• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Rules FBI Must Release Declarations from Lead Mueller FBI Agent….

D

Doc91478

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
2,778
Reaction score
790
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Judge Rules FBI Must Release Declarations from Lead Mueller FBI Agent….​


Judge Rules FBI Must Release Declarations from Lead Mueller FBI Agent…. | The Last Refuge
Jun 08, 2019 · Judge Boasberg was deciding what could be publicly released, meaning current redactions removed, based on two connected events: (#1) The content of the Comey Memos; and (#2) the declarations of lead FBI agent for Robert Mueller’s special … In the issue of the redactions within the Comey Memos, the judge doesn’t remove them. Some are ordered to be removed, some are approved to stay in place. The Comey memo aspect, and the redaction decision, is basically a splitting of the baby 50/50. It will be interesting, but meh, maybe not too much detail. – CNN ARTICLE ~~~/ Archey outlines how FBI Director James Comey wrote down who the sources were; what code-names were assigned; how those confidential sources engaged with FISA coverage initiated by the FBI; what foreign governments were assisting with their effort; and what the plans were for the investigation. Again, why memorialize all of this classified information unless the memos were intended as CYA protection for himself?


~~~~~~
This may be the final nail in the FISA warrants lying justifications by Comey/Strzok, etc. against Page, Papadopoulos, and others they targeted.
If the DOJ investigation blows up the lying basis (i.e. the Steele Dossier), then the whole operation goes down, with the former FBI, DOJ/NSD and Counter-Intell Div, possibly including the CIA, maybe NSA, DNI and the State Department’s Deep State elements.
Judicial Watch has lead the charge thus far and CNN is attempting to rebuild its tarnished reputation. The problem is, CNN is like an abandon mining ghost town covered in dust, tumbleweeds and disrepair!
This should also lead to the subpoenas for Hillary and her criminal enterprise (how do you say RICO charges?) and the DNC, Perkins-Coie. Fusion GPS, Glen Simpson, the Ohrs, Strzok-Page, Yates, Mueller, Comey, Weissman and Ultimately others will all come crashing down too. We’re gonna need more popcorn and rope.
 
Lol deep state. Everything is a conspiracy to trumpists.
 
What if...? said:
Occam would he appalled.

Barnum would be amused.
Click to expand...
I understand Barnum. Why would Occam be appalled? A coup is the simplest explanation after all.
 
Jay59 said:
I understand Barnum. Why would Occam be appalled? A coup is the simplest explanation after all.
Click to expand...
e.g.
A 'coup' is an additional entity.
A secret, coordinated effort among multiple govt agencies is an additional entity
etc.


If after the other, simpler possibilities have been conclusively excluded, then we should start multiplying entities like shadowy government coordination and conspiracy.

Sometimes, it amuses me to realize the levels of competence that some conspiracy theories ascribe to the govt.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Wonder who believed the Russian hoax story for 2 years? Resist!
Click to expand...

Q-anon, pizza gate benghazi deep state. Gonna dodge again and prove your hypocrisy?
 
I find there are two types of Trump supporters... there are 1) the Deep State conspiracy theory types; and 2) the ones who accept the Intelligence Community assessment that the Russians attempted to interfere with the elections, but dispute the allegations that the Trump campaign was actively involved in this effort.

I respect the views of the latter type.... they've got a legitimate point of view and usually have solid points to argue their case.

For the former, though, I go by the scriptural advice offered by the late, great former Chief Judge Hutcheson of the 5th Circuit when referring to one of his segregationist colleagues on the bench.... "Ephraim is wedded to his idols; leave him be!" --- Hosea 4:17
 
Simon W. Moon said:
e.g.
A 'coup' is an additional entity.
A secret, coordinated effort among multiple govt agencies is an additional entity etc.

If after the other, simpler possibilities have been conclusively excluded, then we should start multiplying entities like shadowy government coordination and conspiracy. Sometimes, it amuses me to realize the levels of competence that some conspiracy theories ascribe to the govt.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell though secret is unnecessary. Rather a loosely coordinated effort by a group of Obama's people in leadership positions across the executive branch.

Given that the stories do not hold water and that Comey, Brennan and Clapper are already pointing fingers, it seems the simplest explanation. We should know a lot more when the various reports come in.

What requires an additional entity is moving things to the West Wing or the Oval Office. Bill Clinton meeting with AG Lynch is a possible red flag but it's still isolated.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
In a nutshell though secret is unnecessary. Rather a loosely coordinated effort by a group of Obama's people in leadership positions across the executive branch.
