There’s a lot to look at and process when the schedule is released each season for the Golden Knights. One of the first places my eyes go is to which parts of the year are the best spots for Vegas to take big strides with long winning streaks. Last year, I identified the three easiest stretches of the season, and the Golden Knights went 9-3-0, 5-2-0, and 6-1-0. Let’s see if we can find the easiest parts of the schedule once again.
November 18th to December 2nd
vs NYR, at UTA, at ANA, at UTA, vs OTT, vs MTL, vs SJS, vs CHI
This is an eight-game stretch opening with an Eastern Conference opponent, followed by three road games, but there’s barely a playoff team to be found in the entire two-week span. It’s possible Utah has improved enough to make the two road games a bit trickier, but overall this should be at least six wins with the only back-to-back being a home and home with Montreal and San Jose. Also, if VGK can get hot during this stretch, it leads into a long road trip against bad East Coast teams as well. Even if the season doesn’t start off like it usually does for Bruce Cassidy teams, late November should allow the Golden Knights to vault up the standings.
March 6th to March 21st
vs MIN, vs EDM, at DAL, vs PIT, vs CHI, vs BUF, vs UTA, at NSH
Typically, the Golden Knights improve their roster at the trade deadline a bit more than most teams. This year should be no different. There are a few strong opponents off the top that should have the newbies engaged, and then it’s a rash of teams that will have likely sold on March 6th. A couple wins in the first three games could have VGK ripe to rip off a 6+ game winning streak and coast towards a playoff berth.
January 8th to January 19th
vs CBJ, vs STL, at SJS, at LAK, vs TOR, vs NSH, vs PHI
January is jam-packed for the Golden Knights with four back-to-backs as part of 17 games in 32 days. However, the schedule looks that way for just about every team, and the opponents are fairly weak through most of this stretch. During this stretch, St. Louis, Nashville, and Philadelphia are all on the second night of back-to-backs in games in which VGK will be rested. The Los Angeles/Toronto duo in the middle will be tough, but you have to imagine the Golden Knights will be up for that first game against the Leafs with Mitch Marner in the lineup. Health is going to be paramount over this stretch, though. If VGK are healthy throughout January, they can get on a roll and pile up the wins.
Last year, there were 26 games in the “easiest stretches” category, and VGK went a combined 20-6-0. This year, there are 23. Let’s see if they can get to 20 wins once again.
We’ll look at the most difficult stretches on Monday.
Jeffrey Sutton
We will pound their guts! All up in them guts.
Emmanuel
Some of those teams will improve or decline & VGK will of course have injuries & some of the players are so old they could fall of a cliff suddenly so its hard to tell.
Good news though, VGK plays in the Pacific so the only threat to crack the top 3 is Utah & theyre iffy defensively.
Larry
I don’t think there are any easy stretches for VGK as they are in no way a juggernaut by any means and most bad teams are improving or have already improved.
I don’t see the November 18- December 2 stretch as being easy save for perhaps the sharks and the blackhawks ( with the way overhyped bedard), VGK have to come to play every night lest the season can easily fall apart.
Emmanuel
“Bedard” will fix itself:
1. He will age into his prime
2. He team will get better players
3. I think he would be better off as a “Kane-type winger” not at C
ThG
Never before in American history has a departing president connived to sabotage and destroy the man who would replace him.
Newly revealed documents show that in 2016 then-President Barack Obama and his national security team “manufactured and politicized” phony intelligence to help frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset when they knew it was untrue.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard who unearthed and released the declassified documents on Friday described it as an “egregious abuse of power” that amounts to a “treasonous conspiracy.”
OBAMA OFFICIALS USED DOSSIER TO PROBE, BRIEF TRUMP DESPITE KNOWING IT WAS UNVERIFIED ‘INTERNET RUMOR’
Treason is a strong term with an exceedingly high legal standard. So, too, is seditious conspiracy. The use of violence or force is often a central element for both.
Closer to the mark are other serious crimes. They include conspiracy to defraud the government and deprivation of rights under the color of law. That is, using knowingly false or fabricated evidence to support a case against Trump and to obstruct or impair a lawful government function such as an election.
Former U.S. President Barack Obama
According to a new book, former President Barack Obama wanted to have a Democratic primary following President Biden withdrawing from the 2024 election. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Not surprisingly, the genesis of the plot began with Hillary Clinton. On July 26, 2016, she allegedly approved an illicit scheme to sully her political opponent for colluding with Russia to rig the upcoming presidential election. The bogus smear was intended to distract from her own burgeoning email scandal. Hillary’s campaign commissioned and funded a dossier that was little more than a collection of lies supplied by Clinton confederates.
The CIA discovered what Hillary had done and immediately alerted the Obama White House. In two successive meetings on July 28 and Aug. 3, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed the president and other top officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and FBI Director James Comey.
