Mueller Report is being delivered to Barr today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben wittes preliminary thoughts
https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation

This dude is as reliable as a paper straw in a Big Gulp.

DP. I assume you didn’t actually read what he wrote, because your comment is nonsensical in the context.

You mean as nonsensical as this witch hunt? You got me. Once a source is burned, I don't wait to see if it will resurrect itself with better judgement.

LOL. And yet here you are, supporting Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben wittes preliminary thoughts
https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation

This dude is as reliable as a paper straw in a Big Gulp.

DP. I assume you didn’t actually read what he wrote, because your comment is nonsensical in the context.

In reality, Wittes has no credibility, except to people who are determined to bring Trump down.
Coincidentally, he was mentioned in this article, published yesterday.....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-clashed-doj-biased-fisa-source-texts-mccabe-page

Just nine days before the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil a top Trump campaign aide, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages obtained by Fox News.

The 2016 messages, sent between former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also reveal that bureau brass circulated at least two anti-Trump blog articles, including a Lawfare blog post sent shortly after Election Day that called Trump possibly "among the major threats to the security of the country."

Another article, sent by Page in July 2016 as the FBI's counterintelligence probe into Russian election interference was kicking off, flatly called Trump a "useful idiot" for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Page told McCabe that then-FBI Director James Comey had "surely" read that piece. Both articles were authored in whole or part by Benjamin Wittes, a Comey friend.

Further, the texts show that on Sept. 12, 2016, Page forwarded to McCabe some "unsolicited comments" calling then-GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy a "total d--k." Gowdy, at the time, was grilling FBI congressional affairs director Jason Herring at a hearing on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.

But perhaps the most significant Page-McCabe communications made plain the DOJ's worries that the FISA application to surveil Trump aide Carter Page was based on a potentially biased source -- and underscored the FBI's desire to press on.

Oh yes, do cite the Trump propaganda machine lol. GTFO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben wittes preliminary thoughts
https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation

This dude is as reliable as a paper straw in a Big Gulp.

DP. I assume you didn’t actually read what he wrote, because your comment is nonsensical in the context.

In reality, Wittes has no credibility, except to people who are determined to bring Trump down.
Coincidentally, he was mentioned in this article, published yesterday.....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-clashed-doj-biased-fisa-source-texts-mccabe-page

Just nine days before the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil a top Trump campaign aide, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages obtained by Fox News.

The 2016 messages, sent between former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also reveal that bureau brass circulated at least two anti-Trump blog articles, including a Lawfare blog post sent shortly after Election Day that called Trump possibly "among the major threats to the security of the country."

Another article, sent by Page in July 2016 as the FBI's counterintelligence probe into Russian election interference was kicking off, flatly called Trump a "useful idiot" for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Page told McCabe that then-FBI Director James Comey had "surely" read that piece. Both articles were authored in whole or part by Benjamin Wittes, a Comey friend.

Further, the texts show that on Sept. 12, 2016, Page forwarded to McCabe some "unsolicited comments" calling then-GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy a "total d--k." Gowdy, at the time, was grilling FBI congressional affairs director Jason Herring at a hearing on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.

But perhaps the most significant Page-McCabe communications made plain the DOJ's worries that the FISA application to surveil Trump aide Carter Page was based on a potentially biased source -- and underscored the FBI's desire to press on.

Oh yes, do cite the Trump propaganda machine lol. GTFO.

So, you are disputing the facts outlined in this piece? Which facts do you believe are incorrect?

[Anonymous]

Good take

https://twitter.com/gregolear/status/1109404521787203585

[Anonymous]

What are the implications for our foreign policy wrt Russia? Mueller has already indicted tons of Russians for interference in our 2016 election so that should be indisputable. Will we see more instances like Kislyak in the Oval Office being given classified intelligence by the US President. Is it now alright for people like Erik Prince, Eliot Broidy et al to direct our foreign policy in the Middle East from the shadows? How do we protect our country from foreign influence over our elections and our national security?
If “slime is not crime” is the new GOP motto does this mean you can go upto the line but as long as there isn’t a signed conspiracy contract it’s all good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good take

https://twitter.com/gregolear/status/1109404521787203585

Translation: "He may not have colluded. There may not have been any conspiring with Russians. He may not have obstructed justice. But, we will get Trump and his family on other charges. Just have patience."

And, he threw in the "Republicans pounce" narrative.

