Obama Admin Threatened FBI Informant’s 'Reputation And Liberty' If He Talked During Election

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Trump is the one who directed the DOJ to remove the gag order on this witness. I sure do hope Trump also provided this person with 24/7 armed security...

I would hate for the Clinton Death squad to silence this person like so many in the past.

I'm amazed that this guy lasted THIS long.

You and me both....If we left it up to the Alt-Left posting on these threads he would have been suicide a long time ago. Anything to protect the Queen Pillary and King Obumber...


Amazing how hypocritical people can become when it serves their agenda.

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

It definitely seems that the "Russian Collusion" shoe is on the other foot now

Yes and maybe not .Don't forget that prior to the coup in Ukraine all the Oligarchs were labeled as Russian and had links to the Kremlin . So calling them Russian links might not be accurately correct . For me getting this end of the story has been a challenge and knowing that there can be fine lines to distinguish in Ukraine/Russian identity does not make it easier to paint a complete picture . At least now we seem to have the horse ahead of the cart ...lets continue on

originally posted by: GuidedKill
I also saw your edit....Me quoting your old comment only solidifies you have no idea what you're talking about. For a person so "involved" in the case what a rookie mistake not even getting the name right....

a reply to: GuidedKill

I changed it from Grassley to Nunez because Nunez is heading up the House intel probe and you'd referred to Gowdy. Grassley is leading the Senate Judiciary probe:

Grassley probes Clinton 'conflicts of interest' amid new questions in Russia uranium deal

Nunez is heading the House Intel probe. I posted about that here: Nunez Announces Uranium One Probe.

But you knew that because you're so abreast of things that you're bleating about Trey Gowdy and testimony that didn't happen. Right? Lmao.

Then I'm nice enough to edit my post and insert the link I'd posted earlier because I know how you hate reading and I thought it might facilitate you finding a clue. Perhaps I could do a recording of me reading all the material and send it to you? That way you're not just spouting off useless uninformed crap on the Internet.

a reply to: elementalgrove

He needs to hire 24 hour security detail for his own safety

Most transparent administration in history.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: GuidedKill
I also saw your edit....Me quoting your old comment only solidifies you have no idea what you're talking about. For a person so "involved" in the case what a rookie mistake not even getting the name right....

a reply to: GuidedKill

I changed it from Grassley to Nunez because Nunez is heading up the House intel probe and you'd referred to Gowdy. Grassley is leading the Senate Judiciary probe:

Grassley probes Clinton 'conflicts of interest' amid new questions in Russia uranium deal

Nunez is heading the House Intel probe. I posted about that here: Nunez Announces Uranium One Probe.

But you knew that because you're so abreast of things that you're bleating about Trey Gowdy and testimony that didn't happen. Right? Lmao.

Then I'm nice enough to edit my post and insert the link I'd posted earlier because I know how you hate reading and I thought it might facilitate you finding a clue. Perhaps I could do a recording of me reading all the material and send it to you? That way you're not just spouting off useless uninformed crap on the Internet.

So you still choose not to show us all how you're directly involved in the case? I have nothing to discuss with you until you answer my original questions. I will have no problem debating you on anything as soon as you provide proof of your direct involvement in the case. Because you sure like to make it sound as if you already now 99% of the info the witness is going to provide is false...Please show me how you come to that conclusion based of facts not opinions.

You want everyone here to think you are somehow more knowledgeable then them so please show us where you are connected and privied to information others aren't.



Two pages later and you are still spewing drivel...with nothing to show you know anymore about the witnesses than anyone else.


Laughable!!

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: elementalgrove

He needs to hire 24 hour security detail for his own safety

At this point, they don't dare 'suicide' him (can't speak for the Russians).
Hill and O will reconstitute their smear squad...and make the guy's life living hell.

This can't be true.

The Ministry of Truth... I mean MSM told us the Obama administration was scandal free.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Except if you read the court documents on the Mikerin case, there's no suggestion that he would know about any "bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion" beyond his involvement with Vadim Mikerin and the kickbacks that Mikerin extorted from him.

Seems that it's being spun to give a false impression of the scope.

I'm betting his current lawyer was provided by the GOP, who also fed the story to The Hill and coordinated their efforts to launch probes on the heels of the story running. In fact, I'd be curious to know when he was first contacted by the GOP.

Consider that the piece that kicked all of this off was published on 10/17.

I read the article on "The Hill" linked in the OP, and there's nothing to suggest that the Obama administration threatened him in any way. There's a standard non-disclosure agreement, and he has been released from that by the FBI so that he can testify.

From the Hill source:

“The FBI has informed me that they are releasing my client from his [nondisclosure agreement] so that he can testify to Congress about his work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration,” Toensing said.

Note that it's not what the Clintons got, but rather that he's testifying about the EFFORTS that Moscow went through to try and buy the approval of the Obama administration. Further reading indicates that this is part of the "Moscow will do anything to try and meddle with the US" line of reasoning in the "did Moscow try to sway the election for Trump" investigation.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: IAMTAT

I'm eager to see what he has to say but I'm 99% sure that this is going to go nowhere.

the confidential FBI informant who exposed that Russian nuclear officials engaged in bribery, kickbacks, money laundering, and extortion in their attempts to corner the U.S. uranium market

Except if you read the court documents on the Mikerin case, there's no suggestion that he would know about any "bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion" beyond his involvement with Vadim Mikerin and the kickbacks that Mikerin extorted from him.

Seems that it's being spun to give a false impression of the scope.

I'm betting his current lawyer was provided by the GOP, who also fed the story to The Hill and coordinated their efforts to launch probes on the heels of the story running. In fact, I'd be curious to know when he was first contacted by the GOP.

