Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Sure looks like it....

At the very least an attempt to discredit Mr. Barr before the next phase comes.....

.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/russia-investigation-justice-department-review.html

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

Additionally on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he, too, intends to review aspects of law enforcement’s work in the coming months. And Republicans conducted their own inquiries when they controlled the House, including publicizing details of the F.B.I.’s wiretap use.

Thomas Carson, a spokesman for Mr. Durham’s office, declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. “I do have people in the department helping me review the activities over the summer of 2016,” Mr. Barr said in congressional testimony on May 1, without elaborating.

Mr. Durham, who was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2017 and has been a Justice Department lawyer since 1982, has conducted special investigations under administrations of both parties. Attorney General Janet Reno asked Mr. Durham in 1999 to investigate the F.B.I.’s handling of a notorious informant: the organized crime leader James (Whitey) Bulger.

In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned Mr. Durham to investigate the C.I.A.’s destruction of videotapes in 2005 showing the torture of terrorism suspects. A year later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate to also examine whether the agency broke any laws in its abuses of detainees in its custody.

Mr. Barr has signaled his concerns about the Russia investigationduring congressional testimony, particularly the surveillance of Trump associates. “I think spying did occur,” he said. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated. But I need to explore that.”

His use of the term “spying” to describe court-authorized surveillance aimed at understanding a foreign government’s interference in the election touched off criticism that he was echoing politically charged accusations by Mr. Trump and his Republican allies that the F.B.I. unfairly targeted the Trump campaign.

Last week, the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, defended the bureau, saying he was unaware of any illegal surveillance and refused to call agents’ work “spying.” Former F.B.I. and Justice Department officials have defended the genesis of the investigation, saying it was properly predicated.

Yet Mr. Durham’s role — essentially giving him a special assignment but no special powers — also appeared aimed at sidestepping the rare appointment of another special counsel like Robert S. Mueller III, a role that allows greater day-to-day independence.

Mr. Trump and House Republicans have long pushed senior Justice Department officials to appoint one to investigate the president’s perceived political enemies and why Mr. Trump’s associates were under surveillance.

Mr. Trump’s calls to investigate the investigators have grown after the findings from Mr. Mueller were revealed last month. Mr. Mueller’s investigators cited “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his advisers engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

The Mueller report reaffirmed that the F.B.I. opened its investigationbased on legitimate factors, including revelations that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told a diplomat from Australia, a close American ally, that he was informed that the Russians had stolen Democratic emails.

 

“It would have been highly, highly inappropriate for us not to pursue it — and pursue it aggressively,” James Baker, who was the F.B.I.’s general counsel in 2016, said in an interview on Friday with the Lawfare podcast.

As part of the early Russia inquiry, the F.B.I. investigated four Trump associates: Mr. Papadopoulos; Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman; Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser; and Carter Page, another campaign foreign policy adviser.

Mr. Flynn and Mr. Papadopoulos later pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. as part of the inquiry; Mr. Manafort was also convicted of tax fraud and other charges brought by the special counsel, who took over the investigation in May 2017, and pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors also obtained approval from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page after he left the campaign. Mr. Trump’s allies have pointed to the warrant as major evidence that law enforcement officials were abusing their authority, but the investigation was opened based on separate information and the warrant was one small aspect in a sprawling inquiry that grew to include more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants and about 500 witness interviews.

Law enforcement officials have also drawn intense criticism for using an informant — a typical investigative step — to secretly report on Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos after they left the campaign and for relying on Democrat-funded opposition research compiled into a dossier by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was also an F.B.I. informant.

Investigators cited the dossier in a lengthy footnote in its application for permission to wiretap Mr. Page, alerting the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele’s research was “likely looking for information to discredit” the Trump campaign.

The inspector general is said to be examining whether law enforcement officials intentionally misled the intelligence court, which also approved three renewals of the warrant. The last application in June 2017 was signed by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who defended the decision last month in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

 

Mr. Horowitz is also said to be scrutinizing how the F.B.I. handled Mr. Steele and another informant, Stefan A. Halper, an American academic who taught in Britain. Agents asked Mr. Halper to determine whether Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos were in contact with Russians. Mr. Barr has said the inspector general could finish his inquiry in May or June. 

Mr. Durham is also investigating whether Mr. Baker made unauthorized disclosures to the news media, according to two House Republicans closely allied with Mr. Trump, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who disclosed in a letter to Mr. Durham in January that they had learned of that inquiry.

While they implied that it was related to the Russia investigation, another witness in Mr. Durham’s inquiry into Mr. Baker, Robert Litt, the former general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, came forward to say that he had been interviewed and that the investigation has nothing to do with Russia. Mr. Baker said last week that he was confident he had done nothing wrong and would be exonerated.

SF posted the entire article should you feel compelled to read it, but underlined and highlighted the sections pertinent to my opening sentence.  In closing - the excrement is going to hit the air propulsion device.......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Logan Act Is Awful and No, It's Not Going To Be Used Against John Kerry: https://reason.com/2019/05/14/the-logan-act-is-awful-and-no-its-not-going-to-be-used-against-john-kerry/

Quote

The Logan Act is back in the news, and its invocation is as breathtakingly stupid as it has always been.

This time, President Donald Trump wants to use it against John Kerry, who has been meeting with Iranian officials to apparently attempt to somehow salvage vestiges of the nuclear agreement between them and the United States that Trump has backed out of.

The Logan Act makes it a federal crime for a private American citizen to engage in any communication or correspondence with a foreign government that intervenes in a dispute with the United States and that government in order to "defeat" any measures by the U.S.

The law has been around since 1799, yet nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it (two people have been indicted but never prosecuted). Attempting to enforce the law would demonstrate just how thoroughly it violates the free speech rights of Americans.

Trump has complained about Kerry's behavior on Twitter and to the press, saying Kerry is violating the Logan Act. On Monday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr asking him to investigate whether Kerry's behavior is indeed in violation.

Trump raising the specter of the Logan Act follows a very clear trend that goes all the way back to the law's roots. The person or political party in control of American foreign policy wants to use it to punish a political opponent for openly speaking and attempting to influence foreign governments in ways they don't like. In this case, the Trump administration is itching for war with Iran. Kerry is trying to prevent it.

This attempt to criminalize speech in the Logan Act was designed for the very purpose of punishing political opponents. In fact, the law was written back in 1799 in a situation much like this one, where a private American citizen, Philadelphia Quaker George Logan, attempted to negotiate with France to stop an undeclared sea war between the two countries. Logan's actions pissed off the Federalist Party, and they pushed the bill through Congress.

The law's roots are entirely political and are not based on any actual threat that speech between a citizen and foreign government would somehow undermine America's foreign policies. The history of the Logan Act has entirely revolved around members of one political party trying to use it against another.

....

Sounds like yet another law rife to being repealed and taken off of the books.  Wouldn't that be a nice thing?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, swordfish said:

At the very least an attempt to discredit Mr. Barr before the next phase comes.....

.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/russia-investigation-justice-department-review.html

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

Additionally on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he, too, intends to review aspects of law enforcement’s work in the coming months. And Republicans conducted their own inquiries when they controlled the House, including publicizing details of the F.B.I.’s wiretap use.

Thomas Carson, a spokesman for Mr. Durham’s office, declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. “I do have people in the department helping me review the activities over the summer of 2016,” Mr. Barr said in congressional testimony on May 1, without elaborating.

Mr. Durham, who was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2017 and has been a Justice Department lawyer since 1982, has conducted special investigations under administrations of both parties. Attorney General Janet Reno asked Mr. Durham in 1999 to investigate the F.B.I.’s handling of a notorious informant: the organized crime leader James (Whitey) Bulger.

In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned Mr. Durham to investigate the C.I.A.’s destruction of videotapes in 2005 showing the torture of terrorism suspects. A year later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate to also examine whether the agency broke any laws in its abuses of detainees in its custody.

Mr. Barr has signaled his concerns about the Russia investigationduring congressional testimony, particularly the surveillance of Trump associates. “I think spying did occur,” he said. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated. But I need to explore that.”

His use of the term “spying” to describe court-authorized surveillance aimed at understanding a foreign government’s interference in the election touched off criticism that he was echoing politically charged accusations by Mr. Trump and his Republican allies that the F.B.I. unfairly targeted the Trump campaign.

Last week, the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, defended the bureau, saying he was unaware of any illegal surveillance and refused to call agents’ work “spying.” Former F.B.I. and Justice Department officials have defended the genesis of the investigation, saying it was properly predicated.

Yet Mr. Durham’s role — essentially giving him a special assignment but no special powers — also appeared aimed at sidestepping the rare appointment of another special counsel like Robert S. Mueller III, a role that allows greater day-to-day independence.

Mr. Trump and House Republicans have long pushed senior Justice Department officials to appoint one to investigate the president’s perceived political enemies and why Mr. Trump’s associates were under surveillance.

Mr. Trump’s calls to investigate the investigators have grown after the findings from Mr. Mueller were revealed last month. Mr. Mueller’s investigators cited “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his advisers engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

The Mueller report reaffirmed that the F.B.I. opened its investigationbased on legitimate factors, including revelations that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told a diplomat from Australia, a close American ally, that he was informed that the Russians had stolen Democratic emails.

“It would have been highly, highly inappropriate for us not to pursue it — and pursue it aggressively,” James Baker, who was the F.B.I.’s general counsel in 2016, said in an interview on Friday with the Lawfare podcast.

As part of the early Russia inquiry, the F.B.I. investigated four Trump associates: Mr. Papadopoulos; Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman; Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser; and Carter Page, another campaign foreign policy adviser.

Mr. Flynn and Mr. Papadopoulos later pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. as part of the inquiry; Mr. Manafort was also convicted of tax fraud and other charges brought by the special counsel, who took over the investigation in May 2017, and pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors also obtained approval from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page after he left the campaign. Mr. Trump’s allies have pointed to the warrant as major evidence that law enforcement officials were abusing their authority, but the investigation was opened based on separate information and the warrant was one small aspect in a sprawling inquiry that grew to include more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants and about 500 witness interviews.

Law enforcement officials have also drawn intense criticism for using an informant — a typical investigative step — to secretly report on Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos after they left the campaign and for relying on Democrat-funded opposition research compiled into a dossier by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was also an F.B.I. informant.

Investigators cited the dossier in a lengthy footnote in its application for permission to wiretap Mr. Page, alerting the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele’s research was “likely looking for information to discredit” the Trump campaign.

The inspector general is said to be examining whether law enforcement officials intentionally misled the intelligence court, which also approved three renewals of the warrant. The last application in June 2017 was signed by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who defended the decision last month in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Horowitz is also said to be scrutinizing how the F.B.I. handled Mr. Steele and another informant, Stefan A. Halper, an American academic who taught in Britain. Agents asked Mr. Halper to determine whether Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos were in contact with Russians. Mr. Barr has said the inspector general could finish his inquiry in May or June. 

Mr. Durham is also investigating whether Mr. Baker made unauthorized disclosures to the news media, according to two House Republicans closely allied with Mr. Trump, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who disclosed in a letter to Mr. Durham in January that they had learned of that inquiry.

While they implied that it was related to the Russia investigation, another witness in Mr. Durham’s inquiry into Mr. Baker, Robert Litt, the former general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, came forward to say that he had been interviewed and that the investigation has nothing to do with Russia. Mr. Baker said last week that he was confident he had done nothing wrong and would be exonerated.

SF posted the entire article should you feel compelled to read it, but underlined and highlighted the sections pertinent to my opening sentence.  In closing - the excrement is going to hit the air propulsion device.......

 

 

Article has nothing to do with Nadler's request for the report.  

16 hours ago, swordfish said:

At the very least an attempt to discredit Mr. Barr before the next phase comes.....

.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/russia-investigation-justice-department-review.html

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

Additionally on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he, too, intends to review aspects of law enforcement’s work in the coming months. And Republicans conducted their own inquiries when they controlled the House, including publicizing details of the F.B.I.’s wiretap use.

Thomas Carson, a spokesman for Mr. Durham’s office, declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. “I do have people in the department helping me review the activities over the summer of 2016,” Mr. Barr said in congressional testimony on May 1, without elaborating.

Mr. Durham, who was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2017 and has been a Justice Department lawyer since 1982, has conducted special investigations under administrations of both parties. Attorney General Janet Reno asked Mr. Durham in 1999 to investigate the F.B.I.’s handling of a notorious informant: the organized crime leader James (Whitey) Bulger.

In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned Mr. Durham to investigate the C.I.A.’s destruction of videotapes in 2005 showing the torture of terrorism suspects. A year later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate to also examine whether the agency broke any laws in its abuses of detainees in its custody.

Mr. Barr has signaled his concerns about the Russia investigationduring congressional testimony, particularly the surveillance of Trump associates. “I think spying did occur,” he said. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated. But I need to explore that.”

