How it all Started. "Buried" in the Mueller report, on page 9 or 448 is this gem

Lesh said:

More QAnon BS...Jesus

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have no knowledge of this "QAnon".

Redress said:

You do realize you need a crime before you can prosecute, right? You also realize that almost everything you said in the OP beyond the image was speculation, right? And that there is a total of zero evidence to support that speculation, right?

Click to expand...

Why? Why have different rules and standards depending on which political party you belong to?

I mean Democrats convicted Kavanaugh on bad, so called, 'evidence' and suspect testimony.
I mean Democrats convicted Trump for Russian Collusion without any evidence, in fact PO Schiff is still screaming this to anyone who'll listen.

What goes around, comes around, and now you don't like it?

chuckiechan said:

I would expect that the FBI would go to DoJ, and DoJ would tip off the candidate that "We are looking at certain people who are going to get you in trouble, and here's why.". I don't know what the protocol is, but using a low level factotum as the basis to conduct general top level campaign surveillance unknown to the candidate is problematic. This is a national presidential campaign, not some alderman's ward in Chicago.

Using this justification with such a low bar, Trump's reelection campaign can legally already be neck high into the Sanders and Biden campaigns based on what some no name hanger-on said he knew.

So the through will come out when those indicted plead not guilty, and we get to hear what they thought they were doing, and who they thought they were working for, and who the though they were protecting.

I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

Such a meeting did take place, and Comey briefed Trump, but it was only about the pee tape part, and little else, as has been reported.

Mycroft said:

I forgot to tell you what these links are about.

The first details the actions the Obama administration took in their attempts to entrap Papadopoulos in Russian collusion...which failed.

The second is about the illegal NSA search queries.

Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be looking good for all this hoax investigation meeting the required 'factual predicate' legal standard that Barr testified about.

OscarLevant said:

Whenever you assert such things, details as this, please provide your source, a link etc., it's courtesy.


Thank you.

Click to expand...

On sources that are pdf files which are hundreds of pages long, it's courtesy to annotate more specifically (you know, "page three , second paragraph" that sort of thing ).

you think I'm going to search an entire long document to verify each and every one of your claims?

Who has the time? Help us out.

Thanks.

eohrnberger said:

Hmm.
All these facts are already out in the public, but largely ignored and / or minimized and / or misreported by the 'news' (political propaganda) media.

Seems that this doesn't make it likely to be meeting the 'factual predicate' requirement that Barr mentioned in his testimony to congress; one on which to launch a legitimate and legal FBI investigation, and also, there's the criminality and regulatory violations that were part and parcel of the entire sordid mess.

All in the pursuit a political win.

Nice politicization of US government agencies there, and their use as political weapons, Obama. Significantly damaged the country for a political win.
Let's hope that Barr can get to the bottom of this, and drain this Deep State Swamp.

Click to expand...

The predicate will be two things:

1. The EC that Brennan sent to the FBI.


2. The letter that Harry Reid sent to Comey in Aug. 2016.


Both of these letters are enough to raise questions about what started the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in July 2016. (Crossfire Hurricane)

Since we are talking about separate agencies in the Obama administration and about Congress...not to mention the resulting connections to people outside the government...I don't see Barr having any other choice than to appoint a special prosecutor with full grand jury and prosecution powers.

eohrnberger said:

Why? Why have different rules and standards depending on which political party you belong to?

I mean Democrats convicted Kavanaugh on bad, so called, 'evidence' and suspect testimony.

Click to expand...

Kavanaugh was never convicted. Words have meaning.

I mean Democrats convicted Trump for Russian Collusion without any evidence, in fact PO Schiff is still screaming this to anyone who'll listen.

Click to expand...

Trump hasd never been convicted. Words have meaning.

What goes around, comes around, and now you don't like it?

Click to expand...

Your delusions may come around, but that is about it.

Mycroft said:

The predicate will be two things:

1. The EC that Brennan sent to the FBI.

This will be the information that the Aussies sent to the CIA about Papadoupolos. But Barr also has access to everything Mueller has on that...including all of the testimony from Papadoupolos in the various FBI meetings with him.​

2. The letter that Harry Reid sent to Comey in Aug. 2016.

Reid sent Comey a letter citing "evidence of a direct connection" between the Trump campaign and seeking an investigation.



Reid was a member of the Gang of Eight. He was authorized to receive classified information, but the only one who could have given it to him was Brennan.​

Both of these letters are enough to raise questions about what started the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in July 2016. (Crossfire Hurricane)

Since we are talking about separate agencies in the Obama administration and about Congress...not to mention the resulting connections to people outside the government...I don't see Barr having any other choice than to appoint a special prosecutor with full grand jury and prosecution powers.

Click to expand...

Of course Harry Reid is going to lie in support of Hillary's lying Trump/Russian collusion narrative. He did not get to be a big dog democrat by being honest.

OscarLevant said:

On sources that are pdf files which are hundreds of pages long, it's courtesy to annotate more specifically (you know, "page three , second paragraph" that sort of thing ).

you think I'm going to search an entire long document to verify each and every one of your claims?

Who has the time? Help us out.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

In regard to the Papadoupolos Congressional testimony, you really have to read the whole thing. There is pertinant information scattered throughout that, when it is all put together, paints a clear picture of a setup by the US...and, coincidentally, by Mueller.

In regard to the FISA query issue, these screenshots get to the nitty gritty...but there is more in the document that is important.



It would be very interesting to see what is under those redactions, don't you think?

Mycroft said:

The predicate will be two things:

1. The EC that Brennan sent to the FBI.

This will be the information that the Aussies sent to the CIA about Papadoupolos. But Barr also has access to everything Mueller has on that...including all of the testimony from Papadoupolos in the various FBI meetings with him.​

2. The letter that Harry Reid sent to Comey in Aug. 2016.

Reid sent Comey a letter citing "evidence of a direct connection" between the Trump campaign and seeking an investigation.



Reid was a member of the Gang of Eight. He was authorized to receive classified information, but the only one who could have given it to him was Brennan.​

Both of these letters are enough to raise questions about what started the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in July 2016. (Crossfire Hurricane)

Click to expand...

I'm not going to pretend that I know the law well enough, or have sufficient information about this, to make a definitive judgment as to whether these two things meet the legal standard of factual predicate or not. I'm going to have to leave this to the inevitable arm wrestling in DC over it. Raise questions sufficient to meet that legal bar? I have no idea. From my view, the reasonably intelligent and reasonably informed layman's view, it certainly doesn't look sufficient to me. It looks like a dark and dirty political operation of the worst sort to me. Something that need be shunned, punished, and excised from the US government, frankly.

Since we are talking about separate agencies in the Obama administration and about Congress...not to mention the resulting connections to people outside the government...I don't see Barr having any other choice than to appoint a special prosecutor with full grand jury and prosecution powers.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. Let the Democrats go through what the nation has gone through these last 2+ years. Excise this cancer from the US federal government. That the US government doe not operate as a corrupt banana republic. It's the only way that the electorate can ever regain the trust in government that's been lost.

Redress said:

Kavanaugh was never convicted. Words have meaning.


Trump hasd never been convicted. Words have meaning.

Click to expand...

Not for lack of Democratic smearing and trying, that's for sure. Given the opportunity to do so, pretty clear that the Democrats would have convicted in both cases, without solid evidence; presumed guilt. Yes, it's pretty clear that's the level which Democrats have sunk.

Your delusions may come around, but that is about it.

Click to expand...

That which I've stated in post are fact based, so, not so much. Does the delusion of 2+ years of 'Russian Collusion' ring a bell for you? They should.

Mycroft said:

The predicate will be two things:

1. The EC that Brennan sent to the FBI.

This will be the information that the Aussies sent to the CIA about Papadoupolos. But Barr also has access to everything Mueller has on that...including all of the testimony from Papadoupolos in the various FBI meetings with him.​

2. The letter that Harry Reid sent to Comey in Aug. 2016.

Reid sent Comey a letter citing "evidence of a direct connection" between the Trump campaign and seeking an investigation.



Reid was a member of the Gang of Eight. He was authorized to receive classified information, but the only one who could have given it to him was Brennan.​

Both of these letters are enough to raise questions about what started the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in July 2016. (Crossfire Hurricane)

Since we are talking about separate agencies in the Obama administration and about Congress...not to mention the resulting connections to people outside the government...I don't see Barr having any other choice than to appoint a special prosecutor with full grand jury and prosecution powers.

Click to expand...

"Spying on the Trump Campaign"...is not exactly what occurred.

