Trump's Russian Collusion

[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?
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

Gee, there's so much poop in there, there must be a pony.

I'm not going to even bother to argue, yet again, each one of your speculations which are just so much blather.

You're all-in for these idiots, liars and racists. I'm not.

[Matnum PI]

For obvious reasons, america is wrestling with the morality of lying.

[Typical Lax Dad]

For obvious reasons, america is wrestling with the morality of lying.

What’s wrong with a little lying? Lying isn’t the problem....it’s the MSM making a big deal out of it.

[MDlaxfan76]

For obvious reasons, america is wrestling with the morality of lying.

Apparently the Trumpists think that they actually have to defend lying and liars.

Which is really, really strange.

Painful to see people who we'd normally think were solid, moral citizens, not infallible sure (who is!), but for the most part moral beings...defend lying and liars. Same for their defense of obvious racism and blatant misogyny.

Most of these folks are 'good' people. I put my brother-in-law in that camp.
But the dark side is strong. Cult-like.

[old salt]

I'm tired of the lying about Ratcliffe's record.

[foreverlax]

I'm tired of the lying by Trump. How about you?

[old salt]

I'm tired of the lying by Trump. How about you?

Yeah. Me too. Don't vote for him.

[Trinity]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... ns-1448331

Judge Walton thinks America deserves the truth. The Mueller Report without redaction. Very different view of case than Barr provides. Gov argues it would hurt ongoing investigations. So there’s more. Probably about Lisa Page.

[old salt]

...or Azra Turk

[Trinity]

Only a thousand items hidden by Barr for public employees working in tandem with the enemy to get elected. Let the sun shine in, start to finish, Papadopoulos to Stone

[dislaxxic]

IT IS FALSE TO CLAIM THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP IS UNPRECEDENTED

..

[seacoaster]

Something for OS and others to keep recycling, and hope for more info on Lisa Page?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... ts-1448615

"In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Strzok excoriates the Justice Department and FBI for their handling of his dismissal over a trove of text messages he wrote to a colleague that were critical of Trump. Strzok accuses the president of inappropriately bullying law enforcement officials deciding his fate, raises questions about why his texts were leaked to the media and lambastes the administration for only defending its employees’ free speech rights when they are praising Trump.

Specifically, Strzok’s lawsuit accuses the agencies of violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights by firing him over the texts and then depriving him of due process to challenge his expulsion. And, Strzok argues, DOJ’s decision to give the incendiary messages to reporters before handing them to Congress — generating blaring headlines — was “deliberate and unlawful,” a violation of the Privacy Act.

....

In an internal report, Candice Will, the longtime deputy director of the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, cited three ways in which Strzok allegedly violated FBI policies during the election, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. None had to do with the content of the text messages, though the office did note that the “overtly political tone” of the messages was “of serious concern.”

The first, “unprofessional conduct off duty,” directly related to his use of an FBI-issued cell phone to send the private texts. The second, “investigative deficiency” — later reduced to “dereliction of supervisory duty” — related to Strzok’s perceived delay in searching a laptop that belonged to Anthony Weiner, the husband of a top Hillary Clinton aide, as part of the probe of Clinton’s emails in the fall of 2016.

Finally, Will told Strzok that he had committed a “security violation” for forwarding certain sensitive law-enforcement documents to his personal Gmail account.

Still, Will and her office did not recommend Strzok’s dismissal. And legal experts said Bowdich’s eventual decision to overrule that recommendation was considered highly unusual.

Strzok’s lawsuit notes that while the Hatch Act prohibits certain political activities by government officials, officials should also “be encouraged to exercise” their right to political speech “fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal.” And because the FBI never asserted that Strzok violated the Hatch Act, Strzok’s speech was protected under the First Amendment, the lawsuit states.

The Trump administration has also exhibited a double standard when it comes to tolerating political speech from employees, the document argues. It specifically mentions Kellyanne Conway, the president’s senior adviser whose repeated Hatch Act violations prompted the Office of Special Counsel to recommend she be fired.

The administration, according to the lawsuit, “has consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees, as long as this speech praises President Trump and attacks his political adversaries.”

Sounds like a pretty heavy rock to push up a steep hill to me.

[old salt]

Something for OS and others to keep recycling, and hope for more info on Lisa Page?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... ts-1448615

"In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Strzok excoriates the Justice Department and FBI for their handling of his dismissal over a trove of text messages he wrote to a colleague that were critical of Trump. Strzok accuses the president of inappropriately bullying law enforcement officials deciding his fate, raises questions about why his texts were leaked to the media and lambastes the administration for only defending its employees’ free speech rights when they are praising Trump.

