"General Michael Flynn was lied to, set up multiple times before and after the Trump inauguration, excessively and to the point of illegally unmasked, targeted, ambushed in the White House, falsely accused, threatened with his son being indicted, provided corrupt legal counsel (the same firm where corrupt Obama former AG Eric Holder works), harassed for 3 years, belittled, slandered, besmirched by the judge, harassed by the judge, and then the attorneys going after him were the same attorneys who represented the corrupt Sally Yates who lied and told President Trump General Flynn lied."

This is from the link above. I note the "provided corrupt legal counsel". I suspect that either the law firm provided Flynn with their worst attorneys, or the attorneys deliberately sabotaged his case. Not sure which, but being that it is the law firm that Eric Holder works at, I cannot believe it was anything but intentional.

Would be interesting if Flynn could get the fees back that he paid.

Eric Holders law firm:
https://theintercept.com/2015/...m-lobbies-big-banks/

more



The Flynn interview was 24 Jan 2017 by
Strzok and Pientka

seen at Techno Fog

"For reference - we were able to get Gauhar's calendar for the day after Flynn was interviewed (1/25/17).

The notes indicate a meeting Gauhar attended with the FBI at the NSD SCIF.

Suspicion: did they review the original (and missing) Flynn 302 at that meeting?"

CTH has really posted a wild one. Is sundance right ?

https://theconservativetreehou...21-2018/#more-196237


On July 21, 2018, amid the apex of all things Trump-Russia being carefully narrated by the special counsel team, why did the DOJ release the Top Secret Classified Intelligence document known as the Carter Page FISA application?

The DOJ was blocking documents related to surveillance of President Trump. The media was saying there was no surveillance of Trump. Congress was desperate to break the stonewalling and asked President Trump to declassify a list of documents they provided. Rod Rosenstein threatened Trump that if he declassified documents it would be add to a potential obstruction investigation and claim

amid all of that stonewalling, blocking, redacting of documents, failure to unredact, and refusal to declassify…. suddenly, all of a sudden, presto, here’s the most top secret classified document release ever.

To fulfill a FOIA request by Judicial Watch and the New York Times . A FOIA request?

It just never made sense.

Robert Mueller was a false front, a semi-cogent face for a team of 17 lawyers that moved in to take over Main Justice.

Rod Rosenstein was doing exactly the same as Mueller, acquiescing to every request, instruction and demand by the seventeen legal squatters who took over Main Justice.

As Rod Rosenstein recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he never once questioned the special counsel about any request, demand or instruction; and he never once challenged their motives for the requests they made.

As Deputy AG, and with AG Sessions recused, Rod Rosenstein should have been on top of the special counsel; but he wasn’t. He intentionally wasn’t.

The entire time the special counsel was operating, seventeen assembled members of the Trump resistance, were running the show inside the U.S. Department of Justice. They controlled everything.

AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled; he saw nothing, and he had no input into anything. That was the first step in the resistance operation.

The second step was to instruct Rosenstein that every request made by the team was part of their investigation; regardless of how it might seem disconnected, it was all part of their investigative process. That’s how they steamrolled Rosenstein into sitting in a corner and waiting for documents to sign; authorities to grant (scope memos etc.); indictments to approve; and requests to be fulfilled.

Seventeen members of the special counsel were running Main Justice. Seventeen members of the resistance, with input guidance and assistance from Lawfare, were running Main Justice. That’s the paradigm shift that needs to baseline everything.

When the FISA application was released in July 2018, it was released by the special counsel team. Technically Rosenstein released it; however, unofficially it was released by the demand of the resistance operators under the auspices that it was part of their investigative technique; part of the ongoing operation.

Except that wasn’t the real motive.

The real motive for releasing the FISA application, under the auspices of granting a FOIA request, was because the resistance already knew the New York Times had obtained it illegally.

In fact The New York Times had the FISA application since March 17, 2017, when SSCI Security Director James Wolfe, operating under instructions from SSCI resistance coordinator, Mark Warner, took pictures of each page of the FISA application and sent them to journalist Ali Watkins at Buzzfeed.

Ms. Watkins then shared the FISA with fellow resistance allies at the Washington Post and New York Times. To cover her tracks Ms. Watkins did not immediately write about the FISA application, and I suspect the editors at Buzzfeed may not have known.

In exchange for her pre-planned role, The New York Times then hired Watkins; and, under the legal tutelage of the NYT Watkins based her reporting on the Trump-Russia narrative from there.

