^^^^ I have it!

Ha, ha! I turned on the television this morning just in time to hear Darrel Issa explain that the highest level of security classification isn’t Top Secret. It is “Embarrassing.”

I wonder what he could be talking about?




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

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

What's the correct term to describe trying to overthrow a democratically elected government?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
more pics of H Clinton w very straight posture and a large scarf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ggestions-brace.html

Creepy, especially in the Chairman Mao jackets all the time.

This stuff is starting to get a bit crazy and scary. Obama politicized and weaponized the FBI so fully that it may need to be rebuilt from the ground up:


WSJ: The FBI Hid A Mole In The Trump Campaign

From the article:

quote:

...About That FBI ‘Source’

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign...

Do you really want to see how the Democrats are doing without the rose colored media filter? Take a look at this article from Yahoo (yes I know) about the Dem position on the Trump tax cuts. In fact, skip the article all together and just read the comments, over 5000 of them. This is the real sentiment in the country right now, here are a just a few of comments left on this article and I didn't see any in favor of the Dems, even by those who are Dem voters:

Porgie Tirebiter
20 hours ago
The wife and I are solid middle class. Right down the middle. Lifelong democrats, too. The tax cuts put $440 more CASH in our household each and every month. That's good stuff. Couple with booming economy, pretty impressive foreign policy, and we're voting GOP for most races this fall. An extra $440 cash in our pockets each month is life changing money.

liv2ski
20 hours ago
Hey Newman, why not bother to reach out to an ordinary working family. My wife and I, both 46 and employed, will see our federal income tax liability drop my more than $20k.

Yes, $20k that we earn and now get to keep in our pockets.


Ray
19 hours ago
I got a $1,000 Trump tax cut bonus. So did my wife. We also will get a $13K tax savings next year. so all in all TRUMP added $15K to our lifestyle. obama promised a savings of $2,500 on health insurance.... mine went up.


tpstrong21
21 hours ago
LETS BE REAL, the only people complaining about tax cuts are those who don't pay any taxes.



https://finance.yahoo.com/news...-cuts-171540438.html

This is nuts and an obvious conspiracy that we do not know of the depth or scope. So, who raids the raiders? There is probable cause of crimes being committed at the highest level of law enforcement. Obviously, we can't have the FBI raid the FBI to secure evidence. Military? In this time of unprecedented levels of corruption, I think the President needs to use an unprecedented means to get to the truth. Nobody should have the kind of authority that the FBI seems to cloak themselves in.

statement by Nunes and Gowdy after the mtg yesterday w DoJ, FBI, and Intel reps:

“We had a productive discussion today with officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Department of Justice, and FBI in which we raised questions related to information requested from the Intelligence Community.

The officials committed to holding further discussions of these matters, and we look forward to continuing our dialogue next week to satisfy the Committee’s request.”

************
Adam Schiff was also briefed on this matter, but his briefing was done separately.

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

Devin Nunes is chair of the House Intel Comm

We almost never hear from the Senate Intel Comm (except from the DEM members who say the investigation must go on and on and on ....


Sen Intel comm

chair Richard Burr (R)
vice chair Mark Warner (D)

REP members:

James Risch
Marco Rubio
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
James Lankford
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn

they seem to be letting Devin Nunes do all the work and take all the heat

Not sure, yet, how this Special Agent fits into scandal, but an interesting new development being reported by 'sundance' over at The Conservative Treehouse.

"Senator Chuck Grassley Drops Atomic Sledgehammer on FBI – Requests FBI Reports and Testimony From Special Agent Joe Pientka…"

LINK
__________

quote:

Originally posted by Cookster:
Not sure how this Special Agent fits into scandal, but an interesting new development being reported by 'sundance' over at The Conservative Treehouse.

"Senator Chuck Grassley Drops Atomic Sledgehammer on FBI – Requests FBI Reports and Testimony From Special Agent Joe Pientka…"

LINK
__________

It means that Sen. Grassley wants to see the materials presumably now available supporting the prosecution of LGEN Flynn, the reports, transcripts, etc.

There has been some confusion, and much curiosity, over Flynn’s guilty plea. What did he do? Was it actually a lie? Apparently the agents didn’t believe that Flynn was intentionally misleading them.

Now that the Special Counsel has presumably complied with the jusge’s order to turn over all the materials, incriminating, exculpatory and so forth, there is no reason to keep them confidential further.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
What's the correct term to describe trying to overthrow a democratically elected government?

Sedition?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
What's the correct term to describe trying to overthrow a democratically elected government?

Sedition?

flashguy

Treason

https://www.washingtonexaminer...us-james-comey-warns

During an event in Washington, D.C., Comey was asked to comment on Nunes' push to obtain classified information from the Justice Department about a source in the federal investigation into 2016 election interference by the Russians.

"You cannot overstate the danger in that kind of behavior to the security of the United States," said in response to his friend and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes.


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

disgusting to hear Comey say "You cannot overstate the danger in that kind of behavior"

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.washingtonexaminer...us-james-comey-warns

During an event in Washington, D.C., Comey was asked to comment on Nunes' push to obtain classified information from the Justice Department about a source in the federal investigation into 2016 election interference by the Russians.

"You cannot overstate the danger in that kind of behavior to the security of the United States," said in response to his friend and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes.


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

disgusting to hear Comey say "You cannot overstate the danger in that kind of behavior"

It will be interesting to see, though. At every turn, the FBI/DOJ has resisted oversight on the grounds of danger to national security, and when that claim is ignored, it turns out to be nothing. Like the little boy who cried “wolf”, it has worn thin, and offers little reason to give it further credence.

a little more promising report

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...usion-testimony.html

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News that Gowdy and Nunes were briefed “about the documents” but not permitted to view them.

They expect to see the documents at a meeting next week and, according to the source, “either senior DOJ leadership is going to tell them what they are asking about, or [DOJ is] going to have a big problem.”

A source close to the matter said Glenn Simpson’s 2017 testimony has attracted renewed interest in connection with this. At the time, he spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee – and top committee Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made the transcripts public in January.

When Simpson was asked about his contact with Steele, Simpson told investigators what Steele relayed to him about a September 2016 meeting with the FBI:

"Essentially what [Steele] told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that … my understanding was that [the FBI] believed Chris at this point -- that they believed Chris's information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing, and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

There has been previous speculation about this section of the Simpson interview. Earlier this year, anonymous sources suggested to other media outlets that Simpson could have been referring to former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos -- who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators -- or an Australian diplomat.

Fox News has reached out to Simpson for additional comment on his testimony. Investigators want to determine whether his remarks are relevant to the current records request.

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

I thought that a spokesman for Fusion GPS said Simpson "misremembered" when he said there was a human source inside the Trump campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
a little more promising report

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...usion-testimony.html

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News that Gowdy and Nunes were briefed “about the documents” but not permitted to view them.

They expect to see the documents at a meeting next week and, according to the source, “either senior DOJ leadership is going to tell them what they are asking about, or [DOJ is] going to have a big problem.”

A source close to the matter said Glenn Simpson’s 2017 testimony has attracted renewed interest in connection with this. At the time, he spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee – and top committee Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made the transcripts public in January.

When Simpson was asked about his contact with Steele, Simpson told investigators what Steele relayed to him about a September 2016 meeting with the FBI:

"Essentially what [Steele] told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that … my understanding was that [the FBI] believed Chris at this point -- that they believed Chris's information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing, and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

There has been previous speculation about this section of the Simpson interview. Earlier this year, anonymous sources suggested to other media outlets that Simpson could have been referring to former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos -- who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators -- or an Australian diplomat.

Fox News has reached out to Simpson for additional comment on his testimony. Investigators want to determine whether his remarks are relevant to the current records request.

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

I thought that a spokesman for Fusion GPS said Simpson "misremembered" when he said there was a human source inside the Trump campaign.

I went back through Simpson’s testimony to the Senate Intel Committee this evening. Simpson said it, see p. 175. Whether he later tried to retract it, I am not aware.

The early days of the Trump presidency saw little peace, with the president consistently deflecting attacks from all sides.


Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt adapted from Conrad Black’s forthcoming book, Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other. It appears here with permission.

It was now known that FBI director James Comey had written a draft exoneration of Mrs. Clinton before she was even questioned by the FBI about her emails. He had been investigating both candidates in mid-campaign and had taken it unto himself to announce that Mrs. Clinton, despite her serious misjudgments and apparently dishonest replies to FBI questioners, should not be prosecuted, followed by the panicky interlude when the Bureau reviewed the new batch of emails discovered on the server of former congressman Anthony Weiner. Comey had already acknowledged that he told the president three times that he was not a suspect in the Russian collusion question. Trump was inaugurated four months after the FBI took over trying to chase down Christopher Steele’s sources to get to the truth, so the continued exposure of Trump to the innuendos of the hostile media and the leprous uncooperativeness of the congressional Democrats as if he were in a legal purgatory were unjustified by the legal facts. Comey’s frank assertion that he had leaked his own contested version of what had occurred about the investigation of General Flynn in his dinner conversation with the new president on January 27, was a damaging admission, though the media did not treat it so. It was a criminal act if the memo to himself is considered a government document, which is legally probable, as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein confirmed to Congress on December 13, 2017.