Specifically, Strzok’s lawsuit accuses the agencies of violating his First and Fifth Amendment rights by firing him over the texts and then depriving him of due process to challenge his expulsion. And, Strzok argues, DOJ’s decision to give the incendiary messages to reporters before handing them to Congress — generating blaring headlines — was “deliberate and unlawful,” a violation of the Privacy Act.

....

In an internal report, Candice Will, the longtime deputy director of the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, cited three ways in which Strzok allegedly violated FBI policies during the election, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. None had to do with the content of the text messages, though the office did note that the “overtly political tone” of the messages was “of serious concern.”

The first, “unprofessional conduct off duty,” directly related to his use of an FBI-issued cell phone to send the private texts. The second, “investigative deficiency” — later reduced to “dereliction of supervisory duty” — related to Strzok’s perceived delay in searching a laptop that belonged to Anthony Weiner, the husband of a top Hillary Clinton aide, as part of the probe of Clinton’s emails in the fall of 2016.

Finally, Will told Strzok that he had committed a “security violation” for forwarding certain sensitive law-enforcement documents to his personal Gmail account.

Still, Will and her office did not recommend Strzok’s dismissal. And legal experts said Bowdich’s eventual decision to overrule that recommendation was considered highly unusual.

Strzok’s lawsuit notes that while the Hatch Act prohibits certain political activities by government officials, officials should also “be encouraged to exercise” their right to political speech “fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal.” And because the FBI never asserted that Strzok violated the Hatch Act, Strzok’s speech was protected under the First Amendment, the lawsuit states.

The Trump administration has also exhibited a double standard when it comes to tolerating political speech from employees, the document argues. It specifically mentions Kellyanne Conway, the president’s senior adviser whose repeated Hatch Act violations prompted the Office of Special Counsel to recommend she be fired.

The administration, according to the lawsuit, “has consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees, as long as this speech praises President Trump and attacks his political adversaries.”

Sounds like a pretty heavy rock to push up a steep hill to me.

Lisa Page may come out of this ok. Apparently she was forthright & helpful with investigators. Strozk -- not so much.

Hatch Act ? .. ...Strzok supposedly went after Flynn because he was a potential blackmail target for the Russians,
...while as our top spy catcher, he was texting that stuff on a non-secure govt device ?
Genius, the Russians wouldn't be interested in blackmailing & turning him.
They acted with arrogance because they thought HRC would win, after shielding her, then panicked when Trump won.

[seacoaster]

I don't know about the shielding business, but as I say, looks a lot like the trial of Sisyphus for Pete.

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't know about the shielding business, but as I say, looks a lot like the trial of Sisyphus for Pete.

The 'shielding' is entirely belied by reality, but Salty won't let that get in the way of repeating that false on its face claim.

Agree on uphill legal climb.
But court may well be a different field of play than the administration's political pressure.

But it may be less about actually winning the court fight, than about getting his side of the story told.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't know about the shielding business, but as I say, looks a lot like the trial of Sisyphus for Pete.

Shielded her by announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation right before the election.....pathetic.

[old salt]

I don't know about the shielding business, but as I say, looks a lot like the trial of Sisyphus for Pete.

Shielded her by announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation right before the election.....pathetic.

.. Nice try. ...Strzok, Page, Priestap & McCabe buried Weiner's lap top for over 3 wks.
When the NY field office asked for an update, they had to brief Comey. He feared it might leak, panicked & went public.
Their coverup blew up in their face & fragged HRC. Nice work by our varsity spy catchers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ction.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't know about the shielding business, but as I say, looks a lot like the trial of Sisyphus for Pete.

Shielded her by announcing that the FBI was reopening an investigation right before the election.....pathetic.

.. Nice try. ...Strzok, Page, Priestap & McCabe buried Weiner's lap top for over 3 wks.
When the NY field office asked for an update, they had to brief Comey. He feared it might leak, panicked & went public.
Their coverup blew up in their face & fragged HRC. Nice work by our varsity spy catchers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ction.html

Yep. It is amazing how they tried to bury all that dirt that was uncovered. Incredible what Page and Strzok were up to....

[Trinity]

I look forward to discovery.

[tech37]

I look forward to discovery.

Right...you looked forward to Mueller's report too...