Crossfire Hurricane was an FBI investigation begun because of PapaD and his drunken ramblings
FBI probe into Trump and Russia was codenamed 'Crossfire Hurricane' | TheHill

You seem to have one of those walls full of red string connecting martians with ancient aliens

marke said:

Democrats hired an assortment of operators to pose as spies in order to be caught with Trump campaign officials by the press so as to dishonestly report Trump officials were colluding with spies. It was a setup. The Russian lawyer Obama spirited into the US was briefed by DNC officials before and after she met with Don Jr. in Trump Tower. Don Jr. blew her off once he saw what she really was and yet the media and Mueller attack dogs tried to turn the democrat failure into proof of Trump wrongdoing.

Democrats are tearing this nation apart. They are obviously not under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God.

Click to expand...

Interesting conspiracy theory you have there. Mueller should have consulted you.

Lesh said:

"Spying on the Trump Campaign"...is not exactly what occurred.

Crossfire Hurricane was an FBI investigation begun because of PapaD and his drunken ramblings
FBI probe into Trump and Russia was codenamed 'Crossfire Hurricane' | TheHill

You seem to have one of those walls full of red string connecting martians with ancient aliens

Click to expand...

A wall? Dude...we don't need a wall. We have the internet.

You should be careful about taking the word of the NYT...and their "unnamed sources" about anything. And you should also try to avoid hyperbole when characterizing events. The NYT says "wine-fueled" and you turn it into "drunken ramblings".

In fact, I suggest you try to get as many facts as you can. Doing so will easily cast doubt and questions upon the narrative you've seen and accepted without question.

For example, it wasn't a chance encounter in a bar between "PapaD" and Downer and PapaD wasn't drunk. It was arranged by a third party...Halper. The encounter was actually very short-lived. It consisted of Downer immediately berating PapaD about his remarks in a previous interview about Cameron. Then, Downer pulls out his phone, sticks it in PapaD's face and asks him about Russians and emails.

Quite a different story than what the NYT leads you to believe, but that is the testimony that PapaD gave to Congress.

This is the "predicate" that Barr is looking at and he certainly isn't going to take the word of the NYT and their unnamed sources for it. He has everything...including the recording that Downer made.

But you probably need to ask yourself why Mueller would say only this about the event.

On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

Mueller knew everything that PapaD had told the FBI about the encounter, he knew everything PapaD had told his own investigators about the encounter, he even knew what PapaD had told Congress about the encounter. And, he has the recording. We have a situation that includes supposed Russian agents, Trump campaign officials and an Ambassador of another country. Did Mueller investigate the FBI and CIA? Did he look into the possibility that PapaD was the victim of a setup engineered by Brennan? I don't know. Maybe. But if he did, he didn't mention it in his report.

Why not? Did he think people don't know this other information that I...a common American citizen...have access to? Did he think Barr would take his word for everything? Well, guess what...we now know that Barr won't be taking Mueller's word for anything.

And you should also try to avoid hyperbole when characterizing events. The NYT says "wine-fueled" and you turn it into "drunken ramblings".

Excuse me?

For example, it wasn't a chance encounter in a bar between "PapaD" and Downer and PapaD wasn't drunk. It was arranged by a third party...Halper. The encounter was actually very short-lived. It consisted of Downer immediately berating PapaD about his remarks in a previous interview about Cameron. Then, Downer pulls out his phone, sticks it in PapaD's face and asks him about Russians and emails.

Quite a different story than what the NYT leads you to believe, but that is the testimony that PapaD gave to Congress.

This is the "predicate" that Barr is looking at and he certainly isn't going to take the word of the NYT and their unnamed sources for it. He has everything...including the recording that Downer made.

This comes from who?
PapaD? The guy convicted of LYING?

Oh...

By the way? What happened to Mifsud? He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth

Mycroft said:

Papadopoulos | 10.25.18 Interview Transcript_Redacted | Government | Politics

https://getliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4.pdf

Click to expand...

On sources that are pdf files which are hundreds of pages long, it's (or it should be ) courtesy to annotate more specifically (you know, "page three , second paragraph" that sort of thing ).

you think I'm going to search an entire long document to verify each and every one of your claims?

Who has the time? Help us out.

Thanks.

Mycroft said:

In regard to the Papadoupolos Congressional testimony, you really have to read the whole thing. There is pertinant information scattered throughout that, when it is all put together, paints a clear picture of a setup by the US...and, coincidentally, by Mueller.

In regard to the FISA query issue, these screenshots get to the nitty gritty...but there is more in the document that is important.

View attachment 67255447View attachment 67255448

It would be very interesting to see what is under those redactions, don't you think?

Click to expand...

