Lone Star wrote: ↑

April 4, 2019, 6:36 am

The stupid, ignorant, moronic Trump survived. An idiot wouldn't have survived, but Trump did.

Stupid, no. Ignorant, yes. He has no knowledge of history, and thus no historical reference to past events. Of course people didn't always get it right in the past, but it's helpful to have an in-depth understanding of history. He doesn't like to read, and prefers the Readers' Digest versions of what he needs to know. Ultimately, he trusts no one but himself. Many times that approach serves him well. But sometimes it doesn't.

Udon Map wrote: ↑

April 4, 2019, 8:56 am

Lone Star wrote: ↑

April 4, 2019, 6:36 am

The stupid, ignorant, moronic Trump survived. An idiot wouldn't have survived, but Trump did.

Stupid, no. Ignorant, yes. He has no knowledge of history, and thus no historical reference to past events. Of course people didn't always get it right in the past, but it's helpful to have an in-depth understanding of history. He doesn't like to read, and prefers the Readers' Digest versions of what he needs to know. Ultimately, he trusts no one but himself. Many times that approach serves him well. But sometimes it doesn't.

My statement was facetious, but I know yours is sincere.

You can certainly have that opinion, and you're probably not alone; but based on the walk-in closet full of shoes that are getting ready to drop, quite a few others are going to prove to be bigger ignoramuses than Trump could have ever been.

They seriously miscalculated a Hillary victory that would have buried and covered up all of their unethical and illegal deeds. Some are very likely going to be snared in their own trap.

More of Gowdy on the Mueller Report

"If you don't have probable cause, how close you came to it is irrelevant."

Even if Congress thinks they've found something that Mueller didn't find after 2+ years, Congress can't do anything other than turn it over to AG Barr for prosecution. Barr has already given his legal opinion on the report.

Just more Democrat Drama that is probably costing them votes with independent voters.

.

Democrats are posturing, wasting time and losing votes

Andrew McCarthy, former US Attorney, recently voiced his support for AG Barr and allowing him to complete his work.

Dem lawmakers, still stinging over Mueller's failure to indict Trump are now doing all they can to GET TRUMP. The Dems hate Mueller. The Dems think Barr is involved in a coverup. The Dems are becoming the largest tin-foil-hat brigade in history.

Dems want an unredacted report. Dems want Barr to violate the law and reveal grand jury testimony, reveal the names of innocent people not charged, reveal sources and methods and reveal classified information. It's called desperation.

McCarthy:

What's oddest about this whole thing is that they're posturing over an empty bag, because the grand jury material is likely to be the least important, least significant stuff in the Mueller report. All of the important witnesses for the Democrats who are Trump administration people cooperated with the special counsel and voluntarily sat for interviews. So their material is likely not covered by grand jury secrecy rules - they likely didn't have to testify for the grand jury.

Section 6E of the law surrounding Special Counsel Investigations is that it is prohibited from revealing information about individuals not being charged. Even further, the law prevents the release of ongoing investigations, classified materials and even disputes among prosecutors as to the meaning of the law. None of that, by law, can be released.

McCarthy:

They can issue a subpoena, but I think they're kidding themselves if they think they can compel Attorney General Barr to turn it over. They can try to hold him in contempt, but hold him in contempt for following the law? I don't get that.

As former US Attorney and US Congressman Trey Gowdy said yesterday: "If you don't have probable cause, how close you came to it is irrelevant."

Dems aren't looking for truth. They're looking for something to take into 2020 because they have to message for voters as to how they will improve their lives more that Trump has accomplished over 2+ years.

Over-reach again by Dems. They are the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences.

.

More and More Questions About Brennan

And Brennan has become more and more silent.

First, Comey and then Clapper -- and then 24/7 Brennan, have been all over Trump with accusations and using their past positions as government as a kind of "authority" and in a position to know what the average guy doesn't know. So it gave all of their hollow accusations more credibility -- for awhile. They could also use the past government positions as a reason why they couldn't divulge details. Convenient.

It is becoming more and more apparent that they -- especially Brennan -- has been accusing Trump of doing what they were actually doing to Trump.

Facts, evidence, testimony, and their own admissions now tell us that Comey and McCabe are up to their eyeballs in it. Brennan now looks like he had a very active role with travel and contacts with allies. It's looking like he was one of the conductors in all of it -- at least, to get the ball rolling with government assets who contacted Trump people. Clapper, so far, just looks like he has been running his mouth; but he did make a huge admission on CNN.

Let's examine Brennan, who doesn't have much respect for the law. He illegally spied on the Senate. Hacked into their computers, and then lied to Congress about it. Surprisingly, some Dems wanted him to resign over that. He survived.

We already know that government assets were run at Papadopoulos and Carter Page in 2016. Stefan Halper, FBI informant with ties to the CIA and MI6 was used for this. The other government asset was Joseph Mifsud, who also has ties to the CIA and MI6. The third asset, used to tie it all up into a big bow was Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who got Papadopoulos to talk about the stuff that Halper fed him. Downer then tipped the FBI.

There are meetings between Strozk and Clapper and Brennan's deputy that are documented in texts that occurred smack dab in the middle of the counterintelligence investigation.

There is a document that addressed alleged Russian interference in the election. It's referred to as the ICA -- the Intelligence Community Assessment. Brennan decided which CIA and FBI analysts would work on this. It included Strzok, and it is widely believed that Strzok was the liaison between the various agencies. The ICA was then briefed to Obama, Trump and Congress.

Now, all of a sudden, Brennan says his sources had "bad information."

Brennan's fingerprints are all over this.

.

Brennan, Comey, and Clapper, the three stooges of collusion

Source: Washington Examiner

" John Brennan has a lot to answer for,” tweeted Terry Moran, ABC News senior national correspondent, after the revelation that Robert Mueller’s investigation burst the collusion bubble. We couldn’t agree more.

Moran called out the former CIA director for “going before the American public for months, cloaked with CIA authority and openly suggesting he’s got secret info.”

Right again.

To call his behavior irresponsible would be an understatement. The truth is, Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper used their influence and newfound liberal sympathy to paint a picture of an intelligence community sounding the alarm about a Manchurian president. The trio had a setback when the president revoked Brennan’s security clearance. Brennan was promptly given space on the New York Times op-ed page to declare: “Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.” His security clearance was pulled precisely “to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge” the president. We now know, as we long guessed, that it was Brennan talking hogwash, and tendentious hogwash at that.

It appears now that Brennan's security should have been revoked long before it was taken away.

.

Another report from John Solomon, one of the most important journalists in all of this and has uncovered volumes of information on those who put together the phony dossier and the Trump-Russia hoax.

Note to Team Mueller: If you don't indict, you can't incite

Source: The Hill

I’ve covered the Justice Department for three decades, and seldom have I seen a story like the one published in The New York Times this week under the headline, “Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed.”

What concerned me most is that the story’s anonymous allegations reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role prosecutors play, including special counsels such as Robert Mueller.

The stories are no different than the crap previously published by the NY Times, CNN and WaPo that led to absolutely nothing. All propaganda and innuendo.

The job of prosecutors is not, as the Times headline suggested, to pen “damaging” narratives about people they couldn’t indict. And it’s not their job to air those people’s dirty laundry, or that of suspects outside of a grand jury room or a courtroom.

Mueller concluded there wasn’t evidence President Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, and therefore no indictment was warranted. And he punted on the question of obstruction, leaving his bosses — Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — to determine that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict the president on that charge.

And, most significantly, there were no other people charged. That means Trump legally could not be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an obstruction plot.

Solomon is correct on all counts here. It is precisely why the law is as it is -- so that investigations into people who are not charged, are not damaged by "what ifs."

At that point, no federal prosecutor has the right to impugn an uncharged investigative target’s reputation through anonymous leaks or literary reports. They are not allowed to anonymously inject into the court of public opinion any “damaging” information about what they couldn’t succeed at offering in a court of law as proof of criminality.

Prosecution isn’t a game of horseshoes or hand grenades where prosecutors get to score points or inflict damage without indicting the target. In fact, the Founding Fathers built a legal system specifically to avoid the tarring of citizens when there wasn’t enough proof to meet a criminal charge.

