|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 12:38:56 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/mueller-probe-rod-rosenstein-responsible-for-state-of-investigation/Neglecting to place restrictions on the Mueller investigation is grounds for his removal. Rod Rosenstein is doing a star turn as principled defender of the law, but he’s performed abysmally as deputy attorney general, and President Donald Trump would be fully justified in firing him. The leaked questions that special counsel Robert Mueller wants to ask Trump in a prospective deposition are, if accurate, a sign that Mueller has spun out of control on Rosenstein’s watch. The questions (drafted by Trump’s legal team after consultations with Mueller’s investigators) suggest a free-floating investigation of the president’s motives, undertaken by a subordinate of the president. This is unlike any special-counsel investigation we’ve ever seen and represents a significant distortion of our system.
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 4, 2018 12:42:20 GMT -6
Finally a judge with common sense.... “I’ll be the judge of that” Perfectly said by the judge!!! |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 12:42:58 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-04/judge-mulls-dismissal-manafort-charges-concerned-mueller-overreachLike most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort's was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But after today's hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort's lawyers, it's looking increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges - and be free of his ankle bracelets - because in a surprising rebuke of Mueller's "overreach", Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, said Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on May 4, 2018 14:00:32 GMT -6
Look for Mueller to get a local DA to 'raid' Judge Ellis' home and office....
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 16:20:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 18:32:18 GMT -6
Comey caught being less than truthful yet again. Previously: www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/comey-told-lawmakers-fbi-agents-saw-no-physical-indications-of-deception-in-michael-flynn?platform=hootsuiteComey has been asked about the matter in some of the publicity interviews he has given for his new book, A Higher Loyalty. In those interviews, Comey has denied telling lawmakers that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe Flynn had lied. “No,” Comey told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “I don’t know what — maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn’t believe that and didn’t say that.” “Not true,” Comey told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I don’t know where that’s coming from,” Comey told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “That — unless I’m — I said something that people misunderstood, I don’t remember even intending to say that. So my recollection is I never said that to anybody.” ..... Well, a newly unredacted portion of the House Intel Report reveals Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn did not detect any deception. docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180322/108023/HRPT-115-1_1-p1-U3.pdfPages 53 & 54.   |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 18:42:32 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2018/05/04/lisa-page-resign-fbi/The FBI attorney who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with another bureau official resigned on Friday, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned. The FBI confirmed that the lawyer, Lisa Page, tendered her resignation. Page has faced months of scrutiny over the text messages, which she exchanged with Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. The exchanges show a deep hostility to Trump at a time when the two officials were working on the FBI’s investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government. Some of the texts show Strzok and Page cryptically discussing how to proceed with the investigation, which was opened on July 31, 2016. “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text, referring to then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 20:14:02 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/politics/james-baker-lisa-page-fbi.htmlTwo top F.B.I. aides who worked alongside the former director James B. Comey as he navigated one of the most politically tumultuous periods in the bureau’s history resigned on Friday. One of them, James A. Baker, was one of Mr. Comey’s closest confidants. He served as the F.B.I.’s top lawyer until December when he was reassigned as the new director, Christopher A. Wray, began installing his own advisers. Mr. Baker had been investigated by the Justice Department on suspicion of sharing classified information with reporters. He has not been charged. The decisions by Mr. Baker and Ms. Page to leave the bureau were unrelated. Mr. Baker said in a telephone interview that he would be joining the Brookings Institution to write for Lawfare, its blog focused on national security law.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 4, 2018 22:41:06 GMT -6
Robert Mueller is having a bad day. First the Judge & now this. Robert Mueller’s team is seeking a delay in the first court hearing in a criminal case against one of the companies charged in Mueller’s Russian bot investigation. The company is requesting documents from the Mueller witch hunt team and now they’re balking. They never expected one of the alleged Russian bot companies to call their bluff. www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627Prosecutors from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office are seeking to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management and Consulting, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings. Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management. POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information. On Friday, Mueller’s prosecutors disclosed that Concord’s attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, had made a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details about the case and the investigation. Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week. The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 12:04:14 GMT -6
I hope General Flynn sues Comey, etc after reading this newly unredacted report:  |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 12:08:21 GMT -6
And add to my previous post, this one:
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 12:12:58 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/05/05/fbi-conundrum-michael-flynn/In late 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey was ready to shut down a counterintelligence investigation the bureau had open on Michael Flynn, the retired general who was set to serve as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. Investigators “had not really substantiated anything particularly significant” in its investigation into Flynn’s possible links to foreign governments, Comey’s deputy, Andrew McCabe, told Congress late last year. But the case took on new life just days into Flynn’s White House tenure. As is now widely known, Flynn lied to two FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017 interview about his contacts several weeks earlier with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador at the time. Flynn, who resigned on Feb. 13, 2017, has since pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s Russia investigation to making false statements to the FBI. (RELATED: Here Is House Intel’s Long-Awaited Russia Report) But newly unredacted portions of a report from the House Intelligence Committee show that FBI leaders faced a “conundrum” about how to proceed with the Flynn investigation. The report cites testimony provided by both Comey and McCabe regarding Flynn. Comey testified in March 2017 “that he authorized the closure of the [counterintelligence] investigation into General Flynn by late December 2016,” according to the report. “However, the investigation was kept open due to the public discrepancy surrounding General Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak.” McCabe testified that he was not aware that the closure of the Flynn investigation was “imminent” as of late 2016. But he told House Intel in a Dec. 19, 2017 interview that the FBI “really had not substantiated anything particularly significant against General Flynn.” Flynn and three other Trump campaign associates — George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Paul Manafort — were subjects in the FBI’s counterintelligence probe at the time. Why Flynn was being investigated is still not clear. A former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Flynn had accepted a paid appearance at a gala hosted in Moscow in Dec. 2015 by RT, the Kremlin-controlled news agency. Flynn sat next to Russian president Vladimir Putin at the event. Flynn spoke to Kislyak by phone on several occasions in late Dec. 2016 about a round of sanctions that the Obama administration had placed against Russia for meddling in the election. Flynn initially denied to others in the administration that the conversations involved U.S. sanctions against Russia. But intercepts of Kislyak’s phone calls showed otherwise. The story blew up on Jan. 12, 2017, when Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Flynn and Kislyak indeed discussed sanctions. Ignatius’s leaker was a U.S. government official who has yet to be identified. Comey directed McCabe to set up an interview with Flynn at the White House in an effort to explain the discrepancy in Flynn’s statements about his Kislyak conversations. The interview took place on Jan. 24, 2017. One of the agents who interviewed Flynn was Peter Strzok, the former FBI counterintelligence division official who is currently ensnared in scandal for sending anti-Trump text messages to an FBI lawyer. Both Comey and McCabe told the House Intel panel that the agents did not detect deception from Flynn during the White House interview. Comey said that they interviewers “discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.” McCabe confirmed the FBI agents’ perception of the Flynn interview. “The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying.” He noted that the lack of apparent deception “was not great beginning of a false statement case,” according to the House Intel report.
McCabe also described the “conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.'”
The implications of Comey and McCabe’s initial assessment of the Flynn investigation are unclear. Supporters of the retired general are likely to argue that the White House interview was a last-ditch effort to trap Flynn into committing a crime. Flynn’s critics have maintained that his decision to lie about his Kislyak contacts is evidence of a larger cover-up.
An attorney for Flynn declined to discuss the House Intel report because of the special counsel’s ongoing investigation. Flynn is cooperating with the investigation as part of his plea deal.
.........
dailycaller.com/2018/05/05/fbi-conundrum-michael-flynn/
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 12:27:07 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/mueller-probe-basis-for-criminal-investigation-should-be-revealed/It’s time to level with the public about the basis for Mueller’s investigation. ‘How do you know Trump’s not a suspect?” I’ve been hearing that question a lot these days. News reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may try to coerce President Trump’s testimony by issuing a grand-jury subpoena if the president does not agree to a “voluntary” interview. That has sparked a public debate over the question of whether Mueller, an inferior executive officer, has such authority to strong-arm the chief executive — the official in whom the Constitution reposes all executive power, including the power that Mueller exercises only as long as the president permits it. I don’t think he does. To be clear, there is no question that Mueller, as a special counsel, is a federal prosecutor who has the authority to issue grand-jury subpoenas. But everyone who works in the Justice Department has a boss, including the attorney general (who answers to the president). As special counsel, Mueller answers to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the so-called Russia investigation). That means Mueller has the authority to issue a subpoena to the president unless Rosenstein — or the president — tells him not to. Before we come to whether the deputy AG should clip the special counsel’s wings, let’s address one point of confusion. Many people believe, as I do, that the president should not be subjected to questioning by a prosecutor on the facts as we presently know them. From that premise, however, they argue that Mueller may not subpoena the president, or that the president may ignore any subpoena. Neither of those things is true. A prosecutor has the power to subpoena virtually anyone. In our system, there are very few limits on what the grand jury may investigate. A comparison usefully illustrates this point. I’ve frequently observed that by appointing Mueller without first establishing a basis to believe a crime warranting investigation had been committed, Rosenstein violated regulations that govern special-counsel appointments. By contrast, the grand jury has no such constraints — it can investigate pretty much anything. There is no proof hurdle — such as “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” — that has to be surmounted. In fact, a grand jury is free to investigate even if it just wants to satisfy itself that a crime has not been committed. So a prosecutor who is using the grand jury has sweeping investigative authority. That includes broad subpoena power. There is a big difference, however, between the power to issue a subpoena to a person and the power to make that person testify. Our law extends various privileges that relieve the privilege-holder of the obligation to provide evidence. Best known is the privilege against self-incrimination — a person never has to testify against himself. But there are many others: husband-wife, lawyer-client, doctor-patient, priest-penitent, and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 13:53:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 16:00:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on May 5, 2018 16:36:28 GMT -6
 Gotta be careful that you don’t lose perspective... |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 18:57:48 GMT -6