Brennan’s handwritten notes from the Situation Room show how he recounted Clinton’s plan “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” From that point on, it was a closely guarded secret.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, left. Former FBI Director James Comey, right.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, left. Former FBI Director James Comey, right. (Getty/Reuters)
It was all a hoax, and the above-named participants well knew it. Yet, none of them had the integrity to step forward to tell either Congress or the American people the truth.
Instead, they watched in silence as Comey and his FBI acolytes launched a dilating investigation of Trump dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane.” They shamelessly weaponized their authority and contorted the law to persecute Trump. As planned, the fake collusion narrative was leaked to the Trump-hating media.
Almost from the outset, the FBI had debunked the dossier and later fired its author, Christopher Steele, for lying. The ex-British spy had been a paid source for the FBI. By concealing this vital information, Comey sought and obtained surveillance warrants from the FISA court on a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page. No evidence of wrongdoing was ever discovered because none existed.
When the Russia hoax failed to prevent Trump from winning the presidency, the same malevolent adversaries doubled down on the Clinton-inspired scheme.
The new documents released by Gabbard show that a Dec. 8, 2016 draft of the President’s Daily Briefing (PDB) assessed that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
But that conclusion, compiled by top intelligence agencies, did not conform to the Trump collusion narrative. Comey and others apparently scuttled the PDB and concocted an alternative plan.
Tulsi Gabbard testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee
UNITED STATES – MARCH 25: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
The next day, Dec. 9, Obama convened select cabinet officials, along with Clapper, Brennan, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. A new Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was ordered that would undermine the PDB and perpetuate the Trump-Russia collusion fiction.
The replacement narrative would claim that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump win the presidency. It didn’t seem to matter that it was not true.
Brennan and Comey ensured that the discredited dossier was incorporated in the ICA, which was rushed to completion before the new president took office. Why the urgency? So that Comey could use it to entrap Trump into a false confession before his inauguration.
On Jan. 6, 2017, the FBI director traveled to Trump Tower armed with the ICA that deceptively alleged Russian interference in the campaign and also confronted the president-elect with salacious accusations in the dossier that the bureau knew were untrue. Comey’s unscrupulous gambit failed when Trump vigorously denied the allegations as utterly preposterous, which they were.
Meanwhile, there is still more damning evidence that must be declassified —some of it sealed for nearly a decade and buried in the bowels of the FBI and other intel agencies.
None of that deterred Comey and his minions at the FBI. They escalated their investigation of Trump and propagated the collusion lie. Clapper leaked the dossier to CNN, as reporters and pundits spent the next year happily convicting the new president in the court of public opinion without a shred of plausible evidence.
When Comey was eventually fired, he purloined FBI documents on his way out the door and promptly leaked them to a friend in the media to trigger the appointment of a special counsel who just happened to be his former colleague and mentor, Robert Mueller. In the end, of course, Mueller and his team of partisans —try as they may— could find no evidence of a criminal collusion conspiracy.
Those of us who fairly and honestly covered the faux scandal knew it all along. In my 2018 book titled The Russia Hoax, I wrote on page one that “there was not a whiff of credible evidence to legally justify the probe” initiated by Comey. I described it as “a clever feint for a covert criminal investigation in search of a crime, reversing and bastardizing the legal process.” I laid out the facts which still hold true today.
In my follow-up book the next year, Witch Hunt, I offered more incriminating details of exactly how malign actors aspired and conspired to evict Trump from office: “Evidence against him was invented or embellished. Laws were perverted or ignored. Trump was framed for a ‘collusion’ conspiracy that had never existed. They knew it was untrue.”
The newly constituted FBI has already opened a criminal investigation of Brennan and Comey. That is a good start. But they were not the only ones who should be held to account. The list is a long one, and it goes right to the top —Obama and Clinton.
It started with the collusion hoax, but it didn’t end there. Trump appears to have been the victim of an ongoing criminal conspiracy that stretched for nearly a decade. It eventually evolved into the specious prosecutions brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith that were engineered by the Biden administration and simultaneous coverups of suspected illegality by the Biden family, many of whom received preemptive pardons.
On that basis, the FBI is reportedly examining the possibility of bringing a “grand conspiracy” case that would encompass many of the above-noted acts that were intended to unduly influence three presidential elections, 2016, 2020, and 2024.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The advantage of adopting this legal avenue is two-fold. First, it would extend any expired statute of limitations to the date of more recent overt acts such as the raid on Mar-a-Lago and events thereafter. Second, it would allow any prosecutions to be brought in a venue other than Washington, D.C., where the endemic bias of jurors make it nearly impossible to gain convictions.
