- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,484
- Likes
- 25,603
- Points
- 113
Also, the culprits may have been Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, the Easter Bunny, and Hitler!
barfo
Rumor BarrShootsDownTrumpgate?
- Thread starter magnifier661
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Also, the culprits may have been Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, the Easter Bunny, and Hitler!
barfo
calvin natt
Confeve
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2017
- Messages
- 7,520
- Likes
- 10,459
- Points
- 113
Looooottttts of current press now about voting/mail in being allowed or not and so on. All part of the master plan to say the election was rigged. Preemptively building the excuse for Trumps loss.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Who said that tweet was bad? I thought we are sharing news on this thread. Are we not?
ehizzy3
RIP mgb
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,200
- Likes
- 6,397
- Points
- 113
Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has said that leaked recordings of phone calls allegedly between Joe Biden and former president Petro Poroshenko would be investigated by the country’s law enforcement agencies, adding that their contents might be “perceived, qualified as treason”.
The remarks prompted an angry rebuttal from Poroshenko, who said that the Zelenskiy administration may have played a role in their release and should be investigated.
The recordings, containing what appear to be heavily edited conversations between Biden and Poroshenko while in office, were published by a Ukrainian associate of RudyGiuliani in an apparent attempt to embarrass the politicians and dent Biden’s presidential run against Donald Trump in the 2020 elections.
The tapes contain few revelations and their provenance remains murky. Still, Trump allies have sought to leverage them to revive scrutiny, as well as conspiracy theories, about Biden’s ties to Ukraine ahead of the 2020 elections.
Poroshenko on Wednesday called the leaked audio “fabricated” and a Biden spokesman told the Washington Post were “heavily edited … and it’s still a nothingburger that landed with a thud”.
Andrii Derkach, the Giuliani ally, claimed to have received the tapes from investigative journalists. Opponents have pointed at the lawmaker’s ties to Russia. Derkach is a former MP for the pro-Russian Party of Regions faction and attended a KGB-run high school in Moscow. His father was a former KGB officer and then headed Ukraine’s intelligence service.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
The remarks prompted an angry rebuttal from Poroshenko, who said that the Zelenskiy administration may have played a role in their release and should be investigated.
The recordings, containing what appear to be heavily edited conversations between Biden and Poroshenko while in office, were published by a Ukrainian associate of RudyGiuliani in an apparent attempt to embarrass the politicians and dent Biden’s presidential run against Donald Trump in the 2020 elections.
The tapes contain few revelations and their provenance remains murky. Still, Trump allies have sought to leverage them to revive scrutiny, as well as conspiracy theories, about Biden’s ties to Ukraine ahead of the 2020 elections.
Poroshenko on Wednesday called the leaked audio “fabricated” and a Biden spokesman told the Washington Post were “heavily edited … and it’s still a nothingburger that landed with a thud”.
Andrii Derkach, the Giuliani ally, claimed to have received the tapes from investigative journalists. Opponents have pointed at the lawmaker’s ties to Russia. Derkach is a former MP for the pro-Russian Party of Regions faction and attended a KGB-run high school in Moscow. His father was a former KGB officer and then headed Ukraine’s intelligence service.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
ehizzy3
RIP mgb
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 10,200
- Likes
- 6,397
- Points
- 113
Flynn was never unmasked LOL
——————-
A Republican effort to determine who may have leaked the name of Michael Flynn in connection to his 2016 contact with the Russian ambassador has centered on the question of which Obama administration officials requested his identity be “unmasked” in intelligence documents.
But in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced this week that he wants to subpoena witnesses over the unmasking of Flynn, as part of a larger effort to unearth information about the FBI’s investigation of Trump campaign officials.
On Tuesday, he sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell asking why a declassified list of Obama administration officials who had made requests that revealed Flynn’s name in intelligence documents “did not contain a record showing who unmasked” Flynn’s identity in relation to “his phone call with” the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislyak.
Flynn’s Dec. 29 phone calls with Kislyak became a major controversy. The Washington Post revealed their existence and then that he had misled the vice president about the nature of his discussions with the Russian diplomat. He resigned as President Trump’s national security adviser shortly after the revelations and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the call, though the Justice Department is now seeking to drop the case.
Trump allies ever since have been pressing to know who leaked information about the call.
The list released last week was declassified by Grenell and provided to GOP senators who wanted to know who requested the “unmasking” of identities in intelligence reports in the last months of the Obama administration that resulted in the name of Flynn being disclosed.
Unmasking is a routine practice used to identify U.S. individuals who are referred to anonymously in an intelligence document, and it is meant to help government officials better understand what they are reading. But conservatives have long seized on Flynn’s unmasking to imply that he was treated unfairly by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials.
The list, prepared at Grenell’s request by the National Security Agency, covered requests made between Nov. 30, 2016 and Jan. 12, 2017. The majority of requests occurred before Flynn’s communications with Kislyak on Dec. 29.
