Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

[Harte]

It makes sense to me.

But I don't know what precedents have been set regarding criminal investigations.

Could be a suspected crime has been committed and needs to be investigated.

Harte

[Merc14]

23 minutes ago, Harte said:

It makes sense to me.

But I don't know what precedents have been set regarding criminal investigations.

Could be a suspected crime has been committed and needs to be investigated.

Harte

He should have had a a crime delineated in his orders but there was none because after 8-9 months of looking the FBI couldn't find anything, hence Strzok's answer to Page re. if he would join Mueller's team, "Why, there is no there, there."   Rosenstein told him to fish basically.  Why he did this is unknown, maybe he is crooked too or maybe he folded under the enormous pressure from the irate democrats. 

Personally I think Rosenstein was in on it but nit sure if he joined the team because he was snookered by the crooks or was a bad guy like Strzok. I am starting  to lean towards the former.

My this thread has grown quite. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Merc14

[Merc14]

On 4/24/2019 at 1:48 PM, Einsteinium said:

Oh Merc. It will be funny to watch you squirm when none of the people who started the investigations into Trump are found to be guilty of anything.

It will also be funny to watch you squirm when the House starts digging into Trumps finances and find evidence of numerous financial crimes.

Trump IS a criminal, not because of the Mueller report but because of his past history of fraud, failing to pay his contractors, tax evasion, etc. That will all start to come to light when the dems dig into his finances. 

By the way, Mueller did NOT actually dig into Trumps finances. It appears Mueller ended his investigation early because he did not have the support of Barr to continue even though there are a great many stones left unturned.

Oh, I will take great joy in watching you squirm and reach for new insane conspiracy theories to explain away the stuff that is coming.

I just wanted to bring this one back so we can reference it over the next few months.  (Bolding mine)

Edited May 14, 2019 by Merc14

[Vorg]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-assigns-us-attorney-in-connecticut-to-review-origins-of-russia-inquiry/ar-AABjF9U?li=BBnb7Kz

 

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

 

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

[Amita]

Mr Steele &  helpful State Dept. lassie:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/memo-shows-steele-revealed-bias-ahead-of-fisa-warrant_2922391.html

[+and-then]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-us-attorney-connecticut-surveillance-trump-campaign 

Seems Barr might actually be serious.  That's a very good thing.

[Merc14]

22 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-assigns-us-attorney-in-connecticut-to-review-origins-of-russia-inquiry/ar-AABjF9U?li=BBnb7Kz

 

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

Nadler is trying to destroy Barr because he knows just how corrupt Obama's administration was and just how bad they will be hurt.  The MSM, the DNC and certain poster s here have got to be "squirming" about now.  What is truly mysterious is Comey is still making the rounds extolling the virtues of "his FBI".   He recently stated he was very proud of how the FBI behaved.  Lock him up.

1 minute ago, Amita said:

Mr Steele &  helpful State Dept. lassie:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/memo-shows-steele-revealed-bias-ahead-of-fisa-warrant_2922391.html

This is really bad, they all knew Steele's dossier was absolute garbage and they still used it to get a FISA warrant.  That is jail time right there.  If no one is thrown in jail we should all be "squirming" because this republic is over, which I am sure people like the guy I quoted a few posts backhas no problem with

 

------

[+and-then]

Just now, Merc14 said:

Nadler is trying to destroy Barr because he knows just how corrupt Obama's administration was and just how bad they will be hurt.  The MSM, the DNC and certain poster s here have got to be "squirming" about now.  What is truly mysterious is Comey is still making the rounds extolling the virtues of "his FBI".   He recently stated he was very proud of how the FBI behaved.  Lock him up.

This is really bad, they all knew Steele's dossier was absolute garbage and they still used it to get a FISA warrant.  That is jail time right there.  If no one is thrown in jail we should all be "squirming" because this republic is over, which I am sure people like the guy I quoted a few posts backhas no problem with

 

------

Yes, if consequences for this behavior are not forthcoming, we are done.  Chaos ahead, sooner or later.

