Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

Here's how Ratcliffe's participation in the Pilgrim Poultry prosecution is described in the SMU law school alumni magazine :

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent ... ntext=quad

As U.S. Attorney, he led the 2008 criminal prosecution of Pilgrim’s Pride. Ratcliffe accused the company, which was owned by a large
donor to Republican politics, of knowingly participating in a scheme in which 300 illegal aliens committed Social Security fraud.

Ratliffe was the lead US Atty because their corp HQ was in his district.
Here's how the case was resolved, after he was succeeded as US Atty in 2009 by an Obama appointee :

https://www.ktre.com/story/11749253/pil ... migration/

Under the terms of the agreement, Pilgrim's Pride agrees to pay $4.5 million and adopt more stringent immigration compliance practices to ensure that its work force is composed of employees legally entitled to work in the United States. In return, the U. S. Attorney's Office agrees to conclude its immigration-related investigation of Pilgrim's Pride and any current or former employees.

In a factual statement accompanying the agreement (attached as a PDF to this release), the parties acknowledge that, at the beginning of the investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had reason to believe that a substantial number of unauthorized aliens were employed at several Pilgrim's Pride plants. As part of that investigation, twenty-five unauthorized aliens were arrested in the Eastern District of Texas in December 2007 and charged with misuse of a Social Security Account number. In early 2008, a number of worksite enforcement actions were conducted by ICE at five Pilgrim's Pride plants in Texas, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, resulting in the apprehension of approximately 338 unauthorized aliens. Thirty-eight illegal aliens were convicted in the Eastern District of Texas for misuse of a Social Security Account number. Throughout the investigation, Pilgrim's Pride cooperated with the U. S. Attorney's Office and law enforcement agencies. In addition, Pilgrim's Pride implemented various measures designed to ensure a legal work force. As a result of this agreement, Pilgrim's Pride will continue to strengthen its workplace compliance programs and adopt measures recommended by ICE to identify and avoid the employment of unauthorized aliens. In reaching this agreement, Pilgrim's Pride did not admit to any criminal or civil misconduct.

[old salt]

As I say, exaggeration is a nice quality in a trusted truth to power intelligence chief. Again, blather all you want, standards are slipping.

How'd he do in the Magnitskty case ?
No wonder the Deep State leakers & their MSM flacks had to take him out.
Afraid of him as Barr's wingman.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Here's how Ratcliffe's participation in the Pilgrim Poultry prosecution is described in the SMU law school alumni magazine :

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent ... ntext=quad

As U.S. Attorney, he led the 2008 criminal prosecution of Pilgrim’s Pride. Ratcliffe accused the company, which was owned by a large
donor to Republican politics, of knowingly participating in a scheme in which 300 illegal aliens committed Social Security fraud.

Ratliffe was the lead US Atty because their corp HQ was in his district.
Here's how the case was resolved, after he was succeeded as US Atty in 2009 by an Obama appointee :

https://www.ktre.com/story/11749253/pil ... migration/

Under the terms of the agreement, Pilgrim's Pride agrees to pay $4.5 million and adopt more stringent immigration compliance practices to ensure that its work force is composed of employees legally entitled to work in the United States. In return, the U. S. Attorney's Office agrees to conclude its immigration-related investigation of Pilgrim's Pride and any current or former employees.

In a factual statement accompanying the agreement (attached as a PDF to this release), the parties acknowledge that, at the beginning of the investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had reason to believe that a substantial number of unauthorized aliens were employed at several Pilgrim's Pride plants. As part of that investigation, twenty-five unauthorized aliens were arrested in the Eastern District of Texas in December 2007 and charged with misuse of a Social Security Account number. In early 2008, a number of worksite enforcement actions were conducted by ICE at five Pilgrim's Pride plants in Texas, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee, resulting in the apprehension of approximately 338 unauthorized aliens. Thirty-eight illegal aliens were convicted in the Eastern District of Texas for misuse of a Social Security Account number. Throughout the investigation, Pilgrim's Pride cooperated with the U. S. Attorney's Office and law enforcement agencies. In addition, Pilgrim's Pride implemented various measures designed to ensure a legal work force. As a result of this agreement, Pilgrim's Pride will continue to strengthen its workplace compliance programs and adopt measures recommended by ICE to identify and avoid the employment of unauthorized aliens. In reaching this agreement, Pilgrim's Pride did not admit to any criminal or civil misconduct.

