The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[GG]

5 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

I don't believe that Flynn had any real dirt on Russia's efforts to meddle in the Trump campaign, but understand why he would be interviewed. His calls with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions were inappropriate too and he was caught lying about them. The best answer is always "I do not recall". The worst prosecutors can do is express.frustration at your sudden poor memory.

 

 

 

Are you seriously hanging your hat on this hook?   Really?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Should be interesting what Sullivan tried to do next week...
 

>>> 13 Page interview <<<
 

FBI official on Mueller team said Flynn prosecution had 'get Trump' attitude, collusion probe was 'not there'
FBI official William Barnett was assigned to lead the bureau's original investigation into Michael Flynn
 

An FBI official who served on Robert Mueller’s team said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he did not wish to pursue a Trump-Russia collusion investigation as it was “not there" and considered it to be a "dead end."
 

FBI agent William J. Barnett made the comments during an interview on Sept. 17 at the Justice Department, before Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeffrey Jensen, who was tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the case against Flynn. Jensen has joined U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team in his review of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Those comments have surfaced in new government documents.
 

</snip>
 

“Barnett thought the case theory was ‘supposition on supposition,’” the 302 stated, and added that the “predication” of the Flynn investigation was “not great,” and that it “was not clear” what the “persons opening the case wanted to ‘look for or at.’”
 

After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was “still unsure of the basis of the investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together, without a specific criminal allegation.”
 

</snip>
 

Barnett, though, told investigators that he believed that Flynn’s position as White House national security adviser in the incoming Trump administration “offered an opportunity for the FBI to conduct the interview without alerting any suspicion and Flynn would see such an interview as being standard procedure.”
 

The 302 stated that Barnett ran the request to interview Flynn “up the chain,” but said the request was denied, and described the FBI’s investigation into Flynn as “top down”--meaning that “direction concerning the investigation was coming from senior officials," specifically then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who Barnett believed was “directing” the Flynn investigation.
 

Barnett, at the time, said that he believed the investigation was “problematic and could result in an inspector general investigation.”

</snip>
 

[Buffalo_Gal]

This is on the interview with Barnett:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Alaska Darin]

16 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

People need to be held accountable, or else the whole American experiment runs the risk of coming undone. 

 

The lack of integrity by partisans is disgusting.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

Ok, so the man folks are trying so hard to defend files a FARA and the question his lawyers posed was whether it was "knowingly false" information...

 

The fact that Flynn's Intel Group company was aiding a Turkish lobbying group that was thinly veiled as a corporation and was acting on behalf of Ankara's autocratic Muslim regime and Erdogan to try to secure the extradiction of the cleric Gulen who has been critical of Erdogan's power grab and crack down on freedoms ...somehow means Flynn is some kind of patriot?

 

There has been a concerted effort to better enforce the FARA, but to date the language is not written in a way that lawyers cannot run circles around it. And the government has not had a lot of success prosecuting FARA breaches. I think the FARA has to be better written to allow it to be enforceable if the US is going to be able to limit illegitimate foreign lobbying efforts and money used to sway US foreign policy.

 

Exerps from the Flynn "retroactively" registered FARA in question:

 

"As you know, under FARA, a U.S. firm that represents a foreign corporate client, which is not a foreign government or political party, may register under the LDA rather than FARA, so long as the firm engages in (assumed  corporate) lobbying activities for its client.

 

Flynn Intel Group concluded that because its client was a foreign corporation and the services provided included lobbying activities, it could file under the LDA. 

 

The Department's regulations provide that filing under the LDA is not an option, however, if a foreign government, even though not the client, nonetheless is the "principal beneficiary" of the work performed This is an uncertain standard, not based on the statutory language, and not defined in the Department's regulations. Nevertheless, because of the subject matter of Flynn Intel Group's work for Inovo BV, which focused on Mr. Fethullah Gulen, whose extradition is sought by the Government of Turkey, the engagement could be construed to have principally benefitted the Republic of Turkey.

 

To eliminate any potential doubt, the Flynn Intel Group therefore is electing to file a registration under FARA, in lieu of its prior LDA registration. 

 

Because this is a retroactive registration, compiled after the Flynn Intel Group...."

 

Seriously, he is some kind of hero or victim when collecting money and working with that Ankara regime? Because he is able to wiggle out of the obvious FARA conflicts of interests by obfuscating the loose FARA/LDA regulation language?

 

Folks don't read and admittedly tweets are easier reading than these documents and submissions.

