FBI Agent Joe Pientka is going to testify against Comey and McCabe

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's not what the OP is about though.

Grassley only seeks to exonerate trump he has no interest in any justice.
He got his documentation now. It didn't prove his theory so they're not talking about it.

a reply to: Fools

Trump admitted he makes stuff up to discredit people.

He's been making this up since the whole "Obama wiretapped trump tower" tweet.

As always, keep dreaming your weird and confused dream. It's a done deal. It is happening. The word is that many of these guys did not want to come out under the "whistle blower" idea as they would have to pay their own legal fees and with Muellers crew that means losing all of your property and livelihood. Thus why they wait for subpoena.

Boy the excuses have really been thought out here.

Who will pay for their legal fees and if they are witnesses why do they need legal counsel in the first place?
They're not charged with anything. They are telling on someone supposedly.

a reply to: 727Sky

Why are only republicans questioning them?

originally posted by: 727Sky
www.thegatewaypundit.com... /

The above link says there are three who have come forward to testify.

House Republicans are set to interview three witnesses in early June regarding the sham Hillary Clinton email investigation.

According to The Hill, Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division,

The person's testimony I would be most interested in will be Bill Priestap. He has been exceptionally quiet for a long time which would infer he has been working with the DOJ. Comey set him up to be the fall guy in the event this blew up which it clearly has. It's going to be a VERY INTERESTING testimony.

Priestap is the key. Does he flip on Comey? Does he throw Peter Strzok under the bus? Bottom line is he alone knows what happened, how it happened, and who authorized it.

edit on 27-5-2018 by Outlier13 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

What crime is he protecting his son from being prosecuted for?
What did he do?

In this context all he has to do is be investigated and it destroys the person financially. Hence the reason we dont like open ended investigations in the law enforcement / prosecutorial realm. Never mind the fact it borders on a civil rights violation.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's not what the OP is about though.

Grassley only seeks to exonerate trump he has no interest in any justice.
He got his documentation now. It didn't prove his theory so they're not talking about it.

Can you link us to where Grassley said the info he finally got didnt prove his theory?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fools

Trump admitted he makes stuff up to discredit people.

He's been making this up since the whole "Obama wiretapped trump tower" tweet.

and that tweet turned out to be true.

The irony.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Boy the excuses have really been thought out here.

Not in this case.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Who will pay for their legal fees

If they are subpoenaed then their agency is responsible for their pay while testifying and for legal counsel (usually department counsel) to keep tabs on what they are reporting.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
and if they are witnesses why do they need legal counsel in the first place?

They can face backlash with their agency for testifying. A subpoena offers them better legal protections and remedies than using the whistle blower statute. What they would be testifying to can easily blowback in their face if they observed an illegal action and did nothing to prevent it or expose it. The reasons for hesitation on coming forward are valid and given the way the DOJ has been acting its easily understandable.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
They're not charged with anything. They are telling on someone supposedly.

Again the info they are providing is first hand observation. They are alleging violations of the law and as law enforcement they did not act to prevent the crime from occurring or notify anyone it occurred after the fact. By not acting they may have broken several laws so legal counsel, even as witnesses, is required.


Whistle blower = the agencts coming forward of their own accord.
Subpoena = they have no choice but to comply with the subpoena and since they are under oath they are required to answer questions completely and honestly. Failure to do so is a crime(for an example of that review Comey / Clapper / Brennen and their testimony).

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: 727Sky

Why are only republicans questioning them?

Because if Democrats get involved with this it is a no win situation for them. Its like having a defense witness on the stand that has damning information but nothing at all the prosecution can use against them to counter their testimony. That only leaves attacking the witnesses which jury's and the public pick up on.

In those situations it is better to allow the testimony and do nothing and discredit the prosecutions case elsewhere than to look like your desperate by attacking a witness that is above reproach (so to speak).

The other reason would be Democrats dont want to give this hearing the appearance of being legitimate (which it is). By refusing to partake they can spin the situation by claiming the witnesses are only their to undermine Mueller and that is supported by the fact only Republicans questioned them.

A move that will blow up in Democrats faces if they opt to take that route.