Sunday Talks: Rep John Ratcliffe Discusses The Weissmann/Mueller Report….

Oddly, neither Fox News nor anyone else captured the individual interviews on Sunday Morning Futures today. However, at the beginning of this scraped video Maria Bartiromo discusses the Weissmann/Mueller report with John Ratcliffe.

Rep. Ratcliffe is an important voice to consider because he is one of the few representatives who has viewed all of the redacted and classified documents behind ‘spygate’. Ratcliffe contemplates many of the questions that many people have about the origin of the Trump surveillance operation.

Ratcliffe also mentions that Robert Mueller has been invited to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on May 22nd or May 23rd.  It will be interesting to see if that ever happens.  It is brutally obvious how no Democrats are demanding his urgent testimony despite the importance they attribute to his report.  We can conclude that it must be considered against their interests for Mueller to take questions in public.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Russia, Spygate, THE BIG UGLY, TowerGate, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Sunday Talks: Rep John Ratcliffe Discusses The Weissmann/Mueller Report….

  1. Ready Steady Go says:

    Suspicious kitty……. suspicious.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Thinker says:

      My first question for Mueller would be “How did you conclude that the DNC computer was hacked by the Russians? Did you or the FBI ever get access to it. If you did, did you verify the download speed? Now that we have confirmed that Seth Rich and Julian Assange had multiple conversations, did you ever check out their communications? Why would Rich be speaking with Assange?

      Liked by 4 people

      • dbobway says:

        My bet, SC Mueller has proof Seth Rich stole those e-mails.

        Too bad dead men don’t talk. Even worse, Seth’s parents overdosed on the Jim Jones koolaid.
        Nothing, makes my blood boil more than this obvious fact. Every time pencil neck, stapled gut or anybody else regurgitates that lie, they are spitting on the grave of Seth Rich. A brave young man who exposed the truth and it cost him his life.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Carson Napier says:

    Liked by 33 people

  3. The Boss says:

    A real good lawyer once told me that “There are ways of saying things without saying them”. This interview with Ratcliffe immediately brought that nugget to mind.

    Yes. It is now finally time to turn the tables.

    Liked by 25 people

  4. I agree. Won’t happen. Mueller testifying under oath—anywhere. Too big of a risk to them all.

    Liked by 17 people

    • John says:

      I don’t think you are going to get too many answers until the IG report.

      There are some answers inside the reporters embedded in the Clinton Campaign that wrote the book “shattered” Clinton wanted to focus very badly on Russia. The Access Hollywood tape took Russian air out of the room. Clinton didn’t want to get anywhere near sex scandals.

      Liked by 2 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      I agree, the Dems don’t really want Mueller to testify. Because Mueller will confirm what Barr said. No collusion, no obstruction, end of story.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jederman says:

      I thought fat Jerry had issued a subpoena. Is the intent to fabricate a media story where Mueller is resisting or the WH (DoJ) is preventing his appearance?

      All the dems have is this resistance bs, and their usual bromides about the importance of the middle class they are trying to destroy through illegal immigration.

      Big shout out to the rotten and corrupt poodles in the MSM!

      My new tin foil hat theory is that media corruption is global ISO the globalists. Is there a country on this planet with an ethical media?

      Like

    • Doppler says:

      Mr Mueller, why is there no mention in you report if:

      Fusion GPS
      Nellie and Bruce Ohr
      The Abedin/Weiner laptop
      Uranium One
      Etc.

      Liked by 2 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Why? He would just lie or prevaricate, and the Democrats and the media would cover for him. It’s not as if Brennan, Clapper, et al have ever been prosecuted for their lying to congress.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. The word out of Rep. Ratcliff…”the predicate”……is VIP!

    The root of the very beginning.

    Get to that and the headmaster of it all.

    Now, what it may take to accomplish that is no easy, quick task.

    SD, like you said early am this morning, the media is our enemy. They are going to cram as much distortion, white noise and innuendo into the mix as possible the next few weeks. The juggarnaut is rolling along.

    Get some sleep, bur keep moving. Their people are move 24/7.

    God speed!

    Liked by 6 people

  6. sundance says:

    Liked by 26 people

    • He was the “legitimizer” for the report.

      Liked by 4 people

      • A tool in the hand…not the lead carpenter.

        Liked by 1 person

      • He was the Christopher Steele of the Mueller dossier .
        Andrew Weissman played Nellie Ohr and wrote it.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Dutchman says:

          I LIKE this analogy, doesn’t relieve Steele or Mueller of any responsibility, though.

          Like

        • jnr2d2 says:

          You know, I don’t think there are many good lawyers anywhere. Take Steel’s deposition in England. Since it was a libel suit involving FusionGPS, you’d think a simple question would be this:”Specific to the libelous statements, which came from any employee, or subcontractor of GPS.” If he says none, then you go down the list and ask as to the source of the raw “intelligence.” He says a confidential source. Wrong answer, he does not have free press protection. He must answer. When he does, the the obvious follow on is:”Did you do any research to confirm you libelous statement.” This is where the sh..t hits the road. You say “no” and you have “reckless disregard” —you lose!!! If he says yes he has another series of questions to answer. I’ve been in tougher deposition in simple civil business litigation. Sheeeeeesh!!

          Liked by 1 person

      • Jederman says:

        To the extent possible, given the other rotten characters on the “team.” There isn’t enough lipstick on the planet for this crew.

        Liked by 1 person

    • May 22/23 is the Wed and Thur of the week before Memorial Day Weekend.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I opine that some Dems who are in the innermost circle from the beginning know that about RM. But probably not most in the party.

      The first lead strategists would know who chose who for what. They had to to get the root ball formed, started and engaged.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Carson Napier says:

      So Mueller was just the mask that Rosenstein and Weinstein wore.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        So Rod has to be asked which person who wound up on Muellar’s team did he speak with BEFORE he ever spoke to Muellar about a special counsel.

        Liked by 3 people

        • WSB says:

          Which is why their communications will be so important.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Remington says:

            ‘Reading this morning that the 724th democrap candidate Tulsi Gabbart was saying it was time to …move on…from the report. I bet you do. No, let’s just let it ride and get some REAL answers…’Bout time for the democrap high fast one….”It’s old news, ..” They know we are coming, and they are in trouble.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Ned Zeppelin says:

          I think underestimate Mueller’s involvement in the cabal. This all connects back to Clinton crimes and the most obvious of them all, Uranium One, with which both Mueller as FBI Director and RR, as prosecutor, were deeply entwined. Mueller is a capo in the crime family, above RR. It was Mueller’s idea to come in as SC, RR took his orders just as RR did when it was time to broaden the scope via the second SC memo. Weissmann reports to Mueller as well. All of them are complicit and hiding something beyond the obvious acts to ensnare Trump. They are motivated by something more than zealous partisanship. In my opinion.

          Liked by 2 people

          • glissmeister says:

            Trump paid them $35 million to build a Temple of Truth, and instead they built a Sh*thole Banana Stand run by crooks and liars full of defects, distortion, deception and dissembling.

            Claw Back the $35 Million. Make them pay it back.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Firefly says:

            Also a while back Victoria Toensing discussed on an interview (Fox News) that it was Rosenstein and Weissman who threatened her U1 Witness that he could loose his “liberty” if he were to talk. Weird how we don’t hear about when the IG will report on U1 as it was on the list of IG investigations.

            Rosenstein, Weissman and Mueller are thick as thieves.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Tl Howard says:

        So Rod has to be asked which person who wound up on Muellar’s team did he speak with BEFORE he ever spoke to Muellar about a special counsel.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Surprised they didn’t subpoena Weissmann and tip their hand! They had best not tell blabbermouth Mad Max!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Hmmm... says:

      Unrelated to this but rather to your point about Rosenstein pulling the investigation from McCabe to Weissman. Wouldn’t Rosenstein have known at that point that McCabe was in trouble with the IG? That supports the idea he was pulling the investigation from McCabe but only to ensure it remained in the hands of a small group member. I haven’t looked at the dates of the McCabe interviews but even if he hadn’t already made conflicting statements Rosenstein would have known that it was an avenue of inquiry from the IG at that time I would guess.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Hmmm... says:

        In addition to the inquiry to McCabe’s leak about the Clinton Foundation investigation he had multiple other issues outstanding. They were looking into his recusal as well as his handling of the Weiner laptop. Basically Rosenstein would have been certain McCabe was in danger of being exposed for wrongdoing. Pulling the investigation from him was almost certainly a move to protect the investigation from McCabe’s foibles giving ammo to President Trump not to protect President Trump from the investigation.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Carrie2 says:

        Hmmm, the concern is that Rod never even discussed having a Special anything which was wrong then and now. Rod, the statue, is in deep doodoo as well and with AG Barr keeping him at hand to verify some things but also to me is to sink Rod further and further before he is leaving. Rod’s fingerprint is on way too much to say he is free as a bird.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Hmmm... says:

          I totally agree that Rod is in deep doodoo. This may be my favorite twitter thread from Sundance of all time cause the last punchline tweet is just hilarious:

          Liked by 5 people

          • RR’s face and stance was a professional human behavior profiler’s dream case. He was obnoxiously obvious. You didn’t even need HBP textbook 101 to notice.