 

So I can go with not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn, but not that Flynn is not guilty of doing what he and his business partners were doing for Ankara and how they likely knowingly (this is the problem with FARA enforcement) hid that relationship by improperly filing it as an LDA which allowed Flynn to maintain the security clearence he had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You weigh against General Flynn in multiple posts, but back out of it all by including “not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn...”. 
 

If I’m reading you correctly, you referenced transcripts where he plead guilty (fair), and in the post seen to suggest that the original prosecution was unwarranted, perhaps meaning the DOJ pursued charges erroneously but in good faith, or was overly aggressive, or they attempted to steamroll him for political purposes?  
 

The DOJ, upon review of factual information available, decided the prosecution was unwarranted.  Of course, we know that the prosecution is slow walking the release of documentation in their file, which seems to support the notion that a steam roll was the most likely explanation. 
 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

The post has flair for the dramatic.

 

It's all true. Every bit of it. What happened was the biggest scandal in US history -- and you're parroting reporting about it that's not only old and outdated, but factually incorrect. 

 

Case in point: 

 

9 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

His calls with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions were inappropriate too and he was caught lying about them. The best answer is always "I do not recall". The worst prosecutors can do is express.frustration at your sudden poor memory.

 

We have seen the transcripts now. We know he didn't inappropriately discuss sanctions, in fact we know he didn't discuss sanctions at all. They discussed expulsions which are entirely different, and even in that conversation he said nothing inappropriate. We also know now, from the FBI itself, that both agents did not not think he lied during the interview. 

 

You're pushing false information as if it's facts. That's not your fault. It's your information sources' fault who have been lying to your face about this topic for four years now. Get better sources. Dig deeper. You'll be shocked what you learn. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[WideNine]

40 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's all true. Every bit of it. What happened was the biggest scandal in US history -- and you're parroting reporting about it that's not only old and outdated, but factually incorrect. 

 

Case in point: 

 

 

We have seen the transcripts now. We know he didn't inappropriately discuss sanctions, in fact we know he didn't discuss sanctions at all. They discussed expulsions which are entirely different, and even in that conversation he said nothing inappropriate. We also know now, from the FBI itself, that both agents did not not think he lied during the interview. 

 

You're pushing false information as if it's facts. That's not your fault. It's your information sources' fault who have been lying to your face about this topic for four years now. Get better sources. Dig deeper. You'll be shocked what you learn. 

 

OK here is an actual excerpt from the call discussing the sanction actions of the US expelling a number of Russians from US Embassies and the very thing Flynn was not honest about with Mike Pence. Trump knew this, and fired him not because, in Trumps world of squishy rules, the call was inappropriate, but rather because he lied to Mike Pence about the call having happened.

 

As you know, I don't like to just follow someone else's interpretation of a document - especially not left-leaning CNN or right-leaning Fox and politicians or political media hacks....need I go there?

 

Transcript:

 

Flynn: "Do not allow this (Obama) administration to box us in right now!

 

Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly.

 

Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff (Russian election meddling), where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?

 

Kislyak says he understands what Flynn is saying, but Flynn might appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow.

 

Flynn: I know! Believe me I do! I very much appreciate it! But I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.

 

Kislyak agrees. Now when FSB and GRU are sanctioned and Kislyak asks himself, does it mean that the U.S. is not willing to work on terrorist threats, Kislyak poses a question.

 

Flynn says, yes.

 

Kislyak says he heard Flynn and he will try people in Moscow to understand. Flynn repeats asking to reciprocate moderately because if Moscow sends out 60 people, "you will shut down the embassy. "

 

Flynn: Let's keep this at even-kill level; then when we come in, we will have a better conversation where we are going to go regarding our relationship. And also, basically, we have to take these enemies on that we have.

 

So YES, he did discuss the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration:

 

 

Lets use The Way-Back Machine back to when Trump decided to take action because of the calls and likely the same transcript:

 

A defiant President Donald Trump on Thursday insisted that he asked Michael Flynn to resign because of Flynn’s statements to Vice President Mike Pence. The president also denied that he told his key national security advisor to discuss sanctions with a Russian official.

 

“He didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts and then he didn’t remember, and that’s just not acceptable,” Trump told reporters at the White House at his first solo news conference as chief executive.

 

“I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence.”

 

Trump added that he had no problem with Flynn making the calls because he was “doing his job.”

 

Flynn resigned Monday as national security advisor following revelations that he made contradictory statements to Pence about whether he discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Pence went on record saying the sanctions were not discussed. However, when press secretary Sean Spicer later said that the White House was warned on Jan. 26 that Flynn may have misled Pence, it raised questions about why it took more than two weeks for him to resign.

