quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What if this whole Russian collusion/FBI scandal is merely to distract from those Congressional computer workers recently fled to ME, with embezzled cash?

Why aren’t we hearing more about that incredible fiasco?

Where is the FBI investigation on that?

Awan has been captured. Things have been quiet on that front. It's all unraveling slowly. State secrets being sold to the highest bidder is my speculation.

Don't want to drag this thread too far afield, but this is worth a little excursion

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...new-allegations.html

The federal court case against Imran Awan, the former IT aide to congressional Democrats, has been hit with repeated delays over the last six months -- a situation fueled by allegations in the media that, according to his attorney, have piqued the curiosity of prosecutors.

Since November, a judge has postponed Awan’s court hearing in U.S. District Court five times at the request of the prosecution and defense. The latest postponement came Thursday, when the judge pushed Friday’s scheduled hearing to June 7.

In an interview Thursday with Fox News, Awan’s attorney, Christopher J. Gowen, blamed the delays on the steady stream of allegations against Awan that have been published online, especially by The Daily Caller, and pushed by President Trump and Republican members of Congress.

The reports suggest Awan, who worked for former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others, could have been involved in a cyber breach operation, something his legal team vigorously denies.

Gowen -- who argues his client is a victim of “made up allegations” -- said federal prosecutors have repeatedly asked them to provide information in response to these stories. The defense has been cooperative in turning over “evidence, documentation,” Gowen said, but the process has slowed the case.

“We typically do not comment on pending cases and have no comment on this particular matter,” said Bill Miller, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.

But in a Thursday court filing, prosecutors hinted that a deal could be in the works.

“The parties are currently exploring a possible resolution of this matter,” prosecutors wrote. “Therefore, the parties are requesting additional time in which to explore that resolution.”

A grand jury in August returned an indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charging Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, with a total of four counts, which included federal bank fraud and conspiracy. Awan has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The facts of the case on paper are relatively mundane. Awan and his wife are facing allegations they engaged in a conspiracy to obtain home equity lines of credit from the Congressional Federal Credit Union by giving false information about two properties – and sending the proceeds to individuals in Pakistan.

But the case has drawn interest from Republican lawmakers because of Awan’s role for prominent Democrats and the access he had to sensitive data. The Daily Caller has published numerous news stories suggesting Awan inappropriately accessed congressional servers while working for Democrats.

Gowen dismissed those stories as “lies.”

“I know that my client did not have access to any confidential or security clearance documents,” he said.

Gowen also took aim at President Trump, who has tweeted about the case and referred to Awan as “the Pakistani mystery man.”

The Daily Caller has published extensive reports on Awan’s case. In a recent story reported from Pakistan, a reporter interviewed a person they said is Awan’s father’s ex-business partner. That person reportedly claimed Awan’s father once transferred a USB drive to a former head of a Pakistani intelligence agency.

Fox News has not independently confirmed the claim, and it's unclear whether it has anything to do with Awan’s work in Congress.

Awan and other IT aides for House Democrats originally had been on investigators’ radar for months over concerns of alleged equipment theft, access to sensitive computer systems and more, according to reports dating back to early 2017.

Awan has been enrolled in the High Intensity Supervision Program (HISP) with conditions that he abide by an electronically monitored curfew of 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. and a limit on traveling beyond 150 miles from his residence, according to court documents.

Wasserman Schultz has blamed the “right-wing media circus fringe” for the attention on Awan, suggesting it's all part of an effort to distract from the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign and possible ties to Trump's team.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MHO - the Russia collusion conspiracy is not related to the Awan case. The Russian collusion conspiracy to frame Donald Trump is gigantic. It is unknown how coordinated all the moving pieces are, but there are dozens of people involved across several federal agencies, politicians, dirty tricks operatives, and major media outlets . It is possible UK intel agencies are not clean on this attempt to take down our president.

Conservative Treehouse:

They should go on a tour together. Finally someone goes back and connects the dots from the hundreds of illegal FBI FISA-702(16)(17) searches where they were allowing ‘contractors’ to do opposition research in NSA and FBI databases. Part of the dirtying up of their opposition required the digging of dirt for use therein. Thank You Sidney Powell.

That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped. Quite a good segment. WATCH:





Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0eTO3vEu7Q

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped. Quite a good segment. WATCH:

So, how does immunity work? Is it iron-clad, like a Presidential Pardon, or is it subject to review? Can Mueller hand out immunity to all his friends like candy, guaranteeing no one will ever actually face justice?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-spy-under-fire.html

this is a Fox report on the court case going on in London. The judge is expected to rule tomorrow on whether the Steele deposition is narrow or broad on scope.

If narrow, then only questions about the last report (of Dec 2016) will be allowed.

If broad, questions about the entire report can be asked.

Fox asked the DoJ about the criminal charges against Steele that were recommended by Sen Grassley. The DoJ public affairs said the standard "We don't confirm or deny the existence of investigations."

