Joe diGenova Discusses Comey, McCabe and Political Weaponization of FBI and DOJ…

Joe diGenova appears on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to discuss the ongoing investigation into James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch and the politicization of the DOJ and FBI by former President Obama intelligence officials.

.

In related news, and indicating the IG Horowitz investigation on 2015, 2016 and 2017 politicization of FBI and DOJ is complete, House Judicary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has reached an agreement with U.S. Attorney John Lausch for the production of records compiled and used by Inspector General Horowitz:

“The Committees have reached an agreement with the Department of Justice to access the documents we have been requesting for months. We look forward to reviewing the information to better understand the decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 and 2017. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability of actions taken.” (LINK)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Joe diGenova Discusses Comey, McCabe and Political Weaponization of FBI and DOJ…

  1. Johnny Bravo says:

    Liberals are living in a twilight zone. “Earth to liberals, earth to liberal, come in liberals, come in.”

    Liked by 7 people

    • Southern Son says:

      Fugetit, Johnny.
      TheIR radios were unplugged long ago.
      They are like the Japanese after WWII was over.
      Stranded on the Island of Woe.
      Thankfully, due to “American Patriots” Yuge! efforts, their supply of childen has been cut
      off, so they are reduced to mumbling amongst themselves, and eating coconut crabs.
      They squat on the beach, too Stupid to even write SOS in the sand.
      But hungry, and scared, they begin to constantly look over their shoulders.
      One is a lonely number.

      Liked by 12 people

    • The Akh says:

      As Joe rightly points out, “Liberals” aren’t liberal anymore. I still consider myself liberal. A non-left liberal, however. Authoritarianism has no place in a liberal approach. You fight disagreeable ideology with facts, evidence and intellectual debates. That’s how you move forward. That’s how you adjust and react to the changing human landscape. The current leftist/Marxist/communist SJW has adopted an extremely dangerous win at all cost mantra. This approach succeeds, it ends poorly for all of us.

      Liked by 7 people

  2. Hillyard says:

    Joe D is probably one of the most intelligent people to speak of the crimes committed by the Obama admin. He clearly defines the ongoing farce of Mueller as nothing but the struggle by the entrenched DC vermin to hold on to power and to cover up the corruption which had become the norm in Washington.

    Liked by 26 people

    • SW Richmond says:

      If I could boil down gist of many of the comments I make here:

      If they are willing to openly espouse the positions they espouse…

      Imagine what they will be willing to do to you and I once they regain power. And then prepare for that eventuality, because clearly they will do anything to regain power.

      Liked by 15 people

      • Guillermo Maguire says:

        Socialism(and its ilk) always ends in violence…..always.

        Liked by 5 people

      • “And the beast was allowed to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And he was given authority to rule over every tribe and people and language and nation.” – Revelation 13:7

        Something along those lines is my guess.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Jederman says:

        I’m re-thinking that notion which we grew up with: two parties, and whoever gets the most votes gets to be in charge.

        The Dems are (obviously) no longer run of the mill Liberals. They appear to have finally been completely penetrated by the commies and are all in with a totally different vision for this once great country.

        We cannot be governed by two different systems. I think both sides agree. We should recognize what that means from the Left’s perspective. This is what the “Resistance” and the RU collusion scam is all about. They have no intention of playing by the old rules. I agree 100%, they will do anything to regain power.

        Given their craven embrace of socialism/communism (totally un-American) why should we continue to view this as the traditional American political system? The Dems are commies and, I argue, should never be allowed back on a ballot until they demonstrate their embrace of the American ideal, such as it is at this point.

        Liked by 9 people

        • Longknife 21 says:

          Even the Ancients soon realized that the “seed of destruction” of Democracy is when citizens can “vote themselves a living, rather than earning a living”. And irresponsible voters will elect irresponsible “Representatives”.
          As “Democracy” is expanded it only gets worse. ‘Pure’ Democracy is Mob Rule. That seems to be the goal of some of these “Progressives”.
          And the One Party Totalitarians of various “persuasions” love the “one man, one vote, one time” formula. And the Lib/Progs are trying to get Obama in as “President-for-Life”. (Might be short though.)
          There are many good reasons that our Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic. ” If you can keep it!” as Ben Franklin said.
          Damn shame our Gubbemint schools don’t teach real history any more.

          Liked by 5 people

          • All American Snowflake says:

            Did gubbemint schools ever teach real history? I think not.

            Like

            • Longknife 21 says:

              Yes. in Junior High School in VA in 56-57 they did. I was in Turkey taking Correspondence Courses 57-58 (Dad was Engineer for Govt, Adana, Turkey) Came back for Junior Year (11th gr.,to live with Grand-parents in 59) I Graduated in 61 – things were already changing. I was not popular with the younger teachers. Military brat. I enlisted during the Cuban Crisis to keep from going to a Lib College.

              Like

        • 4sure says:

          There is only one solution to this commie takeover and we all know what that is because Jefferson told us.
          Half the voting pop. has been brainwashed by the commie ed. system and media to accept communism /socialism. Those brainwashed voters will help elect the commies. As long as that is allowed, there is no way to stop them from taking over.

          Liked by 3 people

          • tonyE says:

            I think the solution is very simple.

            More than one vote per person, depending on how much tax they pay.

            Every one gets a minimum of one vote per person regardless.

            For every $500 in Federal Tax paid, one vote is awarded.
            Maximum of 5 votes per person (only the first $2500 count, so Bill Gates only gets 5 votes).
            Married couples filing together get a maximum of 10 votes. They can allocate them as they see fit. Against, max 5 per person. A couple paying $5K in Federal Taxes gets 10 votes.
            Public Employee workers lose two votes. A maximum of 3 votes per person.
            Married couples with one (or two) working as Public Employees get a maximum of 6 votes.
            (The Military and Coast Guard are exempted from the Public Employee limitation-NOT the police, NOT the FBI).
            Members of Congress do not have a vote while in office.
            People collecting unemployment insurance are not affected.
            People collecting Government Assistance are limited to 3 votes maximum.
            Only registered US Citizens get to vote with proof of ID.

            This set up weights the vote slightly towards those who pay taxes, not those who are on the dole. It does not give the rich additional leverage as the threshold of $2500 is low enough that most people who work will have their full five votes.

            We could adjust the numbers… but hey, we paid over $36K iin Federal taxes last year (not counting California taxes) so I’m also leaving a lot on the table.

            Liked by 1 person

            • mikey says:

              We could just go back to the “Only Property Owners Can Vote”. I could live with that “skin in the game” approach.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Longknife 21 says:

                That is one. Military service is another. Anyone that is on Welfare should lose there vote and for at least as long as they were on it plus a year.
                Giving votes by taxable income leads to oligarchy. Getting votes for producing income with no consideration of the source of that income? No thanks. You want to give Soros that many votes? He buys plenty with the system as it is. Foolish, greedy, irresponsible people voting for “Promising Johns” with no thought for the consequences.

                Liked by 1 person

                • mikey says:

                  At this point in time and with the total support of most in Congress, we can’t even stop illegal aliens from voting let alone coming here and sucking down freebies. Most of what we feel and say about voting is pissing in the wind to our dictators in Congress.

                  Liked by 1 person

            • L. E. Joiner says:

              My Modest Proposal is simpler:

              An Amendment to the US Constitution:

              No person or officer of any corporate entity receiving any form of payment from the Federal government, except in return for goods or services provided pursuant to a bona fide contract, may vote in any Federal election, until said person or officer has not received such payment for at least 365 days.

              Like

              • Roberto says:

                I got a VA loan. Should I be stripped of my vote?

                Like

                • hyacinthclare says:

                  A loan isn’t income. Basic accounting, but I keep having to teach it to my clients. A loan isn’t income, paying it back isn’t expense. But that’s a circumstance Mr. Joiner should take into consideration in his proposal, along with all of us on social security, which was a loan WE made to the government over long working lives…

                  Liked by 1 person

          • Mncpo(ret) says:

            Just left the American Thinker site. There’s an article about how James Comey is faring publicly according to a survey by Survey Monkey. I deep dove the survey. It was hugely depressing. In one question they asked “who do you believe more, President Trump or Mr. Comey. They trusted Comey more. Every age bracket, male/ female and ethnicity. They believe that the Trump Administration should be investigated for Russian “collusion”. The Treepers know the truth but our fellow citizens are so woefully ignorant of what’s going on that it’s just going to be extremely hard for them to understand when the SHTF. This whole thing is going to blow up sooner or later, just don’t know how regular Americans are going to react. P.S. I went with raw numbers, no weighted data. The breakdown was, surprisingly, fair.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Sharon says:

              So they believe that the Trump administration should be investigated for Russia collusion! So what the hell do they think Mueller has been doing??

              Like

            • neal s says:

              One of the interesting things about that survey was how the trust between those two varied with age. Trump trailed Comey for 18-24 yo at 17% to 30% but as age goes up Trump does better. For those 45-54 its only 32% to 37% and by 55-64 Trump leads at 39% to 37% and for 65 and up Trump at 45% to 38%. Also in general among males its Trump over Comey at 37% to 31% but for females Trump trails at 26% to 38%. I guess when we are older, we are not so easily misled, but women are less likely to trust Trump.
              https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IC-1wsm2_tTFFxz_LTON-1X7ZafHxhot/view?stream=top-stories

              Liked by 1 person

            • Deb says:

              How many people do you talk to about the truth?

              We all need to be educating the people we know about what is really going on. It is that simple. Sundance gives us all he information we need, share it with the people you know.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Jedi9 says:

            We allowed it, because we became seduced by consumerism! It is what done in the ancient societies of the past, complacency and resting on laurels made them vulnerable, so too has America! Hence, along came Obama! They saw a weakness and exploited it! How else could someone like him get elected without proper vetting to take place?

            Liked by 1 person

      • Max Tadpol says:

        Man that is frightening!

        Liked by 2 people

      • cwf60 says:

        My concern exactly. 2018 elections will be telling.

        Like

    • Judy Staab says:

      Wouldn’t former US Attorney General, Joe diGenova, be perfect in Sessions job?

      Like

  3. TDU_Weight says:

    Since we are currently celebrating things French, suggest The Big Ugly will have as significant and lasting an impact on the collective American conscience as The Dreyfus Affair had on the French conscience.

    Liked by 4 people

    • nimrodman says:

      Maybe we can be more Continental and call it
      “Le Big Ugly”

      (apologies to the Vincent Vega “Le Big Mac” scene in Pulp Fiction)

      Liked by 9 people

    • Ags says:

      I would disagree. The impact on history is directly proportional to the media’s interest in reporting it, which is close to zero. Most Americans have no idea what’s going on. Those who do don’t have the understanding we do. “Trump is evil” has been the media’s mantra for two years and they’re not going to stop now. Russia will continue to be pushed – they’ll never let that farce go. They’ll keep that myth alive because all they need is for a small percentage of people to believe it and they will win elections.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Cheesehead54016 says:

        I believe an indictment a week for three months will allow the mexia time to turn this into to a story that educates the typical low information person. “Trump is evil” can and will turn to “Trump was right, this was evil on part of media and corrupted Establishment”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Deplorable_Infidel says:

        “Russia will continue to be pushed – they’ll never let that farce go.”

        The neocon warmongers and bankers want a war to keep the profits flowing and the environmentalists want to reduce the world’s population.

        Liked by 4 people

        • kiskiminetas says:

          And they are not going to get it. People have been so brainwashed by the establishment media that they actually believe the progressives will win. News flash they will not win. There will be a new morning rising in America and it is coming soon and it will bring freedom and unity to the majority of American people. You are either on that train or will be living on the side of the tracks. Welcome to the 2nd American Revolution.

          Liked by 4 people

        • KeithBB says:

          Unfortunately, they don’t need a war to keep the profits flowing… just everybody in Washington saying “I’m all FOR a strong military….” and “I strongly support the troops..” “What? You say it’s going to cost a trillion dollar per year? Well, I guess if that’s what it takes to keep America strong and to protect our way of life, then, well, how can you put a cost on that?…” 😐

          Like

        • Longknife 21 says:

          That, too. The International Banksters’ Harvest.

          Like

      • Longknife 21 says:

        Ags right – to a degree. BUT -The “Media” is losing control, I give you this wonderful site as Exhibit A.
        We keep being Educational Guerrillas and we win. The Media tyrants must win every day, we only have win once, to win another person to drop the scales from their eyes. Then we must continue to gain their trust, but making a person THINK, one time is a victory.

        Like

    • Bob Thoms says:

      She asks “what was he doing” .and Turley doesn’t know the answer, but spins something else other than the truth. Why? Comey leaked because it was needed to get the SC office up and running.

      Turley is an attorney, yet never he never says Comey broke the law (or not). He uses a whole lot of other weasel words. Why have a top rated lawyer on and let him get away with dodging the legal question?

      Liked by 11 people

      • Sharpshorts says:

        “Cold hearted orb which rules the night,
        removes the colours from our sight.
        Black is gray and yellow white.
        But we decide which is right…and which is an illusion.”

        Lawyers are professional hypocrites. Some are better politicians than others but they are all in the hypocrisy business to some extent.

        Liked by 11 people

        • TheWanderingStar says:

          A little Moody Blues to start our Tuesday.

          Liked by 9 people

        • 4beagles says:

          Gotta Jam to the Moody Blues Now….soon it will be Tuesday Afternoon

          Liked by 6 people

        • Longknife 21 says:

          “Lawyers are professional hypocrites. Some are better politicians than others but they are all in the hypocrisy business to some extent.”
          Most excellent observation! A classic Truth that is often ignored. Their ‘professional standard’ is to win their case.
          And when people like Comey ignore the Standards of Evidence and Judicial Procedure, they destroy any balance and chance for Justice.
          Representing “your Client” to the best of your ability is one thing – arguably Professionalism.
          Lying and leaking is simply dishonest and cheating.
          Doing it as a Sworn Law Enforcement Official, in defiance of Constitutional Law and their Oath of Office, is TREASON against the Constitution, nothing less. And to do it for Political Gain (power) only makes it worse. There is no acceptable excuse or mitigation. Comey must be tried and held to the strictest standard or the credibility of the FBI, DoJ, and the entire Federal Govt is questionable.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Newhere says:

          Ha! see this after commenting and realize my own comment may be classified as “in defense of the hypocrites” . . . oh well, is what it is! 🙂

          Like

          • Newhere says:

            Though re Longknife’s observation that Comey upset the foundation for justice by tossing aside the rules–arguably that’s why judicious lawyers (e.g., Turley here) are extra careful not to get out in front of their skis, even when conclusions seem obvious.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Newhere says:

        I don’t think Turley is being weasely. I realize defending him may sound weasely, but Turley is one of the few “legal experts” that sees things clearly and speaks out despite his politics — so I think it’s worth giving him some benefit of the doubt.

        So why won’t Turley, who’s an attorney, say that Comey broke the law — well in this case, probably because his IS an attorney and won’t break type, which comes across as irritating. Lawyers (when they’re being lawyerly) hedge on legal conclusions and not just because they’re a-holes. They’re trained that technically you can’t even state as a LEGAL CONCLUSION that someone jaywalked (even if you saw ’em do it) without defining your terms and ticking through all the elements. What you can accurately say is that you saw someone cross the street outside a designated cross walk. Legal predictions on the fly aren’t credible or professional, so lawyers concerned about those things won’t do it.

        Lawyers should adapt for tv and most do — DiGenova for example adapts well. He’s a seasoned prosecutor and just better at speaking credibly for the cameras. I think Greg Jarrett is good at it too. Some lawyers aren’t so good at it and switch from “careful legal mode” to throwing around unfounded assertions and sounding like a paid talking head.

        Turley also is a law professor, and probably counts his “colleagues” as other academics, so to keep company he won’t break type. Legal academics like to see themselves as above the fray and posture that way, which also can be annoying, but it’s not really “dodging” for the sake of dodging or with a political agenda. It’s a style thing. (Contrast Dershowitz, an academic who is trying to peddle his book and push an agenda so often postures in celebrity mode, which I find more irritating than the old-school academic thing . . .)

        Anyway, I give Turley some slack for coming across as evasive . . .seems more a professional style thing than a political agenda.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Please says:

          excellent points.

          I would have liked him to answer the question based on ‘if I was prosecuting, I’d claim he broke this and this law…” , Then, aself-rebuttal like, ” if i were his defense attorney, I’d claim this…” type of response. That way, he would be free to comment on both sides of the legalities.

          Liked by 2 people

      • KeithBB says:

        Poets, priests and politicians
        Have words to thank for their positions
        Words that scream for your submission
        And no one’s jamming their transmission
        ‘Cause when their eloquence escapes you
        Their logic ties you up and rapes you

        De do do do, de da da da
        Is all I want to say to you
        De do do do, de da da da
        Their innocence will pull me through

        Liked by 3 people

  4. grlangworth says:

    Equality Under The Law — now, I am looking for you so hard.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      Here is a choice law that Mr. diGenova brought to our attention earlier this year:

      Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

      https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

      Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States

      18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

      “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being…….”

      Liked by 9 people

      • I’m no attorney but would this be applicable to Twitter, Facebook, Google etc. not allowing first amendments. Or states that take away 2A.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I hate to say it, but I am ahead of the curve; I originated this line of thinking months ago.

        I posted each of the following several comments 4 months ago (first on December 23, 2017 to be exact), and repeated in the ensuing weeks (on Gateway Pundit and other threads):

        >>”I haven’t seen anybody else saying this, but all of these events appear to be “Color of Law” and “Color of Office” crimes.” (12/23/17).

        >>”Trump lawyers need to file a massive lawsuit against DOJ/FBI/Mueller for violations of 18 U.S. Code 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”

        >>”The team (Comey, McCabe, Strozck, Ohr, Ohr, Page, etc.) is guilty of felonious activity under 18 U.S. §242 — Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. Felonious 4th Amendment Violations, conducting illegal searches and seizures on the basis of fabricated probable cause.”

        >>”How do you feel about violating 18 U.S. 242 Felonious Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, by you and Mueller and all your cohorts at the DOJ and FBI, Mr. Honor Man.”

        At least they are catching on. Let’s rumble on that front, because that is what happened, Trump Team as been deprived of their rights. They were “swatted” by Hillary and DOJ and FBI and State and Administration.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Trump Train says:

        Not relevant. You need to have a prosecutor willing to persue……..we don’t have that.

        Like

  5. TDU_Weight says:

    … and why the expulsion on 29 December 2016 of 35 Russian “diplomats” and closure of two Russian diplomatic compounds based “primarily” on Russian “election interference” is another example of covering up a U.S. intelligence failure (and by definition a Russian success), and using the “muh Russia” hysteria to cover up the shut down, claiming the expulsions and closures were due to election interference.

    “”SQUIRREL! SQUIRREL!”.

    Liked by 6 people

  6. Perot Conservative says:

    One time I have beaten Joe diGenova to the punch … and it actually holds true two times.

    I stated several days ago when this Russian lawyer popped up, her non interview proves they aren’t serious about Russian collusion.

    Second, no interview of Carter Page, who they took the FISA warrant out on! … unless he is CIA or something, but I don’t think he’s that smart.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Tonawanda says:

      Great insight! What a significant fact utterly revealing motivation.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Perot Conservative says:

        Don’t get me wrong. They both could be boobs.

        But you still HAVE TO interview them. Do your homework. I have interviewed people I expected nothing from, never met, and wham, they give me a nugget! … many people do want to ‘tell their story’.

        Liked by 1 person

    • snellvillebob says:

      Carter Page did business with Russia for a decade and the CIA “Talked” with him often. That is where the FBI switched his sides on paper to get the warrant. Some suspect he was asked to volunteer to assist the Trump campaign just to make that connection to “Justify” the warrant. Do you remember Angel on the Rockford Files?

      Liked by 5 people

    • Carter Page graduated in the top 10% of his class at West Point, and was awarded a scholar position to study abroad. He holds multiple advanced degrees.

      “..i don’t think he’s that smart” is not an accurate assessment of Carter Page. I think he is a “spook” and has been working in the intelligence world all along. I don’t rule out the possibility that he was planted in the Trump campaign for this purpose. Hello John Brennan.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Matthew LeBlanc says:

        Easy to see he is a spook and his gobly gook speaking habits in interviews is a ruse. I’d imagine he’s never opened himself up to perjury while revealing nothing like a good spook. Reminds of the shtick Brennan does.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oback Arama says:

        Carter Page is a graduate of the Naal Academy, not West Point.

        Like

      • Grassleygirl/Breitbartista says:

        Flip or Flop?
        I’ve always been conflicted about Carter Page.
        Thank you for putting my conclusion into words.
        IMHO BRENNEN is the “head of the 🐍.
        Obama and Jarret(not Greg) are the charmers.

        Carter P was recruited.
        Either bought or coerced. You decide.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Please says:

        I agree CP is a spook. I think Brennan used him then accused him. That is why CP is pissed off and is suing. He may have willingly been part of ” ‘F’ – Trump” originally, but he wasn’t told he would be accused of crimes like treason.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Roberto says:

          Agreed, Brennan et. al will make him the fall guy. Sewage flows down, not up. Especially in any bureaucracy like the CIA or FBI.

          You can take this to the bank.

          Like

      • Fools Gold says:

        Sounds logical to me. Of course the word patsy comes to mind as well.

        Like

    • The FISA on Carter was to cover for the fact they had been spying on Trump without one. Once they got a scent that Trump could win, they needed to find anyone, and anything to try and justify a FISA. My money is on that scenario, and that they were spying on Trump since 2013 without any warrants.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Lurker2 says:

        That is exactly what I think. They were going after anyone associated with Trump who had talked to someone outside of the country, because a FISA warrant would be easier to obtain. The scum leveraged their positions and reputations, FISA judges signed off with little or no complaint apparently. Though I do recall that one warrant was held up, not approved immediately.

        Like

        • Sharpshorts says:

          Agreed Lurker and yes, to my knowledge at least one FISA warrant related to the issue has still not been “released” — although one or another Congressional committee has requested it (or perhaps it has been requested by Judicial Watch).

          Like

      • Longknife 21 says:

        Excellent explanation.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Doppler says:

      But how do we explain these apparently material witnesses not being interviewed? If Mueller is trying to get Trump, and Veselnitskaya who played a key role in the key Trump Tower meeting wants to share evidence, what explains Mueller’s lack of interest?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Grassleygirl/Breitbartista says:

      Flip or Flop?
      I’ve always been conflicted about Carter Page.
      Thank you for putting my conclusion into words.
      IMHO BRENNEN is the “head of the 🐍.
      Obama and Jarret(not Greg) are the charmers.

      Carter P was recruited.
      Either bought or coerced. You decide.

      Like

    • 1- Russian lawyer leads them right to Fusion GPS. No way mueller wants to go near that hornets nest and get closer to what HRC and Obama did. Willful ignorance,
      2- Carter Page- most likely an IC/FBI asset or mole placed in Trump campaign so they could leap frog his FISA warrant to everyone else on the campaign. I am convinced Nunes did not see “incidental unmasking”. He saw American to American phone transcripts between Trump campaign officials. Not even Nunes wants to reveal that info. And its probably a bargaining chip Trump is leveraging with Mueller. Right now its a real estate negotiation and Mueller is the broker. Its all about the terms and offers and counter offers. Moves and counter moves. Trump wants the whole scheme revealed, as well as HRC and Obama charged. Mueller does not want to go that far nor does he want to tear down the IC. Neither does Nunes. And neither does Trump. And I no longer believe Mueller wanrts to take Trump down. He wants POTUS to settle. But Trump has leverage because he knows what went down and can declassify everything. Mueller pushes back by going after people close to Trump. Cohen today. Kushner tomorrow. Trump pushes back by showing indictments and playing MaCabe and Comey off each other. At some point they will come to an understanding. Its just a matter of how many people Trump wants in his trophy case. He is getting them, its a question of how many people are how high up.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Roberto says:

        Disagree. Mueller is complicit, big time. How does he keep pouring into Trump knowing full well there is no evidence for him doing so, and never was. My guess is that he is “negotiating” with Giuliani to save his own ass. Gnat and elephant gun allegory. You don’t bring in Giuliani to negotiate and reconcile, those words are not in his vocab (I know people that worked for him). He’s a prosecutor responsible for bringing down NY’s Five Families. He’d love to add to that with a bunch of Deep State scalps. He is there for a reason.

        Besides, Mueller has zero leverage. Because by the day, his public support is evaporating with each idiot move he makes, like the Cohen crash and grab. I really think this struck a cord with most Americans, i.e. “Yikes! If they can do that to the President, what could they do to me someday? I guess my lawyer isn’t even safe anymore.”

        The more rope given Mueller is more around his neck.

        Like

  7. Delibero says:

    I picked up Sharon Torgerson’s book “Mailboxes and Old Barns” and another book I had ordered at a local bookstore a few days ago. (I’m enjoying it and reading it slowly so it lasts longer)

    Just before I left the store, I asked the 2 clerks if they had any of James Comey’s books left.

    One said “Yes,there is one” and moved to get the book. I said, “I’m sorry, I don’t want to buy it, I just wondered if it was sold out. He’s a dirty cop.” The poor clerks looked unsure of me. I didn’t mean to irritate them. I just felt like doing my best impression of Joe DiGenova.

    Liked by 13 people

  8. Obs says:

    Yeah, how does McCabe not get charged and prosecuted?
    The DoJ will find a way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • snellvillebob says:

      He could turn state’s witness if he hasn’t already and it isn’t too late. I sure do not want to see everyone given immunity like all of Hillary’s aides and lawyers were. I also wander that since Comey has lied to Congress, he is a criminal, thus his promises to Huma and Cheryl Mills of immunity null and invalid.

      Liked by 4 people

      • molonlabe28 says:

        Unlike the other persons cooperating with the IG, McCabe has been an ass at each juncture.

        He portrays himself as a martyr.

        He has previously threatened to “take down everyone” or words to that effect.

        Let’s see what he’s got to leverage.

        He has thus far been a colossal PITA to all parties involved.

        He’s definitely going to a nice FCI somewhere.

        The only issue is how long.

        He’s been way too much of a jerk to not go to prison.

        He will likely be having his “queen for a day” session with Horowitz and Huber sometime soon.

        He will need to have the goods on someone real high up (Comey, Lynch and/or Obama) to interest the prosecution in cutting a deal.

        And they better not let him off with an Alford plea.

        Like

      • Roberto says:

        These immunity grants are like toilet paper. For instance, at least in the mob trials, once a immune witness starts lying or has lied to investigators, or not told them about something, the deal is off. They get charged.

        Like

    • Longknife 21 says:

      I don’t see how they can avoid prosecuting McCabe, or Comey now, and maintain any credibility as a Law Enforcement Agency.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Tonawanda says:

    DiGenova proved he reads CTH with his Stefanik reference. This esoteric but highly significant point was discovered by Sundance many moons ago.

    DiGenova again posits the “sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander” argument which will be ignored by the leftist hysteria when the indictments come down, but which will take away the “politically-inspired” aspect which has always been a major concern of all these investigations into the Deep State.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. DanO64 says:

    I firmly believe Congresswoman Stefanik didn’t come up with that question by herself. Gowdy gave it to her. Just watch his mannerism. It was his question. IMO of course.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bulldog84 says:

      She handled it well. The best cross-examinations are those in which the subject doesn’t know where you are taking him until you get there, and by then it’s too late. They are forced to answer something in a way that it absolutely against their interests, because they haven’t seen where the questions are going and they don’t have time to formulate a better answer. Whoever framed the series of questions, it was genius.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Perot Conservative says:

        I witnessed a rookie plaintiff do this at a deposition against a top flight corporate defense attorney. As he was questioned.

        As the attorney grilled plaintiff, I knew where it was going, I knew the story. It was delicious to watch! A prior manager, a VP and owner of the company, had created a little paper trail painting plaintiff as a problem employee. So the attorney was grilling him.

        After numerous questions, plaintiff artfully let out that “that was Bob, we are friends with Bob, I respect Bob.” Attorney kept digging. “We were aware Bob had issues.” Plaintiff finally let out that Bob was manic depressive, and under a doctor’s care.

        Lawyer finally asks, snottily, “How do you know this?” Answer. “Bob told me.” Ouch!

        Liked by 1 person

    • libertysc2016 says:

      I have always thought Gowdy looked disturbed by the question. She was not just making noise – she was getting close to important information.

      Liked by 3 people

    • flyboy46 says:

      I agree that it was Gowdy’s question. Being a former prosecutor he figured out if HE asked it, Comey would defect. If SHE asked it, Comey would be surprised, and stall while he looked for and answer.

      Liked by 3 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      I always assumed that they coordinated their questions, if only to avoid repeating them. I do believe Stefanik’s question was planned for a particular reason.

      Keep in mind that the Gang of 8 had finally been briefed by Comey just 11 days prior to his testimony. I don’t know when his testimony was scheduled but I have to think that it was done well in advance and his decision to brief the Go8 on March 9 2017 was because he knew he was going to have to testify on March 20 2017. If he hadn’t briefed the Go8 Stefanik’s question would have been much more harsh.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Daniel says:

      Gowdy doesn’t have the courage to do any such thing. As Sundance has stated for a very long time, Gowdy and others like him have their roles to play but they never cross certain lines. I have no reason or basis to believe she wasn’t capable of coming up with those questions on her own.

      Liked by 3 people

  11. libertysc2016 says:

    Even if Comey did not brief the IC Gang of Eight until late in the process, we know that Brennan did keep this key congressional group up to speed.

    Like

  12. Bulldog84 says:

    DiGenova has the best explanation of modern day so-called “liberalism” that I’ve ever heard.

    Nice job of Tucker asking about the failure question Veselnitskaya and what that means about the utter lack of seriousness of the Mueller gang.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. f.fernandez says:

    I could listen to Joe discuss the mating habits of the North African platypus. Brilliant and no-nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Perot Conservative says:

      Ten points!

      My hunch is his wife has a huge case with the Uranium One whistleblower, and they chose that case over being in the WH full time. They may have learned more about the progress of legal matters in that week dancing with Trump.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Louie says:

    When he described Progressives, he should have said that they want to rid us of the Constitution.

    Liked by 2 people

    • MAJA says:

      That is exactly what a flaming libtards said on fb last night (They want to abolish the electoral college and believe the minority is controlling the majority because of it). I told them it was anti American, in American and to move to a country with a better proven form of gov.

      In the last couple of comments i made on the group fb page, I also pointed out that they hate PDJT more than they love our country and I am thrilled for them and every other American who is enjoying the benefits of President Trump’s policies. They’re still mad at PDJT for not using experienced advisors to negotiate with NK. So you want to give them another opportunity to fail like they have for the last 60 years, I asked them. No response.

      Like

  15. JX says:

    Waiting for McCabe to be prosecuted.

    Like

    • NC Nana says:

      JX, amen to that!

      Thanks to Joe DiGenova for clearly laying out that all must be prosecuted under the current “implementation” ideas of the law.

      The difference between McCabe and General Flynn is that the General didn’t lie and McCabe did. More importantly McCabe used the power of his office to lie in order to harm a sitting President.

      I hope the term hang ‘em high applies here.

      Liked by 3 people

      • JX says:

        He was fired last month (due to a recommendation the month prior), Congress referred him for prosecution last week, still no action.

        WTH is Sessions’ problem? Oh I know, it’s multidimensional chess. Tesseract chess. No it’s not. It’s theater. He’s doing nothing about McCabe. They had Comey’s memos for a year and nothing has been done about it. It was only a few weeks ago that investigation of FISA abuse began, which we’ve known about since last fall. Nothing has been done about anything. Nothing but slow walking and theater.

        Like

    • waiting for ANYONE to be prosecuted…
      but who cares about mccabe? he’s a low level operative taking the fall for
      the REAL CRIMINALS:

      ROD HAM
      barry
      bill
      lynch
      comey
      holder
      etc etc etc etc

      worse, he’s providing SWAMP cover and distraction for implanted traitor jeff sessions

      notice how some sleepy conservatives went WILD when he FIRED mccabe
      as if that made up for his 14 months of NOTHING

      FIRED HIM – WOW WHAT A GUY!!
      and when he sued CA instead of perp walking the mayor of Oakland and the CA AG for clear obstruction of justice

      where are the indictments???

      Like

  16. TNgal says:

    I remember listening to Mr. DiGenova on Laura Ingraham’s show in October 2016. He was discussing Comey as a “bad cop” then. You should listen to the interview… he was prescient.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Perot Conservative says:

      Do you really think $35 Million from Lockhead Martin could influence a moral jellyfish with a radical wife?

      Like

  17. Mickturn says:

    The Big Ugly
    French: Le grand laid
    Spanish: El gran Feo
    German: Der große Hässliche
    Russian: (Can’t forget them) Большой Уродливый

    You get the Picture…it’s the same all over the world, only spelled and pronounced differently.

    Like

  18. covfefe999 says:

    We know Comey didn’t brief them about the investigation that began in July 2016 until he met with them on March 9 2017, conveniently just 11 days before his testimony to Congress.

    We know that Brennan briefed the Go8 much earlier, I believe in August 2016. We have reason to believe that Brennan misrepresented the sources of the “intelligence” used to justify an investigation, but at least the Go8 members knew an investigation was under way.

    A Guardian article from April 2017 says the FBI was slow to get on board, which could explain Comey’s reluctance to brief the Go8. Comey told Stefanik during his testimony that Priestap made the recommendation to withhold the investigation from the quarterly briefing “because of the sensitivity of the matter”. Maybe that’s code for “because the so-called intelligence was pure crap”.

    All said, nobody should ever claim that the Go8 was not briefed in a timely manner. We should only claim that Comey did not brief the Go8 in a timely manner. He waited two and possibly even three quarterly briefings to brief them. Stefanik let him get away with his vague answer during his March 20 2017 testimony. Maybe for her immediate purpose it was sufficient to just point out his delay, but IMO the reason for his delay is crucial.

    I’m recalling a prior discussion about Priestap. Priestap didn’t want Comey to tell Trump that Trump was not the subject of the investigation. And according to Comey, Preistap didn’t want Comey to tell the Go8 about the investigation. Maybe Priestap’s alright after all. I didn’t excuse him before, but it’s appearing to me now that Priestap might have wanted Comey to, at the very least, be honest.

    Liked by 3 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      That first sentence should be: We know Comey didn’t brief the Gang of Eight about the investigation …

      Liked by 1 person

      • covfefe999 says:

        Here’s the Guardian article, it’s full of information. Keep in mind that it was published on April 13 2017. Brennan didn’t appear before Congress to state that he briefed the Go8 until May, but the info about his briefing is in this article. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

        In late August and September Brennan gave a series of classified briefings to the Gang of Eight, the top-ranking Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. […] One person familiar with the matter said Brennan did not reveal sources but made reference to the fact that America’s intelligence allies had provided information. […]

        The person described US intelligence as being “very late to the game”. The FBI’s director, James Comey, altered his position after the election and Trump’s victory, becoming “more affirmative” and with a “higher level of concern”.

        Liked by 4 people

        • thedoc00 says:

          Based on all that has been written about the two gang of 8 briefs, there are major points that have not been stated.
          Did Brennan state, in detail, how the INTEL data was being used? The implication so far is NO.
          Did Brenna state the FBI had an on-going operation? (especially an operations vs Trump)
          Why was Brennan allowed to get away with not talking in more detail about sources?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Jim in TN says:

          That article was prior to a lot that we have learned.

          It talks about a FISA warrant on banks.

          It references Carter Page, but does not know that a FISA warrant was on Page. (And everybody who was in contact with him, or people in contact with the people in contact with him.)

          It also does not tell that the 2013 Page activity was spies planning to defraud Page, nor that Page worked with FBI to convict said spies, including giving testimony in court.

          It doesn’t talk about Simpson’s wife’s group meeting in the White House, Nor HRC, DNC and OFA hiring a law firm to hire Simpson to hire an foreign ex-spy to get dirt on Trump. Nor Simpson hiring Ohr’s wife to feed him information from the DOJ.

          It doesn’t talk about Simpson coordinating with said spy to give said dirt to FBI and spread it around Washington.

          It does not say that said campaign dirt was used to get the warrant or warrants.

          It does not say that the DNC used the same law firm to hire the group they used to accuse Russia and Trump. Nor does it say that the DNC refused to give the acclaimed evidence to the FBI.

          Nor does it talk about the information first being used to defeat Trump, but also being kept as an insurance policy against him should he win. Nor that defeated Hillary quickly decided to use this garbage to take down Trump. Nor does it talk about Obama choosing to go along with it later.

          In short, they missed the entire coordinated political effort to use all of government against Trump involving our intelligence services, foreign intelligence services, the DOJ, the FBI, the FISA court, the State Department, the HRC and Obama’s OFA.

          Liked by 1 person

    • TheWanderingStar says:

      “because of the sensitivity of the matter”

      Recalling this statement in the video of Comey’s testimony, his verbal answer to the question was posed as a question, “because of the sensitivity of the matter?” as opposed to a statement. As if he really wasn’t sure what answer he should have given.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Lurker2 says:

        And what the heck does that statement even mean? Stefanik was asking him about his refusal to brief our lead intelligence Senators and Representatives who have top secret clearance. If the FBI is allowed to keep them in the dark about their investigations of political candidates they don’t like, or, worse, a newly-elected PRESIDENT they don’t like …. we’re screwed.

        Stefanik should have replied “They have the right to know about ALL investigations you are carrying out, and you don’t have the right to hide any from them.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • “because of the sensitivity of the matter”

        I believe this is code for “we are worried our new president elect is vulnerable to Russian blackmail.” This is how they are rationalizing all their nefarious deeds. They are saving America from having a Russian agent in the White House.

        Twisted pretzel logic since they are the ones that allowed the salacious story to take hold in the first place, but it must be working to give them some cover.

        Like

    • covfidian says:

      Therefore ACCOUNTABILITY for the decision TO NOT INFORM Congress was not clearly laid at anyone’s feet.

      Was this dodging by Comey (perhaps he alone was responsible for the decision)?

      Or was Comey fingering Priestap (or someone not clearly named) without having the guts to name that other individual, or merely due to being simply reluctant to share a specific name?

      Or perhaps Comey was being cagey to retain some smidgen of plausible denial (I never fingered any particular person).

      Like

      • covfidian says:

        Or the plausible later denial (I never specifically said it wasn’t me, James Comey, who made that particular decision to delay or not inform Congress).

        Could analogously be like asking Loretta Lynch to say who made the actual decision to not prosecute Clinton for her handling of classified information on a private email server (was it she, Lynch, or, if not, who was it) and getting a confusing obfuscating reply ‘that would normally be the recommendation of the lead prosecutor to which the FBI investigatory evidence was assigned’ without specifically denying that it was her own decision, or that it was the decision of a specifically named James Comey, for example.

        Lawyers (as with officials and politicians) are often very good at evading a pointed question. Cautious to not clearly reply; cautious to not say something that could later be used to to show they dissembled or failed to tell the truth, and the whole truth (hey, they never asked me to clarify by providing a specific name).

        Always leaves a funny taste in my mouth … i.e. an important question not clearly answered.

        Like

    • covfidian says:

      Maybe I missed it, but did Comey actually say Priestap made the recommendation not to inform Congress?

      In testimony before Congress, answering a pointed question by Stefanik as to who actually made such recommendation (if not him, then who), Comey merely indicated a particular official (position title only was given) would have usually/normally made such a recommendation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lurker2 says:

        Comey said “it was our decision” and when pressed about who else would be involved he specifically named Priestap’s position. There was and still is only one head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, and it was and still is Priestap. If Comey made the decision with someone else, not Priestap, then Comey was deliberately misleading Congress during that hearing and he should be punished for it. Stefanik was a bit sloppy, she should have said “Who else made the decision with you?”. She also should have had him elaborate about the “sensitivity” nonsense answer.

        Like

  19. bitterlyclinging says:

    “I voted for the Commie:” CIA Director John Brennan secretly made a trip to Moscow in March, 2016, very likely to lay the groundwork for the Steele Dossier in order to guarantee a Hillary victory in November and his job security.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/john_brennans_secret_trip_to_moscow.html

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Donzo says:

    There’s an unfortunate irony in the discussion between Carlsen and DiGenova related to McCabe’s lying and the Democrat support of the phony investigation. The real issue isn’t McCabes’s lying, per se, but the reasons behind his lying, i.e., the effort o exonerate Clinton and frame Trump. To be precise, the more air time is spent discussing the procedural issues, the less time devoted to explaining to the American people how we almost more lost our country. I get DiGenova’s point at the end about having to charge McCabe after charging Flynn for the same crime, but they are not the same crime. Flynn never lied at all and McCabe’s lies are just the least of his crimes which include sedition.

    Liked by 6 people

  21. Donzo says:

    Excuse auto correct errors.

    Like

  22. AJ says:

    LOL. Carlson says the democrats have a stake in ensuring an FBI they can trust. What a dope.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Donzo says:

      Carlsen makes a habit of asking the obvious question, regardless of the particular issue at hand: Why don’t Democrats believe in the rule of law? It’s his way of trying to throw sunlight on them, but it comes off as childish, naive and dopey. Other times he’s raking Dems through the coals with unusual vigor. This sort of split personality does not do his persona much good.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Is Peter Kadzik, the Justice Dept. Senior Official in charge of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, next in line for criminal referral by Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General?

    https://brassballs.blog/home/clinton-e-mail-probe-chief-investigator-peter-kadzik-next-in-line-for-prosecution

    Guess which Judge has was “randomly” assigned the case of Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen?

    The same Judge who tried the Russian spy case where Carter Page testified as an FBI informant.

    The same Judge who officiated George Soros’ wedding.

    https://brassballs.blog/home/what-do-soros-trump-the-clintons-playboy-cohen-carter-page-and-the-fisa-court-have-in-common-with-the-love-judge

    Coincidence?

    Liked by 2 people

  24. 4harrisonblog says:

    There is one reason to point a SC. If Muller and his team are in fact looking at Clinton and not President Trump. Then it would all make sense to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • WES says:

      4Harrison: Never appoint a special prosecutor if you want justice. Appointing a special prosecutor means nobody gets convicted! That is exactly what Dems and RINO Reps want to happen!

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Mickturn says:

    The Deep State fix is in…it’s that simple!

    Liked by 1 person

  26. It seems the DOJ were trying to get McCabe to rat on Comey and held his pension over his head. McCabe did not flip, so they fired him. Comey reveals that he referred mCCabe to the IG because of his conflicts and leaking. Comey defends the IG report and says, “sometimes good people lie”, but seems to throw McCabe under the bus. They both got $$$$ from the swamp for their legal fees. McCabe is now getting a book deal to launder more $$$$ to him. The DOJ needs to deliver something! A plea deal. Something. As long as money keeps getting funneled to comey and mccabe they will continue to dance with each other. The only way this story breaks open is with some plea deals. This is getting to close to the midterms with no action so far. The pot was raised with the Cohen raid. There needs to be a re-raise. an arrest, indictment, or plea deal. The Comey referral by Congress was weak. The Nunes EC revealation was only reported by Fox. Mueller is an arbitrator trying to settle this while protecting the IC. You gotta start firing back, so referee Mueller can resolve this!!! Referrals do not mean anything. There needs to be more pushback

    Liked by 1 person

    • Prosecuting Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and all her support staff who deleted the emails and scrubbed the server and her aids for violations of 18 US Code 793(f) is where this needs to start. No pleas for any of them. Once those people are sentenced, then turn the hammer of justice on the other conspirators in the coup.

      You would get some quick and easy pleas at this point, and then begin to roll everyone up to get Obama.

      Like

      • Forget Hillary and Obama. Not happening. They need to start at the FBI and move up the chain. The best move would be an announcement of plea deals with cooperating witnesses. Testimony is locked down and texts etc are all collected. McCabe and Comey need to be questioned and locked down on their testimony by a GJ. Admissions of guilt with a broad outline of the conspiracy. Media can not ignore that or play it off as partisan arrests. Its almost May! They need to show Mueller they are serious. Or Mueller is just gonna sit back. The more you push back on Mueller and expose more IC wrongdoing, the more likely he will wrap this up.

        Like

      • right – who’s doing that? sessions? he’s recused himself from everything except obstructing justice and being chief gatekeeper for the swamp…

        Like

  27. we300 says:

    “Liberals” today are the Bolsheviks of Russia during the revolution. They’re exactly the same type: kidnap the Czar and his family, imprison them, then murder all of them and bury them in the woods in the dead of night.

    The truth is liberals believe in nothing. They don’t really care about their sacred cows, they just want the money from them. Al Gore is a perfect example of this. Maybe some of the foot soldiers on the left are true believers, zealots even. But the leadership? No, those people are interested in one thing only and that’s power from acquired money.

    Liked by 4 people

  28. Daniel says:

    One thing I think is that they don’t truly hate this president. What they hate is that Hillary didn’t win. Of course they believe they do hate this president but I hold there is no rational basis for the conclusion. There is a rational basis for the assertion of what they do, actually hate.

    But all of the rest of the description of the left and how they devolved into progressivism and how they have completely divorced themselves from any sort of principled basis is pretty accurate. Again, they don’t KNOW they have done this. They are mostly following their leaders while their leaders are more than aware that if they spoke the truth of their convictions, they would lose followers. But then some people will say “some speech is violence and some violence is speech.” I have no ability to rationalize a belief such as this.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Newhere says:

    Comey has proven himself to be megamaniacal. He has no problem parading for the world his confused, self-aggrandizing thinking — despite facing actual extreme jeopardy — because he still believes he’s invulnerable. He truly believes that whatever he does, it by definition is moral and legal and on the flipside that whomever he despises or who “wrongs” him has committed a grave injustice warranting punishment. And he has been the *FBI Director* for years.