 

The sanctions were imposed by President Barack Obama after an intelligence report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had directed Moscow’s efforts to sabotage the 2016 election.

 

Trump defended his administration’s handling of the situation, instead blaming media outlets and the officials who leaked details of Flynn’s calls to them. Trump appeared to contradict himself by calling the leaked information “real” and the reporting “fake.”

 

 

There is no doubt that Flynn lied to investigators and to Team Trump about his back-channel communications with the Russian ambassador. Those communications, when taken as a whole, were laying the groundwork to reverse the policies of the administration that was currently in charge of setting policy in Washington.

 

It was the lying that got Flynn into hot water with both Trump and investigators. He did not need to cover his tracks, I don't think there is a law about discussing foreign policy like he did, but it is probably improper for someone to undermine current policy before a US leadership transition. My only guess is that he was still angry at the Obama administration, felt we could effectively partner with Russia on some things in the Middle East, and panicked then lied to Trump and Pence when they were made aware of the embarrassing effort to undermine the Obama administrations reparations against Russia for their literally proven election interference efforts.

 

On a side note: As to Hillary's and the DNC's emails, never liked the Clintons and think the DNC shot themselves in the foot with their shenanigans and gave Russian hackers great material to hand over to Wikileaks prior to the election. If they had acted more appropriately there would have been nothing to release. Does not excuse the Russian efforts, but makes for a more complete conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, WideNine said:

 

OK here is an actual excerpt from the call discussing the sanction actions of the US expelling a number of Russians from US Embassies... 

 

You're already admitting you're wrong and I was right. Expulsions are different than sanctions. Two different things entirely. 

 

The transcript proves this, as does your couching above: 

 

2 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Transcript:

 

Flynn: "Do not allow this (Obama) administration to box us in right now!

 

Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly.

 

Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff (Russian election meddling), where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?

 

Flynn didn't say "don't do anything" about sanctions -- which was the claim. He said to only be reciprocal with Moscow's expulsions. That's above board, entirely legal, and in no way was a lie. 

 

You're literally years behind the curve on this story. 

 

****************************************

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[GG]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

All they had to do was sit quietly for 6 months and let Trump be Trump.

[keepthefaith]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This for me has always been among the most egregious elements of this.  It makes the intent of all this so obvious. 

[3rdnlng]

I wonder how the conversations that John Kerry (when he was out of office) had with the Iranians would be viewed by the Left here in comparison to Mike Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador? 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You weigh against General Flynn in multiple posts, but back out of it all by including “not legally enforceable to prosecute Flynn...”. 
 

If I’m reading you correctly, you referenced transcripts where he plead guilty (fair), and in the post seen to suggest that the original prosecution was unwarranted, perhaps meaning the DOJ pursued charges erroneously but in good faith, or was overly aggressive, or they attempted to steamroll him for political purposes?  
 

The DOJ, upon review of factual information available, decided the prosecution was unwarranted.  Of course, we know that the prosecution is slow walking the release of documentation in their file, which seems to support the notion that a steam roll was the most likely explanation. 
 

 

 

Context is important. My point was that the history of FARA infractions show that convictions are rarely enforceable even where warranted. 

 

Flynn could (and probably should) have not accepted the plea deal. He could have plead innocent of the few charges they had and took it to court. If he did that, he would have had options to appeal if he lost in court. By agreeing to all the charges levied against him, Flynn created the current cluster and appellate consternation with Barr's reversal efforts. I am speaking purely of legal strategy, not vague things like right or wrongness of actions or politicians.

 

Mueller clearly was applying leverage on Flynn (that Flynn conveniently provided by lying) to see if there were any connections he had that were germane to their investigation of Russian meddling. This is a common tactic from law enforcement. You go after the little fish with leverage to see if it leads to bigger fish and it has been used to great effect against organized crime and it can work when dismantling Russian influence campaigns as well. You are trying to connect the dots to see where they lead and determine if anyone has been compromised to a degree where they need to be exposed/removed from a role at a minimum, or sentenced in court.

 

This is the job of our US law enforcement on the global front, and I suspect they are likely working overtime this year to better guard against Russian and Chinese election meddling to not get caught with their pants down - again.

 

Mueller, who was selected to lead the probe by the DOJ under a Trump's appointee, has been in law enforcement since the Reagan years. He is not some kind of partisan hack so parroting Don's political witch hunt nonsense is more than a bit ridiculous when the both sides of the isle wanted to see that Mueller report.

