Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[Spurminator]

Chrisbot has issues. Pray for him.

[djohn2oo8]

Chrisbot has issues. Pray for him.

He is malfunctioning. Hasn't received his monthly payment from Russia.

[Chris]

:lol Chris with the quick edit.

You quoted me almost an hour later. :lol

There was no quick edit only you getting confused, per.

[Chris]

Question pending.

[Reck]

No I'm not ok. I've got one chickenshit who won't answer a simple question that requires little to no thought. I've got another chickenshit who's pretending to care about my well being. You're all full of shit.

Sure I care. I like your video game takes and I think you have knowledge on the subject.

You're just on the crazy side when it comes to politics which is too bad.

[Chris]

1009289286074552320

[pgardn]

It’s like people thinking Manafort is not a true patriot.
We know how to ID our patriots in this country by God.

[Winehole23]

WELL IF WE DIDNT WE COULDNT TELL EM APART

[Pavlov]

1009241943476326400
1009243433385390080
1009248530077122560
1009250949779451904
1009251519907094528
1009254174301683713
Nothing will happen to those people.

[boutons_deux]

Michael Cohen just issued bombshell announcement about flipping on Trump for Mueller

As of Tuesday, Michael Cohen has signaled to friends that he is “willing to give (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/michael-cohen-criminal-lawyer-guy-petrillo/index.html)” investigators information on the president if that’s what they are looking for.

“He knows a lot of things about the President and he’s not averse to talking in the right situation,”

Cohen’s pick for legal representation is also no ambulance chaser.

Guy Petrillo is a former chief of the criminal division of the US attorney’s office in Manhattan.

Petrillo is a well-respected former prosecutor who has ties to the same US attorney’s office that is investigating Cohen.

Cohen had indicated a willingness to cooperate for the sake of his family.

“He feels let down by him and isolated by him,” :lol no shit! :lol

https://washingtonpress.com/2018/06/19/michael-cohen-just-issued-bombshell-announcement-about-flipping-on-trump-for-mueller/

[boutons_deux]

Buyers tied to Russia, former Soviet republics paid $109 million cash for Trump properties

Buyers connected to Russia or former Soviet republics made 86 all-cash sales — totaling nearly $109 million — at 10 Trump-branded properties in South Florida and New York City, according to a new analysis shared with McClatchy.

Many of them made purchases using shell companies designed to obscure their identities.

“The size and scope of these cash purchases are deeply troubling as they can often signal money laundering activity," said Rep. Adam Schiff (https://schiff.house.gov/) of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and a former federal prosecutor.

"There have long been credible allegations of money laundering by the Trump Organization

which, if true, would pose a real threat to the United States in the event that Russia were able to leverage evidence of illicit financial transactions against the president."

There's nothing illegal about accepting cash for real estate. But

transactions that do not involve mortgages — which account for one in four residential purchases in the country — raise red flags for law enforcement officials as it could be a way to commit fraud or launder money.

Gil Dezer (http://dezerdevelopment.com/), who operates six buildings that bear Trump's name on Sunny Isles Beach, which is nicknamed "Little Moscow," acknowledged that Russian buyers are attracted to the Trump name.

"They have been buying in Miami for over 20 years and love branded everything, from their Versace clothing to the Rolls Royces they buy," he said in a statement. "They buy branded quality goods and that's why they bought homes at Trump."

But he said virtually all real estate purchases between 2008 and 2013 were cash because the recession made mortgages largely unavailable. "If it wasn’t for our wealthy buyer group we would have made no sales," he said

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article210477439.html

Trash, Pootin's Manchurian Candidate, sold, bought, and delivering every day.

[Chris]

1009529725516242945

[Pavlov]

1009529725516242945For what, Chris?

[Chris]

For what, Chris?

Probably your face.

[Pavlov]

Probably your face.Chris punts again.

[Chris]

ruh roh


1009527602661548032

[Pavlov]

ruh roh


1009527602661548032What are you saying is on those laptops, Chris?

[Chris]

What are you saying is on those laptops, Chris?

Probably your face.

[Pavlov]

Probably your face.Definitely your white flag.

[DarrinS]

Definitely your white flag.

^ takes are strong with this one

[Chris]

Definitely your white flag.

Definitely you trolling.

[Pavlov]

^ takes are strong with this oneI asked Chris for his take just like I ask you for your take, Darrin.

You both shit your pants.

[Reck]

What are you saying is on those laptops, Chris?

Pedo porn, no doubt.

[Pavlov]

Pedo porn, no doubt.Shipping manifest for child sex slaves.

[Spurminator]

As I recall, the only people saying the laptops were destroyed were Deep State Conspiracytards. So I guess they were wrong?

[DarrinS]

Pedo porn, no doubt.

No, that was on Weiner’s laptop, among other things. :lol

[Chris]

1009558625013129216

https://media1.tenor.com/images/aa58fc971393d35b8619740434c05b29/tenor.gif?itemid=7215697

[TSA]

1009558625013129216

https://media1.tenor.com/images/aa58fc971393d35b8619740434c05b29/tenor.gif?itemid=7215697

https://media2.giphy.com/media/dYdGA39uJWMs0EJdy8/200w.gif

[Pavlov]

1009558625013129216

https://media1.tenor.com/images/aa58fc971393d35b8619740434c05b29/tenor.gif?itemid=7215697
Thanks for showing me the actual link.

[Pavlov]

“it’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point.”

Oh.

[Reck]

“it’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point.”

Oh.

BUT EAGLE!

[Pavlov]

BUT EAGLE!Instead, Obama officials chose another course of action after becoming frustrated that Republican leaders on Capitol Hill would not endorse a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference and fearful that any unilateral action by them would feed then candidate Donald Trump’s claims that the election was rigged.


Republicans definitely wanted a stand down.

lol TSA

[TSA]

Instead, Obama officials chose another course of action after becoming frustrated that Republican leaders on Capitol Hill would not endorse a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference and fearful that any unilateral action by them would feed then candidate Donald Trump’s claims that the election was rigged.


Republicans definitely wanted a stand down.

lol TSA:lol Pavlov too embarrassed to post the entire paragraph


“They chose a private “stern” warning by Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China in early September 2016 to stop his country’s campaign to disrupt the U.S. election.”

:lol stern warning
:lol limp wrist
:lol Putin sthhhaaaaap

[Chris]

:lol

[Pavlov]

:lol Pavlov too embarrassed to post the entire paragraph


“They chose a private “stern” warning by Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China in early September 2016 to stop his country’s campaign to disrupt the U.S. election.”

:lol stern warning
:lol limp wrist
:lol Putin sthhhaaaaapAre you saying the congressional Republicans were right to want a stand down, TSA?

[TSA]

Are you saying the congressional Republicans were right to want a stand down, TSA?

I was clearly saying you were such a pussy that you deleted the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted.

:lol stern warning

[TSA]

1009792057311821824

1009792370429255681

1009792569734131713

1009792725053464576

1009793237383458817

1009793596923437058

[spurraider21]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/524/tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg

[Pavlov]

I was clearly saying you were such a pussy that you deleted the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted.

:lol stern warningI deleted nothing.

Thanks for acknowledging the Russian meddling in the election and the active refusal of the Republicans to do anything about it. :tu

[djohn2oo8]

Has anything that TSA or Chris argued come true yet?

[spurraider21]

Has anything that TSA or Chris argued come true yet?
yeah rice, clinton, and podesta are in prison, haven't you heard?

[Pavlov]

Has anything that TSA or Chris argued come true yet?
They don't make any positive predictions anymore, that's for sure. :lol

[TSA]

I deleted nothing.

Thanks for acknowledging the Russian meddling in the election and the active refusal of the Republicans to do anything about it. :tu

Why did you quote that the Obama administration chose another course of action and then decide not to quote what the actual course of action was?

[TSA]

Has anything that TSA or Chris argued come true yet?

How's prison time looking for Trump, Trump Jr, Ivanka, and Kusher?

[spurraider21]

How's prison time looking for Trump, Trump Jr, Ivanka, and Kusher?
:lol yeah, still cant believe he actually made those bets

[Pavlov]

Why did you quote that the Obama administration chose another course of action and then decide not to quote what the actual course of action was?I thought the most important thing was the Republicans' refusal.

What are you saying Obama should have done after the Republicans actively refused to do anything?

[TSA]

:lol yeah, still cant believe he actually made those bets

He's too embarrassed now to even acknowledge that he made them

[Pavlov]

How's prison time looking for Trump, Trump Jr, Ivanka, and Kusher?For whom are you predicting prison time?

[TSA]

For whom are you predicting prison time?

Manafort

[TSA]

I thought the most important thing was the Republicans' refusal.

