James Comey

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

youtu.be/UVmmQUtomSg

Fomer AG Mukasey: Jim Comey is another case. I would suggest that you read his book, I don’t want to say with a grain of salt, but certainly with a bottle of Pepto-Bismol… Because it is cringe-inducing on every page.

[soonernvolved]

saraacarter.com/nunes-congress-to-hold-ag-sessions-in-contempt/

“Disclosure of responsive information to such requests can risk severe consequences, including potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities,” stated the May, 3 letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd.

“After careful evaluation and following consultations with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the White House, the Department has determined that, consistent with applicable law and longstanding Executive Branch policy, it is not in a position to provide the information responsive to your request regarding a specific individual,” the letter states.

[soonernvolved]

youtu.be/lcSP-LfOADg

Rep. Ratcliffe: I would expect that what the Attorney General is going to find is that former FBI Director Jim Comey violated his employment agreement, made multiple, unauthorized disclosures or leaks of information, perhaps classified, but at least FBI documents and has made demonstrably false statements to Congress and perhaps to investigators for the IG.

[trumped]

Soonernvolved thanks for posting the techno stuff I don’t know how on iphone. Its pretty damning how off the rails this witchhunt has become.

[soonernvolved]

youtu.be/lcSP-LfOADg

Rep. Ratcliffe: I would expect that what the Attorney General is going to find is that former FBI Director Jim Comey violated his employment agreement, made multiple, unauthorized disclosures or leaks of information, perhaps classified, but at least FBI documents and has made demonstrably false statements to Congress and perhaps to investigators for the IG.

[soonernvolved]

May 6, 2018 10:32:14 GMT -6 trumped said:

Soonernvolved thanks for posting the techno stuff I don’t know how on iphone. Its pretty damning how off the rails this witchhunt has become.

Glad to be of assistance. For iPhone, I usually click on the down arrow when I go to that tweet and it brings up a pop up that says copy link, etc. I copy and paste it here & the site converts it to how you see it.

Also, I agree. All of the legal stuff that Fog,(whose Twitter bio states they are an attorney), has been posting shows just how underhanded, arrogant,etc the Special Counsel truly is. It’s sad that it took two years to finally get some honorable judges involved and they are asking them the same questions we are, & the Special Counsel does not like it.

[soonernvolved]

Caught in yet another falsehood:

Truth:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5042027/Hillary-Clinton-DEFENDS-paying-Steele-dossier-Trump.html

Hillary Clinton has defended her campaign for paying for the infamous Steele dossier into Donald Trump.

The former presidential candidate told Trevor Noah on the Daily Show that ‘of course’ there is a difference between paying for that information and colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Clinton said the dossier was simply ‘opposition research’ and pointed to the fact that it was not public knowledge during the election.

Video link:

youtu.be/mkcKDY50hLs

[soonernvolved]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/fbi-will-not-collect-page-strzok-messages-on-personal-accounts-despite-top-gop-lawmakers-request.html

An FBI official says the bureau is not working to collect messages between anti-Trump FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, despite the request to do so from a top Republican senator as well as evidence suggesting they communicated about “work-related” matters on non-FBI accounts.

But Thorley said “the FBI is not otherwise obligated to collect and/or retain all communications between its employees.”

“Thus, the FBI has not requested from Ms. Page or Mr. Strzok any information from their personal email accounts, nor as the FBI conducted searches of non-FBI-issued communications devices or non-FBI email accounts associated with Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page,” he said.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2018/05/06/polls-mueller-investigation-trump-americans-disinterested/

[trumped]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Not surprising that this is their fall back position:

www.idealmedia.com/rnews/2232267/i/3354/?th=2xQR5BMhf7_RfXm4TqGX1vVvw7aJlbfMHZOc8gafXrEboT8C6j8_HTfnv4iB-nV_&rh=2xQR5BMhf7_RfXm4TqGX1vVvw7aJlbfMHZOc8gafXrEboT8C6j8_HTfnv4iB-nV_&k=fcUSmxalA1Jfp%3AfWMxe7_4fWMxexAgfKafNCfQ~ft%3BffK*fITfJ6f.%3BfAffI!f%3DfaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWRlYWxtZWRpY%245jb20vcG5ld3MvMjIzMjI2Ny9pLzMzNTQvcHA%3DfaHR0cDovL3d3dy50aGVnYXRld2F5cHVuZGl0LmNvb%248yMDE4LzA1L3BvdHVzLXRydW0%3DfKysvMjAxOC8wN%249wb3R1cy10cnVtcC1wdXRzLWpvaG4ta2Vycnktb24%3Df%3BfNCfQ~ft%3BfK*fcfT*fMAfQAfWMxe7_4f!fTW96aWxsY%2481LjAgKGlQYWQ7IENQV%24BPUyAxMV8yXzUgbGlrZ%24BNYWMgT1MgWCkgQXBwbGVXZWJLaXQvNjA0LjUuNiAo%240hUTUwsIGxpa2UgR2Vja28pIFZlcnNpb24vMTEuMCBNb2JpbGUvMTVENjAgU2FmYXJpLzYwNC4xff!faVBhZA%3D%3DfLTI0MA%3D%3Df!fQAfMAf!f!fI!f%3Bf*f*


Democrats are trashing a federal judge at the heart of Robert Mueller's probe into alleged collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign in the 2016 election, accusing the judge of "unprofessional" behavior for questioning the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's power.

At a hearing Friday, Judge T.S. Ellis scorched Robert Mueller's legal team, accusing them of "lying" and seeking "unfettered power." Ellis, who is overseeing the case against Paul Manafort, said it appeared Mueller was using unrelated charges against Manafort to try and score testimony they could use to effect impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said he's "concerned" the judge would question Robert Mueller's motives. His Democratic colleague, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) called Judge Ellis "outrageous."

"It does concern me," Schiff said, that "the judge [is] questioning the motives of the special counsel."

"While it’s certainly within the judge’s prerogative to ask these questions, I don’t think it really bears on the legal issues," Schiff continued. And so I think that Bob Mueller will prevail, in the sense of being able to go forward with this litigation. I don’t think there is really any legal question about that. But, yes, it is concerning that the judge would express this opinion."

Schiff also attacked the judge for asking how much Robert Mueller's probe is costing taxpayers.

"I’m not sure that it is germane, for example, for the judge to be asking how much Bob Mueller has spent on the investigation," Schiff told CNN's Jake Tapper during an appearance on Sunday's State of the Union. "Mueller is well within his jurisdiction. I can understand the judge asking certain of these questions, although some seem to be non-germane to the legal issues involved."

Rep. Connolly said it's "outrageous" for Judge Ellis to question the scope of Mueller's power and he shouldn't be allowed to do so.


"I think that was an outrageous statement from the bench," Connolly said. "I don’t think any judge should be saying that kind of thing. Robert Mueller has impeccable credentials. He’s a Republican!"

"It is an absurd statement, it was inappropriate and unprofessional and that kind of language from the bench is simply not professional," Connolly continued. "What he did today, I think, was way overboard."

Meanwhile, when Republicans sought to publish the so-called FISA memo showing how questionable methods were employed to win surveillance of a Trump campaign aide, Schiff called it a "great disservice to these hard-working people working to protect our country."

After Trump tweeted that America's justice system is a "joke," Schiff responded: "He’s trying to discredit the justice system. He’s also trying to discredit the media. And these assaults on our mainstream institutions are having an effect, they are eroding confidence. And I think that’s a tremendous disservice."

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/russia-report-redactions-cover-fbi-missteps/

The FBI and DOJ have been burying the investigators’ questionable judgments and information helpful to Flynn.

Cute how this works: Kick off the week with some “the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted” bombast from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, by which he rationalizes that his defiance of subpoenas and slow-walking document production to Congress — which is probing investigative irregularities related to the 2016 campaign — is required by DOJ policy and “the rule of law.” Then end the week with the Friday-night bad-news dump: the grudging removal of DOJ and FBI redactions from a House Intelligence Committee report on Russia’s election meddling.

Now that we can see what they wanted to conceal, it is clear, yet again, that the Justice Department and the FBI cannot be trusted to decide what the public gets to learn about their decision-making.

[soonernvolved]

thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics

An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months — namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of President Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against Trump.

This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud. … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing — he will compose! Here is what he said about that: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.”

I have been using this “compose” metaphor for decades, and I am gratified that a judge borrowed it to express an important civil liberties concern. Every experienced criminal lawyer has seen this phenomenon at work. I have seen it used by prosecutors who threaten wives, parents, siblings and, in one case, the innocent son of a potential witness who was about to graduate law school. Most judges, many of whom were former prosecutors, have also seen it. But few have the courage to expose it publicly, as Judge Ellis has done.

Defenders of Mueller’s tactic argue that the threatened witnesses and their relatives are generally guilty of some crime, or else they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the prosecutor’s threats. This may be true, but the crimes they are threatened to be charged with are often highly technical, elastic charges that are brought only as leverage. They are dropped as soon as the witness cooperates. This was precisely the point Judge Ellis was making with regard to Manafort.

A similar point could be made with regard to President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and perhaps to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Indeed, Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution.

Civil libertarians have long criticized this tactic, since the time it was used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his minions to pressure witnesses to testify against suspected communists in the 1950s. In recent decades it has been deployed against mobsters, terrorists and corporate predators. But Judges Ellis has accused Mueller of using this questionable approach to develop a political case against the duly elected president of the United States.

For those who argue that everything is fair, if the goal is to prevent a president from being above the law, Judge Ellis provided a compelling response: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He was referring to the manner by which the special counsel was using his power to “tighten the screws” on Manafort by indicting him for an alleged crime that the judge believes has nothing to do “with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate.”

Civil libertarians should be applauding Judge Ellis for seeking to cabin the “unfettered power” of the special counsel to do “anything he wants.” But no, because his ruling may help Trump, and because Trump has applauded it, the civil liberties and criminal defense communities have not been heard from.

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-06/mueller-investigation-jeopardy-witch-hunt-accusations-play-out-court

[politicalmexininja]

Someone explain to me why the DOJ is not being forthcoming with the info requested by Nunes and co.? Why is Sessions not making sure everything is turned over in a timely fashion? Was he not appointed by Trump?

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

May 7, 2018 13:36:40 GMT -6 politicalmexininja said:

Someone explain to me why the DOJ is not being forthcoming with the info requested by Nunes and co.? Why is Sessions not making sure everything is turned over in a timely fashion? Was he not appointed by Trump?

Sessions was appointed by Trump , however, after he recused himself from the Russia thing, he has been totally hands off,(which is what has led to some of the blow ups with President Trump calling him out). As for the DOJ, it’s coming across more & more that it was turned into a political weapon,(as other government departments were), under Obama.

Think about all of the text messages, etc that has came to light showing how biased, etc the DOJ/FBI was during the 2016 election. If Clinton had been elected, none of this would have came to light & it would be “business as usual”. However, Trump winning upset the Apple cart and right now, these two institutions are currently engaging in a massive CYA campaign,(aided by a weaponized MSM), to prevent more dirty details from coming to light.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/robert-mueller-tough-week-court-manafort/

Judges in Virginia and Washington have the special counsel reeling.

Well sure, we filed an indictment. And yeah, we took a victory lap in the big bells-n-whistles Main Justice press conference. But that doesn’t mean we, like, intended to have a trial . . .

That seems to be the Justice Department’s position on its mid-February publicity stunt, the indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian businesses for interfering in the 2016 election.

Let’s back up.

The courts were not kind last week to the Justice Department’s gamesmanship on the Russia probe, also known as the Mueller investigation, an investigation in which the cases prosecutors want to try are not about Russia, and the case about Russia prosecutors don’t want to try.

[imthedude]

May 7, 2018 13:36:40 GMT -6 politicalmexininja said:

Someone explain to me why the DOJ is not being forthcoming with the info requested by Nunes and co.? Why is Sessions not making sure everything is turned over in a timely fashion? Was he not appointed by Trump?

He needs to be shitcanned and replaced with Rudy G.

[soonernvolved]

amp.dailycaller.com/2018/05/07/dccc-fundraising-russia-investigation/


Congressional Democrats are now lying to their supporters about the Russia investigation in an effort to pump up their fundraising efforts ahead of the midterm elections.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a pair of fundraising emails on Monday that claimed if they got enough signatures, President Donald Trump would be “forced” to interview with special counsel Robert Mueller.

“If we can gather 1,000,000 signatures, it will FORCE Trump to cooperate with the investigation once and for all,” read one email. (That’s false.)