However, in March 2017 what Watkins, Wolfe, media and Mark Warner did not immediately know, was that the FBI was conducting a leak investigation; a genuine leak investigation, and the SSCI was suspected. The FISA application picked up by James Wolfe and delivered to the SSCI contained a leak tracer, a trap. When the tracer showed up on media reports, the FBI knew where it was leaked from – the SSCI.

Unfortunately, what the FBI did not know – was that SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner was the inside resistance operative giving Wolfe the instructions on how to proceed.

In May 2017, the FBI informed Vice-Chair Warner and Chairman Richard Burr that someone in the SSCI leaked the FISA application. In essence FBI investigators just told the culprit they were investigating a leak he created. Think about the ramifications.

As part of the overall investigation to locate the specific leaker, all of the SSCI was subject to review and quiet investigation. As the FBI worked through a process of elimination, that’s when the FBI discovered the Mark Warner text messages to Adam Waldman, the lawyer for Chris Steele. Not coincidentally the Warner text messages end in May 2017; exactly when he was first notified by the FBI about the specifics of the leak hunt.

What also started in May 2017?….. The special counsel.

One important aspect to the coordinated demand and incessant drumbeat by the media for a special counsel, was a need to control the outcome of the FBI leak investigation.

Total control. This was all connected.

The resistance took over Main Justice with the appointment of the special counsel; and one of their priorities was to stop anyone from: (a) finding out the FISA application had leaked; (b) block anyone from finding out how it was leaked; (c) block any independent FBI activity surrounding the leak.

March 17th was less than two months after President Trump was inaugurated. The FISA was leaked even before it was renewed in April (Boente/Comey), and renewed again by the instructions of the special counsel team on June 29th.

When the New York Times sent a FOIA for the FISA application, they did so as a necessary legal cover because they already illegally possessed it. [Keep in mind, the copy they had was not redacted at all.]

When the Trump-Russia narrative was at it’s apex in July 2018; and with a need to deploy all weapons against the upcoming mid-term election; and when the resistance group needed to provide legal cover for the New York Times; the FISA application was released by the resistance unit running Main Justice.

It was released as cover for the New York Times (and others) who were already reporting on it; and it allowed the NYT, and others, to fully weaponize the fictitious aspect to the narrative about the FBI genuinely being concerned about Trump colluding with Russia.

The July 2018 release itself was not a clean copy of the FISA application; but rather the DOJ team re-released the March 17, 2017, release and then added the final two renewals to the total release. In 2018 the DOJ resistance group had to re-release the portion of the FISA application that was previously leaked in March 2017 (or else any reporting containing the leak tracer would not be covered/justified).

The seventeen members of the special counsel were intentionally brought into Main Justice to organize the resistance. The DOJ was running the resistance operation. AG Jeff Sessions was fire-walled and clueless; and DAG Rosenstein was just approving anything put in front of him because it was sold as part of the investigative process.

Regardless of the FBI investigation, the DOJ resistance operation held ultimate control.

Why did Warner/Burr, the SSCI and the DOJ resistance need ICIG Michael Atkinson?

…..Control, in the event a whistle-blower tried poking his head up.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/0...awsuit-aven-fridman/

British Court Rules Against Christopher Steele In Dossier Lawsuit, Orders Ex-Spy To Pay Russian Bankers

A British judge on Wednesday ordered former British spy Christopher Steele to pay damages to two Russian bankers he accused in the infamous Trump dossier of having illicit ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The ruling, handed down by Sir Mark Warby, a justice on the High Court of England and Wales, marks Steele’s first loss in a dossier-related lawsuit.

Warby ordered Steele and his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay £18,000 to Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, two owners of Alfa Bank, for violating their rights under the Data Protection Act.

Fridman, Aven and a third Alfa Bank owner, German Khan, sued Steele in the British court in May 2018 alleging that he violated their rights under the Data Protection Act, a British law that grants individuals legal remedies to ensure information about them in the public domain is accurate.

The bankers sued Steele over a Sept. 14, 2016 memo that the ex-spy compiled as part of an investigation for the Clinton campaign of Donald Trump’s possible ties to the Russian government.

Steele, a former MI6 officer, alleged that the bankers made “illicit” cash payments to Putin in the 1990s, and continued to do “significant favours” for the Russian leader.

Warby determined that Steele’s allegation about illicit payments was false, and that he failed to conduct due diligence to verify the information once he received it from a source he used to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign and Russia.

