Peter Strzok and Andy McCabe file wrongful termination lawsuits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you mean Russia has its own Trump dossier?

And it involves women Russia used to induce Trump in the 1980's?

Color me shocked.

https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1173037890135179264

This definitely merits it own thread, friend. Start one!

No, it actually doesn't. This is the very definition of Russian disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enjoy prison Andy! I can’t think of a more deserving traitor!

+1

He wasn't even indicted. He will win his wrongful termination lawsuit and recover his pension. +1 means?????

Bye Andy! See you in a couple years if you behave in the joint.
I’ll post here when you lose your wrongful termination suit.
Can’t W8.
Maybe don’t lie next time?

He. Was. Not. Indicted.

No indictment means no trial, and no jail.

Even the Grand Jury told the Trump administration to pound sand, you can’t fire people because they won’t be your stooges.

Not. Yet. The GJ just met last Thursday. Considering there are other investigations going on, (IG report, Durham's investigation), it is going to take more than one GJ session for them to decide.

I don't think you understand how this works.

I agree with pp. Maybe, just maybe, the GJ needs to hear from additional witnesses.

Again, this is not what happened.

Are you on the Grand Jury?????

It has been explained already. The GJ doesn't need to hear from additional witnesses, that is not how it works. If you have to ask this many times, then you simply don't understand. That is fine, but stop trying to hypothesize something that would be out of the ordinary in suggesting that McCabe is to be indicted. The DOJ, by its own guidelines, cannot go GJ shopping. If it starts doing that for McCabe, then we may as well ignore the guidelines about a sitting President not being indictable. Given Trump is Individual 1 in the Cohen case, SDNY could just go ahead and do it. Is that what you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you mean Russia has its own Trump dossier?

And it involves women Russia used to induce Trump in the 1980's?

Color me shocked.

https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1173037890135179264

This definitely merits it own thread, friend. Start one!

No, it actually doesn't. This is the very definition of Russian disinformation.

No, it sounds about like what Russia does with people too stupid to know they’re being used. Like all Maria Buttina’s “boyfriends.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enjoy prison Andy! I can’t think of a more deserving traitor!

+1

He wasn't even indicted. He will win his wrongful termination lawsuit and recover his pension. +1 means?????

Bye Andy! See you in a couple years if you behave in the joint.
I’ll post here when you lose your wrongful termination suit.
Can’t W8.
Maybe don’t lie next time?

He. Was. Not. Indicted.

No indictment means no trial, and no jail.

Even the Grand Jury told the Trump administration to pound sand, you can’t fire people because they won’t be your stooges.

Not. Yet. The GJ just met last Thursday. Considering there are other investigations going on, (IG report, Durham's investigation), it is going to take more than one GJ session for them to decide.

I don't think you understand how this works.

I agree with pp. Maybe, just maybe, the GJ needs to hear from additional witnesses.

Again, this is not what happened.

Are you on the Grand Jury?????

It has been explained already. The GJ doesn't need to hear from additional witnesses, that is not how it works. If you have to ask this many times, then you simply don't understand. That is fine, but stop trying to hypothesize something that would be out of the ordinary in suggesting that McCabe is to be indicted. The DOJ, by its own guidelines, cannot go GJ shopping. If it starts doing that for McCabe, then we may as well ignore the guidelines about a sitting President not being indictable. Given Trump is Individual 1 in the Cohen case, SDNY could just go ahead and do it. Is that what you want?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the pp you’re responding to us one of those people who believes Q is a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is obvious retribution by Trump. No one in the Justice Department would be perusing this if Trump wasn’t strongarming them to do so. Flagrant abuse of power. I’m amazed that no one in the chain of command is willing to stand up to Trump and show some integrity.

IIRC at least one prosecutor either left DOJ or asked to be let off this case.

Yup. “Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, referred his investigation to the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia and released his report on McCabe in April 2018. Prosecutors began using a grand jury, a sign of the inquiry’s seriousness. Internally, though, there was significant discussion about how best to proceed. Two assistant U.S. attorneys at some point left the case — and one left the U.S. attorney’s office entirely. That person had concerns about how it was being handled, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-authorized-prosecutors-to-charge-andrew-mccabe/2019/09/12/5b0d48ea-d418-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

[Anonymous]

U.S. judge warns DOJ either to charge former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe or to drop his case, saying indecision undermines the credibility of the Justice Dept. and the courts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-to-doj-decide-on-charging-andrew-mccabe-by-nov-15-or-face-release-of-fbi-records/2019/10/01/3e169168-e3c4-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html#click=https://t.co/qfaoppc2ng

[Anonymous]

Yes, because the last thing we need is more undermining of credibility from the DOJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, because the last thing we need is more undermining of credibility from the DOJ.

Too late. They have none. They are Individual 1’s in-house clean-up crew.

[Anonymous]

So what do we think the agreement was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the agreement was?

Somebody's singing.

[Anonymous]

I'll drop the suit if you restore my pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the agreement was?

Somebody's singing.

Who is? I don’t get the significance or implications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you mean Russia has its own Trump dossier?

And it involves women Russia used to induce Trump in the 1980's?

Color me shocked.

https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1173037890135179264

This definitely merits it own thread, friend. Start one!

No, it actually doesn't. This is the very definition of Russian disinformation.

No it's not. It might be total BS, but it's not Russian disinformation. There ARE other liars the world. And you think liberals are too quick to blame Russia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the agreement was?

Somebody's singing.

Who is? I don’t get the significance or implications.

They are interviewing the people involved in the DOJ and CIA. If McCabe thinks the truth is coming out about what role he may have played ("the insurance policy"), he realizes he should drop the suit alleging he was wrongfully fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the agreement was?

Somebody's singing.

Who is? I don’t get the significance or implications.

They are interviewing the people involved in the DOJ and CIA. If McCabe thinks the truth is coming out about what role he may have played ("the insurance policy"), he realizes he should drop the suit alleging he was wrongfully fired.

No, quite not.