Investigating the Investigators or taking down the Deep State | Page 9 | Barking Hard

Investigating the Investigators or taking down the Deep State

madmadworld said:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/du...ation-could-punt-to-after-election-day-source

If he were to wait till after........... could be worse for the country. just saying
Click to expand...

You will notice that it is a commutation, not a pardon. As part of the Ms. McEnany's statement, she said:

He has appealed his conviction and is seeking a new trial. He maintains his innocence and has stated that he expects to be fully exonerated by the justice system, Mr. Stone, like every American, deserves a fair trial and every opportunity to vindicate himself before the courts.

The President does not wish to interfere with his efforts to do so. At this time, however, and particularly in light of the egregious facts and circumstances surrounding his unfair prosecution, arrest, and trial, the President has determined to commute his sentence.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, if the Durham investigation turns up something that is exculpatory, he has the option of using it to get his conviction reversed in the courts. In the meantime, he doesn't go to prison. If it was me, I think I would just let well enough alone. But allowing him that option was the rationale behind the commutation in lieu of a pardon.

Good deal all around from my viewpoint. There is no doubt that Mr. Stone is something of a scoundrel, but there is no way that he deserved to go to prison.
 
madmadworld said:
I was speaking of
say Trump loses then we find out after the election all we thought was true. Then we have near half of us saying WTF is going on in this land.
nothing About Stone in that post.

Durham, under pressure to wrap up investigation, could 'punt' to after Election Day
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/du...ation-could-punt-to-after-election-day-source
Click to expand...

Sorry, I took this as a continuation of the Stone posts:

Trump surprised me here. thought he would wait post election. no matter the outcome.
not that I disagree. enjoy your freedom Mr Stone
Click to expand...

I was surprised that you were surprised.

I was thinking Stone could put this off(with a little inside help). till mid-Sept or later. he might have to do 4-6 weeks etc
Click to expand...

His appeal to put off the start of his prison term had already been turned down. Plus putting off the commutation until after the election would have made Trump look weak. Nobody will give him credit for that. It is the political thing to do. By doing it now he looks like a man of principle.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dur...ion-day-source

If he were to wait till after........... could be worse for the country. just saying
Click to expand...

Sorry, this didn't register as a change in subject. Assumed you were still referring to Stone and perhaps exculpatory evidence that Durham might turn up which might help Stone in his appeal.

I haven't put much credence in the possibility of Durham punting until after the election. My guess is that there will be no indictments regardless and, instead, Durham will issue a report in August or September detailing the misdeeds which will allow Barr to get rid of the remaining bad apples. Despite Democratic claims, I think Barr is more concerned with depoliticizing the department than with sensational trials of big names. I think Brennan and Clapper can breath freely.
 
Lawlessness

Brownsfan said:
I haven't put much credence in the possibility of Durham punting until after the election. My guess is that there will be no indictments regardless and, instead, Durham will issue a report in August or September detailing the misdeeds which will allow Barr to get rid of the remaining bad apples. Despite Democratic claims, I think Barr is more concerned with depoliticizing the department than with sensational trials of big names. I think Brennan and Clapper can breath freely.
Click to expand...
If ALL these people go free we don't have the same country anymore. that simple
the next group will just push the envelope further.

depoliticizing the department
Click to expand...
How why what
if there are no penalties why not go 70mph down the street ? stuff here

It would be as bad as this No Cash bail nonsense.
 
madmadworld said:
If ALL these people go free we don't have the same country anymore. that simple
the next group will just push the envelope further.


How why what
if there are no penalties why not go 70mph down the street ? stuff here

It would be as bad as this No Cash bail nonsense.
Click to expand...

Basically, I just want consistency. For example, I think it was ridiculous to charge Stone with perjury and witness tampering for no more than he did. I think you should be reasonable. It is true that Stone misspoke when he said he hadn't said something that he was on tape as saying, but could have easily been a mere unintentional oversight. The tone of his voice did not indicate deceit in my opinion. And it is true that after he was charged, he contacted someone the prosecution considered a potential witness and asked for clarification on an issue. But to put somebody in jail for an extended period of time over something like that seems like a bit much.

They couldn't get him on Russian collusion so that went after a process crime. That just seems wrong to me. And what they did to Flynn was even more outrageous.

However, as Barr has said: "Not every abuse of power — no matter how outrageous — is necessarily a federal crime."

The Democrats in congress have tried to make Trump's statements in his own defense as a criminal abuse of power. We need to reject that type of mischief, not institutionalize it.

Often, the best disinfectant is sunshine. Exposure can be effective. So Barr and Durham have a choice. They can go for indictments or they can just tell the story. I prefer that they tell the story.
 
Usa

Again my last post had nothing to do with Stone. I agree with your post

It was all about the FBI shitheads & Brennan and Clapper the probing, lying, FISA etc
we can't have a country that works like that.
 
Secret source for anti-Trump Steele dossier is revealed

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-source-anti-trump-steele-dossier-revealed

A lawyer for Igor Danchenko, 42, confirmed to The New York Times that his client -- a former Brookings Institution senior research analyst in Washington, D.C., and not a "Russian-based" source -- provided the information to Steele, the British former spy whose dossier was used by the FBI to obtain wiretaps of Carter Page, the former Trump campaign adviser.
Click to expand...

The memo the FBI prepared based on the Mr. Danchenko's interview with the FBI had his name and personal information redacted, but per the Fox News article publishes about 4 hours ago, "an online blog post titled 'I Found the Primary Subsource' pieced together clues and identified Danchekno. RT, a Kremlin-owned news site, then published an article also outing Danchenko's name."

According to Senator Graham, Sally Yates will voluntarily testify before his committee on August 5.

At some point, I suppose Mr. Danchenko will appear before the committee.
 
Ex-Colleagues See Durham Dropping Bombshells Before Labor Day
By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
August 06, 2020

https://www.realclearinvestigations...pping_bombshells_before_labor_day_124753.html

More speculation of what Durham will do. New information (for me, at least) is that his principal deputy is Nora Dannehy, a woman and a Democrat.

His team is led by his deputy, Nora Dannehy, who specializes in the prosecution of complex white-collar and public corruption cases. A Democrat with a reputation for integrity, she left a high-paying corporate job to rejoin Durham’s office in March 2019, the month after Barr was confirmed.

Barr officially announced in May 2019 that he had put Durham in charge of looking into what he called the government's “spying" on the Trump campaign in 2016. Was that surveillance justified? Or was it done to smear Trump and sink his campaign -- and when that failed, his presidency? Durham is exploring a host of other questions, including: What role did the CIA play? Did it monitor Trump advisers overseas? Were U.S. laws restricting spying on U.S. citizens broken? Did the spy agency slant U.S. intelligence on Russian election interference to justify the anti-Trump operation?
Click to expand...

Most of the speculation detailed in the article is from former Durham colleague, Chris Swecker, who is an ex-assistant FBI director. Basically, the take away is that if something is announced, it will likely be announced within the next three weeks.

Not sure if I should say hold tight or not. This could be a big nothing. But we shall see.
 
I have no trust in any of these fuckers. They'll slow walk it hoping they can commit enough fraud to get Trump out with ballot harvesting and Chinese election interference, and then it will all just disappear.

Or they'll slap a couple nobody's on the wrist and opine about how mistakes were made.
 
TheBestPlayersPlay said:
I have no trust in any of these fuckers. They'll slow walk it hoping they can commit enough fraud to get Trump out with ballot harvesting and Chinese election interference, and then it will all just disappear.

Or they'll slap a couple nobody's on the wrist and opine about how mistakes were made.
Click to expand...
I’m getting the same vibe.
Fingers crossed that we have someone with balls to lay it all out and pull the fucking plug on the deep state swamp. Peoples minds would implode.
 
Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty in Trump-Russia probe review
By ERIC TUCKER and MICHAEL BALSAMO

https://apnews.com/597c27d6642dcedae79838fa6cf5497a

The Charging document can be read here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ke...ty-in-durham-probe-read-the-charging-document

According to the charging document, prior to the first FISA application, the CIA provided the FBI with documents that indicated that Carter had been approved by the CIA as an operational contact and that Carter had provided to the CIA information concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers.

The first three FISA applications did not contain this information.

However, prior to the fourth application, Carter mentioned publicly that he had previously assisted the CIA and thus Clinesmith was asked by a Supervisory Special Agent to inquire with the CIA regarding this and the CIA referred Clinesmith to the prior documents previously submitted to the FBI. In addition, however, the CIA officer included in his email a recollection that Carter "was or is… [digraph] but the [documents] will provide the details."

In a series of messages, with the Supervisory Special Agent, Clinesmith indicated in instant messages that he believed that Carter was a subsource but never a source. When he was asked to document that, Clinesmith modified the email to include the words “and not a source” to support what he had previously said and sent it to the Supervisory Special Agent.

The best explanation from Clinesmith perspective is that his interpretation of Carter’s role was that Carter was a subsource rather than a source, and that he thought it was important to make that distinction. So he modified the email to make it read the way he thought it should read. In this way, his attorney could claim that it was not his intent to mislead the court, but that he understands that what he did was wrong and that he takes full responsibility for his actions.
 
Good comparison of the differences between the coverage of an innocent Flynn and a guilty Clinesmith by the MSM:

The Russia-Obsessed Media Does Its Best to Ignore Clinesmith’s Guilty Plea
National Review

by Tobias Hoonhout, National Review•August 16, 2020

As news broke Friday that John Durham’s criminal probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation had resulted in a former FBI lawyer being charged with doctoring FISA evidence used against the Trump campaign, the formerly Russia-obsessed mainstream media did its best to look the other way.
Click to expand...

There was one exception: Andrew Weissmann, MSNBC legal analyst and former lead prosecutor in the Russian hoax for Robert Mueller claimed that altering of the email was not "material."
 
Back
Top Bottom