B-Man Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 Politico: Justice Department won’t disclose details on Mueller ethics waiver. The Justice Department is refusing to reveal details of the process that led up to former FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to serve as special counsel investigating the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election. In response to a POLITICO Freedom of Information Act request, the agency released a one-sentence memo Friday confirming that Mueller was granted a conflict-of-interest waiver in order to assume the politically sensitive post. .
Deranged Rhino Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 28 minutes ago, B-Man said: Politico: Justice Department won’t disclose details on Mueller ethics waiver. The Justice Department is refusing to reveal details of the process that led up to former FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to serve as special counsel investigating the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election. In response to a POLITICO Freedom of Information Act request, the agency released a one-sentence memo Friday confirming that Mueller was granted a conflict-of-interest waiver in order to assume the politically sensitive post. . This is an interesting development. I really can't gauge which way RM is going to go. I'm still on the side that says he's part of the longer play. If he is a part of the bigger play here (if there is a bigger play at all, of course) this kind of waiver would make sense. Any investigation into corruption would bring him into direct conflict with former employees and bosses, and require such a waiver. But it also swings the other way. The IG report will bring some of this into sharper relief.
B-Man Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 "Governmental accountability board? More like Wisconsin's Secret Police," by Glenn Reynolds, which ends: It’s too early to say, as one account does, that the Wisconsin debacle prefigured the ongoing Robert Mueller investigation into Trump’s campaign, though there are certainly similarities between the attitudes of “The Resistance” in Washington and the Wisconsin establishment’s response to Walker. Writing in The Washington Post last week, Ed Rogers wrote that, though he’d supported Mueller in the past, Mueller needed to get a handle on the overwhelming partisan slant of his prosecutors or he’d be discredited. It’s good advice. Mueller and his investigators should take care not to get wrapped up in partisan politics while conducting a criminal investigation. Because that seldom ends well. .
Tiberius Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 31 minutes ago, B-Man said: "Governmental accountability board? More like Wisconsin's Secret Police," by Glenn Reynolds, which ends: It’s too early to say, as one account does, that the Wisconsin debacle prefigured the ongoing Robert Mueller investigation into Trump’s campaign, though there are certainly similarities between the attitudes of “The Resistance” in Washington and the Wisconsin establishment’s response to Walker. Writing in The Washington Post last week, Ed Rogers wrote that, though he’d supported Mueller in the past, Mueller needed to get a handle on the overwhelming partisan slant of his prosecutors or he’d be discredited. It’s good advice. Mueller and his investigators should take care not to get wrapped up in partisan politics while conducting a criminal investigation. Because that seldom ends well. . Yes, I'm sure you were worried about that when it was actually a real problem, like the partisan witch hunt over Benghazi. What a total hypocrite and tool
Deranged Rhino Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." Text from Peter Strozk to Lisa Page, August 2016 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/fbi-agents-trump-mueller-texts-294156
B-Man Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." Text from Peter Strozk to Lisa Page, August 2016 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/fbi-agents-trump-mueller-texts-294156 Talking smack about someone you don't like is pretty common, but This "can't take the risk and insurance policy" now THAT'S problematic. you want to know why half the country doesn't trust the federal bureaucracy? THIS IS WHY.
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." Text from Peter Strozk to Lisa Page, August 2016 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/fbi-agents-trump-mueller-texts-294156 There's a lot of really bad texts in that release that can lead a reasonable person to credibly believe that they wouldn't investigate honestly and would actively work to undermine Trump. But calling Trump an idiot is not one of them. That's not bias, that's objective fact. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) To date, not a single attempt has been made by the SP or his staff to contact Julian Assange or Wikileaks. You would think interviewing a material witness to the events who many have claimed is a Russian cut out would be a necessary step for someone investigating Russian collusion, especially when the wikileak documents played such a large role. Throw this onto the pile of evidence showing this is either a sham investigation, or it's an investigation that has nothing to do with Russian collusion in the 2016 election. ***************************************************** 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Talking smack about someone you don't like is pretty common, but This "can't take the risk and insurance policy" now THAT'S problematic. you want to know why half the country doesn't trust the federal bureaucracy? THIS IS WHY. Yup. That's a damning sentiment. Especially in AUGUST 2016 - right before the FISA warrants were (likely) issued. 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: There's a lot of really bad texts in that release that can lead a reasonable person to credibly believe that they wouldn't investigate honestly and would actively work to undermine Trump. But calling Trump an idiot is not one of them. That's not bias, that's objective fact. Edited December 13, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 Here we go again... The conspiracy loons. Shhh... Be very quiet, here that conservatives... Whoop whoop, that's the rotor pitch of conspiracy! It's all rigged! 1
