Posted on 10/21/2019 1:04:29 AM PDT by MaxistheBest
With media reporting that U.S. Attorney John Durham has expanded the timeline and scope of his investigation into U.S. government and intelligence community activity during the 2016 election, there’s an interesting quote from NBC:
…”Justice Department officials have said that Durham has found something significant, and that critics should be careful.”…
The expanded investigative timeline is now into May 2017 when Mueller was appointed special counsel, and would mean all of the preceding (and surrounding) activity leading up to Mueller would be reviewed. With that carefully in mind….
During the 2016 effort to weaponize the institutions of government against the outside candidacy of Donald Trump, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was headed by Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein. After the 2016 election Senator Feinstein abdicated her vice-chair position to Senator Mark Warner in January 2017.
While the SSCI was engaged in their part of the 2016 effort Vice-Chair Feinstein’s lead staffer was a man named Daniel Jones. Dan Jones was the contact point between the SSCI and Fusion-GPS.
After the election, and after Feinstein abdicated, Dan Jones left the committee to continue paying Fusion-GPS (Glenn Simpson) for ongoing efforts toward the impeachment insurance policy angle.
Feinstein appears to have left because she didn’t want to deal with the consequences of a President Trump, IF he discovered the SSCI involvement. Dan Jones left because with a Trump presidency the SSCI, now co-chaired by Senator Mark Warner, needed arms-length plausible deniability amid their 2017 operations to continue the removal effort (soft coup).
The trail for this plausible deniability process and ongoing soft-coup effort first surfaces with Dan Jones appearing in the early 2017 text messages between Senator Warner and the liaison for Christopher Steele, lawyer and lobbyist Adam Waldman:
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
[I]t is now the top of the 4th quarter, the opposing team has the ball, and we are down by three touchdowns. Except "WE" aren't playing this game. We are fans in the stands, and we don't even know which quarter it is or how much time is on the clock.
The opposing team is running short plays, and running out the clock. See previous comment.
We were urging our team to start their passing attack early in the game, and instead they employed an ineffective running game. It may only be the first quarter. Or it's the 4th quarter of a game that actually has 16 quarters, not 4. We are nothing more than "bleacher bums" who think we know everything about the game of football but: (1) have never played it ourselves, and (2) have little more than a rooting interest in the result of this game.
Fans to the left and right of us are telling each other: "Just you wait! When we get the ball back, we are going to start passing, with trick plays and Hail Mary's! We're gonna win this!" You're right about this. But I was a football fan for years, and learned to tune out most of the fans around me because they were morons. There was one fan next to me who knew football so well that he probably could have been an NFL assistant coach. I learned to listen closely to him because he was the only one who knew what the hell he was talking about.
OK -- then let's present this a little differently:
Both Trump and Barr are working in jobs that are a huge step down from where they would have been if they just stayed where they were before.
You name me ONE other person in national politics who can say the same thing.
No. Why does Trump or Barr not “needing” their “jobs” have to do with anything? Pelosi doesn’t need her job either.
Pelosi, McConnell, Rick Scott are all mega wealthy. Tons more if you care. They could all walk away immediately.
McConnell sure wasn't. Pelosi's wealth comes from her marriage or her father's corruption. Neither one of these was "demoted" by any measure when they decided to pursue political careers. In fact, they used their political careers to advance their one interests ahead of the interests of anyone else, including their constituents.
p
Agreed.
Sure looks like it. Also, Sessions abdicated his authority and decision making to Rosenstein. Man, was Jeff a pansy of the first order.
// U.S. Attorney John Durham has expanded the timeline and scope of his investigation into U.S. government and intelligence community activity during the 2016 election, there’s an interesting quote from NBC:
…”Justice Department officials have said that Durham has found something significant, and that critics should be careful.”… //
Fake News Durham’s investigation is tight. NBC is grasping and making sh*t up - again.
Maybe Sundance should go back to bagging groceries.
Disregard.
“In early 2017 Adam Waldman and Dan Jones were facilitating a plausibly deniable information pipeline from Chris Steele to the SSCI and Senator Mark Warner. “
THIS IS A BIG STORY.
I think we should all send this to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and say “WE KNOW”.
They do not take phone complaints nor do they give out emails to direct inquiries or complaints - you have to either write them or FAX them.
FAX # is 202-224-7416
https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/get-advice
https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committee-members
https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/get-advice
https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Resources/Where+to+Report+Misconduct
Barr gave a speech at Notre Dame recently that anyone who doubts his integrity should listen to. One of the best I’ve ever heard (actually I read the transcript as my laptop won’t let me watch videos right now).
Transcript:
If you want the video I will search more; very hard to search youtube these days, they hide stuff just like gulagle.
I did. I also searched for wolfe and slept, all before I posted.
I still don’t see it.
cover story for their intense and frequent communications.
BOOKMARK
I’m giving Barr the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
That said, I am not impressed by speeches. Talk is cheap.
thanks. I must be real dense, cause I don’t see it.
Why put something in a headline that’s not mentioned in the article ?
I do believe Sundance’s article in whole shows the “lover cover”, but he doesn’t use it as an opening and he doesn’t make that conclusion, nor connect the dots away from the “lover” story.
Why not just say...the lover story is a cover and here’s why ?
the comments aren’t part of the article.
and the comments re: “cover” are conjecture... reading between lines...
some examples: “just guessing here”; “sounds like”; “If this even remotely true”;
I even searched the web before I first posted and the best I came up with is this tweet.
https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1185988188256518154/photo/1 ; (which is now mentioned in the comments)
and the documentation shown doesn’t mention “lover cover”. and the comments following the tweets do the same thing as the comments in the Sundance article...
at least put something in the article to validate the headline.
oh well.
(/rant off)
Thanks for that link. Great read.
this CTH piece was a great read.
thanx for pinging me to it.
really cuts to the chase on these seditious coupsters
For some reason it’s very hard to find the speech on video. I think I found it and emailed it to someone, if I find it I’ll post link on this thread.
The value of her career is a pittance compared to the payoff she could have well received from the puppet masters for playing her part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.