            You’d almost have to think he had to change pants or vomit or both after that.

            If he watched a replay of that after, I’ll bet it embarrassed him to no end that he was so obvious.

            Liked by 2 people

            • MaineCoon says:

              You’re giving RR the credit of reacting as any normal person would. Too kind. I think RR has practised his stoic-stone-cold face forever and figures he gave his best performance behind Barr. I think his countenance reflects his evilness.

              Like

              • Disagree, to the point of my own experience in HBPfling.

                I don’t think he is so practiced. There are too many giveaway clues in past interviews with him.

                He is not the average normal person on the stage of this drama.

                That was no mere performance at Barr’s press conference.

                I’ve watched him elsewhere. His facial and body language betray a concerted effort. There is an element of fear he cannot hide or control.

                So we disagree. But hey, that’s okay. You are a Treeper here who I respect as one among all of our opinions and take on things.

                Appreciate your input.

                Shalom!

                Like

        • Dutchman says:

          As long as Rod is on the payroll, he has to answer Horowitz’s questions.
          Since it was Rod that totally trashed Horowitz’s reports, THAT should make for some interesting interviews!

          Bonus,…the I.G. RECORDS his intrrviews: no 302 b.s.

          So, I am just fine with Barr keeping Rosie around, just as long as he needs him. Hopefully, he’ll leave in handcuffs.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Swanzinator says:

          Someone posted this in another thread but I think it’s worth repeating. A body language expert explains how RR is completely “dead inside” as he stands sheepishly behind his boss during the press conference Thursday…

          Like

      • Ned Zeppelin says:

        Keeping the investigation with FBI/McCabe would not have allowed the Special Counsel blanket to be thrown over the whole thing, which was very important to keeping the party going. Once SC in place, you can’t get near anyone or anything without fear of “obstructing” the phony investigation, and the SC then stepped into all the information and wiretaps etc. the FBI already had in place. Whole purpose of it was to provide a place to hide, seize and conceal the evidence, and run the “obstruction investigation” from a blacked out command post so as to provide the raw material for impeachment. Plus Mueller had already concluded that the FBI were a bunch of screw-ups who were endangering the Operation, and told RR to appoint him once Trump gave them a pretext, that of firing Comey after RR’s “Comey Bait” memo (also part of the Mueller-RR scheme.) Many traps laid for Trump, but he wisely did not take the bait, save that one time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      Great question, which you likely would not have asked had you not already known the answer…..

      (The Dems’ relative apathy towards interviewing him betrays their attempt to pretend they didn’t know Mueller’s true role on the coup team….)

      Liked by 1 person

    • chojun says:

      They built the report on his reputation. That’s all they needed him for.

      Like

    • Peoria Jones says:

      “Do they know he was a figurehead only?”

      Would it matter? Do they want to “know”…or do they want the public to know what they really know?

      Like

    • Newhere says:

      Doesn’t anybody want to hear from Rod?

      Funny, the dems haven’t uttered his name. Don’t they want to make sure he agrees with Barr? After all, he looked like a hostage at the press conference. He was the hero all that time, the man protecting Mueller …. and now … it’s like he doesn’t exist.

      Quite a long list of people the dems don’t want to hear from.

      Liked by 1 person

    • GGHD says:

      It’s ~against the law to lie to Congress, even if there was no oath given. [At least, according to CNN; the Democrats ~ Holy Source.]
      CNN~Politics July 24, 2017.

      “Lying to Congress can put you in jail, even if you’re not under oath.”

      “(CNN)The President’s eldest son (Donald Trump Jr.) son-in-law (Jared Kushner) and former campaign chairman (Paul Manafort) are sitting down with the staff and members of several Senate committees, but sources tell CNN some of the meetings will be behind closed doors and not under oath.”

      “But even if the men don’t raise their right hand before speaking, they still have to tell the truth.
      Federal law makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” give “materially” false statements to Congress, even if unsworn — which is not to be confused with the more general crime of perjury for lying under oath.
      The consequences for either crime are serious: one can face up to five years in prison.
      Like many criminal statutes, however, proving a witness “knowingly” sought to mislead sets a high bar for prosecution — meaning the omission can’t be merely a mistake or accident. And the “materiality” requirement means the false statement has to actually matter — i.e., a tendency to influence the listener.
      While it is rare to see charges filed for lying to Congress, there is precedent.
      John M. Poindexter, President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, was sentenced to prison for lying to Congress about key details of the Iran-Contra affair.
      So what’s the point of making a witness take the oath if lying to Congress is still a crime?
      “There’s something ceremonial about having someone under oath,” said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.”

      Like

  7. ALEX says:

    Rep. Ratcliffe was a federal prosecutor in this more or less specialized field called intelligence. They all mention predicate. As someone who has followed this closely…I still can’t spin this into a coherent predicate…It’s a bunch of goop…

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ray Runge says:

      Barr used the word “predicate” in testimony before congress.

      Liked by 2 people

    • doofusdawg says:

      The predicate will be that the “charge” was too important to not investigate. It’s all they got and they have used it before. Get ready for it… and get ahead of it. The best way to get ahead of it is to show the investigation started before the “charge”. And demonstrate all the lies, abuses of power and inconsistencies along the way.

      Liked by 7 people

      • thebigharry says:

        Yes, we’ve heard it before, “We have no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, but the seriousness of the allegations, and the weight of circumstantial information, compel an effort to establish the facts.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      I still can’t spin this into a coherent predicate…It’s a bunch of goop…

      That’s because AFAIK it hasn’t yet been established (by evidence) that any particular action on a particular date began the coup investigation (the “predicate”).

      Sundance and others have made excellent analyses that have quite deftly eliminated some actions and dates that have been claimed (by the coup team and the antiTrump cabal) as being the predicate. But the real beginnings remain murky since there are as yet unknown details of early spying and “dossier” material that was begun even before DJT declared his candidacy.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Peoria Jones says:

        Good explanation, GB. Now, it’s like the limbo – how low can you go?

        Like

      • steph_gray says:

        IMHO the “predicate” has existed for decades, and it’s: Do anything and everything to hide the fact that the Deep Socialist State routinely spies upon and destroys any American who gets in our way.

        The Obammunist blew it by wildly increasing this activity in his “regime,” only to be followed by Hilliary’s fevered attempt to use it unsuccessfully to stop DJT. They both merely revealed what has been going on a long time.

        I actually don’t think the Deep Staters really appreciate what these two did, and are appreciating it less every day now!

        Liked by 2 people

        • GB Bari says:

          I have no problem at all believing your suggestion; I and others have made similar suggestions in the past in this blog. There is already a history of past abuse of the surveillance process under either Mueller or Comey I think. Back in 2002-2003?

          So given Ozero’s flagrant disregard for the law, it wouldn’t surprise a lot of us that the spying was conducted on both McCain and Romney campaigns.

          Like

      • Jederman says:

        But then, obama has a history of abusing fed agencies. The IRS comes to mind.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Carrie2 says:

      ALEX, which I understood Ratcliffe to be saying – lot of noise but no real band playing.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Chewbarkah says:

      If he testifies publicly, Mueller must be forced to define the “true point of beginning” of the Russian Collusion with Trump Campaign” allegations and investigations. He cannot have done his job without determining this first. What? Who? When? Why? Don’t let him leave without answering with clear specifics.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It is a “bunch of goop” because all of Washington uses the term politically, i.e., something to be lied about and defined to their convenience, not the truth. If “predicate” means TRUE cause, real foundation, that’s one thing, but it (or them; these people all have their individual motivations) is quite separate from the LIES they tell, on several levels. On the topmost level, for example, they continually “move the goalpost” to avoid being checkmated — from the original “Russia, Russia, and Trump” to “recuse compromised Sessions”, to “17 intelligence agencies agree”, to Rosenstein’s betrayal (the firing of Comey and the quick emplacement of Mueller), to etc. etc. etc. This basically keeps people casting backward, and never facing the fact that each movement of the goalpost is itself a blatant criminal act, and therefore illegitimate on its own, much less a strong link the their “chain of evidence”.

      The TRUE predicate resides in the individual motivations of these traitors to each do what they did, and over that, the motivation of Obama/Soetoro to enable them to work together to do it all and promulgate it to the public, via a similarly corrupt media.

      Obama’s predicate is the racist and supremacist ideology of Islam, aided and abetted by Islam’s subornation of the Black “civil rights” movement, even as and after that movement had already won, in the 1960s. And on top of that was Obama’s individual character, or to be precise, his total lack of character, which makes his main drive in life to be seen as morally superior and spotless. His whole presidency was about “getting even” with White America, as represented so well by his immediate predecessor, the “White man’s burden” himself, of Bush Jr., whose screw-ups are now legendary. In making Obama/Soetoro president, however, it was a case of America jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

      But I digress, as they say. Obama was personally insulted, by all the valid claims against him and his presidency, and especially by such a famous, popular figure as Donald Trump. He was insulted by any who opposed his least wish, such as Flynn (remember him? — which reminds me, I need to find a place in this outstanding comment to work in “Huber…Huber…Huber…”, because it is so true in the context of so many people NOT wanting to remember awkward truths, here in the Still The Age of Obama.)

      Oh well, I’ll mercifully cut this short. Just remember: Obama, Obama, Obama. You know, the President behind all of these traitors? The Buck Stops Here, even if no one wants it to?

      Like

  8. Tl Howard says:

    So Rod has to be asked which person who wound up on Muellar’s team did he speak with BEFORE he ever spoke to Muellar about a special counsel.

    Liked by 8 people

  9. Mike says:

    First point, I really, really, want to see Weissmann under oath.

    2nd, Mark Levin is kicking serious ass right now on Life, Liberty, and Levin. I fear the “new” FOX will drop him. He knows that, but is using his FOX platform to tell the truth, and try to save the country.

    3rd, thank you Sundance for the excellent work. You don’t have the national TV or radio voice that Levin, etc have, but you educate, and inspire them. You most likely will never get any “credit, recognition, awards” for saving the country. I suspect you don’t give a sh*t about any of that. You just want to save the country. You are doing an excellent job of doing exactly that.

    Liked by 17 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Sometimes it is more important to be the person who influences the influencers. You may not get a medal pinned to your chest, but in your heart, you know you made a difference.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Firefly says:

      If Mark Levin gets kick off Fox News he will wear it like a badge of honor. I’m glad Mark Levin is telling it like it is. If, more like when, Mark Levin gets kick off Fox that will be the last straw day many Fox News viewers. It almost was when they were going to kick Judge Pirro off and decided to suspend her for a couple weeks.

      Like

  10. concerned3 says:

    Sidney Powell says:
    April 21, 2019 at 9:44 pm
    Please contribute to the Flynn legal defense fund at https://mikeflynndefensefund.org/contribute/
    Every little bit helps!

    Liked by 4 people

  11. j'accuse says:

    Ratcliff is right when he points out that Trump has told the truth all along.

    This whole charade has gone on long enough and I think we’re entitled to some answers about this hoax. First of all Steele and his buddies in his former agencies need to start talking and tell us where the dossier info came from. I tried to follow the stench of Russian ‘meddling’ but lost the scent at London of all places.

    This story has many layers but it is perfectly clear that our friends across the pond have been engaged in a disinfo campaign because of their establishment’s paranoia about brexit, the populist movements in Europe and of course the status of NATO. They have convinced many in the ‘team america’ crowd in the defense establishment and think tanks that DT is a dangerous right wing nationalist who leads a populist movement just like brexiteers and the ascendant populist movements in spain, italy, germany, france and tonight, ukraine. The necons and neolibs are fanning the flames of this paranoia.

    Do not underestimate the power of fear or the skills of the brits in waging info war, and convincing establishment Americans who already are afraid of nato being dismantled by DT.

    This is a false narrative because as we know the people who voted for DT are largely the *same coalition who voted for Reagan in 1980* and are not far right bigots and goons that the brits and euros believe we are. DT is not a far right populist and trends in our politics *are not comparable to what’s going on in britain and europe.*

    Disinfo is a big part of this and I have no doubt some of it is homegrown but when I started seeing some of the ridiculous caricatures of supposed right wing Americans I got suspicious. Also there are some establishment ukrainians funding think tanks and connected to the DNC who are spreading it.

    I have no doubt Russians are in the mix too but there is a clear alignment of brits, euros, US defense estab types, neocons and clinton neolibs who have allowed themselves to be whipped into a panic that DT and his supporters want to dismantle post wwII cold war mechanisms such as NATO ,and Brits fear losing what little control over world affairs they still have. Be vigilant.

    Liked by 5 people

    • sejmon says:

      So alcoholic Porno*henko lost election in glorious Ukraine…most corrupt/fascist government in Europe since MAY 1945..and we least neocons/globalists/clowns in CON-gress still support them…

      Like

    • dissonant1 says:

      The European MSM is also part of the disinformation. I have friends in Europe who still (after 2+ years) cannot understand how I could possibly have voted for Trump, because they have heard nothing but negative mis-characterizations of him in the press (think CNN and MSNBC). I have done my best to explain but basically they are totally in the dark about the mood of our country, otherwise.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Peoria Jones says:

        Funny. I was just thinking the other day about the Brits and Euros with whom I used to communicate on IMDb. Many were pro-USA and pro-Trump. Then…

        Suddenly after the 2016 Trump Presidential inauguration, Amazon-owned IMDb announced it was shutting down its VERY popular message boards. Sudden shock. I never saw any of the BS PC problems they used as an excuse to cut it all off.

        It was a convenient and fun way that many of us communicated and followed media and pop culture. Pro-Brexit Brits and Pro-Trump Americans found each other. Well I guess Jeff Bozos can’t allow that.

        Like

    • The Gipper Lives says:

      I think they are desperately afraid that President Trump’s patriotic nationalism will continue to succeed and spread to their European countries, which it already is. That is a threat to their EU Socialst Globalism and The Islamist Project.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Gipper lives;
        If they believe that, they are delusional, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
        DJT did not ‘start’this movement; it is a worldwide movement rejecting marxist globalism.

        DJT did not ‘trigger’ Brexit, or the election victory in Hungary, Poland, Italy, Brazil, etc. Those voters in those countries see what is being ‘offered’and they are rejecting it.

        DJT did not create the Deplorables, like ANY leader of great movements, throughout history, he gives us a VOICE.
        WE have been saying, for YEARS, Don’t talk to us about ‘comprehensive immigration reform’so you can sneak in amnesty, while filling with loopholes, we have been fooled on that one, before.(Reagan immigration deal).

        FIRST, we SECURE the Border. Second, you want “comprehensive”, GREAT.
        Make e-verify mandatory
        End birthright citesenship
        End chain migration
        End visa lottery……
        Is THAT comprehensive enough for you?

        We have said, FOR YEARS that NAFTA and other trade deals SCREWED us, and that China was double screwing us.

        We have said, FOR YEARS that we are tired of having OUR military securing the worlds borders, while leaving our own unguarded.

        We have said, FOR YEARS that we are tired of whack-a-mole endless wars in the M.E., bring our troops home and put them on the border.

        We have said, FOR YEARS that Obamacare sucks, and should be eliminated.

        “All” (and its a BIG All) DJT has done, like any good leader of a movement, is give us a voice.

        He didn’t start this movement. Itvis a worldwide movement to reject centralised control, globalism.

        Liked by 5 people

  12. curator55 says:

    If an official Counter Report is not forthcoming from the Trump Team, how about someone with skill and influence compiling a “Commentary Counter Report” at least, that includes all of the best, legal arguments being made against the so called “damning” Obstruction allegations. Rep Ratcliffe’s opinions are always worthy of dissemination.

    The pro Trump counter arguments are presently being scattered by the blustering winds of public discourse in various hard to find locations unlike the pdf. Mueller Report. Perhaps somebody can search long and far and then enter the counter arguments all in one “report.”

    sundance was apparently one of the few or the only interested party that bothered to “capture the individual interviews (including Ratcliffe’s) on Sunday Morning Futures today.”

    Like

    • Mark McQueen says:

      All you have to do is go to YouTube and search for “sunday morning futures”.

      Like

      • curator55 says:

        Thanks Mark but I knew that.

        I should’ve quit beating the “Trump Team Official Rebuttal Report” suggestion long ago. If the experienced Pols supporting Trump and his legal team don’t think it’s necessary then its story over. I wasted my time and effort.

        Like

        • Mark McQueen says:

          A prepared response was the way Rudy first said they were going to do it. They may have changed strategies to a more direct method, like the Wallace interview. One thing about PDT is he rarely does what we think he should do when we think he should do it. 😉

          Like

    • steph_gray says:

      Wasn’t Rudy Giuliani preparing an 80-page rebuttal?

      Or maybe once Team Trump saw the Weissman Screed, they decided to get out of the way and let the enemy continue shooting themselves in all feet.

      Like

      • Rob says:

        Since there should not even be a “Mueller Report” (it was a witch hunt), it would make more sense to attack the predicates. Focusing on the report only gives it legitimacy.

        Like

  13. jus wundrin says:

    Rosenstein was supposed to retire when the mewler report was finished, yet hes still there. What changed?

    Like

  14. concerned3 says:

    Life, Liberty & Levin 4/21/19 | Fox News Today April 21, 2019

    Liked by 4 people

    • concerned3 says:

      Charge the Special Prosecutor and his team!

      DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

      SUMMARY:
      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.

      For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

      TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 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, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

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

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      WOW!
      LEVIN is PISSED OFF, and he wants everyone to know it.
      Fox better not DARE sanction him for this, is my thinking.
      Really best show I’ve seen.

      Liked by 5 people

    • ABN says:

      Great stuff. Thanks for posting

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Robert Smith says:

    Ratcliffe could be talking about the most heinous government corruption and he always has a cheery demeanor. I kind of like that because the whole thing is so absurd.

    Like

  16. nimrodman says:

    Sundance said:
    We can conclude that it must be considered against their interests for Mueller to take questions in public.

    A few questions for Mueller (or FBI) were raised in a discussion over on the Giuliani / Wallace interview thread started by Petrel at this comment stamp:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/21/sunday-talks-rudy-giulianii-vs-chris-wallace-on-mueller-report/comment-page-2/#comment-6935834

    The discussion centered on a Henry Greenberg or Henry Oknyansky, a Russian FBI informant who was sent at both Roger Stone and Michael Caputo to dirty them up.

    I ended my part in the discussion with this statement:

    “So we need to add this guy Greenberg to the other operatives (Mifsud, Halper, Downer, etc) that FBI / CIA ran at Trump campaign guys to try to dirty them up

    And call to account Wray, and before him, McCabe, Priestap, Strzok, etc at FBI to answer who at FBI was running these operatives.”

    There are article links and extracts over on the other thread (link above).

    I just wanted to bring some trace of that over here to the latest “Mueller” thread, because the discussion’s in kind of an odd place over there.

    And here are 2 article links, one from this week (Michael Caputo) and one from last year (Roger Stone) :

    Russian FBI informant attempted to frame me by offering dirt on Clinton: Michael Caputo
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/russian-fbi-informant-attempted-to-frame-me-by-offering-dirt-on-clinton-michael-caputo

    Trump associate Roger Stone reveals new contact with Russian national during 2016 campaign
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-associate-roger-stone-reveals-new-contact-with-russian-national-during-2016-campaign/2018/06/17/4a8123c8-6fd0-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?noredirect=on

    Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      So many FBI informants, so little time. I mean, who needs Russian Hackers and Macedonian Content Farmers when you got these U.S. a-holes all over the place to deal with? And they won’t freaking STFU. They’re writing books. They’re on T.V. They’re on more T.V. And they’re Tweeting about corn in Iowa. And they use fancy words like “ignominy”. And they wag their bony fingers from atop their Ivory Towers Of Disdain.

      How did we get here?

      Liked by 2 people

  17. The Gipper Lives says:

    Did Biden win as Ukrainian Attorney General? Since he knows how that office should be run.

    Like

  18. CNN_sucks says:

    After all these 2 years BS, the criminals like Clapper, Brennan and Comey will blame it to the dead guy, McCain.

    Like

  19. chojun says:

    Hey everyone, I’d like to get your thoughts on this.

    I’ve found it odd how McCabe and especially Comey, Brennan are so cocky in the wake of the greatest political scandal in American history, and their culpability therein. I saw someone recently describe the operation as “Parallel construction”, which is essentially evidence laundering, as previously characterized by Sundance.

    Parallel construction is apparenly used heavily when the NSA database is involved, or when foreign intelligence is involved – where 4th amendment concerns potentially exist.

    It looks like the Supreme Court, in 2009, affirmed in Herring v. United States that officers receiving illegal (laundered) evidence via parallel construction cannot be punished if they were exercising good faith.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_v._United_States

    As long as I’m interpreting everything correctly, it seems like Comey et. al think they have a clever defense in this. Is this why Sundance is warning of the outrage trap (the WHY of the investigation)?

    Thoughts?

    Like

    • Burnt Toast says:

      W/O specifics, the name itself, “parallel’, suggests two lines which do not cross.

      This whole mess looks like a strangler fig.
      See Sundance’s circular/interative graphic.

      Deep-state could not keep their lines straight and separate.
      BUT they will claim they are parallel.

      Like

    • mr.piddles says:

      Comey perjured himself to Congress. As did Brennan. And McCabe lied to The Feds. I’d start there and “see what happens”. Maybe get Old Man Clapper to “flip”, as they say on CNN. Flip flip flip. Like a freaking buttermilk pancake(*).

      (*) Old Man Clapper does remind me of a buttermilk pancake, now that I think about it.

      Like

    • graphiclucidity says:

      The conspirators swore an affidavit to receive a FISA warrant knowing full well that the evidence was paid opposition research from the Clinton campaign that was never verified, and used as additional evidence a Yahoo News article with the exact same source as the dossier.

      There is no “Good Faith” exception for perjury before a federal court, irregardless of their use of parallel construction at some point during the investigation.

      Like

    • Newhere says:

      I think there are separate concepts wrapped up in this question.

      Parallel construction is when investigators have intelligence data obtained from a counterintelligence channel, that doesn’t require warrants; they want to use as evidence of a crime, but they can’t because for that they’d have needed a warrant to collect it. However, they can use the information (i.e., don’t have to pretend not to have it) as a map to obtain other evidence legally. That’s why they call it “parallel construction” — as in, develop admissible evidence in parallel to the non-admissible intelligence data.

      Parallel construction isn’t a way to invent a crime. The crime exists. It’s a clever way of getting around evidence rules. The “outrage trap” isn’t referring to parallel construction of evidence to prove a crime; it’s a way to disguise that there is no crime. What Comey, McCabe and Brennan are doing is pretending to have secret knowledge of a crime that never existed. The idea is to keep *pretending* that Russian “interference” was more significant, and the “ties” to Trump more substantial, than they ever actually were. They’re trying to keep the cover up alive, even as it all falls apart, by playing up the sincerity of their initial suspicions. They need to maintain the narrative that at least all of the “grave concerns” in 2016-17 were legitimate. They want everyone thinking Trump is so awful, and Russia so scary that, my gosh, what else were they to do? Maybe they broke rules, but it was out of patriotism.

      That’s why it is so important — and potentially damning to their efforts — that Barr is going straight for the “predicate.” The “outrage trap” would be to focus on the bad behavior, but not the false predicate. Then they can whine, “what were we to do?” Going for the predicate exposes The Big Ugly.

      Liked by 3 people

  20. The Gipper Lives says:

    The first word in FISA is “Foreign”. Yet all the foreigners in this little play are cut-outs, stooges and agent provocateurs of American Intelligence–even the British and Australian spy agencies.