B-Man Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 Andy" is clearly Andrew McCabe. Page was McCabe's go to FBI lawyer. Strzok his hand-picked operative. This is essentially a confession from Strzok that Hillary loyal FBI bosses were plotting to weaponize the FBI. “We’ll get it [our country] back” wrote the senior FBI lawyer to the senior FBI investigator who bailed out Hillary, interrogated Gen Flynn, and was part of Mueller’s effort to take down Trump. If a single person at the FBI was attempting to take down Barack Obama, it would take a nuclear explosion for the media to talk about anything else for a month. . 1
Deranged Rhino Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Here we go again... The conspiracy loons. Shhh... Be very quiet, here that conservatives... Whoop whoop, that's the rotor pitch of conspiracy! It's all rigged! Conspiracy loons? Like the people on this board who are convinced, despite the complete absence of evidence, that Russia "hacked" the election and colluded with Trump to win? People who refuse to even entertain a counter point because they've safely cocooned themselves in a narrative that to date still has ZERO evidence to support it. Loons like those? Or are those loons okay? If you're actually paying attention, what we are learning is that a politicized DOJ and FBI used a fabricated document to get a FISA warrant to wiretap members of the opposition party. We have the head FBI counter intelligence agent saying - openly bragging - that he was going to do something about Trump the will of the voters be damned. And that person ran the investigation into not just the Russian collusion angle before RM, but also HRC's corruption investigation. This is the reality. Not conspiracy. Get better insults.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 Fusion DoJ It’s getting hard to tell where the Clinton campaign ends and the federal law enforcement apparatus begins. http://archive.is/0FUod#selection-2081.0-2085.107 (archive link to get around paywall)
Tiberius Posted December 14, 2017 Posted December 14, 2017 Breaking news about FBI. They have a report that FBI agents have voted before! They also voted in secret. How is that for transparency. Might at least some of these people voted for Hillary? Think about that! Of course, dismiss this as a conspiracy, but they voted in SECRET!
Tiberius Posted December 14, 2017 Posted December 14, 2017 ____________ Quote Michael V. Hayden, who served as CIA director under President George W. Bush, has described the Russian interference as the political equivalent of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an event that exposed a previously unimagined vulnerability and required a unified American response. “What the president has to say is, ‘We know the Russians did it, they know they did it, I know they did it, and we will not rest until we learn everything there is to know about how and do everything possible to prevent it from happening again,’ ” Hayden said in an interview. Trump “has never said anything close to that and will never say anything close to that.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_trumprussia%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a238281328eb
B-Man Posted December 14, 2017 Posted December 14, 2017 BYRON YORK: After mysterious ‘insurance policy’ text, will Justice Department reveal more on FBI agent bounced from Mueller probe? It’s suspicious. And I’d still like to know whether Lisa Page approved Peter Strzok’s warrant applications to the FISA court. I asked Mueller’s office about that, but they said no comment. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/283338/ .
Deranged Rhino Posted December 14, 2017 Posted December 14, 2017 If you have to resort to relying on Michael Hayden as a source of truth, you've already lost the argument. Look into Hayden. Like Clapper and Brennan he's knowingly lied to the American public and Congress (under oath) multiple times.
Tiberius Posted December 14, 2017 Posted December 14, 2017 Lies? "I've had nothing to do with Russia"
Deranged Rhino Posted December 14, 2017 Posted December 14, 2017 Quote As the nation’s chief codebreaker, Hayden had signed off on the notorious National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 that predicted an Iraqi nuclear weapon within a year if Baghdad acquired enough fissile material and suggested that the purchase of anodized aluminium tubes was evidence of the advanced state of Saddam’s nuclear program. As has been made abundantly clear by the British Butler report and the WMD commission here the evidentiary base for estimating Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction had changed little between the late 1990s, when there were suspicions of WMD but no real evidence, and 2002, save for a few defector reports. What had changed was the political climate. At all levels the Bush administration was applying pressure to intelligence bureaucrats to disprove that Saddam had WMD. Proving a negative is usually impossible. Hayden glossed over that. Instead he couched the WMD fantasy in terms of an intelligence failure and dodged any real responsibility. He said that as NSA chief he was only required to assess the use of intercepted information in the estimate and that satisfied with that he had voted for it. He then, by implication, blamed the other intelligence services for bringing evidence to the estimate drafting table that was not properly sourced. Hayden then went on to assure the House intelligence subcommittee that in future each member of the board that approves NIEs must sign off on the quality of their information and that as a result the estimates are now more tentative. snip Quote Granting Hayden the benefit of the doubt about his lack of understanding of the history of US estimates, there is still the question of his own judgment in shaping those estimates that came his way when he was at the NSA. As viewers of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations will recall, the US introduced intelligence gathered by the NSA as evidence that Saddam was hiding special weapons. Hayden signed off on that information and presumably that interpretation. In dodging any discussion of his own interpretive errors today, Hayden leaves open the question of his ability to help his new boss supervise the intelligence analysis process. His testimony is also a troubling sign that the country’s new intelligence chiefs lack the independence to be candid about the huge role that politics and policymakers played in the WMD mess. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-naftali/shifting-blame-for-the-ir_b_4846.html Hayden knowingly bungled WMD assessments in Iraq that directly lead to 17 years of uninterrupted war, trillions of dollars and millions of lives lost. He bungled nearly every element of this... and now he's a source of truth? If you have to use Hayden as a source of truth, you've already lost.
Recommended Posts