 

The Dems wanted to see it for confirmation of "Collusion" in the Trump campaign - of which Mueller's team found no "direct" evidence but plenty of indirect evidence via Stone coordination with Wiki Leaks, or of "Obstruction" of the probe itself which Mueller said there was evidence, but concluded that those were not part of the scope of his investigation. On the flip side the politicians in the GOP camp wanted the report so they could downplay the Russian meddling and influence on the election and clear their President and party of any perception of impropriety.

 

Were there political purposes - of course there were, but that does not change the substance of an investigation or the number of indictments that were handed down. It is just how everyone wants to interpret the impact of the findings post mortem.

 

Back to Mueller:

He did not feel there were any connections from Flynn that were germane to the Russian meddling investigation he was charged with pursuing and that Flynn cooperated with the probe. Mueller asked for leniency from the court for the charges levied against Flynn in the plea deal - those were my reasons for saying I think he should have gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Not that Flynn didn't do the things he swore he did under oath, just that he cooperated and deserved leniency.

 

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

The federal government has the ability to crush a person. Flynn was being bankrupted and his son threatened with prosecution all due to false prosecution of the General by the feds. We all know and can easily say that he should have plead not guilty to the nonsense charges. Easy for us to say. Not so easy for the person being charged. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

The federal government has the ability to crush a person. Flynn was being bankrupted and his son threatened with prosecution all due to false prosecution of the General by the feds. We all know and can easily say that he should have plead not guilty to the nonsense charges. Easy for us to say. Not so easy for the person being charged. 

 

...so "Sleepy Bob" is actually "Sleazy Bob"........and we should believe that Comey sullied "Squeaky Clean Bob's " by the book FBI culture.......that joint needs its own sewer system....

[Deranged Rhino]

49 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Context is important....

 

Flynn could (and probably should) have not accepted the plea deal. He could have plead innocent of the few charges they had and took it to court.

 

You must then take context into consideration. A guilty plea was forced on Flynn when the FBI threatened to go after his son and newborn grandson. Add to that he was drained of financial resources (sold his house) and, most importantly, the guilty plea allowed Flynn to spring his CI trap of which we are still reaping the rewards in the form of documents. 

 

And of course -- this pressure was all applied by an FBI/DOJ/CIA looking to hang him out to dry on falsified/fake charges. 

 

Context is key. 

 

51 minutes ago, WideNine said:

(that Flynn conveniently provided by lying)

 

Not even the FBI thinks Flynn lied. This is not an accurate representation of the facts now in record. 

 

52 minutes ago, WideNine said:

This is the job of our US law enforcement on the global front, and I suspect they are likely working overtime this year to better guard against Russian and Chinese election meddling to not get caught with their pants down - again.

 

We now know for a fact the FBI/DOJ/IC falsified evidence and paid/worked with an actual Russian spy deemed a threat to national security to frame the General and Trump with phony charges, using the media to spin it. 

 

Again, you're years behind in what you know about this case. Years. 

 

53 minutes ago, WideNine said:

Mueller, who was selected to lead the probe by the DOJ under a Trump's appointee, has been in law enforcement since the Reagan years. He is not some kind of partisan hack

 

Evidence proves you wrong. Mueller and his team knew BEFORE he started his probe that "there was no there there". They knew it was a cooked investigation with no hope of finding dirt. That's why they organized a perjury trap investigation instead. 

 

You clearly do not know Mueller's record. 

 

55 minutes ago, WideNine said:

The Dems wanted to see it for confirmation of "Collusion" in the Trump campaign - of which Mueller's team found no "direct" evidence but plenty of indirect evidence via Stone coordination with Wiki Leaks,

 

Wrong again. We learned through Stone's trial he never had a backdoor into Wikileaks. He got all his information from open source news stories and lied about having a Wikileaks connection. 

 

Again, facts are stubborn things and you're clinging to long disproven information as if they're real. They're not. 

 

56 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

or of "Obstruction" of the probe itself which Mueller said there was evidence, but concluded that those were not part of the scope of his investigation.

 

And RR and Barr said didn't happen. You're batting close to .000 so far on what you think you know about this case. 

 

57 minutes ago, WideNine said:

Were there political purposes - of course there were, but that does not change the substance of an investigation or the number of indictments that were handed down.

 

Not a single Trump person was indicted with anything having to do with Russia or the 2016 election. Not one. Yet we have a guilty plea for an Obama DOJ attorney who admits to falsifying evidence. 

 

Scoreboard is 0-1. 

 

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're already admitting you're wrong and I was right. Expulsions are different than sanctions. Two different things entirely. 

