There are a few new interesting developments in the "Spygate" subheading. Stacy McCain thinks some of it is evidence of Demonic Forces on the Rise? "How else to explain Adam Schiff?"
But seriously folks, sundance at CTH think that memos released by FOIA show Rod Rosenstein in on the plot, FOIA Release Highlights Rosenstein White House Visit With Mueller as a Target Interview…. He might be a little far out on his skis here; of course there are emails showing Rod contacting Comey and Mueller, but that doesn't necessarily imply bad intent. I still haven't made up my mind about Rod.
Sundance, Inspector General Identifies DC U.S. Attorney Leaking Grand Jury Evidence…
…"Unfortunately, “criminal prosecution” for leaking grand jury material “was declined”. Ace, Hmmm: Assistant US Attorney Found to Have Illegally Leaked Grand Jury Information, but DOJ Declines to Prosecute (Again); - Coincidentally, the Assistant US Attorney who Prosecuted Michael Flynn Resigns
Weird, huh? Well, if she shows up as a CNN correspondent, it will be confirmed. Meanwhile, the DOJ continues to stonewall Flynn and his lawyers on discovery, Prosecution Responds to Flynn Discovery Motion – Government Refuses to Provide Any Additional Evidence…DOJ National Security Section Deputy Chief Deborah Curtis is leaving the DOJ effective 9/28/19.— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 27, 2019
She had been assigned to the Flynn case.
Reason for her departure currently unknown... pic.twitter.com/hCh88pvCfm
The DOJ responds today to the Flynn motion for additional evidence; ie. Brady material requested by Flynn’s defense. In the governments’ response filing (full pdf below), the DOJ rejects any additional efforts to provide evidence, and requests Judge Emmet Sullivan proceed directly to sentencing . . . Additionally, the government filed a weird appendix, intended to highlight the amount of Brady material the prosecution has turned over to the defense team. However, it is notable the appendix is full of “summaries of” instead of the raw underlying evidence.Meanwhile, it's been widely speculated that Attorney General William Barr's recent visit to Italy concerned the Mysterious Mr Mifsud and the Italians role in Spygate. The Guardian, US attorney general 'met Italian officials to discuss Russiagate', Da Beast, Barr Went to Rome to Hear a Secret Tape From Joseph Mifsud, the Professor Who Helped Ignite the Russia Probe, Elizabeth Vaughn at Red State, The Reason For Barr And Durham’s Trip To Rome Last Week? To Hear A Secret Tape From The Mysterious Mr. Mifsud, and sundance, Confirmation – Bill Barr and John Durham Listened to Mifsud Audio-Tape Deposition in Italy… "If accurate, well, there’s the motive for the latest “CIA whistle-blower” approach." Ace, Confirmed: Barr Is In Italy to Meet With Man the Mueller Report Falsely Brands a "Russian Agent," Joseph Misfud
Remember, it's good and proper for the Deep State to employ this western agent to entrap US citizens, but it's illegal and impeachable for the US Attorney General to ask this western agent who put him up to the job of entrapping a US citizen.At NR, Andy McCarthy writes Do Republicans See the Strategy to Discredit the Barr Investigation?
Virtually all mainstream-media reporting and Democratic commentary on the [Trump Zelensky] conversation now fits this pattern. It is noted that Trump, immediately after the “quid pro quo” set-up — “I would like you to do us a favor though” — invoked the attorney general, the nation’s top federal law-enforcement official. Studiously omitted is the context of this invocation: a wholly appropriate request by the president, to the head of state of a country in possession of relevant evidence, for cooperation with a legitimate investigation being conducted by our country’s Justice Department.The New Neo responds:
Instead, the coverage skips a few hundred words. It cuts directly to Trump’s suggestion that Zelensky look into whether there was any impropriety in former vice president Biden’s having purportedly “stopped the prosecution” that might have arisen out of a Ukrainian investigation involving his son.
The strategy here is obvious. The Democrats and their note-takers would like the public to believe that Barr’s investigation is an adjunct of the Trump 2020 campaign — and a grossly improper one at that. The misimpression they seek to create is that Barr is putting the nation’s law-enforcement powers in the service of Trump’s reelection campaign, in the absence of any public interest. The hope is that this will delegitimize not only any information that emerges from Ukraine but the whole of the Justice Department’s investigation of intelligence and law-enforcement abuses of power attendant to the 2016 election.
. . .
Democrats and their media friends are attempting to bleach away that context and paint the Barr investigation, in the public mind, as a corrupt extension of a down-and-dirty Trump 2020 political campaign. Republicans are not going to respond effectively unless they grasp this strategy.
that might actually be one of the main motives for the “whistleblower” brouhaha and the impeachment inquiry as a whole. The timing suggests it, as well.
And to answer McCarthy’s question: I believe that Republicans are quite aware of this. We often call Republicans “the stupid party,” but I don’t think they are as stupid as that.
The strategy also applies to unfriendly journalists. Grabien, John Solomon: Records Show that a DNC Contractor Came to the Ukranian Embassy to Ask for Help to Get Dirt on Trump. Unfortunately, an unembeddable video. Watch it. Zero Hedge, Solomon Hits Back With Receipts After MSM Denies DNC-Ukraine Collusion Attempt In 2016As detailed in a 2017 Politico report that MSNBC's Katy Tur called Russian propaganda last week, DNC contractor and former Bill Clinton White House employee Alexandra Chalupa approached the Ukrainian embassy to solicit 'dirt' on the Trump campaign, and convince then-president Petro Poroshenko to help.Mediaite, Putin Jokes About Election Interference: We’ll Do it Again in 2020, ‘Just Don’t Tell Anyone’ Of course he's having fun. He has the whole MSM helping to carry out his plot to discredit American elections.
Well, ordinarily, that would be plenty of Russiagate, but these aren't ordinary days. Now, on to the case of the mysterious CIA whistleblower. It seems the "whistleblower" shopped his info around and ended up giving it to Adam Schitt prior to submitting in to the IG. No wonder it's written in legalese with footnotes and all and sounds like a DNC operation. It was. WaPoo, Whistleblower sought informal guidance from Schiff’s committee before filing complaint against Trump. Sundance, House Intelligence Committee Was Contacted By CIA ‘Whistle-blower’ Prior to Complaint Construction…
According to the report (written to defend the interests of Schiff et al), the CIA gossiper contacted the HPSCI after the top lawyer for the CIA would not advance his cause. We still suspect the ‘whistle-blower” is Michael Barry. Obviously the Times puts the customary spin on the information. . .
DaWire, BOMBSHELL: Schiff Knew About Whistleblower Allegations Well Before Complaint Filed, Well, not exactly a bombshell, but it explains a lot. Ace, Surprise! The Whistleblower Sent His Complaint to Adam Schiff First, Who Then Gave Him "Advice"A source tells me that this probably means the whistleblower is not a whistleblower, but just a leaker. To be a whistleblower, you have to go through prescribed steps.John Sexton, Hot Air, Adam Schiff Learned About The Whistleblower Complaint In Advance (Update)
Running to the hyperpartisan Adam Schiff to preview your info op isn't one of those steps.
. . .
Well, there you go. It reads like it was written by a partisan Democrat legislative aide because it was written by a partisan Democrat legislative aide.
2/2 I think the answer is obvious. He knew how it would look. So he gave this answer, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” If by “we” he meant only himself, he’s being slippery. If by “we” he meant himself and his staff, he lied.— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 2, 2019
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) shared the report and wrote in a statement: “Chairman Adam Schiff just got caught orchestrating with the whistleblower before the complaint was ever filed. Democrats have rigged this process from the start.”The NYT whines (through Hot Air), Was There Another Cover-Up In Response To The Whistleblower?
At DaFed, Sean Davis, who has done yeoman's work unraveling the changes in the the whistleblower regulations finds more: Intel Community Admission Of Whistleblower Changes Raises Explosive New Questions. With the revelations that Schiff had the report before the rules changed, it makes it clear why the rule were changed in order to make submission of the complaint possible:
In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint:
In the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”:
. . .
Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress.
Instapundit calls it a "spoiling attack." Perhaps they're going on the offensive in order to get Barr and Trump to agree to a truce in which they don't get exposed, fired, and imprisoned. But the hell with that.Sundance, Disappointing State Department IG Meeting Deflates U.S. Media…
The Democrat/Media position is currently this dog's breakfast: It was good and proper for Obama to inveigle Australia to help frame George Papadoplous with Russia gossip that itself came from a US undercover operative, but it is illegal and impeachable for Trump or Barr to ask Australia about the details of the Obama frame-up of Papadopolous.
. . .
You can only ask foreign officials for dirt on Trump -- you can't ask them about who asked them to supply dirt on Trump.
Well, the super-anticipated ‘closed door’ briefing was held today, and the IG handed out packets of information related to revelations of Democrats colluding with the Ukraine government. The exact opposite of what the media and the professional left anticipated.MSN, Justice Dept. assures judge White House won’t destroy records of Trump calls, meetings with foreign leaders. Of course, but their not going to hand them over without a court fight either. And speaking of conspiracy theories, Odd markings, ellipses fuel doubts about the ‘rough transcript’ of Trump’s Ukraine call. The Peacock, Giuliani turns on 'honest' Ukrainian prosecutor who says Bidens did nothing illegal. Capt. Ed, Giuliani: I Might Just Sue House Members For Conspiracy To Violate My Civil Rights. Sure, why not?
Host Laura Ingraham noted that Giuliani’s suggestion was “novel,” and that congressional immunity prevents House members from being sued for anything they say on the floor. But outside those parameters, Giuliani argued, they could be held liable for forming a “conspiracy” to deprive the president of his constitutional rights.And FiveThirtyEight whines On Fox, Trump Is Not At The Center Of The Ukraine Story. Someone has to cover the Biden angle.
Impeachment isn’t futile for the left - Hot Air
Trump has disqualified himself from running in 2020 - Hot Air
Leftist Theory: Trump Is Using Impeachment To Deflect From Gun Control - Pirate's Cove
Impeachment rules say Senate must act, but its act might be a swift dismissal - Hot Air
Red-state Democrats worry impeachment may spin out of control - TheHill
Trump committed an impeachable offense just by threatening Adam Schiff- Da Week
Pelosi’s Impeachment by Innuendo Continues – Ukraine Narrative is The Vehicle… - The Last Refuge
Instapundit » Blog Archive » SEEN ON FACEBOOK: Hard to argue with!…
Doug Ross @ Journal: Based on their Hysterical Fundraising Emails, It Appears Pelosi and Schiff Just Realized they Screwed the Pooch
Moderate Democrats backing Donald Trump impeachment in GOP crosshairs - Washington Times
Thomas Massie on Twitter: "Don’t senators running for POTUS have a conflict of interest regarding possible impeachment of an opponent? Shouldn’t they recuse themselves if it came to the Senate? Wouldn’t anyone so positioned against a defendant be barred from serving as a judge or jury in a court of law?"
No comments:
Post a Comment