What are you saying Obama should have done after the Republicans actively refused to do anything?

:lol stern warning

[Pavlov]

Manafort That's actually a big step for you.


:lol stern warningYou didn't answer the question. What a pussy you are.

[TSA]

That's actually a big step for you.

You didn't answer the question. What a pussy you are.

:lol stern warning

[Pavlov]

:lol stern warningYou didn't answer the question. What a hypocritical pussy you are, clamming up good.

[djohn2oo8]

He's too embarrassed now to even acknowledge that he made them

They haven't been disproven dipshit. Or does jail time come before the charge? :rollin

[TSA]

You didn't answer the question. What a hypocritical pussy you are, clamming up good.

The answer has been right in front of you the whole time you're just too shook to see it.

[TSA]

They haven't been disproven dipshit. Or does jail time come before the charge? :rollin

Same could be said for Rice, Clinton, and Podesta yet you bring them up weekly.

So what is your confidence level on our bet? I offered you a buyout of $500 to end the bet and also offered to double our bet and never heard back from you.

[Pavlov]

The answer has been right in front of you the whole time you're just too shook to see it.Great, what is your answer?

What are you saying Obama should have done after the Republicans actively refused to do anything?

Are you saying you think Obama should've done exactly what he did do?

Use your words.

[Pavlov]

Same could be said for Rice, Clinton, and Podesta yet you bring them up weekly.Do you think they are going to prison, TSA?

[TSA]

Great, what is your answer?

What are you saying Obama should have done after the Republicans actively refused to do anything?

Are you saying you think Obama should've done exactly what he did do?

Use your words.

You were given the same answer twice. Stop being a pest.

[djohn2oo8]

Same could be said for Rice, Clinton, and Podesta yet you bring them up weekly.

So what is your confidence level on our bet? I offered you a buyout of $500 to end the bet and also offered to double our bet and never heard back from you.

Rice has been cleared. Clinton. Podesta never in trouble. Meanwhile. Ivanka under FBI investigation. Kushner under investigation in multiple jurisdictions. Jr still under investigation. Sorry dummy. It ain't going away. Oh and NY state AG referred them sumbitches to the IRS criminal division :lmao Lordy!

[Pavlov]

You were given the same answer twice. Stop being a pest.So you actually have no criticism of Obama since he did precisely what you think he should have done.

lol

Now you're dodging the other question.

I will amend it so you have less chance of weaseling out of it:

Who do you think from the non-Trump side is going to prison over all the stuff you post about?

[TSA]

Rice has been cleared. Clinton. Podesta never in trouble. Meanwhile. Ivanka under FBI investigation. Kushner under investigation in multiple jurisdictions. Jr still under investigation. Sorry dummy. It ain't going away. Oh and NY state AG referred them sumbitches to the IRS criminal division :lmao Lordy!

Funny that you failed to mention Clinton and Podesta are both under FBI investigation.

You are correct it ain't going away, which brings us back to the bet. I offered you a buyout of $500 to end the bet and also offered to double our bet. Do you accept either of those or do you want to keep our bet the same?

[Pavlov]

Funny that you failed to mention Clinton and Podesta are both under FBI investigation.For what?

Who do you think from the non-Trump side is going to prison over all the stuff you post about?

[djohn2oo8]

Funny that you failed to mention Clinton and Podesta are both under FBI investigation.

You are correct it ain't going away, which brings us back to the bet. I offered you a buyout of $500 to end the bet and also offered to double our bet. Do you accept either of those or do you want to keep our bet the same?

I am fine with where it is. I don't want to take all your life savings.

[TSA]

So you actually have no criticism of Obama since he did precisely what you think he should have done.

lol

Now you're dodging the other question.

I will amend it so you have less chance of weaseling out of it:

Who do you think from the non-Trump side is going to prison over all the stuff you post about?

I think Clinton and Podesta have a chance to go to prison.

[Reck]

Funny that you failed to mention Clinton and Podesta are both under FBI investigation.

Well there's breaking news for you.

Link?

[Pavlov]

I think Clinton and Podesta have a chance to go to prison.For what charges?

[TSA]

Well there's breaking news for you.

Link?

Actually old news, and discussed in this very thread.

[Pavlov]

Actually old news, and discussed in this very thread.Forgive us for missing some posts in the 1078 page thread.

Let us know what the investigations are and the potential charges since you're all up to date on it.

[TSA]

For what charges?

Similar to Manaforts.

[TSA]

Forgive us for missing some posts in the 1078 page thread.

Let us know what the investigations are and the potential charges since you're all up to date on it.

You are forgiven and are allowed the time to find them for yourself in this thread or to use a website like Google or Bing.

[Pavlov]

Similar to Manaforts.


You are forgiven and are allowed the time to find them for yourself in this thread or to use a website like Google or Bing.Why are you clamming up when asked simple questions about the people you think have a good chance of prison time?

For what are Podesta and Clinton being investigated?

What do you say are the possible criminal charges?

[TSA]

Why are you clamming up when asked simple questions about the people you think have a good chance of prison time?

For what are Podesta and Clinton being investigated?

What do you say are the possible criminal charges?

You know both are being investigated and I don't feel like going to the weeds with you today playing 20 questions.

[Pavlov]

You know both are being investigated and I don't feel like going to the weeds with you today playing 20 questions.It's only two simple questions you are dodging:

For what are Podesta and Clinton being investigated?

What do you say are the possible criminal charges?

I promise I won't ask you any more about them today since you're tearing up about it.

[TSA]

Why are you clamming up when asked simple questions about the people you think have a good chance of prison time?

For what are Podesta and Clinton being investigated?

What do you say are the possible criminal charges?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42579732

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-stepping-down-from-lobbying-giant-amid-mueller-probe-244314

possible criminal charges similar to Manaforts.

You know both are being investigated and I don't feel like going to the weeds with you today playing 20 questions.

[Pavlov]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42579732

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-stepping-down-from-lobbying-giant-amid-mueller-probe-244314

possible criminal charges similar to Manaforts.

You know both are being investigated and I don't feel like going to the weeds with you today playing 20 questions.Since there are zero updates for your five and seven month old articles -- even grocery flamethrower dudes don't seem to care anymore -- I'm going to conclude neither are going to prison.

No further questions, pussy.

[TSA]

:lol bitter little bitch

[Pavlov]

:lol bitter little bitchYes you are.

I won't discuss the stuff I post innuendo about all the time! Leave me aloooooooooooooooooooone!

:lol

[TSA]

:lol bitter little bitch

[TSA]

1009493638211137537

Chuck

[Pavlov]

:lol bitter little bitchYou sure clammed up about everything but me.

:lol shook

[Pavlov]

1009493638211137537

ChuckThey didn't do anything with it.

[TSA]

They didn't do anything with it.

Should have been easy to keep their stories straight then, but they couldn't.

[Spurminator]

Should have been easy to keep their stories straight then, but they couldn't.

How so? What did they say that was inconsistent with this new report?

[TSA]

1009783501674172416

[djohn2oo8]

1009839138164690949
:lmao

[TSA]

How so? What did they say that was inconsistent with this new report?

1009507619906772992

[TSA]

1009839138164690949
:lmao

Is this the best non-story you could find for today?

:lol it's possible

[djohn2oo8]

Is this the best non-story you could find for today?

:lol it's possible
You said there was no chance he would be. Just like you said for Manafort and Flynn. It scares ya.

[Pavlov]

Should have been easy to keep their stories straight then, but they couldn't.Same with every Trump campaign member with the Russians. They couldn't keep their stories straight.

[Pavlov]

Is this the best non-story you could find for today?

:lol it's possibleHe should've been able to keep his story straight.

He couldn't.

[Spurminator]

1009507619906772992

So, Nunand saw excerpts in July, Winer met with Steele in September and saw the whole thing and prepared a memo for Nunand. How is that contradictory?

Edit: It's not contradictory.

[djohn2oo8]

He should've been able to keep his story straight.

He couldn't.

He said nobody indicted except Susan Rice.

[Pavlov]

So, Nunand saw excerpts in July, Winer met with Steele in September and saw the whole thing and prepared a memo for Nunand. How is that contradictory?Sure sounds like State was all-consumed every single day with the dossier they did absolutely nothing with.

:lol

[djohn2oo8]

Sure sounds like State was all-consumed every single day with the dossier they did absolutely nothing with.

:lol

:lmao

[Reck]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42579732

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-stepping-down-from-lobbying-giant-amid-mueller-probe-244314

possible criminal charges similar to Manaforts.

You know both are being investigated and I don't feel like going to the weeds with you today playing 20 questions.

This is nowhere near like the charges Manafort is facing. And this is nowhere near what you made it sound to be.

If anything ever comes out of this, it will be a money fine. Not prison like in your wet fantasies.

whats more, your retarded fantasies get shut down almost immediately into the article.


[But figures within the Justice Department and FBI doubt any charges will be brought, the Washington Post reports.

[Reck]

1009839138164690949
:lmao

Chris still laughing?

[djohn2oo8]

1009869956048179200 spurraider21

is this the ruling you were waiting on?

[spurraider21]

1009869956048179200 spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905)

is this the ruling you were waiting on?
nah. that was judge ts ellis in virginia. and it wasn't for suppression of evidence, it was a question about whether those charges were legally within the scope of mueller's appointment

judge berman already ruled in mueller's favor on that same issue, iirc

[Chris]

Has anything that TSA or Chris argued come true yet?

Question pending.

[Chris]

Chris still laughing?

"It's possible"

:lmao

[Chris]

1009915101435039745

[Chris]

Former Secret Service Agent Files RICO Lawsuit Against Clintons, Podesta and Soros

https://www.scribd.com/document/382267057/Clinton-Soros-RICO

[Reck]

1009915101435039745

You and TSA are about the only ones left that still care about this guy.

[Chris]

You and TSA are about the only ones left that still care about this guy.

Who should we care about?

[DarrinS]

You and TSA are about the only ones left that still care about this guy.

Lead investigator on muhEmails and muhRussia. Yeah, why should anyone care about that guy?

[Reck]

Former Secret Service Agent Files RICO Lawsuit Against Clintons, Podesta and Soros

https://www.scribd.com/document/382267057/Clinton-Soros-RICO

Wow what a waste. Talk about shooting for the stars.

Did you read that thing? :lmao

[Pavlov]

Former Secret Service Agent Files RICO Lawsuit Against Clintons, Podesta and Soros

https://www.scribd.com/document/382267057/Clinton-Soros-RICO

"NUMEROUS UNKNOWN NAMED Defendants"

lol

[Reck]

Lead investigator on muhEmails and muhRussia. Yeah, why should anyone care about that guy?

One of many, takeless Darrin.

[Chris]

Wow what a waste. Talk about shooting for the stars.

Did you read that thing? :lmao

The suit essentially alleges that the the Clintons and their associates run an organized crime syndicate. This is a well known fact if you don't have your head buried in the sand.

[Winehole23]

andNUMEROUS UNKNOWN NAMEDDefendants
.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[Pavlov]

Lead investigator on muhEmails and muhRussia. Yeah, why should anyone care about that guy?What are you saying he did, Darrin?

[Pavlov]

The suit essentially alleges that the the Clintons and their associates run an organized crime syndicate. This is a well known fact if you don't have your head buried in the sand.Describe the organized crime syndicate in your own words, Chris.

[Chris]

Describe the organized crime syndicate in your own words, Chris.

Your face.

THE END

[DarrinS]

What are you saying he did, Darrin?

I said he was pivotal to both of those investigations. Learn to read.

He’s been demoted and stripped of his security clearance for some strange reason.

[Winehole23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnrI78pdPo8

[Pavlov]

Your face.

THE ENDYour white flag.

lol


I said he was pivotal to both of those investigations. Learn to read.

He’s been demoted and stripped of his security clearance for some strange reason.Yeah, but what are you saying he did wrong, Darrin?

I'm asking for your take, not facts I already know.

[Winehole23]

I did good, Meg?

[DarrinS]

Yeah, but what are you saying he did wrong, Darrin?

I'm asking for your take, not facts I already know.


Based on his obvious bias, that guy should never have been near either of those investigations.

[Reck]

The suit essentially alleges that the the Clintons and their associates run an organized crime syndicate. This is a well known fact if you don't have your head buried in the sand.

Fine.

but you’re just wasting your time by hurdling unproven accusations. What does he expect out of this other than a promptly fast dismissal?

[Pavlov]

Based on his obvious bias, that guy should never have been near either of those investigations.You didn't answer the question, Darrin.

What are you saying he did wrong?

[Pavlov]

Fine.

but you’re just wasting your time by hurdling unproven accusations. What does he expect out of this other than a promptly fast dismissal?Another printing of his "tell-all" book.

[DarrinS]

You didn't answer the question, Darrin.

What are you saying he did wrong?

I don’t know, but the FBI and the IG does. That’s why he was demoted and stripped of his security clearance.

[spurraider21]

Former Secret Service Agent Files RICO Lawsuit Against Clintons, Podesta and Soros

https://www.scribd.com/document/382267057/Clinton-Soros-RICO
:lmao this shit is hilarious

Truth be told, Hillary Clinton could easily have killed President Clinton when she threw heavy projectiles at his head. For this truth, and its role in the impeachment of President Clinton, Plaintiff was placed on the Enterprise “hit” list.

[Pavlov]

I don’t know, but the FBI and the IG does. That’s why he was demoted and stripped of his security clearance.One would think the IG would have included the wrongdoing in the IG report.

Unless you have a conspiracy about that one.

Do you, Darrin?

[Pavlov]

:lmao this shit is hilarious

Truth be told, Hillary Clinton could easily have killed President Clinton when she threw heavy projectiles at his head. For this truth, and its role in the impeachment of President Clinton, Plaintiff was placed on the Enterprise “hit” list.Yep, straight from his book.

Chrisbot is falling for it.

[spurraider21]

btw its not uncommon to have unnamed defendants...

in CA its pretty common practice to have 10, 50, or 100 "DOE Defendants" in lawsuits, even if you don't expect to add anybody. you basically just plead that the true identity of DOES 1-100 are unknown at this time, and we reserve the right to amend the complaint upon learning such information"

its just a way to reserve your right to add somebody to the suit later. you then have to amend your complaint and say "DOE 1 will replaced with John Smith" etc.

then at some point during the proceedings the judge will tell you that its time to dismiss the doe defendants

[DarrinS]

One would think the IG would have included the wrongdoing in the IG report.

Unless you have a conspiracy about that one.

Do you, Darrin?


I don’t have a conspiracy for you, Chumpbot.

[DarrinS]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/mueller-investigation-obstruction-ig-report-should-end/

[Chris]

btw its not uncommon to have unnamed defendants...

in CA its pretty common practice to have 10, 50, or 100 "DOE Defendants" in lawsuits, even if you don't expect to add anybody. you basically just plead that the true identity of DOES 1-100 are unknown at this time, and we reserve the right to amend the complaint upon learning such information"

its just a way to reserve your right to add somebody to the suit later. you then have to amend your complaint and say "DOE 1 will replaced with John Smith" etc.

then at some point during the proceedings the judge will tell you that its time to dismiss the doe defendants

I doubt Winhole will appreciate being corrected, but I appreciate the legalese. :tu

[Pavlov]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/mueller-investigation-obstruction-ig-report-should-end/lol McCarthbot

[spurraider21]

I doubt Winhole will appreciate being corrected, but I appreciate the legalese. :tu
that complaint is still trash though :lol...

[Pavlov]

I don’t have a conspiracy for you, Chumpbot.Then why was there no actual wrongdoing by Strzok in the Clinton investigation mentioned in the IG report, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

lol McCarthbot

I’ll trust his opinion over yours. Come to think of it, I don’t even know your opinion. What is your take again?

[Chris]

that complaint is still trash though :lol...

Good thing you're not a judge. :lol

[spurraider21]

to their credit they didnt lump in pizzagate allegations

[DarrinS]

Then why was there no actual wrongdoing by Strzok in the Clinton investigation mentioned in the IG report, Darrin?

The answer you are looking for is in the McCarthy article that you won’t read.

[spurraider21]

Good thing you're not a judge. :lol
not yet

https://img.memecdn.com/Soon-Horse-Looking-From-Window_o_112184.jpg

[Pavlov]

I’ll trust his opinion over yours. Come to think of it, I don’t even know your opinion. What is your take again?There is nothing outside the Mueller investigation that should end the Mueller investigation.

Pretty simple.

Been my take since it started.

What is your take, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

There is nothing outside the Mueller investigation that should end the Mueller investigation.

Pretty simple.

Been my take since it started.

What is your take, Darrin?


My take is there shouldn’t be a Mueller investigation.

[Pavlov]

The answer you are looking for is in the McCarthy article that you won’t read.You're right, I won't read it since he has been saying shut down the investigation since day one.

Put it in your words since you don't have your own take.

Thanks.

[Pavlov]

My take is there shouldn’t be a Mueller investigation.And why is that, Darrin?

List your reasons.

[Reck]

I’ll trust his opinion over yours. Come to think of it, I don’t even know your opinion. What is your take again?

The irony is almost too good here, Darrin.

A few posts up you were crying about biases against a particular. This guy McCarthy is nothing but biased against all things that’s not pro Trump. :lol

[Chris]

I’ll trust his opinion over yours. Come to think of it, I don’t even know your opinion. What is your take again?

He thinks Trump is too stupid to collude with Russians but people in his campaign definitely did! Hillary is innocent no matter what evidence you point to. Doesn't acknowledge 'HQ Special' or 'grossly negligent.' Mueller is a man of integrity and we have no right to complain because he's a Republican. /end

[spurraider21]

What is your take, Darrin?


My take is there shouldn’t be a Mueller investigation.


And why is that, Darrin?

List your reasons.
https://i1.wp.com/78.media.tumblr.com/5a4a54a9584aa92525097a1452311712/tumblr_inline_nfm5btQZrI1t2b0m7.gif?w=696

[DarrinS]

https://i1.wp.com/78.media.tumblr.com/5a4a54a9584aa92525097a1452311712/tumblr_inline_nfm5btQZrI1t2b0m7.gif?w=696

Awe, you made a funny

[Spurminator]

Aw you didn't answer the question.

Baby fall down make booboo!

[spurraider21]

Awe, you made a funny
:lol

[DarrinS]

Aw you didn't answer the question.

Baby fall down make booboo!


Chump didn’t list his reasons either.

[Pavlov]

Chump didn’t list his reasons either.I see no reason not to continue. Everything about the investigation is legal and subject to review and there are definitely issues worth investigating.

I am also not against the IG investigation or the whatever TSA thinks is going on with Clinton and Podesta.

What are your reasons for wanting to end the Mueller investigation right now?

[Chris]

What Happened During the Michael Flynn FBI Interview?



As I pointed out yesterday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) believes there is evidence to suggest that some of the Russia/Clinton investigation FBI interview reports (known as 302s) were “changed to either prosecute or not prosecute” certain individuals.

This raises many concerns and questions. Among them, what does this mean for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Former FBI Director James Comey provided conflicting testimony and statements regarding whether or not the FBI agents who conducted the Flynn interview believed he was lying during the questioning.

So, what is an FBI 302 report?


I spoke with a former senior FBI official familiar with the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and asked what the process might have been like.

Sara: So, explain the process of putting together a 302 witness report…


“They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they’ve automatically brought him up on that one charge…”


Former Senior FBI Official: Typically, FBI procedures say that two agents are supposed to do the interview. The rationale behind it is so that you get two people, so there’s redundancy. For example, if one agent is unable to testify, there’s another person there who witnessed it. An interview of a subject usually comes at the very end of an investigation.

Sara: What happens next?

Former Senior FBI Official: …you may perform interviews of victims of crimes, not just the subject. So in the form of a bank robbery, you might have multiple 302s from the people who were there, the teller, somebody who saw the getaway car, or associates of the subject.

Sara: When you first go into an interview what is the process?

Former Senior FBI Official: You identify yourself. I’m “so and so,” a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You state the day, time, and you state the location of where the interview occurs. Once you’ve got that out of the way, then you delve into the actual process of the interview. Now an interview can be wide-ranging and it can go all over the place. You can typically go [to an interview] with an outline of what you want to talk about. You go in there full of knowledge of the investigation and of what has transpired so far. And you typically try and get the person to talk about those things without revealing all of that information that you have, without showing your cards, without tipping your hand…

Sara: What are you looking for?

Former Senior FBI Official: As you’re performing that interview you get the person to talk about what you want them to talk about. Remember, the interview is strictly based on factual observations and statements that are made. There is no room for conjecture. There’s no room for opining and there is really no room for hypotheses to be put in [the 302 form]. It’s strictly observation. You can make personal observations about the person’s demeanor… If I suspected that somebody was drunk or under the influence of a substance during the interview, I could say something to the effect, “upon walking into the room to interview X, the interviewing agent noted that he smelled heavily of alcohol. X was slurring their words and…having trouble making coherent sentences.” I could not say that I believe X was completely drunk because I did not know that for a fact and that’s not something that I was able to verify while there.

https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GettyImages-630956548flynn-e1529535923889-1024x482.jpg


Sara: What is the other agent doing?

Former Senior FBI Official: Typically one agent will be doing interviewing, another agent will be taking notes. Sometimes both agents will take notes. You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.

Sara: Regarding Flynn’s particular interview, what would the process be once it’s completed?

Former Senior FBI Official: Both agents would physically sign that initial copy. In the case of Flynn…you know both [FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok] and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka both would digitally sign the 302. You know there’s a system and the FBI agents put in a card that identifies them. There’s a specific pin that is known only to you. You look at the documents. You say that everything looks good, then you click sign and…enter your pin. It’s digitally signed for you. Only they could do that. If somebody had their log-in information, which is highly unlikely, then, of course, they could do that. That’s really what a 302 is. It is a capture of facts and it is a capture of observations. It’s not a total report of an investigation. It’s not a summation of everything that’s happening. It’s just what transpired that snapshot in time for when they interview the person.

Sara: So, they didn’t have to show Mike Flynn the transcripts of his conversation with the Russian ambassador or anyone else?

Former Senior FBI Official: No not at all. There’s no obligation to doing that sometimes because of the sensitivities of what you collected and how you collected the information. Sometimes you show people some of the evidence; it’s basically called the strategic use of evidence. Sometimes you will show people information that you have collected, not only help jog their memory but to maybe guide them into making the right decision. It’s not an obligation but if you’re trying to get them to specifically admit to something that you have, you can do that.

Sara: But, now with all the new evidence on [Former Deputy Director] Andrew McCabe and Special Agent Peter Strzok, how does that affect the case? Would the agents have shared their findings with superiors?

Former Senior FBI Official: As you know, there are all sorts of lies that have been discovered on what has transpired with regard to McCabe…Comey possibly as well here, as well as other people that were involved in that sort of special investigation. McCabe was caught lying, Comey [was caught] lying, and others. For example, with Flynn’s 302s and notes, the agents would take those documents back to headquarters and then share what they observed with people. McCabe and Comey may be two of those people. The agents are going to talk about it and people are going to ask how the interview went. They are going to read that document and then ask for the opinions of the investigators, in this case, Strzok and Pientka. And that is where this idea that you know one agent or possibly both agents said, “look we don’t think that he was lying or maybe he wasn’t forthcoming.”

“It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use…”

Sara: I was told that McCabe was upset after hearing from the agents that they didn’t think he was lying…

Former Senior FBI Official: Yeah. I mean given what we’ve learned of McCabe so far and given what we know about McCabe’s previous actions of purposely trying to undermine the Trump administration, that’s what happened.

Sara: Was there a difference between the way the FBI handled Flynn’s case and the way the bureau handled McCabe’s case?

Former Senior FBI Official: Yes, Flynn was only interviewed once and was never under oath. McCabe was interviewed twice and was under oath during both instances. Further, Flynn was never told that he was being formally interviewed. McCabe was advised of the nature of his interviews on both occasions. Third, Flynn was never told what they suspected him of lying about and given the chance to explain. McCabe was asked, through the OPR process, on two occasions and through a formal document, whether he needed to clarify anything or change any information. He did not, which makes his lying intentional and with his full knowledge of his actions. And finally, Flynn has been charged with 18 USC 1001, making false official statements. McCabe has not.

Sara: Is it a conflict of interest now that the congressional committees and the IG have found that Strzok had such anti-Trump bias based on the fact that he was conducting the interview with Flynn and so involved in both investigations?

Former Senior FBI Official: It would, absolutely. Any judge would pick that apart in a court of law, any judge. He is tainted at that point. And you do have issues of taint in a court law… One of the things that you have issues with is [that] you have all this highly sensitive…top secret, tight reporting that occurs and you don’t want to have people who have been tainted by that material performing that interview. Now, you do it for a lot of reasons. One, you do it because sometimes you can’t give up that information. You want to get what’s called a clean team to do the interviews…people who haven’t had access to any of this highly sensitive information to perform the interview and you give them sort rough guidelines [of] what you want them to talk about and then hopefully they’ll get the person to admit to it.

Sara: Explain…

Former Senior FBI Official: That is, you won’t have to divulge where they received this extremely sensitive information. When you get very sensitive information from other governments…things that are within the arsenal of the U.S. government that you don’t want coming out …in the court of law.

