The Dems know that the information that will be coming out will be devastating, revealing eight years of lawlessness under Obama-Biden, featuring the weaponization of virtually every branch of the federal government against citizens who failed to agree with the Obama administration. Among those branches of the government that are lining up behind Obama is one that we should have been prepared for, but most of us are only now coming to terms with.
The only strategy left for the Dems after all else has failed--the Mueller witchhunt, the fake impeachment, etc.--is to delay, hoping against hope that the dementia addled Biden can somehow be dragged across the finish line ahead of a resurgent Trump. That strategy requires the cooperation of the judicial branch of government. We've seen the way Obama 'resistance' judges have attempted--and significantly succeeded for quite awhile--to postpone the implementation of many of Trump's initiatives. That should have prepared us to see the criminal justice system hijacked by 'Obama judges'--yes, Virginia, there are such things--in the interests of politics rather than justice.
I'll admit I was taken a bit by surprise at just how far that would go. The partisan way in which the Roger Stone trial was handled was one thing, but to see a federal judge attempt to actually conduct the prosecution of Michael Flynn after DoJ declined to prosecute, was a real eye opening moment. The goal of this was, transparently, to delay the moment when Flynn could return to public life free of the restraints imposed by a partisan prosecution. Increasingly, however, it has become apparent that the real goal of the delaying tactic is to prevent Flynn from being a witness for the prosecutions that Barr is lining up. To delay Flynn's exoneration or ... perhaps to try to force Flynn to ask Trump for a pardon, entailing an admission of guilt. Either would destroy Flynn's value of as a witness for the prosecution--and make no mistake about it, Flynn promises to be a devastating witness.
This concern appears to have been front and center for the Dems during Barr's "hearing" before the House. The Dems sought to extract from Barr a promise not to issue a "report" before the election. Barr responded in typically laconic fashion:
Rep. Mucarsel-Powell: Under oath, under oath, do you commit not to releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election?
AG Barr: No.
I believe that's a clear sign that Barr, who might in ordinary circumstances postponed politically tinged prosecutions, is wise to the strategy and won't be deterred. The result? The DC Circuit Court of Appeals outrageously accepted the petition for an en banc rehearing in the Flynn case. Again, the goal appears to be to delay and prevent Flynn from providing critical testimony. This is a degree of open judicial corruption that we're not used to seeing from the federal judiciary, but Barr seems determined and up to confronting it.
Why is the Flynn case so pivotal for the Dems?
As I've maintained for months now, I believe the Flynn case is the most direct path to exposing the corrupt conspiracy that was Team Mueller. The persecution of an innocent man--complete with "evidence" fabricated by the the FBI, certainly with the collusion of the prosecutors--should develop into a trial featuring one bombshell revelation after another of investigative and prosecutorial corruption fueled by the Obama and Clinton cabals.
My take is that while John Durham is the lead investigator - prosecutor, as discrete portions of the investigation reach critical mass the need arises to assign top flight prosecutors that Barr believes he can rely upon to prepare the cases for trial. That, of course, suggests that there will be several separate but related prosecutions. Durham himself appears to be focused on the origins of the Russia Hoax up to and including the fraudulent FISA against Carter Page. That investigation also includes the early overseas attempts to frame the Russia Hoax narrative using undercover operations against associates of the Trump campaign, as well as the fraudulent ICA. John Brennan is a prime target here. Will it include a look into the almost certainly fraudulent claim of 'hacking' at the DNC? We can still hope so, since we know that Barr and Durham have shown an extraordinary ability to control leaks.
On the other hand, the Russia Hoax action after the election focuses on the ginning up of a corrupt special counsel investigation--Team Mueller and its witchhunt. While several players in this stage also featured in the run up--notably Comey and McCabe and their close staff--I maintain that the avenue for getting inside that conspiracy, while including Rod Rosenstein, will be most advantageously achieved through the plot to frame Michael Flynn. That the Flynn case is nearing completion was certainly signalled by the appointment of USA Jeffrey Jensen. How Barr handles the Obama judiciary's blocking attempt should prove fascinating--and potentially critical for the future of our republic.
Unfortunately for the Dems and their blackrobed allies, there is another case that appears to have reached an advanced state of development. Toward the end of May we learned that Barr had appointed the USA from San Antonio, John Franklin Bash, to look into "certain aspects" will concern unmaskings that took place both "before and after the 2016 election." Kerry Kupec made made it clear that this investigation was related to Durham's investigation--in other words, it had been ongoing for some time:
... when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation -- like John Durham's investigation -- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events.