Forward that to Trump. Maybe he will reconsider.

[old salt]

Too late. The MSM slime job is complete. Old news.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Too late. The MSM slime job is complete. Old news.

Un huh.

[admin]

You're an lazy biased idiot. Do some research before attacking those you disagree with.

Discuss thread topics, not post-ers...

[Typical Lax Dad]

You're an lazy biased idiot. Do some research before attacking those you disagree with.

Discuss thread topics, not post-ers...

He is a former moderator and adjusting to the role of “just another guy” might be difficult. In the old days, he would just delete posts he didn’t like.

[MDlaxfan76]

As I say, exaggeration is a nice quality in a trusted truth to power intelligence chief. Again, blather all you want, standards are slipping.

How'd he do in the Magnitskty case ?
No wonder the Deep State leakers & their MSM flacks had to take him out.
Afraid of him as Barr's wingman.

No, that would be a reason for Trump to drop him, not the other way around.

He didn't just fluff. He lied.

But I'd suggest that's not the only reason he was so disqualified, though that alone was sufficient.

IMO anyone who is so outwardly hostile about the credibility of the IC's work, someone who is so over the top partisan, has no business in that job. He wouldn't have been trusted by the professionals to tell truth to power.

Doesn't whether it's D or R, that job is should never be held by a partisan hack who is hostile to the work done by the professionals.

But, yeah, when his credentials for the job were being examined, they simply didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Coats' did, the Rat's did not. End of issue.

Salty, you really disappoint me. You used to make the argument that we should calm down about Trump because he was surrounded by a bunch of steady, trustworthy, experienced hands, but many are gone now.... and you resort to promoting a flat out liar for a position like this?

Come on.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Fluffing up a resume is no BFD...just ask these guys: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 0F304572D0

Some of theses guys recovered. Ratcliffe may have to fill a post as head of corporate security at Mondawmin Mall. This shouldn’t kill his career.

[MDlaxfan76]

Fluffing up a resume is no BFD...just ask these guys: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 0F304572D0

Headmaster at my son's and my high school had fluffed his resume saying he'd been an intercollegiate hockey player when it turned out he'd never played beyond some intramurals. Good educator, great fundraiser...Fired.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[old salt]

As I say, exaggeration is a nice quality in a trusted truth to power intelligence chief. Again, blather all you want, standards are slipping.

How'd he do in the Magnitskty case ?
No wonder the Deep State leakers & their MSM flacks had to take him out.
Afraid of him as Barr's wingman.

No, that would be a reason for Trump to drop him, not the other way around.
That's his bona fides that he's not soft on the Russians. It didn't stop Trump from picking him.

He didn't just fluff. He lied.
I documented everything he claimed. Did you bother to read my posts ?

But I'd suggest that's not the only reason he was so disqualified, though that alone was sufficient.
Just your opinion. He met the statutory requirement. Coats had no more intel qualifications.

IMO anyone who is so outwardly hostile about the credibility of the IC's work, someone who is so over the top partisan, has no business in that job. He wouldn't have been trusted by the professionals to tell truth to power.
BS. He would not be trusted to obstruct or cover for the abusers & leakers.

Doesn't whether it's D or R, that job is should never be held by a partisan hack who is hostile to the work done by the professionals.
Right. Let's see what the IG's & US Attys investigations come up with.

But, yeah, when his credentials for the job were being examined, they simply didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Coats' did, the Rat's did not. End of issue.
End of issue ? We'll see who the rats are when the IG & US Atty's report out. Better start working on your excuses.

Salty, you really disappoint me. You used to make the argument that we should calm down about Trump because he was surrounded by a bunch of steady, trustworthy, experienced hands, but many are gone now.... and you resort to promoting a flat out liar for a position like this?
We'ii see who joins Clapper, Comey & McCabe in the IC liars hall of fame.

Come on.

Fluffing up a resume is no BFD...just ask these guys: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 0F304572D0

Headmaster at my son's and my high school had fluffed his resume saying he'd been an intercollegiate hockey player when it turned out he'd never played beyond some intramurals. Good educator, great fundraiser...Fired.

...& you make that analogy when comparing what Ratcliffe claimed on his website with what the non-prosecution agreement on the Pilgram Poultry agreement confirmed. Did you even bother to read it ?

Over 300 illegal aliens arrested. He was the lead prosecutor.
That's what Ratcliffe claimed. That's what happened.

You object to Ratcliffe for the same reason you object to Barr.
They're not going to shield the IG & DoJ from scrutiny of what they did.
You haven't heard the last from them.

[old salt]

..

[old salt]

2008 NBC article w/pic of Radcliffe at the press conf for an operation in which NBC could find no proof of his participation.
...I smell Emmy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24163367/ns/u ... Ue8EzfYrnE

[Trinity]

He was in on the chicken coop raid? What a relief. Maybe Richard Burr will relent.

[Typical Lax Dad]

..

Mine was in the Air Force. Didn’t serve during the war. Good thing..... He was off raising a family. His 4 brothers were also in the Air Force. Father-in-law was in the Air Force also and was deployed in Korea during the war.....me? No interest. Thanks for your service.

[MDlaxfan76]

As I say, exaggeration is a nice quality in a trusted truth to power intelligence chief. Again, blather all you want, standards are slipping.

How'd he do in the Magnitskty case ?
No wonder the Deep State leakers & their MSM flacks had to take him out.
Afraid of him as Barr's wingman.

No, that would be a reason for Trump to drop him, not the other way around.
That's his bona fides that he's not soft on the Russians. It didn't stop Trump from picking him.

Really? So now Trump actually vetted him? He knew every aspect of his background?
Or did he nominate someone he saw on screen attacking the IC and Dems? And then "I let the press vet"?

Did he then learn about Browder's comments and go, 'wait, that's not something I like". I have no idea, nor do you.
What we DO know is that Trump is hostile to the Magnitsky Act and any mention of it and the effort in Trump Tower about "adoptions" sets him into a rage. Widely reported, confirmed by many staff from Trump's office.

He didn't just fluff. He lied.
I documented everything he claimed. Did you bother to read my posts ?
Yes, he lied about convicting terrorists, and in some cases he twisted truth to make it look like something more than reality, in my book that's a lie too.

But I'd suggest that's not the only reason he was so disqualified, though that alone was sufficient.
Just your opinion. He met the statutory requirement. Coats had no more intel qualifications.

Baloney. Did you read my posts comparing the two of them? Coats had vastly longer experience in IC oversight, on a committee known for its bipartisan, even handed approach in direct contrast to the Rat's committees, and Coats actually has served in the military. Which isn't to say that Coats was nearly as qualified as his predecessors, just way more than the Rat.

IMO anyone who is so outwardly hostile about the credibility of the IC's work, someone who is so over the top partisan, has no business in that job. He wouldn't have been trusted by the professionals to tell truth to power.
BS. He would not be trusted to obstruct or cover for the abusers & leakers.

That's an argument, for sure appealing to the Trumpists. But the job is to coordinate and support the work of many agencies of the IC and to communicate the results of that work to the key decision makers honestly, not politically. Someone with his degree of partisanship, including his outright hostility to the work product and professionals of the IC, could never be trusted to tell decision makers the truth about their work, their threat analysis, etc.

Doesn't whether it's D or R, that job is should never be held by a partisan hack who is hostile to the work done by the professionals.
Right. Let's see what the IG's & US Attys investigations come up with.
Still waiting. I have no issue with holding folks to account for illegalities. I DO have a problem with political leaders directing prosecution of their political opponents.

But, yeah, when his credentials for the job were being examined, they simply didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Coats' did, the Rat's did not. End of issue.
End of issue ? We'll see who the rats are when the IG & US Atty's report out. Better start working on your excuses.
Same response as above. The Rat was disqualified out of the box. Coats was not adequately qualified, but rose to the job, thankfully. That's what got him fired.