And nowhere is that intention to protect the citizenry more clear than in the rules governing grand juries. The federal justice system created grand juries so that evidence that was embarrassing or damaging to defendants could be weighed behind closed doors but never released if it did not rise to the level of provable criminality.

Like Trey Gowdy said: "If you don't have probable cause, how close you came to it is irrelevant."

The Justice Department rules threaten any law enforcement officer or prosecutor with prosecution if they leak any proceeding that occurred before a grand jury. And the Justice Department rules governing grand juries unequivocally talk about the sanctity of protecting citizens who end up not being charged.

“The prosecutor must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges,” the Justice Department rules say.

Either the NY Times is LYING ... AGAIN ... or there are some investigators, federal employees in violation of the law.

We know from statements the Justice Department made Thursday that grand jury subpoenas and testimony were so essential to the Mueller probe that nearly every one of the 400 pages of his final report contained some form of grand jury or classified information that needs to be redacted — i.e., protected from being used to level “unfounded criminal charges” against those not indicted.

When you see the rules by which prosecutors must abide, and compare it to the anonymous narrative in the Times article, one can see a real reason for concern.

Going to the court of public opinion to state there was “damaging” information in a probe that failed to prove criminal charges violates the letter and the spirit of the Justice Department manual. It also offends the essence of American justice that one remains innocent until proven guilty.

What’s most ironic about this Mueller probe leak is that it comes less than a year after former FBI Director James Comey was admonished publicly for holding a news conference to criticize Hillary Clinton for how she handled classified emails based on the results of an investigation that resulted in no criminal charges.

“We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct,” the Justice Department inspector general wrote.

You’d think the Mueller prosecutors might have taken note of the admonishment.

So the first fault in the Times story rests clearly on the federal prosecutors who leaked to associates or directly to reporters.

I also believe the Times shares some fault. As a lifelong journalist I won’t criticize a news organization for reporting on a story such as this and quoting sources, especially if they were in a first-person position to really know. Journalists should strive to find out what their elected leaders such as Trump have done, whether criminal or not.

But I strongly believe — as did the news organization for which I worked for the longest in my professional career, The Associated Press — that we have an obligation as reporters to quote information anonymously only from first-hand sources.

There is compelling evidence — starting with the lead of the story — that the Times information comes anonymously from “associates” of the actual prosecutors. In other words, it is second-hand hearsay.

I’m not sure that rises to a strong journalistic standard.

Nonetheless, the bigger lesson here should be clear, both to the Mueller team members and the reporters who facilitated their anonymous griping.

In the American justice system, if you don’t indict, you cannot incite.

John Solomon, once again, sticks to facts and lays it all out.

.

Another Obama Admin Official Surfaces

Judicial Watch uncovers another one involved in the phony Steele dossier.

The new name: Victoria Nuland -- former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Obama Administration. Nuland is believed to be the one who passed the baton to the FBI.

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit when the FOIA request was ignored. Judicial Watch wants all of her communications with top DOJ, FBI and State Department employees.

Specifically, Judicial Watch is looking for any communications with Joseph Mifsud, Chrisopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, John Brennan, Patrick Kennedy, Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, John Carlin, George Toscas, David Laufman, Lisa Monaco, Bruce Ohr, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker and others.

Christopher Steele is known to have had a working relationship with Nuland. Both John Kerry and Nuland received regular correspondence from Steele.

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch:

It seems the Obama administration engaged in a no-holds-barred attempt to clear the path for Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits have already shown the Obama State Department was corruptly targeting President Trump.

There have also been documents obtained by Judicial Watch that show that classified information was provided to a multiple number of US Senators by the Obama Administration just prior to Trump's inauguration.

There's going to be a weak link in there somewhere, and they will spill the beans -- a la John Dean.

Just a string of coincidences?

Brennan, Susan Rice and Obama implicated.

If there is no evidence of collusion, then what EVIDENCE was in the FISA warrant against Carter Page that started all the phony Trump-Russia Hoax? Carter Page was never charged with anything -- and his name was leaked to the media, which puts the leakers in legal jeopardy.

