Well: Here is the list of unmaskings

BHO's chief of staff is listed on 1/5/2017
Joe Biden on 1/12/2017

I'd like to know if Ciaramella and or Vindman are in that list as well. it seems like a few names are redacted.

from stoic-one link posted above

It's pretty weird seeing documents with those markings, however struck thru from declassification, posted on SIGforum.

Sigforum never disappoints

Joe, always the last to know.

Seems they didn’t even want him hanging around when he was Vice President.

Jan. 12th ? come on man, what are ya doing.
Wouldn’t B-Rock let you hang with the shroom gang.

Sleepy Joe is still waiting to hear from his campaign to find out what he thinks of this new revelation.

The Judge gets even flakier:

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia said in a brief order that he had appointed John Gleeson, a retired judge, “to present arguments in opposition to” the department’s request to withdraw the charge against Mr. Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to investigators as part of a larger inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0...6ca2c145e34be75a16c8

Let's toss the General in a lake and see if he floats.

[FLASH_VIDEO] [/FLASH_VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orksSAJmGrU

Devin Nunes:

It's much worse than just Flynn



Devin Nunes: "Nobody wants these bastards put in jail, more than me"

seen at CTH

Nunes: if he becomes House intel chair again, he has subpoenas ready to go.

"Nunes reminds the audience that Flynn is only one person within a much larger group of Trump transition team members who were under surveillance by Team Obama."

https://theconservativetreehou...l-flynn/#more-191684

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

Former Judge John Gleeson (U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York) recently penned an op-ed in the Washington post arguing that Flynn should continue to be prosecuted.

There are now questions being raised about whether Judge Emett Sullivan is having ex-parte communication about the case; with outside interests helping to steer the decision-making. It would not come as a surprise to discover this is happening, albeit unethically.

Now the purpose of the leaked conference call, aka instructions, from former President Barack Obama come into play; especially considering that Obama specifically mentioned “perjury” which is now part of what Judge Sullivan is attempting to accomplish.

this is what happens when you "play nice"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0...in-email&login=email

A key former F.B.I. official cast doubt on the Justice Department’s case for dropping a criminal charge against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn during an interview with investigators last week, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap’s interview. A Justice Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it would soon be filed with the court.

The department’s motion referred to notes that Mr. Priestap wrote around the bureau’s 2017 questioning of Mr. Flynn, who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during that interview. His lawyers said Mr. Priestap’s notes — recently uncovered during a review of the case — suggested that the F.B.I. was trying to entrap Mr. Flynn, and Attorney General William P. Barr said investigators were trying to “lay a perjury trap.”

That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to the people familiar with the investigation.

Mr. Priestap and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Priestap told investigators that he did not remember the circumstances surrounding the notes that he took , and that he was giving them his interpretation of the notes as he read them now , according to a person familiar with his interview.

xxxxxxxxxx


we need to start prosecuting these FBI traitors and start putting them away

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Devin Nunes:

It's much worse than just Flynn



Devin Nunes: "Nobody wants these bastards put in jail, more than me"

seen at CTH

Nunes: if he becomes House intel chair again, he has subpoenas ready to go.

"Nunes reminds the audience that Flynn is only one person within a much larger group of Trump transition team members who were under surveillance by Team Obama."

So what is he waiting for?

"So what is he waiting for?"

I don't understand your question.

Nunes doesn't control House Intel comm. DEM Adam Schiff is the chair. Nunes can make recommendations but Schiff won't authorize actions such as depositions against the coup team.

If you had to name one person who was most responsible for exposing the coup attempt, Devin Nunes wouldn't be a bad choice.

The ramifications of the DEMs getting control of the House have been total disaster, the continuance of the treasonous attempts to overturn the 2016 election, and an organized attempt to stop Donald Trump in 2020 by baseless and fabricated claims.

This F#ing judge is out of control ( or rather under control of the conspirators). He is openly showing his bias and true colors and needs to be removed by impeachment and prosecuted himself for corruption.

Can the senate republican majority not convene a public senate investigation similar to the one the house had against the president? Subpoena Schiff and the major dem players and subject them to a tough line of questioning. Expose theirs lies in public. Surely among the Senators their are some ex bulldog prosecutors.