No. Sanctions can take many forms from military, to monitory, to diplomatic punitive measures; there are a lot of tools in that toolbox.

Sanctions (def) : the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law; may also include economic or military coercive measures adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication.

The Obama sanctions in their entirety were:
 

“All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions,” the president said in a statement.

In addition to hitting two Russian intelligence agencies, three companies and four individual intelligence officers banning them from travel and business with U.S. companies or individuals, Obama ordered 35 Russian operatives posted at diplomatic facilities in Washington and San Francisco to leave. The president asked the State Department to bar Russians from entering two Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and New York that were used to gather intelligence, according to his statement. And Obama’s Treasury Department barred U.S. business with two Russians accused of cyber-theft of money and data

It is clear that when Flynn was discussing sanctions it was in reference to items in this sanctions list. Or as Flynn so elegantly put it "So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff"  I don't think anyone was limiting the reference to a single particular item comprised in the sanctions otherwise Trump would not have fired him for lying about his denial of having sanctions discussions to Pence.

Saying otherwise is really reaching for semantic sophistry.

 

The transcript proves this, as does your couching above: 

 

 

Flynn didn't say "don't do anything" about sanctions -- which was the claim. He said to only be reciprocal with Moscow's expulsions. That's above board, entirely legal, and in no way was a lie. 

Just wow. Flynn absolutely was asking Russia not to take actions whether he steered them towards reciprocal actions or otherwise does not make it any less true.

Flynn: " I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?"
 

 

Some here think I am some kind of rank and file Dem or liberal. Not so fast, but I am one of the college educated individuals who polls show largely do not support Trump.
 

I am a conservative or a centrist that leans right who despises Trump. Grew up in New Jersey and he was a con back then, and is still a con today and that is the source of my angst seeing him capitalize and take advantage of the worst elements of our human nature. The guy is dirty and if they ever wrest his tax returns out of his cold dead hands his sycophants may finally see the light and give up their messianic devotion to the man.

I am not someone who falls for the cult of personality I am pretty meh with Biden, thought that Obama was wishy-washy, and the Clintons were dirty since White Water. I think everyone in DC is dirty, it is just a matter of degree. 

Merriam Webster:

Definition of demagogue

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

The GOP needs to rethink what their platform stands for and get behind someone I can back without throwing up in my own mouth. They have drifted waaaay too far towards the conspiracy theories and deep state nonsense to cover for Trump's clumsy financial and political maneuvering. Follow the money, and then follow the money again.

I am not for a liberal view world either as I think we would all be special-interests and politically-corrected to death. I do think we need to better limit executive branch power as our House ceases to function effectively when both the Senate and the Executive branch are in lock step and have too much control. Folks may be feeling fine now, but if the Senate goes Democrat majority and Biden wins then it will be conservatives who feel disenfranchised. The Executive branch power-grab after 9-11 and FISA court non-sense probably needs overhauling, but once power is obtained it is rarely given back freely.

I actually think we need to better support our law enforcement, but there needs to be more transparency and justice when they use excessive force on people of any color. I am not for idiotic marches but folks have the right to protest. I certainly do not condone opportunistic rioting although I have driven thru Portland and know folks that work there and it is a lot of hype for nothing - about a 2-3 block radius where the idiots gather in a cycle of meaningless confrontation. I am against knee-jerk reactions and throwing money at issues. Racial tensions and disparity exists, but I have no clue if we can every fix those in a way that makes everyone happy, but I am for rational policy changes and enforcement that have a real chance to drive progress when there are issues.

I have learned some things on this board and they have helped me better understand how people have shaped their opinions, but I caution against the echo chamber of social media - I don't even use Facebook (just the Chat) and Twitter... please, I have an account that follows my favorite sports and players. But I like to go to the source documents and read a lot and folks here have challenged me to read even more things. For that I am grateful.

Too many individuals who have worked closely with Trump, who he has handpicked for apparently revolving door roles in his administration, have come away saying the same thing. The man is unfit for office. I stand by that sentiment, and hope we find better leadership for the GOP some day. As one conservative friend told me, " It is too bad the GOP went with Trump. If they had someone who was more stable, likable, and competent Biden would not have a chance".

 

 

You're literally years behind the curve on this story. 

 

****************************************

 

I find it encouraging that Mueller did find someone in Obama's circle that was guilty of FARA violations too and referred the individual for investigation follow-up to the DOJ and FBI, as it shows he was just going where ever the investigation lead sans partisan ideologies. When Mueller was assigned to the probe he was largely supported as a pick from both sides of the aisle because of his non-partisan reputation.


 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by WideNine