There are two things that are particularly unfortunate for Dems in this development. The first is that Dem operatives--whether in Congress or in black robes--have essentially no control or influence whatsoever over this investigation.
The second inconvenient aspect of this is raised by this Paul Sperry tweet (h/t commenter EZ):
DEVELOPING: Sources say special prosecutor Bash is looking @ Obama admin's "to/from/about" queries related to NSA's upstream collections of FISA Sec 702 data going back to 2015 & earlier, which include collections involving US citizens & the use of that raw data by FBI contractors.
10:34 AM · Aug 1, 2020
"2015 and earlier" is pretty open ended, and reminds us that the Chief Judge of the FISC, in her report on this scandal, stated that the abuses could be traced back "at least" as far as 2012. At least means that it could go back further. And that means that all this can be traced back to the tenure at the FBI of one Robert Mueller--yes, the same Robert "Bob" Mueller who led the famous witchhunt that sought to stage a lawfare coup against a duly elected president.
This opens up a separate avenue of attack on Team Mueller, and one which can't be thwarted or delayed by an Obama judge. Further, there is the fact that the abuses can probably be traced to a memorandum of understanding between Mueller's FBI and the CIA that illegally provided the CIA--that would be the agency that employed Nellie Ohr, of Fusion GPS, ham radios, and Steele "dossier" fame, as a contract employee--with access to FBI search capabilities regarding US persons utilizing ... contract employees. That's a huge can of worms--for Dems--and raises issues that resonate deeply with ordinary Americans.
Adam Housley has tweeted that Strzok is talking to the Durham investigators. I gotta believe they're going after Comey. Whether they can make a case against Brennan is not clear to me. But I do look forward to all this entertainment, and I hope it switches some votes away from Biden.ReplyDelete
The question is how does the "news" media frame whatever Durham and the other prosecutors bring forward? Can the major liberal news outlets really ignore indictments of key Obama appointees - if that happens? Could they ignore plea deals from some of the characters like, say Strzok, for instance? Or maybe Clinesmith? Or Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr? All small fish in the bigger conspiracy.ReplyDelete
The scope of what Durham brings forward - if he does go after the entire conspiracy - could be so breathtaking as to be unbelievable by the fourth estate. I'm not sure there would be enough fire engines to put out the infernos that would be burning at the NYTs, WaPo, CNN, MSLSD, etc. But even better, it would be who remained unindicted that they could use as rebuttal "witnesses" by these purveyors of "truth."
It is the lack of leaks from these prosecutors - and the few hints from AG Barr and the DOJ spokesperson - that must have the democrats and the media worrying about how big of a shoe is about to drop...
"it would be who remained unindicted that they could use as rebuttal "witnesses" by these purveyors of 'truth.' "Delete
"it would be (He or THEY) who remained unindicted that they (the MSM?) ..."
Re: "2015 or earlier"ReplyDelete
Hopefully, they will go back and look at the employee of The Analysis Corporation (where John Brennan was CEO), who accessed records of Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc. during the 2008 primary race, and see if it was done at Brennan's (direct or indirect) instruction.
Simply put: was Brennan using intelligence community data bases to see what info had been collected on Dem candidates in 2008? Was any info purged?
>> Toward the end of May we learned that Barr had appointed the USA from San Antonio, John Franklin Barr, to look into "certain aspects" will concern unmaskings that took place both "before and after the 2016 election." <<ReplyDelete
I assume you meant to type "Bash," not "Barr."
MikeyinFL: A couple of thoughts. With regards to whether all this information should or should not be disclosed prior to 11/3. (indictments, reports, etc.) It seem to be the belief of many, and or course those with a lot to lose, that nothing should be done before the election in an effort to avoid political biasing of the outcome. Although that might have been proper in another time, given the breadth and depth of chicanery, that would mean asking the voters to make an uniformed choice based on insufficient information regarding what to expect from the candidates in the future. In essence, it would be like purchasing a home without knowing any of it's defects as the buyer and/or realtor failed to disclose them and in turn deceived/defrauded the buyer. In the case of a home, you would likely find out at a later date and would hire an attorney. What we are facing is the possibility that all of this will be swept under the rug should a particular party win and never be head of again.ReplyDelete
Yes, we can see some of the wildly leftist agenda that they are adopting, (defund, not so green deal, etc.) that might sway many away from the dems, but not knowing about all the abuse, spying, framing, and other illegal behavior perpetrated on the American people would be the ultimate insult to those who need and must know. It is so critical the DOJ and others disclose (expose) everything relevant to enable us all make an informed judgement as to whether we want to see the left held accountable for their actions or let them get off "scot free" and continue down the road to full socialism, KGB spying, soviet style justice, and "freedom" for only those that assimilate, but not the rest of us.
Agreed. I don't see how our way of life can survive if this isn't fully exposed. That's why I have no patience with the idea that Barr should just get a few quick indictments.Delete
Yep. The fact that several years have gone by and no one has really paid in any real way is, in isolation, certainly maddening.Delete
The fact that no indictments have come from the Durham, et al investigations is actually more reassuring than maddening, for all the reasons you've laid out on multiple occasions.
Failure to fully expose the Left's 2016 election conspiracy, coup attempts, and ongoing efforts to sabotage the duly elected president would constitute election interference.Delete
"whether all this information should or should not be disclosed prior to 11/3."Delete
We need not get *all* such info, but if no big busts before 11/3, we likely see a Biden win, thus rendering subsequent revelations into "old news", which will be forgotten by virtually everyone who (still) matters.
Virtually all remotely knowledgeable GOP pols will be far too preoccupied with saving their own skins from the coming DS/ antiFa setups/ massacres, to dare to try push anything in Barr's last few months at DoJ.
The importance of Flynn becomes even more key if they really are looking back to 2012. You have often said that Willard was almost certainly spied on by Barry, and I cannot imagine that this domestic spying apparatus would work harder to get Hillary elected then it would to get itself reelected in 2012. One of the fascinating developments in the unmasking scandal was 7 requests for unmasking Flynn by Treasury Secretary Lew who seemingly has no involvement in this.ReplyDelete
Until you remember that he was WH Chief of Staff during the 2012 election when the IRS was marking out conservative 501c3 groups for harassment from a St. Louis office. What a coincidence that the current USA for St. Louis is reviewing the Flynn case.
Theory. The IRS was weaponized before CIA and FBI. They aggressively audited and harassed GOPers in 2012 and handed off data to intelligence community as those agencies were taken over by Brennan. The same tactics continued to be used into the second term against internal opponents of key foreign policy initiatives, see esp. Lee Smith's reporting on the spying on opponents of the Iran nuclear deal, foremost amongst them LTG Flynn.
Why it's so potentially explosive and why the Obama judges are desperate to take Flynn out of the game: imagine the spying on Flynn began with the IRS, CIA, and FBI targeting him in 2014 shortly before of after his firing for refusing to go along with the Iran deal. That's over a year before he met Donald Trump or anyone started talking about Russian election interference. All of a sudden the Trump is sleazy and but Russia excuses go away and you have an unequivocal case of an American official being spied on by the Obama Administration after publicly breaking with its policies. Yuuuuge.
I actually forgot the most important part. I'm not a lawyer, but am given to understanding AG Barr has a reputation in the legal profession as the most aggressive living litigator in America today.Delete
He wouldn't be planning investigations/prosecutions without planning for things like voir doir and jury nullification, etc. If he could find acts that took place to further these conspiracies in St. Louis, or any jurisdiction outside of Maryland, N. Virginia, or the District of Columbia, he doesn't have to worry about jury nullification by Obama voters.
"The IRS was weaponized before CIA and FBI. They aggressively audited and harassed GOPers in 2012"Delete
Obama IRS abuse actually goes back to at least 2010.
It all basically follows the same pattern. Each major agency was weaponized against conservatives to the extent that their officials functions could be useful if abused.Delete
Voir doir and jury nullification are indeed key, but so are jurors possible fears, that if they convict DS brats, and Biden wins, these jurors will have mega-targets on their backs, forever.Delete
IRS Deleted Hundreds of Back-up Tapes Containing Thousands of Lerner Emails After Congressional Subpoena Was IssuedDelete
My thoughts on the "roll out" is that leading with guilty pleas/allocutions to conspiracy by cooperating culprits will be crucial to frame the narrative. IF there are a batch of people who admit they broke the law, and ADMIT it was part of the conspiracy that includes those named, but not-yet-indicted, the MSM will have grave difficulty trying to spin it like it's just politically motivated prosecution brought by Barr to help Trump get re-elected.ReplyDelete
Durham and other prosecutors could bring those prosecutions of the conspiracy ringleaders after the election if necessary, as long as the guilty pleas and allocutions implicating the con-conspirators comes out BEFORE the election.
Spinning off some of the tentacles of this octopus of conspiracy to other prosecutors like Bash and Jensen allowed Durham to focus (I hope) on nailing down the guilty pleas of the cooperating culprits, allowing those indictments/pleas/allocutions to be brought by Durham before the end of summer.
In hind sight, the spinoffs were a very smart idea.
I hear ya. The question then is, is it possible that the delay hopes to derail quick plea deals, if Flynn's status is in doubt. As a witness he'd be devastating, his presence maybe decisive in persuading key people to throw in the towel.Delete
"the (FLYNN) delay hopes to derail quick plea deals".Delete
Yeah, book it.
Ever since I first heard of this unmasking scandal, I've waited to see if Trump's communications were unmasked from the time he jumped on the "birther" bandwagon in 2011. The White House unmaskers and the outside contractors must have ground their teeth when they discovered that Trump never used email, but only snail mail.ReplyDelete
VSGPDJT truly is.Delete
After what Sullivan said about Flynn and his "treason" in December 2018, I would think that Barr and Durham would have not planned on Flynn as their star witness without some hedge...ReplyDelete
@EZ; spinoffs make sense in that the field offices are suppose to do the bulk of the work of investigations anyway versus the 7th floor of the J. Edgar Hoover office building. Having multiple field offices involved makes it much more difficult IMO to cast aside in the event a Dem candidate wins the election.ReplyDelete
"multiple field offices involved makes it much more difficult IMO *to cast aside* in the event a Dem candidate wins...."Delete
Not by much, seeing as any FBI, who dare to pursue this stuff after a Biden win, will have mega-targets on their backs, *forever*.
The only way FBI field folk stick their necks into the guillotine (by defying the incoming 7th floor folks), is if these FBI have *much* hope, that a bunch of field-graders, and Sgts, tell the grapevine, that the Dem doesn't get into the WH anytime in 2020.Delete
I.e., the word is
"Hey, DJT, you can leave, or you maybe you can stay, but the mitts of these maniacs get nowhere near the big Red Button (and nowhere near the 7th floor)".
IMO, multiple FOs is not a factor. If HQ says 'shut your investigation down,' that's what will happen.Delete
Also, what the FOs do is irrelevant; it's DOJ that ultimately decides whether or not to prosecute. And if Joe Biden is elected and appoints Jerry Nadler as AG, you can forget about there being any prosecutions for the "Russia Collusion Hoax and Soft Coup Conspiracy."Delete
Actually I think Adam Schiff tops the short list for AG. Nadler's too stupid to function as an effective toady.Delete
As for the rest of Biden's cabinet I'm thinking:
AOC - Treasury (She has a deeper understanding of economics than any living Democrat, summarized as, "As long as I've got a printing press and ink we've got money.")
Omar - DHS (For her deep love of America and matchless integrity)
Tlaib - State (See Omar above)
Vindman - Defense (See Tlaib above)
McCaskill - Interior (Missouri is to small to have to bear the burden of her grift alone)
Hunter Biden - Agriculture (Coca and poppy farmers have been under represented in America for too long)
Newsom - Commerce (He's done such a great job for small business's in California)
Sanders - Labor (He understands the working person so well, he actually met one once)
Fauci - HHS (assuming he's willing to get that close to actual responsibility, if not Andrew Cuomo makes equally sound health and well-being decisions)
>>Obama admin's "to/from/about" queries related to NSA's upstream collections of FISA Sec 702 data going back to 2015 & earlierReplyDelete
Back from Adm Rogers discoveries in 2015.
It’s unclear if [NSA Head] Rogers discovered the 702 violations and reported them in 2015, or if it was the Inspector General who found them. Either way, Rogers became aware of Section 702 violations sometime in 2015. Following the IG’s report, Rogers implemented a tightening of internal rules at the NSA
Rogers didn't become Director, NSA, until 04/2014. You can imagine it would take quite a while to get a handle on things. Especially because, since I believe these abuses were the product of a presumptively (but not in reality) legal MOU, he wouldn't have had reason to question the legality of the searches--unless, as I suspect, someone pointed it out to him or highlighted it in a report, or the issue arose in some other out of the ordinary way. It's the kind of thing that would just run on autopilot, once instituted as a policy. Something had to have come up, because Rogers would have been too busy with regular day to day business to be going over these things with a fine toothed comb.Delete
re: unmaskings -- take a peek at Richard Grenell's tweet:ReplyDelete
>> https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1290069894613016576 <<
Seems like he's doing a bit of "foreshadowing" (to use a literary term.) I especially enjoy how he calls out Susan "does not play well with other children" Rice in regard to unmaskings/weaponization of the IC for partisan political warfare, and notes she's got a lot of questions to answer.
