We both want the same thing. I'm just not as impatient because I can see what's going on.

It will end when Trump wants it to end. But he's not going to end it until they've dug themselves into their hole deep enough that they can't climb out.

Oh I'm not impatient at all, and I can see CLEARLY what is going on. Even after this has been going on for the next three years I'll still vote Trump. Years of fake investigations won't change my mind.

Know what elee this perpetual investigation does? Probably the most important thing. It constantly keeps the Trump administration on the defense and denies him any favorable press. This has the very real effect of helping to slow down his agenda, which is probably the number one goal of the left.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

I would also suggest removing every flag officer under the grounds of "lost faith in their ability to lead."

Not the dumbest thing I’ve heard, but pretty fucking close to it.

Does the herd need to be culled? Certainly. But if you chop them all off, you’re stuck with trying to replace them with the hacks at the O-6 level, who will only power trip at their rapid rise to power.

And how many flag officers do you think are still serving who were promoted to one star prior to the Obama Administration?

Do you really believe there are many flag officers who do not endorse the ideals of the Obama Administration? It seems to me that just abut every flag officer promoted in the eight years of the Obama Administration drew the ire of the Republican bloc because they endorsed things like transsexuals serving, highly restrictive ROE, Obama's plans in Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Syria, etc.

And if the O-6 ranks are so filled with hacks who will power trip at their promotion, at the very least there are more of them to choose from when selecting replacements for the 45 flag officers each Service should have, instead of the 231 Army, 162 Navy, 198 Air Force, and 61 Marine Corps flag officers currently allowed.

The OBAMA-Boogeyman-Controlled EVERYTHING gets old after awhile.

"Do you really believe there are many flag officers who do not endorse the ideals of the Obama Administration? It seems to me that just abut every flag officer promoted in the eight years of the Obama Administration..."

Ok, lets pull the thread a little. Do you even know any current flag officers? Do you know any promoted in that time period? Have you ever served in the military?

Or is all of this wisdom gleaned from Drudge and AM radio stations?

Kind of a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer and try to surprise me.

I know ~10 flag officers (Navy and Marine) pretty well. All promoted into that rank over the past eight years of the Obama Admin.

I have no concerns about any of them.

But didn't you hear? They're all HUSSEIN plants, they had to pledge to HIM and are just hacks???

I know @5 that promoted under Obama and a crop that is approaching that promotion phase of their career. Also zero concerns about them.

some good points in this article

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...-strzok-thoughts.php

In simultaneously published articles on December 2, the New York Times and the Washington Post each reported that former top FBI official Peter Strzok had been removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. The Times and the Post attributed their stories to usual unnamed “people briefed on the matter.”

The simultaneous publication of anonymously sourced stories by the Times and the Post suggests the management of a big scandal.

Strzok served as Mueller’s lead investigator until his departure from Mueller’s team in August

The current stories report that Strzok has been reassigned to the FBI’s human resources department

Strzok’s text messages are the reason given for his removal from Mueller’s team.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz brought the text messages to light in the course of an investigation that the Times vaguely describes: “The inspector general’s office at the Justice Department said that as part of a larger inquiry it was conducting into how the F.B.I. had handled investigations related to the 2016 election, the office was ‘reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.’”

None of the stories pause to ask why the Inspector General have sought Strzok’s text messages in the first place. What is going on here? As the Times notes, FBI regulations allow an agent to express his opinions “as an individual privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates.”

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
some good points in this article

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...-strzok-thoughts.php

In simultaneously published articles on December 2, the New York Times and the Washington Post each reported that former top FBI official Peter Strzok had been removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. The Times and the Post attributed their stories to usual unnamed “people briefed on the matter.”

The simultaneous publication of anonymously sourced stories by the Times and the Post suggests the management of a big scandal.

Strzok served as Mueller’s lead investigator until his departure from Mueller’s team in August

The current stories report that Strzok has been reassigned to the FBI’s human resources department

Strzok’s text messages are the reason given for his removal from Mueller’s team.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz brought the text messages to light in the course of an investigation that the Times vaguely describes: “The inspector general’s office at the Justice Department said that as part of a larger inquiry it was conducting into how the F.B.I. had handled investigations related to the 2016 election, the office was ‘reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them.’”

None of the stories pause to ask why the Inspector General have sought Strzok’s text messages in the first place. What is going on here? As the Times notes, FBI regulations allow an agent to express his opinions “as an individual privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates.”

This is misleading fake news.

The reason this guy was dumped is that he was discovered to be the leaker who provided details of the mid night raid in Manafort’s house, according to one story I read, or heard recently. Mueller tracked down the messages abd concluded it was Strzok.

quote:

This is misleading fake news.

what is fake about it?

The DoJ IG has been running an investigation into the actions of the Justice Department and FBI in the months leading up to the 2016 election

Major news media carried the story, including that Strzok had an extramarital affair w Page. Strzok is married to Melissa Hodgman who is an associate director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Nunes has gone on record multiple times saying that Muellar and FBI won't say why Strzok was removed from the investigation.

Please have some rational for claiming something is fake news.

Do you really think the NYT and Wash Post would run "fake news" that the top Muellar investigator is hard core anti-Trump and someone who has been a central player in the Clinton email investigation ?

http://www.newsweek.com/robert...-probe-strzok-729517

The office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed a top investigator amid allegations that he had sent text messages appearing critical of President Donald Trump, the office confirmed on Saturday.

Mueller’s office removed Strzok after the Department of Justice inspector general discovered text messages he had exchanged about news events that could be considered anti-Trump, according to the Times and The Washington Post.

“Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the special counsel’s office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation,” Peter Carr, a spokesman for the office, said in a statement to Newsweek and other outlets on Saturday.

Peter Carr is Muellar's spokesman to handle media matters

Strzok is a hard-core anti-Trump/pro-Hillary guy, who has mysteriously been at the center of too many things (Clinton e-mail issues, Hillary and her staff FBI interviews, Weiner e-mail, Fusion dossier management and referrals to FISA court, etc.); who was having an affair with another anti-Trump/pro-Hillary FBI lawyer that works for McCabe, and sharing anti-Trump texts.

but, all the way back on page 2 of this thread, I posted an article that said he was actually fired for leaking about the Manafort search, not because his anti-Trump views were exposed.


No confirmation from Mueller as to exactly why he was fired.

Is there anyone in Mueller's office who isn't an anti-Trump fanatic?

On the heels of the revelation that one of Robert Mueller's top aides, Peter Strzok, sent anti-Trump texts to a mistress comes the news that another top employee of the special counsel's investigation, prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, sent a congratulatory email to then-acting attorney general Sally Yates, who had illegally refused to defend in the courts Donald Trump's executive order banning refugees from some countries.

Weissmann was a Justice Department official at the time. The emails were obtained by Judicial Watch.

Daily Caller:

"I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects," Weissmann wrote to Yates on Jan. 30. That same day, Yates told the Justice Department not to defend an executive order banning immigration from seven nations, an act that led to her dismissal by President Trump.

The emails were obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

"This is an astonishing and disturbing find. Andrew Weissmann, a key prosecutor on Robert Mueller's team, praised Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates after she lawlessly thwarted President Trump," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. "How much more evidence do we need that the Mueller operation has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans? Shut it down."

Weissmann is one of many Democratic donors that have been hired by Mueller to work on his probe into Russian election interference. Weissmann gave a combined $6,600 to the presidential campaigns for both former President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

An October New York Times report described Weissmann as Mueller's "lieutenant" and "pit bull." A spokesman for the special counsel investigation declined to comment.

There are at least seven prosecutors on Mueller's staff who have given money to Democrats. If that isn't bad enough, recent revelations show that several of Mueller's top aides are as anti-Trump as any left-wing blogger raging against the president while sitting in his momma's basement.

Mueller's defenders dismiss the revelations as insults to the "professionalism" of Mueller's hit team. We've heard the same crap from the media for decades. Sure, the media are 80% Democrat, and they haven't a clue how the 90% of the country not living in New York or Los Angeles lives, but they are "professional" enough to screen out their bias and give the American people the "unbiased news."