Meanwhile, there is still more damning evidence that must be declassified —some of it sealed for nearly a decade and buried in the bowels of the FBI and other intel agencies. But even without it, there is little doubt that top officials at the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice and the White House abused their authority for political purposes. Armed with immense power and often lurking in the shadows, they were capable of uncommon corruption.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Their allegiance was not to the Constitution and the rule of law but to themselves. Personal animus and a voracious appetite for control motivated their zeal. Trump was their obstacle. He jeopardized their hold on power, so they schemed to destroy him by any means and at any cost.
The only cure for lies is the truth. And the only remedy for lawlessness is justice. The pursuit of what is right depends on both principles.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT
knights fan in minny
lefty losers are nothing but scum
Pistol Pete
OT:
This subject is of interest to me and I actually read the Mueller Report in its entirety. Let me make one point: I recall early on before the Mueller investigation the FBI was investigating Russian interference in the election, this before the Steele Dossier and here’s the kicker: there was bipartisan agreement in Congress that Russia did interfere in the election.
Then came the point where the Trump campaign had to be investigated for possible complicity initially due to George Papadopolous making the comment to the Australian diplomat that a British man told him Russia had dirt on Clinton and Carter Page (again before the Steele Dossier) who had a long history of living in Russia and being under FBI surveillance and turned up as a Trump campaign advisor. Papadopolous and Page both had to be scrutinized in a wholly apolitical fashion Hunter FBI. Papadopolous for his comments and Page as a Trump foreign policy advisor for his long history of living in Russia. Standard Cold War apolitical FBI protocol. Those with fair minds never did, without evidence, accuse the Trump campaign of directly colluding with Russians and much later the Mueller Report in fact concluded in Part One that whereas Trump campaign officials knew of the interference and expected to benefit from it, there was no evidence of a conspiracy.
There is no doubt in my mind that had not Trump fired Comey there would not have been a Mueller investigation, in fact Steve Bannon advised him against firing Comey exactly for this reason and he was right. The FBI would have simply continued it’s Russian investigation, would have concluded there was no Trump campaign conspiracy and gone on as in fact they did to conclude that most of the Steele Dossier including the most salacious parts could not be corroborated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Jarrett
The Russia Hoax
edit
In 2018, Jarrett published the book The Russia Hoax which alleges that “Hillary Clinton’s deep state collaborators in government” engaged in “nefarious actions” to protect Clinton and undermine Trump.[16] The book was an Amazon and New York Times best-seller.[16] President Trump praised the book.[17] According to Rolling Stone magazine, the book “amounts to 286 pages of recapping every single bad thing the Clintons have ever been accused of doing (Uranium One is, again, mentioned dozens of times.)… The idea that the Clinton email investigation could be dropped, and the Russia investigation taken up just a few months later isn’t seen as coincidence, but conspiracy, a bit of revenge enacted by an intelligence community full of Clinton fans.”[16] In a review for The Washington Post, Carlos Lozada described the book as a Trump hagiography.[18] In 2018, PolitiFact highlighted five claims made in Jarrett’s book as false, misleading and unsubstantiated.[19]
Pistol Pete
Yes, the FBI was aware that Carter Page was a Trump campaign advisor prior to receiving the Steele dossier.
Here’s why:
Carter Page was named by Donald Trump as a member of his foreign policy team during a March 2016 meeting with The Washington Post editorial board.
The FBI began its counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which involved scrutiny of Page’s ties to Russia, prior to acquiring the Steele dossier.
While the Steele dossier was used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to monitor Page in October 2016, this happened after he had already left the Trump campaign.
Therefore, the FBI’s awareness of Page’s role as a Trump campaign advisor preceded the agency’s use of information from the Steele dossier in its surveillance application related to him.
Pistol Pete
It was just not a good idea to bring Page into the campaign. He had a long history of living and working in Russia and having dealings with the Russian government. Fodder for FBI monitoring that went back years before 2016. Basic Cold War stuff. A potential can of worms for any American political campaign.
Neither investigation of Page and Papsdopolous turned up anything but the point is both were poor choices by the Trump campaign Page especially, and in both cases no apolitical FBI would not by default investigate.
Pistol Pete
The Steele dossier played a role in the Russia investigation, but its importance is a matter of ongoing debate and controversy.
Here’s a breakdown of the role it played:
Fueled initial suspicions and some investigative steps: The dossier, a collection of reports by former British spy Christopher Steele alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia, including salacious details, contributed to the atmosphere of suspicion surrounding the Trump campaign’s potential connections to Russia. Some of the dossier’s claims were used by the FBI in applications for surveillance warrants targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to The New York Times and the House Judiciary Committee Republicans.
Controversy over its reliability and use:
The dossier has been widely criticized for its reliance on unverified or questionable sources, and many of its key allegations have not been corroborated by subsequent investigations. For example, the claim that Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign was found to be false. The Justice Department’s inspector general criticized the FBI for flaws in the wiretap applications that relied on the dossier.
Limited impact on Mueller report’s findings: The special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller did not rely on the dossier for its core findings. While Mueller’s team interviewed Steele, they largely disregarded the dossier, and his report did not attribute any findings to Steele or the dossier, according to CNN. The Mueller report focused on Russia’s interference in the election and contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, but ultimately did not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy or coordination between the campaign and Russia.
In conclusion
While the Steele dossier helped spark initial interest and scrutiny into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, its reliability and influence on the overall Russia investigation remain highly contentious. Its impact is seen as limited, especially regarding the final conclusions of the special counsel investigation.
Pistol Pete
As referenced above includes Steve Bannon advising Trump to not fire Comey. Perhaps he has revised his thinking on this? I think it was the right call.
https://youtu.be/WEjzF2Cx1UY
ThG
old news that has been debunked, the steele dossier has been completely and utterly decided to be a fake
ThG
“Gabbard confirmed her intent to send all the uncovered documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI for a criminal referral.
When asked if she expects to see prosecutions, she vowed to do “all that [she] can” to ensure accountability.
“We have many whistleblowers, actually, coming forward now after we released these documents because there are people who were around, who were working within the intelligence community at this time who were so disgusted by what happened,” she shared.
We’re starting to see some of them come out of the woodwork here because they… want to see justice delivered… there must be indictments. Those responsible, no matter how powerful they are and were at that time, no matter who was involved in creating this treasonous conspiracy against the American people, they all must be held accountable.”
oh how the worm has turned, the hunted are now on the hunt. Karma.
Pistol Pete
Opposition research (OR) as a tool against opponents in political campaigns goes back to like the beginning of time. Trump’s numerous dealings in Russia ahead of his 2016 campaign was ideal material for OR.
Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation
Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.
Published Dec. 1, 2021
Updated April 5, 2022
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump and his allies have stepped up an effort to conflate the so-called Steele dossier with the Russia investigation following the indictment of a researcher for the document on charges that he lied to the F.B.I. about some of its sources.
Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax.”
But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts.
What was the Steele dossier?
It was a series of memos about purported Trump-Russia links written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, during the 2016 campaign.
It cited unnamed sources who claimed there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and that Russia had a blackmail tape of Mr. Trump with prostitutes. In addition to giving his memos to his client, Mr. Steele gave some to the F.B.I. and reporters. Buzzfeed published 35 pages in January 2017.
Many things that were not immediately apparent about the dossier have since become clearer. It grew out of a political opposition research effort to dig up information about Mr. Trump funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. Their law firm, Perkins Coie, contracted with a research firm called Fusion GPS, which subcontracted research about Trump business dealings in Russia to Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele in turn hired Igor Danchenko, the recently indicted researcher, to canvass for information from people he knew, including in Europe and Russia.
It was a counterintelligence and criminal inquiry into the Russian operation to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by hacking and anonymously dumping Democratic emails and by spreading propaganda using fake accounts on American social media platforms. The scrutiny of Russia’s activities included examining the nature of links between Trump campaign associates and Russians to see if there was any coordination.
The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” He did not charge any Trump associate with a criminal conspiracy.
Was the dossier a reliable source of information?
No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.
No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.
When the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017, he told the bureau that he thought the tenor of the dossier was more conclusive than was justified; for example, Mr. Danchenko portrayed the blackmail tape story as rumors and speculation that he was not able to confirm. He also said a key source had called him without identifying himself, and that he had guessed at the source’s identity. The indictment accuses Mr. Danchenko of lying about that call and of concealing that a Democratic Party-linked public relations executive was his source for a claim about Trump campaign office politics.
Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?
No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.
The basis for the investigation was instead that WikiLeaks had disrupted the Democratic National Convention by releasing Democratic emails believed to have been stolen by Russian hackers, and that an Australian diplomat said a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser had bragged to him about apparent outreach from Russia involving an offer to help the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Mrs. Clinton.
Did the F.B.I. take any investigative step based on the dossier?
Yes. The F.B.I. took the dossier seriously based on Mr. Steele’s reputation, and used some of it — without independent verification — for a narrow purpose that led to a dead end and became a political debacle. It included several claims from Mr. Steele’s memos in applications to wiretap Carter A. Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser with ties to Russia. In 2019, the Justice Department’s inspector general sharply criticized the F.B.I. for numerous flaws in those wiretap applications.
While the dossier-tainted wiretap of Mr. Page has received significant attention, it was a small part of the overall investigation, which issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communications records, made 13 requests to foreign governments under mutual legal assistance treaties, and interviewed about 500 witnesses. Mr. Page was not charged with a crime, and only a handful of the 448 pages in the Mueller report focus on him.
Did investigators rely on the dossier for their findings?
No. The Mueller report does not present claims from the dossier as evidence, and many of the issues focused on by investigators did not come up in the dossier.