    The FISA system is rotten to the core, because it depends on personalities. Our biggest problem isn’t a partisan flaw (i.e., a corrupt administration), it’s a design flaw. FISA is designed so that only FBI and DOJ leadership control what is put before a court to determine when Americans are spied on. The last administration grossly abused tools it never should have had. Yes, the abuse absolutely conflated with political motivations and ambitions; but the founders predicted that when a governing system elevates personalities, or the idea that any one person or idea can save or protect us, it’s really elevating is raw power. The solution is structural constraint — checks and balances. Trust no person. If we don’t keep the issues separate — particular bad actors vs. systemic rot — we won’t see the problem clearly. Trusting any part of government to act in secret for our own good is the problem.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. MontanaMel says:

    Tangled web…tangled web…
    I fear we have “re-raked” these leaves (and, bags of garbage) so many times now, that we are incorporating fresh grubs and bird droppings into the whole cloth.
    Waiting is tough…but, someone has to finish up another section of the IG’s report to initiate the next layer of onion peeling and shining of light. And, someone has to lay some indictments on the desk in some court to get those coals fanned back into flames… Please Stand By….says the Death Star operator, eh?…. (now, where’d I park that X-wing anyway)…

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Whenever I bump into someone who will admit that they are a democrat, I calmly ask them what is their main issue. They always ask, “What do you mean?”

    I say, “Well, in my experience, anyone who will admit they are a democrat usually has one main issue that makes them support the democrat party”. “What is your main issue? Is it abortion? Or is it homosexuality? Or Illegal Immigration? Or is it gun control? Or maybe it’s the religion of climate change? Or maybe equality? Or is there something else?”

    At this point they usually call me a racist. Works almost every time.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Zippy says:

    EXACTLY! Listen from 34:54 on. MAJOR dot connecting:

    Like

  33. Lurker2 says:

    Nunes knows a lot. I would love to be a fly on his office wall. 🙂 He had received the Brennan and Comey briefings. He received info from a source and reviewed documents in a SCIF which informed him that Trump and associates were being spied on. He has seen unredacted versions of most of the redacted documents we have been allowed to see. Sometimes I wonder how he keeps a straight face when he is being interviewed by the media.

    Liked by 3 people

    • He plays willfully ignorant in a good way. He knows the whole story. But he does not want to burn down the IC like some hardcore keyboard retards are advocating. Nunes wants a surgical elimination that will punish SOME (not hrc and not obama) conspirators but still leave the IC intact and functioning.
      1- The first thing he wants people to know, is what happened and how.
      2- Oversight procedures in place so it does not happen again
      3- Certain people prosecuted/punished in some way.
      Give me Uma Abedin, Rice, Clapper, and Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Fusion GPS and a few other scumbags and I would be happy. I’ll take 90% of the loaf rather than nothing. And the longer this drags out, the more likely this gets buried.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lurker2 says:

        Schiff knows just about everything Nunes does. That would explain why Schiff has become far less confident in his proclamations. lol When he first started to talk about Muh Russia, he was confident they had concrete evidence that Trump was colluding. But little by little he backed off that claim. He had received the Brennan briefing back in August 2016. He was probably as excited as a dog who has been inside of the house all day long and someone finally arrived home to let him outside to pee.

        Liked by 2 people

  34. WES says:

    The last few days have been very quiet. Q believers said this week would be MOAB! Maybe Trump is keeping things quiet until after the French state visit. That would make sense so not to distract from his stateman role. Maybe tomorrow it is back to business as usual?

    Like

  35. Cathy Lehman says:

    How many day have passed since the IG recommended that McCabe be pursued for criminal charges?
    WHEN is he going to be arrested? Are they waiting for him to flee the country?
    I am so depressed and discouraged, I am starting to follow this less and less because I just cannot stand to see the abuse of power that continues day after day, week after week,month after month go by.
    We were supposed to have the IG report at the end of 2017. Then, it was the middle of March, Now it is supposedly May. Who believes this crap anymore? And even if they do have a report, will any action occur to the criminals at hand? I have seriously given up.

    Liked by 2 people

    • i feel your pain – it’s definitely a good thing to step away from the insanity for a bit if you can ;O

      Like

    • LULU says:

      Does any one of us here, essentially spectators with laptops, have any idea what is involved in an investigation (more than one investigation, actually) of this magnitude? I am feeling very patient. Want it to be thorough and for those at the highest levels to be prosecuted. We have a strong sense – thanks to Sundance and our own good minds – that the littler fish are cooperating. McCabe is already dead meat. A gaffed fish flopping on the deck. I can wait. I believe it will be well worth it.

      Like

      • covfefe999 says:

        We’re more than a year into Trump’s term. Time is of the essence. If the Dems manage to steal the next election we will never see any convictions of these crooks.

        Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      I think that’s the guy who put Blagojevich in prison. And Blago didn’t do anything near what Hillary has done. So nice hypocritical pick, Commy.

      Like

  36. Mueller hasn’t started yet. IMHO, at least four more indictments will be forthcoming – spaced apart to feed the media frenzy and thwart any positive accomplishments by the President. I have no links or substantiation or any shred of proof. It is a gut feeling – like Gibbs on NCIS. Pray for the President because the Republicans will not help him.

    AMERICA 1st – Forever

    Like

  37. covfefe999 says:

    This is why we need to hurry. Here’s the timeline of the Rod Blagojevich investigation and ultimate conviction. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-investigation-timeline-1208-story.html There are many more entries than what I am excerpting here.

    June 7, 2004: Stuart Levine, a longtime Republican reappointed to the powerful Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, abruptly resigns on the eve of several important hospital expansion votes. The revelation is the first indication that the Blagojevich administration is under federal criminal investigation. […]

    May 23, 2007: The Tribune reveals that federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records from Blagojevich’s campaign fund as part of the sweeping corruption probe into whether top aides and advisers exchanged state business and jobs for political support. […]

    Dec. 9, 2008: F.B.I agents arrest Blagojevich and his chief of staff at their homes on a broad array of corruption charges, including asking for favors in exchange for his selection of a replacement in the senate for President-elect Barack Obama.

    From the initial investigation to the arrest, it was more than 4 years. We are already more than a year into Trump’s term. We cannot have this slow pace. Slow and steady is not going to win this race if the Democrats manage to steal the 2020 election and Trump ends up being a one term President.

    Like

    • LULU says:

      With all respect, how do “we hurry”? I keep hearing, reading that. Does anyone have a plan for how that might be achieved?

      Like

      • LULU says:

        The Blagojevich case was a piece of very simple cake compared to what is being dealt with now. How can it be compared?

        Like

      • Perot Conservative says:

        45,000 key texts out tomorrow to Congress?

        IG report out in 1-3 weeks?

        Possibly indictments – plea deals afterwards. I believe plea deals more fairly quickly.

        Liked by 1 person

  38. LULU says:

    Comey and Fitzgerald have been friends for decades, dating back to when they both worked as prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

    Appointed to be the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001, Fitzgerald prosecuted former Illinois governors Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan, former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge as well as former Chicago Sun-Times owner Conrad Black.

    In 2003, Comey — then the deputy attorney general — appointed Fitzgerald as the special counsel to investigate the leaked identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was convicted, though he was pardoned by Trump last week.

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/report-james-comey-taps-former-u-s-attorney-patrick-fitzgerald-for-legal-help/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s