I doubt there is clear evidence there of "set up" i.e., "entrapment". Seems to me, if it were that clear, why would popudopulous cave and cop a guilty plea? Clearly, if money for lawyers were an issue, he could have easily raised the funds to fight a simple charge.

That is what does not make sense to me. It seems more logical that he was guilty of what he was charged with, and did the right thing.

But, someday, when I get more time, I'll study it. But, in the meantime, methinks it's just your opinion based on inconclusive evidence, that it just might be true that you are a bit zealotrous on matters of conspiracy theories, yourself. (I will await your rebuttal to that one ).

However, it could reflect a certain zealotry on the part of the prosecutors. They do that, I"m certain, when they are in pursuit of a bigger fish.

Whether that's right or wrong, I don't have all the facts to give an opinion. But I wouldn't conflate, necessarily, zealotry with "entrapment" because they (prosecutors) must know that if they don't do it right, it could blow up in their face and make them the bad guys. They (zealotry & entrapment) may, or may not, overlap and coincide, ie, one causes the other, it depends on the actual facts surrounding the event.

Lesh said:

By the way? What happened to Mifsud? He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth

Click to expand...

This is an interesting wrinkle, for sure.

Here is a recent article that sheds some light on the Mifsud issue: Missing Mifsud was hidden in Rome - Il Foglio

This is the closing paragraph from that article:

Nobody knows where Mifsud currently is, and many suspect he is no longer alive. The last time anyone saw him was last May, according to the Associated Press, which was sent a photo of Mifsud by his lawyers. There has been no news since. The Italian government should probably be more transparent about an international spy story that has disrupted an allied country such as the US. Clarification should come from Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta and Deputy Foreign Minister Emanuela Del Re, who come from Link Campus. Ever since the scandal broke out and Mifsud disappeared, all roads lead to the university in Rome. Whoever wants to solve the Russiagate enigma – whether they believe that Mifsud plotted with the Russians to help Trump or that he conspired with Western intelligence services to weaken Trump – should look for evidence at Link Campus, the small university presided over by Vincenzo Scotti.

Click to expand...

OscarLevant said:

I doubt there is clear evidence there of "set up" i.e., "entrapment". Seems to me, if it were that clear, why would popudopulous cave and cop a guilty plea? Clearly, if money for lawyers were an issue, he could have easily raised the funds to fight a simple charge.

That is what does not make sense to me. It seems more logical that he was guilty of what he was charged with, and did the right thing.

But, someday, when I get more time, I'll study it. But, in the meantime, methinks it's just your opinion based on inconclusive evidence, that it just might be true that you are a bit zealotrous on matters of conspiracy theories, yourself. (I will await your rebuttal to that one ).

However, it could reflect a certain zealotry on the part of the prosecutors. They do that, I"m certain, when they are in pursuit of a bigger fish.

Whether that's right or wrong, I don't have all the facts to give an opinion. But I wouldn't conflate, necessarily, zealotry with "entrapment" because they (prosecutors) must know that if they don't do it right, it could blow up in their face and make them the bad guys. They (zealotry & entrapment) may, or may not, overlap and coincide, ie, one causes the other, it depends on the actual facts surrounding the event.

Click to expand...

His testimony to Congress sheds light that pertains to your question.

Yes...I highly suggest you read his entire testimony to Congress, as I have. You may shift from questioning Papadoupolos to questioning the Obama administration and the Mueller investigation.

OscarLevant said:

On sources that are pdf files which are hundreds of pages long, it's (or it should be ) courtesy to annotate more specifically (you know, "page three , second paragraph" that sort of thing ).

you think I'm going to search an entire long document to verify each and every one of your claims?

Who has the time? Help us out.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

You already asked for this and I provided what I could in post #59.

How it all Started. "Buried" in the Mueller report, on page 9 or 448 is this gem

Here is an interesting tidbit for those of you who like unnamed sources.

If it's true...if it's not some made up rumor...some people will be very worried right about now. Increased attacks on Trump and his people will be the likely short term results of this report.

With the contents of the Mueller report now public, President Trump and key White House aides are said to be taking a fresh look at declassifying documents that GOP allies believe will expose unlawful actions at the Department of Justice and the FBI purportedly taken against the Trump campaign in 2016.

Attorney General William Barr has already begun investigating the investigators at both the DOJ and FBI.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, probing the same matters, is said to be drafting his final report, due within six weeks or so.

Any declassification by the president is expected to occur around that time and to focus on the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in October 2016.

https://abc3340.com/news/nation-wor...ort-complete-is-another-investigation-looming

Click to expand...