The dossier makes no mention, for example, of a July 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Russians and senior campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., who eagerly accepted the request for a meeting after being told they were bringing dirt on Mrs. Clinton.
Nor does the dossier mention that in August 2016, Konstantin V. Kilimnik — described in the 2019 Mueller report as having “ties to Russian intelligence” and in a partly declassified, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020 as a “Russian intelligence officer” with possible ties to Russia’s election interference operations — flew to the United States to meet with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
Investigators established that the two had discussed whether Mr. Trump, if elected, would bless a peace plan effectively allowing Russia to control eastern Ukraine, and that Mr. Manafort had shared internal polling data and campaign strategy information with Mr. Kilimnik, which the Treasury Department later said he passed on to a Russian spy agency. (The government has not declassified evidence for its escalating accusations about Mr. Kilimnik.)
The Senate report said Mr. Manafort’s “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.”
Did Mueller rely on the dossier for any criminal charges?
No. The special counsel investigation led to indictments of 34 people and three companies. Many of those indicted — like Mr. Kilimnik — reside abroad and have not faced trial. Mr. Mueller obtained nine guilty pleas or jury convictions, including half a dozen close Trump associates. None of those indictments cited the dossier as evidence.
The fact that Mr. Mueller did not obtain sufficient evidence to charge Trump associates with conspiracy is subject to disputed interpretations that overlap with the debate over the dossier’s significance. Trump supporters frame the lack of conspiracy charges as proof there was no collusion. By combining this with the false premise that there would not have been any Russia investigation without the Steele dossier, they portray Mr. Trump as a victim of a hoax.
Beyond pointing out that there is a range of cooperation and coordination that falls short of the legal definition of “conspiracy,” Trump skeptics argue that Mr. Mueller never definitively got to the bottom of what happened in part because of Mr. Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation — like dangling a pardon before Mr. Manafort to keep him from cooperating.
What was the main impact of the dossier?
Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.
Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.
Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.
Pistol Pete
There is like absolutely zero chance anybody finds anything more. It has been just so thoroughly investigated already.
“By April 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr had tasked Durham with overseeing a review of the origins of the Russia investigation and to determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was “lawful and appropriate”.[7][8] Barr disclosed in December 2020 that he had elevated Durham’s status to special counsel in October 2020, ensuring that the Durham special counsel investigation could continue after the Trump administration ended.[9][10] After 31⁄2 years of investigation and prosecutions, Durham had secured one guilty plea and a probation sentence for a charge unrelated to the origins of the Russia investigation, and two unsuccessful trial prosecutions. Durham alleged at the two trials that the FBI had been deceived by the defendants.”
Trump had so many ties to Russia entering and during the 2016 campaign yet none of them when investigated revealed a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. No fair-minded observer accused Trump or his campaign of any crime without evidence. Suspicions are one thing, uncovering actual crimes is another.
As I pointed out, Bannon advised against firing Comey indicating Trump would get a special prosecutor if he did. So obvious. No special counsel and the FBI investigation would have eventually unwinded and reached the same conclusions as the Mueller investigation only with no need to investigate possible obstruction (see Mueller Report Part Two).
Trump did imo engage in obstructive behavior the first case being firing Comey in the ill-fated attempt to end the FBI investigation into possible ties between the campaign and Russia. Another example was when Trump asked the WH counsel to request the AG to fire Mueller. When that leaked out Trump then asked McGann to deny it. McGann refused. How about on Air Force One when Trump concocted the story of Russian orphans to explain the email from the Russian lawyer to Don Jr. purporting to have dirt on Clinton? More obstructive behavior. In the end and for obvious reasons the Mueller investigation stopped short of accusing the POTUS of obstruction a potential crime. That is the job of Congress.
Pistol Pete
“That is the job of Congress.”
I should have said that is a matter to be taken up by Congress. I did not mean to imply Trump was guilty of obstruction and Congress should act accordingly. In fact though I did feel his behavior was obstructive it was a matter for Congress to address as it saw fit.
ThG
Comey was fired because he was involved in.d in the Russian. Collusion hoax. What part of whistleblowers coming forward is NOT clear to you??????? Even the Durham report said it was not obstruction. Comey is dirty. Note to date after being implicated he has said nothing of substance to debunk these findings. He is lawyering up. Note to date the Dems defense to Biden incompetency has been to plead the fifth. Not good optics at all. They provide no counter evidence. Some Dems needs to go to jail . Revenge for GOP base against tyranny of last for years under Biden s weapon inaction of DOJ.
Pistol Pete
So I recall in early 2017 that there was a significant degree of bipartisan agreement in Congress that Russia did in fact interfere in the election. The matter of if the Trump campaign could have conspired with the Russian government was contentious. Again I make the point that fair minded opponents of Trump were not going to convict without evidence.