What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that Trump, or nobody in his family, will be indicted really throws a wrench into the Democrats' 2020 campaign platform.

Maybe they will have to come up with some actual policy positions to run on.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

The Dems do have policy considerations they are running on - have you been watching any of the Town Halls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dems do have policy considerations they are running on - have you been watching any of the Town Halls?

Yeah. We know.

The Green New Deal. Reparations. Free college. Medicare for All. Voting rights for illegals. Abolishing the electoral college. Restructuring the Senate. Adding seats to SCOTUS.

All winning issues, right? LOL.

[Anonymous]

So the FBI told a FISA court that Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power spying on America and nearly three years later neither the DOJ nor Mueller's office have charged him with anything.

Anyone still think everything was kosher over at the Obama/Lynch/Comey DOJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben wittes preliminary thoughts
https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation

This dude is as reliable as a paper straw in a Big Gulp.

DP. I assume you didn’t actually read what he wrote, because your comment is nonsensical in the context.

You mean as nonsensical as this witch hunt? You got me. Once a source is burned, I don't wait to see if it will resurrect itself with better judgement.

LOL. And yet here you are, supporting Trump.

Thinking the clowns that pushed (and often profited) this 'Russian collusion' narrative are frauds isn't automatically indicative of 'supporting Trump'. Imagine if all that energy in expecting to find something involving Russia was used to re-imagine the Democratic Party, they'd have a massively better chance of beating him in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the implications for our foreign policy wrt Russia? Mueller has already indicted tons of Russians for interference in our 2016 election so that should be indisputable. Will we see more instances like Kislyak in the Oval Office being given classified intelligence by the US President. Is it now alright for people like Erik Prince, Eliot Broidy et al to direct our foreign policy in the Middle East from the shadows? How do we protect our country from foreign influence over our elections and our national security?
If “slime is not crime” is the new GOP motto does this mean you can go upto the line but as long as there isn’t a signed conspiracy contract it’s all good?

You mean a few guys from a troll farm who used a six-figure budget to post memes about pantyhouse colors and masturbation? 'Russian interference' like 'Russian collusion' is a total joke!
'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can any of his many followers here explain Seth Abramson's latest tweet storm? Seeing as how he was basically the most lurid conspiracy-monger, I went looking for what he had to say and it's even harder to make sense of than usual.

If you are talking about this thread: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109212296591613952 then he is basically saying the same thing as Neal Katyal; that this "report" is bot the end, but rather the beginning of a world of investigation and truth-seeking that no other President has endured. He is basically saying that between SDNY, EDVA, Main DOJ and the House, there will be a roadmap as it is too much for a 10 or 17 person SCO staff to handle.

Remember, Flynn, Gates and Butina are still cooperating witnesses. That along should give people pause as to what is coming.

In short, Seth Abramson is still, and likely always will be, Waiting For Godot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben wittes preliminary thoughts
https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-quick-thoughts-end-mueller-investigation

This dude is as reliable as a paper straw in a Big Gulp.

DP. I assume you didn’t actually read what he wrote, because your comment is nonsensical in the context.

You mean as nonsensical as this witch hunt? You got me. Once a source is burned, I don't wait to see if it will resurrect itself with better judgement.

LOL. And yet here you are, supporting Trump.

Thinking the clowns that pushed (and often profited) this 'Russian collusion' narrative are frauds isn't automatically indicative of 'supporting Trump'. Imagine if all that energy in expecting to find something involving Russia was used to re-imagine the Democratic Party, they'd have a massively better chance of beating him in 2020.

I'm wondering what a re-imagined democrat party looks like, given their agenda today. What would it look like and what would their issues and agenda look like? Not platitudes like "equality for all", but real agenda items.

Sanders universal and simple to understand social programs are the easiest way to grasp that. Gabbard's anti-war stances are similarly helpful. Warren's anti-monopoly ideas, sure to piss off Silicon Valley plutocrat enabling Nancy Pelosi are also good. Basically, it all starts with a wholesale repudiation of the Democrats of previous decades, the billionaire-bought clowns like the Clintons, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and their allies.

[Anonymous]

Trumps silence on the whole thing is the most intriguing to me. He hasn’t tweeted in about 19 hours, hasn’t made a peep about the report. You’d think he’d be all over the “no more indictments” reports, crowing about how he’s been vindicated, yet he’s not.