Salty, you really disappoint me. You used to make the argument that we should calm down about Trump because he was surrounded by a bunch of steady, trustworthy, experienced hands, but many are gone now.... and you resort to promoting a flat out liar for a position like this?
We'ii see who joins Clapper, Comey & McCabe in the IC liars hall of fame.

Yup, I'll take Comey and McCabe every day of the week over the Trumpists. Mattis, you can continue the list.
I draw the line at Kelly who was caught up in the lies and white nationalist thinking, and Flynn who sought to profit off his association with Trump, called out 'lock her up', and lied about his interactions with Russia. The last two are a disappointment, but they made their own beds.

Come on.

Fluffing up a resume is no BFD...just ask these guys: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 0F304572D0

Headmaster at my son's and my high school had fluffed his resume saying he'd been an intercollegiate hockey player when it turned out he'd never played beyond some intramurals. Good educator, great fundraiser...Fired.

...& you make that analogy when comparing what Ratcliffe claimed on his website with what the non-prosecution agreement on the Pilgram Poultry agreement confirmed. Did you even bother to read it ?

Over 300 illegal aliens arrested. He was the lead prosecutor.
That's what Ratcliffe claimed. That's what happened.

5 'fluffs', (BFD) that's just one, and it wasn't the truth, just a twisting of the truth.
But, flat lie about having convicted terrorists.

You object to Ratcliffe for the same reason you object to Barr.
They're not going to shield the IG & DoJ from scrutiny of what they did.
You haven't heard the last from them.

I didn't object to Barr for that reason, (I don't have any issue with fairly addressing any improprieties the IG finds) though I was skeptical about his claimed integrity, given his role back in the HW Bush administration. But he was certainly 'qualified' in his level of experience. Painfully, my skepticism has been more than proven accurate as he so egregiously misrepresented the Mueller Report.

You're exhausting. There were 5 'fluffs' as you term them. No BFD.

Did he convict any terrorists? That's what his House website says.
Flat out lie.

[thatsmell]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4559 ... mpeachment

Why are we surprised when politicians politic?

House Democratic leaders are seeking a delicate balance when it comes to impeachment and President Trump.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) outlined the latest strategy in July when he said his panel would push forward aggressively with investigations of Trump. Nadler even called the process impeachment.

At the same time, Nadler made it clear the committee was not, at least now, considering a formal resolution to launch an impeachment inquiry.


It’s a messaging balance designed to appease liberals clamoring to oust Trump immediately, while protecting vulnerable centrists battling to keep their seats in next year’s elections.

Whether it will satisfy either side is an open question.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who leads the party’s messaging arm and has backed starting an inquiry, suggested some on both sides might be displeased.

The path “we are taking does not require a vote, so I guess for some people who are anxious to vote, to officially move forward, they will be disappointed,” he said. “For people who are not interested in voting, I guess they will be pleased.”

[old salt]

As I say, exaggeration is a nice quality in a trusted truth to power intelligence chief. Again, blather all you want, standards are slipping.

How'd he do in the Magnitskty case ?
No wonder the Deep State leakers & their MSM flacks had to take him out.
Afraid of him as Barr's wingman.

No, that would be a reason for Trump to drop him, not the other way around.
That's his bona fides that he's not soft on the Russians. It didn't stop Trump from picking him.

Really? So now Trump actually vetted him? He knew every aspect of his background?
So now you're privy to WH discussions. COS Mulvaney is a House colleague & good friend of Ratcliffe. He & Nunes recommened Ratliffe to Trump for DNI.
Or did he nominate someone he saw on screen attacking the IC and Dems? And then "I let the press vet"?
Ratcliffe was offered & accepted the DNI job before Mueller testified & before Ratcliffe's tv "audition".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAk6ajTDMzE

Did he then learn about Browder's comments and go, 'wait, that's not something I like". I have no idea, nor do you.
What we DO know is that Trump is hostile to the Magnitsky Act and any mention of it and the effort in Trump Tower about "adoptions" sets him into a rage. Widely reported, confirmed by many staff from Trump's office.
Show us evidence that Trump is hostile to Magnitsky Act sanctions. He strengthened them & delegated their implementation to State & Treasury Depts. Browder praised the Trump Admin for maintaining the sanctions. Browder's now a Brit citizen but he has yet to get the UK or EU to implement sanctions equivalent to the Magnitsky Act.

