Two stunning revelations on Russia hoax investigation

a reply to: DBCowboy

“It won’t be next week,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters on Friday. “He will come at some point,” he added. “If necessary, we’ll subpoena him.”

Wow, it may look like Muller doesn't even want to show up to the dog and pony show. Would his testimony be any different if he wasn't in the DOJ? Just curious how it would work.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Keep you key board warmed up.... now that the Mueller report is closed and the dems can not claim obstruction of justice for exposing them .... I expect more and more revelations... I just hope there are more than revelations as there are actual convictions and jail time handed out.

The new game they will play is obstruction of Congress. While it might kick the can a few days, their credibility is permanently shot and they have nothing to lose, they have been exposed like old Oz.

a reply to: spacedoubt

It's constitutionally epic. And it's coming out. Barr seems like the kind of fellow who can lay out the case in a logical manner. The evidence that's already publicly documented is damning.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

If Mueller said anything that differed from his report, then he'd being perjuring himself.

It'd be the ultimate irony if Mueller was arrested for lying to congress.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So lying to people who lie all the time is a criminal offense. I'm so confused.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?

I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.

Maybe the answer is:

People applying for the warrant lied to the presiding judge ? 😆👏

The headline should then be "Fraudulent evidence presented to FISA court" rather than the FISA court warrants being 'illegal'.

The warrants were entirely legal and the fault does not lie with the FISA courts themselves. They did their best based upon the evidence and testimony presented.

The presenters of the evidence would be the culprits and would be in contempt of court for fraud.

The actual presenters of the evidence to the FISA court were multiple, from multiple agencies and the evidence was not simply from a single source, you'd have to identify every piece of evidence as fraudulent for the warrants to be groundless.

Since much of the evidence is true beyond doubt i.e: the testimonies of captured spies, news items that appeared and were authenticated well before the Steele dossier existed, the testimony of the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, FBI testimony, the recorded interrogations of those whom the warrants are directed against, and the fact that some of those people the warrants were directed against had lived in Russia for over three years and had made frequent contact with known agents of RIS (I know this because some of the FISA application documents are now publicly released after FOI requests).

I'm also fairly sure that the Steele dossier did, and does not, meet the requirements of legal evidence and therefore was not, itself, ever presented to the FISA courts.

I doubt that the more accurate headline would be particularly desired by those wanting to paint a narrative that the warrants were groundless.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?

I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.

Maybe the answer is:

People applying for the warrant lied to the presiding judge ? 😆👏

I'm also fairly sure that the Steele dossier did, and does not, meet the requirements of legal evidence and therefore was not, itself, ever presented to the FISA courts.

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller Will Not Testify Next Week, but Democrats Are Not Giving Up

www.nytimes.com...

Try again.

Please note that there is a specific time mentioned in the article.

Nowhere does it state that Mueller will not testify. It clearly states the opposite where it says, "He will come at some point” and, "Mr. Nadler said his committee had been negotiating with the Justice Department over testimony from Mr. Mueller, who is still a department employee. He said department officials had said Mr. Mueller would no longer be considered a government employee in a matter of weeks, but would not give a specific date. Mr. Nadler said Mr. Mueller might be more comfortable testifying as a private citizen, free from some of the Justice Department’s constraints."

Also, the article omits any direct comment on such from Mueller himself. An omission typical of the incredibly bad reportage standards and partisan bias of most American media.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

All Trump did was "say" Mueller shouldn't testify. 😆

There's no "official" orders. 🈸

You know that?

Consider that your boss tells the press "He isn't going to do (whatever)".

Do you think that isn't a directive?

a reply to: chr0naut

The U.S. Fourth Amendment contains:

"unreasonable searches and seizures"

Amendment IV........

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fake material used to get a warrant can invalidate the entire warrant.

here's some examples...........

