Russia probes kick into high gear

[Harte]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Between classification issues and an ongoing criminal investigation(s) I don't think he can tell us anything anyways can he?

 

Well, he actually says he can, or will.

Harte

[skliss]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Between classification issues and an ongoing criminal investigation(s) I don't think he can tell us anything anyways can he?

 

That's an easy way for all of them to insinuate anything they want and produce nothing. Again...why they are all so annoying..argh...lol

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

The "I can't remember" defense covers it.

If you're too stupid to use it, then you're Lil Kim.

Harte

I don't see how it's possible to convict anyone of perjury, on the basis of something they've omitted to say.

[ExpandMyMind]

The Latest: AP source says McCabe kept notes on Trump

[bee]

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I don't see how it's possible to convict anyone of perjury, on the basis of something they've omitted to say.

 

obstruction of justice then if it's omission rather than outright lying ? - whatever it was it was enough to get him fired
so there must be something solid... 

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, bee said:

obstruction of justice then if it's omission rather than outright lying ? - whatever it was it was enough to get him fired
so there must be something solid... 

Given the expedited nature of McCabe's firing -- I'm not so sure. Still waiting to see the details.

[ExpandMyMind]

Mueller gives Trump's legal team questions for potential interview: report

Quote

It was after his legal team received the questions that Trump launched into a series of tweets, in which he denied that his campaign coordinated with Moscow during the 2016 election and lambasted Mueller's investigation as unnecessary.

 

In one Saturday night tweet, Trump asserted that Mueller's investigation should never have been opened in the first place, because there was "no collusion" and "no crime."

That tweet came hours after John Dowd, one of the president's lawyers, called on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Russia investigation, to shutter the probe. 

The statement from Dowd was unusual for an attorney who has repeatedly insisted that Trump and the White House cooperate with Mueller's investigation in hopes that it would come to a natural end.

So he gets the answers to the test and still loses his ****? 

Any innocent person would run through those questions and tick them off, no problem. Reading them and then going on a Twitter rampage along with the lawyer not so subtly telling the Deputy AG to fire Mueller, is not the reaction of someone with nothing to hide. He knows he's screwed.

[Harte]

14 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I don't see how it's possible to convict anyone of perjury, on the basis of something they've omitted to say.

I haven't seen the testimony, so is that what it is?

You can't be convicted of perjury unless your lie is material to the case.

You can lie all day under oath and as long as it doesn't affect the case you're testifying about you won't even be charged.

If his testimony wasn't about his own activities (but he lied about them,) and those activities were not what the investigation was about, then there's no perjury case anyway.

Harte

[preacherman76]

He was fired under the recommendation of the FBI its self. So.......

[Baz Dane]

20 hours ago, Tiggs said:

The former director of the CIA, ladies and gentlemen.

Looks as if the gloves are about to come off.

 

Re: bolded...

Ummm yeah... the Former CIA Director... yet another proven liar

 

Quote

 

- "In March, at the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA Director John Brennan was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers “to thwart an investigation by the committee into” the agency’s past interrogation techniques. The accusation had been made earlier that day by Sen. Dianne Feinstein..."

 

- "Brennan answered:
As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn’t do that."

 

- "CIA Director John O. Brennan has apologized to leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee after an agency investigation determined that its employees improperly searched computers used by committee staff to review classified files on interrogations of prisoners"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/?utm_term=.9f6f6dca594f

 

Quote

 

- "CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate. Fire him"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate

 

Quote

 

- "CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief’s ouster"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24771274.html

 

 

 

And that's not the first time Brennan has sold B.S. to the public...

 

Quote

 

- "In the original account of the firefight, John Brennan, a US counter-terrorism official briefing the media, said "There was family at that compound, and there was a female who was, in fact, in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield Osama from the incoming fire"

 

- "However US officials have now conceded that Bin Laden was not armed during the assault, did not fire back and that his wife was only injured in the assault..."

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8489658/Osama-bin-Laden-was-not-armed-and-did-not-use-wife-as-human-shield.html

 

 

You can believe Brennan all you want, but IMO, he's just another one of the gang that's lied through their teeth to the public, in order to "toe the company line".

 

***************************************************************

 

Just like Robert Mueller, who as Director of the FBI, hid a Saudi FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, from the 9/11 Commission who had a Congressional subpoena to interview him. But Mueller hid him away anyways from 9/11 Commission member Michael Jacobson and his staff "for his own safety"(Abdussattar's)...

"Safety", from the 9/11 Commission???

 

For those who don't know who Adbussattar Shaikh is ...

 

Abdussattar Shaikh was an FBI informant from 1994 and on, who had 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, living with him in San Diego but didn't tell his FBI handler anything about the 2 soon to be hijackers.

 

al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar are also the 2 hijackers who the CIA knew entered the U.S. over a year before 9/11, but withheld that information from the FBI until mere weeks before 9/11.(or so the official story goes)

 

Those 2 hijackers ALSO happen to be the 2 hijackers that are linked to Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, who had tens of thousands of dollars flowing to the 2 hijackers, through his wife's account and Saudi operatives Osama Basnan and Omar al-Bayoumi, as finally confirmed with the partial release of the infamous 28 Pages("partial" as there's loads of material STILL redacted in it)

 

***************************************************************

 

Then there's the same Robert Mueller-led FBI, that also kept the existence of 80,266 pages of 9/11 investigative material from a Sarasota Florida investigation hidden, not only from the public, but also from both the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11 AND the 9/11 Commission ... something Senator Bob Graham, who Chaired the Congressional Inquiry, has testified to.

That only came to light thankfully in 2011 after FIOA suits were filed, and the FBI at first denied to the courts that there were any such documents... then they said they found 31 pages of material... but under court order and a threat of obstruction, the FBI finally "discovered"  80,266 pages of Sarasota Fl, 9/11 related investigative material which was then handed over to the courts in 2013.

 

Those 80,000+ pages are currently still being reviewed for release by U.S. District Court William J Zloch, and the FIOA suit is still ongoing.

 

***************************************************************

 

THAT, was Robert Mueller's FBI...

passed on to James Comey... who's FBI, uhem... "investigated"... Hillary Clinton's server scandal... and we all have seen how that one played out...

 

The same James Comey who investigated the Clinton's once before in 1996, and... according to Time magazine...

 

Quote

 

- "In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement [...] Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

 

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

 

(highlights mine)

Comey, when he was United States Deputy Attorney General(2003-2005), was ALSO involved in getting former Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, off the hook after Berger stole Clinton-related documents from the National Archives 3 different times, destroying some, back in 2003.

In 2005, Berger, with a plea deal worked out with the DOJ, ended up with probation, fines, and no security clearance for 3 years, instead of 10 years in prison under USC 793(f) like they were originally planning on charging him under... he "made on honest mistake" he said... an "honest mistake" THREE times mind you... Good job Comey

During this time(2005 era - Berger's plea deal), future U.S. "Atarmac General", Loretta Lynch, who Bill Clinton had successfully nominated as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York way back in 1999, was a Partner at Hogan and Hartson... a company that was doing the Clinton's taxes from 2004 and on, at least until 2009.

***************************************************************

When you do some digging, all I see are Lies, Conflicts of Interests, Cover-Ups and so on by all these people... and so many more

They been covering and protecting each other for decades now and I'm expected to believe we'll get anything resembling the truth out of this current Mueller "investigation"?

I have my doubts to be sure.

[ian hacktorp]

Former Ambassador to the UN under Obama, Samantha Power yesterday issued a threat (via Twitter) to Trump and the DOJ:

"Not a good idea to p*** off John Brennan"

What??  Who the hell is John Brennan?  Apparently, he is regarded by some as the most powerful man in the world.  Who knew?

So, just to update the record, the Democrats, Leftists, and Never-Trumpers have hitched their wagon to a dark, secretive, career spook, with traitorous loyalties who derives limitless power from unseen sources and who was never elected by any democratic process whatsoever.  Okay.

The gloves ARE off.  At least it's becoming clear exactly who and what we are fighting against.

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by hacktorp

[Tiggs]

7 hours ago, Harte said:

I haven't seen the testimony, so is that what it is?

You can't be convicted of perjury unless your lie is material to the case.

You can lie all day under oath and as long as it doesn't affect the case you're testifying about you won't even be charged.

If his testimony wasn't about his own activities (but he lied about them,) and those activities were not what the investigation was about, then there's no perjury case anyway.

Harte

As far as I understand it -- lack of candor is omission of information.

I would have expected him to have been charged with falsification, if they had something they could point to which was a definite lie.

[RAyMO]

Just read donald's most recent twit on the issue - me thinks he doth protest too much. There is something he is eager to keep from public knowledge, even I suspect if it means him losing the Republican party.

Donald Trump berates Mueller's 'biased' Russia inquiry

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by RAyMO

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Former Ambassador to the UN under Obama, Samantha Power yesterday issued a threat (via Twitter) to Trump and the DOJ:

"Not a good idea to p*** off John Brennan"

What??  Who the hell is John Brennan?  Apparently, he is regarded by some as the most powerful man in the world.  Who knew?

