SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The Mueller Probe has been over for weeks. Guilliani was brought on board to negotiate an end to it which allows Mueller to save face with the understanding that stubborn resistance to the reality will result in Mueller facing ever more stringent consequences up to and including federal prison.

If you never click on another link- follow this one and read the whole thing. Or, just wait to find out what's going to happen after it happens.

UPDATED: Mueller Probe Might Not Survive Much Longer – Intelligence Connections Highlight Sketchy Origin to Special Counsel…

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/14/mueller-probe-might-not-survive-much-longer-intelligence-connections-highlight-sketchy-origin-to-special-counsel/#more-149248

Posted on May 14, 2018 by sundance

I have a sneaking suspicion the Machiavellian connections between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and multiple foreign agents/actors, including the work of Stefan Halper in the 2016 presidential election, are only a few days from fully surfacing. There could be enough sunlight on U.K/U.S. political and intelligence officers to launch multiple investigations.

There was always something suspicious about Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Diane Feinstein abdicating her Gang-of-Eight position to Senator Mark Warner immediately after the 2016 election. Feinstein stepped down from her intel committee post and took up a defensive posture as Vice-Chair on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Feinstein is a political animal. She knows the deep state; she knows the deep state secrets; her position gave her operational knowledge; with that knowledge she carried leverage; and the move from Offense (Senate Intel) to Defense (Senate Judicary) just reeked of deep swamp maneuvering. Obama campaigning last week for her, against the left-wing progressive challenge, transparently looked like a leverage expenditure.

On August 22nd, 2017, Fusion-GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson testified to the Senate Judicary Committee (Grassley Chairman, Feinstein Co-Chair) about his engagements with Christopher Steele and the formation of the Steele Dossier. The Dossier underpinned the October 21st, 2016, FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used on Carter Page and against the Trump campaign.

Almost five months later, January 9th, 2018, Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript of Glenn Simpson’s testimony without consulting anyone else on the committee.

At the time of the unauthorized transcript release, it looked even more suspicious {see here}. Professional Deep State operative Feinstein doesn’t make “mistakes”. There had to be a reason for it. There had to be a self-interested reason for it {suspected here}.

In the last week the motive has surfaced. Today, the motive takes on an even larger understanding..

[Opti]

May 14, 2018 22:27:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-investigation-crosses-the-legal-line-1526233750?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/DAuLpcu6Vh


Mueller’s Investigation Crosses the Legal Line

It’s unconstitutional under Morrison v. Olson—the decision, not the dissent.

Probably wise to post the relevant bit of the opinion/commentary from WSJ. The free bit does not extend that far. Just shows the judge possibly opining for no real reason or need.

[Opti]

May 14, 2018 22:09:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

In other news, Mueller indicted a company that did not exist during the time period when the alleged Russian interference in our elections took place.

Almost all of Mueller's court appearances so far have gone disastrously for Mueller.

The 13 Russian alleged bot makers indicted by Mueller have hired a major law firm, Reed Smith, which appears to be smashing Mueller's team to bits in recent court appearances --so much so that Mueller is requesting the case be delayed due to improper service of Mueller's targets . . . by Mueller.

That's right.

Mueller is accusing himself of acting improperly, and so is requesting a delay in his case against the 13 Russian bot makers on that basis.

Mueller is showing us how easy it is to indict the proverbial ham sandwich, and why indictments really aren't what they're cracked up to be -- especially in politically-motivated cases.

So is there a related link to this, or just opinion with some red bolded text to sell some folks? If the company to indict does not exist any longer but was taken over or sold to a recently created company, one would have to indict the part that exists now, not the non-existent one that did.

Looks like opinion. Of course they are going to hire good lawyers. Duh.

[happyhoix]

May 14, 2018 22:59:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Mueller Probe has been over for weeks. Guilliani was brought on board to negotiate an end to it which allows Mueller to save face with the understanding that stubborn resistance to the reality will result in Mueller facing ever more stringent consequences up to and including federal prison.

If you never click on another link- follow this one and read the whole thing. Or, just wait to find out what's going to happen after it happens.

UPDATED: Mueller Probe Might Not Survive Much Longer – Intelligence Connections Highlight Sketchy Origin to Special Counsel…

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/14/mueller-probe-might-not-survive-much-longer-intelligence-connections-highlight-sketchy-origin-to-special-counsel/#more-149248

Posted on May 14, 2018 by sundance

I have a sneaking suspicion the Machiavellian connections between the U.S. intelligence apparatus and multiple foreign agents/actors, including the work of Stefan Halper in the 2016 presidential election, are only a few days from fully surfacing. There could be enough sunlight on U.K/U.S. political and intelligence officers to launch multiple investigations.

There was always something suspicious about Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Diane Feinstein abdicating her Gang-of-Eight position to Senator Mark Warner immediately after the 2016 election. Feinstein stepped down from her intel committee post and took up a defensive posture as Vice-Chair on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Feinstein is a political animal. She knows the deep state; she knows the deep state secrets; her position gave her operational knowledge; with that knowledge she carried leverage; and the move from Offense (Senate Intel) to Defense (Senate Judicary) just reeked of deep swamp maneuvering. Obama campaigning last week for her, against the left-wing progressive challenge, transparently looked like a leverage expenditure.

On August 22nd, 2017, Fusion-GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson testified to the Senate Judicary Committee (Grassley Chairman, Feinstein Co-Chair) about his engagements with Christopher Steele and the formation of the Steele Dossier. The Dossier underpinned the October 21st, 2016, FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used on Carter Page and against the Trump campaign.

Almost five months later, January 9th, 2018, Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript of Glenn Simpson’s testimony without consulting anyone else on the committee.

At the time of the unauthorized transcript release, it looked even more suspicious {see here}. Professional Deep State operative Feinstein doesn’t make “mistakes”. There had to be a reason for it. There had to be a self-interested reason for it {suspected here}.

In the last week the motive has surfaced. Today, the motive takes on an even larger understanding..

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take too seriously a "sneaking suspicion" from the conservative nuthouse.

Journalism 101 - you don't report based on sneaking suspicions. Fake news.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 14, 2018 17:01:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

We are 16 months into Trump's administration. He's the President and has appointed people to various agencies. If it really happened where is the email trail, the phone call trail, etc.? I think personally at best it resides in his mind and perhaps some of his followers.

Methinks you're going to regret saying this.

[tallguy]

May 15, 2018 7:00:05 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 14, 2018 22:59:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Mueller Probe has been over for weeks. Guilliani was brought on board to negotiate an end to it which allows Mueller to save face with the understanding that stubborn resistance to the reality will result in Mueller facing ever more stringent consequences up to and including federal prison.

If you never click on another link- follow this one and read the whole thing. Or, just wait to find out what's going to happen after it happens.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take too seriously a "sneaking suspicion" from the conservative nuthouse.

Journalism 101 - you don't report based on sneaking suspicions. Fake news.

You do when truth is not your end game, and you have low standards of integrity in the exercise of political hackdom.



On another note, it looks like somebody needs to turn down their font size again....

[swamp]

What was it that Deb MD got banned for, Fart Fonts?

Where's the Beano? 

[djAdvocate]

Mueller Probe Might Not Survive Much Longer

yes.  soon it will be as dead as Hillary Clinton.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

This is very big trouble.

It just keeps seeping out.

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/15/ramifications-of-oleg-deripaska-and-contact-by-fbi-in-september-2016/

Ramifications of Oleg Deripaska and Contact By FBI in September 2016…

Posted on May 15, 2018 by sundance

John Solomon’s report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has multiple ramifications. (Article Here) Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the issue.



♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier. The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support. Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help. This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin. Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd. He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

Several issues make this interesting:

#1. Was the DOJ/FBI trying to use Deripaska to frame candidate Donald Trump? Was this part of their 2016 insurance policy?

-or-

Was the FBI (Deputy Director McCabe) looking to duplicate the use of Deripaska for financing a covert FBI operation in 2016, just like Andrew McCabe did in 2009?

#2. John Solomon reports that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked. Who blocked his testimony?

#3. In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman. Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier. Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}

As you can see from the text messages (more here), the House Intelligence Committee wanted to interview Deripaska. However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, asks Senator Mark Warner for feedback.

If Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress, it was obviously not from the HPSCI (Nunes Committee), but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, Mark Warner. Why?

#4. Why would Adam Waldman and Oleg Deripaska (personally) be reaching out to John Solomon now to share the story of the FBI conduct in 2016? Why now? There were sanctions levied against Derispaska’s business interests by the Trump administration in 2017. Does his hope to get sanctions removed/lessened lie behind a current motive?

#5. Attorney and Lobbyist Adam Waldman represented both Oleg Deripaska and Christopher Steele. This does not seem accidental. Was Deripaska part of Steele’s network? Or, more alarmingly, was Christopher Steele working for Oleg Deripaska?

Watch the first minute of this video. February 13th, 2018 Hearing:


Another question: Was Deripaska willing to finance or facilitate the Steele Dossier, or some aspect therein, to the extent that it dirtied-up Paul Manafort – from a distance. Yet when asked directly to participate he didn’t want personal attachment on dubious endeavors?

#6. Did Robert Mueller omit any mention of Oleg Deripaska from his 2017 Manafort indictment purposefully? Is some evidence against Manafort related to a Deripaska vendetta? Or, was Robert Mueller hoping to hide his prior professional work relationship with Deripaska?

#7. On February 9th, 2018, Senator Chuck Grassley asked Deripaska’s London Lawyer, Paul Hauser, questions about Deripaska and his connections to Christopher Steele: www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/majority

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 15, 2018 11:57:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mueller Probe Might Not Survive Much Longer

yes.  soon it will be as dead as Hillary Clinton.

Well, since you brought it up- she has brought suspicions of her failing health on herself by repeatedly lying about and/or concealing her frailty. The latest events were her slipping down the stairs in India, and now she is concealing some sort of back brace. To say nothing of her alcoholism- which is the stuff of legend.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 15, 2018 8:14:41 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 14, 2018 17:01:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

We are 16 months into Trump's administration. He's the President and has appointed people to various agencies. If it really happened where is the email trail, the phone call trail, etc.? I think personally at best it resides in his mind and perhaps some of his followers.

Methinks you're going to regret saying this.

100%

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 15, 2018 0:02:29 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 14, 2018 22:09:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

In other news, Mueller indicted a company that did not exist during the time period when the alleged Russian interference in our elections took place.

Almost all of Mueller's court appearances so far have gone disastrously for Mueller.

The 13 Russian alleged bot makers indicted by Mueller have hired a major law firm, Reed Smith, which appears to be smashing Mueller's team to bits in recent court appearances --so much so that Mueller is requesting the case be delayed due to improper service of Mueller's targets . . . by Mueller.

That's right.

Mueller is accusing himself of acting improperly, and so is requesting a delay in his case against the 13 Russian bot makers on that basis.

Mueller is showing us how easy it is to indict the proverbial ham sandwich, and why indictments really aren't what they're cracked up to be -- especially in politically-motivated cases.

So is there a related link to this, or just opinion with some red bolded text to sell some folks? If the company to indict does not exist any longer but was taken over or sold to a recently created company, one would have to indict the part that exists now, not the non-existent one that did.

Looks like opinion. Of course they are going to hire good lawyers. Duh.

Just an observation.

As I stated in an earlier post (complete with links) Mueller got his bluff called. He didn't expect a response, he filed a motion for delay based on his own claimed misconduct (a technicality- formal service) however, the other party thinks they deserve their day in court. They've been accused of something, they want to see the proof. The judge agreed. Mueller's motion has been denied. This will likely result in Mueller dropping the bogus charges.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 15, 2018 0:02:29 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 14, 2018 22:09:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

In other news, Mueller indicted a company that did not exist during the time period when the alleged Russian interference in our elections took place.

Almost all of Mueller's court appearances so far have gone disastrously for Mueller.

The 13 Russian alleged bot makers indicted by Mueller have hired a major law firm, Reed Smith, which appears to be smashing Mueller's team to bits in recent court appearances --so much so that Mueller is requesting the case be delayed due to improper service of Mueller's targets . . . by Mueller.

That's right.

Mueller is accusing himself of acting improperly, and so is requesting a delay in his case against the 13 Russian bot makers on that basis.

Mueller is showing us how easy it is to indict the proverbial ham sandwich, and why indictments really aren't what they're cracked up to be -- especially in politically-motivated cases.

So is there a related link to this, or just opinion with some red bolded text to sell some folks? If the company to indict does not exist any longer but was taken over or sold to a recently created company, one would have to indict the part that exists now, not the non-existent one that did.

Looks like an opinion. Of course they are going to hire good lawyers. Duh.

Here you go:

Reply #1537 posted May 7, 2018 at 4:55pm Post by DragonEnergySCP on May 7, 2018 at 4:55pm

Mueller pulled a political stunt and filed charges related to the fake Russia scandal. The sham of a case cooked up against 13 Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens for running a "troll farm" (which to my knowledge may not even be illegal) and creating social media "bots" (which FB just allowed Messenger Bot again-- which is good for me and my marketing company- thanks) was an attempt by Mueller to make it look like Mueller was engaged in a real Russian collusion investigation instead of his primary function as a cover up of Obama / Clinton / DNC illegal spying and subsequent coup attempt. Well, what had happened was...

Mueller's bluff got called- and was forced to file a motion to delay. In other words, they filed charges. Lawyers for the accused said, "Fine. Let's go to court". Mueller, in lieu of an outright dismissal had hoped to get a delay, however his motion has been denied. My prediction: embarassing dismissal is coming soon.

www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627

Prosecutors from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office are seeking to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management and Consulting, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings.

Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management. POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.

On Friday, Mueller’s prosecutors disclosed that Concord’s attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, had made a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details about the case and the investigation. Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week.

The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success

www.cbsnews.com/live/video/20180506161034-muellers-delay-motion-in-russia-case-denied-by-a-federal-judge/

[thyme4change]

Motions to delay during discovery are super common. I don't think we should jump to any conclusions that this means something other than Mueller was surprised that anyone showed up on behalf of the Russians who were indicted.

[Tennesseer]

SS/DD.

[Deleted]

I can't help but think pretzel logic affects one's use of GIANT FONTS and ANNOYING COLORS...

[Virgil Showlion]

I read something today about Mr. Mueller's team indicting a Russian company that didn't exist during the period the indictment claims it was committing unlawful acts. It was a comment somewhere.

Anyone else hear about it? Fake news, or a real thing?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 15, 2018 19:04:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I read something today about Mr. Mueller's team indicting a Russian company that didn't exist during the period the indictment claims it was committing unlawful acts. It was a comment somewhere.

Anyone else hear about it? Fake news, or a real thing?

That is a fact. And by the way- considering the "process crimes" he is attempting to prosecute people for- this is also as a matter of fact evidence of Mueller LYING TO A GRAND JURY. Just as an aside.


www.dailywire.com/news/30556/disaster-mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-ryan-saavedra

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I have never been more right than I am about this Russia thing. If you've been arguing with me on this, or you actually still think there's actually some there there with respect to the Mueller probe and the Trump campaign colluding with Russians, you are going to eat the biggest helping of crow you've ever had in your life.

Two Colleagues Contradict Brennan's Denial of Reliance on Dossier
www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/05/14/2_colleagues_contradict_brennan_on_use_of_dossier.html

Former CIA Director John Brennan’s insistence that the salacious and unverified Steele dossier was not part of the official Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election is being contradicted by two top former officials.

Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations.

These accounts are at odds with Brennan’s May 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the Steele dossier was "not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community's assessment" that Russia interfered in the election to help elect Donald Trump. Brennan has repeated this claim numerous times, including in February on “Meet the Press.”

In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as “the Christopher Steele information” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “part of the overall ICA review/approval process.”

His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House.

Rogers has testified that while he was sure the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton, he wasn't as confident as CIA and FBI officials that their actions were designed to help Trump, explaining that such as assessment "didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.”

The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources. Still, the ICA has been viewed by much of the Washington establishment as the unimpeachable consensus of the U.S. intelligence community. Its conclusions that “Vladimir Putin ordered” the hacking and leaking of Clinton campaign emails “to help Trump’s chances of victory” have driven the “Russia collusion” narrative and subsequent investigations besieging the Trump presidency.

Except that the ICA did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. Clapper broke with tradition and decided not to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts from just three agencies — the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department’s intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process.

While faulting Clapper for not following intelligence community tradecraft standards that Clapper himself ordered in 2015, the House Intelligence Committee’s 250-page report also found that the ICA did not properly describe the “quality and credibility of underlying sources” and was not “independent of political considerations."

Investigative Report: Brennan Used FBI Agent Peter Strzok as
Author For Intelligence Community Assessment and Placed
Dossier Material into Obama’s Daily Briefing…

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/15/investigative-report-brennan-used-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-as-author-for-intelligence-community-assessment-and-placed-dossier-material-into-obamas-daily-briefing/
Posted on May 15, 2018 by sundance

Some major reporting today from Paul Sperry includes very interesting details about how President Obama’s intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election – SEE HERE –

In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlines how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.

While much of the background parallels our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, that Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:

[…] A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)

This structure is interesting because it highlights an increasingly obvious intention of the participating group to control the content of intelligence, and the information flow therein. There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).

Their approach creates the “I don’t know” and “that was not my understanding” defense as deployed heavily by James Comey during his book tour and media interviews.

This approach also creates an unusual set of contradictions.

Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly says the work on the Clinton and Trump investigations was kept inside a very “tight group” of DOJ and FBI people; yet Comey repeatedly claims to have no knowledge of their activity when questioned about specific events.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe keeping Director Comey in the dark on the Huma Abedin laptop issues for four weeks (Sept. 28th through October 26th) is a clear example of Comey’s ‘willful blindness’.

There are also numerous examples in the Page/Strzok text messaging or working around Comey within the FBI small group (Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Michael Kortan), as Andrew McCarthy finally realized when he sat down to read the content last weekend: “I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight.” I digress.