    For example, Veselnitskya and her pals were sent to Trump Tower by Lynch and Simpson. They promised info on Clintonbribes paid in Russia, but when they got there, they just wanted to talk about the weather. The meeting itself was the prize for Lynch’s Dept. of Justice Prevention.

    When Russia wants to interfere in our politics, they buy a few Facebook ads and maybe call RentAClinton. When China wants to, they buy senators. By the dozen.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Harassment of Mueller says:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-21/nothing-sacred-msnbc-harasses-mueller-after-easter-church-service

    We are fast approaching where the media is going to find itself under fire for criminal conspiracy to commit treason and sedition to which I say give them no damn quarter!

    Mueller also brought this on himself so maybe it’s a twofer!

    Like

    • steph_gray says:

      Wow. This certainly comes under the head of Eating Their Own.

      Remember the two years when we never saw any leftist press go within a mile of Mueller?

      Suddenly now he’s in the floodlights – for failure to get VSGPDJT.

      More popcorn please! 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿

      Like

  22. concerned3 says:

    Can the President subpoena records from members of Congress legally? Because, according to my reading many of the family members of Congress are taking money from China and putting it in their family members accounts.

    Like

    • boomerbeth says:

      Mark Levin said “yes” on his fox program tonight repeats in 15 min
      That would cause an earthquake with the fault being the capitol.

      Like

    • Newhere says:

      The President himself doesn’t issue subpoenas. He can direct/request the attorney general to investigate, and the AG can issue subpoenas if legal requirements satisfied.

      Separately, intelligence officials would monitor the international side, and if relevant to national security would likely brief the president. The president would have access to data involving foreign entities or nationals without needing a subpoena, he could just ask his IC officers (the domestic side would be “masked” — but of course we know the administration can request that it be unmasked …..)

      Like

  23. [Will] DIRTY Robert Swan Mueller III Testify before Congress or [Won’t] Bobby (the WEASEL) Mueller Testify ?–>Let the Stuttering-Stammering Games Begin!
    Oh Hell NO ! Bobby 3 Sticks knows that Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) has seen Everything ….UNREDACTED.
    ~Mueller made a complete (FOOL-of-Himself) the last time he had to Testify concerning his role in the….IRS/Lois Lerner PERSECUTION of “Tea Party” Pac…. & Catherine Engelbrecht (True The Vote PAC) will Attest to That.~
    *Ain’t that right Rep. Elijah (IRS/Lois Lerner Co-Conspirator) Cummings (D-MD).*

    Like

  24. boomerbeth says:

    Mule-liar is a drunk. Common knowledge in dc.
    He was awol most afternoons drinking in a dc bar, according to eyewitnesses.
    He was inserted into the SC slot AFTER the angry investigators were in place. He hired no one.
    He was selected because he is part of the Club, for no,other reasons.
    A perfect prototype of PeterPrinciple.
    Who is the man (men) behind the curtain controlling him?

    He has entrapped innocents for decades, destroying their lives.
    He cannot win a case based up any evidence other than fabricated evidence.
    He should have been disbarred decades ago.

    Watch how he testifies.
    Pathetic.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?313323-1/fbi-director-faces-house-judiciary-committee-oversight

    Like

  25. boomerbeth says:

    4-21-19 LEVIN ENCOURAGES RISE UP, AMERICA!
    “I’M MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT…ANYMORE!,

    Liked by 3 people

  26. laurie5106 says:

    One thing I’ve never understand is what was the reason for getting a special counsel in the first place? If FBI had already been investigating for a year and had come up empty and all they had was the unverified dossier, why get a special counsel? I’ve never understood Comeys reasoning that leaking his memos would create a predicate for a special counsel.

    Like

    • graphiclucidity says:

      Comey’s reasoning, if one wants to call any brain synapses firing off self-serving ideas in his sanctimonious head as reasoning, was that President Trump firing him was an act of obstruction.

      The leaked memos were just a public excuse for McCabe, Rosenstein, and Mueller to begin the inquisition.

      Like

      • farrier105 says:

        Rosenstein and McCabe quit being allies, if they ever were, after Comey was fired. This is reflected in the clash over the 25th Amendment affair, or “Wear-A-Wire” affair. This happened after Comey was fired, and Trump rubbed it in by having Fatso Kislyak and Kislyak’s boss over to the White House to dance on Comey’s (“nutjob”) grave. That didn’t help at all. There’s a limit to trolling.

        McCabe started the obstruction investigation after the Comey firing. Rosenstein wrote the letter that provided Trump the reasons he could use to sack Comey. IF FIRING COMEY WAS THE PREDICATE FOR OBSTRUCTION, ROSENSTEIN WAS INVOLVED IN THE OBSTRUCTION, at least as a witness, and maybe an accessory to obstruction; a co-conspirator. It was at this time that McCabe and Rosenstein talked about 25th Amendment to remove Trump. Those two are in dispute about who came up with that scheme, which has nothing to do with counter-intelligence or obstruction investigations. ONE of them was kicking around 25th Amendment as an alternative to obstruction. Which one was it?

        McCabe–He threatens Rosenstein with prosecution for obstruction if he doesn’t do the 25th Amendment operation. Rosenstein agrees, but double crosses McCabe by appointing Mueller and seizing control of the investigation from McCabe, saving Rosenstein from prosecution.

        Rosenstein–He offers to wear a wire for “Andy” and recruit the cabinet for 25th Amendment if McCabe holds off on obstruction or leaves Rosenstein out of it. McCabe agrees. Rosenstein makes Mueller Special Counsel with Rosenstein in charge, thus seizing the investigation from McCabe, saving himself.

        Either alternative looks good.

        Like

        • steph_gray says:

          This happened after Comey was fired, and Trump rubbed it in by having Fatso Kislyak and Kislyak’s boss over to the White House to dance on Comey’s (“nutjob”) grave. That didn’t help at all. There’s a limit to trolling.

          This is spurious IMHO. These Deep Staters would have done everything they did to President Trump no matter what. Blaming the victim is foolish.

          The rest of your analysis is fun to read, though.

          Like

        • Beau Geste says:

          But Rosenstein and Mewler likely did “wear a wire” when Mewler “fake-interviewed” for the FBII Director job. Recorded on his cell phone, and conveniently even “left it” sitting around the conference room when they left PDJT. Then went back to recover it.
          “He forgot his cell phone…” and Rosenstein-Mewler are good guys opposed to McCabe? yeah, right.

          Like

          • farrier105 says:

            That does nothing to my scenarios being any less plausible. The possibility that some parts on a Mueller interview were recorded does nothing to make my scenarios implausible They are PLAUSIBLE. They are not FACTUAL. They are grist for the investigative mill. LEADS. May not go anywhere, but they are leads into what might have happened to cause the SC appointment which took the investigation away from McCabe and into Rosenstein’s hands.

            Like

        • graphiclucidity says:

          Rosenstein was under no legal jeopardy for writing a memo laying out Comey’s inadequacies, incompetence, and insubordination. He was following AG Sessions and President Trump’s orders to do so. Rosenstein fired nobody, the president did.

          You seem to forget that Rosenstein was McCabe’s superior, not the other way around.
          Rosenstein had no fear of McCabe as he already knew the DOJ IG was investigating McCabe for leaks and lack of candor, and later on advised Sessions to fire him.

          Rosenstein and McCabe were discussing obstruction and the 25th together, while an obstruction investigation had already been opened by McCabe.

          You think he did that without Rosenstein knowing?

          They were both discussing ways to get Trump out of office, period.
          There was no clash, there was a disagreement on how to obtain that objective without exposing everybody in the room to serious legal jeopardy, including sedition.

          Meanwhile, Rosenstein is bringing Mueller to the Oval Office.
          The next day he appoints Mueller as Special Counsel.
          A few months later he approves Mueller’s investigation into his boss, AG Sessions.

          So, yes, of course Rosenstein and McCabe were never allies.
          There is no honor among thieves.

          Like

          • farrier105 says:

            He is a witness to possible obstruction, and since the letter was key in firing Comey, and Comey’s firing started obstruction, Rosenstein WAS under legal jeopardy. PERIOD. He was a witness and a potential ACCESSORY to what McCabe was calling OBSTRUCTION. NO way around it.

            The two different scenarios work. They are just like Intelligence Community Assessments. If they can do them, we can do them. The two scenarios fit like gloves.

            Yes, I think McCabe started that investigation and the meeting was to inform Rosenstein of that and to remind him of his legal exposure. It accounts for everything, answers every question except why did everyone let Rosenstein run the investigation? He had more reason to recuse than Sessions.

            Like

      • laurie5106 says:

        I get that but the Special Counsel was started to investigate Russian interference in election not obstruction, that came later. Its likely this was their plan all along. I guess what I mean is that just like they had no real evidence to get A fisa warrant, they also had no real evidence to start a special counsel investigation. It truly was a witch hunt. Isn’t this against the law? What about probable cause?

        Like

        • graphiclucidity says:

          I agree, they had no probable cause for a criminal investigation other than the dossier and the use of informants to set up Papadopolous.

          However, we must remember, this entire plot started as a counter-intelligence investigation, not criminal. The only probable cause they had to show was before the FISC to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn, and Papadopolous. The Page warrant is now known to have been fraudulently obtained.

          As far as we know, the criminal investigation into obstruction began when McCabe ordered it after the president fired Comey, his only probable cause being that Trump had asked Comey for his loyalty and to go easy on Flynn for lying to the FBI, according to Comey’s memo to self.

          It’s all quite convoluted and confusing, I agree.
          Which is why Barr needs to get all the players under oath justifying their actions and previous testimony as to how all of these investigations were started and on what predicate(s).

          When their testimonies and justifications don’t line up with each other and the evidential timeline, then Barr is, hopefully, going to start nailing people to the wall.

          Like

          • laurie5106 says:

            Thanks for taking the time to explain. I see that I didn’t understand the difference between counter intelligence investigation and a criminal one. So much to learn. 😀

            Liked by 1 person

    • boomerbeth says:

      It was a kkklinton money-laundering kon. To protect the real criminals. Keep the evidence & the felons under wraps.

      Like

  27. laurie5106 says:

    One thing I’ve never understand is what was the reason for getting a special counsel in the first place? If FBI had already been investigating for a year and had come up empty and all they had was the unverified dossier, why get a special counsel? I’ve never understood Comeys reasoning that leaking his memos would create a predicate for a special counsel.

    Like

  28. laurie5106 says:

    One thing I’ve never understand is what was the reason for getting a special counsel in the first place? If FBI had already been investigating for a year and had come up empty and all they had was the unverified dossier, why get a special counsel? I’ve never understood Comeys reasoning that leaking his memos would create a predicate for a special counsel.

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      This is exactly what Barr needs to get to the bottom of. As Ratcliffe mentions, Mueller, in his report, said there was NO evidence of collusion. If there was NO evidence of collusion then why were there multiple investigations?

      We know why. We know people in positions of power wanted Trump to lose the election, and when he won they wanted to execute a coup to remove him. It’s horrendous. The entire world needs to know what happened here. And the entire world needs to know who planned and executed this coup.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bryan Alexander says:

      Laurie, the rules of a Special Counsel are such that ALL other Justice Department investigations involving his scope of investigation have to be given to him. The SC alone controls every bit of the information pertaining to his investigation. That is why Horowitz first IG report was so watered down. He could do anything with those involved in the Mueller teams investigation.

      It was an investigative “black hole”. Anything damaging for Obama, Clinton, the DOJ, the FBI, anything related to the entire Russia Investigation would go to Mueller. So, Mueller became the “key holder for the keys to the Kingdom”. All of the dirty actors in the DOJ and FBI knew they were protected as long as Mueller was in charge.

      Like

  29. Ready Steady Go says:

    Something is very very odd about the Mueller report. It is as if one person wrote the case, and another person wrote the conclusion. It choppy and the conclusion deviates from the case. Ie – it appears in the obstruction section Weissman lays out the lawfare case on obstruction. It takes issue with the dershowitz and turley view. But then the conclusion abruptly cuts off. Read it and then consider:
    1- SD mentions the Dems detailed planning for impeachment hearings and the chosen one. The Dems were planning impeachment as if it were a certainity not a possibility. How were they certain? Did they already know Weissman concluded obstruction occurred.
    2- why did the Dems react so shocked after Barr’s 1st press conference? They acted as if he was lying? Why did they think that?
    3- why did the MSM think Barr was lying after the 1st press conference? Did they have an advance copy from Weissman that did not jive with Barr’s summary?
    4 why was RR stunned and in shock during Barr’s 2nd press conference?
    5 why did Weissman abruptly resign?
    6 why didn’t Rudy publish his counter report?
    Folks. I have my tin foil hat on. The only explanation I have is this. Weissman s report concluded with obstruction being committed. This conclusion was then leaked to the Dems to plan and coordinate the planning SD outlined. The MSM was given the heads up too. Notice how they started the obstruction narrative leading up to the release. Everybody was on point and CERTAIN Of what was coming. Why were they certain? How were they so wrong? SOMEONE stepped in. Someone had enough to stop it and change the conclusion. Why would they spend 2 years trying to take down POTUS and then back down at the 11th hour. Weissman could have easily made the fake case. He’s done it before. Read the report folks. It is the lawfare blueprint. But something changed. And someone made them change it. Enough that they are too scared to talk about it. The leaks are real. The MSM and Dems are not this dumb and disorganized. It’s not what they do. They KNEW WHAT WAS IN THAT REPORT. SOMEONE CHANGED THE CONCLUSION. Go back and look at their reactions. Why were they calling Barr a liar with such confidence? They only way was if they were briefed on 1 conclusion and then got a different one. Someone on our side has something on a lot of people. Enough that they are scared and not talking. If I am off base, then look at RR….why is he so scared???

    Like

    • Ready Steady Go says:

      – remember Brennan predicting indictments on a Friday? And when it never happened, he said he got bad “information”.
      – why is the media tailing Mueller on Easter Sunday??? ” Hey Bob, wtf happened to the plan???
      – why is there a lack of unanimity from the Dems on impeachment??? Are they still trying to figure out wtf happened?
      Why do the Dems and MSM seem blind sided?
      Why aren’t they united on Mueller testimony?
      Someone has something on someone. Enough to shut this down.
      Why was Barr so damn comfortable with the word spying???
      This is bigger than Barr. He is a messenger boy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CHenie says:

        >>>>>>Someone has something on someone<<<<<<< There are dozens of current and former members of The Swamp who have a "chip" or two in the "big game" The clip below from "Clear and Present Danger" says it all. Chip holders are either playing their chips or threatening to play their chips. NO ONE is going to jail:

        Like

        • Dr.Jay says:

          I think it unlikely, but if so it may have something to do with a DNC staffer who was either:

          – helpful in collecting some innocuous and mostly outdated documents in order to give them to a small group of scam artists who would act as if they were anti-DNC hackers …
          – a person who found out that some people had been collecting some innocuous and mostly outdated documents in order to give them to a small group of scam artists who would act as if they were anti-DNC hackers …
          or
          – decided to collect some emails from a DNC system. Not really interesting ones from DWS or other operatives, no.
          Just one from people involved in the campaign finance fraud by the DNC: collecting donors via a loophole in the law, that allows you to donate to all Democrat orgs in 50 states. Yet they will have to hand over all that money to the HRC campaign, which would otherwise be limited to getting the same amount only once, instead of 50x.
          That would also include any donations which were really meant for the local democrat organizations. And even donations actually supposed to help other candidates, like, uhm, Bernie. As a good democrat you may be opposed to that…

          And that staffer then met a rather untimely end.

          And some white haired dude told someone quite recently…

          Like

    • ms Idaho` says:

      Have you just described the perfect sting?
      Is it not typical of a sting that the stingees are certain they will obtain the prize they seek?
      Are all the players involved (stingers & stingees) now on the stage?
      Has the sting concluded and now we await the fallout?
      if this is not delicious I don’t know what is – happy day after the Easter celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.

      Like

    • A very interesting perspective. Do you think AG Barr inadvertently laid a trap by exposing corruption and telling the truth?

      Like

      • ms Idaho` says:

        I do not know any more than you do – but – IMHO – the entire ‘witch hunt’ was a sting. I believe the ‘facts’ presented here by Sundance and others who obviously are ‘in the know’. I’m just not sure I agree with the convulsive contusions. Reverse the spotting scope and view each player (forget white or black hat daffy-nitions) as playing a part in a sting. Don’t you have to appear to be as ‘dirty’ as the criminals you are baiting?
        Per ‘ready set go’, the stingees revealed themselves in the lead up to the Mueller report. To me a missing question is ‘why now?”
        It has been opined that now that the SC has been concluded the real investigation(s) can begin. Why not assume that for over 2 years all of this has been investigated? Why not assume that when Barr accepted the offer to be AG he already knew much of what has been going on? The SC was the ‘squirrel’ (look at how awful this is) so the guilty parties would not know what is/was being investigated
        As I said, I don’t know any more than you do, so take my guesses with a grain of salt. Or join me laughing my head off like I did at the end of the movie ‘The Sting’.

        Like

        • Ready Steady Go says:

          Bingo. What if Mueller is not a black hat? What if he let RR and Weissman do everything they wanted. he allowed them to feed the media. He was hailed as the gold standard. And then he pulled the rug. He let Weissman write the report and then said- no way and changed Weissman s conclusion. Would that not explain all of the shock awe and confusion? He couldn’t shut down Weissman early. This had to play out until the end. Compare the case to the conclusion. They are different. And Weissman disappears and resigns. No one can smear Mueller now. They elevated him too high. Weissman can’t run to the press because it was Mueller investigation. He gets the final call. Maybe Barr and Mueller are closer friends than we know. If Mueller shut this down too early he would have been discredited.

          Like

          • Ready Steady Go says:

            Truth is we will never know. Maybe in 50 years some one writes a book. all we can do is guess. And maybe that’s the whole point. This thing had too many layers to understand. I do think POTUS was a step ahead. The RR hostage tape still cracks me up— Help me!!!

            Like

          • ms Idaho` says:

            I’ll go you one better, since we are guessing. President Trump, Mueller, Rosenstein, Rudy and Barr go back to New York anti mob and anti criminal activities – back as far as the 1980s. Many NY elected reps (schumer and house members) also know the NY history. The bad guys KNEW POTUS’ history (He’s not a politician like WE ARE) – and may have been (were) afraid of what he would discover & expose i.e. ongoing criminal activity.
            Panic at his successful bid and eventual inauguration. Hence the coup attempt. I have pieced my thoughts together from postings here at TCH- just someone’s thought here & another there. In response to calling Sessions a black hat someone pointed out that during his time in office all of the bad actors who were identified (Comey, Clapper et al) are no longer gummit employees. As I said before, the question I have is why now? As others have opined – time for Kraken?

            Like

    • laurie5106 says:

      Very interesting and compelling observations. I so hope it’s true that something big has happened that we have yet to hear about. The deep state is so entrenched that it would take something big to reach the tipping point where tolerance ends and the decision is reached that something needs to be done to stop the corruption. Once that happens there will be no stopping it.
      By the way, who is RR?

      Like

      • ms Idaho says:

        RR is Rod Rosenstein. Laurie – many folks are waiting for dawn raids, arrests and perp walks – famous trials and hangings. POTUS does not have a history of operating in that way. I’m guessing that some media folks and organizations will be put on a short rope. Politicians looking for reelection may find themselves un-elected. People like John Kerry may find no internationals believe their meddling. Family of politicians who have received illicit largess may find they are in the proverbial stew pot. In other words, no big ugly, but bad actors suddenly have severe indigestion. IMO were POTUS to ‘go after’ Obama people would immediately make him a martyr.
        Think of ending the corruption like turning a battle ship 180 degrees. Seems I read it takes about 10 miles or so. Some ‘big’ thinks probably have to wait until after the 2020 election. Between now & then it may just be a little bit here – a little bit there – the wall continuing to be built, Barr enforcing the existing laws, agencies getting rid of rules and making better ones. neverending drip drip drip – the reverse of what has been done to get us into the mess we are in today

        Like

  30. Fools Gold says:

    Hey Maria! You’re asking the right “Fricken” questions!

    Like

  31. Piggy says:

    Whoa, whoa, not so fast…

    First, Interview Mueller first for hours and hours. Limit water. Have tapes of Weissmann breathing heavily over the speakers.

    Second, Write some “memos” on sticky pads or a trapper keeper or something like it. These can be done when convenient just remember the dates.

    Third, Have some higher ups at the DoJ write some 302’s whenever. Can be whatever they want. No one checks anything anyway. If the DoJ people question just say “What Would A Good Postmodernist Lawyer Do?”. They will be all over it.

    Fourth, Get some FBI “rank and file” around 30 people. Make sure they mindlessly follow orders. If they whine tell them journalists make hot dates sometimes and other times they buy ball tickets. Let them leak it will make them feel important. Will sooth them.

    Fifth, Get an oppo research company called “Dossier Couture”. Have them hit the database and dig up stuff on whomever they want. They can use CB’s and trucker slang to hide their comms. They can leak to press. Ham radios are passé.

    Sixth, Treat the press like the degenerates most of them are and have them parrot the narrative that must be written. They will do it because Walter”I lied about Nam” Cronkite said it was cool.

    After all that…Have Mueller testify.

    Like

  32. bour3 says:

    Misused Word Department. She said, “presumptuously next week.” *Whispers* She meant “presumably.”

    Like

  33. John-Y128 says:

    Tom Fitton: Mueller ‘Suggesting Obstruction’ Is ‘Final Act of Abuse of Power’
    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/04/21/tom-fitton-mueller-obstruction-final-abuse-power/

    Like

  34. Nowut Ameen says:

    Did Mueller actually hire any of the investigators on his “team”? It seemed like they all arrived on the same bus about 5 minutes after he was appointed.

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      We should look back through the Strzok-Page texts. Mueller was officially appointed on May 17 2017, but when Rod Rosenstein was making the rounds of the Senate prior to his confirmation, it’s reported that he told Dem Senators that he would appoint a Special Counsel. Rosenstein was nominated on Jan 31 and confirmed on Apr 25, so that means Rosenstein was on board with the Special Counsel plan at least as early as April. I’m guessing the traitors were choosing Mueller’s team in April or even earlier and they were ready to hit the ground running (like Keystone Cops) on May 17.

      Like

      • Concernedcitizen says:

        Comey’s firing was the necessary pretext to get the coup rolling. Rosenstein was the mastermind of the coup, and Mueller and McCabe also had significant roles in the planning and execution.

        Like

  35. covfefe999 says:

    Ratcliffe at 6:07: Bob Mueller didn’t say there was insufficient evidence of collusion, he said, quote, NO evidence. Right, so if there was NO evidence of collusion, why were the investigations started in the first place? Of course we know why they were started. We know. And it’s important now for the entire country, the entire world even, to know.

    Please Attorney General Barr be a good and honorable person and get to the bottom of this mess. It’s very important for our country.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Dr.Jay says:

    Ratcliffe: “… from defendants, ehm Democrats …”
    LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  37. doohmax says:

    “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” Will Rogers

    Like

  38. 6x47 says:

    How much better would it have been for President Trump to call Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy AG Rosenstein into the Oval Office immediately after Rosenstein announced the appointment of the Special Counsel, given him a stern dressing down for exceeding his authority and bypassing the Attorney General, and then informed both men that the Attorney General is NOT recused from doing his job.

    Then, Mueller’s appointment would have been rescinded and a proper appointment of an truly neutral and disinterested Special Counsel would have been made in his place – or perhaps none at all.

    Curse the cowards who advised him not to interfere with Rosenstein’s traveling circus.

    Like

  39. RobInPA says:

    I like the little smile/smirk from Ratcliffe after Maria asks him, in essence, “when are the heads of the criminal gonna roll?”

    Like

  40. Richard Whitney says:

    Here and elsewhere I asked why, if they wanted to know more of the Mueller report beyond the Barr summary, why they didn’t ask Mueller to testify, instead of the man who prepared the summary.
    And the answer was obvious: their positions would blow up. If asked about redacted portions, Mueller would have to demur (ongoing grand jury, sealed indictments, classified information), and if Mueller couldn’t answer then they couldn’t blame Trump for obstruction. Mueller could be asked if there was any evidence of obstruction, and he would repeat his answer of “No.”
    More, Mueller would likely be asked, for example, if he turned over evidence on, say, John Podesta to the SDNY. Mueller wouldn’t be able to answer that, and how could they spin that?
    Consequently, I don’t think Mueller will testify.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Beau Geste says:

      I agree, Mewler will not testify. The Dems may try to have “closed” testimony, but would be easily attackable for not wanting “transparency”. Mewler under oath in public testimony:
      Q: Why didn’t you ever interview Assange? Assange says the russians were not his source for DNC and hillary emails.
      Q: Why didn’t you interview Svetlana Lokhova, who claims she was “used” to smear former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
      Q: Why didn’t you take evidence from Bill Binney and the many Veteran Intelligence Professionals who analyzed the hillary and DNC emails, concluding they were copied by an “insider”?
      Q: why didn’t you investigate the foreign, russian, british and australian collusion to create the “pee pee” dossier and harm the Trump campaign?
      Q: Is Halper a paid US spy? Is Misfud a US spy with connections to the clintons? Who paid them?
      Q: did the FBI, DOJ or CIA “surveil” the Sanders campaign or Bernie Sanders? Any other candidates?
      Q: You discovered that there was MASSIVE illegal use of the NSA database. This is clearly connected to the “pee pee” dossier and EC which you were charged to investigate. Why didn’t you indict the perpetrators of this illegal activity?
      Q: you discovered there was fraud on the FISC court, This was clearly connected to your scope of investigation. why didn’t you indict those who carried out this fraud?
      Q: Assange says the russians were not his source for DNC and hillary emails.
      Q: Why didn’t you interview Svetlana Lokhova, who claims she was “used” to smear former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
      Q: Why didn’t you take evidence Bill Binney and the many Veteran Intelligence Professionals who analyzed the hillary and DNC emails, concluding they were copied by an “insider”?
      Q: why didn’t you investigate the foreign, russian, british and australian collusion to create the “pee pee” dossier?
      Q: Is Halper a paid US spy? Is Misfud a US spy with connections to the clintons? Who paid them?
      Q: did the FBI, DOJ or CIA “surveil” the Sanders campaign or Bernie Sanders? Any other candidates?
      Q: Did the FBI, DOJ, CIA surveil any members of Congress at any time after 2008? Please provide the records…
      Q: Did you investigate hillary clinton’s russian connections, such as the payment of $140 million and speakers fees?
      Q: did you investigate the Perkins Coie payments to Fusion, Steele and others as foreign influence?
      Q: Did the FBI, DOJ, CIA surveil any members of Congress at any time after 2008? Please provide the records…
      Q: Did you investigate hillary clinton’s russian connections, such as the payment of $140 million and speakers fees?
      Q: did you investigate the Perkins Coie payments to Fusion, Steele and others as foreign influence?
      Q: how was your team of lawyers and FBI agents selected? Did you personally select all of them? Were you given a list? Why no Trump supporters? Please provide all records of when each lawyer and agent first considered or was solicited.
      Q: when were you first approached, or when did you first consider, and when did yo ufirst discuss the concept of a special counsel, and your acting as special counsel?
      Q: Did you record your meeting with President Trump?
      Q: when were you appointed as special counsel?

      and so on, which would be on public TV……..

      Liked by 1 person

      • Richard Whitney says:

        All excellent questions!

        Like

        • Beau Geste says:

          Thanks, Richard, here are a few more that quickly come to mind:
          Q: Mr. Mewler, did you review the Weiner laptop for evidence of foreign interference, Perkins-Coie communications about DNC/Hillary emails/fusion/steele/misfud/halper/”henry-Greenberg?
          Q: There are extra classified hillary emails which have been “recovered”, which likely went to china and were part of the “hacking” you were charged to investigate. Did you refer these new classified email mishandling for prosecution?
          Q: The Awans allegedly copied huge amounts of data from the DNC and congress members. Did you fully investigate what happened to this huge (classified) data breach, to make sure none was released to other countries (Pakistan?) or to wikileaks? Did you indict anyone for this data breach and/or equipment theft? Why not?
          Q: “Henry Greenberg”, actually Gennadiy Vasilievich Vostretsov, approached michael caputo with alleged “hillary dirt”, which the Trump campaign ignored. Was or is “Greenberg a US Government employee or informant? Please provide all government information, communications, payments and surveillance related to “Greenberg”.
          Q: Isn’t the Trump campaign ignoring “Greenberg’s” offer fully convincing evidence of an absence of “collusion? (it “proves the negative”, which is very hard to do)

          Like

  41. Darren says:

    Look nearly everything is out in the open. The next few month will show who AG Barr is. All we’ll have to do is read the first few pages of an IG report. If we see white washing like we did last time then we know nothing will happen. If it honestly details what the IG found then we have an honest man.

    Like

  42. Donald says:

    Or, late May times nicely with the expected release of the IG Report. Going to need some ammo then, if for no other reason than to create a distraction.

    Like

  43. thedoc00 says:

    While it is useful that there suddenly newly aware Republicans in Congress, one cannot help but ask, where were they 2 years ago?? The same evidence was available then as is today concerning the Mueller investigation. In fact they even allowed their Party to threaten the President if he fire Mueller, Rosenstein or Sessions.

    Can’t help but feel this is all political theatre with 2020 looming.

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      Well, that could be true. But I also think Sessions’ recusal created all sorts of problems. Because he was removed from all things related to the 2016 election and Rosenstein was in charge, the DOJ was not a properly-functioning entity. They did not deliver documents in a timely manner and I think some were not delivered at all, possibly because of Mueller’s ongoing never-ending witch hunt. With Mueller witch hunt done and Barr in charge, we’ll see what happens. (Trying to give people who appear to be good and honest the benefit of the doubt but I’m not holding my breath.)

      Like

  44. Papoose says:

    Maybe AG Barr should open up an investigation on Uranium One; get FiSA approval and go from there. We all know there was foreign ‘collusion’ in that deal. Mueller delivered the sample for goodness sake. Plus, we all know the spying on Citizen Trump and the attempted coup against Trump was to shove that under the carpet.

    Like

  45. concerned3 says:

    It looks like Papadopoulos was the victim of entrapment by the FBI (i.e., Bill Priestap), Australian diplomat Alexander Downer and Mi6 (i.e., Dearlove).

    Per Wikipedia Entrapment
    In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.

    Note: for the reader Steele is connected to Dearlove both are or were Mi6.

    Dearlove Connections – UK Intel Firm Hakluyt, Alexander Downer, Stefan Halper & Papadopoulos follows:

    Hakluyt is British strategic intelligence and advisory firm. It was founded by former MI6 members and retains close ties to UK Intelligence services.

    In the small circular world of professional spooks, Hakluyt has ties with three unexpected individuals:

    Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.
    Stefan Halper, a former policy advisor to Nixon, Ford and Reagan.
    George Papadopoulos

    http://themarketswork.com/2018/05/09/dearlove-connections-uk-intel-firm-hakluyt-alexander-downer-stefan-halper-papadopoulos/

    So there we have it. Bill Priestap was in London on or around May 9. Which strongly suggests that all three of the international trips taken by him during his tenure as FBI counterintelligence chief were to London.

    Still, there is a reason the censors had their Sharpies out. It has to do with another question Jordan asked Priestap: “Okay. So what were you doing in [REDACTED] in the [REDACTED] of 2016?

    So, Priestap replied, I went to meet with a *foreign partner, *foreign government partner. In other words, almost certainly British intelligence. **Not exposing our British partners has been the Justice Department’s justification for locking up secrets about the beginnings of the Trump investigation. The redactions try and fail to hide that Priestap met repeatedly with his British counterparts in 2016.
    http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/04/11/fbi_mans_testimony_points_to_significant_wrongdoing_beyond_spying.html

    Later on Saturday evening, Papadopoulos tweeted, Even BIGGER than Bruce Ohr meeting Christopher Steele shortly after I met Mifsud, Peter Strzok’s old boss, BILL PRIESTAP, was in LONDON, the days before/after I was meeting ALEXANDER DOWNER. No wonder I wasn’t supposed to tell the world Downer was recording my conversation.
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2018/10/27/george-papadopoulos-reveals-new-information-on-russia-collusion-narrative/

    Like

  46. JRD says:

    If this is true it means Horowitz intends to screw us again.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/robert_mueller_the_consummate_dc_schemer_.html

    Liked by 1 person

  47. richard mcdonald says:

    I’m waiting for Adm. Mike Rogers to reappear – that’s when the fun starts.

    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