Given that the stories do not hold water and that Comey, Brennan and Clapper are already pointing fingers, it seems the simplest explanation. We should know a lot more when the various reports come in.
What requires an additional entity is moving things to the West Wing or the Oval Office. Bill Clinton meeting with AG Lynch is a possible red flag but it's still isolated.
Click to expand...

Are we starting with the premise that there was never a good reason for US counter intelligence to be concerned about the activities of the Trump campaign team?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Are we starting with the premise that there was never a good reason for US counter intelligence to be concerned about the activities of the Trump campaign team?
Click to expand...
More like probable cause to believe that there were no good reasons.

The various stories and timelines do not hang together. CYA has become rampant. It is not conclusive but it is very suspicious.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
More like probable cause to believe that there were no good reasons.
The various stories and timelines do not hang together. CYA has become rampant. It is not conclusive but it is very suspicious.
Click to expand...

Is one of these statements more accurate than the other?

The fact that various USIC agencies agreed there was cause to act is on its face insufficient reason to believe that there was cause to act.

The fact that various USIC agencies agreed there was cause to act is the equivalent of reason to believe that there was no cause to act.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Wonder who believed the Russian hoax story for 2 years? Resist!
Click to expand...

Hoax? What's wrong with you, do you think the Mueller investigation, which uncovered massive Russian attempts to influence your elctoral process, shouldn't have happened? Do you think all that interference should have stayed unexposed?
 
Grand Mal said:
Hoax? What's wrong with you, do you think the Mueller investigation, which uncovered massive Russian attempts to influence your elctoral process, shouldn't have happened? Do you think all that interference should have stayed unexposed?
Click to expand...

Read below...........................
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Are we starting with the premise that there was never a good reason for US counter intelligence to be concerned about the activities of the Trump campaign team?
Click to expand...

What evidence was there that they should be concerned?
 
Fletch said:
What evidence was there that they should be concerned?
Click to expand...
You are asserting that the USIC became concerned and started an investigation w/ zero evidence?

Or do you just feel that the evidence they used was insufficient?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Is one of these statements more accurate than the other?

The fact that various USIC agencies agreed there was cause to act is on its face insufficient reason to believe that there was cause to act.
The fact that various USIC agencies agreed there was cause to act is the equivalent of reason to believe that there was no cause to act.
Click to expand...
Both have the same problem, to wit that the agencies did not agree. Very senior persons in several agencies acted in concert. This does not indicate that it was at any time the position of their various agencies. Any inference to the effect that these people acted as representatives of their agency's avowed position should be considered suspect.

There are many allegations that senior people in various departments abused their position for personal or political reasons. This is in part why a US Attorney has been assigned to look into the matter.

Grand Mal said:
Hoax? What's wrong with you, do you think the Mueller investigation, which uncovered massive Russian attempts to influence your elctoral process, shouldn't have happened? Do you think all that interference should have stayed unexposed?
Click to expand...
It uncovered "massive Russian attempts"? Really?

Try several bumbling and mostly ineffectual attempts. Not exposing would have changed almost nothing because they amounted almost nothing. Not a single vote. Had it not been for the political angle, no one would have ever cared.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
Both have the same problem, to wit that the agencies did not agree. Very senior persons in several agencies acted in concert. This does not indicate that it was at any time the position of their various agencies. Any inference to the effect that these people acted as representatives of their agency's avowed position should be considered suspect.
Click to expand...
What is the usual procedure for establishing what the position of a USIC agency if it's not up to the decisions of senior members?
Do the entire memberships of an agency hold a vote or something?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
What is the usual procedure for establishing what the position of a USIC agency if it's not up to the decisions of senior members?
Do the entire memberships of an agency hold a vote or something?
Click to expand...

They publish. A lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom