Posted on 08/25/2019 4:03:20 PM PDT by ransomnote
does she really think that by running she will avoid an indictment this time
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yup. Works every Time
Mark
Ironically Comey has more faith in Barr, Trump and the DOJ than some FReepers
.
I think you’re right. Have watched Barr’s tones, eyes & face a lot. I think he’s a patriotic straight shooter regardless of a lot of other stuff. I think he passionately wants the rule of law to apply equally & be a solid & extensive foundation of the USA.
Just take it as 18 years.
Sad really.
gisd O
Nah, I’m over the Cruz-bashers, carry on.
I have no doubts about Trump or Barr.
(My tagline is a quote/paraphrase from someone else, I do NOT agree with it!)
Hey, man, any time now...
.
Thx for aggregation
>>I have no inkling of why anyone things that the Justice Department is still being run by bad guys.
That would mean Trump is feeble, powerless, easily duped and and Q is a liar.
****
I don’t think those are necessary corollaries. The evidence is that there is a large, body of inertia, which can be perceived as malignant rather than simply bureaucratic. Things aren’t passing smoothly through the DoJ and it’s not transparent where the blockages are. This is suspicious enough to qualify as a legitimate concern, whether it turns out to be true or not.
Trump doesn’t run the DoJ. He names the head and hopes. Were he to get involved at a level lower, he’d give ammunition to those who want to impeach him. It won’t stop them, but it allows him to argue his virtue, and that’s worthwhile.
Whenever you see a Q contradiction, consider that there is disinformation. We haven’t the faintest idea what is true and what is disinformation. Someday we’ll find out. That should be a fascinating conversation on that day.
I do not think the above is a given. No doubt there is still deadwood in the DoJ and elsewhere; but from what I gather, the people who are in positions of major decision making are not deadwood, what to speak of enemies.
I am much more hopeful.
Thanks for your reply. Not sure how to make sense of it but I’m tired and not functioning on all my cylinders.
Oh. Thanks for making that clear. Not my sharpest at the moment.
As always, links in the original article are important
Lawfare Expects McCabe Arrest – That Explains Why CNN Hired Him….
The Lawfare group are the external influence agents for corrupt politically motivated lawyers working in government. The group fingerprints show up everywhere including among “beach friends” and legal schemes hatched from the premise of their assembly. Lawfare = use the law as a tool in warfare. [Adult Alinsky disciples.]
The Lawfare group is headed by Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes; and the group give resistance advice to ideologues inside government as well as outside organizations who are resisting (suing) the Trump administration.
So when Benjamin Wittes announces to his ideological resistance followers:
…”You should thus expect charges against McCabe to be forthcoming any day. And if such charges don’t happen, that doesn’t mean they weren’t planned but, rather, that some extrinsic event has intervened”… (link)
…readers can assume Lawfare leadership has known about McCabe’s risk position for quite some time. Remember, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker also works for Lawfare.
It is almost guaranteed Andrew McCabe and his lawyer Michael Bromwich are in daily conversations with their network of friends inside Lawfare. This same ideological network has vast affiliates throughout media. The pending indictment of Andrew McCabe would explain why CNN hired him.
Knowing the DOJ was likely to indict McCabe, CNN could help frame a narrative that serves both their interests. That narrative was already in the New York Times article describing the potential for the indictment.
When McCabe is charged the media narrative will be it’s because he took the job with CNN… Trump/Barr weaponizing the DOJ and trying to kill free speech etc. CNN doesn’t have to defend their action in hiring a known liar, they’ll instead frame McCabe as a victim, a fellow traveler to the larger cause of justice – whose indictment is evidence of how far Trump and Barr will go to destroy their enemies etc.
Hey, at least now we know Andrew McCabe is about to be indicted.
Additionally, Wittes goes on to say that something else must be behind the conduct of McCabe if the DOJ is actually going to indict him:
[…] But criminal charges? At least based on what’s in the inspector general’s report, this is very far from a criminal case. Criminal dispositions on false statements matters in internal investigations are exceptionally rare. Absent some gross aggravating factor, I struggle to think of any other examples. Workplace false statements are normally handled through internal disciplinary means, not criminal charges. (link)
Essentially, the Lawfare position is that McCabe was authorized to leak to the media; ergo, the investigation of McCabe leaking to the media was a non-criminal investigation…. ergo, according to Lawfare logic, McCabe lying about non-criminal conduct to the FBI INSD (internal investigators) is not itself criminal. To wit Andrew McCabe is only lying as a common workplace type of lying, not illegal lying in a criminal investigation.
So Wittes says there must be more to the story…
Which then expands the Lawfare mindset to believe the decision to indict must be related to something discovered within the criminal investigation of events in/around the FISA application (intentionally and materially false presentations to the court), etc.
Perhaps…. I guess we’ll soon find out.
However, it is worth remembering how this entire internecine mess was started.
Andrew McCabe lied to INSD about leaking to the media when the INSD was investigating leaks to the media. McCabe’s statements contradicted the statements of his assigned DOJ lawer, Lisa Page; who said McCabe instructed and coordinated the leaks to journalist Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal.
When confronted with two sets of competing stories, Lisa Page -vs- Andrew McCabe, it appears the IG-INSD asked Page if she could prove her side of the story. The need to prove her version of events appears to be the impetus for Page revealing her text messaging. Page’s texts proved her story, and proved McCabe was lying.
However, from that text messaging review (June/July 2017), in addition to texts between Page and McCabe, the investigation turned-up discussions between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
And that’s how that whole thing got started…
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/mccabe-1.jpg
>>I am much more hopeful.
Hope is a good thing and deserving of great respect.
Penance for my sour attitude today.
NOTED.
JOKE - accepted. :)
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/my-husband-dumped-me-for-rep-ilhan-omar-dc-mom-says-in-divorce-filing/
sic
suggestion to you, my friend -
when your batteries are run down, post us a couple of your cat gifs instead - and ignore the eeyores.
The wind is picking up.. I can smell a Storm coming.
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.