His use of the term “spying” to describe court-authorized surveillance aimed at understanding a foreign government’s interference in the election touched off criticism that he was echoing politically charged accusations by Mr. Trump and his Republican allies that the F.B.I. unfairly targeted the Trump campaign.

Last week, the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, defended the bureau, saying he was unaware of any illegal surveillance and refused to call agents’ work “spying.” Former F.B.I. and Justice Department officials have defended the genesis of the investigation, saying it was properly predicated.

Yet Mr. Durham’s role — essentially giving him a special assignment but no special powers — also appeared aimed at sidestepping the rare appointment of another special counsel like Robert S. Mueller III, a role that allows greater day-to-day independence.

Mr. Trump and House Republicans have long pushed senior Justice Department officials to appoint one to investigate the president’s perceived political enemies and why Mr. Trump’s associates were under surveillance.

Mr. Trump’s calls to investigate the investigators have grown after the findings from Mr. Mueller were revealed last month. Mr. Mueller’s investigators cited “insufficient evidence” to determine that the president or his advisers engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

The Mueller report reaffirmed that the F.B.I. opened its investigationbased on legitimate factors, including revelations that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told a diplomat from Australia, a close American ally, that he was informed that the Russians had stolen Democratic emails.

“It would have been highly, highly inappropriate for us not to pursue it — and pursue it aggressively,” James Baker, who was the F.B.I.’s general counsel in 2016, said in an interview on Friday with the Lawfare podcast.

As part of the early Russia inquiry, the F.B.I. investigated four Trump associates: Mr. Papadopoulos; Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman; Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser; and Carter Page, another campaign foreign policy adviser.

Mr. Flynn and Mr. Papadopoulos later pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. as part of the inquiry; Mr. Manafort was also convicted of tax fraud and other charges brought by the special counsel, who took over the investigation in May 2017, and pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors also obtained approval from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page after he left the campaign. Mr. Trump’s allies have pointed to the warrant as major evidence that law enforcement officials were abusing their authority, but the investigation was opened based on separate information and the warrant was one small aspect in a sprawling inquiry that grew to include more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants and about 500 witness interviews.

Law enforcement officials have also drawn intense criticism for using an informant — a typical investigative step — to secretly report on Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos after they left the campaign and for relying on Democrat-funded opposition research compiled into a dossier by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was also an F.B.I. informant.

Investigators cited the dossier in a lengthy footnote in its application for permission to wiretap Mr. Page, alerting the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele’s research was “likely looking for information to discredit” the Trump campaign.

The inspector general is said to be examining whether law enforcement officials intentionally misled the intelligence court, which also approved three renewals of the warrant. The last application in June 2017 was signed by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who defended the decision last month in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Horowitz is also said to be scrutinizing how the F.B.I. handled Mr. Steele and another informant, Stefan A. Halper, an American academic who taught in Britain. Agents asked Mr. Halper to determine whether Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos were in contact with Russians. Mr. Barr has said the inspector general could finish his inquiry in May or June. 

Mr. Durham is also investigating whether Mr. Baker made unauthorized disclosures to the news media, according to two House Republicans closely allied with Mr. Trump, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina, who disclosed in a letter to Mr. Durham in January that they had learned of that inquiry.

While they implied that it was related to the Russia investigation, another witness in Mr. Durham’s inquiry into Mr. Baker, Robert Litt, the former general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, came forward to say that he had been interviewed and that the investigation has nothing to do with Russia. Mr. Baker said last week that he was confident he had done nothing wrong and would be exonerated.

SF posted the entire article should you feel compelled to read it, but underlined and highlighted the sections pertinent to my opening sentence.  In closing - the excrement is going to hit the air propulsion device.......

 

 

Barr is already seen as a partisan hack....

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Article has nothing to do with Nadler's request for the report.  

Barr is already seen as a partisan hack....

SF never said it did.  The article indicates that the AG assigned Durham to "examine the origins of the Russia investigation" My point was that his investigation (IMHO) could possibly expose some of the wrongdoings that led up to the Russia investigation, and the left (perhaps) wants to get ahead of it by discrediting Barr before it even gets going, and by proxy discredit Mr. Durham.  "Guilty by association"

BTW - Barr wasn't a "partisan hack" until the day he became the AG appointed by DJT.