The left doesn't mind that Mueller's team is as biased as leftists themselves are. They believe that getting rid of Trump is a moral imperative by itself. The means to achieving that end are not relevant. In fact, it's a positive good that so many on Mueller's staff hate Trump.

But tens of millions of Americans don't see it that way. Nor can the left fathom the danger of trying to remove a president not for what he's done, but for what he believes. They have given in to a hysteria taking America into a dark place that is dangerous to our freedoms. If they are allowed to succeed in railroading Trump out of office using these kangaroo court proceedings, the damage to the country will be irreversible.

http://www.americanthinker.com...titrump_fanatic.html

Another One! Mueller Deputy Was Personal Attorney of Ben Rhodes, Represented Clinton Foundation


On Fox News Tuesday night, Laura Ingraham reported that yet another one of Robert Mueller's deputies in his Russia investigation is compromised due to her track record as a blatant partisan.

Jeannie Rhee, who was hired by Mueller last summer to work on the probe, was the personal attorney of Ben Rhodes and also represented the Clinton Foundation, Ingraham revealed. "This information will put further pressure on Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller to resign."

Rhee is the third member of the Mueller team this week who has been shown to be brazenly partisan. Two other members of the team have been revealed as highly questionable hires in recent days as well — Peter Strzok, an anti-Trumper who helped exonerate Hillary Clinton, and Andrew Weissmann, an unscrupulous prosecutor who told outgoing acting Attorney General Sally Yates in an email that he was "proud" of her for defying President Trump's travel ban.

As bad as Strzok and Weissman are, Jeannie Rhee takes the cake. She formerly worked in the Obama Justice Department as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, according to Fox News. Rhee was also the personal attorney for Ben "echo chamber" Rhodes, and the deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama.

This could be a significant development because according to a report by Adam Kredo in the Washington Free Beacon last February, deep-state loyalists led by Rhodes had been working diligently behind the scenes to undermine the Trump White House and orchestrate the ouster of Michael Flynn, a strong opponent of the Iran nuclear deal.

Rhee was almost certainly part of that effort.

The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration's efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.

Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump's inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump's national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.

According to Free Beacon's multiple sources, "top members of the Obama administration's national security team launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House," and even told reporters that they were "using that infrastructure to undermine Trump's foreign policy":

"It's actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today," said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. "They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced."

Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.

Flynn is now "gone before anybody can see what happened" with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House.

According to a well-placed source who was involved in the 2015 fight over the Iran deal, the Obama administration was afraid that Flynn would expose the secret agreements with Iran.

Rhee, Ingraham noted, was Rhodes' "point of contact with the House Intel Committee in its investigation into Russia." She didn't appear with Rhodes at his closed-door hearing with House investigators in October because she was already working with Mueller, Ingraham said.

The host went on to report that Rhee "represented the Clinton Foundation and donated about $9,000 to Hillary and her fellow Democrats." She also worked in private practice with controversial legal bulldog Weissmann, according to Ingraham.

"Let's face it. What we're seeing here is a pattern and practice of Mueller hiring known Clinton and Obama political insiders and boosters, supporters to undo a presidential election — that was the election of Donald Trump," Ingraham declared.

"What Mueller did -- he hired a pedigree team of obvious partisans," she said. "A revolving door from working for political opponents of Trump to working on the investigation into Trump and his supposed Russian ties.... They should all step aside ... including Bob Mueller," she concluded.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/a...-clinton-foundation/

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Is there anyone in Mueller's office who isn't an anti-Trump fanatic?

Is that a trick question? With all the available qualified people he had to choose from, both inside the beltway and out, he ONLY chose people who leaned far left with ties to Clinton or Obama. Apparently there wasn't a SINGLE right leaning person qualified to be on his team.

Mueller is as dirty as the day is long.

Andrew Weismann achieved notoriety in the Enron case. Almost all of the “convictions” were overturned in appeal, including one reversed 9-0 at the Supreme Court. He had a vivid imagination of creating crimes from mangling several statutes to seemingly make criminal conduct no statute forbade, and destroyed Arthur Anderson, Enron’s accounting firm, totally, tens of thousands of jobs lost. Read “License to Lie.”

