Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

FISA memo set to end collusion investigation

2,151 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Lilly

When people go to great lengths to hide things you know what they are up to generally isn't good. 

IMO this will all come out in the wash (so to speak). I wonder what Mr Preistap is currently up to? I wonder what IG Horowitz has uncovered? There are a lot of unanswered questions...when it's all laid out I suspect it will be shocking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Well, actually nothing has been refuted as we are still in discovery and every day looks darker for the suspects.  Once again I will ask for links as you offer no examples of what was refuted much less some kind of evidence of said refuted evidence.  Basically we have your fantasies of refutation while everyone else posts some kind of research.

Refuted was the wrong word. I should have said disputed. 

And we'll see once the Dem memo is released whether or not there was other evidence presented. But we do know for certain that the political nature of the Dossier was disclosed. Nunes himself admitted to this live on Fox last week. There were footnotes.

13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yeah, here we go again, no evidence or even a clue as to what you are talking about.  Please explain fully and maybe back it  up with some kind of information.

You're claiming that the dossier cannot be used because it was created as opposition research and I assume you think it was tainted. I was trying to show you that, in a criminal case, where evidence came from - as long as it was obtained legally - doesn't matter. It cannot simply be ignored because you don't like the source.

13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I haven't a clue what you are talking about.  I realize it is verylate in Scotland but come on!

It's called an analogy and it was presented to allow you to see the fallacy of the argument I mentioned in my previous paragraph in this reply.

13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I'm nit sure what you are talking about.  Now I am remebereing why I put your rambling self on ignore.  Okay EMM time to back up your claims please. ot t east explain what you are talking about.

That you're unable to follow the simple conversation is down to your inability to understand, not down to me being unable to explain. 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.

One memo released - one more to go. Seems Tyrion also agrees.... :wub:

DT8f_X28_X4_AAMQv_R.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Here are three short videos that do a great job of clearly explaining what is going on in this mess:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
46 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Here are three short videos that do a great job of clearly explaining what is going on in this mess:

 

Wow Merc, that's some crazy stuff.

Even dems admit not all the dossier was verified. (not that any of it was) That alone is a crime. Why the hell are people not in jail?? Sessions needs to be fired like yesterday. There is no doubt what so ever that he is a big fat swamp rat. You know Trump is just dying to fire him, I don't see why he doesn't just do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
17 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Wow Merc, that's some crazy stuff.

Even dems admit not all the dossier was verified. (not that any of it was) That alone is a crime. Why the hell are people not in jail?? Sessions needs to be fired like yesterday. There is no doubt what so ever that he is a big fat swamp rat. You know Trump is just dying to fire him, I don't see why he doesn't just do it.

DiGenova does a great job of laying it all out and explaining it piece by piece.  Honestly I don't know why there hasn't been a Special Prosecutor appointed so he/she could drag these crooks into court, put them under oath and grill them  (DiGenova would be a good choice BTW) but all I can think of is that they are waiting until Horowitz drops his report so they can clearly show criminal behavior and thereby neutralize the democrat/media whining and protesting.  A damning report will put the democrats in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.  The SP will have to be someone who can stand up to the attacks the entire leftist machine will launch at them and there again DiGenova is a good choice as he was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the democrat darlings, the Teamster union. https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/february-2013-legends-in-the-law.cfm  

Of course, we don't know what is in that report, it could be a big nothing burger but all indications are it is the exact opposite.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Chairman Goodlatte and Rep. Trey Gowdy have requested a Special Counsel for this case when they discovered that IG Horowitz would not have access to at least 24 witnesses.  

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/06/chairman-bob-goodlatte-and-chairman-trey-gowdy-request-doj-special-counsel/

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has direct oversight authority over the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Courts. Within this oversight, the House Judiciary Committee also has oversight over the FISA court. Additionally, in his current oversight role, Chairman Goodlatte has been working closely with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Today Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Representative Trey Gowdy pen a letter (full pdf below) to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting the appointment of a special counsel to investigate “conflicts of interest” and decisions “made and not made” by current and former Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, noting that “the public interest requires” the action.

“What changed for me was the knowledge that there are two dozen witnesses that Michael Horowitz, the [DOJ] Inspector General, would not have access to,” Gowdy said. “When I counted up 24 witnesses that he would not be able to access were he to investigate it, yeah only one conclusion, that’s special counsel.”

 

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, preacherman76 said:

Even dems admit not all the dossier was verified. (not that any of it was) That alone is a crime

What exactly is a crime? 

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, preacherman76 said:

Why the hell are people not in jail??

Because the right wing media has nothing but conspiracy theories. 

 

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, preacherman76 said:

Sessions needs to be fired like yesterday. There is no doubt what so ever that he is a big fat swamp rat. You know Trump is just dying to fire him, I don't see why he doesn't just do it.

