Correct answer is 'No' even you are representing the Pope. It's asinine because the whole investigation is a farce...Comey termed it a 'counterintelligence' investigation because he knew no crime had been committed. That is why they put a 'spy' in Trump's campaign...and lied to the FISA judge. Also, as Prez, Trump could end the investigation and fire EVERYONE in the DOJ/FBI for no reason. He has magnificent powers granted to him thru the Constitution. Give him credit for not doing that...yes he needs to stay off Twitter, etc. but he is who he is. 99% on here don't like the guy; this is what you libs don't get. You attack the man viciously on here and expect us to get upset. Why? We agree with you. Attack his policies though and there will be a debate...This world, and especially this country, is in a much better place because of his dismantling Obama's tyranny and enacting policies that are best for most Americans. Only fools disagree with this...
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 8, 2018 10:30:32 GMT -6
If my client was Donald Trump? Heck no!!! He has diarrhea of the mouth and is unable to tell the truth. If his best defense was my mission, as it should be, then no. And....I wouldn't let him do because I think there might be some truth to the OOJ and we know that Trump would perjure himself (and that's not a "trap" set by Mueller....it's simply not telling the truth when you're asked questions about what you said or did).
But here's the thing. I'd also tell my client if you don't stop acting like a childish idiot with all of your tweeting, stop your badgering of LE agents, stop saying you want to do the interview (we all know this isn't true...if it is, it's just more evidence of how unstable and delusional he is about his own abilities), etc .etc. I'm not going to be your attorney any longer. Contrary to Trump's lies, there aren't a lot of people jumping at the chance to get on board defending him.
But that is what is so asinine about this and what I don't get about this whole thing. Say you'll do the interview or you wont, but you don't get to dictate, as "the main person of interest" in the investigation, what questions the interviewer gets to ask and how they're answered. If I'm not mistaken, Mueller is allowing this to happen to avoid subpoenaing Trump and avoid making this more of a circus than it already is. What world are we living in when the suspect gets to dictate the perimeters of the interview? And it's asinine because I don't care that you're the president whether it's Trump or Hillary, you should be treated the way the rest of us get treated.
Correct answer is 'No' even you are representing the Pope. It's asinine because the whole investigation is a farce...Comey termed it a 'counterintelligence' investigation because he knew no crime had been committed. That is why they put a 'spy' in Trump's campaign...and lied to the FISA judge. Also, as Prez, Trump could end the investigation and fire EVERYONE in the DOJ/FBI for no reason. He has magnificent powers granted to him thru the Constitution. Give him credit for not doing that...yes he needs to stay off Twitter, etc. but he is who he is. 99% on here don't like the guy; this is what you libs don't get. You attack the man viciously on here and expect us to get upset. Why? We agree with you. Attack his policies though and there will be a debate...This world, and especially this country, is in a much better place because of his dismantling Obama's tyranny and enacting policies that are best for most Americans. Only fools disagree with this... Mmmmkay.
|
|