[F3SS]

Call me a kook but this is all playing out in order exactly the way Q said it would.

What kind of hysterics can we expect if in fact this all leads to the top? 

[Razumov]

8 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Call me a kook but this is all playing out in order exactly the way Q said it would.

Kook

 

[Merc14]

Obama has been quiet as a mouse.  There is a reason and it isn't because he is waiting for the trap to swing shut. 

[Vorg]

No wonder they are desperate for anything on Trump and trying to speed stuff up.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

No wonder they are desperate for anything on Trump and trying to speed stuff up.

If Barr really begins to unravel their crimes you can expect they and their 5th column to go absolutely berserk.  They're all in and cannot admit the truth.

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, F3SS said:

Call me a kook but this is all playing out in order exactly the way Q said it would.

What kind of hysterics can we expect if in fact this all leads to the top? 

"IF"?

If it doesn't, it's only be because someone is blind or deliberately ignoring it.  Someone who can weaponize the government against the people can only be at the top.  If got a new nickname to put out there...Bull Durham.  But there won't be any smoke associated with this one.

[RoofGardener]

On 24/04/2019 at 6:48 PM, Einsteinium said:

Oh Merc. It will be funny to watch you squirm when none of the people who started the investigations into Trump are found to be guilty of anything.

It will also be funny to watch you squirm when the House starts digging into Trumps finances and find evidence of numerous financial crimes.

 

Trump IS a criminal, not because of the Mueller report but because of his past history of fraud, failing to pay his contractors, tax evasion, etc. That will all start to come to light when the dems dig into his finances. 

By the way, Mueller did NOT actually dig into Trumps finances. It appears Mueller ended his investigation early because he did not have the support of Barr to continue even though there are a great many stones left unturned.

 

Oh, I will take great joy in watching you squirm and reach for new insane conspiracy theories to explain away the stuff that is coming.

Trump IS a criminal because.. because.. WAAAAAHA... Donald Trump. 

@Einsteinium, have you not considered that the only evidence that the various Democrat-controlled committees are seeking are the Presidents tax records ? 

Tax records from the Inland Revenue service, who employ FAR more experienced tax lawyers than anything the Committees can marshal. Do you REALLY think that the committees can find "criminal" activity, when the Inland Revenue service didn't ? 

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Democrats have weaponised the committees. They are trying to find POLITICAL dirt - anything that can embarrass the President - not signs of CRIMINAL activity. 

Consider the committee on financial services. The chair of this committee is one Maxine Waters, who demanded the Presidents impeachment within 24 hours of him being elected - a theme she has repeated frequently, and never accompanied it with a REASON to impeach him. 

Surely she should recuse herself from any investigation of the President ? Nope... such ethical concerns don't apply when Trump is concerned. Total War. Weaponisation. GET TRUMP.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Tax records from the Inland Revenue service, who employ FAR more experienced tax lawyers than anything the Committees can marshal. Do you REALLY think that the committees can find "criminal" activity, when the Inland Revenue service didn't ? 

Just a quick point on this. The IRS do not look for general crimes. They look only to see if you've paid the correct taxes on your income. You could be selling nuclear launch codes to Iran, but as long as you pay your taxes you'll be fine with them.

[RoofGardener]

11 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Just a quick point on this. The IRS do not look for general crimes. They look only to see if you've paid the correct taxes on your income. You could be selling nuclear launch codes to Iran, but as long as you pay your taxes you'll be fine with them.

Hmmm.. fair point @ExpandMyMind. However, I don't think that is entirely accurate. 

The IRS investigate any financial crimes that a taxpayer might have committed, if evidence for such is found in their tax returns. 

https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/how-criminal-investigations-are-initiated

So in your example, presumably Trump would be prosecuted for selling launch codes to Iran, because Iran is under an embargo . The prosecution would be in regard the sale, not the launch codes.  

So then, seeing as the IRS already screens for financial crimes, what - exactly - do the committees expect to find that the IRS hasn't ? 