It was the FBI, not the NSA, that wiretapped Kislyak’s calls and created the summary and transcript, the former officials said
“When the FBI circulated [the report], they included Flynn’s name from the beginning” because it was essential to understanding its significance, said a former senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence. “There were therefore no requests for the unmasking of that information.”
When told by The Post that the name was never masked in the Dec. 29 communication, a Graham aide said the committee would still like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s “written answer” to its question.
https://www.WashingtonPost.com/national-security/michael-flynns-name-was-never-masked-in-fbi-document-on-his-communications-with-russian-ambassador/2020/05/20/e94ee050-9a0b-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/YlEYDT11tX
——————-
A Republican effort to determine who may have leaked the name of Michael Flynn in connection to his 2016 contact with the Russian ambassador has centered on the question of which Obama administration officials requested his identity be “unmasked” in intelligence documents.
But in the FBI report about the communications between the two men, Flynn’s name was never redacted, former U.S. officials said.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced this week that he wants to subpoena witnesses over the unmasking of Flynn, as part of a larger effort to unearth information about the FBI’s investigation of Trump campaign officials.
On Tuesday, he sent a letter to acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell asking why a declassified list of Obama administration officials who had made requests that revealed Flynn’s name in intelligence documents “did not contain a record showing who unmasked” Flynn’s identity in relation to “his phone call with” the Russian diplomat, Sergey Kislyak.
Flynn’s Dec. 29 phone calls with Kislyak became a major controversy. The Washington Post revealed their existence and then that he had misled the vice president about the nature of his discussions with the Russian diplomat. He resigned as President Trump’s national security adviser shortly after the revelations and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the call, though the Justice Department is now seeking to drop the case.
Trump allies ever since have been pressing to know who leaked information about the call.
The list released last week was declassified by Grenell and provided to GOP senators who wanted to know who requested the “unmasking” of identities in intelligence reports in the last months of the Obama administration that resulted in the name of Flynn being disclosed.
Unmasking is a routine practice used to identify U.S. individuals who are referred to anonymously in an intelligence document, and it is meant to help government officials better understand what they are reading. But conservatives have long seized on Flynn’s unmasking to imply that he was treated unfairly by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials.
The list, prepared at Grenell’s request by the National Security Agency, covered requests made between Nov. 30, 2016 and Jan. 12, 2017. The majority of requests occurred before Flynn’s communications with Kislyak on Dec. 29.
It was the FBI, not the NSA, that wiretapped Kislyak’s calls and created the summary and transcript, the former officials said
“When the FBI circulated [the report], they included Flynn’s name from the beginning” because it was essential to understanding its significance, said a former senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence. “There were therefore no requests for the unmasking of that information.”
When told by The Post that the name was never masked in the Dec. 29 communication, a Graham aide said the committee would still like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s “written answer” to its question.
https://www.WashingtonPost.com/national-security/michael-flynns-name-was-never-masked-in-fbi-document-on-his-communications-with-russian-ambassador/2020/05/20/e94ee050-9a0b-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/YlEYDT11tX
wizenheimer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 24,910
- Likes
- 37,886
- Points
- 113
"From way, way back in the Trump-Russia timeline, one of the biggest charges from Republicans has been about the “unmasking” of Michael Flynn. This idea, that someone in the Obama White House used their authority to uncover the real name behind an anonymous “SUBJECT 1” in some discrete intelligence report has been a key Republican charge since that time Devin Nunes leaped from an Uber to go scurrying through the White House shrubbery. And just last week, lapdog Lindsey Graham announced that he wanted to know just who was behind the dastardly unmasking of Flynn as a lead off to his big new investigation of Russia investigation.
Yeah … about that. As it turns out, there’s a problem with Graham demanding that the FBI tell him who in the Obama administration ordered the unmasking of Flynn. The problem is that Graham got an answer. And the answer is: no one. That’s because it never happened. And that’s because Flynn’s name was never masked in the first place. But there is something about Flynn that was covered up, and the facts behind that seem like a real scandal.
As The Washington Post reports, Graham made a big announcement on Tuesday that he was sending a letter to the brand-new extra-Trumpy Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell demanding to know why documents had not been produced to explain who unmasked Flynn’s name in connection with his multiple calls to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Meanwhile, Nunes was back on Fox News to accuse the Obama administration of “unmasking anyone and everyone so that they could leak information to a press.”
These are the calls that Flynn first denied, then lied about not just to the FBI, but supposedly to Mike Pence. They were at the core of both Flynn’s resignation and the charges he is still facing in court, no matter what William Barr and Donald Trump might wish.
The reply that Graham got doesn’t exactly give more power to his bid to get in on this “Obamagate” thing. Because what Grenell sent back was the news that the FBI never masked Flynn’s name. It was always on the report, because understanding who was talking to Kislyak “was essential to understanding its significance.” There was no unmasking request, because there was no mask.
But don’t worry. Graham is given a chance to provide a detailed written response. Between them they’ll surely find a way to blame someone for unveiling what was never veiled. Maybe Nunes can sneak back into the White House basement and get a hot tip from Flynn’s former protege—who is exactly who handed him the claims about unmasking in the first place.