So, just to update the record, the Democrats, Leftists, and Never-Trumpers have hitched their wagon to a dark, secretive, career spook, with traitorous loyalties who derives limitless power from unseen sources and who was never elected by any democratic process whatsoever.  Okay.

The gloves ARE off.  At least it's becoming clear exactly who and what we are fighting against.

I'd assume it's not a good idea to p*** off any former CIA director. 

[ian hacktorp]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'd assume it's not a good idea to p*** off any former CIA director. 

Why would you make such an assumption?

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Why would you make such an assumption?

Because I have a fully functioning brain.

[ian hacktorp]

Just now, ExpandMyMind said:

Because I have a fully functioning brain.

Lol...you're using all of it to evade my question.  You must be tired now...

[ExpandMyMind]

19 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Lol...you're using all of it to evade my question.  You must be tired now...

Well, if you're going to pretend that you can't figure out why it might not be a good idea to be on the wrong side of a person who was the head of the most powerful foreign intelligence agency in the world, then my response would seem to be rather suitable.

Edited March 18, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[ian hacktorp]

ExpandMyMind:

Brennan's current job is as a CNN commentator.  His role as CIA director has ended.

I'm looking for reasons why any remaining omnipotent power he has is even remotely legitimate.

Got any?

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by hacktorp

[Tiggs]

57 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Former Ambassador to the UN under Obama, Samantha Power yesterday issued a threat (via Twitter) to Trump and the DOJ:

"Not a good idea to p*** off John Brennan"

What??  Who the hell is John Brennan?  Apparently, he is regarded by some as the most powerful man in the world.  Who knew?

So, just to update the record, the Democrats, Leftists, and Never-Trumpers have hitched their wagon to a dark, secretive, career spook, with traitorous loyalties who derives limitless power from unseen sources and who was never elected by any democratic process whatsoever.  Okay.

The gloves ARE off.  At least it's becoming clear exactly who and what we are fighting against.

Care to expand on "traitorous loyalties"?

Presumably "limitless power from unseen sources" is a nod to Satan, for any evangelicals tuning in.

And God forbid, obviously, that a CIA Director should ever be appointed as per the Constitution.

Trump kicked off a war with the US Intelligence Community from day one.

Should have been fairly obvious that fight would include the Director of the CIA that Trump replaced.

[ian hacktorp]

9 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Care to expand on "traitorous loyalties"?

Presumably "limitless power from unseen sources" is a nod to Satan, for any evangelicals tuning in.

And God forbid, obviously, that a CIA Director should ever be appointed as per the Constitution.

Trump kicked off a war with the US Intelligence Community from day one.

Should have been fairly obvious that fight would include the Director of the CIA that Trump replaced.

Brennan has LONG been accused of loyalty to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as groups like Muslim Brotherhood.  But for the purpose of this discussion, committing fraudulent acts to bring down a US President will suffice as a "traitorous loyalty".

Further, perhaps you could find for us where in the Constitution it says that power obtained via Executive appointment is retained upon dismissal and available for use to sabotage the next Commander in Chief.  Take your time.

[Tiggs]

Just now, hacktorp said:

Brennan has LONG been accused of loyalty to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as groups like Muslim Brotherhood.  But for the purpose of this discussion, committing fraudulent acts to bring down a US President will suffice as a "traitorous loyalty".

Which "fraudulent acts" do you believe he's committed?
 

Just now, hacktorp said:

Further, perhaps you could find for us where in the Constitution it says that power obtained via Executive appointment is retained upon dismissal and available for use to sabotage the next Commander in Chief.  Take your time.

Don't recall ever claiming that. Perhaps you could show me where you think I did?

[ian hacktorp]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Which "fraudulent acts" do you believe he's committed?

The FISA fraud fiasco will land Brennan and a passel of others in federal prison.  You will be able to send your letters of support to Guantanamo.

[Tiggs]

Just now, hacktorp said:

The FISA fraud fiasco will land Brennan and a passel of others in federal prison.  You will be able to send your letters of support to Guantanamo.

What does Brennan have to do with Carter Page's FISA application?

[ian hacktorp]

7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

What does Brennan have to do with Carter Page's FISA application?

Brennan is being investigated for lying under oath regarding what he knew about the Steele dossier.  He claimed to know nothing.

He is guilty of perjury at the very least.

Quote

“several Capitol Hill sources say Brennan, a fiercely loyal Obama appointee, talked up the dossier to Democratic leaders, as well as the press, during the campaign. They say he also fed allegations about Trump-Russia contacts directly to the FBI, while pressuring the bureau to conduct an investigation of several Trump campaign figures starting in the summer of 2016.”

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/did-john-brennan-perjure-himself-over-steele-dossier/