Comey had unwittingly contributed to the gradual shift of the balance of legal forces in favor of the administration and against the Democrats, a gradual shift that included the increasing congressional attention finally being paid to the questionable activities of the Clinton Foundation, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other members of the Obama administration, including, possibly, Robert Mueller who had been director of the FBI when Russia was permitted to buy 20 percent of America’s uranium extraction capacity. The transaction required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes representatives from 16 U.S. departments and agencies, including the secretary of state. By the time the Committee approved the Uranium One sale, the FBI had already gathered a huge amount of evidence of bribery and kickbacks against a top official at the American subsidiary of the Russian company that was buying Uranium One. This and other evidence, including large pledges to the Clinton Foundation by parties with an interest in Secretary Clinton’s goodwill, did raise great suspicions, however much the media wanted to downplay it.

President Trump, meanwhile, had considerable success, domestically and internationally, with his forceful address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 19. He warned North Korea and its leader, whom he had nicknamed “Rocket Man,” of the dangers of proceeding with his military nuclear program; he denounced the impoverishment and usurpation of freedom in Venezuela; he called for reform of the United Nations; he defined his policy of “America First” as the simple pursuit of America’s national interest; and he renewed America’s pledge to oppose terrorism everywhere. The international soft Left was repelled, but domestic opinion was quite positive. The speech was well-crafted and well-delivered. The following day he met again with the president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and indicated that he would lift the embargo on military aid imposed by President Obama, which he duly did.

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of Trump’s Hollywood and media critics soon came to the forefront with the exposure of prominent movie producer, and Clinton fundraiser, Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual assault and intimidation of actresses in large numbers and over decades, which caused him to be cast out of the City of Angels like Lucifer. Weinstein was lynched on the basis of a carefully assembled article in the New York Times and a follow-up in The New Yorker. Apparently, his conduct had been notorious throughout the industry for many years, and he had banked on the assumption that his generous support of left-wing candidates and causes would insulate him from criticism, and that more donations and liberal professions would save him after he was exposed. The whole lurid story laid bare the preposterous presumption of the entertainment industry to lecture the American people on politics and morals. Hollywood is a moral and intellectual pigsty, an asylum for the stupid, the corrupt, and the vocally shallow, who possess Thespian aptitudes or a saleable appearance and manner.

On September 22, Trump denounced professional football players who kneeled during the playing of the national anthem before the games. This began with Colin Kaepernick, former quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, who remained seated during the national anthem in protest against what he considered the routine practice of white American police to shoot unarmed African Americans, preferably killing them, or, in his own words: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. . . . There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” The movement grew and in an address at Huntsville, Ala., Trump threw into a stump speech for a senatorial primary candidate the opinion that players who did not stand for the anthem should be fired. (His words were: “Fire the son of a b***h.”) Liberal opinion was offended and so were almost all the football owners and many of their players. Trump said anyone could protest anything they wanted but that well-paid NFL players enjoying a short working season should not hijack the National Football League and offend the sensibilities of their fans by affronting the flag, the servicemen and women who stand behind it, the national anthem, and the country generally. The exchanges escalated, and he called for a boycott of the NFL. Attendance fell 20 percent in the first week after Trump’s statement, and by year-end, the NFL was suffering a serious desertion of fans (who lean conservative) and advertisers. It might have cast a damper over one of the nation’s most popular sports, but the NFL’s absurdly overpaid commissioner Roger Goodell; the grandstanding, unsympathetic, over-paid players; and the owners of the immensely overvalued teams were the real losers in public opinion.

Trump is so hyperactive that, apart from North Korea, no particular issue lingers long. He swiftly moved on to other subjects. On health care, he virtually eliminated Obamacare’s advertising budget (which had been set up to encourage public participation) and announced on October 12 that he would stop supplementary payments to insurance companies, which were meant to compensate them for the unanticipated—by the Obama administration; they were predicted by everyone else—costs of Obamacare. The Democrats tried to whip up public lamentations about short-changing those of modest means, but as it was just a pay-off to insurance companies, and was unconstitutionally conceived and imposed, the general public dismissed the Democrats’ hysteria.

