The obvious has been officially confirmed ...

[Mountain Man]

More about the recent filing by Flynn's lawyer...

(1) Lisa Page edited the Flynn 302’s, then forgot when questioned by DOJ officials, then re-remembered when shown her texts. (2) The 302’s themselves were written with lies that do not match notes taken during the interview. (3) The felony leaker of the Flynn-Kislyak phone call is named (James Baker). (4) New texts from Page and Strzok that highlight the entrapment plan. (5) ODNI James Clapper telling WaPo reporter Ignatius to “take the kill shot on Flynn“. (6) The purposeful use of Judge Contreras to take the December 1st 2017 plea agreement; and much, much more.

[...]

The FBI leaked details of their investigation to the media and then strategized over how they could weaponize the media reports to conduct investigations. Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Counterintelligence Director Bill Priestap discussed if this approach would work.

The prosecution then intentionally withheld the text messages from Flynn and the public, in their prior releases, showing Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussing the Strzok & Priestap strategy sessions on using the leaks. Those texts, clear Brady material, were purposefully hidden by the DOJ, until [Flynn lawyer] Sidney Powell went to find them on her own...

[...]

The 302’s were modified to make claims that were never made in the interview. The language was purposefully and willfully made to look like something is wasn’t; and in some cases they made it up completely counter to the actual statement given by Mike Flynn...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...sidney-powell/

This is big-time stuff, folks. I don't think the importance of this filing can be over-exaggerated!

[firstfloor]

And now we know why Democrats are in full-on panic mode!

The launch of a criminal probe allows U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to lead the review, to subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents. The move also authorizes Durham to impanel a grand jury and file charges.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...investigation/

As always, The Last Refuge provides in-depth, factual analysis. Required reading for anybody who wants to know what's really going on...

And now we have this bombshell that just blew up in the Democrat party's face:

Lawyers for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn reportedly filed a motion on Thursday in which they allege that the Department of Justice manipulated a document to frame their client and is withholding exculpatory evidence.

[...]

The new defense filing alleges that the government is refusing to turn over a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence, some of which has begun to emerge in the media — either through leaks or through ongoing inquiries into the origins of the probe into alleged Russia “collusion” with the Trump campaign, later found not to exist.

That evidence, Flynn’s legal team alleges, includes an apparent admission by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page ... that she had edited the 302... The edits, the filing alleges, were substantive: they included a claim that Flynn said he did not discuss any sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Flynn’s lawyers allege he merely told the FBI he did not recall, and that the claim he said otherwise was added only after a transcript of his discussion with the ambassador had been leaked to the media.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ding-evidence/

Told you things were finally getting interesting!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40430[/ATTACH]

If he’s not careful, Barr is going to end up behind bars!

This will rumble on for while until Putin gets what he wants. The US has gone full on banana republic.

[Mountain Man]

Barr’s Justice Dept. begins a criminal investigation...

And now we know why Democrats are in full-on panic mode!

The launch of a criminal probe allows U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to lead the review, to subpoena witnesses for testimony and documents. The move also authorizes Durham to impanel a grand jury and file charges.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...investigation/

As always, The Last Refuge provides in-depth, factual analysis. Required reading for anybody who wants to know what's really going on...

And now we have this bombshell that just blew up in the Democrat party's face:

Lawyers for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn reportedly filed a motion on Thursday in which they allege that the Department of Justice manipulated a document to frame their client and is withholding exculpatory evidence.

[...]

The new defense filing alleges that the government is refusing to turn over a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence, some of which has begun to emerge in the media — either through leaks or through ongoing inquiries into the origins of the probe into alleged Russia “collusion” with the Trump campaign, later found not to exist.

That evidence, Flynn’s legal team alleges, includes an apparent admission by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page ... that she had edited the 302... The edits, the filing alleges, were substantive: they included a claim that Flynn said he did not discuss any sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Flynn’s lawyers allege he merely told the FBI he did not recall, and that the claim he said otherwise was added only after a transcript of his discussion with the ambassador had been leaked to the media.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ding-evidence/

Told you things were finally getting interesting!

crossfire-hurricane-5-page-strzok-mccabe-comey-brennan-clapper.jpg

[firstfloor]

Barr’s Justice Dept. begins a criminal investigation into their own investigation. Trump will use this to lift Russia sanctions. Russia first!

[JimL]

There's a reason I asked for a direct quote, Jim, but I should have specified you need to use the "quote function", because Post #109 is actually MM, not me.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40424[/ATTACH]

How bout trying again, OK?

Sorry about that, I must have had an episode of dyslexia. Post #106, in reply to NirrinRadd, you asserted that it, this impeachment process, was entirely political.

[Mountain Man]

The New York Times confirms that Ukraine officials were never told that release of military aid was tied to their willingness to investigate Biden:

To Democrats who say that President Trump’s decision to freeze $391 million in military aid was intended to bully Ukraine’s leader into carrying out investigations for Mr. Trump’s political benefit, the president and his allies have had a simple response: There was no quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know assistance had been blocked.

...

In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

And now for the money quote:

The communications did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the investigations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html

[NorrinRadd]

...
This is why Schiff has earned the nickname "Shifty Schiff".

I prefer Judge Jeanine's nickname for him: "Lying Sack of Schiff."

[Cow Poke]

Yes, in post #109 you stated "it's entirely political." Your words.

There's a reason I asked for a direct quote, Jim, but I should have specified you need to use the "quote function", because Post #109 is actually MM, not me.

mm.jpg

How bout trying again, OK?

[JimL]

Then you'd be able to provide a quote where I actually "asserted" that, yes?

Yes, in post #109 you stated "it's entirely political." Your words.

Jim, is incredibly partisan - that's really undeniable.

No, there are 47 republicans in the committees and they are operating under House rules established by republicans in 2015 the last time the House rules were changed. And I don't recall you, any of you, complaining when republicans operated according to those same rules during the Benghazi hearing, nor btw did I hear House democrats complaining about the process during those hearings.

Serious matter or not, the Democrats are acting like a bunch of jackasses, and Schiff is the ring leader.

I suspect you just don't like the testimony you're hearing and thus are calling democrats jackasses, because democrats are acting responsibly, abiding by republican established House rules. Once all of the testimony is in, the democrats are going to open it up, just like Mueller did once his investigation was over. Being a one time lawman i'm sure you understand why investigations are done this way.

They've been at this forever, Jim, and it's one "serious matter" after another after another... and it is clearly partisan.

Forever? Sorry CP, even the Mueller investigation was short in comparison to the investigations into the Nixon and Clinton administrations, even Benghazi was longer if I'm not mistaken (now that was a dog and pony show), but this matter, Trumps Ukraine debacle, just began, and the actual Congressional investigation didn't even begin until Trumps personal protector, the supposed Atty. Gen. of the U.S. Barr, refused to even look into the matter when the whistle was blown.

[Mountain Man]

Your contention is that Sondland's "I do not recall that" is calling Taylor's testimony false. Were that the case, one would expect Sondland -- facing a pretty large criminal exposure -- to respond more definitively that Taylor's account is untrue.

Sondland appears to be in the position of hoping that his written correspondences and several other witnesses also facing legal exposure line up just right.

His publicly known text messages to date do not inspire confidence in his discretion.

--Sam

"I do not recall doing what you said I did" is a much kinder and less provocative way of calling someone a liar.

[Sam]

In legal speak, unless there is proof that it happened, then it didn't happen.

Your contention is that Sondland's "I do not recall that" is calling Taylor's testimony false. Were that the case, one would expect Sondland -- facing a pretty large criminal exposure -- to respond more definitively that Taylor's account is untrue.

Sondland appears to be in the position of hoping that his written correspondences and several other witnesses also facing legal exposure line up just right.

His publicly known text messages to date do not inspire confidence in his discretion.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

BUT, there has to be objective evidence that one is lying and the other telling the truth before clear action can be taken.

Bingo.

[Mountain Man]

In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".

In legal speak, unless there is proof that it happened, then it didn't happen.

[oxmixmudd]

Sondland says that Taylor's testimony is full of cow patties.

To begin with, [Taylor's testimony] contradicts Sondland’s earlier testimony in Schiff’s secret Star Chamber, and on Thursday, Sondland again reiterated that none of this happened.

Through his attorney, among other things, Sondland told the far-left Washington Post he “did not recall conversations recounted by Taylor in his House deposition.” That includes Taylor’s claim that Sondland told Yermak there would be no assistance without a Biden probe or Taylor’s fourth-hand claim that — see if you can follow this — Morrison told Taylor that Sondland told Morrison that Trump told Sondland there would be no aid without Zelensky announcing a Biden investigation.

So now we have entered the land of he said/he said; we have entered an ethereal world that has NOTHING to do with the July 25 phone call, has nothing to do with the transcript of an actual phone call or the word of the Ukrainian president, who has now said twice he was never pressured to investigate the Bidens.

Schiff’s Star Chamber of Selective Leaks now resides in a land where we only have disputed conversations with no transcripts, with no evidence to back them up.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ever-happened/

A little transparency would sure be nice.

That would be expected. Taylor is the consummate professional that works and acts according to Principle. Sondland is a Trump crony - which means he acts according to what he believes will make Donald Trump happy while getting himself in the least amount of trouble possible. I would trust Taylor over Sondland any day of the week. BUT, there has to be objective evidence that one is lying and the other telling the truth before clear action can be taken.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".

Great memories!