The defense to any assault on the Russia investigation as an FBI conspiracy will point to the fact that the Mueller investigation proved beyond any doubt that the Russian GRU and IRA were in fact the perpetrators of the interference resulting in scores of indictments; this was the initial thrust of the investigation not collusion. Of course the question of possible collusion had to be investigated due to the campaigns numerous contacts with Russian players. In the end the Mueller investigation concluded there was no collusion. If one reads the Mueller Report they will come to understand the matter of Russian interference and possible collusion was put to rest forever.
The assault on the Russia investigation makes the claim the whole thing was engineered as an assault on Trump. As far as I am concerned this is not true. Sure, if documents are found proving the investigation was first about implicating Trump and second about Russian interference I will be all ears. There is bipartisan agreement in Congress Russia conspired to influence the election in Trump’s favor. That put Trump himself in an interesting position because it did not mean his campaign was complicit but in fact it did probably help him and for sure Comey coming out with statements on the Clinton email case did help him win the election. He had very nice things to say about Comey at the time.
Again, don’t fire Comey and get yourself a special prosecutor. Just let the FBI investigation proceed and it would have winded down with the same conclusions as the Mueller Investigation. Why open yourself up for obstructive behavior?
On his trip to visit the Queen, Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments of the Russian intelligence officers. At the press conference Trump sided with Putin a remarkable and historic moment that he later tried to walk back. The guy was just so obsessed and paranoid the intelligence community was accusing him of collusion. He knew there was none so why open yourself up to obstructive behavior when you knew the investigation would clear you and your campaign? Multiple instances of prospective obstructive behavior over this “drama” and for what? Pride? Ego?
ThG
That was all debunked as new information came out, this was much more than “operation research”, that spin is a stretch. The FBI under Comey was part of problem, a lot of deep state partisan hacks. Didn’t you miss the two FBI’ers talking about how to get Trump? Manafort was only there for two weeks, another stretch. He had prior issues. McGann is a deep state troller, anti Trumper, another lie. Trump talked out of both side of his mouth on Putin, another lame excuse.
Rolling Stone is not a credible source of anything , big pass.
Who killed Seth Rich? (hint, Clintons?).
You completely ignore the illegal FISA warrants big red flag.
This is 1000x bigger than Watergate. If indicted and charged, who will plea bargain first?
Obama – unlikely
comey? Clapper? Brennan ? Clintons?
Who will be “offed” first? is next question. And what lingers who killed
ThG
Breaking
Legacy news ignoring big Obama=clapper=comey=brennan treason.
Himes’ theatrics were nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract from the truth: high-ranking Obama-era officials weaponized the intelligence apparatus to frame Trump, spy on his campaign, and undermine his presidency. The Durham Report already exposed the FBI’s malfeasance, and now Gabbard’s document drop confirms the corruption went all the way to the top.
Brennan and Himes deliberately conflated Russian interference (which was minimal and had no impact on voting systems) with the false claim of Trump-Russia collusion—the real hoax that fueled years of investigations, impeachment attempts, and media hysteria. The Mueller Report found no collusion, yet the left still clings to its debunked narrative.
Trying to undermine a legit president is not pride or ego, buffoon.
Instead of reporting on the substance of Gabbard’s findings—including whistleblower testimonies—Brennan let Himes pivot to mocking the idea of prosecuting Obama for treason. Their goal? To preemptively discredit any legal consequences for the architects of this seditious plot.
This is the same media that spent years peddling the Steele Dossier, ignoring Hunter Biden’s laptop, and smearing Trump as a Russian asset. Now, as the truth comes out, they’re scrambling to protect their allies in the deep state.
But the American people aren’t fooled (well maybe PP is fooled, but that is not to hard a task to do ). President Trump’s administration, with leaders like Gabbard, is finally holding the swamp accountable. The left’s panic is proof: justice is coming. Of course, the DEMS still have all judges on their side, and Gabbard will have to be careful not to select a 99% Dem district like DEMS did to “get Trump” in NYC.
Pistol Pete
Call me naive but all the way from Watergate through Biden the FBI and AG were for most intents and purposes apolitical. Remember, Watergate taught us a lesson about separation of the DOJ including the FBI from the West Wing. John Mitchell served time. Yeah the AG and is a cabinet member and “reports” to the POTUS as such but still since lessons learned in Watergate the President is not supposed to influence his or her decision making or actions other than for matters that are not political. That is for our protection. With Trump, some are calling Bondi his lawyer and Patel his detective. Clearly Trump is telling Bondi what he wants her to do and it can be political. It’s all about loyalty. Trump asked Comey for it and when Comey did not acquiesce it set the whole chain of events off. Did Trump’s attempt at acquiring Comey’s loyalty lead to him testifying before Congress to do with investigating the Trump campaign? Absolutely it did.
