The amount Stefan Halper was paid by the FBI for setting up Carter Page is redacted. Funny that. The FBI payments are in addition to the sums paid to him by the Pentagon ($700,000) and whatever Fusion GPS paid him. Lucrative gig this informing lark.
Purchase Order HQ003416P0148 is a Firm Fixed Price Federal Contract Award. It was awarded to Halper, Stefan on Sep 26, 2016. The purchase order is funded by the Washington Headquarters Service (DOD). The potential value of the award is $411,575. The NAICS Category for the award is 541720 - Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities. The PSC Category is B549 - Foreign Policy/National Security Policy Studies
Our Summary
INDIA AND CHINA ECON STUDY Link
Posted by: 3dc ||
12/24/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life,
#1
Yeah, that's the point--they've weaponized the Federal government. Federal agencies that ALL of the taxpayers fund were used to attack the President that 50 percent of the taxpayers voted for instead of impartially serving the country.
#5
Deputy A-G Rosenstein used the power of his office to threaten to subpoena the calls & texts of the Intel Committee to get it to stop it’s investigation of DOJ and FBI. Likely an Abuse of Power & Obstruction.”
"Likely an Abuse of Power & Obstruction?" Yes, it appears to fit the definition quite well.
FISC judge orders FBI to identify all surveillance applications involving Kevin Clinesmith.
Order does not mention "Case Agent 1," who IG report said was "primarily responsible" for some of "most significant" errors and omissions in FISAs. https://t.co/ZeJUkANtgX
#2
...A question - why can't a Federal judge perform a wedding at the Federal Building or on some other Federal property? I know Fredo's brother doesn't have any authority there at all...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/24/2019 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What if the federal Judge performs a same-sex marriage? What about a trans-sexual marriage?
#5
Hey Crazy, SCOTUS says that's OK. Even though reading through the Constitution I can't find that empowerment to SCOTUS. It's all nuance and umbra sort of like ancient priests reading animal entails.
h/t Instapundit
[PJ] - Hunter Biden is the subject of multiple criminal investigations regarding "fraud, money laundering, and a counterfeiting scheme" according to documents filed in an Arkansas paternity case. The documents, filed Monday by the Florida-based private-eye firm D&A Investigations, specifically name Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that hired Biden to the board while his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama administration point person on Ukraine.
Biden "is the subject of more than one criminal investigation involving fraud, money laundering, and a counterfeiting scheme," the filing alleges, according to The New York Post. Biden and a group of business associates "established bank and financial accounts with Morgan Stanley ... for Burisma Holdings Limited ... for the money laundering scheme," the filing alleges.
D&A Investigations went on to claim that the accounts showed an average value of nearly $6.8 million between March 2014 and December 2015.
The filing also names Devon Archer and Christopher Heinz, long-term associates of Hunter Biden. Heinz, the son-in-law of then-Secretary of State John Kerry, also entered lucrative business deals with Biden's son in China. At the time, Joe Biden and John Kerry went soft on China despite the Middle Kingdom's aggression in the South China Sea.
According to D&A Investigations, the vice president's son and his associates "utilized a counterfeiting scheme to conceal the Morgan Stanley et al average Account Value."
The filing also claims that the vice president's son had a role in a plot to rip off Sioux Native Americans to the tune of $60 million through the sale of tribal bonds. John Galanis, Archer, and Bevan Cooney were found guilty for their roles in June 2018, following a lengthy New York federal court trial.
D&A Investigations does not name the agencies behind the purported criminal probes of the former vice president's son in either case.
Dominic Casey, the D&A Investigations investigator who filed the papers, refused to comment further on them. "I believe this is self-explanatory," he told the Post.
#1
Biden actually DID what Trump is only accused of by the Democrats.
( don't slam the cash register drawer just yet....Biden's hand is still in there.)
This is almost as good as seeing Kerry saluting and reporting for duty along with "Breck Boy" for VP a few years back. WHERE does the Democratic Party FIND such quality people?
#2
This isn't even the half of it. Biden's brother was a war profiteer in Iraq.
James Biden got hired by a homebuilding firm that shortly thereafter scored a $1.5 billion sweetheart deal in 2011 while Biden was one of the Zero admin's point men for reconstruction in Iraq.
FBI leadership pushed Steele Dossier for January 2017 intel assessment. Witness told IG Horowitz “McCabe understood President Obama’s request for the ICA to require the participating agencies to share all information relevant to Russia and 2016 elections.” pg. 177 #Durhampic.twitter.com/1G2IsPHFpv
Posted by: Fred ||
12/24/2019 00:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WTF?
So Intel Section Chief makes a clear distinction between "information concerning Russian election interference" attempts - i.e. objective facts and hard evidence - and "allegations concerning candidate Trump" - i.e. barroom bullshit and scurrilous lies concocted by one partisan activist, Steele the Fabulist.
And Deputy Director overrides this distinction - again, between objective evidence OTOH and a foreign agent's tall tales OTOH - and collapses it all into one stew.
Put aside the criminal aspect of this behavior, the threat to our Constitution, the contempt for law.
Even if this were not illegal, is this a sober, professional, intelligent way to evaluate any kind of claim to truth?
Who in his right mind would combine hearsay and ludicrous rumors with hard evidence?
#2
Back when the fUSSR was a thing, as an amateur Kremlinologist, I used to marvel at the 3-cornered politics and maneuvering between the Party, the KGB and the Army. State-run media was a joke - "In Truth there is no news, and in News there is no truth". Totally different than here in the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free.
[TheHill] 1) The Senate could entertain a motion by the president’s counsel to dismiss ‐ before the start of a trial ‐ both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action. Such a decision would require a simple majority of 51 votes because this would be a procedural motion;
2) The Senate could begin a trial and, thereafter, could end it whenever the Senate majority deems it has heard enough and calls for a vote. Such a vote would be called when the Senate majority is confident that a supermajority of 67 senators ‐ two-thirds of the Senate ‐ would not vote to convict;
3) The Senate could conduct a full-blown trial, and it could drag on for as long as the Senate majority feels doing so is in its interests. It has a wide berth for calling or subpoenaing witnesses as it feels is germane. This would cause a circus-like atmosphere that would require the Supreme Court’s chief justice, the presiding officer in a Senate trial, to make numerous rulings, some of which would be unpredictable in their outcomes.
4) The Senate, after the conclusion of a trial, could once again entertain a motion to dismiss, alleging that House Democrats had failed to prove their case. This is a procedural motion that would require a simple majority to make deliberations by the full Senate moot if passed.
5) And then there is a "nuclear option." The Senate majority could make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020. That would allow the American people to decide the president’s fate at the ballot box. The Constitution is silent as to when a trial should occur, timewise. A simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary to pass such a motion.
No matter how the Senate deals with its "trial" obligations, the outcome does not change. The president either will be cleared by the impeachment articles being dismissed without the necessity of a trial or acquitted after a trial.
In my opinion, a trial is unnecessary. The House articles, on their face, are defective. Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal "acquittal," after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the president’s innocence. While this would be true in a traditional criminal judicial proceeding, it is not the case in a political trial. No matter how the Senate deals with the articles of impeachment, Democrats and Republicans will put their own political spin on the outcome. Since the House articles of impeachment were voted strictly on party lines, and the country is so divided on the whole impeachment process, in my opinion, a trial is less important.
#1
In my opinion, a trial is unnecessary. The House articles, on their face, are defective. Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Agreed.
This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal "acquittal," after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the president’s innocence.
Can we please stop bandying this foolish, ignorant, un-American concept that any citizen, pauper or POTUS, in this country has to prove his innocence?
Do people in this country truly not understand that we are guaranteed, by the highest law of the land and by centuries of precedent, the presumption of innocence?
Trump doesn't need to "prove" anything. That burden rests with the mad hatters and other conspirators who have spent three years subjecting this nation to an unending parade of horseshit on stilts.
ENOUGH. Don't dignify this Shitshow with a response - let alone a trial defense.
Dismiss it forthwith. Option #1 is the only reasonable course of action. To coin a phrase, MoveOn.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
1) The Senate could entertain a motion by the president’s counsel to dismiss ‐ before the start of a trial ‐ both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action. Such a decision would require a simple majority of 51 votes because this would be a procedural motion;