Sara: What about now? Now we know that even before the interview with Flynn, Strzok was so vehemently anti-Trump that he had every reason to want to pursue charges against him. Could Strzok have suggested later down the line that Flynn was lying? I mean, I would think that this information would taint the interview they had with Flynn…

https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Thousands-of-FBI-cellphones-affected-by-glitch-that-lost-Strzok-Page-texts-officials-say.jpg
Comey, Mueller, Strzok


Former Senior FBI Official: I don’t know. I don’t have the legal mind for understanding that there’s actually a legal precedent against that and I would say that lawyer should absolutely have a field day with him being able to say that it was a biased interview because of the bias that Strzok had felt towards the Trump administration. I would be interested to see what McCabe’s text messages are that sent him to the next point. But, you know it also looks like they were kind of smart enough to do a lot of in-person meetings in Andy’s office and not put anything into texts. I think McCabe has been pretty shrewd in handling all communications and letting, you know, [Former FBI Attorney Lisa] Page be a conduit for it. Regardless of that, Flynn’s lawyer should absolutely have a field day with saying that…Flynn was a representative of the Trump administration and Strzok and McCabe had set their sights squarely on him as a member of the administration. They interviewed him and then they put this case together against him and presented those facts to the Special Counsel.

Sara: So, if they didn’t think he lied, how did they get him to admit guilt and accuse him of lying in the end?

Former Senior FBI Official: It could be anything during the questioning that doesn’t exactly line up. They would question Flynn on the number of times he had contact with a Russian representative. They could have said, “Mr. Flynn how many times have you spoken with the Russian officials?” In good conscience, he may have said, “to the best of my recollection it was four to five times that I spoke with him.” Or, ” You know X amount of time.” That answer got that captured in the 302 document. The agents can go back and say, “we have technical collection says that he spoke with the Russians six or seven times.” And so, what you have is, you have Flynn saying “I suppose x amount of times” and then the government knowing he spoke this amount time. From a small inaccurate recollection, you have your a 18 USC 1001 charge, providing false information to federal agents. Now, it’s pretty damn flimsy. And I think if it were taken to court… it would have a hard time making it stand upright.

Sara: What do you know about the Flynn interview?

Former Senior FBI Official: From what I understand, Flynn was very forthcoming about the things that they really didn’t even ask him about or about things that…there’s no way he could have suspected that they knew information about. For example, other meetings that he had, or about people with whom he met and was very forthcoming about that. Even though he was very forthcoming about 99 percent of things that happened, if he misremembered, or if he was exhausted because the guy probably had about four hours of sleep a night during that time, it didn’t matter in the end. They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they could automatically brought him up on that one charge.

Sara: This seems like an easy way to entrap someone or get them on a charge that really is weak…

Former Senior FBI Official: Like I said, it’s a long tried and true technique that the FBI uses in investigations where they don’t have the very concrete charges to stick to somebody and they want to nail them. He got the charge that is usually filed against friends and families of suspects when you’re trying to break the suspect. And I gotta be honest with you, there have probably been times where the FBI has really overreached and might have overstepped the boundaries in using that 1001 charge. It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.

Sara: So, if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he plead guilty to the charge?

Former Senior FBI Official: From what I understand is that the McCabe/Strzok team basically tarnished his name overnight and then they hold out until… he’s really he’s at his wit’s end. Flynn’s financially in a hole. He’s already…sold his house. He’s completely destitute. The bureau starts going after his family and they say, “Hey Mike Flynn, we’re going to go after your family.” Maybe [there’s] something they think they can get on his son or anyone close to him. Flynn is a true patriot and stand-up guy. So he takes the 1001 charge to get the Special Counsel off his back. The FBI and Special Counsel clap their hands and pat themselves on the back and then there it is. That’s how it all happens.

Sara: I would think there is some legal precedent for something like this; some kind of grounds just based on the fact that Strzok and McCabe appear to be so biased against Trump…

Former Senior FBI Official:…here’s the legal definition of Giglio information or material: it refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness in a criminal trial. I’d say there’s something here based on all the evidence that’s already come forward.

https://saraacarter.com/what-happened-during-the-michael-flynn-fbi-interview/

[DarrinS]

I see no reason not to continue. Everything about the investigation is legal and subject to review and there are definitely issues worth investigating.

I am also not against the IG investigation or the whatever TSA thinks is going on with Clinton and Podesta.

What are your reasons for wanting to end the Mueller investigation right now?


It’s origins are dubious. He was appointed by a man who should’ve recused himself. He is a close friend of Comey. His original team consisted of members with demonstrated political bias. His original appointment was for a counterintelligence investigation — very unusual. Rosenstein later sends some weird memo, broadening his jurisdiction. Basically, it’s a fishing expedition.

[Pavlov]

It’s origins are dubious. He was appointed by a man who should’ve recused himself. He is a close friend of Comey. His original team consisted of members with demonstrated political bias. His original appointment was for a counterintelligence investigation — very unusual. Rosenstein later sends some weird memo, broadening his jurisdiction. Basically, it’s a fishing expedition.

Basically, regurgitated talking points.

Why would you be afraid if your people did nothing wrong?

[Winehole23]

It’s origins are dubious. He was appointed by a man who should’ve recused himself. He is a close friend of Comey. His original team consisted of members with demonstrated political bias. His original appointment was for a counterintelligence investigation — very unusual. Rosenstein later sends some weird memo, broadening his jurisdiction. Basically, it’s a fishing expedition.Benghazi wants you to lose its phone number.

[boutons_deux]

Republican plans to hold Rod Rosenstein in contempt because of bungled paperwork (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/21/1774220/-Republican-plans-to-hold-Rod-Rosenstein-in-contempt-threatened-because-they-bungled-their-paperwork)

Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte is not having the best day. His extra-harsh immigration bill has been the center of confusion and dissent on the House floor.

And now it appears he may have screwed Republican plans to spice up their Friday by charging Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein with contempt of Congress.

According to Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/21/rod-rosenstein-subpoena-democrats-response-662238), Goodlatte dispatched a subpoena to Rosenstein on March 22, but what the Republican House Judiciary Chair failed to do was … send one to Democrats.

And House rules require that the Democratic leadership be sent a copy of a subpoena when it is issued.

Now top Democratic Judiciary committee member Jerrold

Nadler has informed Goodlatte that he considers the subpoena sent to Rosenstein to be “defective.”

Nadler: Because you did not provide me with a copy of the subpoena that actually issued, the subpoena that you eventually issued would be unenforceable as a matter of law.


Republicans are sputtering.

An aide to Goodlatte insists that they issued a “valid” subpoena to Rosenstein and that Democrats are just “blocking transparency.”

Unfortunately for Republicans, whose plans to attack Rosenstein were so widely known that they were being discussed in open hearings (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/19/1773404/-Congressional-Warriors-for-Donald-Trump-up-their-attack-on-FBI-and-Deputy-AG-Rod-Rosenstein), the House

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/21/1774220/-Republican-plans-to-hold-Rod-Rosenstein-in-contempt-threatened-because-they-bungled-their-paperwork?detail=emaildkre

Conscientious, professional govt by the Repugs. :lol

They fuck up their attempts to fuck up govt

[DarrinS]

Benghazi wants you to lose its phone number.


I'm glad they caught the filmmaker of that hateful youtube video.

[DarrinS]

1009796458705547264

[Pavlov]

1009796458705547264Poor innocent blameless Manafort....

[DarrinS]

Poor innocent blameless Manafort....

Yeah, that was the point. :rolleyes

[Pavlov]

Yeah, that was the point. :rolleyesWhat is your point, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

What is your point, Darrin?

Very fake news

[Pavlov]

Very fake newsSo the FBI search wasn't as severe as reported?

lol OK Darrin. You really got something there.

[Chris]

1010184833123934208

[Chris]

1010191605674987521

[Pavlov]

1010191605674987521Chris thinks Trump's DOJ is stonewalling.

OK.

[Chris]

Chris thinks Trump's DOJ is stonewalling.

OK.

Nope. I've already stated that there is a separate investigation with the leakers.

[Pavlov]

Nope. I've already stated that there is a separate investigation with the leakers.So why are you posting the tweet about Grassley's letter, Chris?

[Chris]

So why are you posting the tweet about Grassley's letter, Chris?

Because it's newsworthy Pavlov.

[Pavlov]

Because it's newsworthy Pavlov.Why is it newsworthy, Chris?

[Chris]

Why is it newsworthy, Chris?

Because it's relevant to the thread and the discussion. Are you trying to be the forum cop again Pavlov?

[Pavlov]

Because it's relevant to the thread and the discussion. Are you trying to be the forum cop again Pavlov?As long as you're saying Trump's DOJ is stonewalling, OK.

[Chris]

As long as you're saying Trump's DOJ is stonewalling, OK.

I can see why you would come to that conclusion considering your sources for news.

[Pavlov]

I can see why you would come to that conclusion considering your sources for news.I'm going by your tweet.

What is your explanation for the Trump DOJ's refusing to give Grassley what he demands, Chris?

[Chris]

I'm going by your tweet.