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped. Quite a good segment. WATCH:

So, how does immunity work? Is it iron-clad, like a Presidential Pardon, or is it subject to review? Can Mueller hand out immunity to all his friends like candy, guaranteeing no one will ever actually face justice?

Immunity is the result of a bargain between a prosecutor and potential witness that the prosecutor will not prosecute based on the witnesses testimony, to induce the witness to waive 5th Amendment protection. It is not usually offered unless the evidence the witness can provide is important in prosecuting other defendants who typically are higher up on the guilt chain.

A witness who has been granted immunity can no longer refuse to testify on 5th Amendment grounds.

It would be quite unusual to grant immunity other than to aid other prosecutions.

In the case of former federal judge, current Congressman Alcee Hastings, on trial for accepting a bribe, the offeror of the bribe refused to testify, was granted immunity, continued to refuse to testify and was jailed by contempt. Without that evidence, Hastings was acquitted.

I believe the same was done in Sam Giovanna’s case, or similar.

James Baker and Lisa Page quit the FBI almost 2 weeks ago. As far as I can tell, they haven't said peep.

With Comey, Brennan, and Clapper said trashing the President, it seems there is a message in there about the silence of James Baker (General Counsel of FBI under Comey). But what message ? Hopefully that is an ominous sign for Comey.

We also haven't heard anything about Peter Strzok. He apparently is still at the FBI. If the prosecutor Huber decided to grant immunity (or reduced charges) to anyone to get cooperation, Strzok might be a good candidate.

He was there for the Clinton email investigation, he kicked off and led the Russian collusion phony investigation, and he served for a while on Mueller's team. He could be a very dangerous witness against the conspirators.

Could be quite a dogfight if the FBI people turn on each other. (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Rybicki, Kortan, Page, Strzok)

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
James Baker and Lisa Page quit the FBI almost 2 weeks ago. As far as I can tell, they haven't said peep.

With Comey, Brennan, and Clapper said trashing the President, it seems there is a message in there about the silence of James Baker (General Counsel of FBI under Comey). But what message ? Hopefully that is an ominous sign for Comey.

We also haven't heard anything about Peter Strzok. He apparently is still at the FBI. If the prosecutor Huber decided to grant immunity (or reduced charges) to anyone to get cooperation, Strzok might be a good candidate.

He was there for the Clinton email investigation, he kicked off and led the Russian collusion phony investigation, and he served for a while on Mueller's team. He could be a very dangerous witness against the conspirators.

Could be quite a dogfight if the FBI people turn on each other. (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Rybicki, Kortan, Page, Strzok)

“No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case” against those guys.

funny you mention "no reasonable prosecutor", here is a report that worries me

https://www.washingtontimes.co...ope-questions-bid-i/

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, says that special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to avoid a “fishing” expedition by narrowing the subject of questions in an effort to get the president to submit to an interview with the prosecutor.

Mr. Giuliani also says he thinks fired FBI Director James Comey is “not going to be worth anything as a witness” and thus less a threat to the president.

Mr. Giuliani told The Washington Times that Mr. Mueller’s team displayed a “first good faith effort” during a Wednesday meeting that might result in an interview in July and a final Mueller report by Labor Day.

“He’s eliminated a lot of subjects that would have indicated he was fishing,” Mr. Giuliani told The Times on Thursday. “He’s eliminated those and he’s into a much more relevant area where we know the answers and we know the answers really can’t be effectively contradicted.”

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

I don't trust Mueller. I don't trust Rosenstein.

"a final Mueller report by Labor Day".

Labor Day = 3 Sep 2018

Mueller could throw a bunch of charges at Donald Trump just before the election. Wouldn't matter if they were true or even had any basis at all. It could be an attempt to have DEMs take over congress.

An interview w Mueller and his cut throats seems like an invitation for disaster. No good would come from it, and it could be used against the President.

I hope for a DoJ IG report that really hits the FBI and DoJ hard. That would give ammunition for President Trump to tell Mueller to go pound sand.

Can Trump go before Mueller and fire him in person?

Perhaps you will be comforted by reading the information filed against Papdopoulos. I put a link yesterday.

You will be comforted by understanding the level of misinformation which triggers a criminal charge of lying to investigators.

It isn’t merely being mistaken on, say, a day something occurred, or forgetting a phone call. A pattern of disception will attract negative attention. Papadopoulos spun a rather dramaticly different version of events, dates, sequences of events, much more, which, unfortunately for him, the FBI already knew much of, or perhaps discovered later, probably from the professor and the Rusky babe. He had info on his social media and telephone, too.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Can Trump go before Mueller and fire him in person?

Why would he think that is good idea?

Firing Mueller accomplishes nothing. The investigation goes on, a new head of it will be named, amidst an unbelievable stink in the media. Nothing to be gained whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped. Quite a good segment. WATCH:

So, how does immunity work? Is it iron-clad, like a Presidential Pardon, or is it subject to review? Can Mueller hand out immunity to all his friends like candy, guaranteeing no one will ever actually face justice?

Immunity is the result of a bargain between a prosecutor and potential witness that the prosecutor will not prosecute based on the witnesses testimony, to induce the witness to waive 5th Amendment protection. It is not usually offered unless the evidence the witness can provide is important in prosecuting other defendants who typically are higher up on the guilt chain.

A witness who has been granted immunity can no longer refuse to testify on 5th Amendment grounds.

It would be quite unusual to grant immunity other than to aid other prosecutions.

In the case of former federal judge, current Congressman Alcee Hastings, on trial for accepting a bribe, the offeror of the bribe refused to testify, was granted immunity, continued to refuse to testify and was jailed by contempt. Without that evidence, Hastings was acquitted.

I believe the same was done in Sam Giovanna’s case, or similar.

Who did the FBI prosecute using information gained from Cheryl Mills, Huma, et al?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:


Who did the FBI prosecute using information gained from Cheryl Mills, Huma, et al?

Well, obviously, they intended to prosecute the big fish, Hillary Clinton, but when they got all the facts, interviews, documents, dates, times, etc. and analysed it all, it turned out she was only extremely careless, not grossly negligent. So, it was out of their hands. No reasonable prosecutor was available to take the case.

Sara Carter has a story out on the DoJ IG report. I was hoping for something sooner and wider in scope.

- draft report is being reviewed right now by DoJ and FBI

- this is the 2nd IG report, the 1st was the one on McCabe lying multiple times

- report will be available to public within 4 weeks

- the report does not include recommendations for criminal prosecution. Horowitz may submit criminal referrals to prosecutors, but that sounds like a separate process from this report

- the report is just on the Clinton investigation

- a third IG report will address the FISA application on Carter Page (disappointed this is not included in this 2nd report)

On Tucker Carlsons show on FOX tonight, Joe DiGenova stated that Brennan needed to hire a criminal attorney because he would be in front of a grand jury very shortly.

He stated it as fact, not speculation. I sure hope he is correct! POS Brennan deserves some jail time. Regards 18DAI

FWIW, "extremely careless" is not an excuse for mishandling Classified information, nor is there a need for intent. The law is very clear that any mishandling is punishable, even if it does not result in it being seen by unauthorized persons--the mishandling itself is the crime, not any result of it.

flashguy

I don't think Giuliani is handling this "front man" job all that well.

Here is a case where he should have been much more aggressive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...-dont-know-true.html

Donald Trump tweet:

"Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a "hot" Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!"

Then Donald Trump retweeted a tweet by David Asman:

"Apparently the DoJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn't commit"

Guiliani says:

'First of all, I don't know for sure – nor does the president – if there really was one," Giuliani said. 'For a long time we've been told that there was some kind of infiltration. At one time the president thought it was a wiretap. ... but we've never been notified that he was on a tap or an intercept.'

That is a weak statement by Guiliani. It is absolutely known that Carter Page was declared to be a Russian Foreign Agent to the FISA Court.

The stories about Stefan Halper are breaking like wild fire.

Guiliani doesn't seem as sharp and quick witted as he used to be. (or maybe he never was as quick witted as I thought he was)

Think if Ben Shapiro was arguing for Donald Trump. That is the kind of fast thinking and aggressive attack style that is needed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The good news here is : Donald Trump "gets it"

" they are out to frame Donald Trump ".

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I don't think Giuliani is handling this "front man" job all that well.

Here is a case where he should have been much more aggressive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...-dont-know-true.html

Donald Trump tweet:

"Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a "hot" Fake News story. If true - all time biggest political scandal!"

Then Donald Trump retweeted a tweet by David Asman:

"Apparently the DoJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn't commit"

Guiliani says:

'First of all, I don't know for sure – nor does the president – if there really was one," Giuliani said. 'For a long time we've been told that there was some kind of infiltration. At one time the president thought it was a wiretap. ... but we've never been notified that he was on a tap or an intercept.'

That is a weak statement by Guiliani. It is absolutely known that Carter Page was declared to be a Russian Foreign Agent to the FISA Court.

The stories about Stefan Halper are breaking like wild fire.

Guiliani doesn't seem as sharp and quick witted as he used to be. (or maybe he never was as quick witted as I thought he was)

Think if Ben Shapiro was arguing for Donald Trump. That is the kind of fast thinking and aggressive attack style that is needed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The good news here is : Donald Trump "gets it"

" they are out to frame Donald Trump ".

Not necessarily. We don’t know what Giuliani knows, if anything, which is not public.

A lot of lawyering is judgment, formed from experience. Sometimes you want to be very aggressive, sometimes it’s not a good idea in the big picture. Guiliana has a tough job, exacerbated by having a hard to manage client.

Criticism at this point is premature at best.

Laura Ingraham identifies Stefan Halper by name on the air

Fox reporters have been avoiding doing that, up to now

https://youtu.be/XotPczfSOmI