On October 13, Trump declined to certify that Iran was in compliance with the six-power accord negotiated by the Obama administration. Trump recognized that the agreement, which governs fissile material, is unverifiable, and ignores both Iran’s progress toward developing a nuclear warhead and its accelerating program to develop and manufacture sophisticated long-range missiles. Foreign-policy hawks applauded Trump’s realism, even as many on the Left booed Trump for lacking their sophisticated defeatism.

There were other signs that the febrile Trumpophobes were weakening, though like cornered animals their attacks became more vicious and unhinged. The resistance to his tax moves was relatively temperate and usually confined to the inevitable mantra that it was just a payoff to the rich, demonstrably as false a claim as it was predictable. Senator Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, uttered a few asides and hesitant comments in late September and October to the effect that Trump was unstable and that Secretary of State Tillerson, Defense Secretary Mattis, and Trump’s chief of staff, General Kelly, were very exasperated and had to work full-time to keep Trump from doing something dangerously wrong-headed or provocative. Corker and Trump had the usual war of words, and as Corker could not be reelected in Tennessee without Trump’s endorsement, he said he would not run again. While Corker played coy with the media, which assumed his support for Trump’s tax bill was in doubt, he eventually voted for it.

Another controversy erupted, when it was reported (from anonymous sources) that Secretary Tillerson had called Trump a “f***ing moron,” though Tillerson denied the report. (Had he really said that, it is unlikely he would have retained his post, or even wanted to keep it.) When asked by reporters, Tillerson, a southern gentleman, responded with “I’m not going to dignify that question,” which the press, predictably, reported as confirmation of the rumor. Trump unnecessarily responded, “I think it’s fake news, but if he did that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests,” which was funny but not helpful to his cause.

On October 30, Mueller indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his associate, Rick Gates, for financial offenses allegedly committed years before Manafort knew Trump, and on the insidious charge of “conspiracy against the United States.” Mueller had organized a pre-dawn Gestapo or KGB-style raid on Manafort’s home on July 26, with armed men barging into the bedroom when Mrs. Manafort was in her sleeping attire (as people frequently are when sleeping in their homes at night). (Mueller also unsealed a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos, involving trivial offenses.)


The new cry after this excitement subsided was that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (Section Four) could be applicable, by which the Cabinet could vote to remove Trump by reason of mental incompetence. This was as absurd an idea as the national publicity campaign to urge members of the Electoral College to repudiate their pledges to vote for Trump. It was the lowest depth yet plumbed by the Trumpohobes; the “Resistance” was verging on mental incapacity itself. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was designed to deal with a severe medical failure, as in the case of President Wilson when he was incapacitated by a stroke, not with policy differences or illegalities. It was contemplated once, when President Reagan was shot, but he recovered so quickly there was no need for it. In other desperation moves, the anti-Trump forces unearthed the antiquarian and totally inapplicable Logan Act (1799), which prohibits unauthorized people from trying to conduct American foreign policy, and which they charged should be invoked against the then-president-elect Trump and his staff for meeting with foreign officials, as if this were not common, accepted diplomatic practice. And there were repeated fatuous murmurings about the president obstructing justice when he exercised his constitutional right as chief of the executive branch to fire the inept and universally distrusted (up until Trump fired him, whereupon he instantaneously metamorphosed into the patron saint of the Democratic party) FBI director, James Comey.

Trump’s enemies were grasping at straws.

Link

Mueller sends his first victim to jail.

so who was it ?

someone close to Donald Trump ? no
a key person in the campaign ? no
a key person in the transition ? no
a key person in the administration ? no
was it an American ? no

why, it was a Dutch lawyer

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...rts-to-prison-report

A Dutch lawyer who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators examining Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election has reported to a federal prison to serve out his sentence.

Alex van der Zwaan, 33, arrived at FCI Allenwood Low, a low-security federal prison near Allenwood, Pa.

He was sentenced last month to a $20,000 fine and 30 days in prison, and is expected to be released on June 4, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons's website.

In reporting to prison, van der Zwaan becomes the first person charged in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe to be incarcerated.

He pleaded guilty in February to one count of lying to federal investigators about his contacts with former Trump campaign aide Richard Gates. His crime does not appear to be directly related to the central question of Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

quote:

lying to federal investigators

He must have had a crappy lawyer. People don't go to jail for that. Ask Andy McCabe.

Hell, ask the Hildabeast. Or Cheryl Mills. Or Huma Abedeen. Or......ah, theres just to many to name who lied to Federal Investigators and skated.

Funny that all of them are democrats. Regards 18DAI