I do hope he's dropping a hint based on what he knows.
>> Expanding Scope Of Inquiry on “Unmaskings” To Include “To/From/About Queries” of NSA Databases Would Be a Huge Development <<ReplyDelete
>> https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/08/03/expanding-scope-of-inquiry-on-unmaskings-to-include-tofromabout-queries-in-nsa-database-would-be-huge-development/ <<
Shipwreckedcrew "primer" on 702 searches and unmaskings/leakings! First in a series of articles!
>> Admiral Rogers’ audit findings, Judge Collyer’s Opinion, and how they are implicated by report that US Attorney Bash has expanded his investigation to include “To/From/About Queries” under Sec. 702 will be explored further in the days ahead. <<
He's pumping up his series of articles, which is fine. I'm pretty confident that Bash is looking at "To/From/About Queries". After all, you have to be looking for collection on US persons to do unmasking in the first place.Delete
John Solomon today hits on similar topic and notes that Bash is examining the "high number of unmaskings" including "some that do not readily appear in the line of normal business," the attorney general told lawmakers.
That strongly suggests that they weren't waiting for "stuff" to float across their desks--they were reaching out and doing searches, or having others do the searches for them.
So I doubt Bash needs to expand his inquiry--he's already doing it.
Again, no court has any control over this inquiry. And you don't have a USA do an "inquiry." It's an investigation.Delete
So, when Shipwreckedcrew writes about "inquiry" he's being (journalistically) flip?Delete
No, when he calls it an "inquiry" he's just being wrong. Like Lynch and Comey calling an FBI investigation a "matter".Delete
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1290814557590392832 <<ReplyDelete
Shipwreckedcrew opines charges this month, in multiple districts, not all by Durham!
I'm guessing plea deals will be first. I assume in a guilty plea, it is not necessary to get a GJ to indict -- just file it with the court, I assume, since the charges are uncontested by the defendant.
Multiple districts suggests conspiracy charges being brought in places where an overt act in furtherance was committed!
I read the article earlier. I like a few of his subsequent tweets--things I've been saying forever:Delete
1. So fuck off with your suggestion that any reticence on Barr's part might be corruptly motivated, or that I would be condoning such a decision if it was so motivated.
2. I understand the language of the statute, but what I'm telling you is the court cases interpreting the statute have all determined that "overthrow" and "put down" both require that advocacy of violence as an element of the offense.
3. I generally find that the people who advocate the use of the RICO statute outnumber the number of people who understand the RICO statute by a ratio of about 1 million to 1.
However, based on what I've heard, I believe he's overplaying Barr's supposed "closeness" to Mueller.
Also, you read this in this post:Delete
"My take is that while John Durham is the lead investigator - prosecutor, as discrete portions of the investigation reach critical mass the need arises to assign top flight prosecutors that Barr believes he can rely upon to prepare the cases for trial. That, of course, suggests that there will be several separate but related prosecutions. Durham himself appears to be focused on the origins of the Russia Hoax up to and including the fraudulent FISA against Carter Page. That investigation also includes the early overseas attempts to frame the Russia Hoax narrative using undercover operations against associates of the Trump campaign, as well as the fraudulent ICA. John Brennan is a prime target here. Will it include a look into the almost certainly fraudulent claim of 'hacking' at the DNC? We can still hope so, since we know that Barr and Durham have shown an extraordinary ability to control leaks."
>> https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/08/read-new-attkisson-v-rosenstein-for-government-computer-intrusions/ <<
This revelation ties CROWDSTRIKE/Shawn Henry -- intimately involved in the DNC email "hack" attribution -- to illegal hacking authorized by Rod Rosenstein!
Those of you who have been paying attention instead of sleeping in class will recall who Shawn Henry is: co-founder of CROWDSTRIKE -- the cretins called in by the DNC when they thought their computer system had an intrusion -- and on whom the FBI relied to attribute the exfiltration of DNC emails later published by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks to Russian hackers.
Shawn Henry is former FBI.Delete
The disparate bits of evidence are starting to connect ....Delete
This really does smell like the the lid is about to be ripped off the scandal.
he started out as a clerk and a very serious one at thatDelete