quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
She's being very evasive. She says she can't remember much of anything when asked about things from 12-18 months ago.
Right ...

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
These two people are not slick, not bright, not clever, and not smart.

This is not "lead prosecutor" material. DEI all the way.

https://twitter.com/SebGorka/s.../1758221804747825595

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&lang=en&theme=&id=1758221804747825595" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 825px; display: block; border: medium; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-image: url('https://codejanitor.net/embeds/images/bgmessage.png'); background-position: center 20px; background-size: 300px; overflow: hidden;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

quote:

As a GENERAL PROPOSITION -- when a Judge is inclined to rule against a particular participant, that Judge allows the participant to say pretty much anything and everything he/she wants. It's called "protecting the record."

What that does is cut-off the losing party from being able to claim "You didn't give me a chance to say everything I wanted to say, blah, blah, blah."

All it really does is eat up time, but the extra time spent in the hearing is a small fraction of what would be required if the judge was reversed and the matter had to be done over again.

I suspect that if Judge McAfee was of the opinion that Willis' conduct was simply unprofessional and unethical, but not disqualifying -- taking the worst case spin on everything presented by the defendants -- he would not be allowing his to grind on with Willis on the stand.

But to let her say everything she wants to say, he has to let the questioning continue.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
Interesting take, Ship is basically saying Fani has already lost...

https://twitter.com/shipwrecke...50170150694987

quote:

Polisi added further context in a statement to Mediaite, saying, “Willis will be disqualified, which means her entire office is disqualified, which means the case will have to be re-assigned and languish with the PAC of Georgia, effectively killing the case. Her credibility is completely shot.”

quote:

U.S. Government Is Hiding Documents That Incriminate Intelligence Community For Illegal Spying And Election Interference, Say Sources
Former CIA Director Gina Haspel blocked the release of “binder” with evidence that may identify her role in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax



MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, MATT TAIBBI, AND ALEX GUTENTAG
FEB 14, 2024
∙ PAID

FBI Director Christopher Wray (left), former CIA Director Gina Haspel (center), and former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats (right), testify at a Senate Intelligence Committee on January 29, 2019. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Last December 15th, as Americans decorated trees, lit Menorahs, and prepared to tune out for winter holidays, CNN ran an extraordinary article titled, “The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump.”

Co-authored by Natasha Bertrand, the gargantuan exposé claimed a mysterious “binder” of “highly classified information related to Russian election interference” went “missing” in the chaotic waning days of Donald Trump’s presidency in January 2021, raising concerns that some of America’s most “closely guarded national security secrets… could be exposed.”

CNN and its intelligence sources meant “exposure” in a bad way. Sources have told Public and Racket, however, that the secrets officials worry might be “exposed” are ones that would implicate them in widespread abuses of intelligence authority dating back to the 2015-2016 election season.

“I would call [the binder] Trump’s insurance policy,” said someone knowledgeable about the case. “He was very concerned about having it and taking it with him because it was the road map” of Russiagate.

Transgressions range from Justice Department surveillance of domestic political targets without probable cause to the improper unmasking of a pre-election conversation between a Trump official and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to WMD-style manipulation of intelligence for public reports on alleged Russian “influence activities.”

The CNN report claimed intelligence officials were concerned about the disclosure of “sources and methods that informed the U.S. government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election.”

They should be concerned. The story of how a team “hand-picked” by CIA Director John Brennan relied on “cooked intelligence” to craft that January 6th, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment is the subject of tomorrow’s story, the last in this three-part series.

Corruption, not tradecraft, is what officials are desperate to keep secret.

The ”missing binder” story has several variants. Sources offer differing answers on the question of whether anything of consequence is missing. They give mixed accounts of Trump’s frantic last efforts to declassify Russia-related material.

But nearly everyone Public and Racket spoke to agreed that the tale obscured a broader and more important story.

Dating back to the release of the so-called “Nunes memo” in 2018 exposing the corruption of the FISA application process, senior intelligence officials, including Trump’s CIA Director, Gina Haspel, have repeatedly blocked attempts to declassify information about the Trump-Russia investigation.

They had good reason to obstruct the release of these documents.

As Public and Racket reported yesterday, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had foreign intelligence agencies run an illegal spy operation against then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. This illegally acquired intelligence was used to justify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official probe, “Crossfire Hurricane,” which in turn spurred the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The documents in question are said to contain information about the legal justification for those investigations, or more specifically, the lack of justification, among other things. Should more of that information be made public, it might implicate a long list of officials in serious abuses.

Questions like these may be answered if the 10-inch thick binder of sensitive documents about the origins of the Russia probe is made public.