“We need to gather 1 MILLION signatures for Robert Mueller to FORCE Trump to testify,” read another email. “We’re the only ones left who can help Robert Mueller.” (Also false.)

“Democrats can’t claim a moral high ground on telling the truth when their congressional campaign arm is often lying,” commented BuzzFeed reporter Dominic Holden, who first pointed out the misleading emails.

[soonernvolved]

Schneiderman led a lawsuit against Donald Trump that was filed after Trump announced his run for president. Schneiderman alleges Donald Trump scammed Trump University participants out of tens of thousands of dollars.

In June of this year New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation of the Eric Trump Foundation over allegations the organization funneled money through charity golf outings which raised millions for St. Jude’s Children Hospital.Robert Mueller has hired a stable of liberal attorneys and former Obama officials to investigation Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.

Mueller began working with the anti-Trump New York Attorney General in August to take down the president.

Now Schneiderman is facing his day of reckoning.

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

Now Schneiderman is facing a reckoning of his own. As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so, too, has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters. They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to nonconsensual physical violence.

All have been reluctant to speak out, fearing reprisal. But two of the women, Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, have talked to The New Yorker on the record, because they feel that doing so could protect other women. They allege that he repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as “assault.” They did not report their allegations to the police at the time, but both say that they eventually sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face, and also choked. Selvaratnam says that Schneiderman warned her he could have her followed and her phones tapped, and both say that he threatened to kill them if they broke up with him. (Schneiderman’s spokesperson said that he “never made any of these threats.”)

A third former romantic partner of Schneiderman’s told Manning Barish and Selvaratnam that he also repeatedly subjected her to nonconsensual physical violence, but she told them that she is too frightened of him to come forward. (TheNew Yorker has independently vetted the accounts that they gave of her allegations.) A fourth woman, an attorney who has held prominent positions in the New York legal community, says that Schneiderman made an advance toward her; when she rebuffed him, he slapped her across the face with such force that it left a mark that lingered the next day. She recalls screaming in surprise and pain, and beginning to cry, and says that she felt frightened. She has asked to remain unidentified, but shared a photograph of the injury with The New Yorker.

In a statement, Schneiderman said, “In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

.....

[politicalmexininja]

May 7, 2018 14:44:44 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

May 7, 2018 13:36:40 GMT -6 politicalmexininja said:

Someone explain to me why the DOJ is not being forthcoming with the info requested by Nunes and co.? Why is Sessions not making sure everything is turned over in a timely fashion? Was he not appointed by Trump?

Sessions was appointed by Trump , however, after he recused himself from the Russia thing, he has been totally hands off,(which is what has led to some of the blow ups with President Trump calling him out). As for the DOJ, it’s coming across more & more that it was turned into a political weapon,(as other government departments were), under Obama.

Think about all of the text messages, etc that has came to light showing how biased, etc the DOJ/FBI was during the 2016 election. If Clinton had been elected, none of this would have came to light & it would be “business as usual”. However, Trump winning upset the Apple cart and right now, these two institutions are currently engaging in a massive CYA campaign,(aided by a weaponized MSM), to prevent more dirty details from coming to light.

Can Sessions, as head man, not coerce his subs to get their act together?  Or, fire them for obstructing?

[soonernvolved]

May 7, 2018 18:12:05 GMT -6 politicalmexininja said:

May 7, 2018 14:44:44 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

Sessions was appointed by Trump , however, after he recused himself from the Russia thing, he has been totally hands off,(which is what has led to some of the blow ups with President Trump calling him out). As for the DOJ, it’s coming across more & more that it was turned into a political weapon,(as other government departments were), under Obama.

Think about all of the text messages, etc that has came to light showing how biased, etc the DOJ/FBI was during the 2016 election. If Clinton had been elected, none of this would have came to light & it would be “business as usual”. However, Trump winning upset the Apple cart and right now, these two institutions are currently engaging in a massive CYA campaign,(aided by a weaponized MSM), to prevent more dirty details from coming to light.

Can Sessions, as head man, not coerce his subs to get their act together?  Or, fire them for obstructing?

He can, but he won’t. This is why many want him replaced.

[soonernvolved]

“In the privacy of intimate relationships I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in non-consensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.,” Schneiderman said in a statement.