Any violations of the most minor laws could justifiably be followed by Justice Dept. action.

The dems would do it if they were in a position to. Do we not have any patriotic rep Senators who would aggressively pursue some justice?

quote:

Originally posted by maxdog:
Any violations of the most minor laws could justifiably be followed by Justice Dept. action.

Start at the bottom and nail people who broke the law. There's some obvious, easy ones to start with. Work your way up the food chain handing out more severe charges + sentences as you go. Isn't that how we address organized crime etc?

We need to reestablish the Rule of Law and that there's 1 set of laws for all.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://theconservativetreehou...l-flynn/#more-191684

Judge Sullivan is requesting retired judge John Gleeson to file an amicus brief outlining why: (a) the charge against Flynn should not be dropped; and (b) frame the argument about how to prosecute Flynn for perjury.

Former Judge John Gleeson (U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York) recently penned an op-ed in the Washington post arguing that Flynn should continue to be prosecuted.

There are now questions being raised about whether Judge Emett Sullivan is having ex-parte communication about the case; with outside interests helping to steer the decision-making. It would not come as a surprise to discover this is happening, albeit unethically.

Now the purpose of the leaked conference call, aka instructions, from former President Barack Obama come into play; especially considering that Obama specifically mentioned “perjury” which is now part of what Judge Sullivan is attempting to accomplish.

Questions Looking for Answers: Judge Sullivan and General Flynn

Motion practice query. Where a judge appoints an amicus to represent a party or continue a litigation or prosecution because of an absence of adversity, then do not the parties first get notice and an opportunity to be heard to contest the appointment? Or does the court act on its own, make the appointment, and then allow the parties to make objections after-the-fact?

If the court had prior contacts with the amicus—eg, a beauty contest or competition for the starring amicus role—do the parties get to see the records of those contacts between the court and the amicus?

Who, if anyone, has oversight over Amicus (Inquisitor) Gleeson? Is it DOJ? Can DOJ assert authority over Gleeson or “his” case, like in a qui tam matter? Does Gleeson take an oath of office to support the Constitution? Is Gleeson subject to the ethical guidance which applies to federal prosecutors or the other policies of the DOJ?

Is Gleeson subject to the Appointments Clause?

Does Gleeson get paid compensation or expenses? Under what statute? Also, if he is now a public official, where can he be contacted for the right to petition? Will he get office space at the courthouse? If he is working at home, how will he secure communications which are confidential or secure materials which are public property under various records laws, and therefore must be preserved? Is Gleeson subject to Freedom of Information Act?

Does Gleeson get protection from the U.S. Marshal’s office?

When a U.S. federal judge sentences a person to a term in jail, does that order require the Executive Branch to put the person in jail, or is that merely authorization to put the person in jail? If the Executive Branch says: “We only jail people if we bring the prosecution,” then will Judge Sullivan hold the U.S. Marshal Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons in contempt too? Where does this process of endless judicially-organized contempts and prosecutions end?

Sorry just one more query. If Amicus Gleeson represents a party, does not he have to be a member of the bar for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia? Is he a member? [Gleeson is not a member of the District of Columbia bar. See <https://join.dcbar.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=dcbar&WebCode=FindMemberResults>]

It turns out that you can look up who is and who is not a member of the bar for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC). See <https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bar-memberattorney-information-lookup>. If you look up John Gleeson, he is not listed as a member of the DDC bar. Finally, John Gleeson is listed on his law firm’s website. <https://www.debevoise.com/johngleeson?tab=biography>. Under bar admissions, he lists “New York” and that is it. Of course, I expect that this could be fixed with a pro hac vice motion. Has one been filed?

https://reformclub.blogspot.co...r-answers-judge.html

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
If you had to name one person who was most responsible for exposing the coup attempt, Devin Nunes wouldn't be a bad choice.

I have two other names to put forward:

Thomas Fitton – President, Board Member, Officer at Judicial Watch

Chris Farrell – Director of Research and Investigation, Board Member at Judicial Watch

It has been Judicial Watch's relentless pursuit of documents and depositions that opened this can of putrid ooze, starting with Benghazi.

Benghazi > Clinton email server > FBI cabal test messages > targeting of Flynn > targeting of President Trump