Sean Davis has an excellent article up at The Federalist: NSC Official Tim Morrison To Schiff: ‘I Was Not Concerned That Anything Illegal Was Discussed’ In Trump-Ukraine Phone Call. Here are the key takeaways.
Morrison, who was formerly the NSC Senior Director for European Affairs, was present for the Trump phone conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky on July 25th. In his testimony Morrison:
Affirmed that the transcript of the call was “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.” He also stated that he was concerned about leaks of the call.
Stated that he had no concerns about illegality with regard to anything mentioned in the call.
Contradicted Bill Taylor's testimony, stating that Taylor's claim "that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma" was not true and that Taylor's claim that Morrison himself had met in a hotel room with the Ukrainian National Security advisor was also false.
Testified that Ukraine officials were unaware of any question of aid being delayed until at least August 28, 2019.
On Bongino today, if I heard correctly, Dan opens the door to the possibility that the NSC/whistleblower prompted the Biden inquiry (perhaps adding it to the Trump/Zelensky call script) and then jumped on Trump when he mentioned Biden on the call...another Deep State setup?ReplyDelete
Or perhaps I misunderstood...
Interesting. Certainly a possibility. The more you hear the more you realize Trump has been surrounded by sharks from the beginning.Delete
BTW, I listened to Bongino and puzzled over the Grassley letter a bit. I'm pretty sure Bongino is wrong about "Charlie." In the context it seems to me that "Charlie" should be an FBI agent. The question in the exchange is: should the FBI send agent Joe Pientka instead of "Charlie" or should they maybe send "another agent from the team". The FBI wouldn't be sending Ciaramella to give an FBI briefing--obviously--which is what's under discussion. So "Charlie" must be FBI.Delete
But, even if Charlie is not Ciaramella, it does look like the FBI did have a 'plant' inside the Trump WH, doesn't it...ReplyDelete
It definitely looks that way. Here's what seems to be going on.Delete
The FBI is called on to give a series of briefings to the incoming administration. It looks like "Charlie" went with Evanina the first time and now Strzok is wondering whether they could insert Joe Pientka in place of "Charlie." Pientka is part of the Crossfire Hurricane team--recall, this is the same time that Pientka is debriefer/contact for Bruce Ohr re Steele info.
Lisa Page's response clearly shows that they're up to something, that they don't want to raise suspicions, somehow. But it's not clear who she intends to refer to where we see "[sic]". It seems she left the name out by mistake. Is she saying, "Would it be unusual to have [Joe/Charlie] show up again?" Which one might make it seem unusual? Has Joe gone with Evanina previously, or was that "Charlie"? Or should they send "another agent from the team?" Puzzling, but definitely seems nefarious because they're explicitly looking to develop contacts.
The "he's the CI [counterintelligence] guy" part, in context, clearly to me is suggested as an excuse for sending one or the other.
But I may be wrong about Charlie going the first time. It may have been Joe, and then someone different would be expected--Charlie. But one thing is clear, there's some sort of plot going on.Delete
The only 2 I see that have a clear path to going to jail and/or executed is Stozk and Page.ReplyDelete
The others, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey are too high up in my opinion.
It has always been clear in my mind that an operation like this/these are too complex for Obama not too have known or directed and that plays into his political history, but he is a no go, period, fini.
The it normally works across all bureaucracies, from military to government to private company is that the lowest common denominator gets the worst, immediatel higher ups get reassigned or asked to resign and the top dogs get cushy retirements.
"Look where Lisa Page landed!"ReplyDelete
Heh, that's a comedown, isn't it? Once participating in planning coups, now working under supervision!Delete
So I'm reading this:ReplyDelete
And I go to this:
And I find this:
"Lovinger was later exonerated. In that case, a DOD investigation found Lovinger did nothing wrong, yet a trial proceeded the following month anyway as the exculpatory material was withheld"
Seems like a trend?
Yep. Nice bunch of people.Delete
Mike Morell, who was Obama's acting CIA director (twice), says he has “deep concerns” about John Durham’s investigation.ReplyDelete
“It’s highly inappropriate, because the Justice Department doesn’t have a lot of experience understanding the analytical process. They’re not experts. John Durham, as good as he is, as good of a prosecutor as he is, doesn’t understand how we do analysis, doesn’t understand how we evaluate information, doesn’t understand how we evaluate sources, doesn’t understand how we come to conclusions, doesn’t understand how we put confidence levels on them. He doesn’t understand that. He doesn’t do that for a living. He looks at issues and decides whether a crime has been committed,” Morell said.
I guess the takeaway is that the CIA believes that CIA officers can't be prosecuted for anything they might do because prosecutors simply are incapable of understanding what the CIA does...
He seems to be saying that no one at all can understand what they do so no one at all can supervise or judge them--a law unto themselves.Delete
I'd very much enjoy seeing him called as a witness to present that argument in court.
BTW, have you ever seen this guy speaking?
Experienced prosecutors are incapable of taking observed facts, marrying them to observed behavior, and arriving at a reasonable conclusion as to who, what, where, when, how and why, which is what we expect them to present to any jury on any given case. I'll have to remember that defense if I'm ever on the wrong side of a criminal proceeding. As a matter of fact it should do wonders for the tort world as well. How can a judgment be fair to mechanic that is being sued if the judge is not a certified mechanic? How can he possibly understand how (mechanics) evaluate information, "... doesn’t understand how (mechanics) evaluate sources, doesn’t understand how (mechanics) do analysis, doesn’t understand how (mechanics) evaluate information, doesn’t understand how (mechanics) evaluate sources, doesn’t understand how (mechanics) come to conclusions ... He doesn’t do that for a living."Delete
Ya'know I wouldn't have such a hard time reconciling myself to slavery to the Deep State if they weren't just so frothing at the mouth eager to prove that they are unmitigated idiots. I think from now on I'll just refer to them as the Deep Idiocracy. Calling them State gives them undeserved gravitas.
Yes. A Law Unto Themselves.
No, I've not seen him...so, I just looked for some (not-too-lengthy) video to watch:
I'm kinda speechless...
At least he wasn't (publicly) advocating assassination...
LOL! I thought you would be--kinda speechless. I was too.Delete
BTW, I'm using your Morell quote in a new post which should be up in a few minutes.
More Morell worth watching...ReplyDelete
Here he describes Brennan as a 'patriot', and joins dozens of former intelligence officials in denouncing Trump for taking Brennan's clearance.
They claimed that revoking his clearance is a violation of his right to free speech.
"They claimed that revoking his clearance is a violation of his right to free speech."Delete
If Durham is supposedly unable to appreciate the subtleties of CIA "analysis," what are we to say about spooks holding forth on Constitutional law?
"It has always been clear in my mind that an operation like this/these are too complex for Obama not too have known or directed and that plays into his political history, but he is a no go, period, fini."
That he is a 'no go' is certainly the conventional wisdom. And it is highly likely that if questioned (formally or informally) regarding responsibility he will cloak himself in plausible deniability.
But it will be most interesting to see where Durham's investigation leads him and what the courageous 'patriot', John Brennan (and his friends, Clapper and Comey), will do to save themselves when faced with criminal charges and potential jail time.
Clapper has already supplied some hints...
Isn't one of the primary reasons for impeaching Trump is to make it possible to prosecute him under criminal law. Gravy meet goose, sauce meet gander.Delete