Peter Strzok's wife received a nice promotion over at the SEC 2 weeks before he cleared Weiner on the emails. I'm pretty sure the FBI knew all about the emails weeks before that and this is the quid pro quo for Strzok's loyalty.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...rs-scrub-facebook-pa

A list of more anti-Trumpers on the Mueller Team.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...nt-andrew-weissmann-

From the NY Post. Good to see some traction outside Breitbart, Fox etc.


OPINION EDITORIAL

Latest revelations make the entire ‘collusion’ probe look like a partisan hit

So Peter Strzok wasn’t just a top investigator for special counsel Robert Mueller until he was axed for anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias: He was also a major player in the Hillary email probe and the FBI work that led to the “collusion” investigation.

And Mueller and the FBI both dragged their feet on sharing key info about all this with Congress. Including the news that Strzok was the one who changed then-FBI chief Jim Comey’s draft language on Clinton’s use of that private server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in the final version.

That’s huge, because the statute specifies that gross negligence in the handling of classified info is itself a crime, whatever the intent — though Comey declared that Clinton shouldn’t face prosecution precisely because she had no “intent” to break the law.

Strzok also conducted the FBI interviews of Clinton and her top aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, in the email probe.

More, he was reportedly one of the major FBI figures urging investigations on the basis of the “Steele dossier” of Russian-sourced scurrilous anti-Trump allegations, which we now know was commissioned by the Clinton campaign.

More, he signed the documents that opened the ensuing “collusion” probe. And he led the FBI interview of Gen. Mike Flynn, in which Flynn told the lies that eventually forced him out as Trump’s national security adviser, and for which he’s now pleaded guilty in a deal with Mueller.

Meanwhile, Mills and Abedin’s testimony in their interviews has been shown false in one major regard: Contrary to their denials, each had been well aware of Clinton’s private server — they had to deal with the office fallout whenever it went down. Unlike Flynn, though, they never faced charges for lying to federal investigators.

Which makes President Trump’s request to Comey to go easy on Flynn look reasonable enough.

The public doesn’t know just how egregious Strzok’s bias was, and won’t until the release of his texts with his mistress, an FBI lawyer who (sigh) was also on Mueller’s team.

But as things stand, it now looks like the fix was well and truly in on the Hillary probe. Far worse, it also looks like the “collusion” probe was a partisan hit from the start — which undermines the basis for Mueller’s own investigation.

What a mess.


https://nypost.com/2017/12/05/...like-a-partisan-hit/

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

The OBAMA-Boogeyman-Controlled EVERYTHING gets old after awhile.

"Do you really believe there are many flag officers who do not endorse the ideals of the Obama Administration? It seems to me that just abut every flag officer promoted in the eight years of the Obama Administration..."

Ok, lets pull the thread a little. Do you even know any current flag officers? Do you know any promoted in that time period? Have you ever served in the military?

Or is all of this wisdom gleaned from Drudge and AM radio stations?

Kind of a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer and try to surprise me.

Rhino, your post almost exactly echos what goes through my head when people say, "This was designed...." regarding any kind of uber conspiracy involving the Democrats. It's mainly power, luck, or money. Usually a combination of the two.

Headline

Fix
Be
II

Ouch!

quote:

it now looks like the fix was well and truly in on the Hillary probe

And now they figure it out...

"If it smells like a fix, it is a fix."

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
Strzok is a hard-core anti-Trump/pro-Hillary guy, who has mysteriously been at the center of too many things (Clinton e-mail issues, Hillary and her staff FBI interviews, Weiner e-mail, Fusion dossier management and referrals to FISA court, etc.); who was having an affair with another anti-Trump/pro-Hillary FBI lawyer that works for McCabe, and sharing anti-Trump texts.

but, all the way back on page 2 of this thread, I posted an article that said he was actually fired for leaking about the Manafort search, not because his anti-Trump views were exposed.


No confirmation from Mueller as to exactly why he was fired.

I knew I remembered seeing something about it somewhere.

Ha, ha. Somebody on Fox suggested that Agent Strzok is the “Lois Lerner” of the Russia investigation.