He didn't just fluff. He lied.
I documented everything he claimed. Did you bother to read my posts ?
Yes, he lied about convicting terrorists, and in some cases he twisted truth to make it look like something more than reality, in my book that's a lie too.
Apparently you ignored this citation in my previous post where a Fed prosecutor in the Holy Land Foundation case verified Ratcliffe's participation :

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/30/fo ... tion-case/

A former federal prosecutor involved in the terrorism financing trial against the Holy Land Foundation confirmed that Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, whom President Donald Trump has said he intends to nominate as director of national intelligence, did receive a special appointment as part of the case.
“John was appointed to look into allegations of potential misconduct involving a juror and one or more of the defendants in that case,” Nathan Garrett, a formal federal prosecutor who worked on the trial team, told The Federalist Tuesday morning. “John is a stellar lawyer, experienced national security prosecutor and leader, and a man of the highest character.”

ABC News alleged in an article that Ratcliffe “misrepresented” and “embellished” his role in the case, even suggesting that he was not involved with it at all.
“ABC News could find no public court records that connect Ratcliffe to either of the two trials for the case,” the article claimed. “Former officials directly involved in the decade-long Holy Land Foundation investigation could not recall Ratcliffe having any role, and four former defense attorneys who served on the cases told ABC News on Monday they had no recollection of Ratcliffe being involved with any of the proceedings that resulted in the convictions of their clients.”

Garrett, who is listed on the federal court docket for the Holy Land Foundation case as one of the prosecutors of record representing the United States, told The Federalist that ABC News never contacted him for comment prior to publishing its article.
“No,” he responded when asked directly whether anyone from ABC News contacted him about its story.

He also noted it is not surprising that Ratcliffe’s role would not have been public at the time, given the sensitive nature of terrorism cases.
“I served as a ‘terrorism prosecutor’ before and after 9/11, and 98% of the work in that arena never saw the light of day,” Garrett said. “Folks like John were thrust into what had traditionally been an intelligence community-only environment and expected to engage and provide leadership and perspective as those matters progressed.”
“It was trial by fire, and he handled it exceedingly well, albeit outside of the public eye,” Garrett said.

The former federal prosecutor and FBI special agent also offered a personal endorsement of Ratcliffe’s nomination and confirmation as director of national intelligence.
“In my 20 years in the business, there’s no one I believe more capable of this position than John,” he said.

But I'd suggest that's not the only reason he was so disqualified, though that alone was sufficient.
Just your opinion. He met the statutory requirement. Coats had no more intel qualifications.

Baloney. Did you read my posts comparing the two of them? Coats had vastly longer experience in IC oversight, on a committee known for its bipartisan, even handed approach in direct contrast to the Rat's committees, Ratcliffe's recent experience gave him first hand oversight access to what the IC did during the 2016 campaign, transition, & since. That's why you, the IC & MSM are so afraid of him.and Coats actually has served in the military. Coats served in the Army Corps of Engineers, 1966 - 68. I can't believe you'd cite that as relevant experience for DNI half a century later. Which isn't to say that Coats was nearly as qualified as his predecessors, just way more than the Rat.Ratcliffe's 4 yrs as US Atty for Anti-Terrorism & Natl Sec in the EDTX is working level experience & access that Coats never had.

IMO anyone who is so outwardly hostile about the credibility of the IC's work, someone who is so over the top partisan, has no business in that job. He wouldn't have been trusted by the professionals to tell truth to power.
BS. He would not be trusted to obstruct or cover for the abusers & leakers.