Warby ruled that Steele’s allegations were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.”

“The steps taken to verify [this] proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” the justice also said, adding that “the allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking.”

Warby emphasized Steele’s admission during cross-examination in mid-March that the dossier contained inaccurate information regarding a Russian he claimed served as the bag man for an alleged scheme between the bankers and Vladimir Putin.

Steele alleged that Oleg Govorun made the secret payments on Alfa’s behalf to Putin when he served as deputy mayor of St. Petersburg.

But the bankers’ lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson, forced Steele to concede that the allegation was inaccurate because Govorun did not start working for Alfa Bank until after Putin was no longer deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. Steele testified that he conducted a single internet search regarding Govorun before adding the information to the dossier.

“It is unclear what efforts Mr Steele made to verify this allegation, other than the one relevant internet search to which he has referred,” Warby said in his ruling. “Mr Steele’s evidence as to the single relevant internet search he undertook was unimpressive.”

Warby determined that other allegations that Steele made in his memo about Alfa Bank did not violate the Data Protection Act.

Steele goes to trial in another dossier-related lawsuit later this month. Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian tech executive, claims that Steele falsely accused him of using his companies to help Russian hackers steal information from Democrats in 2016.

Both Gubarev and the Alfa Bank executives have lost lawsuits filed in the U.S. over the dossier. Gubarev sued BuzzFeed News for publishing the dossier on Jan. 10, 2017. The heads of Alfa Bank sued Steele in Washington, D.C., but lost that case on appeal. They are also suing Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele on behalf of the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign and DNC.

The proceedings in the Alfa Bank case elicited new details about the methods Steele used to put together the dossier. He said under cross-examination that he relied on a lone source to collect information from a network of sub-sources, many of whom lived in Russia.

The former spy also said that his communications with the source — and other documents related to the Trump dossier project — were “wiped” in late 2016 or early 2017.

Steele also revealed why he included information about Alfa Bank in the dossier.

He disclosed that a lawyer for Perkins Coie, the firm that hired Fusion GPS, told him during a July 29, 2016 meeting that Alfa Bank may have had covert communications with the Trump Organization through both organizations’ computer servers

Steele said that Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, directed him to further investigate Alfa Bank. The theory of illicit server contacts first appeared in public in an Oct. 31, 2016 article at Slate. Sussmann has acknowledged that he was a source for the article, published by Franklin Foer.

Sussman - a lawyer for Perkins Coie

The Justice Department’s inspector general (IG) poured cold water on that story, saying in a report of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign that the FBI determined by February 2017 that there was not a secret channel of communication between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

The special counsel’s report said that investigators could not establish that any Trump associate conspired with Russia. The report also said that no Americans, including anyone affiliated with Trump, took part in the theft or release of emails stolen from Democrats.

The IG report further undercut Steele’s work. The report said that Steele’s primary source disputed many of the allegations in the dossier. The source told FBI agents in January 2017 that Steele misrepresented or embellished information that was in the dossier.

The IG report also said that the FBI had evidence that Russian intelligence operatives fed disinformation to Steele

RE: Flynn Case.

I just saw this article and it details what the timeline is for dismissal.

"First, based on the decision of the DC Court of Appeals, and the 21 day period under the Rules of Appellate Procedure before a “Mandate” issues from the Appeals Court to the District Court, Judge Sullivan has until July 14, 2020 to dismiss the case against Gen. Flynn himself. If Judge Sullivan does not act on or before July 14, then the case will be automatically dismissed by the District Court upon the Order of the Appeals Court. At any time during that 21 day period it could be announced that there has been a vote taken on a request for the case to be reheard en banc — which means by the whole court. As I understand the process, a request for such a vote to be taken, and the outcome of such a vote, would be announced at the same time. In other words, we won’t even know that such a vote was called for until we are told what the outcome of the vote might be. So the fact that we haven’t not heard about such a vote being called does not mean that no such request has been made. We have another seven days to wait."

Full article (also touches on the tax case a bit):

https://www.redstate.com/shipw...e-next-couple-weeks/

It is getting VERY hard to stay positive and think that something may actually be done about the Obama lawlessness. Barr seems to be so worried about appearing 'political' that he is willing to risk the entire investigation being ended and or any charges being dropped if Trump does not win. He seems to be more worried about the 'institution' and not the Constitution. Even Senator Grassley seems to think nothing is going to happen judging by his recent tweets. Personally I blame Sessions. This whole thing started two years late because of him.