Look, I’ll keep my mind open on the accusations to do with the Russia Investigation but I just don’t think the assault will be successful. Let’s just sit tight and wait. If it comes to something I will have to acknowledge it.
Pistol Pete
This has been so thoroughly investigated going back to mid 2016. It’s just an open and shut case. Bipartisan agreement going all the way back. Russia meddled to help Trump. It was determined there was no collusion though Trump from the very beginning was uncommonly paranoid his campaign was being accused of it. It never was. I am skeptical Gabbard has a smoking gun that matters but I’m all ears.
This is the kicker:
“Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated that the committee’s bipartisan investigation found no evidence of politicization and supported the findings of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment which concluded that Russia interfered in the election to benefit Trump.”
It has been widely reported that Tulsi Gabbard, the current Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has released declassified documents that she claims provide evidence of an Obama-era plot to “manufacture and politicize” intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election, in an attempt to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency.
More specifically, Gabbard’s allegations center on the claim that Obama administration officials, including former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, orchestrated a narrative suggesting Russia meddled in the election to help Trump, despite prior intelligence assessments indicating otherwise. She argues that this was part of a “treasonous conspiracy” and has referred the matter to the Justice Department for potential criminal investigation.
However, it’s important to note that these claims have been met with skepticism and strong criticism from Democrats and some intelligence community officials.
For example,
Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated that the committee’s bipartisan investigation found no evidence of politicization and supported the findings of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment which concluded that Russia interfered in the election to benefit Trump.
Critics argue that Gabbard’s report conflates two different aspects of Russian interference: attempts to hack election systems and influence operations aimed at swaying public opinion. They maintain that the Obama administration’s assessment focused on the influence operations, not on whether Russia hacked voting machines to change vote outcomes.
In summary, while Tulsi Gabbard has released documents that she claims prove an Obama-era plot against Trump, this is a highly contentious issue with counterarguments and skepticism from other political figures and parts of the intelligence community.
Pistol Pete
Released about two weeks before Trump entered the Oval Office. All three intelligence agencies. No way does Gabbard undermine this by claiming a West Wing plot to orchestrate the investigation with a political bias. She is barely familiar with how these agencies operate as she entered office. Some exposure to them on committees she served on was about it. She is loyal to Trump and is obviously obeying his directive to undermine something which can’t be.
As I have pointed out, Trump was from the beginning paranoid that these investigations could implicate him and his campaign. No such accusations were ever made. A rational person in his position would conclude when you hire Papadopolous and Page as foreign policy advisors to the campaign, have plans for Trump Tower Moscow and various other dealings with Russian players, expect scrutiny. Not accusations, just scrutiny. And if you know your campaign or business is not culpable just relax, go about your job of governing the country and let the investigations run their course. Rather he made a public mess of it by attempting to obstruct the investigations.
“This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which
draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.”
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Pistol Pete
“Trying to undermine a legit president is not pride or ego, buffoon.”
Insult me if you must (have I insulted you once during this discussion?) but you missed the point (is that an insult?). Go back and read the post. The point being made is since he was convinced his campaign was not culpable then why try to obstruct the investigations? Why? Because Donald Trump takes everything as an afront to him and can’t handle the idea of being investigated. In fact it was his campaign being investigated not him though he took that to mean him by implication. That is pride and ego.
ThG
What part of whistleblowers blowing all your theories to bits is not clear to you ? Missing the point again, buffoon, who spins and flips flops on his own posts. The FBI was filled with anti Trumpers, Page and Strozak, among others. Is your head permanently this dense ?
ThG
“She is loyal to Trump ” bull shit, she is loyal to the law. She is referring this to DOJ to follow up. You don’t know how executive branch works.
ThG
Still ignoring the illegal FISA warrants for spying on Trump administration.
You left wing turds are complete jerks. Always spinning and twisting like a serpent out of water. Can’t even answer who murdered Seth Rich. Now you are attacking a Trump cabinet member, a duly qualified one per the department’s own standards. Per 50 U.S.C. § 3026.
She is more qualified in one molecule of her being than the entire Biden cabinet. Your attempt at spin duly noted, and decimated. AGain.
ThG
every time you post garbage like this, you insult people who have a brain and common sense.
ThG
“With Trump, some are calling Bondi his lawyer and Patel his detective.”
Eric Holder – ” I am Obama’s wing man”.
Take your lying hypocritical bull shit elsewhere, left wing retard ! You are outed once again ! With your obvious lies and bulls shit. No wonder DEMS are polling lower than 25%
Pistol Pete
“The FBI was filled with anti Trumpers, Page and Strozak, among others. Is your head permanently this dense ?”
Does this mean you would never be treated by an anti-Trumper MD? Their personal views disables them from doing their work?
Pistol Pete
I stated:
“With Trump, some are calling Bondi his lawyer and Patel his detective.”
You countered:
“Eric Holder – ” I am Obama’s wing man”.