Still, it’s not as if there isn’t some new secret to be uncovered about Flynn’s calls to the Russian ambassador. As Marcy Wheeler reported over at emptywheel:
Flynn wasn’t lying to hide what he said to Kislyak.
He was lying to hide that he had coordinated with people at Mar-a-Lago before speaking with Kislyak.
Records of Flynn’s interviews with the FBI show that he repeatedly lied, not about the contents of the call, but about his own coordination with Trump before and after that call. Not only did Flynn lie directly to the FBI at least three times about his knowledge of sanctions, he followed the call by requesting a written note directly intended to mask the importance of the conversation.
The problem for Graham, Nunes, and others trying to find evidence that Obama did something wrong in regards to Flynn, is that Flynn is a crook, who didn’t just lie to the FBI, but covered up his coordination with the Trump transition team. That’s in addition to numerous violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and planning for the kidnapping of a U.S. resident.
If people keep asking for evidence related to Flynn, they’ll likely find some. They just won’t like it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/e73qYSz978
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Michael-Flynn-for-years-now-we-know-the-truth
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/...coordinated-his-kislyak-call-with-mar-a-lago/
Yeah … about that. As it turns out, there’s a problem with Graham demanding that the FBI tell him who in the Obama administration ordered the unmasking of Flynn. The problem is that Graham got an answer. And the answer is: no one. That’s because it never happened. And that’s because Flynn’s name was never masked in the first place. But there is something about Flynn that was covered up, and the facts behind that seem like a real scandal.
As The Washington Post reports, Graham made a big announcement on Tuesday that he was sending a letter to the brand-new extra-Trumpy Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell demanding to know why documents had not been produced to explain who unmasked Flynn’s name in connection with his multiple calls to Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Meanwhile, Nunes was back on Fox News to accuse the Obama administration of “unmasking anyone and everyone so that they could leak information to a press.”
These are the calls that Flynn first denied, then lied about not just to the FBI, but supposedly to Mike Pence. They were at the core of both Flynn’s resignation and the charges he is still facing in court, no matter what William Barr and Donald Trump might wish.
The reply that Graham got doesn’t exactly give more power to his bid to get in on this “Obamagate” thing. Because what Grenell sent back was the news that the FBI never masked Flynn’s name. It was always on the report, because understanding who was talking to Kislyak “was essential to understanding its significance.” There was no unmasking request, because there was no mask.
But don’t worry. Graham is given a chance to provide a detailed written response. Between them they’ll surely find a way to blame someone for unveiling what was never veiled. Maybe Nunes can sneak back into the White House basement and get a hot tip from Flynn’s former protege—who is exactly who handed him the claims about unmasking in the first place.
Still, it’s not as if there isn’t some new secret to be uncovered about Flynn’s calls to the Russian ambassador. As Marcy Wheeler reported over at emptywheel:
Flynn wasn’t lying to hide what he said to Kislyak.
He was lying to hide that he had coordinated with people at Mar-a-Lago before speaking with Kislyak.
Records of Flynn’s interviews with the FBI show that he repeatedly lied, not about the contents of the call, but about his own coordination with Trump before and after that call. Not only did Flynn lie directly to the FBI at least three times about his knowledge of sanctions, he followed the call by requesting a written note directly intended to mask the importance of the conversation.
The problem for Graham, Nunes, and others trying to find evidence that Obama did something wrong in regards to Flynn, is that Flynn is a crook, who didn’t just lie to the FBI, but covered up his coordination with the Trump transition team. That’s in addition to numerous violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and planning for the kidnapping of a U.S. resident.
If people keep asking for evidence related to Flynn, they’ll likely find some. They just won’t like it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b35f_story.html#click=https://t.co/e73qYSz978
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...Michael-Flynn-for-years-now-we-know-the-truth
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/...coordinated-his-kislyak-call-with-mar-a-lago/
Lanny
Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 26,638
- Likes
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
Pundits usually describe it to an indictment due to it's many similarities.
If you consider impeachment to be very partisan then you must also consider the corresponding Senate trial to be equally very partisan.
Whatever happened to the old days when most everyone was motivated by objectivity and a desire to find out the truth?
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
What part of not a single “Republican” voted for impeachment is not partisan? As for the senate. Yep, they shot down the partisan impeachment. I think it would have been taken more seriously if there was bipartisan support on impeachment.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Except there is. The intercept has been uncovering it quite masterfully. I would of never thought a far left media outlet would be doing this, but hats off to them.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
A readable Thread by @JohnWHuber Says CONCLUSION (6/6) US Attorney John Du - UnrollThread.com
Undercover Huber
SCO prosecutors charged @GeorgePapa19 with a 20yr felony, even though they knew they couldn't prove that & misled the court & media On top of that malfeasance, SCO lawyer Kevin Clinemith later effectively admitted to that *exact same felony* before GP was even charged THREAD
Note: This is a very long thread for memorial day weekend, so grab a beer or coffee and find somewhere comfortable, we’re going to be here a while. Okay, lets roll…
Everyone probably remembers that @GeorgePapa19 (GP) was charged in July 2017 by the Special Counsel's Office (SCO) with false statements (a 18 USC §1001 felony), made during his Jan 27, 2017 interview with the FBI. And GP later pled guilty…
...but not everyone knows that SCO *also* initially charged GP with ANOTHER major felony at the same time: 18 USC §1519 "obstruction" for destruction/concealment of records. And unlike the 5 years maximum for false statements, this can attract up to *20 years* imprisonment
The §1519 charge was included in the original FBI affidavit, complaint & charge sheet, & discussed by prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (BVG; of @GenFlynn "fame") at GP's hurried initial Virginia court appearance on July 28, 2017 following his arrest at Dulles airport the night before
The "obstruction" was allegedly due to GP deactivating his Facebook account, which contained messages from Joseph Mifsud and other "foreign contacts" (later the SCO would also try & imply that GP switching to a new cellphone around the same time was nefarious “obstruction” too.)
That sealed Court appearance in Virginia lasted 4 mins, was delayed by hrs (GP left detention for the courthouse at 08:30am, it didn't start until 03:02pm) & was presided over by only a Magistrate Judge (who then just transferred case to DC) who spelled BVGs name wrong as "Gratt”
Papadoupolos wasn’t represented by Counsel at that initial appearance, even though he had been represented by the same Counsel (Thomas Breen and co.) since Feb 2017, who had attended multiple FBI interviews with him too. The Mag Judge wasn’t made aware of this by the SCO
Yet GP's Counsel (Mr. Breen) had been informed of GP's arrest and spoken to GP twice the night before (see FD-302 extracts) & knew of his court appearance the next day (see extract from Politico interview) So this "obstruction" charge is really going “by the book” so far
The overall effect on the disorientated @GeorgePapa19 appears to have been profound. He describes in his book how he took the “serious jail time” threat seriously, fearing spending *25 years in prison.* Note: he'd never even been arrested before & had no Counsel present to help
What GP's lawyers could've said at that initial hearing is out of scope of this thread - they could've noted GP didn't even commit those alleged crimes in "D.C" (they took place in Illinois, so the venue was wrong) & his lawyers *personally knew the obstruction charge was false*
Undercover Huber
SCO prosecutors charged @GeorgePapa19 with a 20yr felony, even though they knew they couldn't prove that & misled the court & media On top of that malfeasance, SCO lawyer Kevin Clinemith later effectively admitted to that *exact same felony* before GP was even charged THREAD
Note: This is a very long thread for memorial day weekend, so grab a beer or coffee and find somewhere comfortable, we’re going to be here a while. Okay, lets roll…
Everyone probably remembers that @GeorgePapa19 (GP) was charged in July 2017 by the Special Counsel's Office (SCO) with false statements (a 18 USC §1001 felony), made during his Jan 27, 2017 interview with the FBI. And GP later pled guilty…
...but not everyone knows that SCO *also* initially charged GP with ANOTHER major felony at the same time: 18 USC §1519 "obstruction" for destruction/concealment of records. And unlike the 5 years maximum for false statements, this can attract up to *20 years* imprisonment
The §1519 charge was included in the original FBI affidavit, complaint & charge sheet, & discussed by prosecutor Brandon Van Grack (BVG; of @GenFlynn "fame") at GP's hurried initial Virginia court appearance on July 28, 2017 following his arrest at Dulles airport the night before
The "obstruction" was allegedly due to GP deactivating his Facebook account, which contained messages from Joseph Mifsud and other "foreign contacts" (later the SCO would also try & imply that GP switching to a new cellphone around the same time was nefarious “obstruction” too.)
That sealed Court appearance in Virginia lasted 4 mins, was delayed by hrs (GP left detention for the courthouse at 08:30am, it didn't start until 03:02pm) & was presided over by only a Magistrate Judge (who then just transferred case to DC) who spelled BVGs name wrong as "Gratt”
Papadoupolos wasn’t represented by Counsel at that initial appearance, even though he had been represented by the same Counsel (Thomas Breen and co.) since Feb 2017, who had attended multiple FBI interviews with him too. The Mag Judge wasn’t made aware of this by the SCO
Yet GP's Counsel (Mr. Breen) had been informed of GP's arrest and spoken to GP twice the night before (see FD-302 extracts) & knew of his court appearance the next day (see extract from Politico interview) So this "obstruction" charge is really going “by the book” so far
The overall effect on the disorientated @GeorgePapa19 appears to have been profound. He describes in his book how he took the “serious jail time” threat seriously, fearing spending *25 years in prison.* Note: he'd never even been arrested before & had no Counsel present to help
What GP's lawyers could've said at that initial hearing is out of scope of this thread - they could've noted GP didn't even commit those alleged crimes in "D.C" (they took place in Illinois, so the venue was wrong) & his lawyers *personally knew the obstruction charge was false*
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Part 2
But the SCO could not prove the key elements of a §1519 “obstruction” charge: namely, that @GeorgePapa19 had the *intent* to obstruct an FBI’s investigation with his new FB account & cellphone. And they must have already known this BEFORE they charged him with it. Lets see why
Papadopoulos *asked his own lawyers for permission before he deleted his FB account on Feb 17, 2017*. This is confirmed by GP’s own account and his lawyers written submission to Court. This was (opaquely) acknowledged by the SCO at the sentencing hearing, well over a year later
And before that on Feb 1, GP told the lead FBI agent investigating him (Special Agent Curtis Heide) that he’d got a new cellphone & *even offered to give the FBI his old cellphone for analysis*. This is weeks before the alleged “obstruction” of getting a new cellphone took place!
That Feb 1, 2017 FBI interview was never mentioned in any court filing by the SCO, it was only described later by GP his book, then confirmed by the release of the FD-302 in a 2019 FOIA lawsuit (even GP’s own lawyers don’t seem to have been aware of the interview at the time.)
In that same Feb 1, 2017 interview with FBI SA Heide, GP asked for the FBI's assistance in identifying if any of his contacts were foreign intelligence, and advised them of Mifsud's plans to travel to the US two weeks later. Hardly the actions of someone with *intent to obstruct*
It gets worse. Adding to the lack of "intent”, on Mar 9, 2017, after getting his new cellphone, GP actually refused the offer of a "burner phone" from an FBI CHS ("Source #3") in what looks like entrapment. The CHS's handler was the same FBI agent (Heide), leading GP's interviews
Papadopoulos' rejection of this "burner phone" offer (first revealed by @ChuckRossDC), on top of his other comments to the FBI about Mifsud & his cellphone, strongly suggests those investigating him *knew* he did not have the requisite "intent" to obstruct
The FBI/SCO also likely knew GP may even have only deleted his FB account in the first place because he was frightened into doing it *by the FBI* who all on the same day (Feb 17!) reached out to his "friends" & family to question them about him, showing them surveillance photos
“Friends” is in scare quotes, because one of those was *the same FBI CHS ("Source #3", Jeffery Wiseman) who would go on to offer GP that “burner phone”*, who claimed the FBI wanted to talk to him about a trip they'd taken to a Casino together (which took place on Oct 29, 2016.)
But the SCO could not prove the key elements of a §1519 “obstruction” charge: namely, that @GeorgePapa19 had the *intent* to obstruct an FBI’s investigation with his new FB account & cellphone. And they must have already known this BEFORE they charged him with it. Lets see why
Papadopoulos *asked his own lawyers for permission before he deleted his FB account on Feb 17, 2017*. This is confirmed by GP’s own account and his lawyers written submission to Court. This was (opaquely) acknowledged by the SCO at the sentencing hearing, well over a year later
And before that on Feb 1, GP told the lead FBI agent investigating him (Special Agent Curtis Heide) that he’d got a new cellphone & *even offered to give the FBI his old cellphone for analysis*. This is weeks before the alleged “obstruction” of getting a new cellphone took place!
That Feb 1, 2017 FBI interview was never mentioned in any court filing by the SCO, it was only described later by GP his book, then confirmed by the release of the FD-302 in a 2019 FOIA lawsuit (even GP’s own lawyers don’t seem to have been aware of the interview at the time.)
In that same Feb 1, 2017 interview with FBI SA Heide, GP asked for the FBI's assistance in identifying if any of his contacts were foreign intelligence, and advised them of Mifsud's plans to travel to the US two weeks later. Hardly the actions of someone with *intent to obstruct*
It gets worse. Adding to the lack of "intent”, on Mar 9, 2017, after getting his new cellphone, GP actually refused the offer of a "burner phone" from an FBI CHS ("Source #3") in what looks like entrapment. The CHS's handler was the same FBI agent (Heide), leading GP's interviews
Papadopoulos' rejection of this "burner phone" offer (first revealed by @ChuckRossDC), on top of his other comments to the FBI about Mifsud & his cellphone, strongly suggests those investigating him *knew* he did not have the requisite "intent" to obstruct
The FBI/SCO also likely knew GP may even have only deleted his FB account in the first place because he was frightened into doing it *by the FBI* who all on the same day (Feb 17!) reached out to his "friends" & family to question them about him, showing them surveillance photos
“Friends” is in scare quotes, because one of those was *the same FBI CHS ("Source #3", Jeffery Wiseman) who would go on to offer GP that “burner phone”*, who claimed the FBI wanted to talk to him about a trip they'd taken to a Casino together (which took place on Oct 29, 2016.)
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Part 3
Except that was disingenuous, as that Casino visit had been tape recorded by the FBI by the CHS. The FBI already knew what had been said & even worse, what had been said was *exculpatory*, as GP had denied the Trump campaign was involved with Russia, to a CHS he clearly trusted!
Yet despite the obvious lack of intent (the offer to help with Mifsud, hand over his old cellphone and asking his lawyers for permission to delete his FB account), the failed entrapment, and clearly exculpatory statements made to their CHS, *the SCO charged Papadopoulos anyway*
Since there were no more FBI interviews of GP after Feb 17, 2017 until his arrest, this also means the SCO didn't even raise the issue of the FB account deletion or the new cellphone to GP or his Counsel before charging him with a potential 20 year felony for them. Unbelievable.