"Durham, under pressure to wrap up investigation, could 'punt' to after Election Day: source".

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...-election-day-source

Flynn Judge Defies Appeals Court, Asks For Full Review Of Order To Drop Case

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...view-order-drop-case

The judge in Michael Flynn's criminal case is refusing to accept the results of a federal appeals court three-judge decision ordering him to dismiss the case against the former national security adviser.

Judge Emmet Sullivan has instead asked the appeals court for an 'en banc' review of the decision - meaning the entire panel of all active judges on the court would re-hear the case.

Interestingly, if the appeals court grants the en banc request, reversing the previous ruling would mean undermining a decision by Obama appointee, Chief Judge Srinivasan - whose ruling in United States v. Fokker Services B.V. effectively removed Sullivan's authority to deny the DOJ's request to dismiss Flynn's case.

quote:

Interestingly, if the appeals court grants the en banc request, reversing the previous ruling would mean undermining a decision by Obama appointee, Chief Judge Srinivasan - whose ruling in United States v. Fokker Services B.V. effectively removed Sullivan's authority to deny the DOJ's request to dismiss Flynn's case.

This just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I mean, both parties want to dismiss, and the Judge is taking it upon himself to refuse. What on earth is it about Michael Flynn that is causing these attorneys and judges to fly to the brink of lawlessness?

quote:

This just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I mean, both parties want to dismiss, and the Judge is taking it upon himself to refuse. What on earth is it about Michael Flynn that is causing these attorneys and judges to fly to the brink of lawlessness?

IIRC once the case is settled, Flynn can talk about it. Right now he is under some kind of gag order. If he were to begin talking, I’m sure more shit will come out.

Plus it’s a huge fail for the people who initiated this sham, if the case is dropped.

seen at CTH

Richard Grenell agrees w President Trump that the Obama administration committed treason.

Grenell makes a great point: intelligence is an estimate. Raw intelligence must be verified.

some of the most recently info re Michael Flynn:



seen at Techno Fog

25 jan 2017 this is the next day after the 24 Jan 2017 "interview" w Flynn

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


and hand written notes from Dana Boente from meeting w Comey

re Michael Flynn:

"do not view as source of collusion"
"example of"
"pulling SF 86"
"Logan Act"
"FARA"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I read that Flynn paid his shitty Covington lawyers $6.7 million dollars

More info on the Steele bullshit from a UK court.

https://justthenews.com/accoun...s-durham-prosecution

It was in London that the whole Russia collusion caper began four years ago, so it seems only fitting that as the discredited probe enters its final phase that damning new evidence of the FBI’s failures would emerge back in England.

This week when a British judge ruled against the former FBI human source Christopher Steele, the decision delivered more than an order for the former spy’s company to pay damages to two Russian businessmen maligned by his dossier.

It also introduced new incontrovertible evidence that bolsters Attorney General William Barr's and U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into whether the FBI engaged in misconduct and criminally deceived the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to win permission to spy on the Trump campaign.

Buried in Justice Mark Warby’s ruling were several new pieces of evidence that answer long lingering questions about just what the FBI knew, and when it knew it.

For instance, Congressional Republicans have long questioned when exactly the FBI knew that Steele’s dossier was a product ordered up for the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party. After all, the bureau never revealed the connection to the FISA court despite its central relevance to the motives of the dossier.

Warby’s lengthy ruling unearthed a gem of new evidence to answer the question: Steele kept his own notes of what he told FBI agents the first time he met them on July 5, 2016 in London to discuss his anti-Trump Russia research.

And, Warby revealed, the notes make clear that Steele told his FBI handlers from the get-go that the dossier’s “ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.”

So the FBI knew immediately that the dossier it used to justify a FISA warrant targeting the Trump campaign was a political opposition research product designed to help Clinton defeat her Republican opponent and did not divulge the connection.

That’s not all that Warby’s decision provided to American investigators.

The ruling discloses that officials at the State Department where Hillary Clinton had served as secretary of state were uniquely involved in Steele’s efforts to bring the dossier to attention, including Mrs. Clinton’s former Russia expert Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, Clinton's successor as secretary of state John Kerry and Joe Biden’s former national security adviser Tony Blinken.

Steele “elaborated, by explaining that his understanding in July 2016 was that the FBI officer he met had cleared his lines with the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland,” the judge disclosed.

And after Trump won the election, the judge added, Steele disclosed he gave copies of his dossier to longtime Clinton friend Strobe Talbot in hopes it would get to the top of the State Department.

Talbott “said that he was due to meet a group of individuals at the State Department, and asked Mr Steele to share a copy of the Dossier with him, with a view to him being able to discuss the national security issues raised with these individuals,” the court revealed.

“Mr Steele agreed. He did so on the understanding that Mr Talbott had been speaking to the US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ms Nuland, who knew of the Dossier and its broad content; and that the individuals whom Mr Talbott was due to meet included the then US Deputy Secretary of State, Tony Blinken,” the court added.

The British evidence continues, noting that Steele openly admitted he was leaking to the news media while working for the FBI.

“Mr Steele admits briefing journalists about Orbis’ work, and the documentary evidence and cross-examination make it clear that, in and after late September 2016 he was heavily and enthusiastically involved in doing so,” the judge wrote.

Remarkably, one of the media outlets that Steele talked with was used by the FBI in the FISA warrant as independent corroboration for his dossier when in fact it was circular reporting.

Finally, Steele admitted in the court proceedings that he did little to verify information he got from sources and gave to the FBI unfiltered and unvetted. In fact, the court dissected just one of the many memos that made up Steele’s dossier and found five factually inaccurate, unverified statements.

Warby even admonished Steele for passing along allegations such as bribery without doing due diligence, saying such allegations “clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking.”

That admonition clearly extended to the FBI, who certified to the FISA court that evidence it plucked from Steele’s dossier to support the FISA warrant was “verified.” It was not. And determining it wasn’t verified proved easy, as the judge showed. Steele readily admitted it when questioned.

A growing number of President Trump's defenders are growing frustrated that Durham’s investigation hasn’t produced a single prosecution after a year of investigation. Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley decried Durham's lack of action as “SAD, SAD, SAD” in a tweet earlier this week.

“The deep state is so deep that [people] get away [with] political crimes/Durham [should] be producing some fruit of his labor,” the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee declared.

The Justice Department inspector general has already identified 17 major failures of the FBI in compiling the FISA warrant applications, including false information, falsified documents, and omissions of exculpatory evidence.

The FISA court has likewise confirmed that it was, in fact, misled by the FBI.

And now from Britain, where the first and now-disproven allegations of Trump-Russia collusion surfaced in summer 2016, we have been given compelling evidence the FBI withheld information it knew was relevant.

Steele admitted to the FBI his ultimate client was Clinton. He admitted he was leaking to the news media. He admitted he didn’t do much to verify his raw allegations. And he admitted he was working political figures in the Clinton sphere to get his allegations into circulation.

Such actions have already been deemed to be negligent by prior watchdog reviews. But now Durham has fresh evidence that goes to the issue of intent. The FBI had prior knowledge about these problems and didn’t come clean to the court as required by law and duty.

If Durham is building a case that FBI officials conspired to defraud the FISA court and Congress, his team just got some new exhibits from across the Atlantic Ocean.

Robert Mueller crawls out from under his rock
via Wash Post of course

https://www.washingtonpost.com...ne-oped/?arc404=true

By Robert S. Mueller III

The work of the special counsel’s office — its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions — should speak for itself. But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office. The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so.

Russia’s actions were a threat to America’s democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood. By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails.

Following FBI Director James B. Comey’s termination in May 2017, the acting attorney general named me as special counsel and directed the special counsel’s office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The order specified lines of investigation for us to pursue, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. One of our cases involved Stone, an official on the campaign until mid-2015 and a supporter of the campaign throughout 2016. Stone became a central figure in our investigation for two key reasons: He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers.

We now have a detailed picture of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel’s office identified two principal operations directed at our election: hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government and Trump campaign personnel — Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task. The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were charged with federal crimes.

Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.

The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands.

Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts.

We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

How many lies did the FBI and DoJ make ?

Did Stone try to pull off a coup to overturn the 2016 election ?

Were the emails that Wikileaks released truthful ? Did they reveal a plot to sandbag Bernie Sanders ?

Did you spy on the Trump campaign ?

Did you railroad Flynn ?

Were the charges dropped against the 2 dozen Russian entities ?

Did Russians named in the dossier win a court case against Christopher Steele ?

Was Papadopoulos set up and railroaded just like Flynn ?

Where is Joseph Mifsud? The guy who "started it all"? Who told Mifsud to set up Papadopoulos?

Who provided the $10,000 given to Papadopoulos in Israel ? The money that was to trap Papadopoulos when he flew to Dulles and your guys were waiting for him.

"We did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities" And you knew that the day you started as Special Counsel.

Stone "communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers, and he claimed advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of emails stolen by those Russian intelligence officers." Did you convict Stone of that ? Did you convict any Russians because of that ? Did you ever actually see the DNC server ? The one that Podesta gave some hacker his password to when the hacker asked for it.

Did your FBI team lie to the FISA court in multiple Top Secret documents ?

I'm tired of typing. The list of FBI/DoJ/ Special Counsel disgraceful and unpatriotic behavior is near endless.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

adding:

Chuck Ross:

Amazing. Mueller is likely referring to Guccifer 2.0. Stone wrote 3 benign messages to Guccifer 2.0, who nobody knew at the time to be working for Russian intelligence.

"He communicated in 2016 with individuals known to us to be Russian intelligence officers"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The list of FBI/DoJ/ Special Counsel disgraceful and unpatriotic behavior is near endless.

And the number of people fired, retired or removed far outnumber any feeble convictions Mueller and team are responsible for.

We're the ones who should be marching in the streets demanding Justice.

^^^ 100% correct

Too little too late.
I would tend to question any investigation any of these fools touched.

highly recommended video of interview w Luke Rosiak

This is from a year ago (July 2019)

40 minutes long

He is pushing his book, but a very interesting story

Explains why the Awan brothers got off

Lol here is your Sunday Funny:

"Graham Says He Will Call Mueller to Testify Before Senate Committee"

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Sunday that he will grant a request to call former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify about the Russia investigation.

Graham made the announcement in a statement a day after Mueller published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he defended the prosecution and conviction of Roger Stone after President Trump commuted Stone's sentence. Stone's case spun out of Mueller's probe.

"Apparently Mr. Mueller is willing -- and also capable -- of defending the Mueller investigation through an op-ed in the Washington Post," Graham said in a statement. "Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have previously requested Mr. Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation. That request will be granted.”

Mueller's op-ed defended both the decision to prosecute Stone, as well as the overarching Russia investigation that Republicans and the president have repeatedly denounced. Mueller said he felt "compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper."

Trump tweeted Saturday that Stone "was targeted by an illegal Witch Hunt that never should have taken place."

"The Russia investigation was of paramount importance," he added. He went on to indirectly address Republicans' accusations that the investigation was led by crooked actors within the Justice Department (DOJ). "The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false," he said.

Saturday's op-ed represents perhaps the boldest statement from Mueller, who was criticized for offering what was considered a tepid testimony to House investigators last year. Former FBI Director James Comey similarly defended the investigation last May and ridiculed accusations that the DOJ engaged in a "deep state" conspiracy against Trump.

The White House responded to Mueller's op-ed Sunday, referring to Mueller's own report, which noted a lack of evidence that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia.

"Robert Mueller and his corrupt investigation failed to hold anyone in the Obama-Biden Administration accountable for their negligence toward Russian interference or for spying on the Trump Campaign based on a Democrat-funded dossier full of lies, and instead wasted taxpayer dollars trying to undo an election,” Deputy White House Press Secretary Judd Deere said in a statement. “Mr. Mueller should keep his promise to the American people and let the report, which fully exonerated the President, stand instead of pontificating in the editorial pages with more spin.”

There are two things here that anyone who has followed this case knows:
1) Mueller did not write this op-ed
2) Graham will not call him to testify

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ore-senate-committee

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
2) Graham will not call him to testify

Exactly. And if he did, to what end? Not a damned thing is gonna happen and those waiting for the "perp walk" had better pack a lunch.

CTH has a very comprehensive post up at:

https://theconservativetreehou...-boente/#more-196589

Very long. Quite complicated.

The article is showing how the Mueller team ran DoJ. They controlled the complete flow of info to the public. They blocked congress.

One of the big claims that CTH makes is that James Wolfe (former Senate Intel Security Director) did actually provide reporter Ali Watkins with the full unredacted Top Secret FISA warrant on Carter Page.

And there has been a lot of effort to hide that.

Sundance at CTH is really tying things together.

CTH has the same problem that Horowitz has. The truth is so involved and the FBI/DoJ forces at play to bring down President Trump were (are) staggering in size and at the highest levels of the FBI/DoJ.

I think his intent is to initiate some wide spread public disclosure campaign to lay all his analysis out. CTH is going to try to force Durham to address the issues that are out in plain sight.