Much like John H. Durham.  A distinguished US attorney that has served as a special prosecutor for both party's AG's in the past.  Historically regarded by both parties as one of the best - Now he will most likely become a racist, homophobic, sexist, whatever now.....

SF thinks it is amazing how the terms wiretap, spying, surveillance, etc. were so discounted and nullified after the election as never occurring, yet the Mueller report has documented incidents of those various activities in it. 

What surprises me is that Nadler thinks he needs to see more? 

Actually (IMHO) he doesn't - He just wants to poke holes in Barr's and now Durham's credibility.

Image result for john durham memes

Image result for john durham memes

Image result for nadler memes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, swordfish said:

SF never said it did.  The article indicates that the AG assigned Durham to "examine the origins of the Russia investigation" My point was that his investigation (IMHO) could possibly expose some of the wrongdoings that led up to the Russia investigation, and the left (perhaps) wants to get ahead of it by discrediting Barr before it even gets going, and by proxy discredit Mr. Durham.  "Guilty by association"

BTW - Barr wasn't a "partisan hack" until the day he became the AG appointed by DJT.

Much like John H. Durham.  A distinguished US attorney that has served as a special prosecutor for both party's AG's in the past.  Historically regarded by both parties as one of the best - Now he will most likely become a racist, homophobic, sexist, whatever now.....

SF thinks it is amazing how the terms wiretap, spying, surveillance, etc. were so discounted and nullified after the election as never occurring, yet the Mueller report has documented incidents of those various activities in it. 

What surprises me is that Nadler thinks he needs to see more? 

Actually (IMHO) he doesn't - He just wants to poke holes in Barr's and now Durham's credibility.

Image result for john durham memes

Image result for john durham memes

Image result for nadler memes

Except your article was in response to my response about the exploding cigar meme....

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

SF never said it did.  The article indicates that the AG assigned Durham to "examine the origins of the Russia investigation" My point was that his investigation (IMHO) could possibly expose some of the wrongdoings that led up to the Russia investigation, and the left (perhaps) wants to get ahead of it by discrediting Barr before it even gets going, and by proxy discredit Mr. Durham.  "Guilty by association"

BTW - Barr wasn't a "partisan hack" until the day he became the AG appointed by DJT.

Much like John H. Durham.  A distinguished US attorney that has served as a special prosecutor for both party's AG's in the past.  Historically regarded by both parties as one of the best - Now he will most likely become a racist, homophobic, sexist, whatever now.....

SF thinks it is amazing how the terms wiretap, spying, surveillance, etc. were so discounted and nullified after the election as never occurring, yet the Mueller report has documented incidents of those various activities in it. 

What surprises me is that Nadler thinks he needs to see more? 

Actually (IMHO) he doesn't - He just wants to poke holes in Barr's and now Durham's credibility.

 

I think you may be overlooking the fact that Barr had long been suspect ... from around the time he was maneuvering Weinberger's pardon and working to help shield the equivalent of two administrations from the Iran-Contra fallout as then-AG.  He ended up getting there when he "auditioned" for his current AG role.

I do find it rich though that there's talk of discrediting an investigator after the last two years of such against Mueller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

trump taxes.jpg

'Cause he's reaaaaalllllyy rich.

I like his actual response:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-would-trump-be-embarrassed-his-tax-returns

GARRETT: What’s embarrassing about his tax records?

MULVANEY: That’s what they want to know.

GARRETT: But what is it?

MULVANEY: I don’t know because I’ve never seen

GARRETT: Is there something embarrassing about his tax records?

MULVANEY: I have no idea and I don’t care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

'Cause he's reaaaaalllllyy rich.

I like his actual response:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-would-trump-be-embarrassed-his-tax-returns

GARRETT: What’s embarrassing about his tax records?

MULVANEY: That’s what they want to know.

GARRETT: But what is it?

MULVANEY: I don’t know because I’ve never seen

GARRETT: Is there something embarrassing about his tax records?

MULVANEY: I have no idea and I don’t care.

Triggered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the rats begin to scurry......

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/blame-game-pits-john-brennan-against-james-comey-over-support-for-steele-dossier

A debate is heating up over whether it was former CIA Director John Brennan or former FBI Director James Comey who attempted to include the unverified Trump dossier in the high-profile Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017 that focused on Russian interference.

report from Fox News on Wednesday offered competing claims, with some sources telling them that a yet-to-be-made-public email chain from late 2016 shows that “Comey told [FBI] subordinates that … Brennan insisted the dossier be included” in the assessment, while a former CIA official “put the blame squarely on Comey.”