Consider that the piece that kicked all of this off was published on 10/17.

Shhhh! It's fun watching right wingers go back and forth in the 115th Obama-Clinton is going down thread. Stop bringing facts around here.

Maybe this is the end of the global liberal vampire cult that Clinton is the immortal leader of..

Or, maybe this is just a run of the mill obfuscation attempt by Trump and co doing what they do best, muddying the waters around themselves to take eyes off of Trumps own Russia investigation...

Nah, I'm going with the global liberal vampire cult.

a reply to: Byrd

Yeah like the NDA is gonna have written threats.

Jeesh.

Just like Loretta said they talked about golf and Grandkids.

a reply to: GuidedKill

So you still choose not to show us all how you're directly involved in the case? I have nothing to discuss with you until you answer my original questions. I will have no problem debating you on anything as soon as you provide proof of your direct involvement in the case. Because you sure like to make it sound as if you already now 99% of the info the witness is going to provide is false...Please show me how you come to that conclusion based of facts not opinions.

What are you even talking about? Who claimed that I was directly involved (or indirectly involved) in anything? You will in fact have a problem debating me on anything because you haven't read the publicly available material.

That's why you're embarrassed now and trying to spin up this "Show me how you're directly involved! derp! derp!" nonsense and saying random things about Trey Gowdy having taken testimony from the CI.

I'm done talking with you now. But perhaps you can put forth the bare minimum of effort and read through the material at the link I graciously provided you.

Then maybe next time we can have a discussion.

a reply to: theantediluvian

After reading through most of those embedded documents it sure seems like he knew a bit more than mirkin in this scheme. I think you have grossly misrepresented what that affidavit says. He conducted an investigation which yielded what seems like quite the trail. Just because his point of contact was mirkin does not mean he doesn't have testimony about a larger part of this case including the involvement of more people and organisations. Hell there is even another named individual which died before this came to light who was involved and named in that affidavit...albeit redacted.

Do you always bank on your debate opponents being lazy to misrepresent things or was it just in this case because it was convenient?

I feel that this "informant" will not have any derogatory information concerning the Democratic crowd, otherwise he would not be breathing.

I hope that some truth will be thrown out there. I would like to see those in power be held by the same laws the "little people" are required to follow. If no one is prosecuted and found guilty, sentenced accordingly, there will be no incentive to be moral.

Our criminal politicians need to have their assets confiscated. Even if judged guilty and sentenced to jail time, someone somewhere will pardon/excuse, etc. No lesson learned.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: introvert

It's a virtual certainty based on the timing. Trump lapdog Nunez announced a probe within one week of an article being published? Come on.

Trump pushed to have the gag order removed and what's really telling is that the lawyer is promising that "CS-1" will:

tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made

He's going to relay hearsay about Russian rumors he supposedly heard? Sounds legit.

Odd. Why would we care about what a bunch of Russians were tossing back and forth. I thought he was going to bring some earth-shattering info on the entire deal.

But he's lawyered-up to spread gossip?

Well gossip was good enough for the Trump dossier...good enough to be used to gain warrants....Why would you have a problem with it now?? Oh that's right, because it's "gossip" that paints Hillary and Obummer in a bad light..

Sheesh you people are such hypocrites!!

We do not have proof it was used to get warrants.

a reply to: IAMTAT
All of this garbage from the last administration needs to come to light. Unfortunately, I have to wonder if it ever will. How much pull do those involved still have to keep things buried? I suspect quite a lot.

We've seen the Clintons shrug off a lot of nastiness and still stay on top. How many people have to disappear or suicide before it's taken seriously? How many threats against whistleblowers? So much has been exposed already and yet, they're still there. Still kicking and still free.

As long as TPTB are firmly in control, we may never see much punishment, if any at all, for all those involved in this ugly stuff.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Is that supposed to be representative of the typical Trump supporter hoping that the GOP has a narrative that can be milked for a while to distract from the s#show of a president?

S#show?

Its a s#show that we're seeing 3.1% growth, when all others said it was impossible?

I know you like to write fiction, but c'mon.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: introvert

It's a virtual certainty based on the timing. Trump lapdog Nunez announced a probe within one week of an article being published? Come on.

Trump pushed to have the gag order removed and what's really telling is that the lawyer is promising that "CS-1" will:

tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made

He's going to relay hearsay about Russian rumors he supposedly heard? Sounds legit.

Odd. Why would we care about what a bunch of Russians were tossing back and forth. I thought he was going to bring some earth-shattering info on the entire deal.

But he's lawyered-up to spread gossip?

Well gossip was good enough for the Trump dossier...good enough to be used to gain warrants....Why would you have a problem with it now?? Oh that's right, because it's "gossip" that paints Hillary and Obummer in a bad light..

Sheesh you people are such hypocrites!!



We do not have proof it was used

We might...patience pays...


Edit: sorry typing from phone.

edit on 27-10-2017 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: theantediluvian

After reading through most of those embedded documents it sure seems like he knew a bit more than mirkin in this scheme. I think you have grossly misrepresented what that affidavit says. He conducted an investigation which yielded what seems like quite the trail. Just because his point of contact was mirkin does not mean he doesn't have testimony about a larger part of this case including the involvement of more people and organisations. Hell there is even another named individual which died before this came to light who was involved and named in that affidavit...albeit redacted.

Do you always bank on your debate opponents being lazy to misrepresent things or was it just in this case because it was convenient?

Exactly my point. The only thing I remember being linked in that article was the indictment affidavit, warrant, and plea deal. There are very limited details in the article and attachments some people are citing. But that doesn't stop them from implying they read the entire court document and were given special information that everyone else doesn't have. You just cant argue with some people.