Lying to Obtain a Search Warrant Affidavit of Probable Cause

........... Therefore, if there is a preliminary showing that a police officer made false statements in the search warrant affidavit, either knowingly or intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, then a suppression hearing may be held. And if it is established during the suppression hearing that the police officer who requested the affidavit of probable cause committed perjury or a “reckless disregard for the truth” regarding a statement on which the probable cause finding was based, then the search warrant may be deemed invalid and any resulting physical evidence may be suppressed as “Fruit of the poisonous tree”.

😎😷

To think those in power would go full steam ahead with the Russia narrative without any solid proof is naive in my opinion. The Russia narrative never was about impeachment, it was about dividing America down the middle, it has worked flawlessly.

If those in power wanted Trump out of office he wouldn't have made it there in the first place.

Billionaires got permanent tax breaks, the same ones bribing our politicians to write such legislation that lines their own pockets. Trump is the face of crony capitalism and his administration has rewarded he and his friends handsomely. Trump will take full advantage of those permanent tax breaks once he is done playing his part in the charade. No conflict of interest there, right?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

When Mueller officially leaves the DOJ, he would only be subject to criminal interrogations 😎✍

He has been requested to testify before a House Select committee. There's no implication there that Mueller is the one that has transgressed the law.

a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus!

Open a Waffle House, dude.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: DBCowboy

“It won’t be next week,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters on Friday. “He will come at some point,” he added. “If necessary, we’ll subpoena him.”

Wow, it may look like Muller doesn't even want to show up to the dog and pony show. Would his testimony be any different if he wasn't in the DOJ? Just curious how it would work.

Remember, he wouldn't only be answering the dems "softball", Trump bashing questions. He would also be subject to Republican questions, which he would be forced to answer truthfully, or plead the fifth, which would open up a whole other can of worms.

That's a rather odd expression, isn't it?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

All Trump did was "say" Mueller shouldn't testify. 😆

There's no "official" orders. 🈸

You know that?

Consider that your boss tells the press "He isn't going to do (whatever)".

Do you think that isn't a directive?

Any "official" directive by the President is legally in writing and made Public (except for specifically classified material).

Any hidden "unofficial"/"coerced" directive would be obstruction of justice.

If Bueller has been "directed" to not testify, surely he himself or an attorney on his behalf would obviously make a public announcement.

Trump making a simple opinionated statement is not a legal directive. In fact Trump has every right to voice an opinion per the First Amendment.

😎

a reply to: chr0naut

The presenters of the evidence would be the culprits and would be in contempt of court for fraud.

You got that straight......let’s see who that might be....
The Obama DOJ.....the Obama FBI.....the DNC and Clinton campaign who paid for the bullsh!t dossier.
They are all frauds.
Are there any other deranged Leftists you want to include?

a reply to: Mach2

Yes. So if he answered the softball questions he would have to answer all the questions. Correct?

a reply to: chr0naut

The Steele "Dossier" has never been vetted and proven true, therefor under U.S. law, it can't be used as evidence or probable cause (legally considered hearsay aka BS).😎

Had it been proven true, Bueller would have cited it and used it, but he didn't.

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?

I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.

Maybe the answer is:

People applying for the warrant lied to the presiding judge ? 😆👏

I'm also fairly sure that the Steele dossier did, and does not, meet the requirements of legal evidence and therefore was not, itself, ever presented to the FISA courts.

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this...

Have you read any of the FISA warrant application documents?

Here's one (and no doubt, the one referenced by the OP's article as it is the only one publicly available): vault.fbi.gov...

There's a lot redacted but no reference to the Steele dossier that I could see and it seems that a lot of it that isn't redacted is different than the Steele dossier, at least to my reading.

Here's the page for the Steele dossier for you to cross check against, Trump–Russia dossier From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Mueller himself is trying to avoid this, I heard that he is not testifying now.

An Intelligence Committee Congressman said on FoxNews that Nadler learned what all Mueller knew, and cancelled the testimony.

Also Devin Nunes said he'd like to question Mueller, but Adam Schiff (chairman) doesn't want to.

Democrats are stone cold crazy. They subpoena everyone, except the man who has the answers.