That's an argument, for sure appealing to the Trumpists. But the job is to coordinate and support the work of many agencies of the IC and to communicate the results of that work to the key decision makers honestly, not politically. Someone with his degree of partisanship, including his outright hostility to the work product and professionals of the IC, could never be trusted to tell decision makers the truth about their work, their threat analysis, etc. Browder trusted him enough give him credit for helping bring about the Magnitsky Act.

Doesn't whether it's D or R, that job is should never be held by a partisan hack who is hostile to the work done by the professionals.
Right. Let's see what the IG's & US Attys investigations come up with.
Still waiting. I have no issue with holding folks to account for illegalities. I DO have a problem with political leaders directing prosecution of their political opponents.

But, yeah, when his credentials for the job were being examined, they simply didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Coats' did, the Rat's did not. End of issue.
End of issue ? We'll see who the rats are when the IG & US Atty's report out. Better start working on your excuses.
Same response as above. The Rat was disqualified out of the box. Coats was not adequately qualified, but rose to the job, thankfully. That's what got him fired.

Salty, you really disappoint me. You used to make the argument that we should calm down about Trump because he was surrounded by a bunch of steady, trustworthy, experienced hands, but many are gone now.... and you resort to promoting a flat out liar for a position like this?
We'ii see who joins Clapper, Comey & McCabe in the IC liars hall of fame.

Yup, I'll take Comey and McCabe every day of the week over the Trumpists. Mattis, you can continue the list.
It's an insult to Mattis to compare Comey & McCabe to him. Let's see how history judges them. Mattis doesn't need a lawyer to protect his legacy. I draw the line at Kelly who was caught up in the lies and white nationalist thinking You're unbelievable -- calling Kelly a White Nationalist., and Flynn who sought to profit off his association with Trump, called out 'lock her up', and lied about his interactions with Russia. We'll see who lied about Flynn's interactions with Russia. Are you hyping Halper's Svetlana honey trap story ?The last two are a disappointment, but they made their own beds.

Come on.

Fluffing up a resume is no BFD...just ask these guys: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 0F304572D0

Headmaster at my son's and my high school had fluffed his resume saying he'd been an intercollegiate hockey player when it turned out he'd never played beyond some intramurals. Good educator, great fundraiser...Fired.

...& you make that analogy when comparing what Ratcliffe claimed on his website with what the non-prosecution agreement on the Pilgram Poultry agreement confirmed. Did you even bother to read it ?

Over 300 illegal aliens arrested. He was the lead prosecutor.
That's what Ratcliffe claimed. That's what happened.

5 'fluffs', (BFD) that's just one, and it wasn't the truth, just a twisting of the truth.
But, flat lie about having convicted terrorists.

You object to Ratcliffe for the same reason you object to Barr.
They're not going to shield the IG & DoJ from scrutiny of what they did.
You haven't heard the last from them.

I didn't object to Barr for that reason, (I don't have any issue with fairly addressing any improprieties the IG finds) though I was skeptical about his claimed integrity, given his role back in the HW Bush administration. But he was certainly 'qualified' in his level of experience. Painfully, my skepticism has been more than proven accurate as he so egregiously misrepresented the Mueller Report. Barr tried to save Mueller from making a pathetic spectacle of himself -- he failed, but not for lack of trying.

You're exhausting. There were 5 'fluffs' as you term them. No BFD.
...& I addressed them. If you're exhausted, it hasn't reduced your word count.

Did he convict any terrorists? That's what his House website says.
He participated in the Holy Land Foundation case. I've given you the documentation twice now.
Flat out lie.

Mimi Rocah✔
@Mimirocah1 (former Fed Prosecutor & MSNBC legal expert)
I’m not looking to defend this guy but I’d caution that Chiefs/supervisors of units (as he seems to have been) often have significant roles in cases even if their name isn’t on any document or proceeding & agents & defense counsel may not be aware of the supervisor’s role.
9:04 AM - Jul 30, 2019

[dislaxxic]

THE PARTS OF THE MUELLER REPORT WITHHELD FROM ROGER STONE SHOW THE CENTRALITY OF HIS WIKILEAKS ACTIVITIES TO TRUMP’S OBSTRUCTION

Don the Con BETTER get himself re-elected...if not, he's looking at some serious time...

..