Buffalo_Gal Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, njbuff said: Let's hope that Barr has bigger fish to fry with Comey because nothing happening to Comey has a lot of people I have talked to not happy. I told them to remain patient. I hope I am right. I am hoping it is the FISA abuse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I am hoping it is the FISA abuse. ...that would be the bigger fish....Barr is picking his spots eloquently.....charging Comey with leaks would have smelled partisan 101 for something inconsequential...but at least we know they happened.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I am hoping it is the FISA abuse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You gonna share what you have heard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: You gonna share what you have heard? This was expected, and nearly every media outlet is burying the lede: Horowitz's office/his still unreleased report referred Comey for (shh: multiple) criminal violations. That's huge news in and of itself, but no one is talking about it because they're talking about Barr's decision not to over charge instead. To successfully prosecute this particular charge requires proving "gross negligence" which Comey, despite knowingly breaking the law, took care to avoid. Comey, through what he did for Hillary, gave himself an out on this charge (which is an interesting footnote). So Barr does the right thing here, and kept their powder dry. I do not know for certain if they are trying to get Comey to roll over on anyone (I'd be surprised, but can't rule it out) -- I just know for certain the DOJ isn't done with Mr. Comey. Durham/Huber are still working on additional referrals from Horowitz and several they've spun off on their own... Put another way: the fact Horowitz referred Comey for this charge means, more than likely, he's going to refer him for the other provable charges we've discussed at length in regards to the FISA abuse. To me it shows that Horowitz is the man we hoped -- and his report is going to be a bombshell. Still, Durham is the one with the reach. (Here's a good thread) 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: This was expected, and nearly every media outlet is burying the lede: Horowitz's office/his still unreleased report referred Comey for (shh: multiple) criminal violations. That's huge news in and of itself, but no one is talking about it because they're talking about Barr's decision not to over charge instead. To successfully prosecute this particular charge requires proving "gross negligence" which Comey, despite knowingly breaking the law, took care to avoid. Comey, through what he did for Hillary, gave himself an out on this charge (which is an interesting footnote). So Barr does the right thing here, and kept their powder dry. I do not know for certain if they are trying to get Comey to roll over on anyone (I'd be surprised, but can't rule it out) -- I just know for certain the DOJ isn't done with Mr. Comey. Durham/Huber are still working on additional referrals from Horowitz and several they've spun off on their own... Put another way: the fact Horowitz referred Comey for this charge means, more than likely, he's going to refer him for the other provable charges we've discussed at length in regards to the FISA abuse. To me it shows that Horowitz is the man we hoped -- and his report is going to be a bombshell. Still, Durham is the one with the reach. I was reading the Durham impaneled a grand jury. Rumor or truth? (All the sources lead back to Joe diGenova sooo not exactly the most accurate.) If true (my guess is yes on this one) I wonder how long that is gonna take, and who they are looking into? (FWIW WaPo has a chart that federal grand juries indict 99.99% of the time.) Edited August 1, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I was reading the Durham impaled a grand jury. Rumor or truth? Rumor, I hope. Or else we are going to need a new investigator, because Durham is going to be in trouble! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 14 minutes ago, Hedge said: Rumor, I hope. Or else we are going to need a new investigator, because Durham is going to be in trouble! Everybody's a smartie. Fixed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: C doesn't = Comey. C=Coats. No declass until Coats is gone (12th of August) Lol the 12th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 5 hours ago, Hedge said: You went against normal procedure where legal norms call for public silence where there are no charges being brought against her. Instead you made a public spectacle to denounce Clinton's carelessness. The IG report called you insubordinate for doing so. There's a case to be made that you literally cost Hillary the presidency as all those undecideds broke Trump's way in the Midwest after you came out right before the election saying you're reopening the Hillary investigation right before the election because of Anthony Weiner's laptop that ultimately led to nothing. It dominated all the coverage before the election. You then refused to acknowledge publicly that Trump himself wasn't a suspect in the Russia probe and your refusal to do so caused Trump to fire you that led to the ridiculous Special Counsel investigation. When you were fired you wrote a book "The Resistance" clobbered over making you lots of dough. Consider yourself lucky you were only fired and not prosecuted you sanctimonious jackass. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: You went against normal procedure where legal norms call for public silence where there are no charges being brought against her. Instead you made a public spectacle to denounce Clinton's carelessness. The IG report called you insubordinate for doing so. There's a case to be made that you literally cost Hillary the presidency as all those undecideds broke Trump's way in the Midwest after you came out right before the election saying you're reopening the Hillary investigation right before the election because of Anthony Weiner's laptop that ultimately led to nothing. It dominated all the coverage before the election. You then refused to acknowledge publicly that Trump himself wasn't a suspect in the Russia probe and your refusal to do so caused Trump to fire you that led to the ridiculous Special Counsel investigation. When you were fired you wrote a book "The Resistance" clobbered over making you lots of dough. Consider yourself lucky you were only fired and not prosecuted you sanctimonious jackass. i'm not sure but i'm thinking that's a lot more than 280 characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 10 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: You gonna share what you have heard? It’s all the sealed indictments. Hahahahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 27 minutes ago, Foxx said: i'm not sure but i'm thinking that's a lot more than 280 characters. I prefer to think he reads these boards working up a sweat over DR's posts. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 9 hours ago, Hedge said: John Solomon said a grand jury has not been impaneled yet. I believe him over Joe diGenova. Darn. Tom Fitton says "by Monday" for the document drop. DOJ and FBI delaying releases. (Sean Hannity needs to zip his lips and let people talk.) 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 57 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: John Solomon said a grand jury has not been impaneled yet. I believe him over Joe diGenova. Darn. Tom Fitton says "by Monday" for the document drop. DOJ and FBI delaying releases. (Sean Hannity needs to zip his lips and let people talk.) My biggest complaint regarding him. Any good points he makes are overshadowed by his constant repeat of those points and his talking over his guests. I like the Mark Levin approach...……...get good guests and let them talk. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: John Solomon said a grand jury has not been impaneled yet. I believe him over Joe diGenova. Darn. Tom Fitton says "by Monday" for the document drop. DOJ and FBI delaying releases. (Sean Hannity needs to zip his lips and let people talk.) That's always a safe bet imo. I like Joe, but John's sources are better these days on the ins and outs of the investigation. He was taken in early, and kept in the loop. Joe and Trump are close, but (to my knowledge) Joe has a firewall between himself and the investigation -- meaning everything he gets comes from Trump's inner circle rather than Haspel's/Barr's like Solomon. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Undercover Huber @JohnWHuber 19h19 hours ago For those asking: here is the reason @Comey (sadly) won’t be prosecuted by DOJ for leaking one classified memo as reported by @jsolomonReports THREAD 2:06 PM - 1 Aug 201 Recap: I identified Comey breaking the law and the *specific* memo he leaked over a year ago. And more recently that he lied to Congress about it: Undercover Huber added, Undercover Huber @JohnWHuber Here is the proof that @Comey leaked CLASSIFIED information in violation of federal law (18 USC § 793) to his friend Daniel Richman - who then was an anonymous source to the @nytimes… Show this thread The standard DOJ use when deciding to proceed with a prosecution like this (or decline) isn’t “did Comey break the law?” (which he did) The standard is: “can I *prove* Comey broke the law *beyond a reasonable doubt* to the satisfaction of a jury?” & DOJ didn’t think they could Proving beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult, because Comey was very clever in doing the leaking and attacking Trump: —He didn’t leak all the memos —He didn’t give the memos to the press but selectively had some of their contents read out by his “lawyers” Comey also didn’t leak certain contents of the memos that remain secret to this day - e.g. whether Flynn was under a FISA, Trump’s calls with Putin etc These are still redacted by the FBI and we don’t know their content To a judge/jury that would show Comey was being selective Also the classified memo was *retrospectively* classified by the FBI after Comey had already leaked it His defense here would be that he didn’t know it was classified at the time Comey can also say he himself classified some memos at SECRET level - and *didn’t* leak them The law Comey broke doesn’t *require* any intent, but does require “gross negligence” Comey would quite easily be able to argue that *at worst* he was negligent, but not grossly because he did protect some content of the memos he leaked, didn’t leak entire memos and they weren’t classified at the time (and where he should have classified them he attempted to) Now I personally don’t agree with any of those defenses, but that’s irrelevant. Comey’s defense team would have a decent shot at introducing *reasonable doubt*, endangering the success of a prosecution. Prosecutors want the thing watertight up front Disappointing but to end on a positive - that the IG referred Comey for potential criminal prosecution is a good sign AG Barr/DOJ declining is only a good sign if they’re saving their ammunition for more a more watertight case involving Comey. That, we’ll have to see... /ENDS 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 ...diGenova says Barr got the Comey decision right...BUT....more to follow............. Joe diGenova: Barr's Comey decision was the right call. But this is just the beginning By Joseph diGenova | Fox News Published 3 hours ago The decision not to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey over his deliberate leaks to the media isn’t a sign of weakness or lack of will, but of the professionalism and well-reasoned restraint of President Trump’s Department of Justice. Attorney General Bill Barr’s number one goal since taking the helm at the DOJ has been to restore the impartial and professional ethos that has characterized that agency for more than 200 years. He is working diligently to cleanse it of the stain of politically driven vindictiveness that Obama-era officials created by grossly mishandling the Clinton email investigation, and then, even more egregiously, orchestrating the series of events that led to the Russiagate witch hunt. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/joe-digenova-barr-james-comey-leaks-decision 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts