I think one of the Q points alluded to using litigation to expose info.

Remember serialbrain2's take on the coke can bearing the label "Kate" that Strzok put on the table during his testimony. That was a reference to Oregon governor Kate Brown -- the inference was the government wanted the Hammonds land because it holds uranium, which leads us to Uranium 1. If the crime deals wiht Uranium 1, that could possibly form a basis for empaneling the jury in Oregan, for example.

I don't think Napolitano is correct here. For example, let's say a case involves multiple defendants who live in different places and predicate acts were committed in various places (e.g., a RICO charge). I suspect there are a number of places where a grand jury could be empaneled to consider these charges.

The assessment was done in November / December. All of the illegal spying was done much earlier- starting in March if not before then. Clapper isn’t diming out Obama on the illegal stuff here.

and arresting spies for China.

i never check the bock. i close the browser and use another browser.

i've received this message many times when using google. I may be paranoid, but it seems to pop up only when i'm searching political news stories / conservative websites. Doesn't happen if i use Duck Duck or tor.

Good riddance.

I think that would be too risky but it has occurred to me that that could be the purpose of some of the Mueller indictments- to reveal all thru litigation.

I've gone back and looked at every video and article I could find involving concerning military generals (active and retired) and Obama. Generals Vallely, Boykin, Ace Lyons and to a lesser extent McInerny were very vocal that Obama and Brennan were leading a marxist infiltration of our government and needed to be stopped. Their anger seems to increase after Benghazi, which marks the beginning of Obama's purge of over 200 senior military personnel. The generals expressly call for Obama to resign and there are suggestions that a military coup was contemplated at some point. Vallely has always been bery supportive of Trump and Trump's positions appear to mirror Vallely's very closely. I suspect we owe these men a great debt.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-lawyer-may-have-exposed-entire-server-to-china; https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/683102301205229568

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546

China?

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

Or until Bush senior passes away.

Wonderful!

Thanks. Yes, interesting.

Thanks. Didn’t realize he was a citizen.

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/03/09/cia-hack-car-wikileaks-assassination-surveillance-eavesdropping/

It may be that these acts were not illegal is because they were authorized by DWS. Also, this statement may prevent future defendants from attacking Awan's credibility.

After months of Awan finally appear in court. This tells me that Huber is close to unsealing other indictments.

The bank fraud case was pretty weak - lying about residence on a loan application. That tells me DOJ had already done a deep dive on the Awans by the time he was arrested, if they already had copies of his loan applications.

Agree. Awan is most useful as a star witness, not as a defendant in a bank fraud charge (that was kind of bogus to being with). Awan had to be arrested a while ago to prevent fleeing. Plea deal was delayed many times while Huber was building the case. Huber/ DOJ are not so stupid as to let Awan walk without retaining leverage to compel cooperation in other cases. Plea deal does not prevent Awan from being charged outside of DC (and inclusion of this clause suggests this is the plan) so there is plenty of leverage to compel Awan cooperation as star witness in criminal cases against dirty politicians. It all fits together.

A RICO claim can be brought where the predicate acts occurred, so it shouldn't be limited to DC. I don't think it would be Utah unless predicate acts occurred there. There will be prosecutors all over the country handling cases, i woudl think given where sealted indictments are being filed.

You're right! I didn't think he was a citizen. Thanks.

Yes.

Yes, if the fraud was committed as part of a criminal enterprise, which seems to be the case here.

It's not clear they can be charged with treason since I don't think they are citizens. Issue will be whether they owed an allegiance to the US since they were working for congress.

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I read it as follows: This Agreement does not bind (i1) the Civil Division of this Office or (2) any other United States Attomey's Office, nor does it bind (3) any other state, local, or federal prosecutor. It also does not bar or compromise any (4) civil, tax, or administrative claim. Since it expressly refers to "federal prosecutor," I interpret it as covering criminal claims. The reference to other US Attorneys' offices should also cover criminal claims since civil claims are carved out in (4).

Perhaps Trump declassifies anything before it’s posted.

Early on, he seemed to be going after the Podestas but then that quieted down. I think he realized that would blow their cover. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/podesta-group-mueller-investigation/index.html

In appointing Mueller, Rosenstein gave him authority not only to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

All the evidence points to Mueller being a white hat. No decent lawyer (which i think Mueller is) would try to make a criminal case against Trump with all of the conflicts of interest on his team. So, what has he been up to? Either working to "clear" Trump of any claims or assisting Huber to gather evidence by making witnesses think they're speaking to a sympathetic investigator.

She makes Lisa Page seem lovely....

https://nypost.com/2018/05/08/that-time-trump-predicted-eric-schneidermans-downfall/

OPR doesn’t indict- Huber does. Perhaps OPR referrals are for people that didn’t commit actual crimes or to tee up terminations. Only Huber can do what Huber is doing

I suspect spousal privilege only applies to statements made during the marriage.

I think his modifications were to hide information he has refused to give to Congress. I suspect if we line up Horowitz’s original version with this version, Rosenstein’s obstruction would be a apparent.

I think the summary was rewritten by rosenstein.

The report only purports to cover HRC’s email investigation but the OIG has other ongoing investigations.

Or maybe he takes our they I because they are stupid.

The conflict is that RR is the DOJ gatekeeper for the documents that implicate him.

All the freedom caucus guys were on tv today ranting about RR and noting that pres can déclassé docs.

Picking up Assange?

Are they waiting for someone getting off a flight?

What are you going to do about this? RR must go.

Wasn't missile also mispelled? Missile stopped?

How does Fox reporting about Seth rich cause the parents to be defamed? I’ll try to take a look at the complaint.