A second interesting aspect revealed in Paul Sperry’s reporting is something we discussed at great length surrounding the President Obama daily briefing material (PDB):

[…] “Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a ‘credible source,’ which is how they viewed Steele,” said the source familiar with the House investigation. “But they never corroborated his sources.” (read more)

So with another confirmation that Brennan was putting FBI Counterintelligence Investigation findings into President Obama’s PDB, let’s revisit the statements in April 2017 from President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice. As relayed in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell:

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Hindsight is 20/20, I have been tracking close to the bulls-eye from the beginning of the exposure of this whole sorted affair. You can go back through this thread to the places where I first broached the unmasking and the stunning Susan Farkas revelation that the Obama regime was indeed spying on Trump:





“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking”.

[Link to Farkas MSNBC Interview and Transcript]

[Deleted]

Yay, more giant blocks of bullshit.

[djAdvocate]

May 14, 2018 17:03:39 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 14, 2018 15:49:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Pretzel logic seems to be the buzzword on the left. You're like the 8,000th liberal to use the term in the last 30 days. 

February 5, 2018: first use of pretzel people on the boards.

Feb 5, 2018 20:54:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Democrats have become pretzel people on the memo-- releasing it will damage national security, but it's a nothingburger, and it's full of inaccuracies, but we can't tell you what's inaccurate about it and it's been since Friday-- and not one thing has been disputed. THAT is all I care about. They want to argue it-- argue it. So far it has been all smoke and mirrors.

that was the first i had seen it since the 70's. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 14, 2017 16:32:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 14, 2017 13:09:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

NONE of what I posted is theory. The text messages are plain as the nose on your face, and the testimony yesterday is on the record. There's no spinning their way out of this.  The country is starting to get a very clear picture of why Hillary Clinton may have exclaimed, as has been reported based on sources inside the Clinton Campaign, "If that ************ wins, we'll all hang from nooses!"

You're talking about the FISA warrant in definite terms, but its existence is still a matter of speculation, is it not?

Not anymore. It's time for review- I'm going through the whole thread.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 22, 2017 13:20:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 22, 2017 11:40:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

A Timeline of Treason: How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]

directorblue.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-timeline-of-treason-how-fbi.html

This is actually a remarkably thorough and well-put-together timeline.

Hasn't gotten better for our friends at the Bureau, has it?

[djAdvocate]

Clinton never said that.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-threw-a-tantrum-with-matt-lauer/

oh, that's right.  you don't believe in fact checkers.  forgot.

[Tennesseer]

May 15, 2018 20:01:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Clinton never said that.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-threw-a-tantrum-with-matt-lauer/

oh, that's right.  you don't believe in fact checkers.  forgot.

Have you already forgotten paul is here to do the thinking for you?

[Tennesseer]

May 15, 2018 19:51:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 14, 2018 17:03:39 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

February 5, 2018: first use of pretzel people on the boards.

that was the first i had seen it since the 70's. 

I wonder if paul tried to sell it to the Florida Republican party like some of his other original phrases.

[Deleted]

May 15, 2018 20:22:26 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 15, 2018 20:01:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Clinton never said that.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-threw-a-tantrum-with-matt-lauer/

oh, that's right.  you don't believe in fact checkers.  forgot.

Have you already forgotten paul is here to do the thinking for you?

Clearly, there will be another post reminding him. I'd give it less than an hour... 

"Perhaps nothing is as frustrating as trying to “get through” to someone who simply won’t hear what you have to say. You can use example after example or make point after point trying to get them to see something that seems as obvious as the nose on your face and the narcissist simply won’t concede. When what you have to say challenges the grandiose image they have of themselves, they simply won’t give it any validity. And this is not usually because they have so much anxiety or are in such conflict of conscience over matters that they simply can’t bear the truth. Rather, it’s their defiant attitude toward anything but the truth as they insist on seeing it and their determination to maintain both the image they’ve constructed and the position of superiority they believe they deserve that motivates them to resist accepting what they actually know to be the real truth. This is the difference between really being in the psychological state of denial as opposed to engaging in denial as a tactic of impressiona management, image maintenance, and responsibility avoidance"

www.drgeorgesimon.com/narcissistic-insult-when-reality-shatters-illusion/

Sound familiar?

[Rukh O'Rorke]

May 15, 2018 20:01:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Clinton never said that.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-threw-a-tantrum-with-matt-lauer/

oh, that's right.  you don't believe in fact checkers.  forgot.

Any bizarre thought that flitters through his head even briefly is true.


How does he know? It's in his head. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't true.

[Virgil Showlion]

Enough talking about the poster and not the thread topic. I tolerate little pot shots here and there but if you want a full blown discussion to badmouth Paul, do it privately.

   - Virgil (Mod)