Here's my prediction. Make a note of the time and date. The committees will gleefully leak information they get from Trump's tax returns, but ONLY politically damaging material. There will be ZERO criminal charges arising from it, because criminal charges are not the PURPOSE of the exercise. Political embarresment IS !

[Buzz_Light_Year]

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Just a quick point on this. The IRS do not look for general crimes. They look only to see if you've paid the correct taxes on your income. You could be selling nuclear launch codes to Iran, but as long as you pay your taxes you'll be fine with them.

Quote

While other federal agencies also have investigative jurisdiction for money laundering and some bank secrecy act violations, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the only federal agency that can investigate potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code.

Quote

According to the 2016 Annual Report, Criminal Investigation initiated 3,395 investigations in fiscal year 2016.^[1] In addition, the IRS-CI conviction rate (which is the percentage of convictions compared to the total number of convictions, acquittals, and dismissals) was 91.7% in fiscal year 2018.^[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Criminal_Investigation_Division

[Setton]

On 05/05/2019 at 7:17 PM, Merc14 said:

Prosecutors aren't supposed to exonerate they either prosecute or they don't, period.  

And yet... 

COMPLETE EXONERATION!!!! 

Was the tweet, if I recall correctly. 

[RoofGardener]

56 minutes ago, Setton said:

And yet... 

COMPLETE EXONERATION!!!! 

Was the tweet, if I recall correctly. 

Considering how the Mainstream Media had been practically GUARANTEEING prosecution, and in a very monomaniacal way, then I think the President can be forgiven his slight hyperbole ?  

[RavenHawk]

3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Just a quick point on this. The IRS do not look for general crimes. They look only to see if you've paid the correct taxes on your income. You could be selling nuclear launch codes to Iran, but as long as you pay your taxes you'll be fine with them.

Before leaving office, Obama expanded and signed EO12333.  Why?  He was covering his butt.  The expanded 12333 allows sharing raw intelligence in the intel community.  Before this, it required the NSA director or the President to OK sharing of intel.  Cutting to the chase, under Obama, the FBI already had Trump's tax returns.  That was one of the first things they did.  But nothing criminal was there but they can't leak it without being found out, so the Progs in congress are going through their theatrics knowing that the political embarrassment will be a bigger bang for the buck than the actual release.  Trump is calling their bluff, daring them to reveal them. 

[Vorg]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-met-william-barr-democrats-kass-20190507-story.html

Barr: “I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated, and I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened. We have a lot of rules about that. I’ve said I’m reviewing this.”

And the roar that followed? It was borne of fear.

As Barr tasks his team to ferret out the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is putting his own report together, and I suspect that the intelligence chiefs of the Obama administration, and former FBI Director James Comey, won’t like it, nor will the journalists who were fed so well.

Horowitz won’t have access to a federal grand jury. But the attorney general has access to one.

This didn’t start with George Papadopoulos. And we don’t know how it began, exactly, weaving its way past Obama/Clinton political paranoia and FBI rogue agent Peter Strzok smelling Trump supporters at the Walmart, and Comey’s odd musing about the eating of souls or sins, but we will.

“Well, we are going to see accountability,” former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” the other day.

“We will find out who was responsible for what happened, which I think accounts for a lot of the reasons people are accusing him (Barr) falsely of making false statements to Congress,” Mukasey said. “That’s an attempt to discredit what he’s about to do. But he’s not a man easily deterred.”

Which is why they’re afraid. And why they must discredit him before we know for certain what they did.

[RavenHawk]

It's Trump's turn now...

 

 

[Vorg]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

It's Trump's turn now...

It is about to all unravel. AG Barr can set a special council to investigate all of this. But watch the attacks on him become increasing over the next few weeks.

[RavenHawk]

[still developing] Seems like Durham investigated Mueller in the ****** Bulger case.  Mueller had four innocent men imprisoned for decades to protect Bulger's informant status.  This is just getting better.