While I agree Sessions is one of the worst humans alive he is actually the patriot in this scenario protecting the nation from complete politicization of the nation's law enforcement agencies. 

You're basically rooting for Trump to do exactly what it is the media has convinced you the democrats did. 

Trump hasn't fired him because he knows that would be the death knell for his presidency, aside from Nunes the rest of the party would turn on him as it would be an indefensible act at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Jim Sessions has actually appointed a Prosecutor from "outside Washington DC" to investigate the FISA abuse issue.  This would indicate criminal activity has occurred because the IG is obligated to inform the Attorney General when he discovers criminal activity in the course of an investigation.  President Trump would not be aware of this prosecutor because even though the DoJ is under the executive the President, in this case, is the victim of the crime and therefore must be kept at arms length. That congress (Gowdy, Nunes and Goodlatte) wasn't aware of of this DoJ prosecutor is an indicator that the witnesses are cooperating.  Go to the 15 second mark.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Jim Sessions has actually appointed a Prosecutor from "outside Washington DC" to investigate the FISA abuse issue.  This would indicate criminal activity has occurred because the IG is obligated to inform the Attorney General when he discovers criminal activity in the course of an investigation.  President Trump would not be aware of this prosecutor because even though the DoJ is under the executive the President, in this case, is the victim of the crime and therefore must be kept at arms length. That congress (Gowdy, Nunes and Goodlatte) wasn't aware of of this DoJ prosecutor is an indicator that the witnesses are cooperating.  Go to the 15 second mark.

 

Interesting. I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Interesting. I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

The prosecutor and IG would work in parallel so I'd expect kick off for all this will be the day the IG drops his report, which should be very soon as March/April has always been the target date.  I am guessing Strzok, Page, Preistap, and Ohr are all cooperating as they have testimony in the Nunes report but have never been interviewed by any congressional committee.  If I am right about that then there are probably a lot of people lawyering up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I want to be clear about what I think here, the DoJ prosecutor is probably investigating whether a Special Counsel should be appointed and in all likelihood, not prosecuting, but I may be wrong,we'll find out soon though.  Why I think this is that in order to appoint a Special Counsel you need criminality and a conflict of interest, which appears to be the case here, and  something that was sadly lacking when Mueller was appointed (zero criminality, questionable conflict of interest) and I believe that is what the prosecutor is looking at and he will give his recommendation(s) to Sessions.  I expect that is all we will get from this prosecutor but the reasoning will be frank and self evident because the dems will go ballistic. 

Why Sessions is being so quiet is that he stated, early on, that he was going to end the politicization and grand standing of the the DoJ that we saw under Holder and, to a lesser degree, Lynch.  He also said he would not talk about ongoing investigations until they became public, which is now happening. 

I can't back up anything I post here as they are nothing more than my opinions so please don't ask for links unless you can't find the base stories yourself (why are you reading here if that is the case?).  I believe March is going to be a very active month and April likely more so as many more investigations come to light (Uranium One, remember that).  If I am wrong feel free to hammer me but let's wait until May

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

It is being reported by Sara Carter that Mueller has handed over all evidence connected with the Flynn case to Judge Sullivan as ordered by the judge shortly after he took over the case from Judge Contreras who was recused for unknown reasons.  https://saraacarter.com/mueller-madness-special-counsel-hands-over-all-evidence-on-mike-flynn/  

Judge Contreras accepted the Flynn guilty plea on December 3rd and was recused from the case on December 7th.  One mystery that may be abswered is why Flynn would lead guilty to lying to a federal agent when Comey testifed before congress that the agents in the case did not feel Flynn was lying to them.   If what Comey stated is true and it turns out that Mueller failed to turn this information over to Flynn's lawyer (Mueller and Weissman have a history of withholding evidence) then Flynn may pull his guilty plea as sentencing had previously been delayed at the prosecutor and defense attorney's request.  All is speculation at this point and this may be nothing but a routine process for Judge Sullivan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
53 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

It is being reported by Sara Carter that Mueller has handed over all evidence connected with the Flynn case to Judge Sullivan as ordered by the judge shortly after he took over the case from Judge Contreras who was recused for unknown reasons.  https://saraacarter.com/mueller-madness-special-counsel-hands-over-all-evidence-on-mike-flynn/  

Judge Contreras accepted the Flynn guilty plea on December 3rd and was recused from the case on December 7th.  One mystery that may be abswered is why Flynn would lead guilty to lying to a federal agent when Comey testifed before congress that the agents in the case did not feel Flynn was lying to them.   If what Comey stated is true and it turns out that Mueller failed to turn this information over to Flynn's lawyer (Mueller and Weissman have a history of withholding evidence) then Flynn may pull his guilty plea as sentencing had previously been delayed at the prosecutor and defense attorney's request.  All is speculation at this point and this may be nothing but a routine process for Judge Sullivan.