What is your explanation for the Trump DOJ's refusing to give Grassley what he demands, Chris?

There is a separate investigation.The DOJ can't show classified information in documents to Congressional committees when they are in charge of investigations of people sitting in Congress.

[Pavlov]

There is a separate investigation.The DOJ can't show classified information in documents to Congressional committees when they are in charge of investigations of people sitting in Congress.So the Republicans in Congress are being disingenuous when they demand these documents.

OK.

Which people in Congress are being investigated BTW?

[Chris]

So the Republicans in Congress are being disingenuous when they demand these documents.

OK.

I can see why you would come to that conclusion considering your sources for news.


Which people in Congress are being investigated BTW?

Guess we will find out after the investigation. Sessions doesn't leak. He threw everyone a bone with Huber, but that's about it.

[Pavlov]

I can see why you would come to that conclusion considering your sources for news.Your tweet is my source.


Guess we will find out after the investigation. Sessions doesn't leak. He threw everyone a bone with Huber, but that's about it.So there is no indication anyone in Congress is being investigated for anything.

OK.

[Chris]

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F177cd7 165d7bb00fe66f2387deea91b0%2Ftenor.gif&f=1

[Pavlov]

I accept your white flag, Chris. You posted a tweet and tried to discredit it as a source immediately afterward.

It was pretty funny.

[TSA]

1010166253879726080

[Pavlov]

1010166253879726080And what, TSA?

What's the conspiracy today?

[Reck]

Very fake news

Darrin, you're getting hunged on a technicality.

They probably did knock, but so what? The Raid was still conducted and his house ransacked.

And hey, he's now in jail so I guess it paid off.

[Chris]

And what, TSA?

What's the conspiracy today?

Just more evidence that Obama was involved. You can go ahead and skip the article.

[Pavlov]

Just more evidence that Obama was involved. You can go ahead and skip the article.It doesn't say Obama was involved at all. You skipped the article.

[TSA]

Peter’s time in the barrel

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/062218_Strzok-Subpoena.pdf

[Chris]

1010253230448705536

[Pavlov]

Wow, the guy who said he would testify is going to testify.

Wasn't Rosenstein supposed to be Qmpeached today?

[Chris]

Wasn't Bannon supposed to flip?

Wasn't Roger Stone supposed to flip?

Cohen?

[Pavlov]

Wasn't Bannon supposed to flip?

Wasn't Roger Stone supposed to flip?

Cohen?When did I say they would?

Qmpeach Rosenstein has been pimped for months here.

[Reck]

Wasn't Bannon supposed to flip?

Wasn't Roger Stone supposed to flip?

Cohen?

No one ever thought Bannon would flip. Guy basically met Trump 2 years ago. :lol

Cohen on the other hand? Wait for the hit.

[Pavlov]

Cohen?If that happens you know who gets the credit:
1009953706748665858

[Reck]

If that happens you know who gets the credit:
1009953706748665858

Damn, good old Cohen looks like he hasn't slept in weeks and just realize he can finally take a dump in peace. :lol

[Chris]

When did I say they would?

Qmpeach Rosenstein has been pimped for months here.

Who actually authorized the stripping of 4 people off of Mueller's team & placing them under investigation once DOJ IG Michael Horowitz alerted him to what he had done?

Who was tasked with forming a crack FBI Counter-Intelligence unit to hunt down leakers of classified information not just inside the DOJ/FBI, but inside Congress, the State Department, and the entire Intelligence Community?

First and last name starts with an R.

[Chris]

No one ever thought Bannon would flip. Guy basically met Trump 2 years ago. :lol

Cohen on the other hand? Wait for the hit.

Nothing will happen.

[Pavlov]

Who actually authorized the stripping of 4 people off of Mueller's team & placing them under investigation once DOJ IG Michael Horowitz alerted him to what he had done?
s
Who was tasked with forming a crack FBI Counter-Intelligence unit to hunt down leakers of classified information not just inside the DOJ/FBI, but inside Congress, the State Department, and the entire Intelligence Community?

First and last name starts with an R.So you're saying Q is completely wrong.

:lol OK

[Reck]

Nothing will happen.

Hopefully Cohen is as sturdy as you and loyal as you, Chris.

[boutons_deux]

Manafort just suffered his most devastating blow in court yet in bombshell decision

Yesterday,

Judge Jackson denied a motion by Manafort’s attorneys to suppress evidence found in one of his storage lockers.

Manafort’s lawyers argued that because federal agents had been allowed to peer into his storage locker before applying for their search warrant in May 2017,

they violated his right to protection from unlawful search and seizure, leaving the evidence they found as “tainted.”

Judge Jackson found that the FBI agents didn’t need a warrant to enter the storage locker since

an employee of Manafort’s gave them permission to look around.

The agents discovered the unit contained boxes and a filing cabinet but didn’t open them until after they got a search warrant.

Thus no evidence was discovered until all the legal procedures were properly in place.

The latest bad news for Trump’s campaign chairman was Judge

Jackson’s decision this morning denying his motion to dismiss money laundering charges against him


https://washingtonpress.com/2018/06/22/manafort-just-suffered-his-most-devastating-blow-in-court-yet-in-bombshell-decision/

[Chris]

Hopefully Cohen is as sturdy as you and loyal as you, Chris.

There's no dirt.

[Chris]

EXCLUSIVE: This is the FBI agent who worked on Hillary Clinton probe, labeled Trump supporters 'retarded' and texted 'f**k Trump' to her colleague lover - seen for the first time since her identity was revealed after release of IG report



*Sally Moyer, 44, was named as the FBI agent who traded anti-Trump texts that were seen in the 568-page inspector general report released last Friday

*In exclusive pictures obtained by DailyMail.com, Moyer was seen leaving her home. She declined to discuss the controversy

*Moyer was identified only as 'Agent 5' in the report, but her name was released by Congressman Mark Meadows during a congressional hearing this week

*At the time of the texts, she was on the 'filter team' for the Clinton probe - a small team that determined whether information could be used in the investigation

*Moyer exchange messages with Agent 1 who she was in a romantic relationship with at the time

*The two have since married, according the report

*Moyer texted her lover, 'Screw you Trump,' and added that Hillary Clinton 'better win ... otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns'

*Also pictured is Kevin Clinesmith, 36, identified as 'Attorney 2' in the IG report who was found to have sent similar messages


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/22/17/4D85491600000578-0-image-a-7_1529686499614.jpg
FBI agent Sally Moyer, 44, was spotted leaving her Washington D.C. home on Friday morning but declined to discuss the controversy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5875505/FBI-agent-Sally-Moyer-seen-time-identity-revealed.html

[Pavlov]

Leaks good now.

[Chris]

Looking forward to his testimony on the 302's and why he didn't turn them over to Congress.

1010306298687213568

[Reck]

1010306298687213568

There is nothing more disgusting and pathetic like a deadbeat son who cant fend for himself so his father needs to take a bullet for the imconpetent son he wished he never had.

And all for the loser to brag about not going to jail because daddy saved him. What a country we live in.

[boutons_deux]

Because Michael Cohen Was A Hoarder The Government Has The Evidence To Bring Trump Down

Attorney Michael Avenatti has seen the evidence, and he says that Trump has a lot of problems coming because Michael Cohen was a hoarder who never threw anything away.

Avenatti said,

“I am going to stand by what I have been saying for months.

There is no doubt in my mind that Michael Cohen is going to be indicted and face some very, very serious charges.

There is no doubt in my mind that’s going to try to trade or flip on this president.

And you know, I told you before there were audio tapes and a whole lot of information that was seized in connection with these raids.

Among other problems that Michael and the president have is that it appears that

Michael Cohen basically was one of the world’s great hoarders as it related to keeping evidence and cell phones and the like.

This guy never threw anything away which I’m sure the government is ecstatic about right now.”

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/06/22/michael-cohen-hoarder.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[TSA]

If that happens you know who gets the credit:
1009953706748665858

:lol trolled by a junkie

[Reck]

:lol trolled by a junkie

Never trust a comedian.

Specially one that's washed up and wants a comeback. :lol

That CNN interviee he did a while ago was gringy as fuck.

[TSA]

If that happens you know who gets the credit:
1009953706748665858

1010308803525595141

Pav Arnold

[Pavlov]

TSA didn't get the joke. I had already posted about Arnold's interview.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273725&p=9436742&viewfull=1#post9436742

lol TSA

[boutons_deux]

a very sick so-called man

Trump rage tweets ‘The Russian Witch Hunt is Rigged!’ after bizarrely claiming Democrats for paying for it

Writing on Twitter, Trump claimed,

“.@FoxNews Poll numbers plummet on the Democrat inspired and paid for Russian Witch Hunt.

With all of the bias, lying and hate by the investigators,

people want the investigators investigated.

Much more will come out.

A total scam and excuse for the Dems losing the Election!”

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/trump-rage-tweets-russian-witch-hunt-rigged-bizarrely-claiming-democrats-paying/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/trump-rage-tweets-russian-witch-hunt-rigged-bizarrely-claiming-democrats-paying/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

[boutons_deux]

Trash is obsessed, like FIRST THOUGHT in the morning, with Mueller's bulldozer, because he's absolutely knows that

Mueller will bulldoze Trash with all the info from Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopolus, etc.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Allies' Plan to Lift Russian Sanctions Was Hatched Early in the 2016 Campaign: Report

Mueller is reportedly scrutinizing the plan and the involvement of Trump's associates in promoting it.
Trash's allies worked on that would have

ceded Crimea to Russia :lol CC said Obama did that! :lol

and

lifted key sanctions

against the country was developed much earlier than has previously reported — in the beginning days of 2016.
This places the origination of the plan during the opening stage of Trump's run for the presidency,

before he clinched the nomination and

before there were any revelations about Russia's attempts to interfere in the election and support Trump's candidacy.

McClatchy notes that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the plan as part of his probe into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump associates.

another incident during the 2016 election (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support) may be relevant:

a mysterious change in the Republican National Committee's party platform to weaken U.S. support for Ukraine following the invasion of Russia.

Andrii Artemenko, a former Ukrainian politician. He says he worked on the plan with former

GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ex-congressman-russia-ties-may-be-missing-piece-mueller-investigation-report) of Pennsylvania,

who has recently come under suspicion for his ties to both Trump and Russian business interests.

This plan eventually ended up in the hands of Michael Cohen, :lol

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-allies-plan-lift-russian-sanctions-was-hatched-early-2016-campaign-report (https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-allies-plan-lift-russian-sanctions-was-hatched-early-2016-campaign-report)

So Trump and his mafiya had planned with Pootin's mafiya

to cede Crimea to Russia AND to lift sanctions on Russia for taking Crimea

Plan exposed by failing NYTimes,

but Pootin's mafiya, including Assange, worked hard to defeat Hillary and to elect ILLEGIT so-called Pres Trash

All y'all Hyper-patriots happy that y'all elected a totally compromised Manchurian Candidate who is 100% committed to Pootin and his mafiya's $100Ms?

[Chris]

1010564408366583810

[Chris]

1010616524179214336

[Pavlov]

1010616524179214336I predict leaks will be good now.

[Chris]

1010642371657297921

[Pavlov]

1010642371657297921Oooooooooh! He might send another letter!

[boutons_deux]

Oooooooooh! He might send another letter!

Repugs witch hunting / on fishing expedition, trying to beat Mueller with "gotcha"

[Reck]

1010642371657297921

This is example #1 on why you never should give into republicans. It’s never enough for them.

They’re not ‘owe’ shit.

[TSA]

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.

The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.

What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.

In Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), the court held that a state judge’s potential bias violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earlier, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was hearing. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the taint but heighten “the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be obscured,” the justices wrote. A single biased individual “might still have an influence that, while not so visible . . . is nevertheless significant.”

In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.

It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.

The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort. The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.

Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.

No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.

Crossfire’s progenitors thus ignored an obvious question: If Russia promised unspecified dirt on Mrs. Clinton but never delivered it, how would that amount to collusion with the Trump campaign? If anything, such behavior suggests an attempt to entice and potentially embarrass Mr. Trump by dangling the prospect of compromising information and getting his aides to jump at it.

Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.

Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington.

On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”

That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.

The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-1529707087?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/bcpSGtoX6a

[Chucho]

This is example #1 on why you never should give into republicans. It’s never enough for them.

They’re not ‘owe’ shit.

Because partisanship dickery?

[Reck]

Because partisanship dickery?

Trump’s DOJ and FBI are playing partisanship games with their own people? The more you give, the more they ask is all I’m saying.

[djohn2oo8]

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.

The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.

What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.

In Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), the court held that a state judge’s potential bias violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earlier, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was hearing. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the taint but heighten “the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be obscured,” the justices wrote. A single biased individual “might still have an influence that, while not so visible . . . is nevertheless significant.”

In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.

It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.

The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort. The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.

Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.

No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.

Crossfire’s progenitors thus ignored an obvious question: If Russia promised unspecified dirt on Mrs. Clinton but never delivered it, how would that amount to collusion with the Trump campaign? If anything, such behavior suggests an attempt to entice and potentially embarrass Mr. Trump by dangling the prospect of compromising information and getting his aides to jump at it.

Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.

Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington.

On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”

That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.

The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-1529707087?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/bcpSGtoX6a

Oh so now aftee you said Mueller is just doing his job and working with Flynn, now his investigation is tainted? Fuck off you little cretin bitch :lol

[djohn2oo8]

TSA keeps saying no evidence has or will emerge of Russian collusion but at the same time somehow miraculously knows of evidence that will lead to the conviction of Hillary eating dead babies

[boutons_deux]

WSJ is Murdoch toilet paper

[Chris]

This is example #1 on why you never should give into republicans. It’s never enough for them.

They’re not ‘owe’ shit.

I see you're not familiar with oversight.

[Pavlov]

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.

The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.

What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.

In Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), the court held that a state judge’s potential bias violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earlier, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was hearing. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the taint but heighten “the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be obscured,” the justices wrote. A single biased individual “might still have an influence that, while not so visible . . . is nevertheless significant.”

In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.

It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.

The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort. The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.

Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.

No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.

Crossfire’s progenitors thus ignored an obvious question: If Russia promised unspecified dirt on Mrs. Clinton but never delivered it, how would that amount to collusion with the Trump campaign? If anything, such behavior suggests an attempt to entice and potentially embarrass Mr. Trump by dangling the prospect of compromising information and getting his aides to jump at it.

Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.

Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington.

On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”

That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.

The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-1529707087?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/bcpSGtoX6atldr: We're trying really hard now. Two people had to write this.



TSA, do you want the Mueller investigation to end due to outside forces?

Yes or no.

[Reck]

I see you're not familiar with oversight.

They were given the documents they were after and yet they are still crying about not having more. Do they want the whole library going back to the founding fathers or what?

Oversight does not entitled congress to know who's getting investigated or when said investigation should end.

[spurraider21]

Just wait till they demand an investigation of the oig because they didn’t get desired results.

Investigate the investigation of the investigations

[TSA]

Just wait till they demand an investigation of the oig because they didn’t get desired results.

Investigate the investigation of the investigations

That makes no sense. “They” didn’t call for the OIG investigation happening now.

[Pavlov]

That makes no sense. “They” didn’t call for the OIG investigation happening now.What are they calling for then?

[Chris]

1010926791354142721

lmao

[Chris]

Why did Susan Rice issue a stand down order?

[spurraider21]

That makes no sense. “They” didn’t call for the OIG investigation happening now.
then when THAT investigation clears the OIG, you'll want to investigate those people that investigated the investigator (OIG) of the original investigation.

and so on.

you'll be dreaming of throwing clinton in prison for the rest of your life tbh

[Winehole23]

Why did Susan Rice issue a stand down order?dunno.

maybe because Obama wanted to avoid looking like he was interfering in the election.

later on, congressional Republicans more or less demanded Obama shut up about it and he did until after the election.

[TSA]

What did Peter Strzok do?

As former top FBI official Peter Strzok faces congressional requests to testify, it's worth examining who he is.

Strzok is the subject of what I see as one of the most damaging conclusions in the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general report: As the nation's top FBI counterespionage official, he indicated "a willingness to take official action to impact [Donald Trump's] electoral prospects."

Specifically, while working on the Hillary Clinton classified email investigation in August 2016, Strzok wrote that he and unnamed others would "stop" Trump from getting elected. He shared his intentions with at least one other FBI official, attorney Lisa Page.

Strzok isn't just any rank-and-file guy spouting off in one ill-advised email. His fingerprints were on every FBI investigation that stood to impact Clinton's presidential candidacy or to hurt Trump before and after the 2016 election.


He was chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section and number two in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. He led the team of investigators in the Clinton classified email probe and led the FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election. He was involved in the controversial anti-Trump "Steele dossier" used, in part, to obtain multiple secret wiretaps. He was the one who interviewed Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI only to later learn that agents reportedly didn't think he'd lied. And Strzok was the "top" FBI agent appointed to work on the team of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion.