Mueller smacked down by yet another judge: www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case. […] The Concord lawyers said Mueller’s attorneys were seeking “to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court” by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel’s office to turn over records related to the case. Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:27:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:35:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:37:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:44:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:46:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:47:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 19:50:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 5, 2018 20:26:59 GMT -6
I mentioned my fear yeasterday, that these crooks would have doctored the server/computer to make it appear as hack, or make it unusable to determine it was a thumb drive (Seth Rich) that took the data. its already been documented that it could not have handled a remote hack (bandwidth), so could not be a hack. My guess is they doctored it to get rid of thunb drive footprints. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 23:52:39 GMT -6
apnews.com/6dd33b4234634079821e5825f112e85bInvestigators working for special counsel Robert Mueller have interviewed one of President Donald Trump’s closest friends and confidants, California real estate investor Tom Barrack, The Associated Press has learned. Barrack was interviewed as part of the federal investigation of possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, according to three people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The specific topics covered in questions from Mueller’s team were not immediately clear. One of the people who spoke to AP said the questioning focused entirely on two officials from Trump’s campaign who have been indicted by Mueller: Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Manafort’s longtime deputy, Rick Gates. Gates agreed to plead guilty to federal conspiracy and false-statement charges in February and began cooperating with investigators. This person said Barrack was interviewed “months ago” and was asked a few questions about Gates’ work on Trump’s inaugural committee, which Barrack chaired, and but there were no questions about the money raised by that committee. A second person with knowledge of the Barrack interview said the questioning was broader and did include financial matters about the campaign, the transition and Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 5, 2018 23:56:32 GMT -6
youtu.be/tOyAZA9iv9sJudge Jeanine: This investigation went from Russia collusion. Rudy Giuliani: Gone Judge Jeanine: To obstruction. Rudy Giuliani: Gone. Judge Jeanine: Now who’s chasing porn stars? Why are we even going in this direction. And why are we not ending this unless there is evidence that hasn’t been unearthed? Rudy Giuliani: You’re not missing anything. We’re not missing anything. We turned over the documents. And I’m in the process of getting through about a third of them so far. There’s no evidence of any of the things you’re talking about. The only evidence there is. The only crimes committed here have been given by the government. Which is why the judge, Judge Ellis, is so outraged. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t dismiss this case, the way the case of Senator Stevens was dismissed. Unfortunately, after the man died… The judge also has the right to determine that by government misconduct they have fatally tainted this case. And I believe in my heart that the Supreme Court will decide that.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 6, 2018 0:04:27 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/30303/muellers-russian-troll-farm-indictment-could-face-ryan-saavedra?ampOn Friday, a new report suggested that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's February indictment against several Russian companies and over a dozen Russian citizens could face an embarrassing dismissal. The 37-page indictment alleges that three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens used social media and other means to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. Politico reports: Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management. POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information. www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627Prosecutors on Mueller's team revealed on Friday that lawyers Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, who represent one of the Russian companies named in the indictment, made multiple requests demanding "nonpublic details about the case and the investigation." Dubelier and Seikaly accused Mueller's team of having no regard for the court's rules and suggested that they are just doing whatever they want without any legal authority to justify their actions. "Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery," Dubelier and Seikaly said in a statement. This is just the latest embarrassing developing for Mueller's Russia investigation as a Virginia federal judge accused Mueller's team of "lying," saying that they only cared about trying to take down President Donald Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 6, 2018 0:07:53 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/30300/inspector-generals-testimony-delayed-after-new-ryan-saavedraA new report released on Friday indicated that the highly-anticipated testimony from Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been postponed as new leads have emerged in his review of the criminal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Horowitz he wanted to reschedule his May 8 testimony due to revelations made in an April 23 letter from Horowitz. Fox News reports: www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/doj-inspector-generals-testimony-postponed-amid-new-leads-in-clinton-case-review.htmlThe developments suggest Horowitz is still working to complete his review of the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Clinton case. Sources familiar with the review have told Fox News that Horowitz has continued to pursue new leads and witnesses in recent weeks. "It is of the utmost importance that your review be as fulsome, complete and unimpeded as possible," Gowdy said. Gowdy added that he wants the testimony rescheduled "as close to the day the report is finalized as is practicable." Fox News noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said on Friday that he expects Horowitz’s report to be completed soon. "Within the next few weeks, I anticipate that our inspector general will complete a comprehensive, fair and nonpartisan report that answers many questions about how the Department of Justice handled a high-profile investigation during the last presidential campaign," said Rosenstein. "We will learn from it, and our Department will do better in the future."
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 6, 2018 10:12:26 GMT -6
youtu.be/Fj2IjanBQj4Rep. Devin Nunes: Two weeks ago we sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a classified letter. Per usual, it was ignored… So last week we sent a subpoena. Then on Thursday we discovered they’re not going to comply with our subpoena on some very important information that we need. The only thing we can do is we have to move quickly to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt. And that’s what I’m going to press for this week.
|
|