Flynn won't need to pull his guilty plea...it will be thrown out by Judge Sullivan.

Flynn will be completely exonerated.

Bolton is a short-term seat-warmer.

Edited by hacktorp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
27 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Flynn won't need to pull his guilty plea...it will be thrown out by Judge Sullivan.

Flynn will be completely exonerated.

 

I remember that Judge Sulllivan included a statement on his order allowing Flynn to rescind his plea if new evidence warranted it (not exact words, don't have the link now).  This was considered unusual in that pleas are usually iron clad and once one is entered the case is decided so they couldn't just throw it out .  If memory serves then what would happen if Flynn rescinds his plea is Sullivan rejects or accepts and Mueller can take him to trial for lying to a federal agent (ridiculous since the agents stated he didn't do so, presumably) or drop that case and go after him for something else, which isn't likely since he'd have done that in the first place rather than get him on this this lying charge.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

Flynn won't need to pull his guilty plea...it will be thrown out by Judge Sullivan.

Flynn will be completely exonerated.

Bolton is a short-term seat-warmer.

Flynn likely has no intention of getting rid of those pleas. See, they were a plea down as part of a deal made with the SC. The whole reason he pled guilty was because they were the lesser charges. Those charges being dropped would royally **** him, but you guys just keep hanging on to that thread. I'm sure there's no chance of you falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Yeah, I am curious myself as to what the charges were that he accepted the plea to escape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Yeah, I am curious myself as to what the charges were that he accepted the plea to escape. 

Generally a prosecutor will only use this charge when they have nothing else to charge someone with and both Mueller and Weissman have both been thoroughly disgraced before for withholding exculpatory evidence and/or other ethics issues but hey, we are all speculating at this point and will know soon enough I am guessing.

https://saraacarter.com/questions-still-surround-robert-muellers-boston-past/

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/andrew_weissmann_robert_muellers_dirty_cop.html

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Flynn likely has no intention of getting rid of those pleas. See, they were a plea down as part of a deal made with the SC. The whole reason he pled guilty was because they were the lesser charges. Those charges being dropped would royally **** him, but you guys just keep hanging on to that thread. I'm sure there's no chance of you falling.

Bunkum and balderdash.  If the judge throws out Flynn's guilty plea (and he will), the entire phony investigation of Flynn (and all "evidence" collected) by Mueller gets tossed as well.

Mueller never had a strong case against Flynn and it certainly doesn't get stronger with the Judge tossing out Flynn's plea...it dies the ignominious death it richly deserves.

Flynn will be completely exonerated; the case against him exposed as a frame-up; and Flynn invited back to the White House to the horror of thousands of Dems and Rinos.

Bank on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
36 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Bunkum and balderdash.  If the judge throws out Flynn's guilty plea (and he will), the entire phony investigation of Flynn (and all "evidence" collected) by Mueller gets tossed as well.

Mueller never had a strong case against Flynn and it certainly doesn't get stronger with the Judge tossing out Flynn's plea...it dies the ignominious death it richly deserves.

Flynn will be completely exonerated; the case against him exposed as a frame-up; and Flynn invited back to the White House to the horror of thousands of Dems and Rinos.

Bank on it.

EMM is clueless so I wouldn't  bother arguing with him.  The problem  with dropping the charges is Flynn already pled guilty which means Mueller has the case locked up.  Judge Sullivan, inserting the caveat that Flynn can vacate his plea, is what is important here but there must be evidence Flynn's attorney('s) were not aware of.  We don't know that is the case now but given the players and Mueller's abject failure as a Special Counsel, to date, I would guess that Flynn walks with no charges and Mueller will be greatly weakened

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
22 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The problem  with dropping the charges is Flynn already pled guilty which means Mueller has the case locked up.

I'm not so sure the case is locked up:

Quote

Judge Sullivan wants to know all about the relationship between Judge Rudy Contreras, who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, and Peter Strzok, the FBI attorney whose interview with Flynn led to the charges. Contreras’ friendship with Strzok was exposed in text messages sent to and from the FBI agent and his paramour Lisa Page.

Immediately after accepting Flynn’s guilty plea, Contreras recused himself from the case.

Sullivan also wants to know about the basis for the FISA warrant to surveil Flynn in the first place, which Judge Contreras also signed, largely based on the ill-famed dossier. The special counsel’s office did not tell the court, as it applied for a FISA warrant, that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary campaign and the Democratic Party.

Sullivan has a history of tossing convictions where exculpatory material was not given to the defendant. 