The SCO must have known that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GP had the intent to obstruct justice *before* they charged him with the crime, based on their interviews with him, and their own failed CHS entrapment attempts. A major abuse of prosecutorial power
Then, after GP agreed to plead to a single “false statements” §1001 charge, the SCO wrote up the “Statement of the Offense” in Oct 2017, which STILL hinted at obstruction by including the FB account deletion & new cellphone - clearly only to further a misleading media narrative
Planting this misleading narrative is especially egregious in retrospect, knowing what the SCO knew at the time, but didn’t disclose: —GP asked for permission to delete his FB account —GP offered to provide his old cellphone —GP helped with Mifsud & disclosed his travel plans
And as a reminder: the SCO admitted in court much later they knew none of this "amounts to [criminal] obstruction”. If it’s not a crime, what are you doing hinting at it in the Statement of the Offense? The very first SCO prosecution was a preview of the final Mueller report!
And even worse, this misleading hinting at “obstruction" is *at minimum* the THIRD example of a deliberately misleading narrative just in this single Statement of the Offense court filing for @GeorgePapa19. Two examples below (How many more are there in *other* SCO filings?)
Example 1: GP's "lies undermined" the FBI's attempts to detain/interview Mifsud. Ignores that GP proactively offered Mifsud's location & arrival in the US 2 weeks in advance, and repeated this in another FBI interview on the same day Mifsud was in the US
Example 2: smearing former IG of NORAD Sam Clovis by claiming he encouraged GP to meet with Russians, saying "good work", when in the full context he said the opposite, that the campaign *shouldn't meet with Russians until NATO allies were consulted*
Oh & that Sam Clovis example - smearing the former Inspector General of North American Aerospace Defense Command as a Russian Colluder by dishonestly cutting & pasting from his emails to @GeorgePapa19 - is so egregious I’ll be doing a specific follow up THREAD just on that. Soon.
Okay, now let’s talk about Kevin....Clinesmith.
Clinesmith was "the primary FBI attorney" on Crossfire Hurricane, according to Clinesmith himself to the DOJ IG in 2018, and IG's 2019 org chart shows him as the main attorney as well. Just in case the NYT wants to call him “low level” again.
On Nov 9, 2016, the day after Trump won the 2016 Election, in internal FBI instant messages Clinesmith said "The crazies won finally", "plus my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating [Trump's] staff". On Nov 22, 2016, he also vowed "Viva le resistance"
Clinesmith was part of the SCO team interviewing @GeorgePapa19. GP actually claims Clinesmith "led" the questioning for a team of attorneys and FBI agents and analysts at his main Feb 10, 2017 interview, before his arrest in July 2017 (this is partially supported by the FBI 302)
On June 19, 2017 - just a month before Papadopoulos is charged with "obstruction" for records "altering" records - Clinesmith doctored an email from the CIA making it appear as though @carterwpage was "NOT" a source for the agency, when the CIA's liaison had said he WAS a source
This is then relied on by an FBI agent (Supervisory Special Agent 2, or SSA 2) swearing out a FISA surveillance renewal against Page, substantially misleading the FISA court about the probable cause to surveil an American citizen (and those he was in contact with)
Except that was disingenuous, as that Casino visit had been tape recorded by the FBI by the CHS. The FBI already knew what had been said & even worse, what had been said was *exculpatory*, as GP had denied the Trump campaign was involved with Russia, to a CHS he clearly trusted!
Yet despite the obvious lack of intent (the offer to help with Mifsud, hand over his old cellphone and asking his lawyers for permission to delete his FB account), the failed entrapment, and clearly exculpatory statements made to their CHS, *the SCO charged Papadopoulos anyway*
Since there were no more FBI interviews of GP after Feb 17, 2017 until his arrest, this also means the SCO didn't even raise the issue of the FB account deletion or the new cellphone to GP or his Counsel before charging him with a potential 20 year felony for them. Unbelievable.
The SCO must have known that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GP had the intent to obstruct justice *before* they charged him with the crime, based on their interviews with him, and their own failed CHS entrapment attempts. A major abuse of prosecutorial power
Then, after GP agreed to plead to a single “false statements” §1001 charge, the SCO wrote up the “Statement of the Offense” in Oct 2017, which STILL hinted at obstruction by including the FB account deletion & new cellphone - clearly only to further a misleading media narrative
Planting this misleading narrative is especially egregious in retrospect, knowing what the SCO knew at the time, but didn’t disclose: —GP asked for permission to delete his FB account —GP offered to provide his old cellphone —GP helped with Mifsud & disclosed his travel plans
And as a reminder: the SCO admitted in court much later they knew none of this "amounts to [criminal] obstruction”. If it’s not a crime, what are you doing hinting at it in the Statement of the Offense? The very first SCO prosecution was a preview of the final Mueller report!
And even worse, this misleading hinting at “obstruction" is *at minimum* the THIRD example of a deliberately misleading narrative just in this single Statement of the Offense court filing for @GeorgePapa19. Two examples below (How many more are there in *other* SCO filings?)
Example 1: GP's "lies undermined" the FBI's attempts to detain/interview Mifsud. Ignores that GP proactively offered Mifsud's location & arrival in the US 2 weeks in advance, and repeated this in another FBI interview on the same day Mifsud was in the US
Example 2: smearing former IG of NORAD Sam Clovis by claiming he encouraged GP to meet with Russians, saying "good work", when in the full context he said the opposite, that the campaign *shouldn't meet with Russians until NATO allies were consulted*
Oh & that Sam Clovis example - smearing the former Inspector General of North American Aerospace Defense Command as a Russian Colluder by dishonestly cutting & pasting from his emails to @GeorgePapa19 - is so egregious I’ll be doing a specific follow up THREAD just on that. Soon.
Okay, now let’s talk about Kevin....Clinesmith.
Clinesmith was "the primary FBI attorney" on Crossfire Hurricane, according to Clinesmith himself to the DOJ IG in 2018, and IG's 2019 org chart shows him as the main attorney as well. Just in case the NYT wants to call him “low level” again.
On Nov 9, 2016, the day after Trump won the 2016 Election, in internal FBI instant messages Clinesmith said "The crazies won finally", "plus my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating [Trump's] staff". On Nov 22, 2016, he also vowed "Viva le resistance"
Clinesmith was part of the SCO team interviewing @GeorgePapa19. GP actually claims Clinesmith "led" the questioning for a team of attorneys and FBI agents and analysts at his main Feb 10, 2017 interview, before his arrest in July 2017 (this is partially supported by the FBI 302)
On June 19, 2017 - just a month before Papadopoulos is charged with "obstruction" for records "altering" records - Clinesmith doctored an email from the CIA making it appear as though @carterwpage was "NOT" a source for the agency, when the CIA's liaison had said he WAS a source
This is then relied on by an FBI agent (Supervisory Special Agent 2, or SSA 2) swearing out a FISA surveillance renewal against Page, substantially misleading the FISA court about the probable cause to surveil an American citizen (and those he was in contact with)
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Part 4
On June 19, 2017 - just a month before Papadopoulos is charged with "obstruction" for records "altering" records - Clinesmith doctored an email from the CIA making it appear as though @carterwpage was "NOT" a source for the agency, when the CIA's liaison had said he WAS a source
This is then relied on by an FBI agent (Supervisory Special Agent 2, or SSA 2) swearing out a FISA surveillance renewal against Page, substantially misleading the FISA court about the probable cause to surveil an American citizen (and those he was in contact with)
An internal FBI instant message from Clinesmith confirms his intent in altering the email was to avoid disclosing to the FISA court that the target of the surveillance warrant Carter Page was actually a CIA source: "at least we don't have to have a terrible footnote"
Clinesmith admitted making this change to the email after being confronted by the DOJ IG nearly two years later, making this almost certainly a violation of 18 USC §1519, destruction/concealment of records, given the wording of the statute
Only a month later - July 27, 2017 - GP is arrested at Dulles Airport and charged the next day with the same crime - 18 USC §1519 destruction/concealment of records - that a month earlier one of the lead FBI Attorney's investigating GP appears to have committed himself.
CONCLUSION (1/6) Papadopoulos was charged with §1001 false statements because he got a date wrong about when he met Mifsud, and §1519 destruction/obstruction because he got a new Facebook account (and a new cellphone.)
CONCLUSION (2/6) Clinesmith appears to have conspired to lie to the FISA court, and destroyed/concealed a federal document under color of authority with an FBI badge, and he hasn't been charged with anything
CONCLUSION (3/6) That's the very definition of a two tiered system of Justice.
CONCLUSION (4/6) What's worse is that Clinesmith was part of the same SCO team that prosecuted Papadopoulos for a §1519 obstructive alteration crime he appears to have already committed *himself* only a month beforehand, while he was "primary FBI Attorney" on Crossfire Hurricane
CONCLUSION (5/6) Is there a greater prosecutorial malevolence than charging someone with a crime when you surely know that they're innocent of it, and when you also know you've committed that exact same crime yourself? This belongs in an episode of The Shield with Vic Mackey
CONCLUSION (6/6) US Attorney John Durham and AG Bill Barr now have to decide if they're going to hold anyone accountable for any of this. And the media need to decide if they’re going to keep pretending none of this happened. /ENDS
On June 19, 2017 - just a month before Papadopoulos is charged with "obstruction" for records "altering" records - Clinesmith doctored an email from the CIA making it appear as though @carterwpage was "NOT" a source for the agency, when the CIA's liaison had said he WAS a source
This is then relied on by an FBI agent (Supervisory Special Agent 2, or SSA 2) swearing out a FISA surveillance renewal against Page, substantially misleading the FISA court about the probable cause to surveil an American citizen (and those he was in contact with)
An internal FBI instant message from Clinesmith confirms his intent in altering the email was to avoid disclosing to the FISA court that the target of the surveillance warrant Carter Page was actually a CIA source: "at least we don't have to have a terrible footnote"
Clinesmith admitted making this change to the email after being confronted by the DOJ IG nearly two years later, making this almost certainly a violation of 18 USC §1519, destruction/concealment of records, given the wording of the statute
Only a month later - July 27, 2017 - GP is arrested at Dulles Airport and charged the next day with the same crime - 18 USC §1519 destruction/concealment of records - that a month earlier one of the lead FBI Attorney's investigating GP appears to have committed himself.
CONCLUSION (1/6) Papadopoulos was charged with §1001 false statements because he got a date wrong about when he met Mifsud, and §1519 destruction/obstruction because he got a new Facebook account (and a new cellphone.)
CONCLUSION (2/6) Clinesmith appears to have conspired to lie to the FISA court, and destroyed/concealed a federal document under color of authority with an FBI badge, and he hasn't been charged with anything
CONCLUSION (3/6) That's the very definition of a two tiered system of Justice.
CONCLUSION (4/6) What's worse is that Clinesmith was part of the same SCO team that prosecuted Papadopoulos for a §1519 obstructive alteration crime he appears to have already committed *himself* only a month beforehand, while he was "primary FBI Attorney" on Crossfire Hurricane
CONCLUSION (5/6) Is there a greater prosecutorial malevolence than charging someone with a crime when you surely know that they're innocent of it, and when you also know you've committed that exact same crime yourself? This belongs in an episode of The Shield with Vic Mackey
CONCLUSION (6/6) US Attorney John Durham and AG Bill Barr now have to decide if they're going to hold anyone accountable for any of this. And the media need to decide if they’re going to keep pretending none of this happened. /ENDS
Hoopguru
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2014
- Messages
- 22,350
- Likes
- 18,485
- Points
- 113
Those days are gone Lanny. For the most part there is no such thing as non partisan anymore when it comes to politicians. With social media and 24/7 partisan news networks a politician can get branded real quick as not caring about the truth but rather their partisan views. Doesn't seem to be a safe bridge for politicians without balls to cross over and help compromise for the good of the people anymore.
CupWizier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 11,265
- Likes
- 7,664
- Points
- 113
The only thing partisan in the vote was the failure of any republican willing to show they have a spine and vote given the info that was shown. The stonewalling and refusal to turn over documents and refuse to testify even when under subpeona is another way the republicans have circumvented the laws. In other words, it was a rigged jury, but then again, mags doesn't like facts.
calvin natt
Confeve
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2017
- Messages
- 7,520
- Likes
- 10,459
- Points
- 113
Attachments
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,466
- Likes
- 146,913
- Points
- 115
wizenheimer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 24,910
- Likes
- 37,886
- Points
- 113
Lanny
Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 26,638
- Likes
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
How did our secret cabal get out? We tried so hard to keep it a secret. We only meet once a week on Wednesday evenings. Damn, those Republicans are getting more and more clever.
Lanny
Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 26,638
- Likes
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
Hard to believe, isn't it?
Lanny
Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 26,638
- Likes
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
I've eaten burgers that i grilled last Monday for the last three days. Tonight I'm going to eat a hot dog. I've got potato salad and potato chips to with it.
Oh yeah, lunch. I had corn nuts and lemonade that was frozen until slushy. Yum
wizenheimer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 24,910
- Likes
- 37,886
- Points
- 113
yeeeeeesh.....do you get an angioplasty after every meal?
Lanny
Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 26,638
- Likes
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
My grandfather on my father's side drank Alabama moonshine until it was coming out his ears when he was stinking drunk. He was overweight from eating an Alabama diet of red eye gravy made with pork fat and almost everything fried in pork fat. Lot's of sausage for breakfast. He chain smoked unfiltered cigarettes and yet lived into his 80s. I don't do any of that stuff. Okay, I had half a bag of corn nuts after going without for about three or four months. One of my hamburgers was half a hamburger that was light on the sauce as all my hamburgers are. My other two burgers were full sized on a tiny Winco bun. The half sandwich was also on a half size bun. I'm losing weight. I eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. And why am I explaining all this. Silly me.
Oh, my favorite snack some raw veggies, string beans, bell pepper, radishes, carrots and whatever else I might find all washed down with an 8 ounce can of V-8.
Honest mom, I'm taking care of myself.
calvin natt
Confeve
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2017
- Messages
- 7,520
- Likes
- 10,459
- Points
- 113
CupWizier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 11,265
- Likes
- 7,664
- Points
- 113
Maybe someone needs to explain that there was no danger it getting out and voting during either one of the World Wars as they were in Europe. This virus is a silent killer. The ignorance this man shows is amazing.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,466
- Likes
- 146,913
- Points
- 115
US soldiers stationed overseas voted by mail during both world wars.
riverman
Writing Team
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 68,494
- Likes
- 67,632
- Points
- 113
I'll bet your wife would argue that point