The earth-shattering finding on Strzok by the inspector general (IG) confirms a citizenry's worst fears: A high-ranking government intel official allegedly conspired to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

It's also directly relevant to the FBI investigations of Trump-Russia collusion, which the IG did not examine in this report. There are multiple allegations of FBI misbehavior in that inquiry, including conspiracies to frame Trump, and improper spying on Trump associates. Investigating those allegations takes on an added sense of urgency with news that the FBI's top counterespionage official expressed willingness to use his official position against a political enemy.


Yet, for all of that, Strzok is still collecting a salary, courtesy of taxpayers, at the FBI Human Resources Department. And here's the chilling part: If it weren't for the IG's investigation, requested by Congress, he'd likely still be helping lead special counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump today.

An attorney for Strzok reportedly says Strzok is willing to answer calls to testify to Congress because he "thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured and he wants an opportunity to remedy that."


The IG says he cannot be certain that all of Strzok's text messages were recovered; Strzok has said his texts were not nefarious and his investigations were always fair. Here's a small sampling of texts and timeline notes (full timeline here):

Aug. 8, 2016:


FBI Attorney Lisa Page, who also worked on Special Counsel Mueller's team: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Aug. 15, 2016:

Strzok: "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 ... It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

Late August 2016:

Reportedly working for the FBI, Professor Stefan Halper, a reputed one-time CIA operative, meets with Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to the Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

Somewhere around this time, the FBI initiates a new wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at least through early 2017.

September 2016:

Former British spy Christopher Steele, hired by private research firm Fusion GPS to investigate the Trump campaign, becomes an FBI source and uses Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr as a point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate" that Trump not get elected.

President Obama warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election.

Sept. 2, 2016:

FBI attorney Lisa Page texts Strzok that "[President Obama] wants to know everything we're doing."

Nov. 3, 2016:

Page texts Strzok: "The [New York Times] probability numbers are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."

March 14, 2017:

Page texts Strzok: "Finally two pages away from finishing ["All the President's Men"]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"

Strzok:"What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky."



May 22, 2017:

Strzok texts about "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email probe and states: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also refers to the special counsel probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment" but also states he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there."

The IG's report found that:



- Strzok showed bias in his decision to prioritize the Trump-Russia investigation over the Clinton probe.

- His texts "potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made [re: Clinton and Trump-Russia probes] were impacted by bias or improper considerations," "appeared to mix political opinions with discussions about" the Clinton classified email probe, and included "statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton.

- "Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the [Trump]-Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review."

- Strzok had a "biased state of mind but, even more seriously ... a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects" and demonstrated behavior "antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice."



- He brought "discredit" to himself, "sowed doubt about the FBI's handling" of the Clinton classified email probe and "impacted the reputation of the FBI."

- The damage "extends far beyond the scope" of the Clinton probe and "goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral fact-finding and political independence."

- He showed "extremely poor judgment" and "a gross lack of professionalism."

- He used personal digital accounts for FBI business.

If you're still not sure what to think, read the IG report for yourself: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download.


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/393857-what-did-peter-strzok-do?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Pavlov]

What did Peter Strzok do?

As former top FBI official Peter Strzok faces congressional requests to testify, it's worth examining who he is.

Strzok is the subject of what I see as one of the most damaging conclusions in the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general report: As the nation's top FBI counterespionage official, he indicated "a willingness to take official action to impact [Donald Trump's] electoral prospects."

Specifically, while working on the Hillary Clinton classified email investigation in August 2016, Strzok wrote that he and unnamed others would "stop" Trump from getting elected. He shared his intentions with at least one other FBI official, attorney Lisa Page.

Strzok isn't just any rank-and-file guy spouting off in one ill-advised email. His fingerprints were on every FBI investigation that stood to impact Clinton's presidential candidacy or to hurt Trump before and after the 2016 election.


He was chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section and number two in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. He led the team of investigators in the Clinton classified email probe and led the FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election. He was involved in the controversial anti-Trump "Steele dossier" used, in part, to obtain multiple secret wiretaps. He was the one who interviewed Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI only to later learn that agents reportedly didn't think he'd lied. And Strzok was the "top" FBI agent appointed to work on the team of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion.

The earth-shattering finding on Strzok by the inspector general (IG) confirms a citizenry's worst fears: A high-ranking government intel official allegedly conspired to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

It's also directly relevant to the FBI investigations of Trump-Russia collusion, which the IG did not examine in this report. There are multiple allegations of FBI misbehavior in that inquiry, including conspiracies to frame Trump, and improper spying on Trump associates. Investigating those allegations takes on an added sense of urgency with news that the FBI's top counterespionage official expressed willingness to use his official position against a political enemy.


Yet, for all of that, Strzok is still collecting a salary, courtesy of taxpayers, at the FBI Human Resources Department. And here's the chilling part: If it weren't for the IG's investigation, requested by Congress, he'd likely still be helping lead special counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump today.

An attorney for Strzok reportedly says Strzok is willing to answer calls to testify to Congress because he "thinks that his position, character and actions have all been misrepresented and caricatured and he wants an opportunity to remedy that."


The IG says he cannot be certain that all of Strzok's text messages were recovered; Strzok has said his texts were not nefarious and his investigations were always fair. Here's a small sampling of texts and timeline notes (full timeline here):

Aug. 8, 2016:


FBI Attorney Lisa Page, who also worked on Special Counsel Mueller's team: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"

Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Aug. 15, 2016:

Strzok: "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 ... It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

Late August 2016:

Reportedly working for the FBI, Professor Stefan Halper, a reputed one-time CIA operative, meets with Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to the Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

Somewhere around this time, the FBI initiates a new wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at least through early 2017.

September 2016:

Former British spy Christopher Steele, hired by private research firm Fusion GPS to investigate the Trump campaign, becomes an FBI source and uses Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr as a point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate" that Trump not get elected.

President Obama warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election.

Sept. 2, 2016:

FBI attorney Lisa Page texts Strzok that "[President Obama] wants to know everything we're doing."

Nov. 3, 2016:

Page texts Strzok: "The [New York Times] probability numbers are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."

March 14, 2017:

Page texts Strzok: "Finally two pages away from finishing ["All the President's Men"]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"

Strzok:"What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky."



May 22, 2017:

Strzok texts about "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email probe and states: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also refers to the special counsel probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment" but also states he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there."

The IG's report found that:



- Strzok showed bias in his decision to prioritize the Trump-Russia investigation over the Clinton probe.

- His texts "potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made [re: Clinton and Trump-Russia probes] were impacted by bias or improper considerations," "appeared to mix political opinions with discussions about" the Clinton classified email probe, and included "statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton.

- "Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the [Trump]-Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review."

- Strzok had a "biased state of mind but, even more seriously ... a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects" and demonstrated behavior "antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice."



- He brought "discredit" to himself, "sowed doubt about the FBI's handling" of the Clinton classified email probe and "impacted the reputation of the FBI."

- The damage "extends far beyond the scope" of the Clinton probe and "goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral fact-finding and political independence."

- He showed "extremely poor judgment" and "a gross lack of professionalism."

- He used personal digital accounts for FBI business.

If you're still not sure what to think, read the IG report for yourself: https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download.


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/393857-what-did-peter-strzok-do?amp&__twitter_impression=trueSo he didn't actually do anything wrong besides meanie texts.

[Spurminator]

All they have are texts that everyone agrees were unprofessional and gave the appearance of bias.

Unfortunately people like TSA have spent so much free time trying to build this up as a conspiracy bigger than 911 and Watergate combined that they have deluded themselves into thinking that anti-Trump texts mean anti-Trump work. They'd believe a toll booth operator who sent a "fuck DJT" text is a threat to block a Presidential motorcade from passing. It actually has chilling free speech implications which they would surely bukkake themselves over if the parties in this scandal were reversed.

[Chris]

^has no idea what is going on

[Pavlov]

^has no idea what is going onWhat's going on, Chris?

Let everyone know what's going on.

[Chris]

What's going on, Chris?

Let everyone know what's going on.

What were you confused about?

[Pavlov]

What were you confused about?

Question pending, Chris.

[Chris]

Question pending, Chris.

I need clarification so I can give an honest answer. What were you confused about?

[Pavlov]

You said this:
^has no idea what is going on
So what's really going on?

[djohn2oo8]

I need clarification so I can give an honest answer. What were you confused about?

You need clarification on what you need to explain yourself?

[Chris]

You said this:
So what's really going on?

What were you confused about?

[Chris]

You need clarification on what you need to explain yourself?

Question pending.

[djohn2oo8]

Question pending.

Your stupidity trending.

[Pavlov]

What were you confused about? You're the one that is confused.

You have no idea what is going on.

[Chris]

Your stupidity trending.

You dodging questions and logging off trending.

[Chris]

You're the one is confus d.

You have no idea what is going on.

Do what? :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Your stupidity trending.