And, Mueller has withheld exculpatory evidence in the past. That may have been a factor in raising Judge Sullivan’s suspicions.

If the evidence Mueller has had to turn over shows a close enough relationship between Judge Contreras and FBI agent Peter Strzok or finds that the prosecution of Flynn was based on an improper reliance on the dossier in the first place, Flynn will probably seek to withdraw his guilty plea and the case against him is unlikely to survive.

And Mueller may not survive either.

https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-big-blow-to-mueller-flynn-may-walk/

Edited by hacktorp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
10 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Good point but I am not sure there was a plea in the other cases where the defendant agreed to forego any further discovery of evidence.  The only reason I brougt it up is Judge Sullivan's inclusion of the statement that Flynn was now allowed to request the withdrawal of his agreed upon plea. Why include that if the Judge was deciding things anyway?  From what I have read teh lower courts are split when a defendant pleas guilty and it is found that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence.  Would Mueller decide to take it to the SCOTUS?  Who knows, the man is a menace for sure and completely out of control.  

A couple of things that article got wrong is that Sullivan regularly orders the prosecutor to provide exculpatory evidence so it isn't unusual but what is unusual is that everything questionable is going through the judge himself, in other words it isn't up to Mueller to decide what is relevant or not.  The second thing, and this is important, is that Contreras did NOT recuse himself voluntarily he was either recused by an outside authority or that outside authority ordered him to recuse himslef (the difference is irrelevant to anyone but a pedantic).  What happened between December 2nd when he accepted Flynn's plea and December 7th when he was recused from the case?  Likely nothing, the conflict existed before the plea deal was accepted and it may therefore be null and void.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

General Flynn may very well be able to extricate himself from the plea deal.

Now, Manafort and Gates are most certainly guilty of criminal business dealings. They very well may have been dealing with Russians in other criminal matters as well. However, their guilt  does little to provide some sort of 'proof' that Trump criminally colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Unless Mueller has something else we're all unaware of then this investigation won't pan out in that regard anyway.

As for the FISA abuse question, there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence supporting the abuse allegations. More evidence should be coming out in the near future. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Sen Chuck Grassley has asked Rod Rosenstein, once again, if he has given Mueller independent FISA authority.  If he has, and so far Rosenstein refuses to respond, it is a massive breach of the law.  In May he asked the same question

grassley-question-7.jpg?w=640

No response from Rosenstein.  

Here is the letter

https://www.scribd.com/document/379653813/Grassley-Letter-to-Rosenstein-May-17-2018-Special-Counsel-Investigation-Questions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=725X700959X1335bd94c29db427a706a3a3f5e1d3cf&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

Expect big fireworks as the OIG preliminary review reportedly states:

"IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution."  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-17/inspector-general-finds-fbi-doj-broke-law-clinton-email-probe-refers-criminal

Twiitter feed from investigative reporter Paul Sperry and yes is is speculation but I doubt it is false.  If you want to do so, however, please be especially derisive, I hate searching to bring back past wrong statements so fresh wrong statements, especially the derisive kind, are always appreciated. ;)  The final report should be out by the end of May (that is my time line, you know who, so no need to ask again) and then you can start spinning the disaster any way you want.   

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Sen Chuck Grassley has asked Rod Rosenstein, once again, if he has given Mueller independent FISA authority.  If he has, and so far Rosenstein refuses to respond, it is a massive breach of the law.  In May he asked the same question

grassley-question-7.jpg?w=640

No response from Rosenstein.  

Here is the letter

https://www.scribd.com/document/379653813/Grassley-Letter-to-Rosenstein-May-17-2018-Special-Counsel-Investigation-Questions?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=725X700959X1335bd94c29db427a706a3a3f5e1d3cf&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate

Expect big fireworks as the OIG preliminary review reportedly states:

"IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution."  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-17/inspector-general-finds-fbi-doj-broke-law-clinton-email-probe-refers-criminal

Twiitter feed from investigative reporter Paul Sperry and yes is is speculation but I doubt it is false.  If you want to do so, however, please be especially derisive, I hate searching to bring back past wrong statements so fresh wrong statements, especially the derisive kind, are always appreciated. ;)  The final report should be out by the end of May (that is my time line, you know who, so no need to ask again) and then you can start spinning the disaster any way you want.   

Hang on you're somewhat misrepresenting the facts here :lol:

The bolded is a quote from a Ruport Murdoch employed journalist who made that claim in a tweet with ZERO other information. Not actually information from Horowitz himself. 

Now that I think about it its a claim about a document that the source material for the article you posted says anyone who saw had to sign an NDA. Wouldn't that mean that there's a "leaker" ?  Shouldn't you be mad about that like you are all the others ?   :lol:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.