The dossier, put together by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, contained a litany of unverified claims about President Trump's ties to Russia and was used extensively in FISA applications before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to justify surveillance of former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The dossier was compiled through Fusion GPS and funded in part by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and its possible misuse is the subject of inquiries through the Department of Justice.

On Tuesday evening, former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy said that “who insisted that the dossier or the unverified material from Chris Steele be included” should be “a pretty easy thing to sort out.” Gowdy said that “the only thing [Brennan and Comey] seem to share is a hatred for Donald Trump" and that “it's going to be interesting if they begin to turn on one another." Gowdy additionally said that “Comey's got a better argument than Brennan based on what I have seen” but suggested it was possible that “sometimes when people are blaming each other, they are both right.”

The dossier was used in FISA filings beginning in October 2016 through June 2017, and Comey signed off on three of the four submissions to the Foreign Surveillance Court before he was fired in May 2017. Comey personally briefed Trump on some of the most salacious allegations in January 2017, and the dossier was subsequently released by BuzzFeed after CNN reported on that Trump-Comey meeting.

This back-and-forth over whether it was the leadership of the CIA or FBI that was pushing for the inclusion of the dossier in the intelligence community assessment is just the latest in an ongoing saga shrouded by classified documents and anonymous sourcing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pelosi-says-border-situation-is-a-crisis-and-blames-trump

Pelosi says border situation 'is a crisis' and blames Trump

by John Gage
 | May 16, 2019 09:10 PM
 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a Thursday press conference that the southern border is a “crisis,” and held President Trump responsible.

“We have never not said that there was a crisis. There is a humanitarian crisis at the border, and some of it provoked by the actions taken by the administration,” the speaker said when asked if there is an actual crisis at the border.

“But, yes, it is a crisis. We’ve always said that it gets to be more of a humanitarian crisis the more that Republicans — the administration, I won’t paint all the Republicans with this — the more the administration acts in the shameful way,” Pelosi said.

In January, Pelosi held a joint press conference with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. in which the Senate minority leader declared Trump “used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention.”

Trump declared a border emergency in February to help fund a wall to stop what he called a "virtual invasion” after Congress failed to pass enough funding to satisfy his initial request.

Since the Mueller report bombed, and Barr's sharks are circling - time to change the story......Guess what - There's a crisis at the Southern Border and it's Trump's fault.......Even though I have been in Congress for more than 3 decades and the President has been in office for under 3.  
Nevermind the Russian's hacking the election story for now......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

Judge rules in favor of House Democrats' efforts to obtain Trump's financial records from former accounting firm

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-rules-favor-house-democrats-efforts-obtain-trumps-211000658--abc-news-topstories.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews

image.png.0f2b6357d9073e119fe244258e8ddb1b.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pelosi-says-border-situation-is-a-crisis-and-blames-trump

Pelosi says border situation 'is a crisis' and blames Trump

by John Gage
 | May 16, 2019 09:10 PM
 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a Thursday press conference that the southern border is a “crisis,” and held President Trump responsible.

“We have never not said that there was a crisis. There is a humanitarian crisis at the border, and some of it provoked by the actions taken by the administration,” the speaker said when asked if there is an actual crisis at the border.

“But, yes, it is a crisis. We’ve always said that it gets to be more of a humanitarian crisis the more that Republicans — the administration, I won’t paint all the Republicans with this — the more the administration acts in the shameful way,” Pelosi said.

In January, Pelosi held a joint press conference with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. in which the Senate minority leader declared Trump “used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention.”

Trump declared a border emergency in February to help fund a wall to stop what he called a "virtual invasion” after Congress failed to pass enough funding to satisfy his initial request.

 

 

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Judge rules in favor of House Democrats' efforts to obtain Trump's financial records from former accounting firm

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-rules-favor-house-democrats-efforts-obtain-trumps-211000658--abc-news-topstories.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews

 
AGAIN : Since the Mueller report bombed, and Barr's sharks are circling - time to change the story......Guess what - There's a crisis at the Southern Border and it's Trump's fault.......Even though I have been in Congress for more than 3 decades and the President has been in office for under 3. 
Nevermind the Russian's hacking the election story for now......
ALSO:  We would like everyone to focus on this guy's finances.......Nevermind that Mr. Durham fella over there.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...