Are you contending Holder was as loyal to Obama as Bondi is to Trump? I don’t think
so. It’s common knowledge Trump seeks loyalty from all govt employees including cabinet members especially. If you are not on board with him he does not want you “on board”. The point he misses is having divergent viewpoints in your administration can lead to more robust problem solving. Unfortunately he just can’t get there.
So you don’t think he is directly dictating to Bondi how he wants Epstein handled? If you agree you are okay with that? Admittedly this is a tough one because he once had a very close association with the guy. He probably did not go to
the island so he just let all the details come out as embarrassing as they probably are.
“Yes, Donald Trump has repeatedly emphasized the importance of loyalty in his public statements and interactions.
For instance, at a rally in February 2024, before the Iowa caucuses, he criticized former allies who he felt lacked loyalty, highlighting the issue within the political landscape.
Notably, in January 2017, Trump told then-FBI Director James Comey, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty”. Comey recounted this conversation in a prepared statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee, stating that he offered honesty, and Trump responded with, “That’s what I want: honest loyalty”.
The concept of loyalty has been a consistent theme throughout his presidency and political career. Trump has written that he values loyalty above other qualities, such as brains, drive, and energy.
Analysis of Trump’s behavior suggests he views loyalty as a personal commitment to him, rather than solely to a cause or principles. This has led to scrutiny and debate about the implications of such emphasis on the functioning of government and the nature of political relationships.”
Pistol Pete
ThG is your brain like permanently on vacation? Well yes it is we all here recognize that when it comes to you. I
mean with Trump and loyalty where have you been? The world knows. Is your head in the cement or what?
You wrote:
“She is loyal to Trump ” bull shit, she is loyal to the law. She is referring this to DOJ to follow up. You don’t know how executive branch works.”
Yes, based on numerous reports and analyses, Donald Trump has historically emphasized and seemingly demanded a high degree of personal loyalty from his cabinet members and other appointees.
This emphasis on loyalty is described as a particularistic type, focused on the individual (Trump) rather than solely on principles or the Constitution, according to The Fulcrum. Some critics and former advisors, including John Bolton, have used the term “fealty” to describe this expectation, implying submission beyond mere loyalty.
Supporting observations include:
Reports suggest that Trump’s hiring practices for his administration heavily involve screening candidates for their loyalty and commitment to his agenda, according to the Los Angeles Times and AP News. One official noted being asked about their “MAGA revelation” during the interview process.
Trump himself has explicitly stated the importance of loyalty, saying, “I value loyalty above everything else—more than brains, more than drive and more than energy,” according to Politico and a Reddit discussion citing that article.
Some of Trump’s cabinet appointments have been noted for their strong personal loyalty to him, sometimes overshadowing traditional qualifications or experience in a particular field.
For instance, The Christian Science Monitor reported on appointments where loyalty seemed to be the primary factor.
Reports indicate instances of cabinet members being berated or even fired due to perceived disloyalty or actions that were not fully aligned with Trump’s desires, such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the Russia investigation, according to an article in NJ Spotlight News.
More recently, in April 2025, AP News reported that Trump fired several National Security Council officials after a far-right activist raised concerns about staff loyalty.
Former officials like John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, have commented on Trump’s expectation of personal loyalty and his disappointment when individuals prioritized their loyalty to the Constitution over him.
While presidents generally prefer to have loyal individuals in their administrations, the extent and nature of Trump’s demands for personal loyalty have drawn considerable attention and comment from political analysts and former associates.
ThG
EASIEST pizza review of the day, GTFAOTW
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lZZ73GP3k1I?feature=share
Emmanuel
Just had the Lit Cae pretzel crust Pep, crust kinda soft & a tad salty………
but hey its my cheat day!
ThG
I am listening to
Emmanuel
The rockabilly latino dudes loved that song when it came out.
At first I thought he was playing a Ricky but it looks like a flying V, maybe?
Pistol Pete
OT:
Volbeat style rockabilly from their latest album released last month.
https://youtu.be/Gns8PVcF-8Y
ThG
PP missing in action.
“with Jake Allen, of Devils, signed to a long-term contract, there’s an obvious odd-man out: 24-year-old Nico Daws. On Friday, colleague James Nichols at New Jersey Hockey Now listed three potential trade destinations for Daws, including the Golden Knights.”
Pistol Pete
OT:
I’ll end with this ThG. We are here holding you accountable to your claim regarding the upcoming debunking initiative lead by Tulsi Gabbard relating to the origin of the Russian Investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
“IF indicted and charged”? You are not sure then? I
am. It will not happen. Just remember I said so.
“This is 1000x bigger than Watergate. If indicted and charged, who will plea bargain first?
Obama – unlikely
comey? Clapper? Brennan ? Clintons?
Who will be “offed” first? is next question. And what lingers who killed”