The people who swore accuracy in those FISA affidavits have big problems.

A Lot of Questions About Why Nothing Was Found

What EVIDENCE was in the FISA warrants? Why was Carter Page never charged with anything if his actions -- supposedly -- kicked all this off? Why was George Papadopoulos not charged with any wrongdoing related to the case even though he was -- supposedly -- up to his eyeballs in it all?

No one was charged with any crimes based on any "evidence" in the FISA warrants. There has to be evidence of a crime. There has to be "probable cause" to get a warrant. I know this because I have had to swear on affidavits for warrants before judges.

.

BARR: ‘I THINK SPYING DID OCCUR’ AGAINST TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Source: Senate Testimony

Barr admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he believed that the Trump Campaign was being spied upon by the US government.

I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.

...

I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated.

...

I believe there is a basis for my concern, but I’m not going to discuss it.

...

I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of the intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.

...

This is not launching an investigation of the FBI. To the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon, so I don’t like to hear attacks of the FBI.

The "upper echelon" -- the cabal of rogue leaders.

Some have suspected this all along. Here it comes ...

The Silent Coup

.

“Hillary cover up operation work ticket archive cleanup.”

Source: Judicial Watch

You read that correctly: “Hillary cover up operation work ticket archive cleanup.” That is in the subject line of an email of Platte River Network, which is the IT company that set up and maintained Hillary's home server.

Judicial Watch, through a FOIA request, was able to access 422 pages of FBI documents from the Hillary Email investigation. The emails show that Hillary's contractors were aware of the sensitivity of their operation and to keep detailed communications off-line. In other words, no written record of their detailed work.

There are even emails that show concern by an inspector general within the US government about the amount of classified information on the servers. SO THEY KNEW. Even Bayrack has emails on the server that he sent to Hillary's illegal server. So OBAMA KNEW about the illegal server, too.

Included with the emails is Hillary's signed nondisclosure agreement regarding control of classified information. Hillary signed off on understanding responsibilities regarding classified information.

Hillary could have a problem with a real Attorney General in place now.

Hypocrisy of Democrats

Spying was done on the Trump Campaign. Why don't Democrats want to know how the investigation started? What was the evidence?

Democrats don't like the 'no collusion' outcome.

Greg Craig was targeted after he lied on or about Oct 2017. The Grand Jury was placed in May 2018. But his indictment was not filed until Apr 2019. It will be interesting to hear why it took over 2 years for this to happen to a Democrat in the Obama Administration. And it all happened at the same time others were indicted. Interesting.

Source: WSJ and NY Times

Former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig expects to be indicted in the coming days on charges stemming from work he performed for Ukraine in 2012, Mr. Craig’s legal team said. Mr. Craig has refused to accept a plea deal, and the matter could be presented to a grand jury for indictment as soon as Thursday, people familiar with the matter say. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

The NY Times is reporting that this came out of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation. This guy is connected to Clinton, Podesta and others.

The Ukraine government is turning over evidence to the DOJ that implicates the Clinton Campaign in the 2016 election. VP Joe Biden also has an issue in Ukraine.

Never Forget What Clapper Admitted Regarding Spying on Trump

Now Clapper is changing his story since AG Barr is investigating.

Intel Officer and Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer introduces the 'necessary waiver' into the mix

If that waiver was issued to keep Trump in the dark, Clapper was involved because it's an NSC function. Clapper and Brennan up to their eyeballs in this.

Spying on Trump was run out of the White House

The worm has turned.

.

More nuggets gleaned from congressional testimony ...

Lisa Page, former FBI Attorney:
Her congressional testimony revealed that there was not enough evidence on Trump-Russia collusion for there to be a 'defensive briefing' to the CIA and NSA.

YET, they brought this 'not enough evidence' to the FISA Court -- four times -- to be able to spy on the Trump Campaign.

Had Hillary won, which they all assumed would happen, this would have all been buried and covered up with help from the eneMedia -- if necessary. All of the current suspects would have been promoted to higher positions of power.

But Trump won, and AG Barr is on the case.

More shoes to drop.